Sitting of 2 November 1989

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    INTERNATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK BILL (By Order)
      ISLE OF WIGHT BILL (By Order)
        ST. GEORGE'S HILL, WEYBRIDGE, ESTATE BILL (By Order)
          HYTHE MARINA VILLAGE (SOUTHAMPTON) WAVESCREEN BILL (By Order)
            NEW SOUTHGATE CEMETERY AND CREMATORIUM LIMITED BILL ( By Order)
              CITY OF LONDON (SPITALFIELDS MARKET) BILL (By Order)
              Orders read for consideration of Lords amendments. To be considered on Thursday 9 November.
              CITY OF LONDON (SPITALFIELDS MARKET) BILL (By Order)
                BRITISH RAILWAYS (PENALTY FARES) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
                Order for further consideration, as amended, read. To be further considered on Thursday 9 November.
                BRITISH RAILWAYS (PENALTY FARES) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
                BUCKINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
                LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL [Lords] (By Order)
                Orders for further consideration, as amended, read. To be further considered on Thursday 9 November at Seven o'clock.
                LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL [Lords] (By Order)
                LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
                BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL ( By Order)
                BROMLEY LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL (CRYSTAL PALACE) BILL (By Order)
                BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL (No. 2) BILL ( By Order)
                Orders for consideration, as amended, read. To be considered on Thursday 9 November.
                BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL (No. 2) BILL ( By Order)
                VALE OF GLAMORGAN (BARRY HARBOUR) BILL [Lords] ( By Order)
                CARDIFF BAY BARRAGE BILL [Lords] ( By Order)
                Orders for Second Reading read. To be read a Second time on Thursday 9 November.

  CARDIFF BAY BARRAGE BILL [Lords]
  Motion made,
  That the Promoters of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
  That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
  That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first and shall be ordered to be read a second time;
  That the Petitions against the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
  That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
  That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House. —[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Hon. Members: Object.
  To be considered on Thursday 9 November.

  BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL (No. 2) BILL
  Motion made,
  That the Promoters of the Birmingham City Council (No. 2) Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
  That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
  That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
  That the Bill shell be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and, having been amended by the Committee in the present session, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House. —[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Hon. Members: Object.
  To be considered on Thursday 9 November.

  NOTTINGHAM PARK ESTATE BILL [Lords]
  Motion made,
  That the Promoters of the Nottingham Park Estate Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next

  447
  Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office no later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
  That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
  That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
  That the Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
  That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
  That, in relation to the Bill, standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House. —[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Hon. Members: Object.
  To be considered on Thursday 9 November at Seven o'clock.

  VALE OF GLAMORGAN (BARRY HARBOUR) BILL [Lords]
  Motion made,
  That the Promoters of the Vale of Glamorgan (Barry Harbour) Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
  That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
  That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first and shall be ordered to be read a second time;
  That the Petitions against the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
  That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
  That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House. —[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Hon. Members: Object.
  To be considered on Thursday 9 November at Seven o'clock.

  BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL [Lords]
  Motion made,
  That the Promoters of the Birmingham City Council (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [Lords] shall have leave, except as provided by these Orders, to suspend further proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
  That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration, signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
  That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills;
  That, notwithstanding the suspension of other proceedings on the Bill, Standing Order 171A(1) shall apply to the presenting of Petitions against the Bill brought from the Lords in the present Session and only Petitions presented under this Order shall be received as Petitions presented under Standing Order 171A(1).
  That any Petitions presented under the foregoing Order shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House. —[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Hon. Members: Object.
  To be considered on Thursday 9 November at Seven o'clock.

  BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL
  Motion made,
  That the Promoters of the British Railways Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
  That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
  That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
  That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and, having been amended by the Committee in the present Session, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House. —[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Hon. Members: Object.
  To be considered on Thursday 9 November at Seven o'clock.

  BROMLEY LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL (CRYSTAL PALACE) BILL
  Motion made,
  That the Promoters of the Bromley London Borough Council (Crystal Palace) Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the bill up to that date be paid;
  That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
  That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
  That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and, having been amended by the Committee in the present Session, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which the Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House. —[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Hon. Members: Object.
  To be considered on Thursday 9 November at Seven o'clock.

  GREATER MANCHESTER (LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM) (No. 3) BILL [Lords]
  Motion made,
  That the Promoters of the Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) (No. 3) Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
  That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration, signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
  That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office that such a declaration had been so deposited has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills;
  That, no petitions against the Bill having been presented within the time limited within the present Session, no Petitioners shall be heard before any committee on the Bill save those who complain of any amendment as proposed in the filled up Bill or of any matter which arises during the progress of the Bill before the committee;
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House. —[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Hon. Members: Object.
  To be considered on Thursday 9 November at Seven o'clock.

  MEDWAY TUNNEL BILL [Lords]
  Motion made,
  That the Promoters of the Medway Tunnel Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
  That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration, signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
  That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first and shall be ordered to be read a second time.
  That the Petitions against the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
  That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
  That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House. —[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  To be considered on Thursday 9 November at Seven o'clock.

  CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL
  That the Promoters of the City of London (Various Powers) Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
  That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
  That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
  That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and, having been amended by the Committee in the present Session, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House. —[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  To be considered on Thursday 9 November at Seven o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions
Mr. Pat Wall: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is rare that I table questions to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but today I drew Question No. 13 in the ballot. I returned to my office 15 minutes ago to find an orange removal crate, on top of which was a black dispatch box marked Northern Ireland. I wonder whether this is normal procedure when one tables a Northern Ireland question or whether it happens only when one draws the unlucky No. 13.
Mr. Speaker: Let us see if we can get to Question No. 13 and find out.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Irish Foreign Minister
    Mr. Parry: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next expects to meet the Irish Foreign Secretary to discuss the situation in Northern Ireland.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Brooke): The next meeting of the intergovernmental conference is likely to take place later this month.
    Mr. Parry: When the Secretary of State next meets the Irish Foreign Minister, no doubt the subject of the Guildford Four will be raised. That may also raise the question of the Birmingham Six. Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Home Secretary to set up an urgent review of that case, particularly in view of the "World in Action" programme last Wednesday?
    Mr. Brooke: When the conference last met, the Irish Foreign Minister raised the matter that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. We agreed that it was not natural business within the conference, but I gave an undertaking that I would bring it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
    Mr. Kilfedder: Does my right hon. Friend agree that hostility between the Irish Republic and the United Kingdom largely benefits terrorists, who use it as an excuse for further atrocities and as a means of recruitment to the terrorist cause? When my right hon. Friend next meets the Irish Foreign Minister, will he tell him that wholesale criticism of the security forces in Northern Ireland only gives joy to terrorists in Northern Ireland and hinders reconciliation between its people?
    Mr. Brooke: I entirely take the point made by the hon. Member. The Irish Foreign Minister does not engage in wholesale condemnation. He has expressed to me his praise for the courage of the Ulster Defence Regiment, and we both agree that nothing should be said which gives comfort to the terrorists.
    Mr. Molyneaux: I hope that the Secretary of State will persuade Mr. Collins to endorse the view set out on 9 May this year by a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, now the Foreign Secretary, when he said of terrorists:
    "They are professional killers. …. No political solution will cope with that. They just have to be extirpated".
    On a day when we have all been greatly saddened by the
    452
    pictures of the funeral of the young airman and his baby daughter, would it not be appropriate for the right hon. Gentleman to give an assurance that there has been and will be no change in the position set out by his right hon. Friend? Does he agree that it is vital that that assurance is given today in view of certain ugly reports which were circulating this morning in Belfast?
    Mr. Brooke: I gladly give the assurance that I am at one with my right hon. Friend the present Foreign Secretary on that matter.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: When the Secretary of State next speaks to the Irish Foreign Secretary, will he inform him of the steps taken by the Government to appease the Irish Republic in relation to photomontages of suspects? What measures are available to members of the security forces to identify quickly those who might want to kill them and other people?
    Mr. Brooke: Notice of the subject that the hon. Member has raised was given some little time ago, and it has therefore been the subject of discussion between us. It remains the case that those going out on patrol go out armed with knowledge in terms of the photomontages of which the hon. Member speaks.
    Mr. Mallon: Can the Secretary of State inform the House what firm decisions have been taken by the Anglo-Irish conference to promote cross-border economic co-operation? What efforts have been made by both Governments, working through the conference, to maximise EC funding, especially from the EC structural fund?
    Mr. Brooke: At the last meeting of the conference, the Irish side and our side specifically discussed that matter. A working party of officials on both sides of the border is working for exactly the purposes that the hon. Member mentions.
    Mr. Leigh: When my right hon. Friend next meets the Irish Foreign Secretary, will the two of them reflect that no newspaper image could have been so poignant as the pictures published today of a tiny coffin being carried in dignity from an RAF plane? Will they conclude that the only victim of such mindless terrorism is innocence and not national resolve, and will they redouble their efforts to co-operate to defeat terrorism?
    Mr. Brooke: Everyone in the House must have been moved by those pictures. As I said, I hope that among those who support the terrorists there are those who ask themselves whether their aims can ever be justified by the murder of a baby in that way.
    Mr. McNamara: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his first Question Time as Secretary of State. The issue of the administration of justice is continually raised at the intergovernmental meetings. At the last meeting, the role of the UDR was discussed and the question of the Guildford Four was raised. Can the Secretary of State inform the House whether, at the next meeting, he will discuss the case of the four members of the UDR known as the Armagh Four, the circumstances of whose convictions have raised considerable concern and doubt on both sides of the border and in both communities? Will

    453
    the right hon. Gentleman announce that he is setting up a separate, independent investigation to examine the soundness of their convictions?
    Mr. Brooke: As I said in answer to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry), that issue is not specifically one for the conference, but of course it may well arise within it. I have said that I am happy to look at new evidence or new factors put to me which might lead to the matter being referred to the Court of Appeal. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words in welcoming me.

    Short Brothers
    Mr. Cran: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the transaction for the acquisition of Short Brothers plc by Bombardier of Canada has been completed; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Colvin: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to meet the chairman of Bombardier; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met M. Laurent Beaudoin, the chairman of Bombardier, on 4 October 1989 when he visited Short's to mark the completion of the sale of Short's to Bombardier. There are no plans for a further meeting with the chairman in the near future.
    Mr. Cran: My hon. Friend will be aware that before privatisation of Short's the Government placed high priority on the company's long-term future. What steps are being taken to ensure that priority is upheld? To what extent is Bombardier investing in Short's? If that information is regarded as commercially sensitive, why is that so?
    Mr. Needham: I do not think that it is regarded as particularly sensitive. The total sum that the Government put into the Short's-Bombardier takeover was £750 million, and Bombardier put forward an additional £30 million. Bombardier, together with Short's, now represents perhaps the best hope for the aerospace industry in Northern Ireland and in Europe in the 1990s. Bombardier has brought a considerable amount of work to Short's with its new regional jet and will continue to bring more work to Northern Ireland. We have obtained guarantees from Bombardier that it will stay in Northern Ireland and that work will continue there. This marriage must be the possible news for Short's and it must give immense confidence to the people of Belfast to see Short's on such a sound and potentially prosperous footing.
    Mr. Colvin: Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that Short Brothers has been undercapitalised historically and that the welcome merger with Bombardier will provide its highly skilled work force with the tools to get on with the job of making the world's finest aerospace products? Does he accept that Bombardier's interest in Northern Ireland demonstrates the enormous advantages that both the Province and his Department can provide for inward investors to the United Kingdom who seek a springboard in Europe post-1992?
    Mr. Needham: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. An enormous debt has been hanging over Short's and has led
    454
    to enormous interest problems for a long time. The fact that the Government were prepared to invest such a vast sum illustrates their confidence in the future of Bombardier-Short's. I recently visited the company and saw its work, which is at the forefront of technology. The activities not only of Short's, but of Harland and Wolff and STC in Belfast should give real encouragement for the future. Not every hon. Member realises how fast Belfast is changing for the better.
    Mr. A. Cecil Walker: What price was obtained by the Industrial Development Board for the Lear Fan factory and what was the price for which it was subsequently sold to Short's-Bombardier? Will the Minister provide grant aid for the new purchase price?
    Mr. Needham: The IDB sold the Lear Fan factory to Wilson's for £650,000. The sum paid by Bombardier-Short's to SRC Composites was £1·1 million and there was no grant aid from the IDB as part of the price.

    Government
    Rev. Martin Smyth: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about his plans to increase accountability and democracy of government in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Brooke: I should like to see substantial responsibilities devolved to elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland. Progress depends on the willingness of local politicians to talk and work together.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Secretary of State be announcing any plans in the light of the Government's intention that care for the disabled should be provided in the community? Will there be an extension of powers, perhaps to directly elected local health boards, or does he intend to restore such powers to local government?
    Mr. Brooke: Conversations have been going on in Northern Ireland about whether there are further powers which might be distributed to local government. However, the hon. Gentleman asks a rather larger question.
    Mr. Riddick: To reassure the people of Northern Ireland that power resides wholly in the hands of the Northern Ireland Office, will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that if any changes are made in the structure or role of the Ulster Defence Regiment, those decisions will be taken after discussions within and between the Northern Ireland Office, the Ministry of Defence and the Cabinet, and that such decisions will not be taken as a result of pressure from the Dublin Government?
    Mr. Brooke: I do not think that that question is exactly attached to the issue of devolution, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that observation, which I have noted.
    Mr. McGrady: Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating those local government officials and councillors who succeeded in attracting to Newcastle, County Down yesterday the United Kingdom tourist convention, which was devoted to the promotion of tourism and, therefore, of job creation in Northern Ireland? Will the Secretary of State equally condemn the action of certain small-minded Unionist councillors who withdrew from that seminar and who added insult to

    455
    injury for his ministerial colleague, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham)? Does he agree that that action was detrimental to the promotion of tourism and jobs in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Brooke: We live in a free society and it is up to individual councillors to decide their own actions. However, I am not sure that tourism has been advanced by the action that they took.
    Rev. William McCrea: Does the Secretary of State accept that the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland desire to have a devolved Government in Northern Ireland and that the present direct rule is wholly unacceptable and undemocratic? Although the Secretary of State has said that he is waiting for others, perhaps he will tell us what steps he is taking to bring devolution to the Province.
    Mr. Brooke: When I became Secretary of State, I invited the leaders of the political parties in Northern Ireland to tell me how they saw matters. All of them accepted that invitation, so I had the opportunity to talk to all of them. As they have all indicated that they are prepared to talk further, I envisage that we shall soon be having a second round of talks.

    Community Workshops
    Mr. Beggs: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the future of community workshops in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Needham: New arrangements for the funding and delivery of the youth training programme are being introduced in the year commencing April 1990 which are designed to enhance the quality of training and the cost-effectiveness of the programme. Community workshops will be included within the programme, provided that they meet the standards and criteria for which the arrangements provide.
    Mr. Beggs: Will the Minister acknowledge the excellence of training provided in many workshops in Northern Ireland? Will he accept that that training has helped many young people to gain qualifications and, ultimately, employment? Will he acknowledge that considerable alarm is felt by those who manage the workshops as a result of the haste with which the changes in block funding are being introduced? I appeal to the Minister to consider deferring for one year the implementation of his Department's proposals on block funding to enable his officials to do their homework properly and to enable those who manage the workshops to plan and arrange for a successful transition.
    Mr. Needham: I acknowledge that many of the workshops have done good work in training young people in Northern Ireland. It is because we want to ensure that that quality is provided in all workshops that we have introduced the proposals. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, we have appointed management consultants to help the workshops and the providers of training through this period and I am perfectly happy to talk to those involved in the workshops about the proposals. Nevertheless, it is important that we introduce into the workshops a system puts more emphasis on qualifications, that we incorporate a bigger competitive element than we have at present and,
    456
    most importantly, that we achieve greater involvement of employers. I do not want to go back on the time scale that I have set, but I am, of course, happy to talk to the providers.

    Dog Licences
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the system of dog licences in Northern Ireland.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Bottomley): District councils license dogs.
    Mr. Bennett: Does the Minister agree that the system in Northern Ireland has been working very well and has been encouraging responsible dog-ownership and discouraging irresponsible dog-ownership? Will he recommend that Ministers responsible for the mainland of the United Kingdom introduce that system throughout to the whole of the United Kingdom instead of simply having it in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Bottomley: I brought the Minister responsible for rottweilers to Northern Ireland to consider that system and other things, but she was moved and became Minister for Health. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will be able to see the information about the experience in Northern Ireland. However, the system there is not necessarily applicable here.

    Local Government
    Mr. Gow: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has any proposals to re-establish local government in Northern Ireland on a basis close to that of local government in the remainder of the United Kingdom.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): We have no current plans for changes to the existing structure of local government in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Gow: Does my hon. Friend recall the commitment given in the 1979 Conservative party manifesto which stated that in the absence of devolved government we would seek to set up a regional council in Northern Ireland? Why has that commitment been abandoned, and why does my hon. Friend continue to withhold from the people of Northern Ireland the inestimable benefits of the community charge?
    Dr. Mawhinney: The commitment has not been withdrawn. We have fought succeeding elections on a manifesto committing the Government, along with the other major constitutional political parties in Northern Ireland, to seeking a form of devolution for the Province. That remains our position.
    Mr. Maginnis: Does the Minister agree that he was somewhat inaccurate in his reply to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow)? Has he not in fact changed the democratic structure of local government in the proposals for the composition of health boards after March 1990? Will he at least concede that if he goes ahead with that plan

    457
    the new health and social services councils will be accorded powers similar to those vested in Select Committees of this House?
    Dr. Mawhinney: It is and remains part of the Government's desire and intention to give the people of Northern Ireland a greater say in the decisions that affect their lives in a whole variety of ways. However, the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question does not follow from the original question.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Will my hon. Friend look again at the reply that he gave to our hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) about commitments to devolution? I recommend that my hon. Friend the Minister to read the statements made by our right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland who has very clearly declared views about the instability which would result from any form of devolved government in any part of the unitary parliamentary system. The Minister should bear in mind the impact of his thoughts in Ulster on politics in Scotland.
    Dr. Mawhinney: I am aware of the strength of my hon. Friend's views because he has expressed them before at Northern Ireland Question Time. However, I must remind him that it is, and has been for a long time, part of the Government's policy and commitment to seek to have arrangements in Northern Ireland which command widespread support across the community and which give local people a greater say in the decisions which affect their lives.
    Mr. Ashdown: I congratulate the Secretary of State on his new appointment and wish him well in a very difficult and demanding post. Can the Under-Secretary of State assure the House that if the Government were to give thought to increasing the powers of local government, which would be very welcome, he would ensure that that would in no way jeopardise the Government's commitment to speedy implementation of devolution, which is the Government's publicly stated aim in the Anglo-Irish Agreement?
    Dr. Mawhinney: First, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would wish me to express his appreciation of the right hon. Gentleman's kind words. In Northern Ireland we are seeking arrangements that command widespread support across the community. If any arrangements are introduced that do not command that support, they will not work. That is the Government's basic position. Nothing that might take place in future with respect to local government will get in the way of the Government's long-standing commitment to devolution, which predates the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

    Credit Unions
    Dr. Godman: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many credit unions have been established in each of the past 20 years; what is the approximate size of membership of each of these credit unions; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Needham: The information for the past 20 years is lengthy and I will write to the hon. Member. However, I can say that there are presently 113 credit unions operating
    458
    in Northern Ireland and their membership ranges in size from under 200 to over 12,000 with an average of approximately 1,200.
    Dr. Godman: Does the Minister agree that many of those credit unions have been established in communities characterised by high unemployment, poverty and debt? Surely the time has now arrived for the repeal of the infamous Payments for Debt (Emergency Provisions) Act 1971? As there is no comparable legislation in mainland Britain, is not Northern Ireland being discriminated against by the retention of the PDA?
    Mr. Needham: I do not agree. The Payments for Debt (Emergency Provisions) Act 1971 is important in being able to ensure that debt does not rise to totally unacceptable levels in Northern Ireland. However, I support the hon. Gentleman's view about credit unions, which play an excellent role in assisting those who are trying to save, in offering loans at low interest rates and so helping people to avoid getting into debt.

    Local Government
    Mr. Corbett: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he intends to issue a White Paper on local government in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: The Government have no plans at present to issue a White Paper on local government in Northern Ireland. Any legislative proposals arising from the consultative paper on local government published last November will be issued in due course as a proposal for a draft Order in Council.
    Mr. Corbett: May I congratulate the Minister on succeeding where so many of his predecessors have come to grief? Where they brought discord, he has brought harmony among virtually all the chairmen of local authorities who are opposed to the privatisation of council services.
    Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman may do that, but he would be wrong to do so because I was not in post last November. What happens in the future will be determined by our actions and, no doubt, by local authorities.
    Mr. Clifford Forsythe: Will the Minister assure the House that, in any future local government proposals, he will drop the suggestion, made in the recent local government consultative paper, that the chief executive should act as a paid informer for local government? Will he assure the House of that, because it would be completely unacceptable to councils and will cause nothing but untold trouble in the council chamber?
    Mr. Bottomley: The proper reply to that is that the responses to the consultation are being considered. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that those who know that wrongdoing is going on should not declare it, I think that he and I are on different courses.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: Has the Minister noticed that several meetings have taken place at the invitation of the Lord Mayor of Belfast at which all the Northern Ireland parties in the House were represented? Is he aware that, at that meeting, there was unanimous opposition to the Government's proposals on privatisation and compulsory competitive tendering, and there was a fairly unanimous

    459
    view that some further powers should be given to local government, which presently has a consultative role? If the groundswell of opinion of parties represented in the House were that we should move in that direction, would the Minister include that in the new consultative document?
    Mr. Bottomley: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney)—the Under-Secretary of State—have said that if various parties across the country can agree on things, that makes it far easier for the Government to consider the proposals that come forward. Most people look with interest at what the Lord Mayor has managed to achieve. I do not think that many others have brought that many people together in such a harmonious way, for a long time.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: In any plans for the change of local government in Northern Ireland, will the Minister consider developing plans that will fit in with devolved government there? If the Government are frightened of moving towards majority rule, will they protect the rights of minorities by producing a Bill of Rights?
    Mr. Bottomley: That question goes beyond my competence. Most of the things in the consultative paper, especially competitive tendering, which is slightly different from privatisation, can fit in with any form of local government responsibilities.

