Lords Sitting of 24 June 1993

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Overseas Aid
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
To what extent they take into account the UN Development Programme's Human Development Index in determining their aid programme.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, by concentrating our aid on low-income countries we take account of the same issues as those which make up the UNDP's Human Development Index.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister agree that real purchasing power, levels of education and a degree of health provision are much better indicators of development than per capita GNP? If the Minister agrees with that does she also agree that there is ground for real anxieties that while developing countries as a whole are spending more than 25 per cent. of their GNP through government budgets, less than 10 per cent. of that is going to human development priorities and less than 7 per cent. of the total international aid effort is being spent on such human priorities? Is there nothing that can be done internationally to get the priorities right?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, knows that I have great sympathy with him in respect of this matter because reasonable health provision and education are two of the basic necessities of any country which is seeking to grow. I agree that many of the problems, such as high population growth rates, will, if they continue unchecked, prevent many developing countries achieving a sustainable reduction in poverty. That is why we have made people's choice about their fertility a focus for our aid. We have also shown that once family planning services and education for girls are widely available the whole of village life begins to grow in a way that nothing else can achieve. Whatever the percentage, until there is better provision for health and basic education we shall have that problem. That is why we are concentrating our resources in a number of our projects on specifically those issues. We are encouraging our partners as donors to do likewise.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, as chairman of the United Nations Children's Fund in this country I greatly acknowledge the assistance which the ODA has given to UNICEF for its programmes which provide these basic humanitarian needs. Most recently it gave £500,000 to UNICEF's programme in southern Sudan. Does the Minister agree that while some of the targets mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, may
466
be somewhat visionary and idealistic, an investment in health, education and housing is the best foundation for prosperous and democratic societies which we should encourage everywhere in the world?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, for what he said about the ODA's work with UNICEF. UNICEF is carrying out some magnificent work throughout the world and we try to support that whenever we can.
I realise the sincerity of the view put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. However, the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, is right in saying that the basic elements, not only as described by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, but the provision that is made often through the non-governmental organisations and some of the United Nations agencies, make such a difference. In the last full financial year for which f have figures—that is 1991–92—about 30 per cent. of our bilateral aid was spent on the basic needs of healthcare and education. More resources were spent by the multilateral agencies on similar needs.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is it not true that when we give aid to southern Sudan it is almost invariably all wasted because they are very busy killing each other? The only thing that will make progress possible is peace and trade. It has been shown time after time that most of the aid has been wasted and it has done nothing to improve the lot of people about whom all of us, including myself, care.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I understand what my noble friend says. However, in addition to peace in southern Sudan, the work of the British non-governmental agencies in providing vaccination and basic healthcare is necessary. Peace without health will not enable the people of southern Sudan ever to reach the position of being able to trade. While that may be what we most want them to do, without health they will go nowhere.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, does the Minister agree that not nearly enough is being done, because the latest figures show that during the past few years the number of people starving in the world has risen from 1,300 million to 1,500 million? It is obvious that there is still a great deal to be done, and I should like to think that our Government are doing everything that they possibly can.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, for his question. I assure him that we are doing everything that we possibly can, in particular to target our aid so that it helps the people in the worst possible position who can be helped, and so that it provides the foundation for their own economic activity wherever that can be helped. I can give the noble Lord that assurance because we are told from independent sources that our aid is among the best targetted and the best delivered in the world, thanks to our non-governmental organisations as well as our own organisation.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, may I assure the noble Baroness that the view expressed by the noble

467
Earl, Lord Onslow, is not shared by any Member on these Benches and I suspect that it is shared by only a small minority in this House?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. Perhaps I may point out that not to have trade is also an inhibitor of growth in developing countries. What they need above all is trade as well as aid; they cannot do without either.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the Government's record on aid and help is very good indeed. However, is it not time that the United Nations and other countries tried to emulate the endeavours of this country? They have not succeeded in getting anywhere near what the British Government are doing to provide aid and help where it is required.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, is being a little unfair on other donors; some are trying very hard. But no donor can improve the lot of these countries unless there is the willing participation of the recipient country to spend its money wisely. One of the reasons why this country has led the way in trying to improve the standards of government in developing countries is in order to ensure that those governments spend their resources wisely.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister, in responding to my noble friend Lord Bonham-Carter, was not implying that we on these Benches have been anything other than consistently determined in supporting improvements in free trade while other parties have wandered from time to time. Will the Minister confirm that?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, is right in saying that there has never been any doubt about the commitment of the Liberal Democrats to the need for trade. The only difficulty is that just as she accuses others of sometimes having wandered, over-regulation can impede trade. One of the things that we do not wish to see is over-regulation. Without straying into our later debates perhaps I may say that none of us is perfect, but we are all trying hard.
Lord Judd: My Lords does the Minister accept that in all parts of the House there will be great support for her in her humanitarian commitment and, indeed, in the battles that I am sure she will be having in the months ahead to secure the financial resources to turn her commitment into even greater action in the field? Will she agree that there are many success stories such as Costa Rica, Sri Lanka and Tanzania where human development ratings are way ahead of GNP ratings? Is there not more opportunity for the international community to study those success stories and to build on them?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I can recommend to anyone who feels like some good reading the Human Development Report 1993 from the United Nations. It is one of its best publications in
468
which there are many success stories—it is not all gloom and doom. Nor is that the case in Africa, as is sometimes portrayed. I hope that we can build on the good potential. That is what needs to be done.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that those NGOs in this country involved in family planning and population and development are deeply grateful to her for her efforts at the ODA to help those NGOs? We hope sincerely that she will be able to double that effort in the future.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her comments.

Social Security Benefits: Administration
3.12 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to privatise or contract out the administration of any social security benefits during the lifetime of this Parliament.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, there are no current plans to privatise the administration of any social security benefits. Some contracting out is already done by local authorities for housing benefit and council tax benefit, and by the Information Technology Service Agency for the issuing of payments of benefits.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank my noble kinsman for the assurance that there are no current plans, which I am relieved to hear. Does he agree that the lifeblood of private industry and commerce is profit? How can there be legitimate profit margins in the administration of social security without either increasing the total costs or reducing the standard of delivery?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I said—and I am grateful that my noble kinsman noticed it—that there are no current plans for privatisation. However, I shall not rule out any further look at privatisation, and we shall certainly not rule out any further market testing. We wish to provide the best possible service for those who are entitled to it in the most cost-effective manner. If that means a degree of privatisation or further market testing, so be it. We are under a duty to provide the best possible service. If one of those two avenues provides that, that is the avenue that we shall take.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that should plans for contracting out and privatisation be pursued, that would raise real ethical issues? DSS staff are dealing with the most sensitive information about extremely vulnerable people in our society. The Permanent Secretary, Sir Michael Partridge, has warned that privatisation may bring "simple blackmail" and "commercial use". Do we really want to risk sleaze in social security?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we have no intention of risking sleaze in social security. We are trying to administer our benefits in the most cost-efficient manner and to provide value for money for the

469
taxpayer. The cur rent administration of social security costs some £4 billion. Therefore, it is legitimate to look at ways of providing that service in a better manner arid achieving better value for money. I am trying to make clear that the activities which we are market testing at present and which are to be tested are, in the main, activities which are not core activities; for example, accommodation and office services, accountancy services, archival storage, audit, catering, and so on. I do not believe that those go to the core of delivery of benefits other than those which I mentioned in my first Answer.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, will the Minister explain why the Permanent Secretary, Sir Michael Partridge, believes, in an internal report, that the Government's proposals may bring "simple blackmail" and "commercial use"?
Lord Henley: My Lords, there is no contradiction between what I have said and what the Permanent Secretary, Sir Michael Partridge, said. I am saying that we wish to deliver the services in the best possible manner. Therefore, we shall market test those services which it is possible to market test within the present constraints. I do not wish to rule out any further look at privatisation or market testing if those avenues can provide the services in a better manner, providing better value for money for the taxpayer and at the same time providing as good a service in terms of delivering benefits for those who are entitled to them.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, will the Government ensure that complete confidentiality for individual clients is maintained when outside computer agencies are used?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I can give the noble Lord that assurance. Confidentiality will always remain of paramount importance.

Motorway Surfaces: Weather Effects
3.15 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action is being taken to prevent sections of motorway becoming unusable in warm weather.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, standards and specifications used for the design and construction of motorways make due allowance for the effects of hot weather. The recent problems were exceptional. Any such problems are rectified as quickly as possible and in such a way as to cause minimum inconvenience to road users. Any significant failures are investigated and specifications changed if necessary.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply. Has the cause of the closure of the stretch of the M.4. on 9th June yet been diagnosed? Is it correct that that was the fourth failure in hot weather over the past four years on a stretch of road where disruption arises for passengers trying to reach Heathrow Airport?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we are looking into the cause of the buckling of the concrete by the Heston service station on 7th and 8th June. That is being investigated by the department and the TRRL. There have been other cases of buckling in hot weather. However, if my noble friend considers that the M.4. is now 28 years old, that it carries about 100,000 vehicles each day and that it has not undergone major structural repairs, I am sure he will agree that that is a very fine performance.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does the Minister agree with the view of the British Road Federation that 5,000 miles of road are in urgent need of repair this year and that a further 3,700 miles will wear out over the next four years? Was not his reply to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, therefore somewhat complacent? Is he really satisfied with the present situation? What was so exceptional about the circumstances which gave rise to those problems over a period of four years?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, a great majority of the questions posed by the noble Lord relate to roads in general rather than to the Question on the Order Paper. The likely cause of the buckling of the concrete on the M.11 and M.4. on that exceptional day is compression failure. The noble Lord will be interested to know that there was one such incident on the M.4. and four such incidents on the M.11.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, what is being done to deal with those failures and to ensure that there is no repetition?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, an investigation is under way into both those incidents, as it is into other such serious incidents. If there are lessons to be learned and specifications to be changed, that will be done.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, as the Minister responsible for the decision to build the M.4., I thank my noble friend for his generous tribute.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am sure that I am not the only person in your Lordships' House to pay tribute to my noble friend for the M.4. It is of great convenience to me when I need to go home.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, given the Minister's suggestion that there have been previous road failures due to hot weather, has any provision been made of sprinklers or sprinkling equipment to cool down the roads?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, not to my knowledge. The incidents are few and far between, as they are in other countries where similar failures have occurred. There are over 2 million concrete joints in roads in this country. It would be quite an expensive operation to provide sprinkler systems for each of those joints.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is the road surface of motorways affected in hot weather by excessive speeds or the weight of large vehicles?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, generally, no. The specification the department uses, which has been improved over time as we have learnt lessons from the past, is such that it is designed to cope with hot weather, and heavy and continuous use by traffic. There might be a problem if a tarmac road has been resurfaced with tarmac, because the bitumen takes longer to dry and set in hot weather than in cold weather.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the Minister remember that the last time the Conservative Party had been in power this long it opened a motorway in Preston which broke up immediately? The Minister came to the Dispatch Box and said that he was very sorry but that it had been caused by frost. May I deduce that the only thing that has changed in 30 years is global warming?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, one of the advantages of being in this Government is that one has opportunities to open motorways, something that the party of the noble Earl will be unable to do.

Business
3.20 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lord Cranborne will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on dockyards that is to be made in another place.
It may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Committee stage of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour and that during that adjournment the Committee stage of the New Towns (Amendment) Bill and the Third Reading of the Local Government (Overseas Assistance) Bill will be taken, followed by seven motions for approval.

European Communities (Amendment) Bill
3.21 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Chalker of Wallasey.)
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, the Question is, that the House do now again—
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I want to ask—
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the Question is—
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order, order!
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the Question is, that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on the Bill?
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I am sorry, but is it not possible that we could take the Statement before the Committee stage of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, because that will then divide the business neatly and properly as opposed to having the Committee stage interrupted later? It seems to me a sensible suggestion.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, no.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Mottistone never thinks that anything is sensible. It might be a sensible thing to do if it were possible. It is merely a suggestion.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his suggestion. Other suggestions have been made through the usual channels. I believe the arrangements that have been agreed are generally acceptable to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House again in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Treaty on European Union]:
Lord Willoughby de Broke Lord Willoughby de Broke moved Amendment No. 22:
Page I, line 9, after ("II") insert ("except Article 3(a)")
The noble Lord said: I move Amendment No. 22 and speak also to Amendments Nos. 23 to 26. This group of amendments deals with Article 3(a) - (e) of the Treaty on European Union. I propose to concentrate on agriculture. I do not intend to give the Committee a tour d'horizon under the heading: All you want to know about the CAP but are too afraid to ask. It is worth talking about the CAP now if only because it consumes a phenomenal two-thirds of the total Community budget. The CAP budget for 1990 was £19 billion. That rose to nearly £24 billion in 1992. I understand that it is set to increase by a mind blowing £7 billion over the next few years. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister will enlighten us and tell us whether there are any more precise figures as to what the CAP budget will cost over the next few years. That information would be most interesting.
Those figures are not sustainable in an EC economy which, far from expanding, is contracting due largely to the high cost of its present social and economic policies. The CAP was set up under Article 39 of the Treaty of Rome to achieve the following aims: first, to increase agricultural productivity; secondly, to ensure a fair standard of living for the agricultural community; thirdly, to stabilise markets; and, fourthly, to ensure that supplies were available to consumers at reasonable prices.
The policy has failed on three counts and succeeded on only one, that of raising productivity. I am afraid that that one success has had in it the seeds of its own destruction: fruit and vegetable surpluses dumped at sea; grain mountains de-natured so that while half the world is starving that grain was made unfit for human consumption; milk lakes; butter mountains; wine lakes; oil lakes; and the mountains of Scotland and Wales heaving with sheep.
Did the policy ensure a fair standard of living for the agricultural community? The answer is to be found in the unrest among the farmers on the Continent, especially in France, Spain and Italy, and in the steady drain of people leaving the land in the United Kingdom—some 30,000 over the past 10 years. Did it stabilise markets? That was another of its stated aims. It may have stabilised prices within Europe, but at a level so far above any notional world price that European grain was, and remains, unsaleable in world markets except at the expense of vast export subsidies. We end up in a looking-glass world of subsidies to grow corn and subsidies to sell it.
Did the policy ensure that supplies are available to the consumer at reasonable prices? Again, no. The consumer has to pay in the shops the price that reflects the high, subsidised costs of the raw materials, and of course he also has to pay for those subsidies through his taxes—a singular left and a right.
That the CAP needed change has been recognised for many years, of course. However, the CAP is driven by political rather than market aims, and it has taken a long time to have that change recognised and put through. In May 1992, the MacSharry plan came into effect—a sort of CAP Mark II. It introduced price cuts for cereals, beans and oil seeds, with acreage payments as some compensation for those price cuts over a period of years. It also introduced the notion of a compulsory scheme to set aside 15 per cent. of the acreage devoted to cereals, beans and oil seeds. That new scheme will also add a complicated array or bureaucratic quota controls to beef and sheep farming. The dairy system already has a quota which was introduced a few years ago.
Those quota systems add to industry costs, penalise the efficient, and make it even more difficult for new blood to be brought into farming. What effect the CAP Mark II will have remains to be seen, but the signs are not promising. During the four years from 1988 to 1992, according to Ministry figures, dairy farmers' incomes fell by 45 per cent.; cereal farmers' incomes by 75 per cent.; and livestock farmers' incomes by as much as 90 per cent. According to the Country Landowners' Association, farm incomes could continue to fall even further under the new regime.
Some environmental benefits are supposed to be associated with the set-aside scheme. In particular, we were told when it was introduced that we would have wild flower meadows and birds and that it would encourage wild life and so forth. The reality on the ground does not bear that out. I have a farm of some 900 acres, of which 700 acres are arable. We have 100-odd acres of set-aside. I am sorry to say that this year we have already sprayed the set-aside off in April to control noxious weeds so that they do not seed and spoil the following crops. So there is no wildlife, no insect life and certainly no wild flowers. I hope that when my noble friend the Minister replies she will be able to give an indication of whether there is to be some permanent set-aside scheme considered in the future and whether there are any details of that.
I must touch briefly on the subject of fraud in the EC, although I realise that it is considered in some
474
quarters to be in rather dubious taste to do so. However, as the CAP accounts for some 60 per cent. of the total EC budget and some people estimate that 10 per cent. of the EC budget is lost. in fraud, it is worth mentioning. What measures do the Government have to control fraud on this scale? Are they satisfied that these measures will be effective? Are the Government further satisfied that they have a real measure of control over the decisions taken on the CAP? As I have said, those decisions have been taken for political reasons rather than for market reasons. Are the Government satisfied that the interests of the farmer, the taxpayer and the consumer are best served by remaining subject to the CAP? I suggest that they are not. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: I think that the CAP is possibly one of the most dangerous time bombs ticking gently away over the whole future of the European Community. The Committee has probably heard me banging on about Odessa before now. However, 1 cannot underline my next point too often. As the Committee will be aware, Odessa was the greatest grain exporting port in the world in 1914. The ex-Soviet Union now imports 40 million tonnes of grain a year. At the time of Yeltsin's referendum a man was interviewed on television. He was the head of a collective farm and he said that since privatisation the farm had trebled its output.
The effect on subsidised agricultural world trade of those gantries in Odessa swinging outwards as opposed to inwards is a factor that should be carefully borne in mind. I leave aside the disastrous effect on third world agriculture, whereby with an overvalued! local currency and underpriced corn, people flee from the countryside to live in shanty towns where urban unrest prevails. That causes a total distortion of world trade and a destruction of third world agriculture. leave aside the fact that Japan subsidises its agriculture to the same extent as the European Community. I believe that one can buy rice FOB San. Francisco at about 250 dollars a tonne. The Japanese pay their farmers 2,500 dollars a tonne. That is manic idiocy. The Americans are producing some fruit in California and some sugar in Florida which fetches on the market less money than the cost of the subsidised water to irrigate it.
Some people have mocked President Reagan as being a jolly old buffer with dyed ginger hair. However, he made a really bold projection when he said that what Japan, the European Community and the United States ought to do is to attempt to abolish all agricultural subsidies by the year 2010. That suggestion was laughed to scorn by all the people who considered themselves more intelligent than President Reagan. I believe he was much wiser than most other people under the circumstances.
We must get a grip on this ridiculous CAP whereby the European Community subsidises the production of Greek tobacco and at the same time tries to ban cigarette advertising. Olive oil scandals of enormous scale erupt when it is discovered that the olive trees are growing on the Flammian Way as opposed to in fields.

475
The Mafia takes the end product. Unless we get a grip on the CAP the entire European Community will collapse amid financial disaster. I do not say that as a Euro-sceptic. I have tried to persuade the Committee that I am a Euro-fanatic. I want Europe to work. However, if Europe continues to follow such silly practices, it will not work.
In northern France there are vast plains where immensely efficient grain production is carried out. Those farmers are not the peasant farmers for whom the European Community was established. They are grain barons raking it in. One cannot blame those grain barons for doing so. If someone is silly enough to place a trough in front of someone else's nose, the person who fails to place his snout in the trough is even sillier. If we continue along this path, we are asking for trouble. I do not know what the answer to this problem is but I should like Her Majesty's Government to declare that they will aim for a world subsidy-free agriculture. Prices will find their own level and prosperity will return to the countryside.
If we wish, we can subsidise the gardening and game keeping aspect of agriculture whether that is in Tuscany, Burgundy or East Anglia. However, we cannot allow the idiocies of the common agricultural policy to continue—that applies also to the American and the Japanese price subsidies—without incurring a trade disaster, particularly as the Ukraine is coming back on stream as a world grain producer.
Lord Bruce of Donington: Ever since I first became a Member of this Chamber the common agricultural policy has constantly presented itself as a matter over which there has been no profound disagreement. One or two people accept that the common agricultural policy, as originally established, was quite agreeable. However, over the whole party spectrum—this certainly applies right across this Chamber—ever since the beginning there has been agreement on the fact that the common agricultural policy had to be changed. The feeling that there is something fundamentally wrong with it prevails in the Conservative Party and I believe even in the Liberal Party. It certainly prevails in my own party.
It is not difficult to find out why. The policy of the European Economic Community as it then was—and still is so far—was essentially to provide conditions under which, by open and free trading in the Community. conducted mainly by the operation of market forces, trade could prosper. There were, however, differences in emphasis as to how the effect of market forces might be mitigated to some extent. There was general agreement that the dominant theme in the Community was in favour of the operation of market forces. Against this the common agricultural policy stood out like a sore thumb. Everyone knew that it was the complete antithesis of the whole basis of the Community. The CAP was fundamentally wrong because it rigged prices; it erected barriers; it imposed levies of various kinds and it placed all kinds of impediments in the way of free trade in agricultural products.
For a long time, certainly within my memory and even while I was in another place—which is now in the
476
dim and distant past—it has been accepted that the agricultural industry in the United Kingdom, for various vital and strategic reasons (which, incidentally, also apply to coal, but that is another subject) had to be protected. I believe that there was general agreement, which was not always openly expressed in the heat of party battle, that the way to ensure the future of our agricultural industry was through the establishment of some form of price support, by whatever name it might be known. Indeed, Mr. Williams, who was the agriculture Minister in the administration which I had the honour to support and was widely acclaimed across party barriers as being a very sensible Minister, introduced a policy which was best for the farmers and also best for the consumers.
Although there was a cost to the taxpayer in the subsidies made to farmers—and I hasten to reaffirm that such subsidies are taxpayers' money and therefore one has to pay careful regard to the mattc—the effect was not to increase the price to the consumer. The scheme worked quite satisfactorily. There were marginal differences from time to time in the level of support, but that is only to be expected. Then we became members of the European Economic Community and were subject to a totally different regime.
The broad essence of the agriculture regime under which we are now living is that the security of small farmers, in France in particular, was achieved by adopting an interventionist regime. Retail prices were fixed at a high price in order that the appropriate price could be obtained direct by the farmer. That price had to be sustained by taxation.
Our own contribution to the agriculture budget of the Community, which, as the noble Lord said, runs at two-thirds of total EC expenditure, is some £2.5 billion per annum. Therefore, there is a cost to the taxpayer under the existing regime, but there is also an additional cost to the consumer through the price mechanism. The noble Baroness knows as well as I do that according to the Treasury's own figures that means an extra £17 or £18 a week per family of four over and above what they would pay at world prices. In turn that has an impact on wage levels and wage demands, and therefore also has an impact on the inflationary position of the country from time to time.
It is not as though the system provides much advantage to the small farmers of the United Kingdom, as any noble Lord who is acquainted with the whole spectrum of small and medium-sized farms in this country knows perfectly well. In the main it has benefited the large farmers.
As a by-product, the common agricultural policy has had a profound effect on the environment. I was brought up in my youth in the Fen country of Lincolnshire, and to some extent also on the Isle of Ely. In those days when one drove through or travelled through by train, because it was easy to take trains in those days, one could appreciate the countryside. There were even hedges round fields. There were even trees upon which the eye could rest. However, the Fens became great rolling prairies. They

477
have now had to be, or are in the process of being, replanted in their original form. Those have all been the effects of the CAP.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Can the noble Lord tell us where the hedges were in the Fens of Lincolnshire?
3.45 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: Yes, I can. I can tell the noble Lord where there were a number of hedges. Of course, there are those who hedge politically, and they are another set of characters who may not find the CAP altogether agreeable.
We all know that the common agricultural policy should be changed. When I went to the European Parliament on behalf of your Lordships' House there appeared to be universal agreement about that. Yet, in this Bill and under Article 3(e) of the treaty it is reaffirmed that the policy remains exactly as it was before. Why is that?
In the period since 1975, under governments of both parties, we have not exactly been on the periphery of Europe; we have been at the heart of it. We have been at the heart of Europe for a long time. Our Minister of Agriculture has been to all the agri-council meetings. Our Chancellor of the Exchequer and Financial Secretary have been to all the ECOFIN meetings. We have participated fully in the activities of the Community. Nobody could say that we have been idle. In fact our Ministers, not to mention their civil servants, have been extremely active at the heart of Europe all that time. Therefore, why has the policy not been changed?
There have recently been negotiations in Europe. They took place before the Single European Act and again before Maastricht. I always understood that if one had a strong hand and occupied a very strong position one did not give it away. The strong position of the United Kingdom, particularly over the past 10 years. has been that we have constituted ourselves as a large part of Europe's export market and they cannot do without us. They have to export to the United Kingdom. At present we have a deficit of about £8 billion per annum with the other member states. We are in a strong position. They need us.
Throughout that period the Government have been in a strong position. Why, therefore, did they not exact a price for their continued co-operation at the heart of Europe? Why did they not complain when outrageous demands were made from time to time, for example, for tobacco subsidies which everyone knows are fraudulent in their essence? Why did somebody not dig their heels in, and say, "No. We won't continue with this unless we have some radical reform of the CAP"?
We have a government who are composed largely, and properly, of people with commercial and business experience. They are people who are capable of negotiation. In the light of the fact that we are a net contributor of £2.5 billion per annum, without which the Community could not balance its books, we have been in a strong position. We have been in a such a
478
strong position that from time to time the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, found herself in a position to say: "No, no, no".
In connection with the common agricultural policy, it is high time that some Ministers, bearing in mind the strong position of the United Kingdom and the net contribution which it makes to the European budget, should stand up and say: "No further, unless you reform this policy". Believe me, as soon as that threat is made a more reasonable attitude may be taken towards reform. All that is needed is the will to have it changed, bearing in mind that we have the power to have it changed. We are, have been and will be for some time, by reason of our financial contribution alone, at the heart of Europe. Why can we not do something in regard to reform?
That is why I have raised the subject under Amendment No. 26. Under Title II, Article 3(e) blandly confirms the continued importance of the common agricultural policy. What a whimper with which to go into a conference—merely to do nothing about it. The matter is completely non-party. Any government who reformed the common agricultural policy would have a united nation behind them. They would have the support of the agricultural community, the commercial community and the vast majority of the people of this country. All that is required is the resolve. It is my great regret that that resolve was not shown in the negotiations for the conclusion of the Maastricht Treaty when we had such a good opportunity for doing so.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: I wish to take up the point made by my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke that in the long run the European Community will find the common agricultural policy too expensive. There is also the argument that that policy will fail for practical reasons. As a landowner and farmer, I believe that we are in a cobweb of Common Market regulations, many of which fail to fit into the unique landholding arrangements that we have in this country. The arrangements for farming and landowning are unique to every country.
Many of the regulations involve prevention of fraud in the Community. When I read the report that the United Kingdom was responsible for 33 per cent. of the fraud in Community's common agricultural policy, I was rather surprised. I had thought that by and large we were an honest lot. However, I then saw that Northern Ireland was responsible for most of that figure. I understand that if one has a frontier which is 300 miles long it is extremely easy to ship material backwards and forward from one side to the other, taking advantage of the different prices.
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, we now have a frontier which stretches from the Baltic to the Black Sea. That must be some 3,000 miles long. The prices are higher on one side than on the other. How on earth shall we control that frontier? I suppose the Minister will say that the arrangements to prevent fraud in this country will be spread throughout the Community. However, the prevention of fraud not only depends on the honesty of farmers and their inability to commit fraud but also on the honesty and efficiency of the

479
officials who administer the system. I believe that in the end that factor will make the common agricultural policy impossible.
The inclusion of the policy in the treaty seems to indicate that we are now stuck in our current mode until at least 1996. That indicates a paralysis of thought. My firm belief is that farming and all the issues attached to it are of national interest. Such matters should be taken out of international negotiation and handed back to the countries to which they belong. I shall be most interested to hear the Minister's thoughts on the progress of the common agricultural policy.
Lord Eatwell: I wish to reiterate some of the points made by my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington, and to confirm the Labour Party's opposition to the continuation of the common agricultural policy, which we believe is highly damaging both to agriculture in this country and indeed to the development of British industry.
The connection with industry follows directly from the impact on industrial wages of the higher agricultural prices for foodstuffs within the Community which then feed through into industrial costs. As the Committee will know, the same effect was encountered under the corn laws which made British industry less efficient at the beginning of the 19th century. The abolition of the corn laws was followed by one of the most successful periods of industrial expansion and agricultural prosperity in British history. I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, will correct me if my historical facts are wrong.
The abolition of the common agricultural policy system, which has been maintaining high agricultural and food prices within Europe, would similarly benefit British industry. Indeed, the effect on industrial competitiveness would massively outweigh any costs associated with the social chapter which the Prime Minister has said is so damaging to British industry.
I wish to remind the Committee that the common agricultural policy results in bizarre income transfers throughout the Community with some of the richest countries receiving transfers from some of the poorer countries because some of the poorer countries are forced to pay much higher agricultural prices than they otherwise would in order to support agriculture in the richer countries. That notion of transfer from poor to rich is dramatically emphasised in Eastern Europe, an area to which the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, referred. One of the most extraordinary characteristics of the Community's policy towards Eastern Europe is the various restrictions which have been imposed on the ability of the Eastern European countries to sell to the West the only goods they have to sell. That is a recipe for continuing depression in Eastern Europe, and for linking democracy with depression. It would be a disaster if that link were made in the minds of the people of Eastern Europe.
The noble Earl also referred to the link with development policy. That is another aspect of the distribution from poor to rich. I remember that when Mr. Chris Patten held the post now held by the noble
480
Baroness, Lady Chalker, he spoke actively against the common agricultural policy even though it was the policy of the government of which he was a member.
If we remove the common agricultural policy, what system do we put in its place? What agricultural policy would be appropriate for the European Community, and for Britain? There is no doubt whatever that the old deficiency payment system was extremely efficient in its time. That system was not abolished because of entry into the European Community. Its abolition was contained in the Conservative Party manifesto of 1970 which specifically argued that the cost of the agricultural policy should be shifted from the taxpayer to the consumer. One gathers therefore that the Conservative Party was rather pleased with the introduction of the common agricultural policy since tariffs on food were exactly what it proposed in the 1970 manifesto.
Interesting and entertaining as those facts may be, they have absolutely nothing to do with the amendment proposed to the Committee. The amendment simply removes Article 3(e) which states that there should be,
"a common policy in the sphere of agriculture and fisheries".
It does not state that there should be the common agricultural policy which is currently in place. Do the proposers of the amendment seriously suggest that we would not be interested in having a common policy in Europe? For example, would they like high subsidies to agriculture to be allowed in other European countries against which our own farmers could not compete? Surely, if we are to have free trade in food throughout the Community, and indeed wider free trade, it is desirable to have a common policy for agriculture in Europe even though the common agricultural policy as currently formulated is so foolish and damaging.
I also suggest to the proposers of the amendment and those who oppose the Bill as a whole that this is a fine example —indeed perhaps the finest example —of why we need to be in the European Community from the beginning. If Britain had been in it from 1956, we should not have had this nonsense of the common agricultural policy. That is why it is so important for Britain to be involved in the evolution of the European Community institutions right at the heart of Europe, as defined by the Bill, leaving aside the silly protocols which the Government seem to have agreed for party political purposes.
Returning to the amendment, it has nothing to do with the common agricultural policy and, therefore, I suggest that it be rejected.
4 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: The reason the amendment was put down is that it is a perfectly legitimate hook on which to hang a discussion of the idiocies of the common agricultural policy. That is why one is talking about it. Of course, we will not divide on something like that, but it is a fundamentally important subject which we should talk about and on occasions we have to use procedural devices to get one's oar in, to use a slang expression.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I had not intended to say anything on this amendment, but I wish to point out to a number of speakers that the common agricultural policy is now in the process of reform. I agree that it has had appalling results all over the world because of the dumping of food, spoiling the prospects of farmers from New Zealand exporting to eastern countries. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, that the process, according to the M acSharry Plan, will be a transfer of tax payment from the consumer to the taxpayer. That is going ahead at the moment all over Europe and it might have been mentioned by previous speakers.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: As a former farmer who is glad that he is not in farming today, I wish to add a few words to the discussion. It seems to me, from my memory of farming, that set-aside is about the crudest policy that anyone could contrive. Surely it must be immoral, not to say wicked, deliberately to prevent a farmer from using his land for food production. A policy which results in that must be wrongly conceived and I agree with all previous speakers about that. Surely, it should be possible for something to be thought up other than that one-third, or whatever proportion it is, of people's land should be put down to growing thistles and weeds. That is incredible.
Last November I was in Poland on an IPU visit. The one message that came over loud and clear from all the people in the Polish Government, civil servants and so on to whom we talked was that they wanted to be in the European Community by the year 2000. However, when I see the Bill before us I ask myself why. I have asked them why too, because when I travel through the beautiful Polish countryside I wonder whether the peasants want to see 20 per cent., or whatever it is, of their land down to thistles. I think that there would be a revolution over there if they tried to do that.
I have heard rumours, on which perhaps my noble friend will comment, that helicopters are covering every square inch of Britain to make sure that farmers comply with the set-aside regulations—that is using spy planes; Big Brother is watching our farmers. I should be glad to hear that that is not true, and perhaps my noble friend could comment.
Lord John-Mackie: As a farmer who is just looking forward to his 66th harvest, I have considerable experience of what happens when farming is not helped in one way or another. I started farming in 1927 and I moved from Aberdeenshire to Kincardineshire in 1930. I drove 20 acres of my predecessor's potatoes into a quarry hole because there was no demand for them. That same year, my middle brother—not junior over there on the Liberal Democrat Benches—started farming on a dairy farm. He was pouring gallons of milk down the drain because there was no demand for it.
Anyone who farmed from 1927 until the early 1930s would realise what assistance should be given if people want food produced. I agree strongly with the previous speaker about set-aside in a world where 1,500 million people are starving. Many of the speakers, except the last one on this side of the
482
Committee, did not say what they would do. All they want is to get rid of something, but they do not suggest what they would replace it with. I am certain that the best system—and this could be arranged in each country—is deficiency payments. It would solve many problems and it is easy to administer.
Lord Plumb: I rise to oppose Amendment No. 26. From some of the comments I have heard so far, I find it difficult to understand what it has to do with the Maastricht Treaty. Of course, aspects in the treaty are important for agriculture and agriculture is very much part of the overall economy. Under the objectives laid down in Article 39 of the treaty, as concerns the CAP there will be further regulation on prices. That has already been clearly declared in the reform of the common agricultural policy set out over the next five or six-year period. Common rules will be laid down quite clearly on competition, and that is difficult as regards the whole community. There will be co-ordination of national market organisation, and, if we are to achieve stability, it will be extremely important. Machinery will be put in place for stabilising imports and dealing with exports, as well as dealing with discrimination between producers and consumers and producers or consumers.
One of the main objectives of the present common agricultural policy—not the past policy, about which we have heard so much in the past half hour—is to try to combat fraud.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Will my noble friend give way? He referred to Article 39 of the treaty and all the wonderful things that the common agricultural policy will do. Is he aware that Article 39 remains unchanged from the Single European Act and, indeed, I fancy, the Treaty of Rome? Would he care to explain to the Committee why nothing has been done about it so far if it will be done in the future?
Lord Plumb: I am aware that the objectives as set out are unchanged and I am aware of the problems of the past. I think that no one has been more involved than I have in trying to bring about the necessary reforms to meet the efficiency which we see in agriculture, particularly British agriculture, compared with the rest of the Community. But, ultimately, the present reform of the common agricultural policy sets out to reduce expenditure. Again, no one has been more critical than I in recent times of the cost of the common agricultural policy as to the part of the expenditure which goes to farmers. Much of it has gone out in export restitution and has merely benefited the few individuals who have been involved in the export of the surplus products. Dealing with those surpluses over the years has been irresponsible in many senses and we are now trying to bring them under control. I certainly do not defend the indefensible. That would be a totally wrong approach.
Let us be positive. As the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, said very clearly, had we been in at the beginning, we might have been shaping events rather than just reacting to them, which has been the case in recent times. In the context of this debate, we are dealing

483
with a Bill and not dealing with the reform of the common agricultural policy, which, I submit, is a major subject for further debate in the future.
I was very surprised at the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, over the past three days. I listened to him with great interest and learned quite a lot. Therefore I also listened to him with great interest today. I was rather surprised and somewhat disappointed that he did not refer again to a point that I have heard him make in the past; namely, that the cost of the common agricultural policy to an average family of four in the United Kingdom is an increase of £16 per week, a figure which I know the noble Lord has used on many occasions. I had intended to compliment the noble Lord the other day, when I abused the courtesy of the House by not obeying the rules—I therefore offer my apologies, particularly to my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham. As the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, will appreciate, one cannot be precise on the cost of a policy when one is dealing with living and growing things. The noble Lord has said today that agriculture in the United Kingdom has seen changes and expansion over the years. One point which we have perhaps ignored is the development in technology that has taken place over those years, and which has changed the volume of production, the work of the plant breeders, scientists and all who are concerned in that particular business. The vagaries of the weather often have an even worse effect than the vagaries of the politicians.
In the context of Maastricht agriculture is very much part of the economy. Food is very much a part of the household budget. It is also of key importance in the current round of GATT talks as we look at the world scene. That we must do from the Community outwards; and we must look inwards too. The two big players, the United States and ourselves, are now among the 108 countries involved in those talks. It is imperative that we get this matter right and that we try to get it fair.
Regarding the extra cost of the CAP of which we are so critical, I have sympathy with the points made earlier by my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke. I am a farmer and I well understand the points that the noble Lord made. Those increased costs include processing and distribution subsidies, which are still there. We still have support for transport, electricity and telephones in rural areas—an addition to the cost of the common agricultural policy—we have encouragement for the cessation of milk production; and we have the unrealistic assumption that world prices would not change if the common agricultural policy were abolished.
There is an exaggeration inherent in the estimate of costs that can be demonstrated quite clearly if we look separately at the United Kingdom. I hope that Members of the Committee will bear with me for a moment if I quote a few figures to explain what I mean. It is difficult to go back to 1991 because there has been considerable change since then, but in 1991 the transfer from the taxpayer directly to the farmer was £1,959 million, or £34 per head. On a weekly basis that is 65p per week, or £2.60 for a family of four. If
484
one divides the 57.6 million population who live in the United Kingdom into families of four, there would be 14.4 million families, which shows an estimate of £16 extra, which amounts to something like £9,900 million.
In 1991 United Kingdom farmers sold output value at just over £12 billion, of which nearly £9 billion was for products which were supported by the common agricultural policy. We imported £3.5 billion which were influenced by the common agricultural policy. That is an overall total of about £12.5 billion—a fall of 80 per cent. On the basis of the rise in world prices which I predict will take place against the reduction of export subsidies, it is estimated that there will be an overall fall of some 10 per cent., which may be more realistic. If that were passed on to the consumer, there would be a once-and-for-all reduction in the price of food of 2.5 per cent. The average household spends £43 per week on food. That would therefore be a reduction of £1.05p. Forgive me for using those figures in these few words, but I thought they might appeal to the eminent accountants among us.
I believe, therefore, that if we ratify Maastricht—indeed, if we reject Maastricht we have problems—we can get on with the important issues and the job of reform. I merely submit, as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, said very clearly yesterday, that while it is the job of the Commission to propose, and for the European Parliament to consider and to recommend disposal, or for the Council of Ministers to dispose at the end of the day, there are those of us who are not without ideas for reform. Now that we have started along that particular route, I hope that we are given the opportunity to continue that reform so that we bring a little bit of common sense to what has not been a common agricultural policy.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: Before the noble Lord sits down, since he has been kind enough to involve me in his argument, will he explain—as one who is held in very high regard throughout the entire farming community and who is not without his influence—why, if the fundamentals of the common agricultural policy are wrong (the noble Lord has been a little ambivalent on this matter; at one time I thought that he did not like them, while another time he sought to justify them) he has not used his influence during these past many years to effect some changes in Articles 38 to 47 of the Treaty of Rome, which remains amazingly unamended by the treaty that was negotiated at Maastricht?
Lord Plumb: Thinking back over the past three days, the noble Lord will remember the comments, many of which he himself made, about the sham parliament which is in Strasbourg. Perhaps it is because that parliament does not have the responsibility that it might have had in the past that we find ourselves in this situation. Therefore I submit that if we ratify the Maastricht Treaty it gives us a little more responsibility, so that those of us who are directly elected to that House can work together more closely with parliamentarians at national level to bring about

485
those changes that I have believed in for so long. Therefore the pressure that I have used over that period of time has perhaps not been as effective as it might have been. But I submit that if we ratify Maastricht that will give us an opportunity.
Lord Vinson: I hesitate to come into this battle of giants, but this clause is important. It gives us a chance to examine what some believe is a triumph of idealism over reality when it comes to the trading advantages that come from being a member of the EC. As we are singularly focusing on agriculture, perhaps I may also bring into the discussion the subject of fish, which is normally allied with it.
Let us stand back and see what has happened. We have given away most of our fishing grounds and impoverished our fishing industry in order to show that we are good Community-spirited people, even though we are not yet at the heart of Europe, which is what Maastricht is intended to accomplish. We have reduced substantially our output of milk, when we are one of the world's most efficient and finest milk producers; so this country is in milk deficit. Moreover, because of the nature, size and scale of our farms, we, of all nations, are taking out more good agricultural land from wheat production pro rata than any other country in Europe. While we are on the outside and have not yet signed up to Maastricht, we bend over backwards to show that we are good Europeans.
I ask my noble friend the Minister, if we finally get into Maastricht, whether we shall continue to wish to prove that we are even better Europeans. I can envisage that British natural self-interest—the EC's foundations are based on competitive trade founded on natural advantage—will continue to be eroded by gestures made to the others to show how good we are and now that we are at the heart of things we are even better than before. Can my noble friend reassure us that once we are there, perhaps our attitude will change and we shall begin to put Britain first?
Lord Swinfen: Coupled with the amendments that we are discussing with regard to agriculture, I propose to deal in this group with industrial, consumer and commercial issues. I should like to take the Committee to that area for a Few moments and in particular to Amendment No. 419 which stands in the names of my noble friend Lord Beloff and myself.
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord. He has raised an important point on which I should like guidance from the Government Front Bench. So far we have been debating agriculture. It had been my hope that we would debate exactly the topics on which the noble Lord now wishes to speak. Certainly I wish to do so. I wonder whether the Government Front Bench would say whether they find it more convenient first to reply on the subject of agriculture and we could then deal with what I and perhaps other noble Lords consider more important; or whether we are to go drifting into other subjects and so on. I am not sure what the noble Viscount proposes to do but it might be helpful, for the sake of the Committee, if we knew what was happening at this time.
Baroness Trumpington: I should like to take up the suggestion made by the noble Lord opposite. It might be a good idea to have a reply on agricultural subjects before we conclude this group of amendments. Then perhaps we could have a further debate and further speeches. I hope it will be to the convenience of the Committee if I resume the House at the end of this group, so that the Statement can be taken.
Lord Cockfield: Perhaps I may make a brief comment on the agricultural matter in order to meet the wishes of my noble friend on the Front Bench. I had given way to my noble friend because I thought that he was going to say something about agriculture as well. There is a very serious problem with the common agricultural policy. I am sure we all believe that serious reform is needed. The problem is how to deal with it in the circumstances that we face.
I want to say a few words about the origin of the common agricultural policy because my recollection of the matter is somewhat different from that of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. The common agricultural policy was always regarded as the marriage contract of the Community. That is to say, it was the agreement between France and Germany under which France opened up her markets to German industry and in return Germany paid to support French agriculture. That is the basic situation which remains today, apart from the fact that we have now picked up a large part of the bill. Unless it is realised that there is that nexus, one will never understand what goes on in the common agricultural policy.
I should like to make one point to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, whose views on this matter are always most vigorous. When my noble friend Lady Thatcher was Prime Minister (Mr. Peter Walker was the Minister Of Agriculture and I also was a member of the Cabinet), she tried to veto a grossly excessive price increase. I hate to use the modern popular phrase, but she was told to get lost; and that is exactly what happened.
On the next occasion it was Chancellor Kohl of Germany who decided to veto a cut in the subsidy for cereals. My noble friend Lady Thatcher decided that she would not try to exercise a veto to prevent Chancellor Kohl stopping a reduction in the cost of the CAP. So what happened on two occasions, admittedly separated by two or three years, was that my noble friend Lady Thatcher, who after all is just as formidable a character as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, on the first occasion was forced to quit the field and on the second occasion decided not to stand and fight.
I wonder whether in those circumstances the very vigorous proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, that we should place our fist underneath the noses of the other 11 member states is likely to be successful. There is no difference between the noble Lord and myself in wanting to reform the CAP, reduce the cost of the CAP and to reduce or even stop fraud. But I believe that it has to be approached in a slightly more subtle way than the noble. Lord proposes.
Lord Bruce of Donington: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may intervene since once again he has raised my name in connection with this matter. Will he exert his prodigious memory, which is one of the most extraordinary memories that I have ever encountered in my life, to tell the Committee his recollection of the events of May 1982 when an attempt was made to exercise the veto on the whole question of agricultural prices?
Lord Cockfield: I believe that is precisely the occasion to which I was referring when we tried to use the veto. I deliberately did not mention a date. I hoped that the noble Lord would fill in the date. I hope that he has got it right. We are certainly talking about the same incident. It was the occasion on which we tried to exercise the so-called Luxembourg veto and we were overridden by the other member states.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am very glad to have the noble Lord's confirmation, which I was fishing for, in his reply that we tried to exercise a veto and the veto was of no use.
Lord Morris: If my noble friend Lord Cockfield, as he has just suggested, believes that my noble friend Lady Thatcher was so monumentally unsuccessful in influencing the form of the common agricultural policy, how can he believe in the insistence that it is essential that the Maastricht Treaty be ratified in order for us to be in the heart of Europe and to influence it? In particular, he said that holding one's fist up against the reform of the agricultural policy just will not work. I cannot see how he can reconcile those positions.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Cockfield: I do not know whether it is in order for me to respond to that comment. I have not said that reform of the common agricultural policy will not work. There has recently been a substantial measure of reform. My point is a simple one. We have to be at the heart of Europe if we are to exercise any influence. It is only by taking an active—and we hope a positive—part in Europe that we shall ever succeed in obtaining any reform in the common agricultural policy. But it must be done by diplomacy and persuasion. It cannot be done by the exercise of strong arm tactics.
Lord Swinfen: Perhaps I may interrupt and ask for guidance for myself, if not for others. It was suggested that my noble friend on the Front Bench would reply on the questions of agriculture before we went on to the other subjects that are grouped with it. Am I right in thinking that there will be a reply on agriculture and, before my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke makes up his mind what to do, we will go on to the other, totally unrelated, subjects? Will my noble friend then make up his mind on agriculture and not on any of the other subjects, or will we come back to the other subjects when speaking on another amendment rather than Amendment No. 22? If so, what amendment will we come back on?
Baroness Trumpington: It is my understanding that my noble friend Lord Ullswater will speak initially on the agriculture question. That will not prohibit any debate on other matters in the grouped amendments. There will then be a final decision taken as to what the mover of the group of amendments wants to do with Amendment No. 22. We can then go on with the Statement.
Lord Peston: I am sorry to confuse the matter. However, the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, was supposed to be speaking to Amendment No. 22, which has nothing whatever to do with agriculture. It concerns trade policy. I hope therefore—I say this indirectly to the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby—that he does not reflect on what he wants to do with Amendment No. 22. He has not yet spoken to that amendment, which has nothing to do with the subject about which he spoke. In other words, I take it that we will have an opportunity to consider trade policy, which is what I want to discuss.
Lord Jay: Will the noble Baroness also take into account that when we have heard the answer on agriculture from the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, there may be others who will wish to speak further on it?
Baroness Trumpington: It is my noble friend Lord Ullswater who will be speaking on agriculture. There is nothing to stop any Member speaking over and over again if they so wish.
Lord Tebbit: Before we leave the subject of the common agricultural policy I should like to pick up the extraordinarily wise words of my noble friend Lord Cockfield. He described—I use my own words—a Franco-German conspiracy against the public interest of the citizens of the Community, particularly against those of the United Kingdom and, as my noble friend Lord Beloff said, the citizens of the world.
We are told that these matters can only be resolved by our being at the heart of Europe. We have been at the heart of Europe, in so far as Brussels is at the heart—my geography teacher would have said it was somewhat nearer to Prague, but leave that aside—for some 23 years. All that we have discovered in that time is that there is a Franco-German conspiracy which could not be broken by the determination of the "iron lady"; it has not been broken by the determination of my noble friend Lord Cockfield as a commissioner, and is not likely to be broken by anyone else.
It is a conspiracy on a grand scale and one which is not only appallingly damaging to the people of Europe who are paying higher prices for their food than is necessary, but also appallingly damaging to the economies of many third world countries with whom we should be trading and from whom we should be buying such products as sugar; instead, we grow our own excessively expensive sugar. Those are countries with whom we should be constructively trading and not on whom we should be dumping agricultural products which destroy their agriculture.
Is it any wonder that such countries turn to us looking for aid? Why do we not give them trade? Why do we not allow them the dignity of producing

489
commodities which we need and which they can produce more effectively, more efficiently and at a lower cost than we can, to our mutual benefit. It is a conspiracy against the interests of the peoples of the world.
I know that my noble friend Lord Beloff will wish to speak later about the effect on GATT. But we all know why the Uruguay Round is in disarray. I will say no more than that it is primarily because of agricultural subsidies. As in Yugoslavia, no one in this conflict is all good. But we can see in the activities of France, in the way that she has influenced the European attitude towards GATT, who is the principal miscreant in this further conspiracy against the world.
I will not go further into that matter because my noble friend Lord Beloff will wish to do so and we should not make these debates unduly repetitive. However, a week or two ago we had a debate on the tobacco subsidy. One of the reasons given for the subsidy of that noxious weed is that there are communities within the European Community which grow it and whose particular circumstances would make it difficult for them to find another crop to grow. If they were denied the subsidy to grow the stuff, which is too noxious even to burn in an Irish peat burning power station, they would be distressed communities.
If we applied that argument to the coalmining communities of the North-East of England, Wales or Scotland, this country would look very different. After all, they are communities which are finding it extremely difficult to find alternative work. I might add that the product of their labours is essentially useful and not essentially dangerous. But they are mere English, Scots and Welsh coalminers; they are not to be treated with the same kid glove approach as Greek tobacco farmers.
Where is the equity? Where is the sense of being cornmunautaire? Where is the social cohesion in those matters? We come to a matter of altogether different scale, one that could be resolved with 10 minutes of the time of a few commissioners and perhaps a Minister or two—set-aside. Let me say in passing that I find the whole concept of set-aside extraordinary and offensive.
I put it in a different context. In this kingdom we have a distressed building and construction industry and a surplus of office space. I await a proposal for set-aside for office buildings. If we were willing to pay £15 per square foot to the developers of Canary Wharf provided that they locked the doors and admitted no one the proposal would be quite absurd. Your Lordships may laugh. It is only absurd because we are talking about office space as opposed to tobacco, agriculture and fields. We acknowledge the absurdity and wrongness of the set-aside policy into which we have been forced by virtue of the CAP.
Let us consider the minor absurdity. Why must all fields that have been put to set-aside be mown by the same (late, whether they are in the far Scottish islands or on the Mediterranean coast? That is a form of cohesion which I do not go along with. As a result, we have a Community that has environmental policies for
490
the protection of wildlife. We know how enthusiastic it is. It will try to prevent us from shooting crows and magpies while leaving the Italians free to shoot anything with feathers that flies—and now and again each other—during the shooting season.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Not enough!
Lord Tebbit: My noble friend says "Not enough". Some noble Lords know that even here there are little accidents on shooting occasions. Why within a matter of days can we not have agreement—or even a unilateral statement—by the Government that they will not take notice of the day on which fields that are set aside are to be mown? Why should we not leave it until the end of August, if that is the appropriate date here? After all, our German friends have just made an illegal trade deal with the United States. We all turn our eyes away from it and pretend that it has not happened. Can we not expect our partners in the Community to turn their eyes away frorn the British Government doing something in the interests of the environment and wildlife?
I understand that more than one Member of the Cabinet is passionately devoted to the sport of birdwatching. Can they not somehow use their influence to prevent this needless destruction of wildlife? Is it something too trivial to bother about or a problem that is too great to be solved? Instead, we are intent on inventing such things as milk quotas. Who would have thought that one of the most profitable activities in agriculture would entail leavine one's fields untilled and selling each other milk quotas, not milk? These are the politics of a madhouse—a madhouse that the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, has said is there solely for the benefit of two nations in the Community.
Is it not time that someone somewhere said no—even if it is entirely symbolic, such as a vote today for Amendment No. 26? Even if your Lordships were to say that such was the lunacy of these matters that Amendment No. 26 should be voted for, not for what it stood for but to show your Lordships' horror, displeasure, disgust and alarm at these matters, it would be only matter of an afternoon in the other place before the damn thing was put back in again in order that the treaty could be ratified. The treaty would still be ratified well before the German constitutional court had reached a conclusion as to whether it violated the constitution. Some noble Lords may be tempted down that path.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I have listened with great interest to his speech. I recollect that he voted for the Treaty of Rome, campaigned in the referendum for ratification and was a Minister when the Single European Act was passed. Did he never say no?
Lord Tebbit: Of course I did those things. However, the noble Lord must not assume that we all go through life resolutely resolved to refuse to learn from our experiences. I voted for those measures, not least the European Communities Act, on the basis that if

491
we were at the heart of Europe we would be able to resolve these matters. I voted for the Single European Act, not least on the assurances of my noble friend Lady Chalker that the Luxembourg compromise was intact and the veto remained in place. She gave the same assurance the other day on Second Reading. My noble friend Lord Cockfield had just reminded us that it is intact as long as one is French or German. That is a compromise which does not seem to extend across the Channel. I do not know whether the noble Lord has learnt anything in the past 20-odd years.
Lord Bonham-Carter: No.
Lord Tebbit: I have learnt that possibly being at the heart of Europe is not sufficient to resolve these problems.
Before I sit down I should like to ask my noble friend who is to reply to the debate what the objective is of Her Majesty's Government in respect of agricultural policy. Is it to eliminate subsidy? Is it to return to the concept of subsidising the consumer as opposed to the producer? Is it to ensure that there is some kind of level playing field? Is it even that one day they will veto something and see the veto work? Does the Minister share my view that above all we should remember that subsidies almost inevitably will raise the cost of production and eventually the price of the commodity that is subsidised?
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Beloff: While the Minister ponders on his reply to those penetrating questions, I should like to take up one point made earlier in the debate relating to agriculture. (I shall deal later with the question of GATT.) The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, gave us a talk about the policy of Her Majesty's Opposition on this matter, betraying their total contradictions. Mistaking your Lordships' Chamber for a Cambridge lecture hall, he then left the Chamber. Therefore, in his absence I have to answer a point that he made. I can do so because it has been repeated by my noble friend Lord Plumb. I refer to the repeated claim by the Europhiles that, if we had gone into the European Community at the time of its creation in the 1950s, all would have been different and we would have managed to steer its fortunes in a direction suited to our policies.
I do not argue economics with the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, or even with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, but as a professional historian I point out that it is always possible to say how things would have been if they had been different. For instance, let us suppose that Nelson had failed to win the Battle of Trafalgar.
Lord Tebbit: The French say that he did.
Lord Beloff: The French cannot be right, because if the French were right we would not need the Maastricht Treaty. If Napoleon had won that battle we would have been part of a Continental protectionist commercial bloc and it would not have been necessary for M. Delors and his friends, nearly 200 years later, to make up for what Napoleon or his admirals failed to do. That is just as relevant an
492
historical argument as to say that if we had done something different the result would have been the other way.
What many people have been waiting for—indeed the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, has rather discouraged them from continuing to wait—is an explanation of why, in the light of the fact that since our membership became actual we have failed to move the Community, or failed to move it in more than a fairly limited direction, towards a saner policy on agriculture, we think that we could have done it before. Indeed, as I understand the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, there never was a hope of it, even if we had been among the original participants. Therefore, I wish people would stop that particular argument which I find distressing and irrelevant. What we need to know—and now there is a chance for my noble friend the Minister to tell us—is how the Government intend to proceed to bring the rest of the Community round to our view on agricultural policy.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I should like the Minister to respond to one or two small points on fisheries when he comes to reply. The noble Viscount will know that Scottish fishermen have been blockading ports and that south-west fishermen have been occupying MAFF offices because they are not satisfied with what has been happening in the fishing industry. They believe that they have had a raw deal. They believe that foreign fishing fleets have been given opportunities to fish in our waters which they do not have themselves. Our shipbuilding industry, in respect of fishing vessels, is virtually defunct whereas those of other members of the EEC are in fact thriving. It behoves the noble Viscount when he comes to reply to give attention not only to agricultural matters, which have been very well and thoroughly discussed by many Members of the Committee, but also to the fishing industry, which has been brought so low as to be almost non-existent and where the Government are telling fishermen for the first time in history when they may fish and what they may fish for. I hope that the noble Viscount will be able to give some of the replies which were asked for by the noble Lord, Lord Vinson.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): We have spent a considerable time discussing but one amendment out of a group which includes a lot of areas which I know Members of the Committee would like to discuss. So I hope that the Committee will bear with me if I am moderately brief in my comments.
I say to my noble friend that I shall have to resist Amendment No. 26. I believe that Community activity in the sphere of agriculture and fisheries is unchanged by the Maastricht Treaty. It is legitimate and important for the Community to have common policies in agriculture and fisheries, given the fact that member states had their own support systems for agriculture before the European Community was formed. Therefore, a common policy, rather than a common agricultural policy, for free trade in agricultural products between member states is a very important one.