    Long-term Unemployment
    Ms. Armstrong: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the impact of the Social Security Order (1989) on the long-term unemployed.
    Mr. Needham: It is too early to assess the impact.
    Ms. Armstrong: I am sure that the Minister will know that the result of similar legislation in England has been difficult times and increased debt for the long-term unemployed. What will he do to ensure that the long-term unemployed in Northern Ireland do not suffer in a similar way?
    Mr. Needham: What we are trying to do for the long-term unemployed in Northern Ireland is find jobs for them. There are three legs to the stool of our proposals. I consider it entirely right for us to suggest that people may have to change their aspirations to find work. We all agree, however, that long-term unemployment inevitably leads to disillusionment and demoralisation, and that it is important to ensure that people move as quickly as they can to be assessed and to go on to the job training programme, Restart or ACE—action for community employment. I believe that those measures form a worthwhile part of our package.
    Mr. Colvin: How many of the long-term unemployed have been provided with work building the security fence around Short Brothers? Is my hon. Friend happy that the fence will provide the security that the company requires, following the break-ins earlier in the year?
    Mr. Needham: I have no idea how many are thus employed, but I am certain that security outside is crucial to secure jobs inside.
    Mr. Beggs: Does the Minister agree that the social security system should be in place to support families when
    460
    the head of household is prepared to take low-paid employment? Will he undertake to review the regulations that deny benefit to a person who takes a low-paid and initially temporary post because those regulations currently require the post to be permanent for a family to continue to receive income support?
    Mr. Needham: Family credit is a great help to the heads of families in such circumstances. Clearly, a temporary job must be treated in a way that goes along with the existing rules.
    Rev. William McCrea: Will the Minister tell the House whether it is true that the Government are considering the reintroduction of the old unemployment relief scheme to help the long-term unemployed in the Province?
    Mr. Needham: No, Sir.
    Ms. Mowlam: The Minister has just told us that it is too early for him to assess the impact of the Social Security Order (1989). May I tell him that it is not too early for the long-term unemployed in Northern Ireland? They are already feeling the impact.
    What measures will his Department use to assess the impact of the order? Surely he can let us know this afternoon how much money has been expended on loans since its introduction, compared with the amount spent on single payments before it was introduced.
    Mr. Needham: As the hon. Lady is well aware, the order deals with effects on the long-term unemployed. The reason why it is too early to assess its impact is that we have no knowledge of it at present. Let me repeat, however, that it is vital that the unemployed get back into Restart, ACE or some other form of training. The order offers them a spur, which is crucial to stop the demoralisation that long-term unemployment brings.

    New Legislation
    Mr. McCusker: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will indicate the appoximate dates on which he proposes to introduce to Northern Ireland (a) the community charge, (b) the privatisation of water services and (c) the privatisation of the Northern Ireland electricity service.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. John Cope): There are no present plans to introduce to Northern Ireland the community charge or the privatisation of water services. The Government propose to privatise Northern Ireland Electricity in the first half of 1992.
    Mr. McCusker: Why should the people of the most deserving region of the United Kingdom be denied the inestimable benefits of measures whose passage has been so hard fought over the past few years so that Scotsmen, Englishmen and Welshmen could gain from them? Why should the people of Northern Ireland be denied those benefits—if there are any benefits?
    Mr. Cope: There are certainly many benefits for Great Britain, but we recognise the differences in the Province. That is why the time scale is different. With respect to local government which we have already discussed this afternoon, only about 10 per cent. of the services that in

    461
    Great Britain are carried out through local government are currently carried out through local government in the Province.
    Mr. Jim Marshall: I am sure that the Minister will accept that fuel costs in the North of Ireland are among the most expensive in the United Kingdom. One of the consequences of privatising Northern Ireland Electricity will be a further price increase. If that is so, what action do the Government propose to reduce the impact of that privatisation on domestic budgets and on industrial costs?
    Mr. Cope: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to await the White Paper on this subject which is expected next year.

    Lear Fan Factory
    Mr. Wall: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give an account of the circumstances surrounding the disposal of the former Lear Fan factory.
    Mr. Needham: The Lear Fan factory was sold by the Industrial Development Board to F. G. Wilson Ltd. in 1988 to meet that company's expansion plans. Wilson, after deciding to expand elsewhere, sold the factory to SRC Composites Ltd. in spring 1989 for the manufacture of composite components. After the IDB refused financial assistance for this project, SRC sold the factory to Bombardier-Short's.
    Mr. Wall: Is the Minister not concerned that, in essence, the factory and its equipment were resold for three times the value placed on them by the Government and the receiver? Will he ensure that when factories and equipment are sold in future, there is a clawback clause so that the IDB can share in the profits that are made? Will I be allowed to make the same sort of profit when I sell the dispatch box back to the Minister?
    Mr. Needham: The original valuation carried out by the valuation and land office in Northern Ireland, which has great experience of industrial properties in Northern Ireland, valued the factory at £650,000, for which sum it was then sold to Wilson. As the hon. Gentleman knows, Wilson sold it, together with the autoclaves, jigs and tools that were later destroyed, for £3 million to SRC, which was one of the reasons why the Government had doubts about SRC. The factory was then sold by SRC for £1·1 million, which included additional amounts spent on it by SRC in the interim. In my judgment, that was a fair valuation. Of course, if it had been possible to see into the future and to realise that Bombardier-Short's would have the use of the factory and what was in it once it had merged, that would have been a good answer. However, we did not know it at the time. The sale was carried out according to a proper valuation on advice by the VLO and the receiver. I am perfectly happy about the way in which the contracts were decided.
    Mr. McNamara: For what reason did the IDB refuse to give grant support?
    Mr. Needham: The reason that we did not give grant support, as I wrote to the hon. Gentleman, was that having looked into the background of the company, we found, on advice from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, that it was an Iraqi-backed company that may well have had connections with the making of ballistic missiles. Under
    462
    those circumstances, there was no question of the IDB giving support. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would congratulate the Government and the IDB on their precipience in finding that out.

    Kilroot Phase II
    Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress in the development of Kilroot phase II.
    Mr. Needham: Northern Ireland Electricity has been authorised to proceed with the necessary preliminary work, but it has not yet been decided when construction should start.
    Mr. Foulkes: Is the Minister aware that there has been an exceptionally high increase in electricity sales by Northern Ireland Electricity? In view of that, when will the decision be made about funding the extension to Kilroot, which is vital not just for Northern Ireland, but for Ayrshire open-cast coal and the port of Ayr?
    Mr. Needham: I understand the hon. Gentleman's constituency interest in this subject. We must consider carefully whether we should fit flue gas desulphurisation at Kilroot II and whether we could have an interconnection with Scotland, which would benefit Scotland also. I need to ensure that we do not import Ayrshire coal only to send it back to Scotland as acid rain. I accept that Kilroot II is important. Preliminary planning work is continuing and I shall make an announcement on it as soon as I can.

    Education Reform
    Mr. Haynes: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many responses he has received on the consultation on the draft Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989.
    Mr. Dunnachie: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many responses were received in the consultation on the draft Education (Northern Ireland) Reform Order 1989.
    Dr. Mawhinney: One hundred and fifty.
    Mr. Haynes: Is the Minister aware that hon. Members on the mainland share the concern of hon. Members representing Northern Ireland about the problems associated with Northern Ireland? Outside the Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order I would like to know whether the Minister shares my belief that there should be total integration of children in schools?
    Dr. Mawhinney: First, it is one of the sadnesses of the education reform proposals for Northern Ireland that the majority of hon. Members representing Northern Ireland have expressed no views on them during the consultation process. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that the Order in Council is likely to include specific proposals to promote and to facilitate integrated education in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Beggs: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: How can it arise out of that question?
    Mr. Beggs: The Minister, regrettably, has misled the House and others in Northern Ireland. As the spokesman for the Ulster Unionists I did correspond with him having—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a continuation of Question Time.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Franks: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 November.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting in the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Franks: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that she would not have a member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament in her Cabinet and that the Conservative party is not in the business of perjuring and prostituting its principles and policies in the pursuit of power?
    The Prime Minister: I gladly confirm what my hon. Friend seeks. Nuclear deterrence is a fundamental part of our defence strategy and also of NATO's defence strategy. I notice that the Opposition refused to elect their official spokesman on defence to their shadow Cabinet and instead elected a member of CND—doubtless to keep the Leader of the Opposition company.
    Mr. Andrew Smith: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Smith: Will the Prime Minister categorically deny that British military personnel have been involved in the Cambodian conflict through training forces now under the effective control of the bloodstained Pol Pot?
    The Prime Minister: We are totally and utterly against Pol Pot and we have given no help whatsoever to him.
    Dame Jill Knight: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Dame Jill Knight: May I invite my right hon. Friend to use this opportunity to say a word of welcome for a document produced today —
    "An Evolutionary Approach to Economic and Monetary Union"?
    Does she agree with me that it contains a far better suggestion for closer economic and monetary co-operation in Europe than anything put forward so far by Mr. Delors?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, it is an excellent paper which shows that one can achieve closer economic and monetary co-operation much better and more rapidly by working with the grain of market forces than by setting up new bureaucratic and highly centralised institutions which are
    464
    not accountable to anyone. The paper honours the commitment which we gave at Madrid that we would put forward an alternative approach; this document is that alternative approach.
    Mr. Kinnock: To be fair to herself, will the Prime Minister tell us why she rejected the former Chancellor's proposal for an independent Bank of England?
    The Prime Minister: There is no change in the status of the Bank of England proposed at the moment. The main objective is to reduce inflation. That is the Government's task. We shall not abdicate responsibility for it.
    Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister confirm or deny the dependable report that she turned down this proposal because she felt that it would have been admitting defeat in the battle against inflation?
    The Prime Minister: No. It is the Government's job to get inflation down. That task we shall carry out ourselves. We shall not abdicate responsibility. It is not our system to place that responsibility on the Bank of England.
    Mr. Kinnock: When the man whom she described as brilliant and unassailable made this proposition, why did she turn it down? Will she tell us candidly?
    The Prime Minister: The matter was not widely discussed. It is not on the agenda. I wonder if it is on the right hon. Gentleman's agenda. Does he propose to pass responsibility to the Bank of England, which would require legislation and to which its constitution is so totally unsuited? Does he or does he not?
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 November?
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Arnold: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the abolition of the national dock labour scheme has now been accepted by everyone in the port industry? Furthermore, has my right hon. Friend noted that in Gravesham a major wharf has already reopened, creating many dock workers jobs? In the light of that and other examples round the country, is it not the case that all who voted against the scheme's abolition should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, the abolition of the dock labour scheme has been a great success and will be of particular advantage to those ports which were previously subject to it. They will be very much more prosperous now that they are not so restricted. We must congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment on the skilful way in which the legislation was introduced and passed through the House.
    Mr. Boateng: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Boateng: Will the Prime Minister take time today to reflect on the plight of 53,000 war widows who, because their husbands died before March 1973, receive a pension of between a half and a quarter less than those whose

    465
    husbands died after that date, and have a standard of living substantially below that of pensioners in Japan and Germany? Do we not owe these women a debt of honour and is it not time it were paid?
    The Prime Minister: There are two pensions which war widows can receive. One is paid by the Department of Social Security. This is the war widow's pension which applies equally to all war widows regardless of the date on which they were widowed. The other is an occupational pension scheme which is run by the Ministry of Defence and which, like all occupational pension schemes, is not retrospective. Indeed, it could never have been introduced had it been retrospective. We try. to help the older war widows who are not entitled to any help under the occupational pension scheme by an age allowance which gives them a higher pension as they get older.
    Mr. Alexander: Will my right hon. Friend join me in expressing the sense of outrage by my rail commuting constituents at the prospect of an increase in rail fares of up to 21 per cent. for the second year running? Does she agree that the standard of timing is worse, the buffet service a joke and getting a seat a lottery? What will she do to help to have this proposal reversed?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend is aware, the British Rail and London Underground decisions are to be announced later this afternoon. I think I should point out that investment in British Rail is at its highest for a quarter of a century. As my hon. Friend has said, perhaps there needs to be a good deal more investment, but it has to be paid for. Investment in the London Underground is also at record levels. I am afraid that that partly explains the increase in fares which are to come about.
    Mr. Buchan: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Buchan: Will the right hon. Lady reflect a little more seriously on the deplorable answer that she gave my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) about Kampuchea? Has it not been abundantly exemplified that British troops have been involved in the training of forces under Sihanouk which are involved with the Khmer Rouge coalition? Is not our support for the United Nations resolution which, by definition will involve Pol Pot forces, even more explicit? Will she deny that, and if not, will she investigate it and put the Foreign Office in its proper place?
    The Prime Minister: As I said, we are wholly against Pol Pot. I have made speeches to that effect, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and Pol Pot must not return to Cambodia.
    Representation in the United Nations is done by the democratic alliance of Prince Sihanouk, which includes the Khmer Rouge. There has not been a vote on that since 1982, but the representation is that of the democratic alliance.
    Mr. Conway: Would my right hon. Friend consider sending 500 copies of today's edition of the Daily Mail to the Prime Minister of Ireland with the message that this
    466
    kind of slaughter of innocent victims—especially of children—only stiffens the resolve of the British people —[Interruption] Wait for it, you rabble—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Remarks of that kind tend only to inflame tempers.
    Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, if you could hear what this lot are muttering you would throw them out of the Chamber—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to put his question.
    Mr. Conway: Will my right hon. Friend send these copies to the Irish Prime Minister with the message that the British people have the greatest resolve to stand behind their security forces against physical attack by the IRA or verbal attack by the Haughey Government?
    The Prime Minister: Everyone in this House utterly condemns the murder by the IRA not only of the baby but of many other people. We are fully behind our security forces and we make that plain to the Government of the Republic of Ireland time and again. I fully endorse what my hon. Friend says about that.
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Winnick: Do the Government intend to hold an immediate inquiry into the serious allegations of insider dealings? As a Cabinet Minister has been mentioned indirectly, will he make a statement to the House about the arrangements that he made with his stockbrokers?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, my right hon. Friend made a statement and I have nothing further to add. I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman has raised the matter.
    Mr. Dunn: Does my right hon. Friend agree—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Dunn: Does the Prime Minister agree that while it is right to promote the growth of democracy in the Eastern bloc, now is the time to promote it in some of the countries that are members of the British Commonwealth?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, not all members of the British Commonwealth are democracies. Some have military Governments and some have a different definition of democracy from ours. It is the purpose of the Commonwealth to help all countries to reach the objectives set out in the Singapore declaration of 1971—freedom under a rule of law and full democracy. We should sustain these countries through the intermediate period until they can attain that objective.
    Mr. Cartwright: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Cartwright: Does the Prime Minister support the suggestion made on Tuesday by her Chancellor that

    467
    interest rates had to be raised in order to prevent young people being priced out of the housing market? Are Ministers so out of touch that they do not understand that high mortgage repayments are just as serious a barrier to home ownership as high prices?
    The Prime Minister: I would not accept the interpretation put by the hon. Gentleman on my right hon. Friend's remarks. Interest rates were raised because monetary conditions were too loose and therefore it was necessary to get inflation down.
    Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Foulkes: Will the Prime Minister now answer the question—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Foulkes: Will the Prime Minister now answer the question asked so eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) in relation to Cambodia? This is a very serious matter and on two occasions in this Question Time the Prime Minister has dodged the issue. Now for a third time she has an opportunity to answer to the House. I hope that she will do so.
    The Prime Minister: I note that the hon. Gentleman was taken by surprise, could not think up a question and had to repeat an old one. I will therefore repeat the answer that I gave. Our abhorrence of Pol Pot's murderous regime is well known and there is no question of our supporting the Khmer Rouge. I hope that the hon. Gentleman has got it clear now.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: May I ask the Leader of the House to tell us the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): The business for next week will be as follows:
Monday 6 November—Progress on consideration of Lords amendments to the Local Government and Housing Bill—
Mr. Eric S. Heifer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I will take points of order after business questions.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Tuesday 7 November—Completion of consideration of—
Mr. Helfer rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman please resume his seat? I will take his point of order and any other points of order after business questions.
Mr. Heifer rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I asked the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat. I now order him to do so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name him."] If the hon. Gentleman persists, I regret that I will have to name him. I must ask him to resume his seat until after business questions.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: As I was saying, on Tuesday 7 November, there will be completion of consideration of Lords amendments to the Local Government and Housing Bill.
WEDNESDAY 8 NOVEMBER—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Employment Bill.
THURSDAY 9 NOVEMBER—Until seven o'clock there will be a debate on parliamentary pensions on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Proceedings on the Prisons (Scotland) Bill [Lords], followed by proceedings on the Statute Law Repeals Bill [Lords] and proceedings on the Opticians Bill [Lords], which are all consolidation measures.
Motion to take note of EC document on shipping and dangerous goods and motions relating to merchant shipping regulations. Details of all the documents concerned will be given in the Official Report.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
FRIDAY to NOVEMBER—There will be a debate on world climate change on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
MONDAY 13 NOVEMBER—Supplemental guillotine motion on and consideration of Lords amendments to the Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Bill.
Opposition day (2nd Allotted Day—2nd part). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject for debate to be announced.
The House will wish to know, Mr. Speaker, that, subject to the progress of business, the House will meet for Prorogation on Thursday 16 November.
The new Session will be opened on Tuesday 21 November.
[Thursday 9 November
Relevant European Community Document
7074/89 Shipping (Dangerous Cargoes) Relevant Report of European Legislation Committee
HC 15-xxix ( 1988–89), para 1
Merchant Shipping Regulations:
Merchant Shipping (Distress Signals and Prevention of Collision) Regulations 1989 (SI 1989 No. 1798)
Merchant Shipping (Accident Investigation) Regulations 1989 (SI 1989 No. 1172).]
Dr. Cunningham: I pledge the Leader of the House my full co-operation in my new role for any measures that he may introduce to improve facilities in the House for hon. Members and others who work here, and my implacable opposition to those aspects of Government policy to which the Opposition are so consistently opposed. I have been informed that my responsibilities, like his, cover televising the House, and I am told that, for people of my height or above, there is a problem with camera angles. Therefore, I had thought to ask his permission to have a small trench dug in the Floor on this side of the House, but as he would probably like to see me start my job off in a hole, I shall put that request in abeyance.
We welcome the decision to provide time for a debate on world climate change, and we look forward to that debate. However, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman reconsider the proposed arrangements for Monday 13 November? As he has said, the second half of that day is to he given over to Opposition supply time. We urge the Leader of the House to change the business so that we can have the Opposition time first, to be followed by the timetable motion. I hope that he will give sympathetic consideration to that request.
As for the business on 6 and 7 November, the Leader of the House will know that more than 600 amendments to the Local Government and Housing Bill have been tabled in another place. That is an astonishing number of amendments, mainly from the Government. I acknowledge that one or two of the amendments resulted from defeats of the Government by Labour Members of the other place, and we welcome that. Bearing in mind the huge amount of additional work to be considered, may we have an assurance that there will be no move to restrict the time available for discussion of those issues?
The Leader of the House will have observed, as we did, the anger on both sides of the House about the announcement that is to come shortly from British Rail that fares are to be increased by between 10 and 20 per cent. He will know that millions of people, particularly in the constituencies represented by his right hon. and hon. Friends in and around the south-east, will be very angry about these increases, which are way in excess of the rate of inflation. Therefore, I urge the Leader of the House to provide time next week for the House to discuss these appalling increases in commuter fares, which will be so deleterious in their effect on the family incomes of millions of people.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his role of dealing with the business of the House. I have taken note, with interest, of both parts of his declaration of faith. I shall try as far as I can to help him with the first and hinder him with the second.

471
I have taken note of what the hon. Gentleman said about the business arrangements for Monday 13 November, and I shall look at the proposal that he has made for changing the sequence of that business. It is probably most convenient for that to be pursued through the usual channels.
I also heard what the hon. Gentleman said about the work that we shall be doing on the Local Government and Housing Bill. The Bill has already received its Third Reading in the other place, and he is right to say that we shall have a substantial number of amendments to consider. However, I emphasise that the vast majority of them are technical or consequential on points that have been raised during debate. The arrangements for debating those matters on the two days that I have identified have been discussed with representatives of the Opposition, and I hope that it will be possible for us to handle them within the framework.
Average rail fare increases have been announced—I recognise that no one welcomes any increase—and they are rather less than a great deal of recent speculation had led people to expect. The details of the increases are beyond my competence at this stage. I cannot offer the hon. Gentleman any prospect of a debate on that matter next week.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that I have been fortunate enough to be granted an Adjournment debate on 13 November on haemophiliac AIDS victims. Will he talk to our right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health and ensure that I have a definitive reply so that these people are given some real hope that they will be compensated as adequately as is possible as soon as possible?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: As I have said on several occasions, it is a matter that I have brought to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health. I congratulate my hon. Friend on having secured on opportunity to raise the matter on the Adjournment next week. I shall draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend to the importance which my hon. Friend understandably attaches to the debate.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Leader of the House reconsider the timetabling of business to reflect the concern that I am sure is felt on both sides of the House about the events in Cambodia? Would it be possible before the United Nations meets on 15 November—which is the date, as he will be aware, when recognition will either be given or refused to the so-called coalition democratic Government of Kampuchea—to have a debate in this place about which authorities in Kampuchea should be recognised, about the prospect of a change of policy so that recognition could be given to the de facto Government in Phnom Penh, and about what actual and potential links there are between British defence forces and forces there so that we and the British people may be assured that we are supporting people who are the servants and protagonists of democracy and not some of the people who the Prime Minister and others have condemned as being among the greatest tyrants in politics since the second world war? A debate would be extremely welcome.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I must repeat what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said. We can make no comment of any kind on allegations of relationships with the non-Communist resistance forces of the sort raised by the hon. Gentleman. Our objective is, and always has been, a comprehensive settlement that will allow the Cambodian people to elect the Government of their own choice. On the many occasions that I have said that, I have repeated that our abhorrence of the murderous Pol Pot regime is well known and that there is no question of our supporting that regime.
I cannot offer any prospect of a rearrangement of the business next week. I remind the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that events in Kampuchea were debated at the end of yesterday's business on the Adjournment.
Sir Ian Lloyd: I welcome the Government's decision to hold an early debate on climate change, or what will undoubtedly be referred to as the greenhouse effect. My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that the Select Committee on Energy, which I have the privilege of chairing, has recently produced a report on the energy policy implications of this. Will the Government's reply to the report be available in time for the forthcoming important debate? Secondly, will the report that is being produced by the Select Committee on Science and Technology in another place, which I gather is at an advanced stage, if not already in draft, be published in time as it will have a material contribution to make to the debate?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome for the debate that we have foreshadowed. I cannot give a precise answer to either of his questions. I shall be sure to let him have that information as soon as I can.
Mr. Bob Cryer: May we have a debate next week on safety measures for large chemical plants such as Allied Colloids in my constituency, where a serious explosion took place earlier this week? We could then receive an explanation of why it is that the local council is trying to remove the only green area left in that industrial area with the purpose of bringing in more industry. Its actions have been backed, apparently, by the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman understandably raises a point of interest to the community he represents with which he is, also understandably, more familiar than I am, but I shall draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Mr. Richard Holt: My right hon. and learned Friend's decision to have a debate next week on the climate will be welcome, but since the reports are not yet out it is premature. Would not the Government be doing the House a better service by having a debate on toxic waste disposal as a result of the report published by the Select Committee on the Environment, which has been out for some considerable time and is of great interest to everyone in Britain?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I can understand my hon. Friend advancing that point of view, but it is not a point of view that has prevailed with those who arrange the business of the House.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: Is the Leader of the House aware of difficulties regarding the allocation of debating time to the minority parties? Can he give an assurance that during his tenure of office past obligations entered into will be honoured?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I will take account of the hon. Gentleman's point.
Mr. Harry Greenway: If we cannot have a debate next week on the fares increase for London Transport, London Underground and British Rail, may we have a statement so that I can bring out the position of my constituents in Northolt and Northolt Park? In a letter to me today Sir Robert Reid, the chairman of the British Railways Board, said that those people receive a thoroughly unsatisfactory service from Network SouthEast and that something must be done about it. Is it not wrong that they should have to pay a 10 or 10-plus per cent. fares increase on top of an unsatisfactory service?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I can understand my hon. Friend expressing concern about that matter, but I cannot promise to rearrange the business to make it possible to have such a debate next week.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will no doubt have noticed that various innovations have been introduced into the Chamber, about which the majority of Members were never consulted and which a feeble Committee seemed powerless to control. What does he think of these lamps hung with Malaysian moth catchers? What does he think of these cameras that, contrary to earlier assurances, intrude into the Chamber?
Mr. Tony Banks: Hung almost as well as my hon. Friend.
Mr. Faulds: Not quite as well, I can assure my hon. Friend. Regardless of the rather puerile comments of this inevitably loquacious colleague of mine, should not the House examine these internal decorations and should the matter not finally be referred to the Royal Fine Art Commission?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I would hesitate to adjudicate in the competition on loquacity between the hon Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the arrangements now in place are part of an experiment that is starting in its full form shortly. They are certainly not intended to represent the final state of the art.
Mr. Faulds: When does the experiment end?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The experiment ends or continues when the House debates it at the end of the Session that is shortly to start. It will not surprise the hon. Gentleman to know that one of the matters that has already been drawn to the Select Committee's attention has been a certain lack of enthusiasm for these designs and the Committee has decided that further work should be done on the preparation of alternatives to take the place of those in due course if the House should so decide on the continuation
474
of the experiment. I understand how aggrieved the hon. Gentleman is with his enormous sense of taste, but the matter has already struck a number of other hon. Members.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Has my right hon. and learned Friend received a letter from an organisation which calls itself CMB Image Consultants telling him that 55 per cent. of the impression that we make on television depends on our appearance?
Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions should be about business next week.
Mr. Marlow: With the imminence of this wretched experiment, the sooner the matter is debated the better.
Such a letter to my right hon. and learned Friend would suggest that, as we all know, body language is five times as important as what is said, where he can find a change of hairstyle if he wants one and, if he does not like his glasses and they do not look right on television, what he should do about it. That is an impertinence, and the sooner we debate it the better. For the short period that we must endure this wretched experiment, will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that television serves the House and not the House television?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have not had the opportunity of studying the text of the document, nor do I think that I should have been as moved by its contents as my hon. Friend obviously is. If that is how he feels about it, he must respond to the treatment recommended.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The Lord President will not have heard the answer that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland gave the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux). We welcome the commitment that he gave of no change in Government policy in extirpating the IRA. Would it be possible for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to make a statement on policy in Northern Ireland early next week in view of the rumours circulating in Northern Ireland that press statements will be made tomorrow, the contents of which would have, if they are correct, an adverse effect on security? Does the tradition guiding ministerial replies—that they should not knowingly mislead the House—still apply, because today we had a misstatement from a Minister in which he implied that Northern Ireland Members had not responded to a draft Order in Council? Is a reply from a subject spokesman not a reply?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman asks a comprehensive range of questions, which, as he recognises, could have more appropriately been posed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State earlier.
Rev. Martin Smyth: He is not here.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: He is not able to answer questions when he is not here, nor is he able to answer questions beyond the time allotted to him. I shall draw to his attention the continuing concern of the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends. There is no question of any change in Government policy on Northern Ireland. If anything must be announced or discussed, it will be drawn to my right hon. Friend's attention.
Mr. Andy Stewart: In view of the so-called leaked document, will my right hon. and learned Friend consider holding a debate next week on the future of the

475
coal industry so that we can ensure that the people who work in the industry have a secure future after the privatisation of electricity?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand my hon. Friend's continuous interest in the welfare and well-being of those who work in the industry. I cannot promise him the prospect of a debate next week, but he will have an opportunity to raise the matter in the debates on the Gracious Speech.
Mr. Harry Ewing: Will Thursday's debate on parliamentary pensions be on the basis of a take note motion? Will the Leader of the House be in a position to give the Government's response to the dangerous suggestions from the actuaries that the Government should reduce their contribution to the Members' pension fund to soak up the surplus largely accrued by the 9 per cent. of salary contributions of hon. Members?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The debate will be on the Adjournment, which will enable hon. Members, including Government spokesmen, to express a view not only on the recommendations of the Top Salaries Review Body but on the report of the Government actuaries. The debate will be framed in that way to enable views to be expressed on both reports.
Mr. David Tredinnick: Will my right hon. and learned Friend find time next week to discuss in depth the implications of the Silberston report on the multi-fibre arrangement? There is much concern in my constituency about that report on textiles and the future of the arrangements to protect workers in my constituency. Is there any chance of us soon having a proper debate?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs announced on 19 October, we have invited comments from all parties interested in the report by 17 November. We shall then want to consider those in conjunction with the contents of the report, which we recognise is important. I recognise that the House will want an opportunity to consider the issues thereafter.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Does the Leader of the House realise that the millions of our constituents who watched John Pilger's film about the realities of Cambodia are apparently more aware of what is really happening in that part of the world than the Prime Minister showed she was in her answers today? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman reconsider having a statement made in the House next week, before the United Nations General Assembly meets, to justify the Government's decision to support a delegation to the United Nations which is nominally a coalition but in reality consists entirely of representatives of the murderous Khmer Rouge?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: There is probably no other issue on which I have expressed my view with more consistent strength than on our condemnation of Pol Pot and his cronies. There was a debate on that very issue last night in the House. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I answered questions about it today. I shall draw the points which have been made by several hon. Members to
476
the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, obviously ahead of the debate in the United Nations.
Mr. Roger Gale: My right hon. and learned Friend will know that British Rail today announced a rail price increase of an average of 9 per cent., which masks an increase of some 15 per cent. on some long-distance commuter lines. I welcome the unprecedented investment in British Rail, to which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred during Question Time, but it is also true that many travellers do not yet receive the benefits of that investment. Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider finding time for a debate on the need for a price differential on British Rail services so that travellers such as the commuters on the appalling north Kent line who are currently paying the same prices as everyone else do not have to pay for what they are not yet receiving?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: As one who represents a commuter constituency, I do not under-estimate the extent to which my hon. Friend thinks that it is right to bring this matter before the House. The details of the pattern of fares are a matter for the operators, not the Government, and I cannot add anything on that aspect.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: May I take the Leader of the House back to the issue of next Thursday's business and press him on the matter of private business? He has been asked several times to announce the Government's approach to the reform of private business. Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman now give us some assurances from the Dispatch Box that the Government will take some action rather than simply have rumours going round the House that he is sympathetic to some reform? It would do much to speed up the business next Thursday if the right hon. and learned Gentleman could make clear announcements that the Government will reform private business, which has become a scandal.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand the hon. Gentleman's continuing concern with this matter. Obviously, I cannot make any announcement now. I assure the House that I am giving close and serious consideration to the suggestions made in the report which is already before the House. I cannot begin to foreshadow what the conclusions will be. Plainly, the suggestions deserve, and are receiving, my careful attention.
Mr. James Kilfedder: Will my right hon. and learned Friend provide time for a debate on the working of the legislation regarding experiments on animals? There is wide concern in Northern Ireland about the slaughter of about 100 greyhounds at Queen's university as a result of experiments which must have caused great agony to the animals before they died.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not know the details, but I shall draw that case to the attention of my right hon. Friends and reflect upon that point.
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): The Leader of the House will be aware of intense press speculation, especially in the earlier part of the week, about the future of the nuclear industry. National Power has made an application to build a pressurised water reactor in my constituency. My constituents are worried about the cost of nuclear power, which seems to have escalated beyond all reason.

477
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House whether the Government will make an early statement on this issue so that I can reassure my constituents?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have no express notice of any intended statement on that topic, but I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's anxiety to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Bob Dunn: Is my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House aware that the British Railways Board is likely to announce later today its decision not to present a private Bill dealing with the construction of a high-speed line from Ashford to London? If British Rail returns in a year's time with precisely the same proposals as they have put forward to date, it will cause the most grave anxiety and hardship to the people of north-west Kent, central Kent and south London. If an announcement is made, will he arrange either a statement or an early debate on that vexed matter?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot comment on speculation about a decision that British Rail may make on this matter today. My hon. Friend will understand that the project is the responsibility of the British Railways Board. If any announcement is made today that may lead to the anxiety that he describes, I shall bring it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
Mr. Robert Parry: Several hon. Members asked questions about Cambodia earlier today and the Leader of the House will have seen my early-day motion 1322.
[That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to reconsider its support for the seating of the Kymer Rouge-controlled coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea at the United Nations, as the seating of the regime responsible for the 'Killing Fields' at the United Nations gives them major advantages while damaging the people of Cambodia; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government in the United Nations General Assembly debate on Cambodia on 15th or 16th November to challenge this proposal which will lead to further intensification of the civil war and an increase in human suffering in one of the poorest countries on earth]
It has been signed by more than 18 hon. Members. Will he ask the Foreign Secretary to ensure that we vote against the United Nations' proposal, to show that we are opposed to Pol Pot?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the report of the United Nations' credentials committee was adopted by the General Assembly without a vote on 17 October. The representative of the United Kingdom emphasised then that adoption of the report did not imply support for the Khymer Rouge and still less for the abhorrent Pol Pot.
Mr. Tony Baldry: Will my right hon. and learned Friend find time next week for a further statement on the ambulance dispute? While many of us have great respect for the ambulance staff, a further opportunity is needed to explain to the House that their central condition of comparability with the police force and fire brigade has been investigated by an independent tribunal—the Clegg commission—and rejected. Ambulance staff pay has
478
always been determined by the Whitley council, and until the trade unions return to that council and cease their action it is difficult to see how the dispute will be resolved.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend has done a service to the House by drawing its attention to what the Clegg commission said on the matter. I cannot promise a debate on it in the near future. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health keeps a close eye on the dispute. I am sure that the best way forward is for the unions to call off their disruption and resume discussions with the Whitley council.
Mr. Alan Meale (Mansfield): Is the Leader of the House aware that television licence charges increased this week, that we had a debate some time ago about the television needs of parliamentarians, and that next week we shall debate the pension needs of hon. Members? Will he find time before the end of the Session to discuss the communication needs and pension needs of pensioners?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: That topic has been discussed on many occasions, both inside and outside the House. I cannot guarantee a further debate during the week immediately ahead.
Sir Antony Buck: Will my right hon. and learned Friend reaffirm that he agrees that it is important to draw attention on the Floor of the House to the work of the parliamentary Select Committees? Will he discuss with me and some of my hon. Friend's next week the need to put before the House the full report of the Parliamentary Commissioners for Administration and for the Health Service, more commonly known as the ombudsmen?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I know that my hon. and learned Friend has a close interest in the work of the Parliamentary Commissioners to whom he referred and I understand why he makes that point. I shall try to find an early opportunity to discuss it with him.
Mr. Allen McKay: Will the Leader of the House examine the leaked document to which the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) referred and then reconsider his earlier reply? That document contains statistics and statements which support the case that my hon. Friends and I have been making for a considerable time and which the Secretary of State for Energy has constantly denied. It refers not only to the closure of a third of Britain's coal mines, 18,000 redundancies in mining and 12,000 redundancies elsewhere, but to the possibility that electricity prices will be increased by 15 per cent. for domestic consumers and 25 per cent. for industrial consumers. Such an increase would devastate the steel industry. It is important that we should have the facts and figures and that everything should be clear before flotation of the electricity industry takes place.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The measures providing for the future of the electricity industry will come before the House in the ordinary way over the weeks and months ahead and they will provide many opportunities for raising matters such as the one to which the hon. Gentleman has just referred. I cannot accept any responsibility for the idea of promoting a debate on a leaked document.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: Has my right hon. and learned Friend taken note of the issue of the

479
Polkinghorne report this summer which said that research would be allowed on live foetuses up to 20 weeks old only if controlled by an ethical committee? There is a strong feeling throughout the country, especially in the light of possible Bills next Session, that this is an important matter. Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider providing an opportunity for the House to debate this important report?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: At this stage, I cannot add to what I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) last week.
Mr. Dave Nellist: As the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has not seen fit to make a statement this afternoon on the announcement this morning by Ford, which is the logical conclusion of his Pontius Pilate sell-out of thousands of Jaguar workers in Coventry and tens of thousands of components suppliers in the west midlands, will the Leader of the House pressurise his right hon. Friend to come back to the Chamber later today to make such a statement? We could then discuss not only the global chess match for Jaguar's name and badge, but the wider question about what happens now to the so-called golden shares in Cable and Wireless, Sealink, British Telecom, British Aerospace, Vickers, British Airports and Rolls-Royce, and not least in water and electricity. If Britoil and Jaguar have shown that the so-called golden shares are worthless pawns in the Government's hands, why is the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry not here this afternoon to defend himself?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am most unlikely to bring these matters to the attention of my right hon. Friend on the basis of so intemperate a presentation.
Mr. Derek Conway (Shrewsbury and Atcham): Will my right hon. and learned Friend discuss through the usual channels as soon as possible the suggestion that the Opposition day a week on Monday should be on the subject of housing, especially the effect on young couples seeking a mortgage for the first time and couples seeking to trade up their house for a larger house as the family grows? If the Government were to accept the policy advocated by the new Opposition environment spokesman, the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), who in the Walden interview on 15 October pledged the Labour party to freeze mortgages for young couples, which would be disastrous.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is difficult to keep up with the movements of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), as the Leader of the Opposition seeks to conceal his more intemperate views.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. There is great pressure to take part in the subsequent debate. I am reluctant to curtail business questions, but I will allow them to continue until 4.15 pm, after which we must move on because I have already had to put a 10-minute limit on speeches.
Mr. Greville Janner: Will the Leader of the House please find time for a debate on the disruption caused to people's lives by the widening of
480
roads and the driving of roads through residential areas? Is he aware of the complete lack of consultation and communication with the residents of Evesham road in my constituency as a result of the Bede island development, which is causing anger and alarm? Will the House have an opportunity to discuss such anxieties, which affect ordinary people in their everyday lives?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is aware, for example, of the anxiety that arises from such prospective development, especially in relation to the assessment studies being undertaken in Greater London. He intends to announce which options will be considered as soon as possible, probably in early December. I will draw to his attention the comparable anxieties described by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Does the Leader of the House recall that during business questions last week my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) asked him whether the United Kingdom had troops in secret bases in Thailand? The Leader of the House said that he would alert the appropriate Minister to give an answer in the Adjournment debate which took place last night. Is he aware that the Minister did not answer last night? The Leader of the House must surely be aware that today the Prime Minister refused to say. Can we have an urgent debate about Cambodia? Is it true that United Kingdom personnel are training guerrillas in secret bases in Thailand?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Lady knows very well that it is not customary to comment on allegations about the possible engagement of forces in that way.
Mr. Keith Vaz: Will the Leader of the House make time available for a debate about the issue highlighted by the Carnworth report? Does he agree that our planning laws are in need of major reform? To that end, will he join me in condemning firms like Neal Brothers in my constituency, situated in residential areas, which hide behind outdated stop notice planning laws? Does he agree that that is an important issue? When can we have a debate on it?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot offer the hon. Gentleman the prospect of an early debate on that subject. However, I assure him that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is aware of the importance of the report to which he referred.
Mr. Harry Barnes: May we have a debate on the state of the franchise? The Leader of the House will be aware that we have been in correspondence on that matter and I maintain that it is due to the operation of the poll tax. In the light of that correspondence, will the Leader of the House comment on the statements in a secret document sent to Right-wing Members by "British Briefing", which—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We are discussing debates next week, and we have only four minutes left.
Mr. Barnes: We could have a debate on the "British Briefing" document which was sent around the House which describes me as an
"emerging, vigorous, Stalinist underminer of democracy."

481
How does that tie in with my concern for the franchise? The document has placed that label against me for opening a Morning Star bazaar in Chesterfield.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I would find it difficult to comment on a secret document which the hon. Gentleman has seen but I have not. I dare say that the hon. Gentleman has a better chance of answering his questions than I have.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. If hon. Members are brief, I may be able to call them all.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motions Nos. 1308, 1321 and 1346—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Only one early-day motion will be printed in the Official Report.
Mr. Corbyn: Early-day motion 1308 relates to the ambulance dispute.
[That this House fully supports the ambulance crews in their pay claim, which is absolutely justified, especially against a background of salary increases of 26 per cent. awarded to themselves by company directors and top executives.]
Will the Leader of the House find time next week for an urgent debate on the ambulance dispute, the just claims of the ambulance workers, and the Government's preparedness to use the police and the Army to smash that dispute and the unions with it instead of recognising the importance of the work of ambulance workers, their dedication and the debt which we owe to them all? Will he ensure that there is a debate?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: As the hon. Gentleman knows as well as anyone, more than 94 per cent. of National Health Service staff have settled their pay claims without recourse to industrial action, most at or around the level of the offer available to ambulance crews. The unions should call off their action against patients and return to the negotiating table. I can offer no prospect of a debate on the subject.
Mr. Harry Cohen: May we have a proper statement from the Prime Minister on Kampuchea, or is she so arrogant that she feels that she does not have to tell the House whether British troops are involved in a war out there?
Mr. Speaker: Briefly, please.
Mr. Cohen: The Leader of the House is deputy Prime Minister and was previously the Foreign Secretary. Was he told what was happening or, like so many other issues of State, was he kept in the dark like an old, ill-treated dog?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have nothing to add to the answers which have already been given by myself and my
482
right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and Ministers from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in the debate which took place as recently as last night.
Mr. Frank Haynes (Ashfield): Is the Leader of the House aware that not too many moments ago he announced that we would have private business next week? Is he aware that we had some private discussions about a Bill that was debated last night? What happened in this House was shocking. I believe that the Government introduced a payroll vote during our previous discussions of that Bill. Will the Leader of the House assure us that he will keep his eye on the Government Chief Whip so that we will not see the payroll vote in future? That is the responsibility of the Leader of the House—
Mr. Speaker: Briefly.
Mr. Haynes: I warn the Leader of the House that Labour Members will be in government after the next election and the present Leader of the House will be on the Opposition Benches. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I think that the hon. Gentleman is well able to keep an eye on my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip himself.
Mr. Tony Banks: I know that the Leader of the House is a great lover of parrots—he bears more than a passing resemblance to a giant African grey himself. Is he aware that there are 330 species of parrot in the world, and that about one third of them are under threat of extinction? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman arrange a debate next week on the threat to parrots and to all endangered animal species?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for imparting to me some additional knowledge about parrots which was not previously available. However, even in response to that, I cannot provide time for a debate next week on that topic.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made as soon as possible on insider dealing, in view of the fragility of the stock market and the announcements made this morning that it is possible that a Cabinet Minister is involved? Before a statement is made next week, will he make sure that every Cabinet Minister is checked out on insider dealing, and that they, not stockbrokers, give statements?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister pointed out that my right hon. Friend has already made a statement today. I have nothing to add to that, except to join in what the Prime Minister said, and to regret the way in which the matter has been raised in the House this afternoon.