493
I understand why my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke and many others exercise their frustrations about the workings of the CAP. I believe that to be quite natural. My noble friend itemised the fact that there is a subsidy for growing wheat, another subsidy for storing it and another subsidy for selling it. It may he that all these extra costs could benefit the farmer rather than other people.
My noble friend Lord Onslow called the CAP ridiculous and drew our attention to the support for the Greek tobacco industry, the olive oil lakes and set-aside. My noble friend Lord Tebbit wanted to extend set-aside to office buildings in the City. Perhaps he is right, but I would not agree with him.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, said, quite rightly, that there is general agreement that the CAP should be reformed. He said that it rigged prices, erected barriers and was generally of a protective nature. He indicated that it was a high cost to the taxpayer to support agriculture and that it was a high cost to the consumer for the price of the goods that it produces. But I believe that it is important that Maastricht should reaffirm the principle—the amendment concerns the principle—that agriculture and fisheries should be a Community activity because it is within the Community activities that we have a chance of reforming the CAP.
My noble friend asked why we did not take the opportunity to reform the CAP in the negotiations for the Maastricht Treaty. I believe that the reform of the CAP which was undertaken in 1992 is the right way of proceeding. It does not need the Maastricht Treaty to reform the CAP. The CAP is being reformed under the old Treaty of Rome and the Single European Act. There is nothing now in the Maastricht Treaty which will assist with the reform of the CAP.
It is important to reflect on some of the comments that were made during the course of the debate and especially on those made by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. My noble friend Lord Cockfield pointed out that the CAP existed when we joined the European Community. At the time that we joined we had to accept the Community as it had developed. My noble friend pointed out the history and origin of the CAP. He pointed to the marriage contract between Germany and France at the time that this was done. He also gave us the indication which I believe we all understand. He indicated that there really are serious problems with the CAP and how we should set out to deal with them. We have managed to get the reform of the CAP on the agenda and have made progress with it. I believe that that shows the advantage of our being in Europe. If we had been in from the start perhaps we would have been in a position to ensure that the CAP did not develop as it is. But my noble friend Lord Beloff would take a different view from that. Anyway, I would again have to say that it has little to do with the Maastricht Treaty as it is.
My noble friend Lord Plumb, with his lifelong experience of farming and farming politics, as the president of the Royal Agricultural Society of England, has worked more than anyone else in your
494
Lordships' House and for many years to improve the working of the CAP, and even when he was president of the European Parliament.
I do not believe that anyone would quibble that United Kingdom agriculture has been most successful since our entry into the Common Market. Structural reforms are required, but United Kingdom agriculture has been very successful during that period. From the Front Bench opposite, the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, said that he opposed the CAP. He explained that by the income transfers from the poor to the rich countries the CAP policy was doing neither any good. He pointed out that it would be worsened by the introduction into the EC of countries in Central Europe. He asked what should be put in its place. I. believe that he and the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, wish to go back to the deficiency payments policy that existed prior to entry into the Common Market.
The noble Lord put the point that the important thing to consider is the alternative. Do we want a free-for-all on agricultural prices in the Common Market? Do we want to allow other countries within Europe to decide their prices when this would greatly affect our own farmers. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, that Amendment No. 26 has nothing to do with Maastricht because it seeks to leave out Article 3(e) which calls for such a common policy. I believe that noble Lords have been aiming at the wrong target.
The reform of the CAP is a very interesting subject. I do not believe that it is a subject that we should be addressing today when we are considering amendments to the Bill. However, Members of the Committee have said that they wish to discuss it because it is reaffirmed as a principal article in the Maastricht Treaty. I am therefore dealing with it on that basis.
5 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for giving way. Is he aware that the reason why the amendment was moved for the deletion of Article 3(e) is precisely because the negotiating procedures up to the achievement of the Maastricht agreement did not include any amendment to Articles 38 to 47 of the Treaty of Rome? Had those articles been changed by negotiation by our own Government at the heart of Europe and if agreement reached on other matters concerning Maastricht had been conditional on fundamental changes to Articles 38 to 47 of the treaty, then we should not have moved for the deletion of Article 3(e). There would have been some change. It is precisely because there has been no change that the moving of this particular amendment is designed to draw the attention of the public to the fact that despite being at the heart of Europe for so long, no real effort has been made to secure a negotiated change to Articles 38 to 47 of the Treaty of Rome.
Viscount Ullswater: The noble Lord makes the false point that he made earlier in the debate. The only reason for the inclusion of Article 3(e) in the current

495
treaty is that it mentions fisheries which it did not before. Fisheries were always dealt with under Article 38. But, as the noble Lord rightly pointed out, there has been no amendment to the subsequent articles.
A number of Members of the Committee have called for reform of the CAP. That has been a government objective and they have succeeded in getting it on the European Community agenda. The reform process began in 1992. What it seeks to achieve—I believe that these are the answers to my noble friends Lord Tebbit and Lord Beloff—is significantly to cut prices and to move the CAP closer to world prices, and to reduce the role of intervention, making the CAP more market orientated. It shows the benefit of being in Europe arguing our case, which I believe is a step in the right direction. The ratification of Maastricht—
Lord Tebbit: I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. I must emphasise the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, and also by my noble friend Lord Cockfield. The CAP is a Franco-German conspiracy for their particular benefit. We have now all agreed on that. They wanted a single currency at Maastricht. Was there not then an historic opportunity missed to say, "You cannot continue to play with your special toy, the CAP, for your exclusive benefit in the way you do if you also want us to give you another toy for your benefit". Is not that what negotiation and being at the heart of Europe are about? Having given them a new toy, and one which we did not want, do we not then find that we are still stuck with the CAP?
Viscount Ullswater: That is a peculiar way of arguing a policy which has been in Britain's best interest for a number of years. I agree that the CAP needs reform, but the proposal has been put forward that we should do without a common policy in agriculture. The noble Lord shakes his head, but that is what he is trying to argue; namely, that we should not have a common policy in agriculture and certainly not the CAP. I understand the two to be different, but we need to make certain that the one becomes the other.
Maastricht ratification would allow us to continue to press for those reforms; otherwise I believe that we would be entirely marginalised from the debate. I am conscious that time has elapsed. I believe it is right to wind up this debate. I say to my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke that the detailed provisions of the common agricultural policy and not the existence of a common policy itself have created problems for the Community. The details are no part of the EC treaty and can be changed without treaty amendments. I have indicated to noble Lords that reform has started and that the Government are committed to further reform.
Maastricht explicitly adds fisheries to the existing treaty list of common policies. My noble friend Lord Vinson and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, asked about fishery policies. My noble friend said that we had given away our fishing grounds. We have shared them and rationalised. We have had to rationalise the
496
catches in international waters between the countries because effectively the stocks were being grossly overfished. What has happened in the recent past is the provision of a method for protecting albeit our diminished fishing industry in order that the period of gross over-fishing should not continue.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I wonder whether my noble friend will give way. I understood that it was the scientific and bureaucratic mind which had decided that fishing stocks were being brought to an all-time low. Can my noble friend comment on a report in a newspaper last week which stated that there are now record numbers of, I believe, coley, which have been thrown back into the sea in tens of thousands? In fact, the scientists got it wrong.
Viscount Ullswater: The important fact is that because of the policies which we have had in place for a number of years, the catches have recovered. Therefore, the industry can continue. It looked as though at one time—
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: But it cannot. That is the point. The industry is being stopped from continuing.
Viscount Ullswater: I believe that to be untrue. The important thing is that the stocks should recover in order that the future of the fishing industry should be protected. If we fish the stocks out, the industry will collapse altogether.
I believe that it is time now for my noble friend to make up his mind whether he wants to press—
Noble Lords: No!
Viscount Ullswater:—or withdraw the amendment.
Lord Peston: If the Minister will give way, I thought that we had agreed that the amendment to which the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby, spoke had absolutely nothing to do with agriculture. If he withdraws his amendment, we cannot go on to debate what some of us want to debate, so I beg the noble Lord under no circumstances even to consider withdrawing his amendment. We should like to discuss some other issues.
Viscount Ullswater: I am, of course, in the hands of the Committee. I repeat that I believe that the Government are dealing with the problems of the common agricultural policy in the right way, and I ask my noble friend to reflect on that.
Lord Jay: The Minister has made an extraordinarily depressing speech. I shall make only two comments. First, all he was able to tell us about the common agricultural policy was that after 20 years the Government have got it on to the agenda. He then made the astonishing statement that it had contributed to the prosperity of this country during the past few years. If he thinks that, well, there is not the time now to reply in the way that one would wish to reply to such an extraordinary statement.
Secondly, however, at least the debate has achieved one thing. The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, has made clear that what being at the heart of Europe really

497
means is not merely that we achieve nothing in the common agricultural policy but that other countries have a veto and this country has not.
Noble Lords: Statement!
5.15 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: I doubt whether we can go on to the Statement. We have not yet dealt with the amendment that is being discussed—
Lord Morris: No, we are interrupting the group.
Lord Swinfen: As far as I am aware we are not interrupting the group. It is not normal practice in this House to interrupt a group; it is normal practice to continue until the amendment has been dealt with and a decision taken.
I tried some time ago to bring the Committee to the industrial, consumer and commercial amendments that are grouped with those on agriculture. If it is convenient to the Committee, I shall do so now. I wanted in particular to speak to Amendment No. 419 which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Beloff and myself. It refers to Articles 130f to 130p, which cover research and technological development. The amendment would require an annual report to be made to Parliament. It would not change the treaty in any way. It is a small and innocuous amendment but, I think, an important one.
The articles in the treaty, in effect, allow the Community, which, in my view, means the Commission, to take power over research and development. These articles, starting with Article 130f, give the Community, through the Commission, power to decide what research is done and by whom; how much money will he spent and who will find that money; how the results will be published and who will have access to those results; and what technological developments, if any, might follow. If these articles are pursued and become applicable to the United Kingdom. it follows that the existing British research councils will in future be subject to the overall authority not of my right honourable friend Mr. Waldegrave and our Government, but of Brussels. It also follows that research in British universities and in our research institutions will in future be subject to finance and control by the Commission in Brussels. It also follows that the results of any such research will no longer be the property of the researchers and those who have funded that research, and that decisions as to access to those results will rest with Brussels.
Applied research and technological development is conducted mainly by commerce and industry, but it is also conducted by universities and research institutes, often under contract from commercial organisations. The largest single sponsor of applied research in this country is our own Ministry of Defence. What is the position of MoD contracts for research and development? What would their position be if this section of the treaty applied to the United Kingdom? Who will specify the research to be undertaken by such organisations as Ferranti, GEC or the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment? The MoD or
498
Brussels? Who would have exclusive access to the results of that research and development? Again, our own MoD or Brussels?
One of the largest sponsors of applied research and development outside government is the pharmaceutical industry. Under the terms of these articles in the Maastricht Treaty, those pharmaceutical companies would be obliged to share the results of their research with other companies with which they are in competition. At any rate, that is how I read the treaty.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am trying to follow my noble friend's argument in some detail. I wonder whether he has read Article 130g which seems to make quite clear that it is referring to Community-funded research, which is the position at present, and not to research undertaken privately by pharmaceutical companies.
Lord Swinfen: My noble friend reads a different meaning into the treaty from me. I feel that it is only right that I air my worries because they are worries which other people outside the House also have. I think that the Government need to answer them. If I am right and my noble friend is wrong, then the directors and chief executives of those pharmaceutical companies will take their research out of this country and out of the EC to such places as the United States.
As I understand it, Article I 30j gives the Council of Ministers power to decide the rules governing the dissemination of the results of research. That is not so innocuous as it might seem. On my reading of the treaty, it must mean that the ultimate patent rights rest with the Commission instead of with the researchers or the sponsors. It must mean that if the sponsoring company decides (at least for the time being) not to file patents in order to maintain commercial secrecy over a new discovery or invention, under these rules the Commission could still oblige the company to publish. I wonder whether the Commission will compensate the company for loss of those patent rights, and I wonder who will decide the value of the research that has been published. That could lead to a brain drain.
In so far as the Government promote and pay for research and development, surely that is something that is best judged by our Government and not by the Commission. Where is subsidiarity now?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I should like to move away from agriculture and turn to Amendment No. 2.4 and Article 3(b) which deals with the internal market. I have always contended that having been in the Common Market for the past 23 years has not necessarily assisted us with our trade. Indeed, as has been pointed out many times in this debate, our trade with the EEC is overwhelmingly in deficit. Indeed, a deficit of roughly £86.4 billion has accrued since we joined the Common Market in 1973.
Over the same period our trade with the rest of the world was in positive balance, a balance of £78.8 billion, so in fact our trade balance with Europe has been very adverse, whereas with the rest of the world it has been very positive. I think that needs to be taken into account when we are discussing the whole question of the internal market, because the internal

499
market, if it is to be of any use, must benefit us to the extent that we are able to compete on an even playing field and we must not be obstructed by non-tariff barriers and other issues which prevent proper trade. That was the whole idea of having an internal market.
However, there is undoubtedly a situation where there are some hidden subsidies and some subsidies that are perhaps not so hidden. Indeed, according to evidence given by the Institute of Directors to the Trade and Industry Committee, the completion of the 1992 programme of 300 legislative measures leaves the significant trade obstacles of: one, protectionist non-tariff barriers; two, diverse administrative procedures; three, the high cost of trans-border transactions; and, four, high level of state subsidies in the EC.
The principle of free movement of goods provided for in the Treaty of Rome and supplemented by rulings of the European Court of Justice, particularly the Cassis de Dijon case, is that EC countries must recognise each others' product standards, subject to essential health and safety requirements. There is therefore no need for the detailed EC product standards we are now seeing, to the detriment of many of our industries. But there are many national regulations in existence and being made, which block market access in the EC, distort competition and put more pressure on the EC to centralise all regulations.
That is the direct opposite of the intention of the Treaty of Rome for mutual recognition of standards. For example, Italy and France have regulated their pleasure boat builders in the interests of safety, and so have blocked trade. Instead of hearing this case at the European Court of Justice, as an infringement of the Treaty of Rome, the Commission has issued a directive laying down a stringent EC framework for boat building. If it is adopted, apparently it will put a huge and unnecessary burden on British boat builders, even if the boats are sold only within the United Kingdom. It will add to costs and reduce the competitiveness of British boat builders. That is absurd. It was not envisaged, and the Government should be fighting their corner on this, but some of us fear that they are not doing so.
A second example concerns Germany and the Netherlands adopting a system of recycling and packaging waste. It is quite a well known case, I believe. The EC is proposing to issue a directive to enforce this system throughout the EC, with let-outs available on a national basis. Meanwhile, Germany is enforcing the new German law, which discriminates against imported goods, contrary to Article 36 of the Treaty of Rome. Again, that is not fair to this country and to other members of the EC. Examples of subsidies distorting competition and trade abound in the EC. According to the Commission's recent statement, The Third Survey on State AIDS in the European Community 1988–1990, 36 billion ecus—I do not like that term: I wish people would translate my briefs into pounds for me. What is it?—
Lord Bruce of Donington: About £25 billion.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am grateful to my noble friend. There is the sum of £25 billion being spent on manufacturing subsidies, an exercise which I understood Her Majesty's Government were against. The public sector receives cheap loans and lax requirements for return on investment to promote key national industries, like telecommunications, transport, banking and energy, whereas in this country no subsidy is allowed. Therefore our industries are in an uncompetitive position. If we are to have this harmonisation, at least there ought to be some fairness for this country. Indeed, it seems to me that with all the regulations that are emerging from the Community at the present time, destroying not only parts of our agricultural industry but also parts of manufacturing industry, we are finding that we do not have a single market but a centralist market.
Again I am quite sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, did not intend, when she negotiated this single market, that it was going to be a centralised market; but I am afraid that is what is happening. Indeed, Peter Sutherland, the former Irish competition commissioner, recently remarked that a single market is not merely centralist by intent but by default. Subsidiarity, while a fine concept in principle, would defeat the very purpose of a single market.
So it is quite clear that there are commissioners and there are countries which believe that we have not actually got a free market but we have got a centralised market which is producing regulation after regulation, undermining competitiveness and indeed, in this country, undermining our very manufacturing base. I hope that the noble Viscount, or whoever is going to reply, will take all these points into account.
Lord Aldington: The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, provokes me again into making a point which I tried to make before. I thought we were concerned in this debate on this Bill in discussing changes in the Community law and, as a result, in British law as a consequence of the Maastricht Treaty. This afternoon the noble Lord, and many other noble Lords, have been discussing in a fascinating way what is now the case, and what has been the case since we joined in 1972. The noble Lord is objecting to the rules of the single market. That is yesterday; that is not anything to do with Maastricht. I could add that I do not see how one can get a real single market without eliminating the discrepancies in practices between the various 12 member states. That is what I think my noble friend Lord Cockfield was about in his magnificent initiation of the single market regime.
It is the same with standards. The noble Lord has been referring to standards. I have some knowledge of that subject because I was for a time president of the British Standards Institution. It was very much in the interest of British exporters and manufacturers that the standards should be the same all over Europe and should not be used as protective instruments against us. But that has nothing whatever to do with Maastricht, and I suggest to noble Lords that at some time or another we have to make up our minds whether, in the Committee stage of this important Bill, we are going to have wide-ranging debates on the subject that is raised or the words that come up. My

501
noble friend Lord. Onslow—I see that he is not sitting in his usual place—asked earlier this afternoon: Did we not understand that he and his friends hoped to hang debates on words in the treaty? I understand that. but surely in the procedure of this Committee we need, in the context of the Bill, to have regard to words as they stand.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Tebbit: I thank my noble friend for allowing me to intervene because I think that I can help him. He must know that in this context an offer of help from me is like an offer of a concrete lifebelt. Nonetheless, I hope that he will take it.
We are debating these matters because they are in the treaty which Her Majesty's Government propose to ratify. Surely there can be no more simple explanation than that. That is why the Public Bill Office, which is not a collection of Euro-sceptic freaks but sober men who have been doing the job for many years in this House, has allowed the amendments to be placed on the Marshalled List. If the amendments are on the Marshalled List, surely it is not unreasonable that they are discussed. I can understand the embarrassment of some Members of the Committee at the fact that these matters are being discussed at all. But they must swallow their embarrassment and allow the Committee to do its job.
Lord Aldington: Whether my noble friend offers a concrete or a rubber lifebelt does not matter. I am not complaining about what the Table has done in admitting amendments. I am suggesting to the Committee that we shall make much more use of the time we have available on the Bill if we discuss the amendments on the basis of the changes which the Maastricht Treaty makes to the law and not on the basis of issues in the Treaty of Rome to which we object. I though t that the discussion was about the Maastricht Treaty and not about Britain being in Europe. That is the point that I am making and I shall continue to make it today, next week and on Report. I thought that that was what we were here for.
Several interesting points arise in this grouping. I hope that we shall touch on industrial policy and on research and technical development which my noble friend Lord Swinfen mentioned. I hope that we shall also concentrate our attention on the changes made by the Maastricht Treaty and not on our objections to what exists, because we shall have plenty of other chances to do so.
My noble friend Lord Swinfen referred to the research and development provisions. The provision which he did not like about the dissemination of information is already in the Treaty of Rome and therefore it is not some evil thing imported by the Maastricht Treaty. Likewise, some Members of the Committee may believe that because an industry chapter and some other chapters are introduced in the Maastricht Treaty, there has been a great change of practice in the Community. For the reasons given by my noble friend Lord Cockfield, that is simply not so. What those chapters are doing, and are usefully doing, is to put into writing in the treaty the practice that has
502
been developed during the years by the Commission with the consent of the Council. I hope that that will be borne in mind because then Members or the Committee will have fewer fears about the matter.
The Earl of Onslow: Before my noble friend sits down, it must be put on the record that in Amendment No. 22 we are talking about the mention of the common agricultural policy in the Treaty of Rome. Some of us happen to believe that that common agricultural policy is a grave mistake. Therefore, we are trying to persuade Her Majesty's Government and my noble friend on the Front Bench to use that particular peg in the Maastricht Treaty to get something done about what is obviously a disaster. Furthermore, I regret to say that the response of my noble friend on the Front Bench was auto-pilot Euro-gunge without any thought whatever. I am sorry to have to say that to one of the nicest Ministers I know.
Lord Peston: My noble friend Lord Stoddart suggested that the noble Viscount might like to reply in detail to all his points. I regard what is going on, as did the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, as a general litany of complaints about the European Community which is not appropriate for the debate today. I have no intention of fighting battles of 20 years ago merely so that my noble friends and other noble Lords can indulge in their persistent anti-Europeanism in one form or another. This is not a debate about whether we should be in the European Community. It is not a debate about the many faults of the European Community, many of which we share. It is a debate about the Maastricht Treaty and its detail, and the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, is entirely correct.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, that we spent an hour and a half discussing agriculture and I hope that he is not returning us to that subject. I shall not join him in attacking his noble friend Lord Ullswater, whose reply was entirely sensible. In particular, he pointed out that most of what the noble Earl and his friends are saying has nothing to do with the Maastricht Treaty. We share the view that the CAP is an inefficient way of helping agriculture and we should like to do something about that. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Aldington. said, we are discussing the Maastricht Treaty and I shall confine my few remarks to that.
With the exception of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, to which I shall return, most of the amendments before us relate to Article 3 and to strengthening the free-trade aspects of the European Community. I and my noble friends tabled an amendment to deal with that. It is now irrelevant because we tabled it in order to ensure that we could discuss these matters. If Article 3 is interpreted at its face value and, in particular, if we can believe what is said about subsidiarity—namely, that much of what happens in Article 3 we hope will happen at the level of the individual nation—the Maastricht Treaty, especially in this area, should be strongly supported by the Committee. It achieves most of the aims which the noble Baroness wanted to achieve in the Single European Act and it reinforces them.

503
There are Members of the Committee who do not favour the single market. The speech of my noble friend Lord Stoddart was one of pure mercantilism. Our balance of payments position with the Community is a complete irrelevance; it is as much of an irrelevance as the position with any individual nation. What matters is our overall balance of payments position. Complaining that we happen to be in deficit with one particular part of the world is neither here nor there—unless one is a mercantilist, which I thought we had got rid of 150 years ago. I hope that the noble Viscount will not be trapped into that debate, which goes back a long time and at one point split his own party.
In pushing for the abolition of restraints of many kinds, Article 3 argues that we do not distort competition. I agree that the Community does not play according to the rules, but that is for another day. In supporting such points, in arguing that we ought to do more to ensure that we have a common market and in arguing that we strengthen competition policy and so forth, they are parts of the Bill which I should have thought the Committee would overwhelmingly wish to support. I say in terms that I support them. I want to hear from the noble Viscount that, subject to two matters, the Government support them too.
Most of these matters should be dealt with at the level of the individual state. The more that we can push them to that level the better. In case after case the main role of the Community is to make sure that the states do what they ought in respect of competition. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, made a good point and has tabled an interesting amendment. The noble Lord is no longer in the Chamber so I shall break my usual rule and refer to what he said. I am anxious about a particular matter and it may be that the noble Viscount will wish to take advice and come back to it on Report. It is that the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said that by directives the Community could overcome patent law. That was what he appeared to say in terms of dissemination of research. I find that hard to believe. I should like guidance on that matter and to return to it later.
There is, however, an aspect of Amendment No. 419 which I like. I should like to hear the noble Viscount's remarks on that amendment because I find it extremely attractive. It would be a good idea to have an annual report. Having said that, I have no great desire—and I am sure the Government have no such desire—to amend the Bill in order to achieve that result because that would create all kinds of problems in another place. However, perhaps the Minister would give a few words of encouragement by saying that the Government will pledge to present an annual report to Parliament because that would be helpful.
I believe that Article 3 is good and is one of the better parts of the Bill. It is not subject to any of those ludicrous opt-outs secured by the Prime Minister. I hope that those who have tabled the amendments will withdraw them and that the Government will be as supportive of their own Bill as I am.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I must pass some observations on the remarks of my noble friend. There
504
is a tendency among academics to like everything tidily bound up in academic terms. I appreciate the noble Lord's isolation in that particular respect. We cannot always follow my noble friend into the stratosphere of the tutorial or the classes to which he is so accustomed and so skilful in giving. However, the fact is that the treaty which we are discussing has a political context and was introduced in a political context. It is not as though the Prime Minister, when commending it to Parliament, commended it in academic terms as to whether or not it complied with this or that law which had or had not previously existed. The Bill was presented to Parliament as a political triumph and within a political context.
In a few years' time it may be that my noble friend will condescend to descend into the political arena and depart from his academic attitude towards this matter. However, we must consider the treaty within its political context. I address those remarks also to the noble Lord, Lord Aldington. He tends to take a legalistic attitude when it suits him, but he must know perfectly well that whatever laws are laid down, some member states flaunt the law all the time. I presume that that is tolerated by the noble Lord.
Lord Aldington: The noble Lord knows that to be incorrect. He sat with me when we reported on the matter and made recommendations to the House. Will he withdraw that abominable statement?
Lord Bruce of Donington: I have not the slightest intention of withdrawing my remark. The noble Lord knows just as well as I do, and just as well as any Member of the Committee, that France, for example, obeys only those regulations which it suits it to obey. Most of the rest are shoved out of the window when it suits France to do so. We can be quite blunt about that. To discuss the treaty within any context other than a political and enforcement context is quite unrealistic. The treaty affects people, human beings, throughout Europe and in our own country.
Lord Beloff: I believe that it is time to pour some balm on these troubled waters. Therefore, I shall speak to Amendment No. 426 because I believe that the Government would like to accept that amendment. After all, it merely puts into precise legislative words what the Government have been telling us is their policy over the past few years in successive debates, not only on Maastricht but on general commercial and economic policy; namely, that the cornerstone of their policy with regard to trade is the successful completion of the Uruguay Round of the GATT negotiations. No doubt the Government are prepared to confirm that.
My amendment proposes that that should be used as the lever which has been sought during some of the current debate; that is, to move certain aspects of Community practice our way. There is surely a bargaining counter in this regard. We know that the Community would be able to accept the Uruguay Round were it not for the French Government. That is no secret because M. Balladur has said again and

505
again that he does not accept the agricultural aspects of the proposed agreement and that France will never give up agricultural protectionism.
How do we persuade France to act to the contrary? France wants us to be part of the Europe created by Maastricht. I suggest a straight bargain: we will pass the necessary measure in order for the Government to ratify the treaty when the Government's own policy—the adhesion of the European Community to the GATT—is fulfilled. I cannot see how Her Majesty's Government can possibly reject that amendment because, when the Bill returns to the other place, they will no doubt recommend that the House of Commons, which, to judge by its speeches, is dedicated to the GATT, should accept the amendment. At a quarter-to six, after nearly three hours of debate, this gives us an opportunity to come together on a very moderate, sensible and practical amendment.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I do not think that we should leave this group of amendments without touching on commerce. Therefore, I wish to speak to Amendment No. 23 which proposes to remove Article 3(b) from the Treaty on European Union. This article says that one of the new competences of the Community is to be a common commercial policy. I wonder whether the Minister could explain to us what is meant by the expression "common commercial policy" in the context of the treaty. I understand that no such explanation was forthcoming in another place and, therefore, it is perhaps worth pressing the question in this Committee.
We already have a common market established under the Treaty of Rome and I believe that we have understood by now what that concept of a common market means. But we now have a new expression "single market" which was established by the Single European Act, as that treaty is known. Again, I think we have mastered the implications of that one. So what now are we to understand by a "common commercial policy" on top of the common market and on top of the single market?
If it is intended to mean a common policy on external tariffs such as GATT, that is already being pursued without the need for the union treaty. How will the declaration in the Maastricht Treaty of "a common commercial policy" improve matters? I should have thought that the recent negotiations on GATT demonstrate all too clearly that a common policy is adopted by all parties only if each sees it to be to its advantage to approve it. France, for one, has demonstrated that measure of retention of its national interest. However, I must assume that a "common commercial policy" means more than GATT.
What does it mean? Under the principle of subsidiarity, if that is to mean that decisions are taken at the lowest administrative level most closely associated with the subject in hand, surely for the most part commercial policy is something which each individual trading company establishes for itself. It is not even a matter for national governments, let alone a supranational government in Brussels.
506
Another of the activities listed in Article 3 and relevant to this debate is Article 3(1). This says that the Community will be engaged in:
"the strengthening of the competitiveness of Community industry".
Again, I suggest that it is for each individual company to strengthen its own competitiveness both within the Community and in the rest of the world.
I am questioning whether the strengthening of the competitiveness of an individual company, an individual industry or a series of industries is a proper function for a political institution—namely., the Community—especially in view of the Community's record to date on those matters, and whether in fact the Community and its institutions can strengthen the competitiveness of what they intend to strengthen.
What I suspect will happen as a result of this clause will be the distortion of competitiveness in favour of certain sectors, certain regions, certain industries, certain countries and certain companies as against others within Europe. But whatever the meaning of these clauses, no one can say that they are not centralising measures and, therefore, I would have to ask my noble friend the Minister how he squares that with the constant statement of our Government that this treaty is a decentralising measure.
Lord Ezra: The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, has referred to Amendment No. 23. Technically, we are meant to be discussing Amendment No. 22. I should like to come to that just to find out what those who have proposed the amendment have in mind. Amendment No. 22 proposes the elimination of Article 3(a). Article 3(a) reads as follows:
"the elimination as between Member States of customs duties and quantitative restrictions on the import and export of goods, and of all other measures having equivalent effect".
If that article is eliminated, it means, presumably, that those who support the amendment feel that there should be a re-introduction of customs duties and quantitative restrictions on the import and export of goods between member countries and of all other measures having equivalent effect. That, of course, goes to the root of the Treaty of Rome, the first act of which was to remove those barriers. In fact, it goes much further back than that, because, as the Committee will recall, we were the prime movers in the creation of a European free trade area. The whole underlying concept of the European free trade area was that customs duties and so forth should be eliminated.
Lord Tebbit: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I want to help us to make progress. To that end, perhaps I may explain to the noble Lord once again why amendments of this kind are on the Marshalled List. They are not necessarily on the Marshalled List because their movers wish to carry through the intent of the amendments, but it is the only way in which we can have a debate on those matters. The noble Lord is well entitled to have his debate on those matters, but he should not assume that it is necessarily the intent of the noble Lord who put down the amendment to delete Article 3(a) also to give up the elimination as between member states of