Points of Order
4.16 pm
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You probably consider me to be a nuisance but, as I have always been a nuisance, I intend to continue to be one as long as I am here. I think that you have to reconsider your ruling on hon. Members raising genuine points of order when an issue is raised in Question Time or at any other time. I know that you, or perhaps your predecessors, were quite rightly concerned about frivolous points of order, for example, when hon. Members got up, as a knee-jerk reaction, to say that they disagreed with an issue, and that they would raise it on the Adjournment debate. That used to annoy all of us, as they never raised it on the Adjournment anyway. Other hon. Members use points of order to stop the proceedings of the House.
I understand your point of view, Mr. Speaker, but once hon. Members know that there is no point in raising frivolous points of order, they will raise only genuine points of order.
The hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) raised a point of order today but he has had to go. That is understandable. He has probably had to go to another meeting. The Minister has also had to go. Ministers cannot remain in the House. However, an hour and a half later the issue is being raised, and the hon. Members involved are not here. The issue needed to be dealt with there and then.
I am serious about this matter and I have raised it before. I understand your position, Mr. Speaker, but I ask you to reconsider. If a genuine point of order is not dealt with at the time, the issue is lost sight of.
Mr. Speaker: I shall deal with the matter now, because I have given it careful consideration over a long time. It is the consistent practice of the Chair to hear points of order after questions and statements. The whole House knows that; but I will always hear a point of order if it concerns irregularities which require immediate attention. Today, the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) raised a point of order to argue that he did not like the answer that he had been given in Question Time. That was a clear continuation of Question Time.
I say to the whole House that if I allowed that, the danger, when the Commons is televised, is that there could be a rash of points of order at what is judged to be prime time after questions, thereby delaying the debate, and taking time from right hon. and hon. Members who wish to participate in subsequent business.
I shall always hear points of order if they require my immediate attention. Otherwise, points of order should come in their proper place which is after questions or statements or Standing Order No. 20 applications.
Mr. Richard Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Not long ago, we sought to protect Back Benchers by reducing the number of questions asked by the Leader of the Opposition. At that time it was normal for him to ask two questions; occasionally, you said that that might spread to a third. Now he is asking three on a regular basis. Will you, Sir, take the usual opportunity to speak to the right hon. Gentleman and tell him to get his questions down to two?
Mr. Speaker: It has always been the practice for the Leader of the Opposition to be allowed a certain tolerance at Question Time.
May I remind the House that many hon. Members wish to participate in today's debate? Some may already be seeking to raise points of order.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Points of order take time out of debates, and that is unfair on hon. Members' colleagues.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It concerns efforts by South Africa to influence unduly the elections taking place in Namibia. I wonder whether it would be possible to arrange—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Pike: There is a British involvement, Mr. Speaker, in that the signals that South Africa is claiming to intercept are British signals. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. But that is plainly not a point of order for me. If the hon. Gentleman had risen to ask me whether I had received a request for a statement, that would be another matter, but I cannot hear arguments about what is going on in South Africa. That is not a matter for me.
Mr. Campbell-Savours (Workington): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to raise again a matter that I raised with you nine months ago. You will know, Mr. Speaker, that when a Minister says that he has nothing to add to a statement, he is, in effect, blocking questions. I tabled 10 questions at 2.5 pm today about insider dealing in the City—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has not tabled the questions; I understand that they are still in draft.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I tabled them, and was told that they might well be amended. That is where my point of order comes in.
Mr. Speaker: It has never been the practice for hon. Members to challenge Mr. Speaker on matters that he has not had an opportunity to examine. The hon. Gentleman cannot do that in the Chamber.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: That is not the question, Mr. Speaker. The issue is that the questions that I have tabled are now the subject of a block, and I am asking you to exercise your discretion to allow my questions—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I was in the Chair before the hon. Gentleman tabled his questions. How on earth can I have an opportunity to make any definitive promise or statement on a matter that I have not even considered?
Mr. Dave Nellist: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that the point that my hon. Friend is trying to make concerns not what you may not yet have seen, but what has taken place in the Chamber this afternoon while you have been in the Chair, namely that in several answers the Leader of the House —the deputy Prime Minister—has used the phrase, "I have nothing further to add." That phrase becomes a blocking motion, which may then prevent the tabling of further

485
questions. My hon. Friend and I are asking you to consider that, Mr. Speaker, and to rule against the Leader of the House.
Mr. Speaker: I certainly cannot make such a ruling until I have had an opportunity to look at the matter.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Between 1976 and 1979, on every occasion but three, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—then Leader of the Opposition—was at the Dispatch Box to ask the Leader of the House in the then Labour Government to name the business for that week. That tradition seems now to have lapsed: the Leader of the Opposition appears only infrequently to make the request. Surely that is a grave discourtesy to the House, and I seek your ruling on it.
Mr. Speaker: It has been the practice that when the Leader of the House announces the business, he is frequently asked to do so by the shadow Leader of the House. There is nothing wrong with that.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the difficulty, but my hon. Friend was not trying to continue an earlier debate; he was trying to clarify an issue. It is one thing for a Minister to make a statement politically, outside the House. It is another matter for him to make a statement in the House that has the import of misleading the House.
You, Mr. Speaker, do not expect Back Benchers not to be interested in a statement made from the Front Bench on their behalf. Is it not a tradition of the House that when a party's spokesperson makes a statement, responding to a departmental request in writing, that is taken to be the response of his party? That was the issue on which my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) sought your guidance.
Mr. Speaker: I ask the hon. Gentleman to calculate what would happen if that practice became general. There would be a rash of hon. Members seeking clarification of answers to their questions. Question Time is limited, because otherwise we would never have time for the business before by the House.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Molyneaux.
Mr. James Molyneaux (Lagan Valley): I shall be brief, Mr. Speaker, because I know that many hon. Members wish to participate in the next debate. The Leader of the House came to your aid, Mr. Speaker, when he put his finger on the spot by deploring the fact that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) had asked a question in the absence of the Minister. However, it could not have been otherwise because the Minister had left the chamber. The hon. Member for Walton raised that point to obtain a correction at the time but naturally you had ruled against it. I believe that the Leader of the House has got the message.
Mr. Speaker: The truth of the matter is that Northern Ireland questions come to an end at 3.15 pm.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must advise the House that about 30 hon. Members, many on the Opposition Benches wish to take part and may be disappointed.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Further to an earlier point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will doubtless be delighted to see me back in action, so that we can continue our dialogue about points of order. You said just now, Sir, quite clearly, that it was your consistent practice to take points of order after other procedures in the House had been pursued. May I simply point out with great respect, Sir, that that was not the practice of your predecessor? You also said, Sir, that the proper place for points of order was where you had chosen to put them. The proper place for points of order is when they arise—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has not been here for a while, and I welcome him back. May I repeat and underline—because perhaps he does not read Hansard as regularly as some hon. Members—that I will always take points of order—I said this to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer)—on matters that need my immediate attention. Other points of order are taken in their proper place—it is not a new practice—which today was after business questions or after a statement if there had been one. That has always been the practice, and that I shall continue.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have listened closely to what you have said during this exchange about points of order being taken at various times—either before Question Time, in the middle of Question Time, at the end of Question Time or after statements have been made. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that some considerable time ago you tried to take a definitive stance on taking points of order at the very end. It was suggested by some hon. Members, including myself, that that could not be carried through successfully because there would be cases when Front-Bench spokesmen in particular would want to raise points of order. Eventually, the thing broke down, albeit on a limited scale.
Today, for instance—it is important that we get this right before the cameras or anything else intrude—at the very opening of Question Time, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall) raised a point of order about a Northern Ireland case in his room. You allowed that point of order, and heard it and I believe that it was sensible of you to do so. However, an hon. Member representing a Northern Ireland constituency later tried to raise a point of order, but before the proper explanation was given—it was about misleading the House—the whole thing collapsed because of your intervention. At the end, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) then wanted to raise a point of order arising out of something that occurred during Question Time, but before you had heard what he had to say, you said that he would not be allowed to make his point of order.
If you say, Mr. Speaker, as you have said three times —or rather twice—today, that you will allow points of order where they are attributable to procedure as distinct from argument, and if you want matters to continue on an even and decent plane, I suggest that you give Back Benchers an opportunity to raise points of order—Front Bench spokesmen always have their chance—and my guess is that you would be wise to hear what. hon. Members have to say before giving any ruling.
Mrs. Alice Mahon (Halifax)rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall first deal with the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
The hon. Gentleman is totally incorrect. I heard the point of order from the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs), but it was plainly not a matter of order for me; it was challenging what the Minister had said. I am not responsible for that.
I will always hear points of order if they need my imediate attention. I am not prepared, however—and I believe that the House would not want it either—to have a rash of points of order arising out of Question Time. That would merely mean that we would delay the start of a debate. Other points of order should be raised at the proper place which, as the House well knows, is after a private notice question, a statement or a Standing Order No. 20 application.
Mrs. Mahon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek clarification from you. You will be aware that I asked the Leader of the House a question about troops in secret bases in Thailand, which was based on a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) last week. Then, the Leader of the House said that an explanation would be given by a Minister, but things seem to have changed this week because a procedural gag appears to have been used. The Leader of the House said that he had nothing further to add. Does that mean that I cannot table a question asking whether British Troops are being used from secret bases in Thailand?
Mr. Speaker: That is a hypothetical question, and until the hon. Lady tables her question it is difficult to say whether it will need my attention. I think that we should move on to the Adjournment debate.

Economic and Monetary Union
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Dorrell.]
4.31 pm
Mr. Speaker: We have had a late start and a large number of right hon. and hon. Members want to participate. I must put a 10-minute limit on speeches between 7 and 9 o'clock, but I implore hon. Members who are called before that to bear that limit in mind because I greatly regret that, if not, few Members are likely to be called today.
4.32 pm
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. John Major): I greatly welcome this opportunity for a debate on economic and monetary union in the European Community. This is an important occasion and one on which the Government are particularly keen to hear the views of the House. The idea of moving towards economic and monetary union in the Community is not new. It has a long history. As long ago as 1970, a report by Mr. Pierre Werner, then Prime Minister of Luxembourg, made detailed proposals for progressing to economic and monetary union. He proposed transferring major economic policy decisions to Community level, adopting a single currency and setting up a single central bank. The Community endorsed those proposals in 1972 and agreed that full EMU would be achieved by December 1980 at the latest.
After that endorsement, other events intervened and nothing much came of the Werner proposals. They were, in practice, buried. Nevertheless throughout the 1970s the Community continued to endorse the principle of progressing towards economic and monetary union. It was reaffirmed again at the European Council in Brussels in 1977, and the objective of the progressive realisation of EMU is recalled also in the Single European Act of 1986. It has since been reaffirmed again at the European Councils of Hanover and Madrid. There is thus a long-standing commitment to the objective of the progressive realisation of EMU. But there is no universal view of what EMU means or what it entails; or when it should be achieved. That is the issue before us now.
One definition was offered in the Delors report, which was published in April this year. The Governor of the Bank of England, a member of the Delors committee, explained its approach to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee in May. It devoted itself
"very much to how economic and monetary union might be achieved, rather than whether or when. We took the view that whether or when was a matter for political leaders".
The Delors report—which was a report from a group of technical monetary experts—was considered by the European Council in Madrid in June. The Council agreed then to adopt the first stage of its proposals, and to set in hand further preparatory work on developments beyond that stage.
The Council of Finance Ministers and the General Affairs Council are now engaged in that further work. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will be attending a meeting of the General Affairs Council next Monday at which economic and monetary union will be on the agenda. It will then be the central subject for discussion at the ecofin Council on Monday 13 November, when I will present a paper setting out the British Government's view.

489
Copies of this have been placed in the Library of the House and put in the Vote Office. Following the ecofin discussion it will again be discussed in December at the European Council. So this debate is a timely opportunity for the House to express its views as we prepare for those important discussions.
As I said a moment ago, there is no agreed definition of what actually constitutes economic and monetary union, but there is a large measure of agreement among all member states about what we want to achieve. We seek price stability, and currency stability. We want to achieve a single market, with free movement of people, services, and goods, free movement of capital, and equal access to capital and financial services for all citizens and businesses in the Community.
We want those things for practical reasons: because they will make our businesses and industries stronger and more flexible as they compete in world markets; because they will enable our economies to grow; and because they will bring higher living standards, and greater choice.
There is no real controversy about these objectives either in the Community or in the House. The disagreement lies elsewhere. It is about the means by which we move towards them.
There is a fundamental question that determines the positions in this debate. It is this: do we want to start moving towards a federal Europe, with all that implies, or do we instead concentrate on developing a yet closer partnership, of individual nation states, and achieve in that way the objectives upon which we are all agreed?
It will be no surprise to the House that this Government favour the latter approach. It harnesses the strength of our national traditions and political structures. It builds on the policies—the liberal, free market policies—that we have followed both here and in Europe, and which have brought success; and it respects both parliamentary accountability and the diversity of member states. In essence, it takes the sting and controversy out of moving to our shared aims. It is this approach that we have adopted to the debate on EMU, and the Delors report.
Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield): The Chancellor referred to parliamentary accountability. Will he confirm that in practice, when he or other Ministers go to the Council of Ministers or when such an agreement is reached, it is made under the royal prerogative of treaty making and is not subject to previous or subsequent enactments by the House of Commons? Therefore, to speak of parliamentary accountability in that context is to mislead those who are listening intently to this debate.
Mr. Major: There is certainly no intention to mislead. In essence, we are talking about significant changes which are proposed in the Delors report and which would have far wider significance than most of the previous ones. It is that issue, and the extent to which the House retains its control over monetary and economic matters, that concerns me and to which I shall turn in detail later.
We have already agreed to implement stage I of the Delors prescription. The elements of this are familiar to the House. They include establishing a genuinely single market in goods, services, and capital; the strengthening of competition policy; and the development of co-ordination of member states' economic and monetary policies. The
490
Commission's proposals for revised co-ordination arrangements are among the documents listed for our debate today.
Stage 1 of course, also requires all Community currencies to join the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system on the same terms. This we shall do, as I told the House on Tuesday, when the level of United Kingdom inflation is significantly lower, when there is capital liberalisation in the Community, and when real progress has been made towards completion of the single market, freedom of financial services and strengthened competition policy.
Our position on stage 1 is clear and constructive, and we are committed to it, but we part company with the Delors recipe on the next steps. Let us be clear at the outset what the report proposes: permanently fixed exchange rates; a single Community currency; binding central rules on national budgetary policies; and a European system of central banks, with sole responsibility for formulating and implementing Community monetary and exchange rate policy. The Government—and, I suspect, the overwhelming majority of this House—have very great difficulty with these proposals.
We do not believe that Community rules on the use of national budget deficits are either necessary or desirable. They are unnecessary because monetary unions can and do tolerate diversity of budgetary positions. That is true in nearly all existing federal states. It is markets which impose a discipline and prevent deficits from getting too far out of line. On the desirability of binding rules, I can do no better than quote the conclusion of the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins):
"The power of the House of Commons over the centuries has depended fundamentally on the control of money, both taxation and expenditure. This would be jeopardised by t he form of monetary union proposed by the Delors Report which would involve central undemocratic direction from within Europe of domestic budgetary policies."
I agree unreservedly with that judgment by the Select Committee, and I hope that our partners in Europe recognise the seriousness of this issue to us. It is fundamental to our parliamentary constitution and practice, and is not a matter which can be bargained away or cast aside.
The Delors proposals for increased regional and structural aid also seem to us to be misconceived. There must, of course, be greater opportunities for the living standards of the less prosperous regions to rise. No one denies that. Indeed, the Community's structural funds are already being doubled in the five years between 1988 and 1993 for precisely that reason. But there is no reason whatever to believe that a route to economic and monetary union that relies primarily on the operation of the market —rather than primarily on Government intervention—would harm the less prosperous areas. I believe the reverse to be the case.
Thirdly, the Delors report's proposals on monetary union are unacceptable, for monetary policy is at the very heart of macroeconomic policy and the proposals in the report make no provision for accountability for monetary policy to national Governments or national Parliaments. Yet the electorate would still hold Governments and national authorities responsible for their economic well-being, and rightly so.
Moreover, there would be no effective means of bringing the central banking system to account for any

491
failings—and there can be no guarantees that it would pursue successful anti-inflationary policies, whatever the treaty might require. Indeed, by eliminating competition between monetary policies, it seems likely that the proposals would lead to harmonisation not on the best inflation performance but on the average.
Mr. A. J. Beith: The Chancellor is inviting the House and the country to accept an alternative proposal set out in this document, which is an invitation to a race that the Bundesbank would be almost certain to win—to an independent central bank of the sort favoured by his predecessor.
Mr. Major: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me for a few moments, I shall turn in detail to our proposals, which may be of some interest to him
In short, the Government's fundamental objection to the Delors approach beyond stage 1 is that its prescription for economic and monetary union centralises power. It relies on administrative fiat and institutional change. It skates over vital issues of political accountability. Changes in economic and monetary arrangements must reflect real changes in economic behaviour in the market place and they must work with the grain of the market and not against it. In our view, the Delors route is quite simply the wrong way for the future development of Europe. But there is a better way to meet our agreed objectives.
The better way is set out in the paper that I laid before the House earlier today. It proposes an alternative approach, an evolutionary approach, to economic and monetary union. It represents the contribution that we promised to the debate within the Community.
We start from three principles: first, the overriding objective of price stability—that is clearly desirable; secondly, increasing the influence of markets and competition, which builds directly on the single market proposals already accepted throughout the Community; and thirdly, retaining national control over economic policy-making to the maximum extent possible, which fully reflects the principle of subsidiarity to which the Community rightly attaches such importance.
Recent debate in Europe seems to leap over the main work that we currently face to contemplate the many steps necessary for stage 1 of the Delors report. That is unwise, because stage I is a massive enterprise in itself. It will have very far-reaching consequences for all our economies and a profound effect on monetary policy and it will give a significant impulse to economic convergence.
Stage 1 means establishing a genuinely single market in capital movements and removing all exchange controls. A timetable has been agreed, starting with France and Italy by next summer. We of course are 10 years down that track. We welcome the commitment by others to follow suit, and the sooner the better.
Secondly, stage 1 means completing the single market. That is a huge task, and it is the dominant priority for the Community between now and 1992. Nearly half the legislative programme has been agreed, and the United Kingdom's influence in formulating that programme has been very great indeed. But there are tough issues still to be resolved, and, of course, all member states must then implement the directives agreed. On this, the record of this country is significantly better than that of many of the
492
proponents of a great leap forward on monetary union. By any standard, we have one of the best records in Europe —and we should never be afraid to say so.
Thirdly, stage 1 means strengthening Community competition policy. A single market must necessarily have a level playing field. That patently does not exist when one large member state gives about eight times as much subsidy to manufacturing industry as does the United Kingdom. The Commission has powers to tackle this. It must use them, and not delay doing so.
More generally, the completion of the single market will progressively increase freedom of trade in all goods and services, and freedom of movement of capital and labour. Regulations and technical barriers will be drastically reduced; industries will be restructured; businesses will become more efficient and consumers will benefit. So while we consider the Delors prescription for what should happen after stage 1, let us not overlook the crucial importance of stage 1 itself, and the firm and enduring United Kingdom commitment to its early implementation.
All this has a particular importance for monetary policy, for stage 1 will create powerful pressures on member states to adopt low-inflation policies. With the removal of exchange controls and the creation of a single financial area, the capital markets will react more speedily and directly when they fear that a country is not operating sufficiently sound monetary policies. That will prove to be a powerful discipline. Greater stability of prices will in turn lead inevitably to greater stability of exchange rates. All this will be achieved not through centralised regulation and direction, but directly through the market. It achieves the desirable aims of the Delors report without the Delors apparatus.
We need to build on this. Our paper proposes that we should take the market approach of stage 1 forward to its logical conclusion rather than switching in mid-stream to a bureaucratic and centralised plan. Even after the current single market programme is complete, market forces will be muted by a number of unnecessary restrictions. For example, some countries control too strictly the investments of their savings institutions, or forbid the issues of foreign currency debt by their residents, or the purchase of their Government debt by overseas residents. Our proposal is that, as a priority after 1992, all restrictions of this kind should be examined and, where possible, removed, so that the competition between currencies and, therefore, between monetary policies is further sharpened.
This is not, as some people suggest, a matter of paying for a pint of beer at one's local with Italian lira or Greek drachma. Such a parody is to trivialise an important debate. The proposal is quite straightforward and entirely practical. It is to do away with unnecessary restrictions on individuals or firms doing business in whatever currency best suits the two parties. It is not a matter of compelling either party to use a particular currency: the aim is to reduce restrictions limiting their joint freedom of choice, thus enabling currencies to compete.
Mr. Anthony Nelson: Like all hon. Members, I am trying to listen carefully and to understand what my right hon. Friend is proposing. I put it to him that the Government paper of today is restating what his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby

493
(Mr. Lawson), put forward during the summer at the Antibes meeting of Community Finance Ministers, which I understand was rejected out of hand—
Mr. Major indicated dissent.
Mr. Nelson: If I am wrong, I should be delighted to hear so. As the proposal essentially involves the use of all currencies in member states, surely the tendency will be for prominence to be given to the lowest inflation currency within the system, if this ever comes to pass? That would be to the advantage of the deutschmark and might well be to the prejudice of sterling.
Mr. Major: My hon. Friend is mistaken to suggest that my right hon. Friend's proposals were universally rejected at Antibes—that is by no means so. This is a significant development of what was initially trailed at Antibes, and if my hon. Friend continues to listen he will see the areas to which it has been extended. As for the deutschmark, the whole purpose and intention of what underpins this is to provide a system under which nations will seek low inflation policies. That will most certainly ensure and affect the monetary behaviour of each of the currencies in the system. It may be that at any one time a particular currency dominates, but the market will ensure that that dominance will not necessarily be perpetual.
Mr. Benn: Assuming that all the conditions that the Chancellor has set out were met, could he now relate that to his claim to uphold parliamentary accountability? Is he not saying that he wants the market instead of some Brussels structure to control all Governments here? Is he not also saying that in future no political party could come to power on a manifesto that included exchange control and varying the currency, because once such a Government were elected a decision taken by this Parliament—if it went through on the Chancellor's basis —would tie all future Parliaments and would make it illegal for political parties to come forward and be elected using instruments that the Chancellor's mechanism would exclude?
Mr. Major: I do not think that that follows in precisely the way that the right hon. Gentleman has in mind. Of course in strict terms an incoming Government are sovereign. That is a matter for the House and nothing that I am proposing changes that basic and essential feature of the House of Commons.
With competing currencies, the pressure under the system that we propose will be for Community monetary policies to harmonise at the level of the best. That will inevitably strengthen the process of convergence on price and exchange rate stability. Realignments should therefore, become rarer, fluctuations within the bands of the exchange rate mechanism should become smaller, and we could eventually see a system of more or less fixed exchange rates. With the minimal exchange rate uncertainty and reduced costs of switching between currencies, our approach will lead to a multi-currency solution with interchangeable Community currencies. In that way we would achieve a practical monetary union as a result of a gradual evolutionary process, but without disruptive constitutional change. In our judgment that is the right way forward.
Mr. Edward Leigh: Would my right hon. Friend care to comment on a concept
494
arising from competing currencies, which is that efficient British farmers would be able to compete more effectively than hitherto with their continental counterparts in a more open market once monetary compensatory amounts and other artificial exchange mechanisms had been abolished? Is that not a progressive market solution to what hitherto has been an intractable European problem?
Mr. Major: On that point my hon. Friend is almost undoubtedly right. I welcome the pamphlet to which I know my hon. Friend has contributed. It has also reached the conclusion that competing currencies are the right way forward in terms of the future development of Europe.
I should like to deal with one argument for a single currency which I know has attractions for some in the House and beyond. Many people say that a single currency would reduce transaction costs for business men and travellers in the Community. Of course, that must be right. By definition, transaction costs must be reduced if there is one currency rather than 12, but we need to consider at what price and at what risk that convenience is bought. By going for one currency, enormous faith is placed in the ability of the European system of central banks to keep inflation down. Much safer in our view is our approach which maintains national monetary policies and allows currencies to compete to provide the non-inflationary anchor in the European monetary system.
That apart, there is the lack of political accountability to national electorates of a European system of central banks to which I have already referred. I suspect, too, that the requirement to abolish the pound and the franc would be deeply unpopular both in this and in other countries when electorates appreciated what was intended.
In any event, there can be no doubt that as the single market develops the costs of changing between the Community currencies will be reduced as a result of technological improvements and increased competition between banks. Our market approach is intended to encourage just that process.
There are those who would seek to portray the United Kingdom's advocacy of a step-by-step approach to economic and monetary union as foot dragging. I emphatically reject that view. We advocate an evolutionary approach, but not because it is slow. It would not be slow. There is no reason whatever to suppose that it would be any slower than the controversial Delors route. The merit of our approach is that it is evolutionary and practical. It is also robust—more robust than the Delors approach, which courts great risks, needlessly in my view, by proposing that decisions should be taken on the next stage of the process before we have had a chance to assess the outcome of the first stage.
Mr. Ian Taylor (Esher): I am sure that my right hon. Friend is not alone in what he is saying. I have here a letter from the Board of Economic Advisers to the Federal German Ministry of Economic Affairs. It states:
"Informal co-ordination of economic policies through market forces shall have priority over formal ex-ante co-ordination by European bodies."
It also says:
"There is no need for an early commencement of negotiations to modify the Treaty as required by the Delors report."
That shows that my hon. Friend has a powerful ally in the German Government.
Mr. Major: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that view. I recall that Professor David Currie, a former economic adviser to the Labour party, has also broadly endorsed the approach that I commend to the House. Plainly, we have very compelling support.
Mr. John Smith: Do I understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be saying that Professor Currie advocated the competing currencies theory which the Chancellor has been putting to the House?
Mr. Major: A recent paper that I saw the other day by Professor Currie broadly endorses the approach that the House has in front of it. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman cares to read that, he will find that that is the case.
Our view is gaining ground in terms of the report to which my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) referred and it is gaining ground elsewhere in the academic world.
I categorically assure the House that we have no intention of being swept into unwise and premature decisions. The Delors report is important but it is not definitive. As the Madrid council agreed, it is a basis for consideration. It was also agreed that more work was needed. That work must be thorough and very well considered. It must not be rushed because the future development of Europe is of enormous significance.
I hope that it will be clear to the House and, equally important, clear to our partners in Europe that it is our policy to play a central and constructive part in the debate on economic and monetary union in the European Community. Our commitment to its objectives is just as strong and just as deep as that of any of our European partners. Britain is playing a full part in Europe and we intend that to continue. I commend our approach to the House.
4.57 pm
Mr. John Smith: I agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that today's debate is timely and important. That is because it is, I think, the first time that the House has been able to debate in full the issues of economic and monetary union and the report prepared under the chairmanship of Jacques Delors, the President of the European Commission. The House will be assisted in its task by the excellent report on the subject published in June by the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service. That report and the evidence provided by the Governor of the Bank of England and the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), the former Chancellor, also provide useful background information for the debate.
It is noteworthy that the Select Committee report felt it was necessary to warn against and even anticipate the lack of clarity and the deliberate ambiguities in the Government's policy on European economic issues. Hon. Members will recall that the Select Committee complained that at the European Council in Hanover in June 1988 the Government had
"accepted far-reaching language too lightly"
when they endorsed the idea of economic and monetary union. The report recommended:
496
"It is important that the Government should make its position absolutely clear at the Madrid summit and should not again go along with language whose full implication it does not accept."
The Select Committee concluded:
"It is obviously dangerous for the Government to go on paying lip service to ideas to which in reality it is fundamentally opposed."
Those were prophetic words. That is precisely what the Government have done and continue to do. In Madrid, they endorsed stage 1 of Delors while they were still internally divided over whether to join the exchange rate mechanism. As they had completely ignored the Select Committee's prescient advice, is it any wonder that the ship of state hit such troubled and turbulent waters, and that the Cabinet has been wrecked upon such "a singularly ill-concealed iceberg"?
Recent events have revealed all too clearly that the Madrid formula was a fudge—lip service designed to conceal the confusion and disarray in Government policy —and it has now been totally blown apart. The gulf between the former Chancellor and the Prime Minister could not be more clear. The House, our European partners or the electorate would not find credible the argument that the former Chancellor's support for United Kingdom entry into the exchange rate mechanism—I quote his latest formulation—at the "earliest practicable time"—can be squared with the Prime Minister's sceptical and reluctant attitude towards what she calls a "higgledy piggledy system".
Mr. Tony Marlow: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Smith: I will give way, but I warn the hon. Gentleman that this must not become a habit.
Mr. Marlow: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and I promise that it will not. I wonder whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be kind enough to address himself not to Tuesday's debate but to today's.
Mr. Smith: I can understand that the events that we were discussing on Tuesday might be painful for Conservative Members, but I insist that they are highly relevant to the matters that we are debating today. Were the hon. Gentleman to cast his mind back to the matters that we were discussing on Tuesday, he would recall that they were to do with the chasms of differences within the Government over European issues.
The events after Madrid convinced the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) that he could not persuade the Prime Minister on the issue of the exchange rate mechanism. He knew that advisers advise, and the Prime Minister decides. On the basis of Sir Alan Walters's advice, the Prime Minister has decided to postpone indefinitely United Kingdom entry into the exchange rate mechanism. Having struck his iceberg, the Chancellor resigned and, with his resignation, the credibility of the Madrid formula, which is highly relevant to what we are discussing today, has collapsed.
It will not do for Conservative Members to try to obliterate the events of the past two weeks from their memory. We will not allow them to obliterate their memory of the events. I invite Conservative Members to turn on the television on Sunday, when they will find the right hon. Member for Blaby going over some of the issues again.

497
The attempts by the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), the new Chancellor of the Exchequer, to square the circle and recover a commitment in good faith to join the EMS will fail to convince, because the credibility of the Government's commitment to stage 1 of the Delors report is clearly questionable. One might almost say that it has been undermined. The House will recall that Delors stage 1 envisages that all member states should participate in the exchange rate mechanism, and stage 1 will begin as from 1 July next year.
It is plain from the Prime Minister's Walden interview and from her infinitely expanded preconditions that the Prime Minister has no intention of accepting United Kingdom entry into the exchange rate mechanism before the next election. Perhaps it is no coincidence that Professor Patrick Minford, a monetarist colleague of Sir Alan Walters, believes that the issue of the EMS is "effectively dead". I suspect that the issue will not be laid to rest so easily, even if the Prime Minister and many Conservative Members wish it to be so.
At the Strasbourg summit next month, decisions will be taken on the convening of an intergovernmental conference due to be held in the autumn of next year to consider the consequent stages 2 and 3 of the Delors report. The current and future presidencies of the Community show no sign of wanting to delay the decision-making process. In fact, they appear to want to speed the process up. It is also apparent that the proposed intergovernmental conference may, on majority voting, proceed to draft an entirely new treaty, rather than amending the existing treaty, which would require a unanimous decision of all the member states. There is no guarantee that Britain can veto proposals that we do not believe to be in Britain's best interests. There is a clear risk that vital decisions can be made about the future of European economic convergence that would leave Britain on the sidelines. Given the Prime Minister's attitude, that may well be the legacy of a decade of Thatcherism.
During the Prime Minister's Walden interview, it became evident that the conditions now attached to United Kingdom entry require the whole of Europe to embrace Thatcherism, but despite all the hype about Thatcherism being exported, it has not happened over the past 10 years; nor will it happen in the decade ahead. Let us take, for example, the Government's isolated position on the social charter, which the Prime Minister has described as Marxist. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Tory Members may not think that the social charter is relevant to the future of the European Community but we think that it is highly relevant. They have no right to determine unilaterally the terms of debate.
Mr. William Cash: Did I hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman say that a treaty amendment would not require unanimity? On what footing does he say that?
Mr. Smith: I wish that the hon. Gentleman would pay minimal attention to our debate. I said precisely the opposite, and I will not give way to hon. Members who ask such stupid questions.
Mr. Neil Hamilton: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Smith: I will certainly not give way to really stupid questions. I cannot be accused of not giving way. Of the
498
many accusations that might he hurled at me, being unwilling to give way is not one of them. I hope that hon. Members who do not think that the social charter is important will at least listen to what I am saying.
The extent of the Government's isolation on the social charter reveals how out of touch they remain on other key issues of economic co-operation and convergence. Our approach is to accept stage 1 of the Delors report and to negotiate entry into the exchange rate mechanism on reasonable and prudent conditions. These conditions, as I explained to the House on Tuesday, include entry at an effective rate, adequate central bank swap arrangements to tackle speculative flows, increased support for regional policy and agreement on a co-operative growth strategy. These conditions are important and not unreasonable.
Mr. Keith Mans: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Smith: Two weeks ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) and I visited Paris, Brussels and Bonn, to discuss these concerns with the relevant authorities. It was encouraging to find on many of these issues a common basis of understanding and shared concerns with our partners in Europe. In key respects, the points that we raised—
Mr. Mans: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Smith: I will not give way. Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to proceed with an important part of my speech without constantly interrupting me?
In key respects, the points that we have raised are already under discussion and are being addressed as the debate provoked by the Delors report unfolds. We find common acceptance of the need to tackle the growing payments imbalances within the Community, the importance of collective action by the central banks to tackle speculative attacks against currencies within the EMS and the crucial importance of regional policy, which features prominently in the Delors report, to ensure that growth and development are balanced and evenly spread throughout the Community as the single market unfolds after 1992.
These are not impossible conditions. They are practical concerns already on the agenda for Europe in the decade ahead. The Labour party is ready to shape that agenda. Only last week, the European Parliament voted for a resolution that embodies the Labour party's proposals, and is concerned primarily with stage 1 of the Delors report. It urged:
"The pound should participate in the EMS as soon as possible".
It called for
"active industrial policy … coupled with extensive regional policies … control of speculative movements … and the elimination of the largest inter-Community deficits and surpluses."
This resolution, which includes all Labour's conditions for entry into the exchange rate mechanism, will be presented to the Strasbourg summit as a decision of the European Parliament. I am delighted that the Parliament has embraced so much from the Labour party's agenda for Europe in the decade ahead.
Mr. Smith: I have heard hon. Members say that that is what makes them suspicious, but let me give them some further information. I was surprised, although not

499
disappointed, when I heard that the Conservative group in the European Parliament not merely voted for the resolution that I have just quoted but also supported some key amendments proposed by Labour Members of the European Parliament. Indeed, a Conservative Member of the European Parliament, Mr. Bryan Cassidy, the Conservative group's economic spokesman, attributed the key amendment to
"the influence of the 45 strong British Labour group which now dominates and controls the Socialist group as a whole."
Mr. Michael Shersby: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene on this issue?
Mr. Shersby: Yes.
Mr. Smith: On the Labour group?
Mr. Shersby: Yes, the Labour group.
Mr. Smith: Very well.
Mr. Shersby: The right hon. and learned Gentleman claims that the Opposition's policy reflects that of the Labour group within the European Parliament. How does he square the policy with the views of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and his colleagues, who take an entirely contrary view?
Mr. Smith: I think that we are allowed to have different views. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and I will have differences on a number of subjects. It seems pretty rich for the Conservative party to say that there is not total unanimity among the Labour party on issues which have divided both parties. The Cabinet is entirely divided. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield has tabled an early-day motion, and I think that some of my hon. Friends have signed it. My right hon. Friend will probably attract some support from some Conservative Members.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Yes.
Mr. Smith: Perhaps the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) should have checked before he asked me his deadly question that the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) would not undermine him. He knows perfectly well, however, that if the EDM were passed round the Cabinet and the members of it were asked whether they would sign it, they would reply, "Cabinet Ministers do not sign these motions. You must understand that it would be difficult for us to do so." We could easily get two EDMs from the Cabinet, but neither would be published because the Prime Minister would not let either of them see the light of day.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: If an EDM were circulated around the House and the Cabinet, a list of conditions would be imposed by the Government. Another list of conditions would be imposed by the anti-marketeers. My right hon. and learned Friend has already referred to four conditions and I am sure that my hon. Friends and I could produce another dozen. It would be an extremely long EDM.
Mr. Smith: If Conservative Members ever need any assistance, they should turn to the practical working knowledge of my hon. Friend, who has described the position so well on this occasion. It is not for the first time that he has offered Conservative Members help that they do not deserve.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I want to understand precisely what is being said. My right hon. and learned Friend has said that the Labour party's proposals were accepted by the European Parliament. When did the Labour party discuss these matters? Were they discussed at the party conference, or were they discussed by the European Labour group and agreed to? Have we discussed the matters within the parliamentary party? Surely we started that discussion only yesterday. I am not being difficult.
Mr. Smith: I draw the attention of my hon. Friend to the Labour party's policy review, which was discussed at the Labour party conference.
Mr. David Shaw: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that we have arrived at a stage where we should suspend the sitting so that the Opposition can get their act together.
Mr. Smith: The less said about that intervention, the better.
We are delighted that some Conservative MEPs understand and even welcome the wisdom of the Labour party's approach. The fact that they are taking our lead and following the Labour party's team in Europe speaks volumes for the style of leadership and the quality of teamwork that they have seen operating within the Conservative party in the United Kingdom. Unlike Conservative Members, they have recently had an encounter with the electorate. That concentrates the mind wonderfully. At the ballot box in June they saw all too painfully the result of the Prime Minister's attitude to Europe and her bungled European election campaign.
In recent years, the British people—
Mr. Neil Hamilton: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Smith: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Hamilton: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is frightened.
Mr. Smith: I resent that remark, and I shall take it into account when deciding whether I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman on another occasion. He must learn that there are some courtesies in this place. It is obvious that he has one or two to learn.
In recent years, the British people have become increasingly concerned at the growing gap in terms of economic success, standard of living and social provisions between Britain and other leading Community countries. They perceive —I believe that this was reflected in their votes in the European parliament election—that it is harmful to the Community as well as to the Government to resist in a niggardly negative manner the moves to raise social standards and provide a floor of rights for employees. They understand that that is bad for Britain generally. We are not leading Europe; we are falling behind. The Government's obsessional insistence on unrestricted market economics, the removal of social

501
protections and a minimalist role for Government, in opposition to the widely held views of the rest of the Community, prevents progress and harms Britain's political interests. It shows that Britain is being unreasonably unwilling to compromise and co-operate with our European partners.
I fear that Ministers are as partisan abroad as they are at home. Whenever their narrow ideological obsessions collide with the idea of greater European co-operation, it is the European concept which is sacrificed. The coming clash on the social charter at Strasbourg is wholly unnecessary. The Government are wrong. They will once again isolate themselves within a Community which is becoming increasingly less tolerant of the Prime Minister's Don Quixote-like charges at European windmills.
The plain truth is that Europe will always be politically diverse. It is as unlikely as it would be illiberal to expect or to demand the entire Community to embrace one economic or political set of values, let alone the absurdities of Thatcherism.
The social, economic and environmental issues of the 1990s will not be resolved by the universal panacea of laissez faire. The EMS has spent the past 10 years curbing the excesses of the currency markets, but in other important policy areas more than the price mechanism will be required to sustain growth and improve the quality of life. Such realism about the limits of market forces will dominate the agenda of the 1990s and influence the evolving trend of economic convergence in Europe. It is vital that in the decade ahead Britain has a Government who are capable of combining that realism with the commitment to deal constructively with our partners in Europe.
Mr. Beith: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us at some stage whether the Labour party's policy on one of the main issues in the debate remains as it was at the time of the European elections? It was then said that the Labour party saw no advantage at that time in trying to create full-scale European monetary union.
Mr. Smith: I shall deal with that when I reach the appropriate part of my speech. I ask the hon. Gentleman to wait a little longer.
For the reasons that I have given, it is important that Britain participates in good faith in the debate on the Delors report. The Labour party has indicated its willingness to consider these issues. We are prepared—
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Francis Maude): Come on.
Mr. Smith: Perhaps the Minister will allow me to proceed with my speech. The hon. Gentleman is in the Parliament of the United Kingdom and not at a Conservative party conference. He is not sitting at some Thatcherite footstool. He will be questioned in an environment in which debate is allowed. I might have to say everything again so that the hon. Gentleman understands my arguments.
The Labour party has indicated its willingness to consider the issues. We are prepared to accept stage 1 of the Delors plan and are ready to negotiate the conditions under which the United Kingdom should enter the exchange rate mechanism.
What will follow stage 1 of the Delors report remains to be seen. The agenda for the proposed intergovernmental
502
conference has yet to be agreed. The proposals set out by the Delors committee for stages 2 and 3 of economic and monetary union are very far reaching, and represent only one among a number of possible proposals to achieve greater monetary co-operation and economic convergence.
There has been—[Interruption.] Will hon. Members please allow me to continue my speech?
There has been cogent criticism of the Delors report. In many ways, it is far too schematic in tone. It makes assumptions which are neither argued nor justified, and it is on the whole dangerously insensitive to the political dimension of economic decision taking and the need for democratic accountability. Perhaps it suffers from being the product of a committee dominated by central bankers.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: By a Socialist.
Mr. Smith: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees with that. The Delors report may be a useful starting point for debate and discussion, but it could never be regarded as a blueprint for the future of Europe. I hope that that answers the question that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) addressed to me.
I mention two major reservations that we have about states two and three. Let me make it clear that we would not be willing to accept any system of central banks which would be independent of political control, just as we strongly oppose an independent status for the Bank of England such as the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Blaby appears to have been considering a year ago and which was only tantalisingly revealed in his post-resignation comments this week. I do not know whether the present Chancellor will pick up that idea and seek to persuade the rest of his colleagues—
Mr. Major indicated dissent.
Mr. Smith: Almost undoubtedly, the Chancellor looked as if he was saying no, but I am not sure.
We are firmly against such a concept for the EC and we do not accept that binding rules for budgetary or fiscal policy are a necessary condition for the achievement of monetary union. I remind the House that that is one of the central parts of stages 2 and 3
Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am following closely what my right hon. and learned Friend is saying, particularly on the matter of democratic accountability, with which all Opposition Members would agree wholeheartedly. Is it in his mind that such accountability would be with the Council of Finance Ministers, appointed by their respective national Parliaments, or has he some other method in mind?
Mr. Smith: In the proposed system of independent central banks there is no democratic accountability at all. The whole point of having an independent banking system, Bundesbank-style, is that it is insulated from politics. That was somehow regarded as a desirable feature. There is no form of democratic accountability either from Ministers or from any kind of parliamentary mechanism. That is a fundamental objection to the proposal, and, as my hon. Friend reminds me, that will be the unanimous view of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
The binding rules are not a necessary condition for the achievement of monetary union in any event and I agree with what the Chancellor of the Exchequer—
Mr. Teddy Taylor rose—
Mr. Smith: May I finish the sentence?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer drew attention to the Select Committee's conclusion that
"The power of the House of Commons over the centuries has depended fundamentally on the control of money, both taxation and expenditure. This would be jeopardised by the form of monetary union proposed by the Delors Report which would involve central undemocratic direction from within Europe of domestic budgetary policies."
I am happy to accept that enthusiastically, and I am sure that all Opposition Members accept it too. Does the hon. Member for Southend, East still wish me to give way?
Mr. Taylor: I thank the Minister for his excellent recent remarks. We have had some fun, but he has made some excellent recent remarks. He seems to agree with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor that stages 2 and 3 of the Delors report are completely unacceptable as a blueprint for the future. Would he honestly say—I mean this sincerely, John—whether there is anything at all in the three conditions laid down by the Government and the Chancellor for joining the ERM with which the Labour party would disagree—apart from its own reservations? If we could agree, we could send a unanimous message to Strasbourg. Is there anything in our three conditions—freedom of movement of trade, freedom of financial stability and the right exchange rate—with which he would disagree? If not, we can for the first time for many years send a unanimous message to Strasbourg.
Mr. Smith: I am tempted to say, "Well, Teddy, I can't remember when I last heard you speaking like that, whether it was in Cathcart or at Glasgow university." The hon. Gentleman referred to me as the Minister. I must ask him to exercise just a little patience in that respect. In two years' time I shall be happy to accept his words. But I shall do him the courtesy of answering his question. The conditions that have been attached to stage 1, not stages 2 and 3, by the Government are not the appropriate conditions, and the ones that the Labour party has proposed are.
For example, I do not know to what level inflation has to be brought down before the Government are satisfied. I suspect that that might be a moving goalpost. If the Government really mean what they say about these conditions, they would define the level of inflation that would be regarded as desirable. That might be a useful line of inquiry for the hon. Gentleman to pursue when he is asking questions of Ministers who are responsible for formulating policy now and for conducting the negotiations in the EC.
Mr. Benn: What my right hon. and learned Friend said about the retention of the Bank of England under the Bank of England Act 1946 is important and welcome. He will know that under that Act, the Treasury has the power to give directives to the Bank of England, the Bank of England has the power to give directives to any other bank and the Treasury has the power to define what a bank is. Therefore, enormous powers will fall to him as Chancellor and I hope that he will follow that through by saying that, if necessary, he intends to use all of them.
Mr. Smith: The constitutional position of the Bank of England in relation to the Government is satisfactory at the moment. I see no reason why that should be changed. A wide range of powers is available to the Chancellor of
504
the Exchequer and no Chancellor should willingly give them up. He certainly should not contemplate handing over power over key economic monetary issues to bankers who are not accountable to the British people. As I think my right hon. Friend has gathered, that conditions our view of the proposals contained in the Delors report for a system of central banks and it is consistent with the view that we take at home.
I was shocked and astonished to discover that the former Chancellor was contemplating handing over the power to decide some of those matters to the present Governor of the Bank of England. I am sure that most hon. Members would basically agree with that proposition, although the fact that the former Chancellor revealed that view makes one wonder whether there are not some in the Conservative party who might take a different view.
The Chancellor has revealed a new plan today. He has produced the plan for competing currencies—to give it a shorthand title. It formed an important part of the Chancellor's speech I am tempted to say that it is one of the matters that should be referred to the Select Committee, since the right hon. Member for Worthing is the Chairman. I am rather torn on whether this wheeze of competing currencies should trouble the Select Committee. I would enjoy the prospect of the Chancellor explaining it to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), but I am sure that there are many more useful matters that could occupy the Select Committee's expert attention.
It is clear that the Treasury's plan for competing currencies would have pleased Heath Robinson. It is yet another example of the Conservative's addiction to unfettered market forces. It is envisaged that currencies in Europe would engage in a Darwinian struggle for supremacy within the single market after 1992. It is an idea which, as the Chancellor knows well, received a cool reception—to put it as politely as I can—from the other European Finance Ministers when it was informally floated at the regular council meeting at Antibes in September. No other member state in the Community supported the scheme and typically, even the Conservative Finance Ministers of Europe found the idea more than a little bizarre.
A multi-currency scheme would lower the efficiency of the single market. Not for the first time, the application of free market ideology would damage the very market that it seeks to advance. Transaction costs would soar dramatically with the complexity of making payments in numerous different currencies. It is much more likely that a multi-currency system would quickly degenerate into a single currency system. The laws of the currency jungle would guarantee the supremacy of the deutschmark, and to adapt a well-known sentence from Thomas Hobbes, life for the pound would be "nasty, brutish and short."
It is hard to imagine a scheme that would more rapidly hand British monetary sovereignty to the German authorities in the Bundesbank. If ever there were a "half-baked scheme", this is it. It does not reach even the minimum level of plausibility. It is hard to escape the conclusion that the plan for competing currencies is nothing but a diversion, a further attempt to conceal the Government's divisions over the EMS. As the editors of the latest edition of the Oxford Review of Economic Policy conclude:

505
"The idea seems so risible that we can only believe that it is not a serious suggestion but a delaying tactic to confuse the debate over economic and monetary union."
I thought that it might be the last joke by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, left as a little surprise for whoever might be his successor. I am astonished to discover that his successor takes it seriously enough to present it unvarnished and unamended to the House.
The other 11 member states of the Community show no sign of wishing to indulge the Government's enthusiasm for competing currencies. Still less do they accept the patronising tone of the Prime Minister when she demands that they catch up with Thatcherism. Far from Europe catching up with us, it is high time that the Government concentrated on catching up with our Community partners and competitors.
Economically and socially, over the past 10 years Britain has fallen behind. We have failed to match the level of investment in education and training, in research and development, in the regions and in manufacturing industry, which has been achieved. for example, by West Germany. The result is our massive trade deficit with the Federal Republic. Despite all the hype about economic miracles and arrogant assumptions that we have now surpassed the German miracle, there is still a lot of catching up to do.
Why are the Government prepared to stand back while social provision in this country falls behind the best practice in Europe? When will the Government conceive the ambition to catch up with European levels of pensions, with European standards of protection for the low paid and with the best levels of European child care provision? Those are the key elements of the social dimension to Europe which the Conservative party opposes, cannot understand and does not even want to discuss today. That is why it has tried to block the social charter, even though it is clearly supported by the majority of British people.
The social charter and the legislative action programme that will flow from it are indispensable to the successful conclusion of the single market. Without adequate minimum standards, the social and political cohesion of the Community will be seriously weakened. Without the social charter, it will be harder to build the strong economy and fairer society that Europe and Britain will need in the years to come. Labour Members know that there can be no lasting economic convergence and monetary cooperation without a strong commitment to a social Europe, which is why Britain needs a Labour Government to build a Europe that is not only a market for business but a community for people.
5.34 pm
Mr. Terence L. Higgins: I suspect that the last occasion on which a European issue of such complexity and with such an unattractive name as the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system was debated in the House was probably the Schleswig-Holstein question last century. Both controversies are difficult to understand and the arguments hard to remember.
It is fortunate that the House has this opportunity to debate the issue in depth. The extent to which there is a considerable degree of common ground among hon. Members has emerged from the speeches made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith). I
506
believe that that will strengthen the hand of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor when he pursues these matters in Europe.
I regret that the Delors committee—or, more accurately, Mr. Delors—has succeeded in setting the agenda for this discussion. I profoundly disagree with paragraph 39 of the Delors report, which says:
"The Committee agreed that the creation of an economic and monetary union must be viewed as a single process. Although this progress is set out in stages which guide the progressive movement to the final objective, the decision to enter upon the first stage should be a decision to embark on the entire process."
There are strong arguments for proceeding to join the exchange rate mechanism, but that does not imply that we should go further down the road of stages 2 and 3 of the Delors report. Considerable advantage, such as exchange rate stability and co-operation between members of the Community, is to be gained from joining the exchange rate mechanism. I agree with those who say that it is not a panacea, but none the less I believe that we should join. It is important to appreciate that joining the exchange rate mechanism would involve no greater loss of sovereignty —indeed, rather less—than we gave up for many years under the Bretton Woods system.
I do not believe that Professor Alan Walters's views on the idea of perverse capital flows are valid. In my view, they are not so much half-baked, if that is the right expression, as grossly overdone.
The Government have made their position absolutely clear—we shall join the ERM when the time is right arid the Madrid conditions fulfilled. Clearly, the object of the exercise is to achieve a degree of exchange rate stability. Today is not the right moment to join, because it is obvious that once exchange controls are removed in France next July there is likely to be considerable readjustment of currency. It would therefore be paradoxical to say that we shall join to achieve exchange rate stability without anticipating that there are likely to be further changes in the next 12 months or so. None the less, I hope that we shall be able to join soon after that.
Much attention has been given to the Walden interview with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. There were many interpretations of the fact that she elaborated on the Madrid conditions. If we are to join the ERM, it is not unreasonable at the same time to insist on certain moves towards the European single market. That is how I interpret the Prime Minister's position, rather than her saying, "I shall impose a series of conditions which effectively mean that we shall not join at all." The Chancellor of the Exchequer clearly set out the position in good faith, which is important.
However, there may be a problem if, as I hope, we join in the near future, because sooner or later—perhaps not that much later—we shall be facing a general election. If we join the ERM, the danger is that as we approach that election the prospect of a Labour Government may exert considerable downward pressure on sterling. If the Government then have to realign the currency, it will be difficult to make it clear that that is the fault of the Opposition and not a defeat for the Government. The window for joining, between next summer and the election, may be quite small. None the less, we should take the opportunity whenever it arises because the case has clearly been made. I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor clearly set out the basis on which we should proceed.
Sir Peter Tapsell: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Higgins: Alas, I do not have time because I want to try to keep my speech to 10 minutes.
I turn to the broader issues of economic and monetary union. The Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee report—I am glad to see that a number of points made in it were endorsed by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith)—makes a valuable contribution, as does the evidence that we received. Often the evidence that we receive is more valuable than the report. Members of that Committee will know that, although I wholeheartedly endorsed the report, I was not entirely happy with one paragraph of it. Chairmen of Select Committees can express their views on amendments only if there is a tied vote, and that did not happen.
My feeling is that the proposal for a single currency is seriously defective because it means that giving up for all time any opportunity of using a change in relative prices between countries to deal with fundamental changes and variations in underlying costs. That could have a serious effect on regions. I do not believe that the proposals, even on the elaborate and expensive scale put forward by Delors, would be sufficient to overcome that on a permanent basis.
I have serious reservations, too, about the proposals for a European central bank and I concur fundamentally with a view that has been put forward by hon. Members on both sides of the House—that it would be unaccountable to the House and to other Parliaments. Of course, in some countries—for example, the United States and West Germany—existing central banks are not so accountable. Strangely, I find myself once in a while in favour of nationalisation. We nationalised the Bank of England, and the present relationship between the Treasury and the Bank of England is desirable. It would be highly undesirable to extend the idea to a system of European central banks which are in no sense accountable—in Delors, it is not clear to whom they would be accountable —and I would not wish to go down that road.
The trouble with the expression "economic and monetary union" is that it is the wrong way round. The progression must clearly be from monetary union to economic union, not the reverse. We come to the crux of the matter, and there the Select Committee was unanimous. Progress towards monetary union does not require the abdication of control over fiscal matters to any supranational organisation, accountable or not. I wish to make a rather technical, but fundamental, point, which is stated in paragraph 22 of the Select Committee report and is spelt out in greater detail in our earlier report on international monetary co-ordination. The report states:
"We wish to stress that … it is by no means clear what the impact of fiscal policy is on exchange rates. Fiscal policy may affect demand, but its direct impact on exchange rates is ambiguous. Binding rules on fiscal policy seem to be unnecessary even in stage 3 of a monetary union."
There is a strong case for joining the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system. It does not involve any more of an abdication of sovereignty than we had for many years under the Bretton Woods system, but stage 2 of the Delors position, where he seeks to hijack control over taxation and public expenditure, is irrelevant and simply a device to expand the powers in Europe over national Governments. As has rightly been pointed out by
508
my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East, that is the fundamental basis on which the power of the House has rested over the centuries. For that reason, and because the proposal is irrelevant, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will continue to make progress on joining the exchange rate mechanism but that he will make clear, as he did this afternoon, our view on the longer-term issues set out in the Delors report.
I hesitate to comment in depth—alas, I do not have time—on the paper that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor lodged in the Vote Office this afternoon, but I should like to make one slightly technical point. I was brought up on Gresham's law—the idea that bad money drives out good—and I am slightly worried about what I suppose one should even now call Lawson's law, which is that good money drives out bad. It does not follow that the most inflation-proof currency is necessarily the one that we most use for transactions. Many companies conduct transactions in a multitude of currencies. They will not necessarily use the most inflation-proof one most often. They may well use that which is weakest and which has the highest rate of return on short-term balances.
These are more complex matters which it is perhaps difficult to explore in great depth, even in a debate as concentrated on a particular subject as this one, but I hope that we can consider them again, perhaps in the Select Committee. The degree of common ground between the two sides of the House is remarkable and I hope that we can make progress on the basis that I have described.
5.44 pm
Mr. Robert Sheldon: The right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) talked about the nationalisation of the Bank of England. One of the most interesting parts of the resignation speech of the former Chancellor dealt with that. He said:
"a year ago, I proposed to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister a fully worked-out scheme for the independence of the Bank of England."—[Official Report, 31 October 1989; Vol. 159, c. 209.]
It is astonishing that the Prime Minister could not recall that—a fully worked out scheme from the Chancellor for the privatisation of the Bank of England, and she was not able to remember it. It is so important that I should have thought that everything in the economic or financial sphere would have been subordinated until those matters were dealt with.
It did not come so much as a surprise to me, because I had been present at the debate on fiduciary note issues in 1976, which I took, and those in 1978, taken by the then Minister of State—my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). There was practically no one in the House on either occasion. I heard the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) say:
"the Government could lay before Parliament each year in statutory form the annual monetary target for the coming year. The Bank of England would then, in effect, be charged by Parliament with ensuring that the target was met."
There would be legislation to give those powers. The right hon. Gentleman went on to quote someone approvingly, saying that it was
"no accident that West Germany and Switzerland, which in recent years also have managed their economy better than others, happen to have strong and independent monetary authorities".—[Official Report, 13 March 1978; vol. 946, c.168–9.]

509
I assume that that was an early indiscretion by the right hon. Gentleman which he had subsequently been able to overcome. With that in mind, as the House will recall, I frequently taunted him with that view. It was interesting to see that the right hon. Gentleman returned to that point.
All these matters were fully discussed in the debates on the nationalisation of the Bank of England. Those debates still make excellent reading because they are about the same problems that we have today. The circumstances are rather different. We have had exchange controls, which has changed things dramatically. Our background is exchange controls and we are comparing what happened under exchange controls with what is happening now.
What is happening now and what is likely to happen are the same features to which Boothby and others were referring when looking back to the 1930s. A number of important people spoke in those debates—Nigel Birch, Hugh Dalton, Hugh Gaitskell among them. Nationalisation of the Bank of England was the only issue on which Boothby voted with the Labour Government. Quoting, he said,
"They who control the credit of the nation direct the policy of Governments, and hold in their hands the destiny of the people",
Boothby went on to speak about what had happened in the 1930s:
"What was perhaps worse, credit was denied to modernise our industrial plant, to build houses for our workers at home … On the other hand, into Central Europe and, above all, into Germany, millions of pounds of good British money were poured, much of which we never saw again."
He went on to say that
"not only in the City but far beyond its confines"
there was
"the embodiment of power without responsibility."
Again quoting, he said:
"We returned to the Gold Standard in 1925 for the benefit of the City of London and so ruined our basic industries. It does not follow that what is best for the City of London is best for the country."
The speech is well worth reading in full. Boothby said:
"This Government … might one day want to go back to a Gold Standard"—
or, if one likes, an ecu—
"but if any Government ever committed such an act of insensate folly I should want to attack the Chancellor across the Floor of the House. Further, I should not want him to say that it was really the business of the Bank of England rather than his affair." —[Official Report, 29 October 1945; Vol. 415, c. 112–6.]
That is the same accountability which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) rightly said was crucial. I hope that it will be an important part of the negotiations.
It is important that we have political control. When the German Bundesbank increased its interest rates, no one in Europe questioned it. Was there no division within the Bundesbank about whether the rise should be 0·5 per cent. or 1 per cent. and whether it should follow M0, M1 or M3? A decision was made that affected the lives of 200 million or 300 million people and no one questioned whether it was the right decision. The decision on that matter of enormous importance may have been made by a majority of just one.
My right hon. Friend is right to set firm conditions for our entry into the ERM. The experts always say that these are technical matters, but my experience has always been that banking decisions tend to be political decisions. The British people are entitled to make those decisions, as are all the peoples of Europe.
510
People say that the Bundesbank has done wonders for the German economy. I say that German industry, has done wonders for the German economy. German industry, with its excellent training and manufacturing potential, created a strong German Bundesbank, not the other way round. The countries that owe a great deal to their Governments are not Germany and Italy. The north of Italy is strong—it is even able to bear the nonsenses of the third of the population in the south—but its success has nothing to do with the Government.
If we enter the exchange rate mechanism it will be essential to have proper political control, as my right hon. and learned Friend said. That will not be easy to achieve, even with the Bank of England.
Mr. Mans: Would the right hon. Gentleman apply the same argument to the Federal Reserve bank in the United States of America?
Mr. Sheldon: The Federal Reserve bank is different. It has a greater measure of political control and links with the White House. Those who have experienced its operation know that it is more complicated than the German Bundesbank.
It is not easy to achieve political control. Those who work in the Treasury know how difficult it is to deal with the Bank of England. Crises can arise in minutes and decisions have to be made in a hurry. General policy can be laid down, but much depends on matters which have to be decided immediately. The following comparison illustrates my point. If, for example, I were in charge of investment in any organisation, I should expect my actions to be closely circumscribed, but if 12 superiors to whom I owed equal allegiance were appointed, I could do exactly as I liked. When dealing with day-to-day market operations, greater control is needed, not less.
The Bundesbank has the powers to which I referred. There are those who say that it does not matter and that we are subservient to the Bundesbank because Germany is so strong. I say to them that that problem stems from our balance of payments deficit of £20 billion, which looks as though it will persist for no one knows how long. That is why we are and shall continue to be subordinate to strong bankers. If we had the balance of payments surplus that Germany has, I should have no worries at all. Other countries would then have to listen to the Bank of England and follow money market operations here. Our balance of payments deficit means that we shall need flexibility and a wide range of rates.
It is said that before we can enter the ERM we must sort out our inflation problem. Some say that to enter the ERM would help us to reduce our inflation to the levels in other countries. That is probably right. Inflation would probably come down for a time because people would have confidence in sterling because it was tied to a strong currency, but the cost would be a greater problem later. No one can genuinely think that we could reduce inflation immediately, if at all. We would require greater deflationary measures than if we had not joined the mechanism. That is not to say that we should not join. We have political reasons for not showing too great a reluctance towards our European partners, but we have problems which need attention and the cautious approach that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East outlined.

511
Some say that the nature of foreign exchange trading has altered fundamentally. They see enormous swings across the exchange markets and say that they are completely different from what went before. They say that we cannot have neanderthal attitudes, because we have new problems. However, our problems are not new although they are probably more common than they were 10 years ago before exchange controls were abolished. Until then, it was difficult to hedge on the foreign exchange markets. Now people can do what they like. There are huge flows and speculators abound. They abounded in the pre-war years.
History did not begin in 1979. Vast sums were traded on the foreign exchanges before then, although there was less international trade. There were vast fluctuations on the foreign exchanges. One has only to consider the history of John Maynard Keynes, who nearly lost his shirt playing with foreign currencies until on one occasion he got it right and made a great fortune. The foreign exchanges were the great casino of the wealthy and large sums were traded —probably larger than the sums traded today, when genuine world trade has increased enormously, creating genuine foreign currency movements.
Speculation or, as is also common, prudent anticipation of one's foreign exchange requirements—the two cannot be distinguished—have always been with us and will remain with us. A speculator or investor—sometimes it is hard to separate them—seeks high returns with security. In Britain today he obtains a high return and looks for a weekly or even daily reaffirmation that the Government do not intend to allow the pound to fall. The Chancellor of the Exchequer knows that he has to state repeatedly that he supports a strong currency. If he stops saying that, speculators will abandon sterling. We are paying heavily for that in high interest rates. The Government give that assurance, but for how long? Such questions are of great importance to investors. Large sums are involved and analysis is keenly undertaken by those with large sums to lose if they get it wrong.
How long the Government can continue to pay exorbitant rates of interest to support the market and the pound depends on the income or the capital of the borrower. If I have capital, I can deal with outflows; if I have income, I can deal with them more easily. Speculators are aware of our foreign exchange reserves—our capital —and our negative income of £20 billion per year. They see that our capital does not last long and is being eroded.
Once again we return to fundamentals. The balance of payments surpluses of Germany and Japan make them strong. Our deficit makes Britain increasingly weak. For that reason, my right hon. and learned Friend is right to be cautious, to outline firm conditions which must be fully met, and for those reasons I support him.
5.59 pm
Mr. Donald Thompson: It is almost nine years since I last spoke from the Back Benches. In the intervening years, I was a Whip and therefore silent in the House, and I was then the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, speaking from the Dispatch Box. Others now do those jobs, and I wish them well. There is no iceberg here, but a shire horse
512
unharnessed and put out to graze on the blue Conservative grass, which I now find is turning greener in every way and every day.
I will be brief, so I hope that the House will allow me to be a little parochial. Europe—both the European Community and the wider Europe—is of the greatest importance to my constituents in Calder Valley, as manufacturers on a multinational, national and local scale, as traders, financial marketeers and citizens. Many fled from the Ukraine, Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Serbia to establish themselves in our valleys. Their families still live there and form an invaluable part of our community. How delighted they must be to see the breaking of the iron grip of Socialism in their homelands. However, this debate is about the European Community and, although events in old Europe are, to say the least, making the Eurocrats in Brussels tremble, I will stick to the European Community and its effect on the United Kingdom and my constituents.
Without doubt, my constituency is lucky enough to be the most enterprising in the west Yorkshire industrial area. There are several reasons for that, including the traditional adaptability and tenacity of the people, and their ability to get on is paramount. As their Member of Parliament I have endeavoured to channel any assistance I can to that enterprise. The local "Business in the Community" team has sought to mobilise and maximise available European and Government assistance. Led by the Prince of Wales, who is their unstinting and hard-working chairman, it sets an example to the rest of Europe, showing what can be done when European, national and local resources are harmonised sensibly.
The elimination of inflation—or price stability, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor called it—is paramount for British industrialists. High interest rates are hard to bear, but not as hard to bear as the destruction of the value of stock or of work in progress. Inflation is a tax on everything. It is permanently debilitating to have goods in store paid for yet losing value day by day and to turn those goods into manufactured items on prices that are losing profitability week by week. We should look for lower interest rates soon and low inflation permanently.
The Opposition call for us to enter the exchange rate mechanism. Many of my constituents think that the conditions are right and proper, and that the Commission and the European Ministers should accept them at once so that we can all get on with it. A responsible Opposition should be calling on Europe to accept our conditions, not bandwagoning in Europe with a set of conditions that seem to some of us to have been scribbled on the back of an envelope during a lengthy parliamentary intervention and then expanded on the instructions of Members of the European Parliament.
The details of our conditions have been spelt out and include the freedom of capital movement and the abolition of exchange controls. Unless companies can invest and reinvest freely in Europe, whether those companies are nationals or multinationals, small companies or large, their freedom is being attacked. They need that freedom, and Europe is not about inhibiting business but about creating employment.
A single market with a level playing field or, as my right hon. Friends have described it, a strengthened European competition policy, is essential, especially for my textile companies. They have enough worries with the