507
customs duties and so on. It is a peg upon which to hang a debate but not upon which to presume other people's opinions before they are given.
Lord Ezra: I find this a puzzling procedure. We have amendments presented to us. We are told that they are pegs upon which to hang a debate and, "Of course, we have no intention of persuading anyone to do anything about it". Yesterday I asked a similar question as a result of another amendment of this sort which appeared to suggest that the noble Lord moving it was against price stability. I was told, "Not at all. Of course we are in favour of price stability. We merely put it in to stimulate a wider debate". I am getting a bit lost in this whole procedure. We are having amendments put forward which we are told are not really amendments; they are just pegs. That seems to be a new term in our procedure. I feel that we should now perhaps, as these amendments are all pegs which we are not meant to debate seriously, invite the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, to conclude this part of our deliberations.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Viscount Ullswater: I apologise if noble Lords find the debate rather disjointed. I confess that I do too. We are continuing with the other areas mentioned in Article 3 of the principles. We started with agriculture. The others relate to areas primarily of an economic and commercial nature. I was pleased when the noble Lord, Lord Peston, explained what he meant by Amendment No. 158 which is in the joint names of the Opposition Front Bench. Amendment No. 159 is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. It seeks to delete from the Bill the entire text on industry in Title XIII. I realise that that was a method of discussing the subject. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said that he supported the provisions and that he hoped that the Government also supported them.
Industry has of course a vital role to play in the economic well-being of the Community and its citizens. The UK therefore welcomes the provisions of the industry chapter. It is entirely right and proper that the treaty should address industry policy. The industry chapter provides for Community action in three main areas: to help industry adjust to structural changes; to encourage a favourable environment for initiative and co-operation between businesses; and to foster the exploitation of the industrial potential of innovation and R&D policies.
The chapter reaffirms the principles enshrined in the Commission communication entitled Industrial Policy in an Open and Competitive Environment, adopted by the Council of Industry Ministers in 1990. That communication emphasises the importance of free and open markets in promoting a strong and competitive industry and eschews the use of sectoral-specific support measures. Those principles have stood the test of time well and are directly in line with UK policy.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, pointed out that we have an adverse balance of trade with Europe. He felt that the efforts to create a single market were
508
centralist rather than competitive. Our exports to Germany equal those to Japan and the United States combined. The European Community countries account for eight of our 10 largest export markets. The Community brings us foreign investment. Foreign investors, especially those from the United States and Japan, come here because we provide such an attractive base for the single market. They add to British industry and jobs and they add to the nation's prosperity. I believe that those from outside recognise not just the value of the single market but the strength of Britain's place within it.
My noble friend Lord Aldington stressed the importance of the single market. He drew our attention to the fact that most of the changes sought by the amendments that we are discussing are not changes to the Bill, because, apart from those expansions of the principles in the article on industry, they are not changes to the law made by the Maastricht Treaty.
Mention has also been made of research and development. Amendments Nos. 34 and 168 to 178 seek to leave out of the Bill the various provisions of the Maastricht Treaty covering research and development.
The Community has a useful role to play in research and development. It can facilitate collaboration on projects of common interest where the large scale and high costs make them too large for individual member states to tackle alone and can help avoid waste of effort and resources by ensuring that there is no unnecessary duplication. Community research complements action taken by member states and can tackle issues which transcend national boundaries. With its emphasis on development of technologies with wide-ranging applications, Community R&D can play an important role in improving the competitiveness of industry in the EC. That is, furthermore, an area of EC activity in which the UK has gained substantial benefits: we get back more than we put in.
Under the provisions of the Maastricht Treaty, all EC research activity will be brought within one framework. That will allow for better co-ordination and better control. The treaty also sets clear rules for participation and the dissemination of results—a point to which I shall return—and provides for decision-making by unanimity which will allow us to keep control of the overall size of the budget and the direction of the programme.
Amendment No. 419 in the name of my noble friend Lord Swinfen seeks to insert a new clause into the Bill requiring the Government to report annually to Parliament on the Community's research and development programmes. Effective mechanisms already exist for reports to Parliament on the formulation and implementation of Community policy in this area. Such a new clause would simply serve to add to the complexity of procedures and is not something that should be enshrined in legislation.
I draw my noble friend's attention to Article 130p which states:
"At the beginning of each year the Commission shall send a report to the European Parliament and the Council. The

509
report shall include information on research and technological development activities and the dissemination of results during the previous year, and the work programme for the current year".
A copy of that report is available in the Libraries of both Houses. I believe that that article goes a long way to satisfy the noble Lord's desire for sufficient parliamentary scrutiny. However, the matter is still subject to Parliamentary Questions being asked in this Chamber or in another place. I believe that that measure increases the transparency of the activity in the Common Market.
6 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: I hope my noble friend will allow me to intervene. I asked him specific questions on defence research. I asked who could decide what research would be carried out by our defence contractors. Would that be the Commission or ourselves?
Viscount Ullswater: If it is a question of R&D by member states, the member states have the entire right to decide what they wish to investigate. What we are talking about here is Community funded R&D that is carried out across the boundaries of member states. I have indicated how important it is that we should have the funds that the Community has at its disposal rather than the funds of individual member states to carry out this additional research. The kind of programmes that are being carried out currently concern information technology, biotechnology and materials technology. We are interested in generic technologies and not necessarily those of near market research.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, in talking to Amendment No. 22 wanted to query the effect of the single market. I believe that Article 3(a), (b), (c), (g), (h) and (1) combined deal with the internal market and free trade. These are fundamental aims of the Community and have been since its foundation—a part of the Community to which the UK signed up and a part of the kind of Community we want to see. I rather agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, when he spoke about the workings of these policies which we need to make sure we oversee and correct. We need to lower barriers to trade within the Community so that we can increase wealth in the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe. I do not think it would be at all sensible to try to remove these areas of activity from the list of Community activities.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Before the noble Viscount passes on—
Noble Lords: That is not a felicitous expression!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I apologise. I hope that the noble Viscount will be with us a long time as he is so courteous and does his very best to answer questions that are put to him. On the question of the single market, the point I was trying to make—I do not necessarily believe that a single market is necessary, as the noble Viscount is aware—was that if we are to have a single market, we must be assured that this country is not being put at a disadvantage by non-tariff barriers and by subsidies which under the Treaty of Rome are illegal. That was the point
510
that I was making. Whether I agree with the single market or whether I agree with the whole lot is irrelevant. The fact is that it is there. I was seeking to obtain the assurance from the noble Viscount that Her Majesty's Government, within the context of the Treaty of Rome and within the context of the single market, were dealing with these matters and were pushing the interests of this country for all they a re worth.
Viscount Ullswater: I believe the noble Lord was commenting not only on the completion of the single market but also on what he considered to be state aids. I believe he was querying whether the United Kingdom indulged in state aids and whether we obtained the benefit from them that he indicated other countries did.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am sorry to interrupt—
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: It is no good Members of the Committee shouting no. This is a Committee stage. We must discuss this matter as a Committee. This is not a Second Reading debate and this is not Report stage. This is the Committee stage. Members of the Committee may rise as many times as they wish to clarify points. I believe the noble Viscount has probably misrepresented me. I hope he will reconsider what he has said.
Viscount Ullswater: What I was trying to say—I do not believe I had an argument with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart—was that I believed the noble Lord was explaining that the United Kingdom should not put itself at any disadvantage in the application of state aids and that any form of the workings of the single market should not put the United Kingdom at a disadvantage. I agree with the noble Lord on that. I was going on to make the point that the United Kingdom has taken advantage of state aid rules to obtain clearance for many new schemes and individual projects. It would not be right to think that the United Kingdom did not make use of what was available under the Treaty of Rome and under the Single European Act. The Maastricht Treaty adds a further possibility of exemption to the third paragraph of Article 92 which concerns the aid to promote heritage and culture conservation. I believe that that is a reasonable addition.
My noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch asked me pointedly what was meant by the common commercial policy. I can do no better than to refer him to Articles 110 to 115. That policy has not materially changed since the Treaty of Rome and the Single European Act. Article 110 states:
"By establishing a customs union between themselves Member States aim to contribute, in the common interest, to the harmonious development of world trade, the progressive abolition of restriction on international trade and the lowering of customs barriers".
That is what is meant by the common commercial policy. The article indicates how that customs union should be established.
I am not certain whether my noble friend is suggesting that we should not go down that route. I

511
believe he is suggesting that somehow we can do better on our own than we can in an international forum. I do not believe that to be true. My noble friend Lord Beloff—
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I apologise but could my noble friend deal with my main question in my intervention which concerns the meaning of Article 3(1) when it suggests that the Community of all things should be engaged in,
"the strengthening of the competitiveness of Community industry"
That was my main point. I suggested that that was a centralising measure. I suggested, and I suggest, that the Community is incapable of doing so.
Viscount Ullswater: That relates to the article on industry which we have already discussed. I believe that we should be seeking to improve the competitiveness of industry. That article allows us to pursue that objective.
Having said that, the Commission can only act unanimously and must make certain that its actions do not lead to the distortion of competition. Those actions should lead to a system of open and competitive markets. I believe that my noble friend would agree with all those sentiments. Therefore, I believe that he should support the inclusion of the industry chapter in the treaty.
My noble friend Lord Beloff wanted to offer me something with which he thought everybody could agree. He said that we had a bargaining counter and that the GATT agreement should not come into force until the Community had agreed the coming into effect of the Uruguay Round. There is no justification, within or outside the treaty, for postponing its entry into force until such time as the Uruguay Round is concluded.
Recently, at Copenhagen the European Council stressed that it was essential to relaunch the multilateral process in Geneva as soon as possible and called for agreement before the end of the year. It was important at that stage of the negotiations, and before the G7 economic summit, to give a clear signal that the Community would work for a GATT round settlement before the end of the year.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am most grateful to the noble Viscount for giving way. He read from the conclusions of the Copenhagen conference. However, he omitted the words "including agriculture". The actual text reads:
"The European Council stressed that it was essential to relaunch the multilateral process in Geneva as soon as possible on all topics, including agriculture".
I do not know whether the noble Viscount omitted the words "including agriculture" by accident, but the statement refers specifically to agriculture.
Viscount Ullswater: I am pleased that it does, because that is one of the most important areas on which we need to seek agreement.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am trying to help the noble Viscount.
Viscount Ullswater: I accept any help that is offered to me while I am standing at this Dispatch Box.
The Uruguay Round negotiations were launched in 1986. We hope that they will be concluded as soon as possible. As the Government have made clear on a number of occasions, this is a key objective and the successful conclusion of the round will be to the benefit of all. However, I do not believe that it can be used in the way my noble friend suggested. It is certainly not a reason for delaying the entry into force of the Act.
Lord Beloff: I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. My point was that the French Government had made it clear that they would not go ahead with concluding the agreement if agriculture was part of that agreement. Does the Minister concur that that is what the French Government have said?
Viscount Ullswater: I believe that many member states have problems with that aspect of the round. I do not believe that it is a narrow point of concern to the French. France is no exception, but they did not stop a clear and forceful signal being given. They were signatories to that particular conclusion.
All the areas covered by the amendments are, by and large, already included in the Treaty of Rome and the Single European Act. Incorporation of these areas in the Maastricht Treaty does not, therefore, signify a departure from existing Community practice. In many areas the Maastricht Treaty represents a useful codification and limitation of Community activities. I urge the Committee to oppose the amendments.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: I was very interested to hear the views of the Committee on this group of amendments. In particular, the arguments on agriculture, which occupied quite a long time, showed how strongly many Members of the Committee feel about the matter. The arguments boil down roughly to two points of view. The first is the view held by my noble friends Lord Plumb and Lord Cockfield that it would be best for us to stick by the provisions of Article 3(e) and its predecessors because that is the best way to go about reducing the current admitted excesses of the CAP. The second point of view is that held by those others who feel that we have already had long enough to reduce the excesses in the present provisions of the treaty.
While disagreeing entirely with the common agricultural policy, the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, felt that he was able to agree with the provisions of the treaty because they did not use capital letters but referred simply to a common agricultural policy in Article 3(e).
I was a little disappointed by the reply of my noble friend Lord Ullswater in relying on the existing provisions of the reformed CAP—the MacSharry model, CAP Mark II—to protect the consumer and taxpayer from the depredations of the CAP. However, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 22.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Trumpington: I beg to move that the House do now resume.

513
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Devonport Dockyard: Trident Refit
6.15 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place this afternoon by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence. The Statement is as follows:
"The House has been waiting to hear our proposals on the future of the Royal dockyards and in particular on the location of nuclear refitting. This is a matter which has been under long and careful consideration. I am now ready to place our proposals before the House.
"During the 1980s the size of the nuclear submarine refit programme as a whole meant that all existing submarine docks at Devonport and Rosyth were required and a new dock had to be provided for refitting Trident. We indicated at that time that the new facility was to be built at Rosyth. With the end of the cold war and the reduction in the size of the submarine and surface fleet it became possible and desirable to consider new and less expensive solutions. Accordingly, in July 1991 the Ministry of Defence invited both Devonport and Rosyth to put forward proposals for nuclear refitting work.
"Since then we have subjected the proposals made by the two dockyard companies to the most detailed and intense scrutiny. We have had three proposals: two from Babcock Thorn Limited, one in respect of the new RD57 facility at Rosyth and the other for upgrading the existing docks at Rosyth; and one from Devonport Management Limited in respect of upgrading the existing docks at Devonport. These proposals have been evaluated for comparative purposes by the Ministry of Defence, supported by independent specialist advisers.
"This evaluation has taken some time. I know that the decision has been keenly awaited, but I do not regret the time taken. The fact is that the upgrade proposals now being considered cost over £250 million less than those we originally had under consideration. I make no apologies for allowing the competitive process to push the costs down to the benefit of both the Royal Navy and the taxpayer. We were also keen to ensure that both dockyards had a full opportunity to put forward proposals on a fair and equal basis.
"The scrutiny has however not been simply a cost comparison. Before we could consider the cost of these proposals, there were two conditions that had to be fulfilled.
"The first was that the proposals had to be completely sound and technically well-founded. Our detailed examination has reassured us that the proposals from both yards can be relied upon to
514
produce facilities of the required standard and that both yards have the skills and the experience to carry out both submarine and surface ship refitting. Over the past 10 years Devonport has refitted seven nuclear submarines as well as 72 surface ships and Rosyth has refitted five nuclear submarines as well as 79 surface ships, including 11 frigates and destroyers.
"The second key consideration has been safety. Safety is, rightly, a matter which must be subject to independent validation. Our detailed analysis over a period of months shows clearly that each of the three proposals should reach the very high standard required.
"Turning to the comparison of the cost of the various proposals, our scrutiny has taken place against the background of the need to get the best possible value for money from the defence budget. In particular I need to ensure—as do the Chiefs of Staff—that the proportion of the defence budget spent on the support of the Armed Forces is kept as small as possible, so that the proportion which can go directly to the front line should be as large as possible. I am sure that the House will join wrth me in supporting this objective.
"We have considered both the capital costs and the operating costs associated with the various proposals. With regard to the capital costs, the results of the analysis show that our estimate, on a like for like basis, of the three proposals is as follows: the proposal to build new docks at Rosyth, known as RD57, would cost some £369 million on top of the £100 million already spent; the proposals for upgrading of docks in Rosyth would cost about £248 million; and the proposals from Devonport will cost about £236 million. This shows that, despite the sums that have already been spent, the RD57 project is very much more expensive than either of the other two proposals, and I do not propose to consider it further. 'The two upgrade proposals are much closer in cost, but there is a clear difference in Devonport's favour of £12 million.
"With regard to operating costs, we have looked at these over 15 years, by which time the capital work would have been completed, the necessary rationalization taken place and the new arrangements settled down. Our analysis shows that on operating costs Devonport is again the cheaper yard, by a total of some £52 million over the period. Taking all these factors into account, the total difference between the two bids is £64 million in favour of Devonport. These figures do not include redundancy costs, which again are less if Devonport is the nuclear yard.
"Two days ago we received a completely new suggestion from Babcock Thorn Limited. This suggestion is that the number of docks where nuclear work can take place should he reduced from two to one and that the emergency docking facility should be used as the nuclear defuelling and refuelling facility. When we received this we had already spent several months in detailed consultation with both companies on their proposals in

515
order to be able to report with confidence the figures I have quoted today. Our period of consultation was extended in January in part to ensure that Babcock Thorn was able to propose an upgrading solution on the same basis as Devonport. It is quite unreasonable to produce completely new ideas so close to a decision, which if they were relevant could have been presented at any time over the last six months. But, more importantly, we are not able to accept any proposal which would deprive the Trident submarines of a dedicated emergency docking facility for significant periods; which would mean that the single nuclear refuelling facility was used for all our submarines, so exposing us to unacceptable risks in the event of an incident, or other difficulty; and which is untested from a technical and safety point of view.
"The view of the First Sea Lord, with which I agree, is that this suggestion imposes an unacceptable level of operational risk and that it should be ruled out. The same would apply to any proposal we received at this stage from Devonport based on the same engineering approach. The only way forward is for us to take a decision based on the analysis which we have before us.
"The Government do not believe that it would be prudent to ignore the capital difference of £12 million and the overall difference of £64 million between the Devonport and Rosyth proposals. There are no other relevant factors which point decisively or conclusively to one yard or the other. I am therefore announcing today our conclusion that, subject to satisfactory contractual negotiations, we shall proceed with the Devonport nuclear refitting facility proposals.
"I now turn to our long-term plans for the future of Rosyth. I made clear in my 9th February Statement that our aim is to achieve a healthy competitive structure for non-nuclear refitting. We wish Rosyth to develop into a yard which will bid competitively for surface ship refits and other work. Rosyth already has considerable experience of surface ship work—for example, the successful refits of Type 42 destroyers carried out over recent years—and we have every confidence in its ability to become a major and successful surface ship yard.
"I am conscious that a significant period of transition will be required to help Rosyth to restructure in order that it can concentrate on such work. To enable Rosyth to make this transition, we intend to continue with an allocated programme for 12 years, until 2005. Once nuclear work is concentrated at Devonport, the only allocation of surface ship refits will be to Rosyth: all other refit work will have to be won in competition. The programme for Rosyth would comprise over half of surface warship refitting, including all aircraft carrier refits, virtually all Type 42 destroyer refits and all Hunt Class mine warfare vessel refits, as well as other refits of Type 23 and Type 22 frigates. After the year 2000 that programme will begin to taper clown until 2005. These proposals mean that we expect Rosyth to be allocated responsibility for
516
the refits of some 18 major warships. We expect Devonport, as the nuclear yard, to be allocated responsibility for the refits of some 12 nuclear submarines.
"Employment at the yards is a matter for the companies concerned. At present there are some 3,700 people employed at Rosyth. We estimate that there will be a reduction of about 450 in the workforce as a direct result of reduced MoD work. Employment on MoD work should continue at about this level at least to the turn of the century. The allocation should also provide the basis for Rosyth to bid for extra work and to develop new markets. There is every reason for confidence that, given the skills of the workforce and the traditionally high standard of their work, it will be possible for Rosyth to win work in competition over and above the allocated programme and this should increase employment beyond the levels I have indicated.
"Reductions in employment will not be confined to Rosyth. Because of the declining overall refit programme, we would expect reductions in the numbers employed at Devonport of the order of about 350.
"Given the benefit of competition, I am pleased to be able to say that, even during the period of an allocated programme of the kind I have indicated, there will be a higher proportion of the refit programme available for competition than at present. That proportion will increase after 2000 and will apply to the whole of the surface ship refitting programme after 2005. Both dockyards as well as shipbuilders will be able to compete for this unallocated work.
"Further information setting out the background to these conclusions will be contained in a consultative document which will be published in the near future to provide a basis for consultation with parties concerned.
"I believe that the proposals I have set out today will provide a healthy future for both yards. Trident submarines will carry the deterrent well into the next century. It is therefore essential that they be refitted to the high standards the Royal Navy expects. The taxpayer equally has a right to expect value for money. My proposals achieve both these objectives and I commend them to the House." My Lords, that completes the Statement.
6.31 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elves: My Lords, first, I wish to thank the noble Viscount for repeating the Statement made in another place. As he rightly said, it is an important Statement, one for which we have been waiting a long time. I should like also to congratulate Devonport Management Limited on the contract which is to be awarded to it, subject to the conditions that the noble Viscount announced. I am sure that the company will do very well.
However, I have to say to the noble Viscount that I find the Statement which he has just repeated depressing in three respects. I shall elaborate on those respects in the questions that I shall put to the noble

517
Viscount in a minute. First, there is the question of the good faith of the Government in the assurances that have been made. Secondly, I believe that there is no sign of serious thinking in the Government of the social and psychological effects that the decision will have in Scotland and on the Scottish economy, nor of the real social effects that it will have. Whether it is £64 million, here or there, on a contract of £5 billion is a matter within the broad range of estimates. If the noble Viscount can tell me that it is accurate within a small percentage, then he is a better estimator than I am. Thirdly, there is the question of how the decision was made and the motivation for it.
I should like to put some questions to the noble Viscount on those themes. Was it not the case that, in return for the Faslane Trident base and the Coulport storage facility, the Government promised that R.osyth would have the Trident refitting programme? Is it not the case that the noble Lord, Lord Younger, recently reminded your Lordships and the public that this was the basis on which the Government had sold Faslane and Coulport to the Scottish electorate and that he regarded it as a matter of good faith that the Government should award the Trident refitting facility to Rosyth? What has happened to that assurance upon which the noble Lord, Lord Younger, insisted?
Clearly, £120 million of taxpayers' money has been spent—money which the noble Viscount is so keen on saving—on a new facility at Rosyth, specifically designed for the refitting programme. Are we now to be told that this facility is one in which old nuclear submarines are to be buried? That is the latest supposition. Is that the programme? How will it react with the community in Scotland?
On the question of the effects on the Scottish economy and society, we welcome the allocated programme. There is no doubt that the Government have stretched a very long way in trying to keep Rosyth going as a facility. But is the noble Viscount seriously saying that that is enough to keep Rosyth going? Rosyth is, after all, the largest industrial employer in Scotland. It is rightly proud of the apprentice training scheme. Unless there is security, then there is no apprentice scheme and there is no justification for keeping Rosyth going. The Statement says:
"Employment at the yards is a matter for the companies concerned".
Is that not a derogation of the Government's responsibilities? After all, in areas of high unemployment, British Steel and British Coal have started companies which have re-employed people, offered employment and developed industries—subsidiary manufacturing or service concerns—to employ those put out of work. What will happen in Scotland? Will the noble Viscount please respond to that?
Then I come to the question of the motives for the decision. It is, I am afraid to say, very odd. We learn that a poll was produced by Devonport Management Limited which showed that 21 Conservative seats would be in danger in the South-West if Devonport did not get the contract. The poll was submitted to the
518
Conservative Central Office. Will the noble Viscount say what the poll indicated? Is it a public opinion poll? Are we all allowed to see the results?
We are also told that certain resignations are in view of parliamentary private secretaries, saying, "If it doesn't go to Devonport then 20 or 30 Tory MPs will find their seats in the South-West at risk". Then we are told that that might lead to the loss of the Government's majority. There are a number of questions that the noble Viscount has to answer.
However much we may say that the Government have tried—and I think that they have tried their best to cobble something together—it is difficult not to believe that this is simply a political stitch-up, to resolve an internal dispute between different interests within the Conservative Party. If the Government are prepared to make decisions of vital national interest—and I hope that your Lordships will agree that the decision is of vital national interest—on that basis, all I can say is that it is about time that they started to take decisions in the interests of the whole United Kingdom and not who gains or loses on the electoral swings and roundabouts. Decisions should he taken in the interests of the whole United Kingdom rather than on the number of seats the Government may or may not lose at the next general election.
6.38 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, it is not my intention now to raise the question of the political motivation, if any, of the Government in putting forward these proposals; or the political motivation, if any, of the Opposition in resisting the proposals. I think that we on these Benches would say that the Government have had a difficult decision to take. They have taken a long time about it. It is easy to understand their decision not to entertain the last-minute new offer from Rosyth. The news will be sad for Rosyth and Scotland, especially in view of the pledges made to them in the past, about which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, spoke perfectly correctly. The pledges were quite clear that they were to have the Trident refitting task.
On the other hand, I must concede that the Government have offered Rosyth quite substantial conscience money in the allocation programme that they have stated. The refit of 18 major warships is a substantial offer. It is a refit outside the competitive process. I should like the noble Viscount to comment on that point. Elsewhere in the Statement the Secretary of State points out that the competitive process has reduced the overall bids of the two sides by £250 million. He said:
"I make no apologies for allowing the competitive process to push the costs down to the benefit of both the Royal Navy and the taxpayer".
It occurs to me, however, that the withdrawal of 18 major warship refittings from the competitive process is likely to increase the cost to the Royal Navy and to the taxpayer. I do not oppose this proposal for allocation£far from it. But I would like the noble Viscount to explain what is the cost of removing this very considerable project from the competitive process. The Statement should have made some reference to that. It is a major factor involving the

519
Government in their attempt to square the circle on this matter. I suspect that somewhere in Whitehall there is a Treasury paper estimating the extent of that cost, and without opposing the proposal, I should like to know what it is.
We could then ask: is it right that the Navy should pay that cost? It will indeed fall on the Navy. It will lead to the cancellation or postponement of projects in order to balance the budget. It is a question as to whether perhaps the Scottish Office or the Department of Employment should pay part of it. The Government had a very difficult problem, and they have obviously done their best to work out carefully the relative cost of the two bids and to do justice to both sides. But there is a hidden cost behind this Statement, and I am sorry that the noble Viscount has not divulged it to the House.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, found the Statement depressing. He asked a number of questions which were of some interest—certainly to me, and I hope also to noble Lords. He asked whether good faith could be placed in the assurances that the Government have given today. I do not want in any way to make a cheap party political point to the noble Lord, but I would infinitely prefer to rely on the good faith of this Government than on an Opposition whose representative in another place was perfectly happy to put the British nuclear deterrent into future disarmament negotiations. If that happened, I suspect that under a Labour government there would not be much in the way of good faith that Labour Party supporters in Rosyth could rely on.
The noble Lord also asked what would be the effect on the Scottish economy. We are well aware of the dependence of the Scottish economy, and indeed of the West Country economy, on the Navy's efforts at Rosyth and Devonport. We are equally conscious of the economic difficulties that both areas have been suffering. Were I to draw a comparison between the current official unemployment rates in Scotland and those in the West Country, I suspect that the West Country would suffer greatly. I know that it is sometimes very difficult in our confrontational politics to accept this in public, and for that reason I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, for his cautious welcome of the Statement. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that the Government found themselves reduced to a very difficult decision. The factors that had to be taken into account in coming to a decision between the two dockyards were very finely balanced, as the Statement, I believe, makes clear. In the end, because only one dockyard is possible under present conditions (or indeed economically) for nuclear refitting, it is perfectly clear that if there is a difference between the two we have to estimate where that difference comes. That difference came down essentially to price.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, as did the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, asked how the decision was made. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, suggested that in coming to their decision and announcing it, the Government were breaking undertakings given by my
520
noble friend Lord Younger during the 1980s. He asked the question: what has happened in the meantime? I think the noble Lord knows as well as I do what has happened in the meantime. It is made perfectly clear in the Statement. What has happened in the meantime is that the Berlin Wall has come down. The number of nuclear submarines which the defence department feels it has to maintain is being reduced. It is therefore cost-effective only to refit those submarines in one yard. One yard can cope not only with the hunter-killer submarines, but also with the four Trident submarines. It would be thoroughly irresponsible for any government, particularly when they had to face the Public Accounts Committee in another place to account for their decision, to keep open two dockyards for nuclear refitting at a time when it would be grossly extravagant to do so. I am sure that anybody who looks at this matter with any form of dispassion—as I know the noble Lord, Lord Williams, does—would accept that only one dockyard is sensible under present circumstances.
The noble Lord asked, with an admirable rhetorical flourish, whether Rosyth would merely be a place where old nuclear submarines would be buried. It is perfectly possible to move decommissioned nuclear submarines, and studies will be made in that respect to see what is the most cost-effective way of dealing with them. But, certainly, there is no dedication on the part of Her Majesty's Government to keep Rosyth as a nuclear graveyard. Very much the reverse. Apart from the allocated programme, which the Statement mentions, it is perfectly clear not only that there will be substantial activity there, but also that the naval base will continue substantially unaffected by the changes.
The noble Lord also asked whether the Government's proposals are enough to keep Rosyth going. It is perfectly clear from the Statement that many of the stories which the press has been peddling with such gusto over the past few months anticipated an announcement which would force the Government to anticipate very much more substantial redundancies in Rosyth if they plumped for Devonport than in fact we estimate will be the case. We are perhaps rather more confident than the noble Lord is in the skill, self-reliance and adaptability of the people of Scotland. If I may in part answer the question which the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, put to me, one of the reasons why we were so happy to produce a 12-year transition period rather than the 10 years asked for by the Opposition spokesman, Mr. George Foulkes, in another place was that we were well aware that a period of readjustment would be necessary in order to give Rosyth a chance to be able to compete—I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, will forgive me—on a level playing field with other dockyards in bidding for other work; Ministry of Defence work and other work.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, indulged in a most agreeable piece of knockabout, if I may say so. He questioned the reason for the Government's decision. He suggested that it was no more nor less than a political "stitch up". I am well aware that it is very easy for the Front Bench representatives of the