513
renegotiation of the multi-fibre arrangement and imported Turkish yarn without a tilt here and there on the Common Market pool table.
Free movement in financial services is a prerequisite. To give up that negotiating card would be considered a betrayal by companies ranging from the Halifax building society, through insurance companies and into the board rooms and the shop floors of my companies, which are not only selling into other countries but buying and running companies in non-EEC countries. British financial companies should be able to sell their products Europewide. Europeans should be able to invest their money in the Halifax or the Leeds at will. The same life policy should be available in Brighouse and Baden-Baden. Just as importantly, if one of my companies wants to buy a manufacturing company, or any kind of business, anywhere in the world, it should not concern the European Commission.
British business can help itself and the Government in this respect. Here in the United Kingdom, often with the help of the Opposition, it is possible for commerce and industry to approach Ministers who are responsible for United Kingdom policy. Industry can at least make its point, and it can and does ask the Opposition to emphasise its views. However, such systems are not always in place in other European countries. I urge British business to thrash out its own responses to directives and proposals from Europe and then to seek out its counterparts in Greece, Spain, Italy or wherever and impress on them the arrangements made for a proper way to conduct competitive business. British business should urge those abroad to adopt those ideas and to press them on their national decision makers.
Decision makers abroad, as we all know, are not necessarily Members of Parliament or Ministers. They may be bureaucrats, business men or trade associations. It is vital that our companies reach them before the Commission and the Council impose their will and their methods, which may not be the best for international business.
The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) chides British Ministers for being "at it again". He says that the cry continually comes from Europe that the Brits are at it again, complaining, moaning and wanting to change the rules. However, on the few occasions when we do not do that, he complains that we have not made the British point. It would be wrong for our Ministers to stop making the British point.
We must teach our business and political counterparts how to influence the decision makers in the Council. We must teach them to lobby as well as our trade unionists lobby us. How often have we sat in Central Lobby, on the Terrace or, if we are lucky, in the Kremlin bar with trade unionists from all over the country, while they urge on us the unfairness of Europe. They tell us that "prato"—the unfairness of the social security system and slave labour in Italy coupled, with the Italian Government's massive aid —is killing their trade. They tell us about the diabolical social security systems that allow foreign farmers to get away with murder. The fishing industry, the steel industry and every other industry tell us the same.
We are now urged to accept a social charter composed by a little Jack Homer of plums from different pies. It is not a realistic concept. My constituents look rather for a huge, liberal, deregulated market, which will give small firms confidence and our largest firms a springboard to sell
514
not only in that market, but unimpeded throughout the world. The united Socialist Europe urged on us a few years ago is not a runner anymore even in East Germany.
Now that the Commission has got us—or is getting us to 1992, its role must change. It must become the secretariat to the Council of Ministers and the Council must propose the next steps after 1992. The ideas that the Council of Ministers brings back to sovereign Parliaments must be thrashed out here. The Commission can then polish those ideas and the European Parliament can at last take up its proper role of administering the wishes of the Council of Ministers.
I have been lucky enough to represent British interests on several occasions in various Councils of Ministers. We must press for British interests relentlessly, not only on behalf of my constituents, but for the country as a whole.
6.9 pm
Mr. Giles Radice: I will not respond to the speech made by the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson) because it was very much a maiden speech. I believe that it is the courtesy of the House not to criticise maiden speeches.
I accept the point of the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), who is Chairman of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, that there is common ground between the parties about Europe. The cautious pragmatism to which the right hon. Gentleman referred extends across the parties. However, there is not enough common ground on the key issue, the first stage of the exchange rate mechanism, within the Cabinet itself.
Anyone who watched the Walden interview must have gained the impression from the Prime Minister that she was basically against the ERM. The former Chancellor in his valedictory bore that out. There is a fundamental divide which has been papered over by a formula about conditions—there is the Prime Minister on the one hand and a number of senior Cabinet Ministers, including the Deputy Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and, I believe, the new Chancellor of the Exchequer on the other. That is the political reality and I am not surprised that the right hon. Member for Worthing did not mention that problem
When the Labour Government decided not to enter the ERM when the European monetary system was set up in 1979, I supported that decision because I feared that linking the pound to the mark—the strongest currency in the system—could have severe deflationary consequences.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: It would.
Mr. Radice: However, I believe that the situation has now fundamentally changed, and I will explain why.
The EMS has been operating now for a decade and it has proved itself to be a considerable success. There has been a significant convergence of inflation rates within the ERM down towards the low German level. In particular, the gap between the French and German rates has been substantially narrowed. There has also been far greater interest rate stability. It is noticeable how, despite some variations, the level of interest rates within the EMS is far nearer the low German rate than to the high United Kingdom interest rate outside the EMS. Above all, there has been far greater exchange rate stability. Although the ERM is not a fixed exchange rate system, the limitation on changes has created the original intention of the EMS—"a

515
zone of monetary stability." That has been very much in contrast with the much greater exchange rate volatility outside the system.
Mr. Patrick Ground: How can the hon. Gentleman say that about interest rates in view of the level of interest paid on the Italian lira over the past five years?
Mr. Radice: I said that there was much greater interest rate stability within the ERM as all the studies have shown. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will accept my word for that and if he does not, he should look at the evidence.
There has been an even more important change in the conditions in comparison with the 1970s. I take issue with my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). He did not quite grasp the point that the volume is less important than the fact that today, in contrast with textbook economics, the flows of international capital are driven as much by interest rate differentials and the desire for speculative gain as by differences in the balance of payments or inflation rates. That is a very important difference.
Mr. Sheldon: That was the case before the war.
Mr. Radice: No, it was not.
Outside the ERM, the United Kingdom exchange rate has been highly volatile. If hon. Members do not accept that, I remind them that in 1980–81, the pound was driven to a level which made manufacturing industry totally uncompetitive, so much so that 20 per cent. of manufacturing output was destroyed. In early 1986, the pound was driven down to an all-time low, to almost £1 to the dollar. There has been a considerable fluctuation.
Of course British manufacturing wants a competitive rate, and it is right to want that. However, it also wants a stable rate so that it can plan ahead. I conclude that although it is important that we should enter the ERM at a competitive and effective rate, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) said, it is even more important that rates should remain stable.
I want now to consider the sedentary intervention made by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). The argument about tying the British economy to a more deflationary European level has far less validity in 1989 than it had in the 1970s or early 1980s. I accept that European unemployment levels are still high, but we should remember that our unemployment levels are affected by the way in which we calculate them. Also, the French were able to narrow the gap between the French and German inflation levels without having to experience the massive squeeze which British industry faced in 1980–81. Those who talk about a stagnant western European economy must consider the fact that over the past two and half years, the main European economies —West Germany, France and Italy—have been able to expand as fast as, if not faster than, the United Kingdom economy, but in a far more sustainable way because they are not running our massive balance of payments deficit.
We are also told that the Prime Minister attaches great importance to independence and sovereignty, but the truth is that, even outside the ERM, we are affected by what
516
happens within it. After all, the Bundesbank's decision to raise interest rates a few weeks ago triggered corresponding increases not just in the ERM, but in the United Kingdom as well.
I do not claim that joining the ERM is a panacea. No one would do that. It is no substitute for operating and managing the economy in a balanced way or improving the supply side of the economy, which the Government have failed to do.
I believe that there is now a powerful case for joining the ERM sooner rather than later. It would help to stabilise exchange rates and secure lower interest rates than we would have outside. In addition, it could provide a useful counter-inflationary discipline, certainly a far more effective discipline, than the discredited system of domestic monetary targets in which one or two Conservative Members still apparently believe.
In addition, we must take our political argument very seriously. Unless we join the ERM, we will not be in a position to influence the future direction of economic and monetary co-ordination in Europe. Membership of the ERM would give us the influence that we so clearly lack at present.
Mr. Spearing: While it may be true that there would be a seat at the table, does my hon. Friend believe that our £20,000 million trade deficit might reduce our influence?
Mr. Radice: I warned this Government about the problem with the trade balance a long time before many other hon. Members, and I realise that it is very important.
I want now to consider stages 2 and 3 of the Delors report and the moves towards full economic and monetary union. I want first to consider the principle of economic and monetary union. Strangely enough, there is nothing about that in the Delors report and no one in this debate has so far made much of it. However, there is a powerful case to be made in principle for such a goal, albeit a long-term goal.
The basis of a monetary union can be defined as an arrangement between countries by which their exchange rates are permanently fixed in relation to one another. Because that commitment makes currencies freely interchangeable against one another at the same rate, they become, in effect, one currency.
The benefits of such a system, which are not set out in the Delors report, are that it reduces the transaction costs of doing business and, more important, it removes the cost of exchange rate instability, which is very great at the moment.
I accept the case that has been put by my hon. Friends that the disadvantage of monetary union is that it would no longer be possible to use the exchange rate to provide adjustment to economic changes or shocks which affect individual countries.
However, as I have already argued, the use of the exchange rate as a means of adjustment is increasingly problematic for Britain in a world in which international capital is not linked, as it used to be, to differences in balances of payments, but which goes after interest rates and speculative gains.
Mr. Peter Shore: It may be problematic to use the exchange rate to solve our appalling balance of payments problems, but does my hon.

517
Friend agree that it is inconceivable that the balance of payments problem can be solved without some major change in the value of sterling?
Mr. Radice: I agree. There will also have to be massive cuts in internal demand because we need to cut imports. We need a depreciation of our currency and that is why my right hon. Friends are right to say that we have to go in to the exchange rate mechanism at a competitive level. That is an important proviso. Once we are in the system, there will be a limit to the variation in the exchange rate. That is good counter-inflationary discipline, because we cannot go on depreciating, as that would undermine the whole economy, as we have found out before. Once we find the right level, we must try to stick to it—that is an important part of balancing and managing an economy. As the Swedes and other nations have found out, one cannot go on devaluing all the time.
Mr. Shore: Surely the additional problem is to decide what is an appropriate rate, against the background of our massive trade deficit and, I regret to say, our serious lack of competitiveness. Once that rate has been decided, there is also the problem of having to adjust it again, as so many other countries with fixed exchange rate regimes have had to do. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be sensible to defer the whole thing until we have reached balance of payments equilibrium?
Mr. Radice: I believe that, if we continue to run a balance of payments deficit of the size that we have at the moment, the market may decide what that level should be.
There is considerable disagreement about what the level should be. I cannot give a figure, but I suspect that it should he considerably lower than it is at the moment, as that would be competitive and we certainly need a competitive edge—I think probably something in the region of DM2·50.
As I have said before, we are not talking about joining a fixed exchange rate system. The ERM is not a fixed system, but one with variability, albeit limited. It is true that full economic and monetary union would mean a fixed exchange rate system, but that will come later. I am talking about the principle of the thing.
A more pragmatic argument for supporting the long-term goal of monetary union, is that the single European market is likely to lead to greater integration of European economies. That integration will require a response at a monetary level.
Under the terms of the Single European Act, as we have been reminded, trade barriers will be removed and all exchange controls will be dismembered. That will lead to greater co-ordination of monetary policy and particularly of interest rates. We have seen how the other ERM economies are increasingly following the lead of the Bundesbank. That partly explains why France supports so strongly the idea of the European central bank. The French hope to retrieve a share of sovereignty that they have lost to the Bundesbank, by participating in the decision making of such a bank. In a European economy which is increasingly interdependent, one can recover control by sharing, and that is the principle behind the idea.
One can support the long-term goals, but that does not mean that one is not sceptical about the details of the Delors proposals. The important thing is that they ar not immutable but can be cast aside.
518
I do not believe that it is necessary, with full monetary union, to have binding rules on budgetary and fiscal policies of member states. It is essential that member states should be able to use fiscal policy to provide adjustment to short-term problems of balance in their own economies or the gap between the rich and poor economies will widen.
It is true that the Delors plan envisages wider structural and regional policies at the European level, but they have to be buttressed by fiscal policies at national level.
The Government have to adopt a more positive approach to economic and monetary union. Instead of the negative, nationalistic attitude of the Prime Minister, we should develop a policy that ensures that we are able to influence the outcome in a sensible, practical way.
The Treasury proposal for competing currencies is not a serious runner. It has already been rejected by our European partners and it is a pretty odd proposal, by any standards. It either means little more than the present arrangement or, if competition works, everyone will turn to the deutschmark, which will become the common currency of the union. That is the reality of the situation.
A more genuine approach to EMU should be based on two things. The first is a genuine commitment to the long-run objective of EMU, and not the kind of commitment that Government have used as a bargaining proposition. Secondly, we have to insist that an irrevocable fixing of exchange rates should take place only after the full effects of 1992 have worked through the European economies. That is not likely to take place before the end of the century.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: The year 2010.
Mr. Radice: Perhaps not that far ahead, but it will take some time.
Meanwhile we should join, and then build on the existing exchange rate mechanism, develop greater co-ordination between central banks and ensure that we get realignments at increasingly rare intervals. We should also develop the ECU as a parallel and increasingly important currency. Gavyn Davies, one of our advisers to the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service, said, in his valuable study of the European monetary question, that the more important the ECU becomes, the nearer European monetary policy will be to the average of member states. There is something to be said for that. He also said that that would make the Bundesbank less dominant in setting European monetary policy.
A European central bank will not be necessary until exchange rates are finally, irrevocably fixed. That is a long time ahead. Economic and monetary union has to be preceded by a major expansion of regional and structural funds, and the implementation of the social charter. We should also develop democratic institutions at national and European level, and give greater powers to the European Parliament.
Europe is one of the most important issues facing the House. Instead of standing on the sidelines, like the Prime Minister, shouting nationalistic slogans, it is essential that the United Kingdom starts to play a full part in the development of Europe's future.
6.29 pm
Mr. John Biffen: I will be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I therefore hope that you will bear with me if I take my argument at something of a gallop.

519
I much enjoyed the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith). He seems to have established himself as one fully conversant with European debate: his remarks were wide-ranging and, on the whole, paradoxical. He was almost a one-man pantomime horse—one half, the rear half, trying to establish Labour's credentials in warm and charitable European terms and making the party fit once more for Roy Jenkins, the other half much more pragmatic. Addressing my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), the right hon. Gentleman reflected on the absurdity of some of the ambitions in phases 2 and 3 of the Delors report. It would not have been difficult for those in the Press Gallery to assume that a good deal of consensus existed between the two parties on what constituted the wider challenges, and on what was the appropriate national reaction to them.
Let me again place on record my innate ambivalence —if not hostility—in relation to fixed exchanges. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) will remember struggling, as first a supporter and then a member of the Labour Government, to validate an unreal exchange rate between 1964 and 1968. Every social and economic value of that party was prostituted in the unreasonable pursuit of the untenable. The speech of the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) prompted the same reflections.
European monetary union would involve both pluses and minuses. The idea is not for constant changes of parity to take place to offset that, but for surpluses to be recycled through a regional policy—and doubtless a social and industrial policy. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) who is clearly growing into a good European after a shaky start, has mentioned energy policy. But I can think of nothing more daunting than mechanisms whereby the resources for such policies were provided in such circumstances—that those resources should be available for judgment and distribution through public processes about as remote as they could possibly be. I do not take into account the relationship between the Council of Ministers and the House; I merely say that the circumstances in which resources are created for distribution should cause us to think very seriously, Socialists as much as Tories. The remoteness of government is an equal challenge to both sides.
My first point of substance concerns the exchange rate mechanism. This is the immediate problem. It is alleged to be a test of the authenticity of our attempt to relate to our European partners. I must say that I am sorry that there has been so much acrimony over the safeguards that have been attached to British membership, the Madrid settlement and the statements made thereafter. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is clearly the object of considerable political attack, which is inevitable—I do not think that anyone would resile from that.
When I watched the Walden interview, I thought that my right hon. Friend was changing her style. In contrast to the economical use of verbiage in her statement after the Madrid summit, she now elaborated on the safeguards, as though, under the emollient influence of Woodrow Wilson, she wanted to reach the magic figure of 14. As I listened, I reflected on Clemenceau's observation that 10 was good enough for the Lord. Let me put back on the
520
record what my right hon. Friend said in the House after the Madrid summit. She talked of the practice that would accompany—that would, indeed, be a precondition of—our membership of the exchange rate mechanism:
"These include completion of the single market, abolition of all foreign exchange controls, a free market in financial services and strengthening of the Community's competition policy by reducing state aids."—[Official Report, 29 June 1989; Vol. 155, c. 1107.]
Does anyone contest those four safeguards? Does any hon. Member on the Opposition Front Bench contest them? The silence is eloquent, and I am immensely grateful.
Mr. David Howell: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Biffen: Although I have great affection for my right hon. Friend, he is not a member of the Labour party; but I will give way to him none the less.
Mr. Howell: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, and I am listening with fascination to his speech, as I always do. I have only one contesting point to make—not entirely minor, but interesting. The Madrid communiqué said something slightly and crucially different: it mentioned the exchange and other controls of major countries within the EMS, not all countries. That is just a little point for us to bear in mind, should we ever come to textual hair-splitting in the future.
Mr. Biffen: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. In fact, I recollect that Mr. Brian Walden pressed the question of Portugal in his interview. The issue did not bring that to a halt, and I do not believe that it would bring our relationship with our European partners to one either; I am glad, however, that my right hon. Friend has sought to fill the void left by the parliamentary Labour party.
We must emphasise the seriousness of our safeguards, and, moreover, the Labour party's safeguards. Labour makes great play of the problems of parity. The hon. Member for Dagenham, after all, said:
"We must not be forced to sacrifice competitiveness to maintain an ERM parity".
It is well known that deep concern is felt about the need for legitimate and defensible safeguards before we proceed with the arrangements. There is deep scepticism on both sides of the House—I except the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith)—about the wider ambitions of economic and monetary union and Delors stages 2 and 3. What better way to demonstrate the authenticity of that scepticism than to insist on safeguards at stage 1? otherwise, the very signals set up by a relaxed "Let's get in and work it out once we are in" approach will merely encourage those who believe the old French proverb, "C'est le premier pas qui compte." I believe that the scepticism is well founded.
We have argued the matter in economic terms; the Minister, although he is from the Foreign Office, knows that this is basically a Treasury debate. That is natural and within the conventions of the House, but make no mistake: the debate must be set in a highly political context, created by the present turmoil across Europe. I can well believe that Mr. Delors—who is, I think, as good a Frenchman as he is a European—has on his desk those wonderful words of Francois Mauriac: "I like Germany so much I want two of her."
Developments in the Soviet Union and in other Warsaw pact countries are unfolding at a pace that few would have anticipated. Old nationalisms are being

521
refurbished; old institutions are being re-established. They may be old, but set in today's circumstances, they provide a powerful new dimension to the whole of European relations. We see within that all the indications of a potential German reunification, however much it is whispered behind hands, rather than proclaimed openly. We know that there is the prospect of an eventual, but perhaps not too distant, American military disengagement from western Europe, if America can make the appropriate arrangements with the Soviet Union.
It is against that background that, to my mind, there is the imperative of thinking, in the words of De Gaulle, of
"a Europe from the Urals to the Atlantic".
We should think about the political, social and economic structures that could provide the shock absorber for the impending re-unification of Germany. We should ask ourselves whether in continuing to try to bring about a closer, more integrated and centralised western Europe, we are facilitating a process that will have to reconcile those emerging factors in central and eastern Europe.
All that I can say as I bid my right hon. and learned Friends godspeed on this enterprise is that I hope that it can he done in the spirit of cross-Bench co-operation. If the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East wants to set out the Labour party's stall on Community affairs along the lines that the Government are foolishly trying to protect national interests in the way in which they are proceeding over the question of membership of the European exchange rate mechanism, I advise him that the debate will not end there. It will be translated to the wider issues that I have mentioned, and I look forward to that contest with relish.
6.41 pm
Dr. David Owen: For years I have believed that this Prime Minister would never take us into the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system. I have felt that that would and was gravely weakening this country's capacity to play a constructive and full role in the development of Europe. Listening today to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), I believe that we will now enter the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system some time in 1990. If Italy and France abolish their exchange controls—as I think that they will early in 1990—it will be possible for us to enter in the first half of that year.
However, I do not think that it will be easy. I believe that the Prime Minister will continue to put up stubborn resistance to it. The resignation of the former Chancellor will have had a substantive effect. I am one of those who believe that policy differences and principle still matter in politics. As resignation from such a great office is not done lightly, as the former Chancellor said, I believe that it will have a profound and long-lasting effect. Indeed, I believe that it will have an effect far beyond the mere matter of joining the exchange rate mechanism because, important though that is, it is as nothing to the fundamental debate about European economic and monetary union. There is no doubt whatever that if this country continues to hold out—unreasonably, in the eyes of most people in Europe and, I would suggest, in the eyes of most hon. Members —we will not have the political weight to stop some of the more foolish aspects of the European economic monetary union that are contained in the Delors report.
522
I speak as a lifelong European, but I believe that to force the European Community down the federalist route would not only damage the European Community but possibly destroy it. It is an unnatural beast, which the European Community was never meant to be. But it has never before been given such a massive federalist twist than by the Delors report. The concept of an independent and free nation giving up the right to fix its own levels of direct taxation and its own borrowing requirement is to emasculate the nation state to the extent that there would be no other option than to be a united states of Europe.
I am married to an American and my children are therefore half American, but to believe that one can draw any parallel between the United States of America and a united states of Europe is to live in a world that is wholly different from the one in which I live. If that federalist model were forced on Europe, it would eventually split it apart.
The war cemeteries of Europe are a massive demonstration of the folly of nationalism, but in the strains and stresses, and in the potential break-up of the USSR, we are also seeing all the dangers of forcing independent nations into an artificial grouping.
The cultural history and traditions of Europe allow us to develop European unity in a unique way. Few have been able to predict the path of European development in the past and the title of the Government paper "An Evolutionary Approach to European Economic and Monetary Union" uses well-chosen words. Evolution is a progressive and natural development, but one can never be sure of its pace or the ultimate direction in which it is leading.
Mr. Spearing: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Owen: Time is short, so I shall not give way.
The development of Europe is therefore of fundamental importance and this is possibly one of the more important debates that we will have in this Parliament. There are some signs of an interesting consensus developing on this question as there are in relation to the European exchange rate mechanism.
The Prime Minister has allowed her prejudices and instincts to triumph on the issue of the exchange rate mechanism. It does not raise fundamental questions of sovereignty, and to pretend that it does is nonsense. We went into the European monetary system in 1978 and the Labour Government took the necessary legislation through the House, but it was always permissible within that legislation for any Government to go into the exchange rate mechanism over a mere matter of a weekend. No other form of parliamentary approval was needed. That was a recognition that we were dealing with a mechanism that did not raise the fundamental questions that are raised by some aspects of the Delors report.
I turn to some aspects of that Delors report that trouble me. I believe that the Government's competitive currency arrangement will not run. Indeed, I am surprised that the new Chancellor has put his authority behind that non-runner. It is not necessary at this stage for any of us to take firm and fixed positions about the development of the currency. None of us knows how successful 1992 will be and none of us knows the effect of all the Community countries—I hope—being in the exchange rate mechanism. It may turn out to be a naturally stable system of