521
Labour Party to make such a remark. We know that the Labour Party virtually does not exist any more in the south western peninsula and that one of its few remaining bastions in the United Kingdom lies in the industrial belt in Scotland. No doubt that makes them somewhat parti pris in this matter, rather more so perhaps than the Liberal Party, who have a somewhat different difficulty. We are aware that the right honourable Member for Yeovil is rather closer to Devonport than is his party's defence spokesman who, I understand, represents a Fife constituency. Therefore, it is perhaps all the more understandable, were I to impute low motives (which I certainly do not) to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, that the Liberal Party should feel constrained to take a more detached attitude to these matters than the noble Lord, Lord Williams, might feel inclined to do.
Finally. I come to the very pertinent question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew. I am grateful for the welcome (however guarded, which is understandable) that he gave to the decision that the Government have announced. The allocated programme, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, is not as effective a means of ensuring best value to the taxpayer as is competition. Despite the greatly improved and constantly improving procurement and contract methods of the Ministry of Defence, there is no doubt that competitive processes are more effective in securing a contract, as the last few months have shown.
Nevertheless, particularly in the light of the debate in your Lordships' House over the past couple of days, cohesion funds are perhaps the sort of things which on the whole are accepted by your Lordships as desirable in equalising the economic condition of different parts of the country. Also, in order to give Rosyth a chance, we will forgo in the intervening 12 years some element of the competition that eventually we shall fully impose upon Rosyth after 2005, merely to try to give Rosyth a chance to attain that level playing field, of which the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, is so dismissive as an expression. We believe that that is a price well worth paying, particularly when, as the Statement says, it is perfectly clear that even during the transition period a greater proportion of the refit programme for the surface fleet will be competed for than at present.
I apologise for the length of my reply but there were a number of questions asked. In conclusion, I am content to rest (as I do not often find myself content to rest) on the judgment of The Times in this matter. Anticipating the announcement that we have made today, the headlme in today's issue reads:
"Taxpayers are clear winners in contest for Navy contract".
6.55 p.m.
Lord King of Wartnaby: My Lords, I have listened with considerable interest to the noble Viscount's explanation of the sad tidings. I should tell the House that I have a vested interest. I am chairman of Babcock International, the controlling shareholder of Babcock Thorn, which manages the Rosyth dockyards. In addition, 1 happen to be the largest employer
522
—not in shape but in fact—of engineering labour in Scotland. At least I was until this afternoon. I must begin tomorrow to look at new numbers.
We have been speaking about being near to Devonport, near to Plymouth and being an MP here or elsewhere. Let us turn away from all that and consider Rosyth: the community, the manner in which it has grown over the years, the skills that exist there and the dedication of the people. They can make maps, repair nuclear engines and build ships. But they are not best known or best qualified for surface ship refitment. For that Devonport has one of the best facilities anywhere in the world. At this time Devonport has a workload and a workforce. It may be that with the addition of the Trident submarines to its programme, it will recruit more people. Some skills will have to be recruited for that.
So far as concerns Rosyth, we shall have to learn to develop the business that we have. It is with sadness that I see the jolt to the pride of Rosyth, its people and its community. The Government have had a very difficult decision to make. But for the past two years workmen have been going home and have heard their wives asking, "Do you have a job? 'Will you have a job?" It is rather a pity that one cannot bring decisions forward a little. The uncertainty about whether or not one has employment must be as unbearable as the uncertainty of not knowing whether or not one will get whatever it is one most wants, So there is disappointment.
There is some uncertainty about the £64 million alleged difference in cost and the 450 redundancies at Rosyth. I wonder how the Government arrived at those figures. We shall wish to examine the details of the proposed allocated programme which, to the Government's credit, certainly sounds impressive. I presume that all these matters will be included in the consultative document. I ask the noble Viscount to confirm that. He shakes his head—up and down, I think.
Finally, despite my sadness and regret at today's announcement, I reaffirm our determination to serve the Royal Navy to the best of our ability and to provide the very best possible value for money for the taxpayer.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for what he said. The Navy has been consistently satisfied by the work that Rosyth has carried out on its behalf. I am sorry if my noble friend in any way is doubtful about the ability of the workforce to maintain those high standards. I hope that what I felt he was implying is not true. 'Those doubts are certainly not shared by the Ministry of Defence.
My noble friend asked by implication how we arrived at the 450 redundancies estimate. As the Statement says, the number of redundancies are entirely a matter for his company. At the same time, in order to make a reasonably clear estimate, we have an idea of what is likely to transpire. As my noble friend is aware, we tend to estimate the contracts in terms of man hours. Those man hours, on current working practices, can readily be translated into man years and therefore jobs.

523
I am grateful to my noble friend for the predictable undertaking he has given to make sure that the service that his company has given in the past, which is second to none, will continue in the future.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that there is a certain irony in this announcement being made on the anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn? There will be a feeling in Scotland tonight that it is the English getting their own back: they have waited a long time for it. I do not hold any grudges against Devonport—I want to make that clear—although I was sad at some of the tactics employed during the competitive bidding that was taking place.
The noble Viscount asks the rhetorical question about what has happened since the noble Lord, Lord Younger, gave the undertaking that if Scotland accepted Coulport and Faslane, we would get the nuclear refitting work at Rosyth. The answer is that we have the worst of both worlds. We have Coulport and Faslane but we do not have the nuclear refitting work at Rosyth. I am sure the Minister accepts that there will be some feeling of, if not betrayal, then certainly being let down, that we accepted Coulport and Faslane but have not received the other part of the bargain.
Will the Minister confirm that it is the Government's view that the £236 million upgrading costs at Devonport cannot possibly remain constant? Before that capital is expended and the work completed, the strong possibility is that the upgrading work will cost much nearer £400 million.
This is a sorry day for Rosyth, for Fife, the Lothians and for central Scotland as a whole. But, in the words of a good doctor friend of mine, I never like to leave the patient without hope. In the 12 years that lie ahead we, as politicians, have a responsibility to make sure that the workforce at Rosyth sees a future way beyond that 12-year period.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am well aware of the close personal ties that the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, has with Rosyth. He spoke movingly in our recent debate on the subject in terms which I shall long remember. However, I thought that the English had replied to Bannockburn with Flodden and that we decided then to call it a day. The compromise reached between the noble Lord's nationals and the English was that the Scots would come down to London to govern us and that people like the noble Lord would dominate your Lordships' House in the way that they do.
With regard to Coulport and Faslane, I am well aware that Dumbarton District Council is a nuclear-free zone. Nevertheless, the biggest concentration of nuclear power east of the Atlantic and west of the Urals provides the councillors and their constituents in the nuclear-free zone with 3,000 jobs. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that if what he implies happened, and we were to close it down, both he and I would be extremely interested in the reaction
524
to that proposal of the nuclear-free zone council. I hope that it would resist it. However, we are unlikely to put such a proposal to the test.
Like the noble Lord, I have enormous faith in the capacity of the Scottish people, particularly the people of the Scottish Lowlands and the industrial belt, to adapt and compete. Like him, I have absolute confidence that they will show that they are a match for the English any day.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether, in addition to the considerations which he has so eloquently set out, there are also strategic and operational arguments in favour of Devonport? Is it not the fact that the Trident submarine, in the event of major war, would be expected to operate from the open Atlantic? Is it not a much nearer and quicker route to the open Atlantic from Devonport than it would be going out into the North Sea from Rosyth?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I have certainly heard that case argued in a number of quarters. People with a greater knowledge of naval strategy than I have told me that the case between Devonport and Rosyth—taking into account the factors my noble friend mentioned—is evenly balanced.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, the Minister referred to the unemployment problems which may be occasioned in both areas. He said what he suspected the result would be. Is that the extent of the Government's analysis? The Minister nods. Perhaps he will allow me to finish the question before nodding or shaking his head. When I have finished the question, perhaps he will answer it, though I doubt it. If that is not the extent of the analysis and the Government have made an analysis of the consequences of the social and employment prospects in both areas, will they publish it and place it in the Library so that we can all see it?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the best indication that I can give is to refer the noble Lord to the answer I attempted to give a moment ago to my noble friend Lord King. We have a very clear idea of what the employment consequences of MoD actions in these instances will be. We estimate work in terms of man hours. Assuming current working practices, that can be translated into man years and therefore numbers employed.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I knew the Minister would not answer the question. I shall repeat it. Was a proper analysis made of those results? If so, will he put it in the Library or publish it?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, that is an analysis. The exact employment consequences are a matter for the company. There is no doubt that the records of the Ministry of Defence show that, although our job is to defend the country and we leave the social consequences to other government departments, which are more than capable of looking after those matters, we have shown a sense of considerable responsibility in taking into account the consequences of our actions. If the noble Lord doubts that, I would

525
refer him to the managers of the Plymouth urban renewal programme. He can ask them how much money the Ministry of Defence has contributed from its small budget to that programme.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, does my noble friend recall the speech I made during the short debate on the matter? If so, he will not be surprised to learn that I am extremely disappointed by the results of the study as between Devonport and Rosyth. Does he further accept that I am still convinced that the strategic proximity of Coulport and Faslane to Rosyth should have overpowered even the argument on the financial savings.
However, will my noble friend accept from me that at least one Scot will not claim that the game was rigged and that we were robbed? Does he accept that our right honourable friend Malcolm Rifkind will have ensured that it was done on a fair basis and that the figures were in favour of Devonport? If they had come out the other way, I would certainly have expected Rosyth to obtain the contract, regardless of other factors. Can he assure me that the guarantee of ships going to Rosyth in the future for 12 years is absolute and unconditional? Is it the case that the consultation paper will outline how Babcock Thorn will negotiate its contract with the Government and Navy for these ships?
Lastly, does my noble friend agree with me that the positive response from our noble friend Lord King—who must be much more disappointed even than I—at least suggests that the company and the workforce there will try to make the best of what they will consider to be a bad job?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. I know all too well—particularly as I recall his most eloquent speech during our recent debate on the subject—the fervour with which he has espoused the cause of nuclear refitting at Rosyth. I am all the more grateful to him for the generous and fair-minded way in which he has responded to this afternoon's announcement. I am only too pleased to associate myself with the remarks that he has made about my noble friend Lord King whom I know both of us greatly admire.
As far as the Ministry of Defence is concerned, the 12-year allocated programme is a very clear and unequivocal commitment. I will not try to repeat to your Lordships the reasons for it. I have already attempted to do so this afternoon. The consultative paper will, I believe, go into the arguments and financial considerations in greater detail than it has been possible for me and my right honourable friend to do this afternoon.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that whichever way the decision had gone criticism would have been made of it and that wherever the nuclear base was sited the social effects would have been the same? I cannot understand how the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, can believe that it will affect only Scotland.
526
Will the Minister also agree that the suggestion of a saving in public expenditure funded by the taxpayer of £64 million is something that no government can overlook? Is it not the case, reflecting on the position now, the savings to the taxpayer and the fact that the surface work will go to Rosyth and the nuclear work to Devonport, that people will think that this is a fair decision?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Clark. He is a well known exponent of the importance of rigour in matters of public expenditure. In 'that regard his record in another place stands unchallenged. I have no doubt at all that he is right when he says that defence Ministers and other Ministers in Her Majesty's Government approach this matter in the spirit of trying to do the best under the circumstances in terms of cost-effectiveness and fairness to the people involved.
I have to say that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence was in a particularly difficult position as a Scottish Member of Parliament. If your Lordships want any guarantee of the fairness and dispassion with which Ministers have approached this question, I believe that I need only refer to the potential consequences for my right honourable friend if he had not taken this decision in the skilful and dispassionate way that he has. That is perhaps the best guarantee I can give to my noble friend Lord Clark on the subject.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that that would be as nothing to the consequences in the southwest of England for his party?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am conscious of the time. All I say to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, is that he is in a very difficult glasshouse if he wishes to pursue this subject. I referred to it earlier. I would hate that he and I should come to blows on the subject.

European Communities (Amendment) Bill
7.14 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
[Amendments Nos. 23 to 26 not moved.]
Baroness Trumpington: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage begin again at 8 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

New Towns (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
7.15 p.m.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee. —(Lord Finsberg.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

527
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD SKELMERSDALE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Power of delegation]:
Lord Finsberg Lord Finsberg moved the amendment:
Page 1, line 14, leave out ("Agency") and insert ("Commission").
The noble Lord said: I apologise for the need for this Committee stage, which is due to a typing and printing error and nothing more. I move that on page 1, line 14, we leave out "Agency" and insert "Commission".
Viscount Goschen: The Government are content with the amendment of my noble friend as it is a purely drafting measure to correct an error on the face of the Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendment.

Local Government (Overseas Assistance) Bill
7.16 p.m.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
We are now approaching the end of our consideration of the Bill. When I introduced it at Second Reading I went into its background, that is, the doubts and confusion that had arisen over local authorities' powers to provide technical advice and assistance overseas, and the need for a clear power to allow for this kind of work to go ahead. I am pleased to be able to say that we have had good, constructive debates at Second Reading and Committee stage and that the Bill has had strong support from all sides of your Lordships' House. Clearly, we are dealing with a much-needed piece of legislation that fills an important gap in the powers of local authorities.
I am pleased to say that we have also improved the Bill during our deliberations. I am sure that our colleagues in another place will view the amendments we have made in that light. At Committee stage we agreed to an amendment that would require the Secretary of State to issue guidance to local authorities about how the powers provided by the Bill would operate. The Government have assured me that they do not intend to use this in any prescriptive way. All that is intended is to provide a helpful guide to the non-expert, written in plain English.
I understand that not only are the Government committed to consulting fully the local authority associations on this matter, but are also content to consider a joint document if the associations so wish.
We have also added to the Bill a requirement for the Secretary of State to consult representatives of local government before issuing a general authorisation under the Bill. Both these amendments—the requirement for guidance and consultation—are meant to signal the Government's intention to continue the close co-operation with local government
528
that has been a feature of the passage of this Bill. Even more importantly, we have introduced into the Bill a power for the Secretary of State to add by statutory instrument to the list of types of local authority covered by the Bill. Obviously, this is to keep the door open either for a change in the Government's mind about whether parish and community councils should be covered by the Bill, or for the possibility in the longer term of structural changes that cannot be foreseen at the present moment.
The Bill will provide a clear and dependable power for local authorities to provide advice and assistance overseas. The spur to the Bill has been the need to help newly established democratic local authorities in central and eastern Europe, but the effect of the Bill is not confined to these countries. It will enable our local authorities to assist their equivalents anywhere in the world.
Before I sit down I would again like to pay tribute to the part that the sponsor of the Bill in another place has played in bringing us to this stage and to the hard work of all the officials, both in government and in the local authority associations, and not least to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, for the helpful and constructive way in which he has taken part in the debates. I hope that your Lordships will give the Bill a Third Reading. With the agreement of another place the Bill will be given Royal Assent before the Summer Recess. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Baroness Flather.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, from these Benches I re-echo that which has been said in another place and in this House at the various stages. We warmly welcome this initiative and the spirit in which the Bill has been brought forward. I am conscious that the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, has as wide an experience as I had at local government level and that she can see from the sharp end that this is a tool which can be used, and I hope will be used, by our colleagues in local government. It is not big and it does not pretend that it will solve a great many problems. But for those councils and councillors who want to respond to the desperate needs of some of our fellow human beings in other parts of the world, this is the tool.
It was fashioned, I know, in another place where it was looked after very warmly by my former colleague, Jim Lester, and others. This is a very happy occasion. I thank the noble Baroness most sincerely for looking after the Bill. I repeat our deep regard for her and our respect for the fact that during the passage of the Bill she suffered a personal tragedy. We admire the fact that she has persisted in bringing the measure before us. We wish it well.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I endorse entirely the comments made by my noble friend Lady Flather about the interesting and constructive nature of the debates we have had on the Bill. We agree that the amendments added to the Bill by your Lordships' House have improved the Bill and have added a welcome degree of flexibility.

529
I can confirm that the Government will consult the associations closely on the guidance that is to be provided and that it is not meant to be in any way prescriptive. We shall ensure, through our consultations, that the guidance is as clear and helpful as we can make it. In addition, if the associations would prefer us to do so, we are happy to issue a joint guidance note.
On the general authorisation, our agreement to the amendment requiring the Secretary of State to consult before issuing a general authorisation is, as my noble friend has said, intended to signal our intention to maintain the co-operation with local government that has been such a feature of the Bill. We have said repeatedly that we have no intention of making the requirement for consent into a burden or heavy restraint on local government. On the contrary, the consent requirement is there simply as a safety net—to protect and to reassure the council taxpayer. We shall consult local government and we intend the general authorisation to be as wide as possible so that the requirement for specific consent is very much the exception.
The Government have strongly supported the Bill throughout its passage through Parliament and we are pleased that it has had the strong support of the Opposition parties and the local authority associations. I too would like to praise the hard work of and the co-operation between government and local government officials, the role of the sponsor of the Bill in another place—my honourable friend the Member for Broxtowe—and the helpful way in which the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has contributed to the debate. Most of all, I should like to pay tribute to the conscientious way in which my noble friend Lady Flather has acted as the sponsor of the Bill in your Lordships' House and taken forward this most useful Bill.
I can only echo what has already been said. This is a minor piece of legislation but it will have significant effects on the lives of many people, sometimes in little heard of places. II will give our local authorities, with all their skills, expertise and experience, the power to advise and assist on local government problems in other countries. My noble friend's Bill has the full support of the Government and I commend it to your Lordships' House.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, I am grateful for the kind words of both my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Graham.
On Question, Bill read a third time.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Flather.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Tower Hamlets Housing Action Trust (Area and Constitution) Order 1993
7.25 p.m.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th May be approved [30th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper I should like to speak also to the Castle Vale Housing Action Trust Order. These orders seek to designate two further housing action trusts (or HATs) following on the success of those in Hull, Waltham Forest and Liverpool. These projects demonstrate that HATs have come of age as vehicles for tackling the problems of our very worst estates. These orders, the fourth and fifth, establish HATs for Castle Vale in Birmingham and Tower Hamlets in London. Tenants in Castle Vale and Tower Hamlets voted by clear majorities of 92 per cent. and 65 per cent. respectively for the establishment of the trusts.
Housing action trusts are important mechanisms for tackling the very worst estates by adopting a comprehensive and integrated approach. dedicated to the task in hand. They are flexible and adaptable. They can alleviate the problems of inner city estates such as Tower Hamlets and estates like Castle Vale, located on the outskirts of a city yet isolated from it. That is because the trusts are about much more than improving the fabric of the buildings, important though that is. They will improve housing, manage housing effectively, encourage diversity of ownership and tenure and facilitate the improvement of living conditions in the area through employment, training and environmental initiatives. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th May be approved [30th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Goschen.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I may have the advantage over the Minister to the extent that when the issue of the creation of HATs was before the House two or three years ago I spoke from these Benches on housing matters. I can recall—and no doubt those who guide the noble Viscount can recall—that the initial reaction of the Labour Party to the principle of HATs was very much one of hostility. We felt that way for the simple reason that in our view the local authorities had been starved of the money required to do that which the HATs now do—to improve wretched housing—and we felt that the money ought properly to have been made available through the normal HIPs and in other ways to allow local authorities to do the work. A fierce political battle was fought, but from my experience as a former constituency member, and having watched these matters for years, the wretchedness of the housing conditions has at the end of the day won.
I would say only that the Government have learnt over the period to adapt, to bend and to accept in reality changes which are designed to make the HAT more acceptable not just to the Labour Party but to many other individuals. The principle which the

531
Minister has raised—local people having the right to have a big say in what they do—is one thing. But I can assure the Minister that the overwhelming imperative of local people is not necessarily to be able to decide what they do but to get their hands on the resources so that someone, whether it is the council or the created bodies—I have read the documents and the Government have moved from a limited representation of those who are affected to a larger representation—can do the work.
I should like to point out that the Government's mood changes. When the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Bill was before the House two or three weeks ago the Labour Party sought strenuously to give council tenants the same right and ability to determine their landlord as that which has been created here. It was not to be. But this is not the occasion to fight old battles.
The people who are to benefit and gain advantage from the money that the Government are making available are not concerned about the niceties which as politicians we in this Chamber and another place seek to add to or imprint on legislation. In my view the wretched conditions in which many people live will be improved by the action of HATs. We shall watch very closely to see whether there are lessons not just for the Labour Party but for the way in which the housing stock of this country is managed. We certainly have no objection to these two orders.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Castle Vale Housing Action Trust (Area and Constitution) Order 1993
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th May be approved [30th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this order with our consideration of the previous Motion. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th May be approved. [30th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Goschen.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning) (No. 5) Order 1993
7.30 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie)The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie) rose to move, That the orders laid before the House on 25th May, 8th, 11th, 14th and 17th June be approved [32nd, 33rd and 34th Reports from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the draft orders in my name. The five orders before the House today seek your Lordships' approval for emergency orders to ban fishing for, variously, mussels, queens, scallops, razor clams and oysters in defined areas of sea around the Orkney Islands and an area of sea off the Caithness coast. This is due to a build up of the naturally occurring toxin, paralytic shellfish poison, or PSP as it is known.
The decision to make these orders was based on those test results from our PSP monitoring programme which were over the internationally-agreed action level of 400 units. Our aim in making the ban is to ensure effective protection of the public from PSP toxin with the minimum disruption to the shellfish market.
I would like to assure your Lordships that the orders will only remain in force for as long as is necessary and no longer. They will be revoked individually as soon as the results of continued sampling and medical and scientific advice indicate that it is safe to do so.
I have arranged for copies of maps showing the areas in question to be available for your Lordships. Two of the orders concern Scapa Flow; two cover an area north of the Orkney mainland and the fifth order applies to an area of sea off the Caithness coast. There has been no significant downturn in toxin levels since the orders were made and, regrettably, I submit that

533
the five orders before us today are still necessary for the protection of public health. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the orders laid before the House on 25th May, 8th, 11th, 14th and 17th June be approved [32nd, 33rd and 34th Reports from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, perhaps I may first apologise for the absence of my noble friend Lord Carmichael. I do not intend to muscle in very mach on the act. He has asked me to say that he fully understands and supports the action. Is the Minister in a position to indicate whether any representations have been made against the orders? As someone who is very much an observer, but who enjoys seafood very mach, what the Minister and the House seek to do is to protect both the palate and also the livelihood of the people who live in that part of the world. We have no objection to these orders. Can the Minister say whether the actions which these orders take and make cause resentment, hostility or opposition in any quarter? If the Minister is able to say that there is no opposition I shall be happy. Of course, it makes no difference because we welcome the orders and have no objection to them.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. I understand why the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, is not here. There is always a delicate balance to be struck. As the noble Lord indicated, he likes shellfish and we wish to protect the market and the livelihood of those who fish for shellfish in Scotland. However, we also must have regard to the best interests of the consumer and what is considered on a scientific and medical basis to be an acceptable level in the build-up of this naturally occurring toxin. The levels here are too high.
I do not believe that there is any hostility. What is important, as I sought to indicate, is that as soon as it is safe to do so these orders shall be lifted. I give an undertaking to the noble Lord that that will be done in the best interests of the fishermen.
On Question, Motions agreed to.
Lord Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended from 7.35 to 8 p.m.]

European Communities (Amendment) Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 1, line 9, after ("II") insert ("except Article 3(f)").
The noble Lord said: This group of amendments deals with a number of matters: with transport, networks, telecommunications and energy. It may be convenient to the Committee to consider in the one debate all the amendments which seek to exclude some or all of the provisions in the Maastricht Bill from
534
being applicable in British law, which provisions cover networks, transport, telecommunications and energy, given that those provisions are similar.
The relevant articles of the treaty to which these amendments have been tabled are the following: first, Article 3(f). Your Lordships will recall that under Article 3 on page 9 is a whole series of subsections labelled (a), (b), (c), (d) and so on, each listing what the treaty calls an "activity" which, under Maastricht, is to come within the competence and control of European institutions, principally the Commission and the Council. Article 3(f) lists the activity as,
"a common policy in the sphere of transport".
Article 3(n) relates to,
"encouragement for the establishment and development of trans-European networks".
Article 3(t) refers to,
"measures in the spheres of energy, civil protection and tourism".
Looking further on in the treaty, Article 75 on page 15 states that the Council, after consultation, shall lay down:
"(a) common rules applicable to international transport to or from the territory of a Member State or passing across the territory of one or more Member States;
(b) the conditions under which non-resident carriers may operate transport services within a Member State:
(c) measures to improve transport safety;
(d) any other appropriate provisions",
whatever that means. How much wider does that take us than the specific items which have been referred to?
Further on again in the treaty there are three important articles on the subject of trans-European networks: Articles 129b, 129c and 129d. Article 1291) includes the words:
"the Community shall contribute to the establishment and development of trans-European networks in the areas of transport, telecommunications and energy infrastructures.
Within the framework of a system of open and competitive markets, action by the Community shall aim at promoting the interconnection and inter-operability of national networks as well as access to such networks. It shall take account in particular of the need to link island, landlocked and peripheral regions with the central regions of the Community".
I suppose that we are one of the "peripheral regions", if not the peripheral region, bearing in mind that there are 20 miles of water between us and the Continent itself.
Article 129c seeks to establish what it calls "guidelines" which the Community is to pursue for these trans-European networks. I shall summarise them because the articles are extremely wordy. Under this article the Community shall identify projects of common interest, and,
"shall implement any measures that may prove necessary to ensure the inter-operability of the networks, in particular in the field of technical standardization".
The Community may support financially projects through feasibility studies. loan guarantees or interest rate subsidies or through direct subsidies through the Cohesion Fund.
Finally, Article 129d defines the procedure under which those guidelines are to be adopted by the Community. The Committee should note the words in Article 129b that the Community wishes to operate,
"Within the framework of a system of open and competitive markets".

535
That is an expression of good free-market principles—that is, good from the point of view of the Government because they are in favour of good free-market principles. Indeed, all of us are now in favour of those free-market principles, even, I think, my noble friends on the Front Bench. I understand that they are probably in favour of them. However, in spite of such an expression of good free-market principles, the Community is to seek to promote the interconnection and inter-operability of national networks as well as access to such networks. It will seek to favour transport to and from more remote areas; set out guidelines on objectives, priorities and projects of common interest; take power to implement any measures to ensure inter-operability, including technical standardisation; finance out of Community funds, including the Cohesion Fund, projects towards this inter-operability; and take powers to promote co-ordination between the 12 states.
But, with just a slight genuflection to the free market, we are told that the Community shall only take account of the potential economic viability of the projects—I repeat "only take account". The article states that the Community,
"may decide to co-operate with third countries to promote projects of mutual interest and to ensure the inter-operability of networks".
When the noble Baroness replies perhaps she will comment on the phrase,
"take into account the potential economic viability of the projects",
bearing in mind the Government's view that, in general. our own networks should be profitable and should stand on their own two feet.
Is this not a prime example of governmental—in this case supra-governmental—intervention from Brussels in the market while still pretending to respect the market? The treaty claims to want "open and competitive markets". It then weakens that fine ideal when it shall only "take into account" the potential economic viability of the projects. And so it goes on and on and on.
What concerns me about these provisions is that the institutions of the Community will become more and more involved in the detail of transportation, although I understand that it will not be bringing forward particular projects—at least I hope that it will not—and that it will not be financing them. However, the Community's institutions will identify where certain roads will be placed—where they should go from and where they should go to and what sort of roads they will be. I wonder whether that will impinge on the decisions of our local planning authorities and whether pressure will be put on local planning authorities to provide such networks where perhaps the local community does not want them. We have already seen how the Community can put pressure on governments. We saw that, and indeed are still seeing the results of that, in the extension of the M.27 where in fact Mr. Carlo Ripa Di Meana sought to intervene. He was the Transport Commissioner, I think, was he not?
Lord Clinton-Davis: Mr. Carlo Ripa Di Meana —commonly known as "Reaper"—was Commissioner for the Environment. It was his job to enforce environmental law in the Community.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I thank my noble friend. Yes, I remember now: he was known as "the grim reaper". He did intervene and he caused a great many problems for Her Majesty's Government. My noble friend may very well have been pleased that he was able to cause such problems, but the fact is that that road had been through all our planning procedures and had been agreed by inspectors and by Ministers. It had therefore been agreed by the institutions of this country. I sincerely hope that these trans-European networks are not going to result in more interference of that sort from the European Community, and indeed from commissioners.
Of course there are other matters too, such as energy. I really would like to know exactly what that means: the environment, energy and what-have-you. To a large degree they are all mixed up. I want the assurance that the European Community cannot in any way under these provisions get their hands on North Sea oil. They have been trying to do that for a very long time. I want to be assured that there is no way in which they can, through this treaty, claim ownership of North Sea oil. I think that is extremely important. I also want to be assured that these trans-network links in energy are not going to put more of our miners and other energy workers out of work. The noble Baroness will know exactly what I mean. In fact I do not want subsidised French nuclear generation to put coal miners in this country, who are not subsidised now and will not be in the future, out of work. And of course I include gas workers and oil workers in that as well. These are all very important matters, about which we need reassurance.
Again on the environment, I want to ensure and I want the Government to ensure that we are not going to be put in a position by the institutions of Europe of making too fast decisions, which would harm the economic interests of this country. For example, I do not want to see a situation in which the environmentalists are able to aid and abet the destruction of a great industry, which I fear unwittingly they did over the coal industry. It would have been much more difficult to close collieries in this country if the coal industry and coal generation had not been accused of belching CO2 and acid rain into the air. But what have we now found out about acid rain? The latest report says that acid rain had nothing to do with deforestation in Europe and nothing to do with the destruction of the German forests: it was all to do with the drought. They go further and suggest that the CO20has acted as a fertiliser to help regenerate the forests. So that in talking about environmental issues we want to ensure that Europe and the institutions of Europe do not rush us into decisions which will cost the lives of great industries, not to mention perhaps thousands of millions of pounds in addition in retro-fitting power stations. That of course increases the cost of electricity to the consumer. All these things we need to be concerned about. I am sure that the noble Baroness will

537
understand what 1 am saying and I hope that she will have some sympathy with it. I look forward to her reply in due course.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Tebbit: First I should say how pleased I was to come into the Chamber and hear the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, proposing these amendments, as I had undertaken to him that I would do so. Unfortunately, I was caught taking an excessive minute of pleasure with my wife. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, was there as well, I hasten to add, so there was nothing improper involved: we were in the Churchill Room and I was just a little late in returning to this debate. I should say that I was much impressed with the noble Lord's immediate grasp of all these matters, because I had been struggling with them earlier in the day to prepare myself.
Let me say right at the beginning, because I think it may assist my noble friend Lady Chalker, that one thing above all which I should like her to deal with in connection with all these amendments—as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has observed, they relate to Article 3, Article 75, Article 129(b) and, I think, Article 129(c) as well—is to tell us whether the powers to which they relate are matters which are within the exclusive or sole competence of the Community, or not.
There should be no difficulty in answering this question, because of course it is a very important one and upon it depends whether they are subject to the doctrine of subsidiarity. Ministers have said that it is very difficult for them to answer the question in the round, that is, which matters are subject to the doctrine of competence and therefore immune to the doctrine of subsidiarity. But this is a specific question: these are all specific policies and they are specific powers. What I want to know for each of them, item by item precisely, is which ones are within the sole competence of the Community so that subsidiarity therefore has no effect upon them, and which are not and which therefore are not subject to the doctrine of subsidiarity. I know that officials will have this information because, quite clearly, it has been thought through by Her Majesty's Government during the negotiation of the treaty, since it is such an important matter and subsidiarity has been such an enormous success for Her Majesty's Government. I know that my noble friend would want to explain in great detail which of these matters will be affected by the doctrine of subsidiarity and which will not.
Let me turn then to Amendment No. 27 itself. If your Lordships would turn to page 1, line 9, you will see that it relates to Article 3(f), relating to a common policy in the sphere of transport. Fortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is present and therefore I do not have to explain again that this is a parliamentary procedure with which the rest of us are familiar. We understand that this is a device by which we shall discuss matters relating to the principles of a common policy on transport—
Lord Tordoff: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. It may be a parliamentary procedure that has
538
been invented for the purposes of this Bill. However, I must tell the noble Lord that prior to his presence in this place we did not on the whole conduct the Committee stages of Bills in a way that allowed people to make Second Reading speeches all the way through. I am in some difficulty because I was contemplating speaking on two of the amendments. However, as I am told that they are not now amendments, they are pegs, I find it difficult to discuss them. I can join in the general discussion but I have better things to do. If the proceedings are just a dialogue between the noble Lord and the Front Bench, asking questions, I should have thought that it would have been better for all or us if the noble Lord had tabled them as a series of Questions for Written Answer.
The Earl of Onslow: Before my noble friend Lord Tebbit continues, I wish to point out with respect that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, knows that what he said is not absolutely correct. We used to have things called "probing amendments". These are probing amendments, which are designed to discuss the issue behind the actual amendment. Probing amendments are frequently meaningless in themselves but are tabled specifically to discuss the points behind the legislation. I have been a Member of this Chamber for about 22 years and that has been the procedure during the whole of that time. Therefore my noble friend Lord Tebbit, clever as he is, has not invented a totally new procedure for this Chamber.
Lord Tebbit: Perhaps I may be permitted to continue my speech lest it develops into an exchange between my noble friend Lord Onslow arid the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. I can simplify the matter considerably by suggesting that, if the noble Lord is not particularly interested in these matters and wants to hide them all under the carpet arid ram this Bill through without the people of this Kingdom being informed other than by the process for Written Answer, he takes a little pleasure somewhere else. In the meantime—
Lord Tordoff: If the noble Lord—
Lord Tebbit: I shall give way to the noble Lord in a moment. In the meantime I shall repeat that the Bill before this Committee is an unusual Bill. As the noble. Lord knows, it is a slim Bill—here it is. It is as I said yesterday—and I shall repeat it for the noble Lord's benefit—the sliver of ice which shows above the water—
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Hear, hear!
Lord Tebbit: And it has the iceberg of the treaty behind it. The only way in which we can discuss the treaty is by the device which we are using. Quite clearly, the noble Lord has no interest in discussing the treaty. He belongs to that school of thought which believes that the sooner it is through the better, and the less discussion there is the better. I take a different view. I believe that these are serious issues which should be discussed seriously.
Lord Tordoff: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. This level of acerbity is unusual in this Chamber, as Members will know. I repeat that Members who want to join in the debate on particular amendments are in some difficulty. As my noble friend Lord Ezra pointed out, there were deficiencies in an amendment which would normally be a reasonable source of discussion. On many occasions I have heard the noble Lords, Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Renton, for instance, refer to the fact that amendments tabled from this side of the Chamber are deficient and go on at some length about that.
My problem is that I cannot debate these amendments. Every time that I seek to do so, every time that I seek to draw the Committee's attention to a fallacy in the amendment, I am told, "We are not talking about the amendments; we are talking about pegs". I understand what the noble Lord is saying; that he wants to debate the Maastricht Treaty. We are not debating the Maastricht Treaty; we are debating the Bill which is before the Committee. I see no other objective in being here.
Lord Tebbit: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for saying that he does not want to debate the treaty. I do want to debate the treaty. This is a perfectly respectable procedural way of doing so. If the noble Lord wants to debate the Bill he is more than welcome to do so during the course of our proceedings. However, we are not able to debate, for example, that Article 3 of the treaty shall stand part, as he knows full well. I should have thought that as a Member of the Liberal Democrat Benches he would have welcomed the manner in which we have found it possible to debate a treaty, which would otherwise go through without debate by the Royal Prerogative.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I support my noble friend Lord Tebbit by saying that some of us who have been in the Chamber for only three years sit on your Lordships' Select Committee and have been staggered to discover the powers of the Executive to sign a treaty of this nature even if we are not able to debate it. The proposed treaty, together with the treaty known as the Single European Act, has been described as the greatest constitutional change in this country since the Petition of Right. The Bill to which the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, referred clearly imports Titles II, III and IV of the Treaty on European Union into British law—or so it proposes. I believe that the concept that this Chamber should not be free to discuss those Titles is little short of outrageous—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Perhaps I may—
Baroness Trumpington: I wonder whether a battered Baroness may bring a little sweetness and light back into the Chamber. I have no power to do anything but I should be happy if we could return to talking about the actual amendments which face us tonight or whatever way my noble friend Lord Tebbit believes that we should advance the evening.
Lord Tebbit: I believe that the advice that my noble friend Lady Trumpington has given is good advice. It is my intention to return to the matter of the treaty which is behind the Bill—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am sorry to interrupt—
Lord Tebbit: If the noble Lord will excuse me, I would rather take the advice of my noble friend Lady Trumpington for the moment. I am sure that later the noble Lord will have a point of substance as opposed to procedure.
If we return to the treaty we shall find that Article 3(f) on page 9 refers to "a common policy in the sphere of transport". I wish to understand what the Government understand to be the effect and the usefulness of these provisions. After all, we have before us the choice of cutting them out of the treaty. Theoretically at least—and I agree that it is highly theoretical—we may do so if we come to the conclusion that they do not have a useful purpose.
Will my noble friend explain the way in which that provision will affect cabotage? As Members of the Committee will know, the concept of cabotage is that of the transport of goods within the sovereignty of a particular territory. Will British ship owners be any more free after the passage of this treaty to carry goods between the ports of member states on the Continent of Europe? Does it take us forward in any way? Are there any restrictions on cabotage which restrain our shipping industry?
Those are simple and straightforward matters. We refer generally to cabotage in relation to shipping but the concept applies also to airlines. The European Community has been committed to the concept of the Common Market for 40 years or so—20 years since we joined—it and is now committed to the concept of a single market, which has now been in effect for more than six months. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Bethell is no longer in the Chamber—I believe that he was here earlier—because he has done sterling work in pressing the Community towards allowing a common market, a single market, in air transport.
As Members of the Committee will know, it is not possible for British Airways, Virgin or British Midland or any other of the enormously successful totally unsubsidised private sector airlines to compete with their continental rivals. For example, they cannot pick up traffic in Paris to take to Dijon or carry traffic within the frontiers of Germany. Why is that so? Why are those restrictions still in place in a common market or a single market? When will they fall?
I know that Her Majesty's Government have been trying enormously hard to deal with those matters for many years. Indeed, I tried unsuccessfully to deal with them when I was the Minister responsible. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, tried unsuccessfully to deal with those matters when he was the Minister responsible before me. I am sure that had he been a transport commissioner—
Lord Clinton-Davis: I was.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Tebbit: My goodness, I did not notice that! I was going to say that he would have dealt with those matters successfully; but I shall have to rephrase that.
I am sure that the noble Lord did his very best to deal with them and to open up the market. Sadly, we have all failed. I was one of the earlier failures. Will the treaty open it up? Will the Treaty of Maastricht suddenly bring us a common market which will bring enormous benefits, of course to the peoples of Europe as consumers, but in particular will bring benefits to the British airline industry which is the most competitive, successful and virtually the only private sector unsubsidised industry within the European Community? That is a Community which has one of its guiding principles that we should ban state aids to industry. Tell that to the directors of Air France, not to mention many of the others.
Why are we still putting up with that? I am happy to give way to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, because he probably knows better than I about these matters.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Is the noble Lord unaware of the fact that the Commission has very successfully brought proceedings in the European Court of Justice against the French on a number of occasions? It has invoked Article 85 of the competition articles very successfully against the French and indeed against others. The noble Lord is quite wrong to assert that somehow or other the French escape from the provisions of the competition articles. That is quite untrue.
Lord Tebbit: If they cannot escape from those provisions, why is it that France and others continue to subsidise their airlines?
Lord Clinton-Davis: That is another matter.
Lord Tebbit: The money is passed to their airlines with the nod of the Commission. Is it the same kind of arrangement about which my noble friend Lord Cockfield told us earlier today where there is a special arrangement between the Germans and the French on agriculture which means that they have vetos on those matters while the rest of us do not? What is it that is now restraining free and open competition in the airline markets?
If the treaty were working, we should have had that free and open competition years ago. Will this treaty make that happen? I am anxious that it should happen. When I fly to Edinburgh I should like to be able to choose whether to fly on British Airways, British Midland, Air France or Lufthansa, if they chose to provide those services. That is what an open and common market is about. Does this treaty advance that?
I turn to Amendment No. 35 relating to Article 3(n) which concerns the encouragement of the establishment and development of trans-European networks. When the treaty was first brought home in triumph from Maastricht when I was still in the House of Commons, there was a delicious moment when I asked innocently—because all my questions are
542
innocent—what is a trans-European network? Those who brought home the treaty were unable to tell me what it was. I found that extraordinary. They were in favour of those networks without knowing what they were. I am still not entirely clear in my mind as to what is the lucid and clear definition of trans-European networks. What is it that defines a trans-European network?
We should benefit from a definition. If we were discussing a conventional piece of legislation, there would be a definitions clause somewhere in the Bill. If such an expression as "trans-European network" had been used and it was unfamiliar, it would be defined. It is not so defined here. What is it? We can guess a little about what those things are but I should like the matter to be quite clear.
Under Title 12 we should look also at Article 129b.
Lord Swinfen: Is the noble Lord, Lord Harris, trying to address the Committee from a sedentary position?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Strangely enough, I am not. I am following with the closest attention the extremely interesting speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit.
Lord Tebbit: I am grateful for that because I always follow the speeches of the noble Lord. Lord Harris, with great attention, too, for I have learnt already that it is not infrequently possible that I may learn something from him.
Article 129b refers to trans-European networks and refers to them in the areas of transport, telecommunications and energy infrastructures. Those are broad terms. How are they confined? Does "telecommunications" mean all forms of communications by cable, wire or radio? Is there some limitation on it? Is it the public telephone systems? Is it private circuits? I should remind Members of the Committee that I am a director of British Telecom plc, but I speak entirely for myself this evening and not in any way for that company. Are there powers which will affect the provision of private networks of telecommunications? Are there powers which could affect those new organisations such as Syncordia or British Telecom and their rivals on the Continent also? Does that mean that we shall, sooner rather than later, see proper competition in the field of telecommunications on the continent of Europe as well as in the United Kingdom? Does it mean that, had this treaty been in operation at the moment of German unification, the scandalous way in which, upon the bringing into the European Community of a new nation—East Germany—the telephone system of East Germany was merely annexed by the West German telephone company, without other telephone businesses in the European Community being given the opportunity to take it over or enter into partnership with it, would have been prevented? If I could be assured of that, my heart might warm a little to the treaty. If not, I fear that it will remain as cold as ice.
We know, of course, that Germany is an exception to the treaty. She has given herself an opt out from the provisions of the single currency. We know that she

543
has an opt out from the Treaty of Rome in that she can do private trade deals with the United States and so far as I know has not been referred to the court for those things. Would this treaty have prevented that anti-competitive act?
We should also explore whether this provision will give any powers to the Commission which it does not already have in relation to the powers of the regulator of our telecommunications industry; that is, Oftel. Is there any way in which the power over telecommunications networks within Europe can affect the regulation of our industry? Could it affect the operations of British Telecom and Cable and Wireless, which are being pushed into Europe reluctantly, against the protectionism of those who signed the Treaty of Rome so long before we did? Will it be a helpful influence or an unhelpful influence?
The measure is broadly drawn. I do not see that it could have any relevance to air traffic control. Could it have any relevance to air traffic control? Are there any powers here? After all, air traffic control is the very embodiment of an international network. Is it included? Are there any powers here? I do not know. The purpose of a probing amendment is that we should be informed and find out.
Does Article 129c give powers to subsidise? It would seem to do so as I read paragraph 1 at the third indent. Are my friends in the Government in favour of those powers to subsidise, or would they regard that as another example of—to use the phrase of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister—"muddleheaded meddling" by the muddle-heads, presumably in the Commission, who meddle, according to the Prime Minister, who was in Eurosceptic mode when he said those things? I should like to know the answer. How are those powers to subsidise constrained, except by the observation to which I heard the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, refer that the Community's activities,
"shall take into account the potential economic viability of the projects".
I should have thought that whether the projects were viable was the overriding principle. It is not just a matter to be taken into account. It is a matter of prime importance.
Does Article 129c give powers to enforce standards in telecommunications? It appears that it might. Does that mean that we could have enforced a Eurostandard, for example, for mobile telephone systems? It might not be at all a bad idea to have a European standard for mobile telephone systems; but is that a gift which would come with this treaty, or is it a gift which would be denied to us?
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, also raised the question of the relationship with things such as road planning. I realise that it was an environmental question which gave rise to the interference which we suffered recently over the extension to the M.27. My noble friend will know that it is hoped that in 1996 there will commence the construction of the north Birmingham relief road which will be the first private sector toll road in the United Kingdom. Will the Community have any role in relation to that road on
544
environmental grounds, technical grounds or any other grounds, or can we proceed with it entirely as a subsidiary matter?
I turn finally to Amendments Nos. 75 to 78 which relate to Article 75 on page 15. My noble friend Lady Chalker will correct me, I am sure, if I am wrong, but I believe that these provisions are broadly, if not entirely, unchanged from the existing form of the Treaty of Rome; but, as I understand it, the important change—these are important powers, and I shall just refresh the minds of Members of the Committee because I can see that my noble friend, as I do, has to scratch around a little through this complex treaty to find the right place—includes, for example:
"measures to improve transport safety; any other appropriate provisions".
I wonder whether one would get away with that sort of provision in British domestic legislation without a pretty rough ride. "Any other appropriate provisions", well, I should have enjoyed putting a catch-all provision of that kind into one or two pieces of legislation that I took through the other place, but I was never allowed to get away with it. But the big difference, as I understand it, is that these matters are now subject under the treaty to qualified majority voting.
Then there is,
"measures to improve transport safety".
We have an extraordinarily well developed system here of monitoring transport safety, and not least air transport safety. The CAA and the Air Registration Board are examples of British institutions which have been enormously successful. The ARB is accorded a respect by the American aviation airworthiness authorities which is not accorded to any other organisation in the world outside the United States. It is an organisation which is concerned with transport safety. I should be much reassured if my noble friend could tell me that there is no provision here which would or could affect the work of the ARB, particularly as this measure is now subject to qualified majority voting.
Having seen some of the things which have happened in other airworthiness authorities, I would be much happier, as a former professional pilot and as a current air transport passenger, with the knowledge that the Air Registration Board retained its powers in full and that they could not be interfered with in any way by this treaty. I accept that these may be the nightmare fears of little children dismissed by my noble friend Lady Chalker on the passage of the Single European Act in relation to the use of the veto. She dismissed those fears again on Second Reading in relation to the use of the veto. Just in order that my little head should sleep more securely, I should be glad if she could give me reassurance on these matters.
Lord Monson: I wish to speak briefly to Article 75 which is the subject, coincidentally, of Amendments Nos. 75, 76 and 78. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, alluded to Article 75 in part, but I wish to go a little further into it. It provides that the Council shall lay down,
"the conditions under which non-resident carriers may operate transport services within a Member State".

545
That sounds reasonable enough in principle provided the power is used to ensure a level playing field and not to tilt a level playing field. Will, for example, subsidised Greek road transport be competing fairly with non-subsidised British hauliers when they both operate, as eventually they will, in a country such as Germany? Article 75 also allows the council to lay down,
"common rules applicable to international transport to or from the territory of a Member State or passing across the territory of one or more Member States".
That seems to open the door to creeping, or even accelerated, protectionism. I remember well a few years ago when air fares between London and Geneva and London and Zurich were considerably lower than air fares between London and Lyons, London and Turin and London. and Stuttgart. Now the position is a little better: the differentials are not so great. However, there is no telling whether the former situation might not recur because the French and the Germans want to protect their railways. The Swiss do not run international railways and so it does not worry them. I feel that this measure could be used to block in some way cheap air fares between Britain and the United States, for example, and between Britain and Australia.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, I am unhappy—hence Amendment No. 76—about the phrase "any other appropriate provisions". The phrase is far too wide, vague and all embracing. I do not know what will happen when the European Court gets its hands on the phrase. We shall see appropriate provisions included in no uncertain fashion.
Lord Aldington: I hope I may interrupt the noble Lord. Does he realise that Article 75 is in the original Treaty of Rome draft? All his fears on the Maastricht Treaty that he is now introducing to the Committee seem to me more applicable to what has been happening since 1956.
Lord Monson: I believe the noble Lord forgets that this is now to be the subject of majority voting. We shall not have the veto any longer. That is the point. As regards transport safety, the Committee will be aware that even before the treaty is ratified, a directive has been pushed through harmonising laws on seat-belts throughout the member states. That is extraordinary given that seat-belts are as much a matter for national parliaments as licensing laws or the permitted opening hours of theatres and cinemas. Every American and Australian state, and, as far as I know, every Canadian province, has its own different laws on seat-belts—
Lord Hacking: That is not true.
Lord Monson: The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, interrupts from a sedentary position. He may be right about Canada, but he is certainly not right about the United States or Australia. It seems to me that we are rushing headlong not merely into a federal super state but, what is far worse, into a unitary super state. It makes a mockery of the principle of subsidiarity but now it is part of the acquis communautaire and it would be difficult to return this particular power to nation states.
Lord Clinton-Davis: This has been a strange debate, I must say. Under the guise of putting a number of questions, some of them germane and others not, the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, sought to raise a whole variety of issues. It is not for me to reply to those specific points; that is for the Minister. However, t wish to make a few general points.
The value of the provisions in the Maastricht. Treaty dealing with the trans-European networks, although they trouble the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit., greatly, is that they give a real stimulus to the possibility of proceeding more rapidly with legislation in this field than has proved to be the case in the past. I had the honour to serve on the Commission. That went unnoticed as far as the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. was concerned. I have always felt I was a household name, but only in my own household. The great value of the single market legislation, in which the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, played so substantial a role, was not the aim generally to provide a moral fillip but rather that it created the possibility, through Article 100a, of making a substantial impact upon the legislative process which otherwise would not have been available. I believe the same applies in large measure to the provisions we are making here.
The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, talks about his inability to understand what a trans-European network is or his inability to obtain any information about it. I must say that in the transport sector people have been talking about trans-European networks for a long time. We were seeking to deal with those issues in a pretty unsatisfactory way through the period 1985 to 1987. Up to that time what had happened very largely—
The Earl of Onslow: The noble Lord is an ex-transport commissioner. I also wish to know what a trans-European network is. He, above all people, must know what it is. Will he please give a small and accurate description?
Lord Clinton-Davis: With the greatest respect, I am not sure what the purpose of that intervention was. I was just about to deal with the point. The noble Lord,Lord Tebbit, raised it and all the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, has done is to reiterate the question, which takes up more time. I believe that a trans-European network is not capable of simple definition but it is something which enables a greater co-ordination of transport services within the Community to take place to the better advantage of the Community as a whole. For example, the Channel link is clearly a trans-European network because it facilitates transport between the United Kingdom, and indeed other peripheral areas, and the rest of the Continent. All that this provision does in any event is to help to achieve the objectives and to enable citizens of the Union, economic operators and regional and local communities to derive full benefit from the setting up of an area without internal frontiers. The Community shall contribute to the establishment and development of trans-European networks in the areas of transport, telecommunications and energy infrastructure.

547
The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, is entitled to mention the original treaty. There were transport articles inscribed in the original treaty which actually provided in part for qualified majority voting. However, the transport Ministers decided that they would not invoke that provision. That may have been because they felt that certain dangers attached to it. Nevertheless, the fact remains that this is what they sought to do in the original treaty, but rather unsuccessfully.
I believe that it is fair to say that over the years transport Ministers seemed to hone inertia into a fine art. They achieved very little until they were taken to court by the European Parliament in the famous case against the Transport Council which enabled the court to adjudge that they had failed in their duty. I believe that from that time onwards considerable progress has been made in the transport sector which would not otherwise have been possible.
Here we are dealing with transport infrastructure matters, which are not dealt with specifically in the Treaty of Rome. For a very long time Ministers refused to recognise the importance of transport infrastructure. They preferred to see matters simply in national terms. I remember a Minister saying: "Why should we contribute to European Community transport infrastructure when we have enough on our plate? We have a lot of provision to make in our own country". I understand that point of view. However, if we are trying to build a Community and a single market we cannot do that without the transport wherewithal to carry goods and people across the Community, and for that one needs a transport infrastructure. That is the logic behind these provisions.
9 p.m.
Lord Tebbit: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I believe that he will recollect that I am not wholly opposed to much of what he is saying. I hope that he will be able to tell me from his experience whether he believes that this treaty will, for example, prevent the German authorities from imposing charges on motorways which in effect bear only upon non-German road transport. He has given a nice loose definition of a trans-national network. Does an oil pipeline fall into that category?
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am not going to become involved in hypothetical situations. So far as concerns the noble Lord, I am seeking first to set the general pattern as to why it is important to give a fillip to these concepts. As regards the question of whether a specific German practice would or would not fall within this, one has to deal with the situation as it arises rather than consider hypothetical situations.
The noble Lord fails to take into account another important factor. Increasingly in the field of transport the Commission has not invoked the transport articles but has taken a deliberate decision to invoke competition articles in order to buttress its policies. I should have thought that the noble Lord would be in favour of that. Indeed, if German authorities, or
548
French authorities, decided to take anti-competitive action, unless the Ministers sitting in their Transport Council were prepared to come to the conclusion that those practices were to be insulated from the competition articles, the competition articles would apply. Increasingly that is the way in which conduct which is completely contrary to the philosophy of the Treaty of Rome needs to be prohibited and will be prohibited.
The interesting aspect of the competition articles is that they fall right across the philosophy of the noble Lord in that sense because they represent a Community policy. That is a Community policy which is designed to ensure that the best commercial practices are undertaken within the whole Community. What is more, it provides undertakings as well as governments with remedies which are not available elsewhere.
The noble Lord will, of course, disagree with my conclusions, but I happen to believe that what is invoked here will facilitate the desirable aim of being able to bring about these trans-European networks in the fields of transport, telecommunications and energy infrastructure. That is not wholly new. That is what the Commission has been grappling with for many years, sometimes successfully and sometimes not.
It is worth saying in parenthesis that the Commission has had considerable success over the course of the past few weeks in persuading Ministers to make a great deal of progress in the field of cabotage, to which the noble Lord referred in respect of road haulage. They have successfully accomplished considerable putative reforms in the field of telecommunications. Achievements have been recorded over the past few days. Where the Commission has failed—and I recognise that I was part of that failure—was in its inability to persuade the Greeks to ensure that cabotage would apply to shipping. However, that is a matter which arises from the original Rome treaty, the Single European Act and all the rest of it. It is not new.
I believe that in those respects the Maastricht Treaty makes a contribution towards the enactment of policies which I believe will cause greater liberalisation or fairer competition to take effect governed by sensible regulations. One does need sensible regulation in a number of fields to which the noble Lord referred specifically, such as air traffic control.
I do not see that the Commission or the Community have any interest in making the Commission, for example, an air traffic regulatory body. Nor has the Commission such an interest. However, it has, and has always had, some interest in elements of safety. One cannot talk of liberalisation of air transport and not be concerned about safety. I used to take great offence when Ministers said that the Commission had no competence in that field and ought to stay outside their discussions, which were under EUROCONTROL. That is nonsense. I believe that the Commission has the ability to intervene in these matters in a largely advisory capacity. However, in some respects—again I do not propose to define them—it also ensures that regulation is enacted in that field.

549
I wish to say a few words about the environment. I am surprised that my noble friend Lord Stoddart referred to the planning provisions in the way that he did. If he looks carefully at Articles 130R to T of the Single European Act which were somewhat changed—they deal with the environment—he will see that the Council is required to act unanimously in a number of matters including measures concerning town and country planning. But of course the environmental impact assessment directive—I had the honour to be involved with that—was agreed unanimously by the 12 member states including the Government of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher. If they objected so much to the precepts that were set out, I wonder why they did not become more aggressive about undermining the directive before it became law. Why did they not take steps to amend it further? They chose not to do so. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, was a Member of that Government and must take full responsibility for the decision enabling that provision—I believe that it was a sensible provision—to become the law of the Community. By that law we are bound.
Lord Jay: Before the Minister replies, I wish to express the hope that she will answer one specific question which was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit.
First, he asked whether the issues of transport and communication networks, which we are undoubtedly discussing, came within the area of the subsidiarity article which distinguishes between issues which are within the exclusive competence of the Commission and those which are not. I do not propose to enter into the general argument on subsidiarity because I understand that we shall discuss it on Monday of next week. But since we are discussing transport, communications and so on, it is reasonable to ask into which of those two fields those issues fall.
Secondly, I make a comment arising out of some of the remarks of my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis. He painted an inviting picture of the wonderful principles of competition impartially applied to all parts of the Community under the treaty. I am sure that he is sincere and has great knowledge of what is happening. However, I could not help recalling a somewhat different version of one incident, I think four years ago, concerning the Renault company in France.
My information comes from the Economist, which may be wrong, like many of us. However, its account was that Renault was suffering from a capital debt of something like £1 billion sterling and the French Government proposed to write off a large proportion of that debt. Some people considered that that amounted fairly obviously to a subsidy to the Renault company. Sir Leon Brittan, who was then the Commissioner for Competition, very rightly applied himself to the issue and put forward proposals for a considerable reduction in the extent of the debt which the French Government were entitled to write off. Then, according to the Economist, M. Rocard—noble Lords will recall that he was then the French Prime Minister—made a confidential approach to M. Delors, the President of the Commission. As a result of that, without knowledge of the unfortunate Sir
550
Leon Brittan, M. Delors presented a proposal at the next meeting of the Commission which gave a decision which was extremely generous to the Renault company and the French Government of which Sir Leon Brittan strongly disapproved.
That is the account given in the Economist newspaper. I can give the reference to my noble friend if he wishes. However, in this whole matter we should pay attention to realities as well as to the various expressions of good intentions which we find written in all the documents. I cannot assure the Committee with certainty that those are the true facts; but they have a ring of truth to me.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: It has been an interesting group of amendments led by Amendment No. 27 concerning Article 3(f). At least this group of amendments is shorter and therefore more focused However, that has not in any way reduced the number of questions being asked. Bearing in mind that we have four more groups to debate before 11 o'clock tonight, I shall be as brief and succinct as I can in replying.
Many of the points made—
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I wonder whether my noble friend will give way?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: I have hardly begun.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I think that my noble friend is a little optimistic if she expects to finish by 11 o'clock when there was a Statement which lasted for an hour. The arrangement was that Statements would amount to overtime.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: I believe that that is a matter for the proper channels, not for me. I shall take what advice I am given by the government Chief Whip. I should now like to try to answer some of the points that have been put in the debate.
I started to say, and I repeat, that many of the points which have been made in relation to the detailed amendments in the previous group—that is on industry, research, development and other chapters of the treaty—also apply to the amendments grouped under this heading. But not all action in the areas under discussion in this group should be seen as an innovation introduced by the Maastricht Treaty. I believe that that was made perfectly clear in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. In all cases, it was already possible under the provisions of the Treaty of Rome and the Single European Act, and certain action has already been undertaken.
As the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said, this group covers three topics: an amendment introduced at Maastricht to the transport chapter of the Treaty of Rome (replacing the old Article 75); the new chapter on trans-European networks, which I shall define in a moment (Articles 129b, 129c and 129d); and Article 3(t) which mentions the areas of energy, tourism and civil protection.
Let me begin with transport policy and Amendment No. 27, referring to Article 3(0 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and other

551
amendments which refer to sections of Article 75, as amended at Maastricht. This article is concerned with transport policy and introduces small changes to the Treaty of Rome, primarily to introduce the European Parliament's co-operation procedure (Article 189c), which we discussed earlier this week, to this sector, and to introduce the possibility of transport safety measures at a European level. Given the international nature of much of the transport field—to which I shall refer in a moment in answer to questions—it is natural that the Community should be involved in this area. Indeed, it has already been so for many years, as I well remember from when I served as Minister of State for transport in the Government of my noble friend Lady Thatcher.
We see considerable advantage in adopting measures which liberalise the Community's transport markets. Many such measures—included in the Commission's 1985 White Paper—are now agreed. UK transport businesses operate now in our own more liberal market and they are well placed to take advantage of the opportunities elsewhere in the Community.
I sincerely hope that Members of the Committee would not wish to block the considerable achievements of the single market in this important area. I accept that their amendments on this part of the Bill are probing amendments and therefore I suspect that they may not be pressed to a vote.
Now let me turn to the vexed question of what is a trans-European network, a matter which so bothered my noble friend Lord Tebbit. Trans-European networks are concerned with plugging gaps in infrastructure which could inhibit the efficient working of the single market. They include both physical projects, providing necessary transport links, and technical ones such as ensuring the inter-operability of the telecommunications systems. My noble friend Lord Tebbit asked me about mobile telephones. I can only say to him that every businessman I have ever spoken to about the inoperability between countries in Europe of the mobile telephones has said: "Please use the Community to get on and make sure that each can operate to the other". That is exactly what TEN is all about. It is one example among many, I tell my noble friend, which is there to help.
Lord Tebbit: My noble friend will recollect that that is a point which I made, that it would be welcome if we could establish such a thing. I have to say that most people in the industry are immensely mistrustful of whether the organisations of the Community would do it in a manner which is fair, or whether they would go off again on another barmy escapade like the high definition television one.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: If they go off on any barmy escapade, the thing to do is to make sure that the problem is taken up by the member states. I shall make an offer to my noble friend Lord Tebbit which I hope he will take up. I am advised that he will not take it up anyway, but let me make it in good faith. If he finds, as a director of British Telecom, things which
552
he thinks are going against the interests of the consumer in using telecommunications—and I particularly put it this way—then I hope he will tell me and other Ministers, so that we may take it up. We should be using the facility of the Maastricht Treaty and this Bill to do exactly that. I say that to my noble friend perfectly genuinely. I hope he will not interrupt me again. I am trying to get on with this Answer.
Having, I hope, put my noble friend's mind at rest a little, let me make one or two points about the amendments put down by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. The provisions in Articles 129b to 129d are intended to provide the Community with the means to plug those gaps. But we already have the power in our Community under the Treaty of Rome to fund infrastructure projects through the provisions of the transport chapter and by the use of structural funds. But it is helpful, as the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, indicated, to clarify the purposes of such projects and the means by which they might be adopted.
Under the terms of the treaty, Community action must take place within a framework of open and competitive markets—that was the phraseology used by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and in the treaty—and must ensure that the networks are technologically compatible, and must take account (as was read out, again by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart) of the potential economic viability of any projects. That is all good, sound common sense. It is exactly what those who are involved in businesses, and indeed in government, seek to pursue. I see no reason for seeing ghosts in the wording of these articles, as some noble Lords have done.
In Amendment No. 157, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart and my noble friend Lord Tebbit seek to eliminate from the Bill the very clause on Council approval for measures to develop the trans-European networks. But Article 129d tries to tighten up the consultation procedures by requiring Council approval for all the proposals as well as consultation with other Community institutions. I believe that that is a welcome and sensible provision. I hope that it is indeed a probing amendment.
I was also asked about Article 3(t), which is the subject of Amendment No. 41. Unlike the other paragraphs of Article 3, 3(t) does not look forward to articles later in the treaty conferring substantial powers to deal with the matters specified. No such powers were inserted into the Treaty of Rome at Maastricht. Article 3(t) simply notes that these are fields in which the Community is also involved, and indeed was already involved. The declaration of the conference makes it clear that the specific provisions on these subjects will be considered in 1996. It is not a foregone conclusion that they will be agreed nor, if any are agreed, what they will be. But it concentrates our minds on a matter that we are already considering together in the normal course of our work in the European market.
If action relating to those fields covered by 3(t) is proposed, it will have to be taken under existing powers. Let me give the Committee an example. There is already a directive on package holidays adopted

553
under Article 100a of the Treaty of Rome. It is primarily a measure of consumer protection, but it also has relevance to tourism. That is now covered by the treaty, as the Bill covers the Maastricht Treaty.
There are a number of detailed questions that I want to try to answer briefly. I cannot add to what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said about subsidiarny and exclusive competence in answer to my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch. We are to have a major debate on that point on Monday. I believe that I would be taking the Committee's time unnecessarily tonight if I were to delve into it. It would only give rise to: "What about this? What about that?", and we would go on for quite a long while to come.
In all these measures perhaps I may assure the Committee that in general the aim is to pump-prime, to conduct feasibility studies, to get things moving forward and to offer loan guarantees which will attract private sector finance. There may be one or two exceptional cases in which a given project is not evidently economically viable in the short term; otherwise the market would cope without any intervention. That is why the three words "take into account" were put into the Maastricht Treaty. I believe it to be an appropriate phrase.
My noble friend Lord Tebbit also asked about rules for member states to draw up requiring the approval of the member state concerned. That is very clearly stated in Article 129d. I do not believe that it should hold any of the anxieties to which my noble friend referred.
My noble friend went on to ask me a number of questions about telecommunications. I believe that there has been quite a notable success in the European Community in opening up the national monopolies—the PTTs as they are known—using Article 90. There is no doubt that many of the successes have been pushed by this country, and very wisely too. The first success was in the telecoms terminal equipment, and later the telecoms services were opened up, apart from voice telephoning. Now there is a further liberalisation package in train. Perhaps it would be useful to my noble friend if I were to arrange for him to have a note on the detail of that package from the Department of Trade and Industry.
My noble friend also asked me about telecoms standards under Article 129; that is the single market standard for telecoms under Article 100A. Whenever possible the Commission seeks mutual recognition of national standards, although in time a single standard may come. That is quite right.
My noble friend also asked me about cabotage and air liberalisation. I noted with interest his support for more Community powers and action to liberalise transport markets. I can tell him already that real progress has been made. There are three air liberalisation packages. Also, only last week the road haulage industry found it possible to have liberalisation in its work too. That is something that this country has long sought. I notice the support for further Community action and powers in such areas.
554
Nobody will go wild with such powers but they will seek to use them where it is in the interests of industry and the consumer to do so.
I noted that my noble friend was amused by the possibility of action against the French airlines. believe he said that there were plans to aid Air France illegally. Action was taken successfully just recently against the plans to recapitalise Air France. That is why I ask my noble friend and others like him to be a little more selective in the targets that they put up for target practice. There are some real villains, but if we mask the real villains by putting out a number of stories picked up from newspapers and other places, we have less chance of getting at them. I agree wholeheartedly with him in wanting to deal IA with real villains and I shall do my best to do so.
In regard to air traffic control, that can be covered if member states agree. They have the power to agree. But the Commission, for its part, is keen to improve the present situation in which national systems are incompatible and inefficient. Anybody who sits inside a plane at the end of a runway in any airport knows how much we long for better European air traffic control. Anything that we can do within the Community to bring that about will surely be welcomed by the passenger and the businessman.
The noble Lord asked about the Air Registration Board. I want to check its position. I have a thought in my head in that regard. However, I would not like him to have nightmares if I get it wrong and I wish him to sleep securely in his bed tonight. Therefore I shall write to him when I have checked the information.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, asked about energy. I can assure him that the Maastricht Treaty does not introduce new specific provisions in the field of energy and there are no new powers which will gain control over North Sea oil. I hope that that answer will suffice.
I was asked also about seat-belts—a subject near to my heart. Frankly, I cannot see where else one can possibly put a seat-belt in a car. We have them in the front and in the back; we should use them, and by doing so this country has cut road accident casualties dramatically. I understand also that seat-belts, their fittings and the type of belt are matters that were agreed under the single market standards in Article 100A. Therefore, they do not need to be affected further.
It has been an interesting debate. There was an exchange between my noble friend Lord Tebbit and the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, regarding lorry charges on German motorways. Without a Community it would not be possible to achieve an equitable conclusion, which we reached on the matter last week. I too am interested in the north Birmingham relief road. Perhaps I may point out that it is not the first toll road system to be introduced in this country because we have the Dartford Bridge. That is tolled privately, run privately and was built privately. I hope that the north Birmingham relief road will be as much of a success as the Dartford Bridge. l welcome the determination to fund it through private capital.
There are many more points one could raise in regard to the transport and telecommunications

555
network. But perhaps I may conclude by saying that I was glad to see that from the summit in Copenhagen this week a specific conclusion was reached which concerned an efficient network and communications infrastructure. I include two points only: first, making it easier and cheaper for people, goods and services to move around will increase the competitiveness of the European economy; secondly, an efficient infrastructure network will be of inestimable value for regional planning and economic and social cohesion.
I know that some of those words are not specifically to the Committee's liking. But the intention is right for the passenger and the British manufacturer. Having cleared the way just a week ago for the full liberalisation of the activities of road hauliers, which our road hauliers have earnestly wanted for many years, I believe that transportation, telecoms and energy—the topics covered by the amendments—are on the right track. I hope that the noble Lord will not press Amendment No. 27 to a vote. If he does so, I ask the Committee to resist it.
9.30 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: Perhaps my noble friend can help me. This is a genuine question and not a quest for knowledge. Our petrol is cheaper than French petrol; our diesel is more expensive than French diesel. I believe that there are similar differences in fuel prices in various other parts of the European Community. Will there be any directives or encouragement to equalise or harmonise the price of road fuel within the Community?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: As the price of road fuel is mainly affected by fiscal decisions, which are the decisions of the government of each member state, I cannot see that harmonisation is likely to advance one iota down that route.
Lord Monson: I did not think it fair to burden the noble Baroness with too many questions at once. However, she will be aware that Article 3(f), providing for a common policy in the sphere of transport, as well as that part of Article 75 relating to transport policy, could he used by other member states to argue that the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland ought to be obliged to drive on the right-hand side of the road like the rest of the Community. Is it not the case that if a majority of member states were to take that view, if the treaty were ratified Britain would no longer have the power of veto?
The Minister did not reply to my query about the common rules applicable to international transport to and from or across the territory of other member states. That is quite understandable in view of all the other questions that she had to deal with. Is the Minister certain that the more protectionist members of the Community—we know which countries are by nature protectionist—will not use that to try to impede cheap flights from Britain to Australia, the Far East or North America? As she will be well aware, in Britain long distance air transport is cheaper than in any other Community country.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: I do not believe there is any truth in whatever rumour the noble Lord may have heard about Britain being forced to drive on the right. I remember that point coming up in 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1985 when I was in the Department of Transport. It was not true then, and it is not true now. We could not be forced to drive on the right.
So far as the noble Lord's other question is concerned, I shall look in detail at what he has said and write to him.
Lord Tebbit: Perhaps my noble friend will accept from me that what she has said about some of the measures that have been taken, not least through the Single European Act, towards the creation of a single market has my complete support. I should like to thank her and her colleagues for the work that they have done in that respect. After all, that was why I and my noble friend Lady Thatcher, the then Prime Minister, accepted that Britain would have to sacrifice some degree of control over its own affairs in order to achieve a single market. We believed that that would be a worthwhile exchange. Up to now, I have had considerable doubts about how that has worked out, but if we continue to make progress in forcing our protectionist continental partners to open their markets, I shall be delighted.
Finally, I should like to offer the consumers of Germany, France, Portugal and Spain one simple thing the ability to enjoy the same levels of price and quality in telephone services that we enjoy here. I know that the anti-British brigade do not like that. They must ask themselves why we have an open and competitive market and others will not allow our companies to compete with theirs.
I should also like to express my thanks to the Minister for what she said about the north Birmingham relief road. What she forgot to say was whether there were any powers by which the Community could interfere in that road design, construction or routing.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I do not know whether the noble Baroness wishes to answer the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. If she wishes to do so, I shall sit down.
Baroness Seear: I cannot imagine that she does.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: It is for the noble Baroness, not for the Liberal Benches, to answer. The Liberal Benches appear to think that this is all a great joke. I assure them that it is by no means a great joke. I am rather surprised that the Liberal Benches should be so reluctant to discuss this very important treaty.
Lord Tordoff: Perhaps I may say—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Perhaps I may be allowed to continue. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, sought to show that we should not be discussing this treaty in detail. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and to the Committee that noble Lords have every right and duty to discuss the treaty in the detail that they wish. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and other Members of the Committee, that one of the reasons that was given by the Prime Minister for not

557
having a referendum was that in his view the best place to discuss the treaty was Parliament. Your Lordships' House is still part of the British Parliament. It therefore has the right and duty to discuss matters involving all kinds of issues which are important to our country. I am only sorry that the Liberal Party should appear not to want to discuss them, and indeed should seek to prevent other people from discussing them. I hope that we shall have no more of that. Having said that—
Lord Tordoff: I thought that I had explained earlier that we have great difficulty in discussing the issues. I would be delighted to discuss the issues if we were actually discussing the amendments before us. But we are not discussing the amendments before us. We are having Second Reading speeches on the generality of the subject. It is extremely difficult for us to have specific discussions on the amendments before us. If we were going through the Maastricht Treaty line by line, that might he a good way of doing it. But we are not doing that. We are at the Committee stage of a Bill, and we are discussing 400 and heaven knows how many amendments. But apparently we are not discussing those amendments and the matter becomes very complicated.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: The noble Lord is perfectly well aware that for technical reasons we cannot discuss the treaty. If we could do that, and if we could put down amendments, then it would be very easy. But we cannot do that. We have to discuss the Bill, and to discuss the treaty we have to go through all kinds of procedures. The treaty should be discussed. I would hope that we are helping the Committee, not hindering it, by assisting it to discuss urgent and important matters.
I shall not go further into that and I shall not delay the Committee very much longer. We should be grateful to the Minister for all the information that she has given us and for replying to everything in detail. It was certainly not a Second Reading speech, if I may say so. It was a very good Committee speech which dealt in detail with all the matters that were raised by Members of the Committee. We are grateful for that—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon:—and because she has done so I need to raise only one further query. If the other members, by qualified majority, decide that we should drive on the right, I hope that she will use the Luxembourg Compromise which she has assured us is still in existence.
My fear about many of these provisions is that they will result in a mass of regulations coming from the Community—I hope that that will not be so—regulations which will injure our industry and may be built on by the home-grown band of officials. I do not ask the noble Baroness to reassure me at this stage, but I hope that that will not happen. We shall read her speech very carefully indeed. If we feel that further amendments are needed at Report stage, we shall, in spite of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, bring them forward. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Strabolgi): Is it your Lordships' pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: No.
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 not moved.]
9.45 p.m.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 1, line 9, after ("II") insert ("except Article 3(i)").
The noble Lord said: The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has asked me to move this amendment which stands in his name. It is grouped with Amendments Nos. 145, 146 and 147. The Committee will be pleased to know that I have made a precis of my speech so that it should be somewhat shorter than it was originally going to be.
After the monetary and fiscal policy aspects of the treaty, the most important part is that which affects social policy. Under the blanket of social policy are such issues as the maximum time, including overtime, that anyone may work in any given period; the minimum wage that any worker may receive; the length of paid and unpaid leave that must be granted to employees; the entitlement to maternity or paternity leave; unemployment benefit; sickness benefit; pension rights; trade union rights; and the role of industrial tribunals. That is a long enough list at this hour of the night, but it will give a flavour of what this part of the Bill is about.
I believe that we would all agree that employees require protection within the law from unscrupulous employers. We accept a proper balance between the rights in law of the employees and the employers. Whether or not we have it correct in the United Kingdom does not form part of this debate.
Hitherto, regulation of the conditions of employment in each member state has been a matter for national governments, with certain issues tempered by specific inter-governmental agreements. What we are now considering is whether that control over social policy, and all that that implies, should in future be vested in the institutions of the Community and not in national parliaments.
I consider that it should remain a national judgment as to how restrictive or generous conditions of employment should be at any one time. I believe that our colleagues in Europe are attempting to operate in isolation from the rest of the world. If the 12 nations traded entirely among themselves then it might not matter how few hours there were in the working week; how high a minimum wage was set or how generous social security benefits were. Those countries could all compete with each other on reasonably level terms.
However, the EC is but a part of Europe and an even smaller part of the world as a whole. By increasing labour costs and the costs of social security that has to be paid by taxpayers and by commercial companies alike, we would make ourselves and the rest of the Community uncompetitive with the trading nations outside the 12. We would lose overseas sales and even be buying from those countries in preference

559
to our own as their goods would be cheaper. That would result in much greater unemployment and a greater call on the social fund.
My right honourable friend the Prime Minister negotiated an opt-out from the social chapter. That opt-out, in my view, is hardly worth the paper on which it is written. The other 11 states can impose the Community social policy on us under the articles which this group of amendments seeks to make unenforceable under United Kingdom law as well as other articles which deal with such matters as health and safety. I beg to move.
The Earl of Onslow: I believe that this is one of the most important matters in the Bill which we have to discuss. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has absolutely correctly identified unit labour costs and the social costs of employing labour. I do not think that it is only the European Community which will have to look at this question. Social security costs are rocketing out of control for perfectly good and right reasons. But the social security budgets of all Western countries such as the United States, ourselves and the Community, are in danger of taking such a large percentage of the wealth creation that damage is likely to be done.
The reason is more simple; we are all living longer. If we were to abolish the taxes on alcohol and tobacco, everybody would die by the age of 65 and the social security budget would come tumbling down, but I do not think that that is a serious proposition. This country has that problem, as has the rest of Europe. Let us remember that the French social security laws were introduced by Marshal Pétain and the Vichy government during the war to try to bribe the French for their defeat in the 1940s, but perhaps that is not totally germane to the argument.
We must encourage and give my right honourable friend the Prime Minister maximum support to keep social costs as low as possible. There is, of course, a difference between the social charge on unit labour costs and the take-home pay in somebody's pocket. In the case of the Hoover factory in Dijon or Lyons—it was one of those two Burgundy towns—the money in the workers' pockets was the same in the two towns concerned but the unit labour costs became so high in France that Hoover moved to Scotland.
German labour costs are so high at the moment that they are forcing German factories to set up in places like Czechoslovakia and Poland to take advantage of the much cheaper labour costs there. It is in nobody's interests that Germany should suffer social upheaval or not be as prosperous as possible. However, let us always remember that one can sell one's goods only to a rich society, not to a poor society. Therefore, it is in everybody's interests that the whole of Europe is as rich as possible and that people in other countries in Europe can spend as much money on our goods as we can spend on French or Italian goods.
If (for whatever reason) we put heavy taxes on labour costs—and there is a difference between unit labour costs and take-home pay—we shall be doing ourselves a major disservice. I hope that we can give
560
my right honourable friend the Prime Minister maximum support in keeping the social costs of the European Community as low as possible.
Lord Richard: Having listened to the two speeches supporting the amendments, I am bound to say that I found them utterly incomprehensible. If one looks at the amendment and at what it seeks to do—presumably, those who tabled the amendment knew what they were doing—one sees that it seeks to delete Article 3(i), which deals with,
"a policy in the social sphere comprising a European Social Fund".
This series of amendments relates to the European Social Fund, to how it operates and the purposes for which it was set up. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the social chapter and nothing whatsoever to do with whether the Prime Minister had a triumph or disaster when he negotiated the British opt-out. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the opt-out itself.
A number of amendments have been tabled for next week under which we can discuss the social chapter and the opt-out from it. Therefore, with great respect to the two noble Lords who have spoken, if the Committee wishes to discuss the European social fund we can do so next week. As a Commissioner who at one stage was responsible for it, I shall be delighted to participate in such a debate. However, I hope that the Committee will forgive me if at this stage I do not move my amendment on the social chapter which I think that we shall reach next Wednesday.
Lord Tebbit: I should like to direct my attention solely to one amendment, Amendment No. 36, which relates to Article 3(o) on page 9, which refers to the policies in relation to,
"a contribution to the attainment of a high level of health protection"—
Viscount Ullswater: I am sorry to have to interrupt my noble friend, but Amendment No. 36 is not grouped with the amendment that we are discussing.
Lord Tebbit: I am sorry. I am a debate ahead.
Viscount Ullswater: It now falls to me to answer in a few words a debate on a subject which has not been raised. I understand how my noble friend Lord Swinfen managed to make his speech because grouped with this is one on Article 118(a), and I think he squeezed into the group on that. I would have to say that I agree with him. We do not believe that the directive on working time was necessary or justified. I think my noble friend realises that we intend to challenge its health and safety legal base in the European Court, if and when it is adopted. We made it clear that the use of the health and safety legal base is completely unjustified for this objective, and is an abuse of the treaty.
Just very briefly, I would say to my noble friend Lord Onslow that of course I look forward to his support when we discuss the social protocol next Wednesday, but I would indicate to him that the chapter on social policy remains untouched in the treaty, which we believe to be quite right. However, I take his point about the social protocol and we shall

561
look forward to hearing what he has to say next week. In the meantime I would ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Onslow: May I apologise to the Committee for seizing the wrong end of the stick with my normal and customary vigour? The noble Lord, Lord Richard, was completely correct in bringing me to a halt and I apologise.
Lord Swinfen: know that the social chapter will be discussed next week, but the social policy is a hook upon which so many other things can be hung by the Commission that could well put up costs of our business and raise the costs of social security in this country that I thought it was worth raising. I still think it was worth raising, but as the hour is late and there seems to be some concern as to whether we might finish by 11 o'clock or shortly afterwards, I will beg the Committee's leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]
Lord Moran Lord Moran moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 1. line 9, after ("II") insert ("except Article 3(k)")
The noble Lord said: I have been asked to introduce this group of amendments dealing with health and the environment, beginning with Amendment No. 32 and including Amendments Nos. 36, 151 and 179–183. As the hour is late, I shall he as brief as is possible. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, will judge that what I say is relevant and that I am speaking about the right subject.
I doubt whether many people in this country appreciate the remarkable scope of the Maastricht Treaty. In our discussions this week some noble Lords have portrayed it as a mere tidying-up exercise to improve the working of the single market. The Government have suggested that it is actually a decentralising measure, which it manifestly is not. As I suggested at Second Reading, it in fact marks a massive transfer of power from national governments to Brussels.
One of those areas of policy which fall under the control of Brussels under the terms of the treaty is health, and another is the environment. The amendments we are discussing cover the appropriate articles in the treaty. These amendments seek to exclude those provisions in the treaty from being applicable and enforceable in Britain. Your Lordships will by now be becoming familiar with Article 3 of the treaty and the many activities listed under that article, which are now to fall within the competence of Brussels.
Article 3(k) lists as being within the competence of Brussels a policy in the sphere of the environment. Article 3(o) exhorts the Community to make a contribution to the attainment of a high level of health protection. Article 129 covers public health and Articles 130(r), 130(s) and 130(t) cover the environment. I think it is important that we remind ourselves that in this Bill we are not dealing with international agreements on specific issues such as health and the environment. If we were, I suspect that most of us
562
would agree that countries, not just in Europe but all over the world, should co-operate in encouraging good public health and preventing the spread of disease. Indeed, they already do just that.
What we are dealing with here, however, is a treaty which, through this Bill, is to carry the force of law within Britain. What is at issue, therefore, is whether matters such as co-operation on health protection between the 12 member states, research into diseases, health information and education, co-ordination of each country's health policies and programmes, co-operation with countries outside the Twelve and co-operation with international health organisations should essentially be covered, the policies decided, and the funds made available, not by the British Government and the British Parliament, but as a matter of law by the Commission and the Council of Ministers in Brussels.
Public health should surely remain the responsibility of national governments. In so far as it can and should be promoted internationally—for example, measures to reduce drug dependency—surely that must be done by voluntary agreement between governments. What seems to me to be undesirable is a supra-government imposing their view by majority voting as regards public health and public health policies on those countries which prefer to do what is proposed in a different manner or not do it at all. Yet that, I understand, is what is proposed in the treaty.
Similar arguments apply to the environment. Under the Maastricht Treaty policies for the environment will be decided by qualified majority vote in the Council of Ministers. Article 130r proposes that the Community, acting as the Community, shall preserve, protect and improve the quality of the environment. It proposes the prudent and rational utilisation of natural resources. It proposes measures at international level to those ends. That all sounds very sensible. However, by paragraph 3 of the same article the Community shall also take account of environmental conditions in the various regions of the Community, the potential benefits and costs of action or lack of action, the economic and social development of the Community as a whole, and the balanced development of its regions.
The article is, I think, of some significance. I should like to ask the Minister whether the Commission in Brussels will be able to rebuke the wealthier nations of the Community for policies of which it disapproves while condoning and even encouraging the same policies in the poorer countries. What may be thought by the Commission to be the prudent arid rational use of resources in one country could be condemned as wasteful if pursued by another. The words in paragraph 3 of the article allow, I suggest, for a prejudiced application of environmental policy from Brussels.
Again, Article 130s gives power to the Commission to propose and for the Council to confirm measures concerning town and country planning. May I ask the Minister whether it is correct that the article permits Brussels to introduce measures which override and replace United Kingdom planning law? Will such measures have to be taken into account in any

563
planning application once the Maastricht Treaty is ratified and this Bill becomes an Act? Will major planning inquiries have to go to Brussels after or before going to the Secretary of State for the Environment?
Under the present terms of the Treaty of Rome the Prime Minister has said that planning applications and planning inquiries, even for major projects, remain the responsibility of the British Government. As Members of the Committee will recall, the Prime Minister reprimanded the then Environment Commissioner in Brussels when he sought to intervene on the M.3 extension. However, under these articles of Maastricht, Brussels could, it seems to me, overrule the Department of the Environment on any future planning proposals similar to the M.3 extension, the line of route for a Thames crossing, or even a simple application for gravel extraction. I ask the Minister how those extensive powers as regards the environment given to Brussels under the Maastricht Treaty square with the Prime Minister's promise of non interference in British planning law.
I give Members of the Committee one further example. Paragraph 2 of Article 130r makes the assertion that the polluter should pay. I am sure that that is right: we all agree. However, paragraph 5 of Article 130s states:
"Without prejudice to the principle that the polluter should pay, if a measure based on the provisions of paragraph 1 involves costs deemed disproportionate for the public authorities of a Member State, the Council shall, in the act adopting that measure, lay down appropriate provisions in the form of: temporary derogations and/or financial support from the Cohesion Fund".
That seems to me to mean that the polluter should pay but that Brussels can suspend the rule if the country in question cannot afford to pay and that Brussels will see to it that in such circumstances the cohesion fund pays the costs.
In practice that would mean that if two identical plants using identical technology, both perhaps 20 years old, were producing what is now considered to be unacceptable effluent, the one in the north European country would have to clean it up at its own expense, whereas the one in the Mediterranean would either have to clean it up at the expense of European taxpayers or would not have to clean it up at all. The result could well be that the one in the north closes down because cleaning up is too expensive whereas the one in the south keeps going and takes the other plant's business. Those articles in the Maastricht Treaty seem to me to permit just that. Surely that must be wrong. I hope that the Minister can tell us what is the Government's view.
I believe that about 1.2 billion ecus were earmarked for environmental projects in 1989–93, many of them channelled through the European regional development fund and the European Investment Bank. Some of that money is well spent but some of the Community's regional projects do a great deal of damage. I give one example. There is the current European Community engineering project in the Missolonghi marshes of Greece where Byron died, which is widely considered to be a scandalous
564
devastation of one of the finest wetland and wildlife sanctuaries in Europe. That is all paid for by Community funds, to which we contribute. Should we not press for far better environmental monitoring of such projects? I beg to move.
Lord Tebbit: I wonder whether I could be advised by my noble friend Lady Chalker as to whether the provisions which are the subject of Amendment No. 36—that is, Article 3(o), which refers to a contribution to the attainment of a high level of health protection —is the provision under which the 48-hour week was forced upon us?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: No.
Lord Tebbit: I am grateful to my noble friend. It is not a matter that I wish to raise in relation to the health of workers in industry generally. I shall await a further opportunity to speak on that matter.
Lord Monson: My noble friend Lord Moran introduced this group of amendments so well that there is not a great deal for me to ask the Minister. However, I should like to home in upon the question of co-operation on health protection.
The various matters covered by these amendments—the co-operation on health protection between the 12 member states, research into disease, co-operation with countries outside the Twelve and co-operation with international health organisations—are all extremely desirable. However, that kind of cooperation takes place at present between this country and the other member states and between Britain and the United States, Canada and Australia on an ad hoc basis. It works perfectly well.
Why do we need a formal institutional framework? What can the Community as a body do better than is being done at present? Health information and education, I should have thought, were the province of national parliaments. As for the co-ordination of each country's health policies and programmes, I find that sinister and insulting. It is sinister because, if the Community were enlarged, for example, by the addition of the Nordic states with their rather puritanical approach to certain matters, they might persuade enough countries that alcohol is dangerous and enforce much higher taxes upon alcoholic drink throughout the Community on the basis that that was co-ordinating each country's approach to health in relation to diseases resulting from the overconsumption of alcohol. Surely that is a matter for national states.
I say insulting, because it implies that national parliaments are composed of lazy and inefficient people who are incapable of protecting the citizens of their own countries. This matter is first and foremost one for national parliaments. It is no business of the Community as a whole.
On the issue of the environment, I realise of course that matters such as the M.3 extension, the objections to the Thames crossing and so on have nothing strictly to do with the Maastricht Treaty. Will the Minister assure me that she and the Government find such interference wholly objectionable and that they will continue to resist it as strongly as they can?
Baroness Hooper: I too should like to make a few remarks about Amendment No. 151. As a Minister in the Department of Health with responsibility for international matters, 1 represented the department at meetings of the Council of Health Ministers. In the early 1980s, when I was a Member of the European Parliament, we complained that health Ministers never met. By the early 1990s, however, the health Ministers were meeting regularly. They had at least two formal meetings a year and some additional informal meetings. That was without any specific mention of health in the treaties, apart, of course, from health and safety at work. It was not the ad hoc arrangement that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, suggests.
It seems to me that health, like the environment, knows no frontiers. A great deal of useful collaborative work has already taken place on the basis of intergovernmental co-operation such as, for example, the Europe against Cancer Campaign which has been referred to. European Community research policy covers the health field. Our pharmaceutical and medical equipment industries are active in the internal market. Above all, our doctors, nurses and health care professionals enjoy freedom of establishment enabling them to work in any Community country. So we already have European Community policies affecting health issues in this country, but there were no parameters to those policies. Due to that, there were worries and the usual scare stories such as, for example, the suggestion that Europe wanted to interfere with our NHS. Something about which I am sure all Members of the Committee could agree is that a national health service should strictly be a national task.
When I asked my fellow health Ministers from Spain, France, the Netherlands and so on about their jobs, I discovered that the vast majority were public health ministers who were in no way involved in running a health service. They were interested only in public health issues. I therefore actively supported the definition of health policy so as to spell it out. I am, in part, responsible for the drafting of Article 129 which, I feel, separates clearly matters with which the European Community could, should and can deal in relation to health policy from those matters which should be dealt with on a national basis.
Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Moran, I consider that this clarification is eminently desirable. It is certainly far from being the sinister introduction of a new policy that was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. It seems to me that it provides a good example of crossing the "t"s and dotting the "i"s. I would be extremely aggrieved if anyone supported Amendment No. 151.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Slynn of Hadley: One of the great achievements of the Single European Act—it may look a small item but it was very important—was that environmental protection was brought in under Article 130r. It was significant that it was decided in the Single European Act that when laying down rules for the new internal market, environmental protection
566
should be given a high priority. I believe that a large number of people in this country were extremely happy that environmental protection should be given such a high profile. It is obvious that much of the pollution in the Community crosses frontiers, be it by air, water or land. There is no way in which that kind of pollution can be dealt with other than on a Community basis. It seems to me that to delete paragraph (k) from Article 3 of the draft treaty would be an unfortunate and indeed a disastrous step as regards the protection of the environment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I was surprised to see this group of amendments on the Marshalled List. I was staggered to hear the noble Lord, Lord Moran, speak to them. The noble Lord is distinguished for his contribution to environmental debates in this Chamber. He played a valuable part in the Environmental Protection Act and he has played a valuable part in the debates on the reports of the European Communities Committee and indeed in the work of the committees of this Chamber. He has played a valuable part in all of our debates on the environment. It is difficult to believe that anyone of his distinction who holds his views could seriously propose that we should take out of our agreement to the treaties Articles 129 and 130r, s and t. I can only repeat that I am staggered by that.
Articles 3(k) and 3(o) are, of course, the paving articles. The meat of this group of amendments is in Title X in the first instance on public health and then in Title XVI on the environment. The Committee should know what Titles X and XVI state. Article 129 states that the Community,
"shall contribute towards ensuring a high level of human health protection by encouraging co-operation between the Member States and, if necessary, lending support to their action. Community action shall be directed towards the prevention of diseases, in particular the major health scourges, including drug dependence, by promoting research into their causes and their transmission, as well as health information and education. Health protection requirements shall form a constituent part of the Community's other policies".
There is no intervention by the Council, the Commission or the Parliament into this country's policies. What is being said here is that disease does not respect boundaries. What is being said here is that there is a role for international action in public health. Any Member of the Committee who gives a moment's thought to that must recognise that that is the case. It is not even as if the Commission were going to take over control of international action on public health. Paragraph 2 of article 129 states:
"Member states shall, in liaison with the Commission, co-ordinate among themselves their policies and programmes in the areas referred to in paragraph 1. The Commission may, in close contact with the Member States, take any useful initiative to promote such co-ordination".
That is not a case of handing over to Brussels those matters which should be the proper concern of this country. I would have thought this is the very minimum of co-ordination between member states and the minimum in terms of the back-up role of the Commission when it is asked to become involved.
Paragraph 3 states that:

567
"The Community and Member States shall foster co-operation with third countries and the competent international organisations in the sphere of public health".
Is the noble Lord, Lord Moran, suggesting that the European Community should not foster co-operation with third countries and with competent international organisations? It beggars belief that we should rely on national frontiers in order to take part in international action in support of public health.
Finally, in paragraph 4, the article states:
"the Council, acting in accordance with the procedure referred to … after consulting the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, shall adopt incentive measures, excluding any harmonization of the laws and regulations of the Member States".
One cannot go further in avoiding interference with our national rights than is provided for in that article, which goes on to say:
"acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission, shall adopt recommendations".
I have not heard any serious suggestion from any supporter of this group of amendments that Article 129 interferes with our national sovereignty. I should have thought that this is a clear example of the provisions of the Maastricht Treaty as additions to the other treaties being all gain and no loss.
Then we come to a point which I should have thought ought to have concerned the noble Lord, Lord Moran, even more closely, namely Title XVI on the environment—Articles 130r, 130s and 130t. The Committee will be relieved to know that I do not wish to read those in the same detail as I read the article on public health because the principle is the same.
On every issue about which the noble Lord, Lord Moran, and I have been concerned and have been on the same side, for example, such as that reported in today's newspapers relating to the quality of water at bathing beaches, who has taken the initiative? Who has taken the initiative in seeing that the quality of water at bathing beaches is satisfactory? It may be thought a trivial matter, but I do not believe that it is, and it is a good example. It is not the British Government who have taken the initiative. The British Government put up blue flags, which mean that there are adequate toilet facilities. The European Community has taken proper steps to ensure that water quality is adequately controlled. Those who read this morning's newspapers will see that the British Government and the National Rivers Authority have not done too badly. We have improved the quality of our bathing beaches. However, the initiative has been taken by the European Community, entirely properly, on the basis of directions.
Lord Monson: Does the noble Lord not agree that if the British people had felt so strongly about their bathing beaches, they only had to vote into power a government who promised to do something about it? The fact that they chose not to do so indicates that they had more important matters on their minds.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The British people, in their wisdom—which I respect perhaps rather more than the noble Lord, Lord Monson—have voted into power a series of governments, Labour and
568
Conservative, all of whom have taken the entirely rational and sensible view that there are issues of public health and the environment which are better dealt with at a European level than at a national level. That is the basis on which we on these Benches support Title XVI as we supported the title on public health.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: Does the noble Lord believe that the people of this country might regret that decision when they find their water bills coming in for the new super water we are going to have?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: A few years ago I spent many hours on the Water Bill which dealt with the privatisation of water. One of the points on which there was full agreement, not merely between the Front Benches but among all those who took an interest in the quality as well as the cost of our water—because of course there is a trade-off between quality and cost—was that there needed to be an improvement in the quality of water for health and aesthetic reasons. That is recognised by the water industry. It is recognised by the Government. It is recognised by the National Rivers Authority, and it is recognised by the Office of Water Services. Although in my view this country took a wrong decision to privatise water, the one factor that was right about that decision was that we recognised the value of the European contribution.
A number of noble Lords on the Government Front Bench at that time used to spit—metaphorically of course—every time the name of Signor Carlo Ripa di Meana was mentioned. As did the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, they believed that he was going too far in proposing higher standards of water purity both for drinking water and for other purposes. I believe that that argument has passed. Everyone now recognises that it is in the interests of all of us to have higher water quality. Those who opposed the proposals from the European Commission at that time now recognise, as do the water industries and most people in this country, that the proposals were right.
I promise noble Lords that I shall not spend the 20 or 25 minutes that I could in rehearsing the many aspects of environmental policy which require European action. Action in order to preserve biodiversity does not pay regard to frontiers. Action to preserve wildlife and the marine ecology does not pay any attention to national frontiers. Those are European issues. Articles 130r, s and t provide that on the initiative of member states there should be European action. The lesson of the past 10 years has been that those European actions have been of enormous value, not simply in the way in which they prompted the British Government to take action but in the way in which they prompted governments of other member states to take action. The idea that any of us who have taken part in environmental debates in this country should wish to support the amendments is beyond belief.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: It seems to me that some Members of the Committee may have fallen for a somewhat simplistic argument which runs, as far as

569
the environment is concerned, roughly like this. The environment is a good thing. Maastricht covers the environment. Therefore Maastricht, or this part of it, must be a good thing. A better environment, of course, is a good thing in so far as it can and should be politically and administratively promoted on a national scale. The question is: how much should be done by national governments and how much should be done by the Community?
Article 130r proposes that the Community, acting as the Community, shall,
"preserve, protect and improve the quality of the environment".
That is a fine ideal. It proposes,
"prudent and rational utilization of natural resources".
I am sure that we all agree with that. It proposes measures at international levels to meet these ends, however.
By paragraph 3 in the same article, the Community shall also take account of,
"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 article needs fairly careful reading, I submit. Would my noble friend agree that through those two paragraphs the Commission in Brussels will be able to slap the wrists of the wealthier nations of the Community for a certain policy while condoning and even encouraging the very same policy in the poorer countries?
What will be deemed by the Commission to be prudent and rational use of resources in one country can be condemned as wasteful if pursued by another. It seems to me that the somewhat weasel words in paragraph 3 of that article allow for an extremely prejudiced application of an environmental policy from Brussels.
Article 130s gives power to the Commission to propose, and for the Council to confirm, measures concerning town and country planning. Would the Minister care to confirm that this clause permits Brussels to introduce measures which override and replace UK planning law? Will such measures have to be taken into account in any planning applications once Maastricht is ratified and if this Bill becomes an Act? Will major planning inquiries have to go to Brussels after or before going to the Secretary of State for the Environment?
Under the present terms of the Treaty of Rome, before Maastricht is ratified, the Prime Minister has rightly said that planning applications and planning inquiries, even for very major projects, remain the responsibility of the British Government. Indeed, the Prime Minister rightly reprimanded the environment commissioner in Brussels when he sought to intervene on the M.3 extension. However, under these articles of the Union treaty, Brussels could overrule the Department of the Environment on any future planning proposals similar to the M.3 extension, or the line of route for a Thames crossing or even for a simple application for gravel extraction. How do these extensive powers over the environment, given to
570
Brussels under the Maastricht Treaty, square with the Government's promise of non-interference in British planning laws?
10.30 p.m.
Baroness Elles: Will my noble friend give way? I am grateful. I wonder whether he has carefully read Article 130s. Paragraph 2 says that it will be the Council,
"acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament"
which deals with measures concerning town and country planning. That means that the United Kingdom reserves the veto on the issue and that no town and country planning can be authorised by Brussels or any other body without the consent of the British Government.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Those of us who are watching the process of the Luxembourg compromise and the qualified majority vote—
Baroness Elles: If the noble Lord will allow me to intervene again, this has nothing to do with the Luxembourg compromise. It is a unanimous vote by members of the Council of Ministers. That includes the United Kingdom.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Of course I accept that technically the British Government could go to the Council and veto a series of these proposals. I point out, however, that in the general drift of the treaty, particularly in Article J in the protocol, we have signed an agreement that we will not withhold our consent from a unanimous vote when a qualified majority vote. exists. I appreciate the point my noble friend makes and I accept it, but I think that she must also accept that the pressure is more and more not to go along with a unanimous vote when a qualified majority vote exists. I think we see that problem at the moment with some of the directives coming from Brussels which the Government rightly resist. I quote, for example, the 48-hour week, young people at work and others. So the general drift of the way it is going enables me to ask these questions.
I confirm that these are extensive powers over the environment, given to Brussels under the Maastricht Treaty. I wonder how they square with our Government's promise of non-interference in British planning law. I feel that it would be difficult to resist when it comes our way in this area, as it is already difficult to resist in the other areas I have mentioned.
There is much more that I could pursue under this little known part of the Maastricht Treaty, but let me be content with one further example. Article 130r, paragraph 2, makes the assertion that the polluter should pay. However, paragraph 5 of Article 130s states:
"Without prejudice to the principle that the polluter should pay, if a measure based on the provisions of paragraph I involves costs deemed disproportionate for the public authorities of a Member State, the Council shall, in the act adopting that measure, lay down appropriate provisions in the form of … temporary derogations and/or … financial support from the Cohesion Fund".

571
What that means is that the polluter should pay but that Brussels will suspend the rule if the country in question cannot afford to pay.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It means no such thing. It means that if the polluter should pay principle is carried to extreme—and Members of the Committee on the Government Front Bench know exactly what I mean by that—then there will be other provisions. Either the enactments will not be enforced immediately, in other words there will be temporary derogations, or—if we want to put it in the pejorative terms that Members of the Committee seem to like—Brussels will provide financial support from the cohesion fund. It does not mean that the polluter will pay at all.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: The noble Lord is agreeing with me.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, I am not.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Perhaps I may quote again from the article:
"Without prejudice to the principle that the polluter should pay, if a measure based on the provisions of paragraph I involves costs deemed disproportionate for the public authorities of a Member State"—
who deems that disproportionate or otherwise?—
"the Council shall, in the act adopting that measure, lay down appropriate provisions in the form of:
—temporary derogations and/or
—financial support from the Cohesion Fund".
The noble Lord may feel that that smacks of even-handedness across the Community; but the way I read it, it does not.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I hope that the noble Lord does not have shares in ICI or Shell. The large chemical companies, in particular in this country, have taken great exception to these provisions in the treaties. The provisions have to be Europe-wide because the damage which is caused by pollution in the Rhine does not only affect Germany; it affects Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and the North Sea, and therefore affects us. Major chemical companies have always objected to the idea of European legislation. They know that European legislation in this area is likely to be effective. What these provisions ensure is that action will be taken, and that if necessary there will be European funds to ensure that that action is taken.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: The point I am making is that it is a question of how fair the European action will be. Indeed, the noble Lord makes the very next point that I had intended to make. In practice, if there were two identical plants using identical technology, both, let us say, 20 years old, producing what is now considered to be unacceptable effluent, the one in the north European country would perhaps have to clean it up at its own expense, whereas the one in the Mediterranean would either have to clean it up at European taxpayers' expense, or not have to clean it up at all. That is what I mean, and that fits very well with what the noble Lord said. The result could well be that the one in the north closes down because it is
572
too expensive to clean the effluent up, whereas the one in the south would keep going and keep the other one's business.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. I am not quite sure whether he is giving a hypothetical case, or a real case. If it is a real case, I would be extremely grateful if he will make it clear where the two plants are.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am not giving a real case. I am posing a hypothetical case of what could happen under the articles of this treaty in future. I think the point I have made is perfectly clear. It may well be that British chemical companies object to these articles for precisely those reasons. I would have thought that the Maastricht Treaty permits just that. I shall be very interested in my noble friend the Minister's reply to the points that I have made.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: This has been an interesting and varied short debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moran, for moving the amendment. I should like to begin by addressing the public health issues covered by the new chapter, Article 129, which was agreed at Maastricht. I say to my noble friend Baroness Hooper that I for one am extremely grateful for the work that she put in to achieve a sensible contribution on public health by the Community as a whole.
Article 129 provides a sound legal basis for Community action—that is why I hope that no one will be tempted to follow Amendment No. 151 which is before us. It does so by giving us legitimate areas for Community action in the field. The chapter gives the Community a role in disease prevention through the encouragement and promotion of research, information and education, but not in the provision of healthcare. That reflects the fact that disease prevention has a clear trans-national element—that is, information on epidemics and health techniques—while healthcare provision is local and it is for each state to decide upon its own appropriate systems of administration and finance. It is that limitation on the extent of Community action that reflects the whole principle of subsidiarity, as does the specific exclusion in Article 129.4 of any harmonisation of the laws and regulations of member states. Thus the chapter provides the basis for the Community to support member states in the area of public health, which is clearly beneficial to both our country and other member states.
The noble Lord, Lord Moran, had the idea that there was some supragovernment imposition of health measures. I hope that what I have just said reassures him that there is no malign plan of some Eurocracy to impose wicked plans on the unwilling and impotent national Ministers. I can assure him that the Ministers are neither impotent nor unwilling. What Maastricht does is limit the scope. That is why I say that the Commission must encourage co-operation between member states and lend support to their actions if necessary and the Community's health policies will continue to be directed toward prevention. In no way will there be scope for Community involvement in the

573
treatment or delivery of services. The noble Lord will find that set out most clearly in the agreement on public health made at Maastricht.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, said that there was no point in a multilateral approach on health. Yet I feel. from what my noble friend Lady Hooper said, that there are many areas in which it makes sense to pool ideas and develop common approaches. Duplication is a very expensive luxury which I suggest no country in the Community or outside it can afford. In theory it would be possible through a series of bilateral agreements to have a similar approach; but frankly to have that number of bilateral agreements in order to achieve the same end seems to me to be very wasteful of civil servants' time.
Let me turn to Amendment No. 32, concerning Article 3(k), and Amendments Nos. 179 to 183, concerning Articles 130r and 130t. Environmental policy has become an essential part of Community action, since the environment title was put into the treaty by Article 25 of the Single European Act. I must say that the environment seems to me to be a prime example of where limited Community action makes sense. We well know that the environmental problems are no respecters of international boundaries. I might also say that there is a high degree of public support for Community action on the environment. That has always been notable, I believe, in postbags of Members in another place and even perhaps in your Lordships' postbags, too.
Article 130r, which is covered by Amendment No. 179, illustrates how Maastricht maintains the existing objectives of Community environmental policy: preserving, protecting and improving the quality of the environment; protecting human health; prudent and rational utilisation of natural resources. But it adds a new one: promoting measures at international level to deal with regional or worldwide environmental problems. That recognises the significant contribution that the Community now makes to global environmental issues—as, for example, at last summer's conference in Rio.
The Community environmental policy hitherto has been based on the principles that preventive action should be taken, that environmental damage should be rectified at source, and that the polluter should pay.
Maastricht builds on those principles, providing for,
"sustainable and non-inflationary growth respecting the environment",
(Article 2) and ensuring that the principle of a high level of protection of the environment is extended from internal market measures to environmental policy generally.
Maastricht has added the "precautionary principle" identified in the second paragraph of Article 130r. That will ensure that measures may be taken to avert a potential environmental threat even though there may be some uncertainty concerning the nature of the threat or its effects. The inclusion of that principle means that there has been a shift of emphasis from whether action should be taken, to considerations of which measures should be taken and when, in order to give protection to the environment. I found it of
574
particular concern during our presidency in the second half of last year, to promote the idea of the integration of environmental interests into other areas of Community policy. That followed on some hard negotiation in Rio and in the many months leading up to it. Here was the Community getting together to do something positive in relation to protecting our environment. So Maastricht reinforces the existing commitment under the Single European Act so that environmental protection requirements will no longer simply be a component of other Community policies, but must now be integrated into the definition arid implementation of other Community policies.
That may from time to time involve some difficult decisions. I can assure the Committee that the environment frequently does in whatever part of government and international business one works. But we must properly balance economic needs with environmental ones. The treaty is, indeed, a good step forward.
In relation to the questions raised by my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch and the noble Lord, Lord Moran, in regard to northern plants closing while Mediterranean plants thrive, the whole question became a subject of some debate between the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and my noble friend. The treaty explicitly states that the provisions are without prejudice to the polluter pays principle. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was right. No poorer state should think that they are going to get away with an environmental free ride. The Council decides whether to grant a derogation; and the member state requesting it, if it is trying to get out of its responsibilities to curb pollution, can be out-voted by qualified majority voting.
But the point that must be combined with that is that we have also the principle of subsidiarity set out in Article 3b which covers the whole of the Treaty of Rome. That therefore gives us a tougher form of words, making clear that the assumption is not that Community action is possible, but that where Community action is desirable, then member states will go for that.
If one reads the articles carefully and thinks about the way in which they have been drawn up, it becomes quite clear that the whole of the third paragraph of Article 130r is carried out in a way which makes sense for all countries of the Community.
We had a number of comments in regard to town and country planning and the fact that the Community might overrule planning inquiries in this country. My noble friend Lady Elles was right when she talked about the wording in the second paragraph of Article 130s. The scope of possible EC action on the environment has not changed, in substance, to what we agreed in the Single European Act. The reference to planning is an exception to the general qualified majority vote rule for that area which we agreed at Maastricht. That was clone at our insistence and the insistence of others so that fiscal measures and those affecting planning and energy still require unanimity.
Action affecting planning was always possible under the Treaty of Rome and the Single European Act. It was taken under the environmental assessment

575
directive. The Commission's interpretation of that directive has been intrusive. Tonight reference has been made to Twyford Down. That was contrary to the subsidiarity provision. The previous weak formulation of subsidiarity in Article 130(r)4, which was in the single Act, has been deleted. In future the strong form in Article 3b of the Maastricht Treaty will apply. Surely this is an area where rigorous application of the principle is needed. That was why we fought so long to ensure that we got Article 3b in the form in which we needed to use it.
There are many other aspects on environment. There is a need to ensure that our attempt sensibly to balance environmental considerations with the considerations of our single internal market is correctly formulated. I cannot see in Amendment No. 32 or any of the other amendments in this group that we would aid what we have been trying to do one iota. Indeed, I believe that it will set it back by a very long distance. What we are doing in public health is right. It puts into the Community treaty the only parts of public health that should be there. What we seek to do is to make sure that everybody is conscious of and plays their part in safeguarding our fragile environment. If Amendment No. 32 is pressed to a vote I ask your Lordships to reject it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I agree with every word uttered by the Minister; but why have I spent the past five years or more trying to persuade the Government of the self-evident truths that she has expressed?
Lord Monson: In the light of the intervention by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, explaining that town and country planning has never been and will not be subject to qualified majority voting, can the Minister confirm that Signor Ripa di Meana was totally out of order in trying to interfere in the M.3 extension, the Thames River crossing and similar projects which obviously came under the heading of town and country planning?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: Signor Ripa di Meana is no longer an EC Commissioner. He was certainly shown to have intervened too far in what I referred to as the Twyford Down case. But I believe that the environment is very precious. We must consciously look at the plans we make in this country against the EC criteria, which are no different from our own. Whether it be the previous Commissioner or any Commissioner, I do not believe that the principle should change. We should all care for the environment. I hope that that is what we shall be doing under the Maastricht Treaty when it is ratified.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: To set the record straight, Signor Ripa di Meana was acting in accordance with a directive that this country had agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I hesitate to intervene. I have not intervened in the debates up until now. I was somewhat involved in the Department of Transport in the Twyford Down saga for a number of years. I shall
576
attempt to set the record straight. The argument was mainly about timing and whether we had completed our planning processes before the directive came into force. We won that argument on Twyford Down. I very much hope that, as a result of Maastricht, subsidiarity will now come into force and we will achieve what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said; namely, that questions on bypasses and matters of that kind should come back to national governments and Secretaries of State for the Environment.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My noble friend is absolutely right. The matter was one of timing. However, it seems to me to be absolutely right that where we have a national road—a bypass—it is a matter for the national government. Therefore, whatever the timing, I believe it is a matter where the Commission should not interfere. We have Article 3(b) in the Maastricht Treaty and applying that to such matters as a by-pass or a national road which is plainly a national road going from one point in the United Kingdom to another point in the United Kingdom are matters for the United Kingdom Government.
Lord Moran: I thank the Minister for her reply which, as ever, has been extremely helpful and courteous. She has given me a measure of reassurance. I hope that on the general question she is right. But it is certainly the case that all is not always for the best in all possible worlds. The one example that I gave of what has gone wrong in Greece, where a Community development is going on with almost catastrophic results on the environment, is an example of how the machinery sometimes goes wrong.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, expressed some surprise at the views that I was putting forward. Both of us share a real concern for the environment and he himself has done tremendous work in this House on environmental questions. The issue that I was concerned about was where the responsibility should lie and to what extent it should lie with national governments and to what extent they should be overridden by the Commission and the machinery in Brussels. I think that in the fields both of health and of the environment the question of subsidiarity is extremely important. Having said that, I hope that the Minister is right and that things will develop on sensible lines. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 33 to 36 not moved.]
Baroness Trumpington: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Dawat-e-Hadiyah (England) Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
Agriculture Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments and with a privilege amendment; it was ordered that the Commons amendments be printed.

Pwllheli Harbour (Amendment) Bill
Committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House adjourned at two minutes before eleven o'clock.