523
virtually fixed exchange rates, although there will always be—and rightly so—the capacity to change the exchange rate.
I would not go back into a fixed system. If we were to get stable currencies, as is well argued in a document by the Social Market Foundation, by Sam Brittan and Michael Artis, entitled "Europe Without Currency Barriers", if we were to have a virtually fixed system, there would not be transaction costs; there would be exchange rate stability. It may well be that we could use the extension of the ecu and that that would form a sufficient balance. As has been said, we may develop a dual currency so that a European currency will run alongside national currencies.
However, when the wider public comes to understand that the system might mean giving up the franc, the deutschmark, the pound and the peseta, there will be an instinctive reaction against it. Those advocating it will have to prove that they have solid arguments for necessitating such a major cultural change. I believe that they will be hard pressed to do so.
I would be cautious about being hostile to the idea of a European system of central banks. It will not be like the Bundesbank system. That system was developed in peculiar circumstances—in the inflation of the 1920s and 1930s and the post-war German situation. If it was modelled on any existing system of banks, it would be much closer to the Federal Reserve, which has a stronger political element, as has been mentioned already in the debate. I suspect that it will be different even from that. We must recognise that at this very moment the 12 national governors of the banks within the European Community meet regularly. That co-ordination has already been found to be necessary. When exchange controls are completely lifted, there will be a need for greater co-ordination. The governors of the banks will become more important within the European Community.
I beg the Government not be too pedantic. Many of our European partners like creating institutions; frankly, I do not. I found that my European enthusiasm always used to wane the closer I got to Brussels. We must, however, be a little flexible on this. The phraseology that describes a European system of central banks is about as neutral as one can get. If our European partners feel that such a system is an important symbol of making progress towards greater unity in this sphere, we would be most foolish to put up artificial road blocks against it. We should accept such a system provided that it meets some of our essential safeguards and provided that, within that system, our own Governor has an input which reflects his relationship with the Government of the day and, through that Government, with the House of Commons.
It will be difficult to get the balance right, but it is right to accept that we are living in a much changed world of exchange rate movements. Massive sums of money move rapidly, and within a fully fledged exchange rate mechanism we will need co-ordination mechanisms which have an indigenous authority and which operate quickly.
We should be more flexible, but I will not push it any further. I do not think that I would argue against, in principle, some institutional development in that regard provided that certain democratic and national safeguards were maintained. I cannot offer a blueprint, as I think that it would be impossible even to design such a blueprint until
524
we were within the exchange rate mechanism, seen it work and we were a little past 1992. Jacques Delors must frankly be told—I hope by more than one country, Britain—that a lot of the stuff he proposes is arrant nonsense. It may serve as his presidential launch pad, but much of it does not make sense within an evolving European Community.
Within that context it may be that we are developing, once again, a consensus on European matters in this House. No one can deny that that is of great value. It does not make sense for the Chancellor, the Foreign Secretary or the Prime Minister to stand up for British interests in a European Council meeting and then to come back and always have to justify being in a minority of one. There are times when it is right for a British Prime Minister to be in a minority of one—but not quite so frequently as the right hon. Lady finds it necessary to be. There are moments when it would be greatly helpful for a British Prime Minister to go into negotiation knowing that he or she is likely to be in a minority of one, but knowing that they can speak for a united House of Commons or at least for the main thrust of the political contributions made in the House. That sort of consensus—I know that the Prime Minister will not like the word—is rather helpful in diplomatic terms.
It is also helpful within the European Community to go out deliberately to make a few friends and there are friends to be made. The Federal Republic of Germany has great reservations about whole chunks of the Delors report. It is very happy, however, for Britain to take the flak and all the odium for making sensible points against that report. For the past two decades, the German technique has been to nuzzle close to and to butter up the French on such issues. It recognises that President Mitterand and Prime Minister Michel Rocard are committed to those issues. These days they are more or less federalists and, unfortunately, we cannot rely on Gaullist attitudes to withstand some aspects of the Delors report. It is necessary to try to prise France and Germany apart on this issue.
Holland has a splendid and independent-minded Prime Minister, Mr. Lubbers. On a number of occasions he has displayed a sensible view from a committed European position, in common with previous Dutch Prime Ministers. Mr. Lubbers now heads a grand coalition with the Dutch Labour party—it has been party to negotiations despite having lost the election—with the Christian Democrats. The Danes and Portugal could also be reasonable allies on this question.
It is also important to consider the social contract—
Mr John Smith: The social charter.
Dr. Owen: "Chat was a Freudian slip. The social contract has a long history in French politics and it is not something that has been discussed in this country alone.
The biggest absurdity in the social charter is the minimum wage legislation. It is a big enough nonsense to argue in favour of such legislation for the United Kingdom, but it is an even greater nonsense to argue that it can be run on a European level. It has its political advantages, but they evaporate the moment one fixes the level. Any Government—I am sure that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East would discover this —would find that they would have to fix the minimum wage at such an embarrassingly low level that they would back off it.

525
What we should be talking about is a guaranteed minimum income. That is a perfectly legitimate demand on a national Government and there are strong demands, in social terms, for Europe to have guaranteed minimum incomes. That would link wages, sometimes grossly inadequate, with the benefit and tax systems. If we were signing up for a social charter that stood for a minimum wage or income, it would not cause many problems to the present Government. Why do they not argue that case instead of getting themselves into a great lather?
There are other aspects of the social charter to which objections can be raised. The Commission has modified it substantially and has made it clear that most of the legislation is the responsibility of the member Governments and that it will become Commission responsibility only where appropriate.
Every possible piece of phraseology within the social charter does not fit us and it does have some grandiose elements within it, but it is fairly harmless stuff. If we get ourselves into a great lather about it and put ourselves in a minority of one, it looks as though we are incapable of giving any ground in what is, essentially, collective bargaining. Effectively we are expected to operate within a coalition. We know that the Prime Minister has some difficulty with that even within her Cabinet, but we should remember the basic facts. We are in the European Community and we are not coming out. There is no question of a two-tier Europe, which would be strongly against British interests. At various times we must give a little to maintain a vital national interest.
I hope that the Chancellor's resignation means that the Prime Minister has been reined in. There is no doubt that the former Foreign Secretary and the former Chancellor bent her over before the Madrid summit. No sooner was the agreement reached, however, than it was clear that, with one bound, she was free. One had only to listen to the press conference that she gave to understand that. She was undoubtedly heading to undermine that agreement.
The Prime Minister has a political purpose in not wanting an exchange rate mechanism. She fears that in the four weeks during an election campaign an opinion poll may well be published to show that the Labour party might win. There might he a run on the pound, although if people listen to what the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East said, I am not sure that there would be. If there was a run on the pound, instead of letting the rate go down we might be forced to raise interest rates because of the exchange rate mechanism. That might be slightly embarrassing during a general election campaign.
That mechanism could also stop a consumer boom being generated before an election. Some of the disciplines within the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system would be helpful in stopping the gross manipulation of the economy prior to an election. We saw that happen at the time of the 1987 election, but the Conservative party did it in 1955 and 1959 and it jolly nearly got away with it in 1964. If it could, the Labour party would have done the same. The disciplines within the mechanism would inhibit to both sides of the political scale at the time of the general election. I welcome that.
The European Community has been a political, divisive issue in this country from 1962 until about 1988, which is far too long. I have listened to the debate today, and for once I am beginning to believe that our membership of the
526
European Community is becoming something to which all sensible people in this country can give a wholehearted commitment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): The 10-minute limit on speeches begins at 7 o'clock. Hon. Members will find the digital clock winking at them when they have half a minute to go.
7 pm
Mr. Nigel Forman: I must begin by saying how much I agreed with a large part of what the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) has just said in a good-humoured and sensible way.
The idea of economic and monetary union obviously poses problems for this House and for political decision makers in this country. That is mainly because, although a distant goal, it implies a real shift of political power away from politicians at national level to politicians, bureaucrats bankers and judges at the European level. In the long run of history, this may happen. If it does, it will do so only with the prior approval of the national Governments and Parliaments concerned—through a new Community treaty which will need the unanimous approval of all the member states if it is to be brought into being.
In the shorter term, the priority for Her Majesty's Government must be to resolve the doubts and contradictions in their attitudes towards the European monetary system. The Financial Times correctly argued in an editorial yesterday:
"Membership of the EMS has become a litmus test for Britain's commitment to the broader political aspirations of the European Community".
The most pressing problem for the Government is to resolve the issues raised by the interaction of European policy and monetary policy. That cannot be sensibly managed without taking full account of the European—and even the global—dimension of monetary policy. We should consider carefully the interaction of these two great issues before spending much more political time and energy on the longer-term issues of institutional shifts and political deficits in the European Community, to which this House will doubtless return on numerous occasions.
In an open economy such as that of Britain today, with more than 30 per cent. dependence on foreign trade, the Government cannot be indifferent to significant movements or volatility in the exchange rate. If they are, damaging consequences will follow. Between 1979 and 1981, Ministers seemed indifferent to a rapid and large appreciation in the pound which rendered at least 20 per cent. of our manufacturing capacity obsolete, drove up unemployment, exacerbated the seriousness of the recession and significantly tightened the monetary stance.
In early 1985, the dollar shot up like a rocket and the pound plummeted towards parity with it. Not even the most relaxed monetarists felt able to sit on their hands in those disturbing circumstances for the exchange rate and British interest rates were raised by four percentage points in as many weeks to prevent the pound falling further and weakening the monetary stance.
The moral of the tale is that monetary policy must have regard to significant movements in the exchange rate. Indeed, that is an understatement of what is required in the modern world because internal indicators of monetary

527
conditions, and hence future inflation, have been shown to have only limited utility. MO is an accurate coincident indicator of monetary conditions, but a poor predicter of future inflation. Sterling M3 should have had a better record of prediction, but experience in the mid-1980s showed that it was not giving the correct signals. M4, sometimes known as broad money, probably provides the least unrealiable domestic indicator of monetary conditions, and hence future levels of inflation.
However, all these internal indicators of monetary conditions take insufficient account of changes in monetary velocity and especially of externally triggered economic developments such as changes in German interest rates or violent swings in the dollar, both of which can have a significant impact on monetary conditions in this country.
Any Government of this country, which is no more than a medium-ranking power in today's world, are obliged to run their monetary policy with more that one eye on external monetary conditions. The only reliable way to measure these and their impact on the economy is to look at the pound's performance in relation to a particular key currency of a basket of currencies.
It may be possible for great economic powers such as the United States, Japan or West Germany to run their monetary policies principally according to domestic conditions, but it has become effectively impossible, and hence most unwise, for Britain or France, South Korea or Taiwan, Australia or Canada to attempt to do so. We are forced to recognise the reality of our position. If we really want to defeat inflation—and we do—we have no alternative but to give considerable and perhaps overriding weight to an external standard for our monetary policy.
Before the first world war, this was provided by the gold standard and it was relatively easy for us to work within it because for much of that period we were the dominant economic power in the world and it suited us better than anyone else. Between the wars, there was no absolutely reliable monetary standard and leading currencies gyrated for a variety of reasons. A weakened Britain attempted heroically to go back on to the gold standard in 1925—at an overvalued parity—and was eventually obliged to break the link and devalue in 1931 at the time of the great depression.
From Bretton Woods in 1944 to the Smithsonian agreement in 1971, the world was effectively on a dollar standard and the regime of fixed dollar exchange rates provided the necessary signals and disciplines for periodic adjustments in British monetary policy. That period was brought to an end by the surge in United States inflation associated with the Vietnam war, which obliged the Americans to break the link between the dollar and gold, and by the emergence of other economic power centres in the world—notably West Germany and Japan—which began to create what Henry Kissinger described at the time as an emerging multi-polar world.
That is the world in which we have been living ever since—a world that is multi-polar, increasingly liberalised and economically interdependent, in which the turnover in foreign exchange dealings in one day on Wall street may be equivalent to three times the total foreign exchange reserves in this country. In a world subject to capital and
528
currency movements on such a scale, the idea of achieving national monetary autonomy is no longer realistic, especially in a country of the economic weight of Britain today. It is not even completely possible for the economic super-powers. We should recognise that reality and apply its lessons to our policy.
We are left with three choices in the conduct of monetary policy. First, we can operate an ineffective, misleading and vulnerable monetary policy based on the best available indicators of internal monetary conditions —perhaps M0 and M4 together. Secondly, we can operate a more realistic but still vulnerable monetary policy based on a mixture of internal and external monetary indicators. In the process, however, we run the risk that our policy will be misread and misunderstood by the markets, thus forcing us to incur unnecessary extra costs in terms of short-term interest rates which are higher than they might otherwise have needed to be, and exchange and interest rate volatility greater than might otherwise have been the case.
The third, and most effective, choice is to opt for a framework capable of providing both a higher degree of certainty and a higher degree of financial confidence in the markets by joining the exchange rate mechanism at the earliest sensible date. In effect, that will mean putting ourselves and our domestic monetary policy on to an external deutschmark standard. That may be disagreeable for those who cling to anachronistic notions of national monetary autonomy, but our recent experience of having to maintain our interest rate differential with the Germans by raising our rate 1 per cent. when they raise theirs should have cured us of any lingering misconceptions on that score.
Even that course of action will be no panacea and may bring considerable difficulties for us, especially in the early stages after we lock ourselves into a fixed parity with the deutschmark. With French experience as the best evidence to go by, it may take between three and six years in the ERM for us to converge completely down to German inflation levels, and we may not even achieve that if we persist with the short-sighted industrial attitudes shown by the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions. Initially, we would almost certainly have to pay the price of high interest rates and considerable interest rate volatility, but after a while the markets should settle down, confidence that we are in to stay should increase, and hence the interest rate premium and the inflation differential should gradually diminish.
Since all this could be a difficult political pill to swallow, the question of timing becomes important, as does the question of the best institutional arrangements to support it. With the next general election now probably delayed at least to the autumn of 1991, and perhaps even the spring of 1992, the best time to lock ourselves into the ERM would be either in the autumn of 1990—once French and Italian exchange controls have been fully removed and our own inflation rate has fallen closer to that of Germany —or in the first week immediately after the next general election.
If the latter choice seems politically preferable, it should be accompanied and supported by an unambiguous commitment in our next manifesto to establish the Bank of England on a new basis of strength and independence analagous to that of the Bundesbank or the Federal Reserve. That will give extra confidence to the markets and increase the credibility and, if necessary, the austerity of

529
monetary policy in this country. I had meant to read a quotation from Mr. Poehl in my support, but I have not time to do so. This will also make it institutionally easier for Britain to co-operate in a future European system of central banks such as that proposed by stage 2 of the Delors plan for progress towards economic and monetary union.
These are large issues. The interaction of economic and European policy will probably be the most critical area of decision-making for the Government between now and the next general election, and probably well beyond that. Despite the temptation to follow the advice of many in this House by playing the nationalist card, it would be an historic mistake for the Government to do other than to follow through the European commitments that they have already made in the Single European Act and at the Madrid European Council. Let us therefore press ahead, as the Government and the party best equipped to defeat inflation, restore a competitive edge to our economy and lead Britain further towards its European destiny in the 1990s and beyond.
7.11 pm
Mr. Austin Mitchell: It is interesting that this debate has concentrated on the EMS and the exchange rate mechanism. That is appropriate because commitment to the ERM is a central part of the first stage. It is also interesting to look back at the conditions set out in 1978 by the Labour Government for membership of the EMS, two of which—and they are basic—have not yet been fulfilled.
There were eight conditions. The third was that the EMS
"should provide a basis for improved economic growth and higher employment in the Community".
Since the system came into being on 1 April 1979, Europe has become both the high unemployment and the low growth black spot of the advanced industrial world. Between 1980, the first full year of operation, and 1988, manufacturing output in France grew by only 4 per cent. and in Italy by 8 per cent. Both countries were growing far more rapidly before they entered the exchange rate mechanism. Unemployment in both countries is now at record levels; that is not unconnected with the fact that they are members of the ERM
The other condition that was not met was that the system
"should impose obligations on its stronger members symmetrical with those falling on its weaker members".
As with Bretton Woods, it does not do that. West Germany is still running up a huge surplus and dominating the Common Market economically by keeping the mark deliberately undervalued to enhance its surplus in manufactured trade and its domination of the markets of other countries, all of which are in deficit to West Germany.
This is a real problem. The only way in which Europe can trade fairly is if the mark is revalued upwards—yet the exchange rate mechanism acts as a series of guy ropes using the other currencies to keep the deutschmark down. The system forces these currencies down to the unnaturally low level of inflation in West Germany. In that sense, it helps Germany to keep the deutschmark down so that Germany's manufacturing surplus can grow to the dominant level at which it now stands.
530
The system has ruined the Mitterrand attempt to recapture the French market; it ruined his expansion n 1981 when the French Government were forced to choose between membership of the exchange rate mechanism and sustaining their expansion. They chose Europe, arid Delors went off to his reward in Brussels.
If, as the document on the evolutionary approach suggests, we join the ERM, we should issue another Green Paper to explain why the two unfulfilled conditions can now be dispensed with and why they are no longer relevant. I believe that they are still relevant.
My party stipulates that we shall enter the ERM on four conditions. I am happy with that—although I was not consulted—because those four conditions are unattainable, especially the one about a full and competitive exchange rate. What is a competitive exchange rate? The only possible definition is the exchange rate at which a country can balance its trade in conditions of full employment and a high and sustainable rate of growth. We are nowhere near that, and it is difficult to imagine the scale of the devaluation that would be necessary to bring us to that level of competitiveness. The pound is substantially overvalued in real terms against the deutschmark, even compared with 1986 levels. The deficit in manufactured trade is directly due to that over valuation.
This brings me to some of the more naive arguments for membership of the mechanism. They are advocated by the Democrats and the Confederation of British Industry in a united chorus. They say that the mechanism would help to bring inflation down. It will: it is easy to achieve nil inflation in a graveyard. The exchange rate mechanism has certainly been successful in giving France and Italy high levels of unemployment and low levels of inflation—that is its achievement.
The other argument advanced by this group is that industry wants a stable exchange rate because that would encourage trade. But we are a country in massive deficit. If the system encourages trade, it encourages those who import into this country to build up the deficit as much as it encourages those who export to whittle it down. If that is the benefit of stability, we shall suffer under it.
None of the studies carried out by the Federal Reserve or the Bank of England shows that such stability is necessary—fluctuations are no great barrier to trade. In a context of massive deficit it will be impossible to maintain any exchange rate at which we entered the ERM.
The central difficulty and the nub of the argument over the ERM is that it imposes on us—if we enter it—an externally determined exchange rate. That was the difficulty on which the Labour Government broke themselves in the 1960s, but with this difference: this determined exchange rate would be determined by competitors who have every interest in seeing the currency of this country overvalued because of the massive surpluses that they are running up in their trade with this country. That is the treadmill that will be imposed; we shall be back in the trap of the 1960s, only worse.
It is true, as hon. Members have said, that there are wild fluctuations, but it is also noticeable that they mainly affect the deregulated economies with strong financial sectors —the United States and Great Britain, which are the only two countries to have experienced the wild overshoots that have been so detrimental economically. Over the long term, we can still affect and manage the exchange rate largely through interest rates. That is what the

531
Government have done. They have done so for the wrong purposes, keeping interest rates too high and thereby greatly overvaluing our currency. That is folly, but it proves that we can manage and use the exchange rate for national purposes. It would be central to the policy of any Labour Government whom I would want to see in power to use the exchange rate for the purposes of the people —for expansion and growth, to rebuild the manufacturing base of this country.
We are at a turning point. The economy has fundamental problems; it is in comparative decline and it has just wasted the great opportunity that oil gave us to expand our industrial base, which is now too shrunken and weak to fulfil these purposes for the people—providing growth and jobs and generating the surplus that we need for our well-being. If we now go further and faster into an open market that weakens weakness and strengthens strength, leading to the phenomenen of peripheral decline —draining development from the periphery to the centres of population and wealth—we compound our problem. If we also accept monetary union on top we compound the problem of peripheral decline even more for then a balance of payments problem becomes a regional problem.
This is the danger, and we are now at a time of choice. Either we act for ourselves using the traditional weapons of the exchange rate, interest rates, control of credit and tax policy to rebuild our industrial base, or we throw ourselves on the mercy of Europe. That requires us to demand as a weaker element in that relationship ever stronger central institutions to help us even more. That is implicit in the commitment to allow the EC to redistribute in the way that the national state redistributes in a national economy. In other words, if we pursue this path, we shall become dependent, especially on West Germany. Is West Germany's record of generosity such as to encourage the belief that it will support us in that situation, or will it look, as it must, towards reconstruction in eastern Europe? That is the choice. The Opposition have no alternative and certainly I have no alternative but to choose our own weapons for our own purposes for building up our own strong economy.
7.20 pm
Mr. Ian Taylor: It is a great privilege for me to speak after my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman), who made a first-class contribution to this important debate. If one of the possibilities that emerges as a result of the unfortunate events of the last week or two is that my hon. Friend is free to speak on economic issues, the House will be better for it.
We are having two debates—one about the relatively short-term policy impact of the conditions on which we join the exchange rate mechanism, there no longer being any doubt by the Government that we shall join, and the second about the longer-term problems of how the consequences of the development of the exchange rate mechanism would work out in terms of economic and monetary union. Britain has been committed to economic and monetary union for a long time, and that was reinforced by the Single European Act. The definition of
532
how that should be shaped was never made crystal clear until it came to the Delors programme. I shall return to that.
In the short time that is available it is difficult to rehearse all the arguments that led me to conclude that it would be better for this country and for sterling to join the ERM sooner rather than later. The arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington were clear and concise. However, it is important that if we regard exchange rates as an important part of economic policy, although not the most important part, it is better to look upon them in the context of a co-operation agreement with our major trading partners rather than to try to continue treating them in isolation. For that reason I do not agree with some of the arguments of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell).
The protection that will be provided for stability within the exchange rate mechanism, the benefit of the collective action of reserves, can have a major beneficial impact and also give the clear sign that there is a policy of stability that will require strict monetary discipline in this country rather than an excuse to avoid it. That seems to be a double advantage. The benefit, of course, would be increased because, as soon as our rate of inflation was declining, we would be more able to manage the problems of our interest rates on the downward side if we were part of the exchange rate mechanism at that stage.
There is no questioning the clear conditions that were laid down at the Madrid summit about our entry. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his speech two days go, it would not make sense either for this country or for the members of the exchange rate mechanism for us to join if the conditions were not being met. Therefore, I fully endorse the reality that we must make sure that the conditions are adhered to.
As regards timing, we need to look closely at exactly what is happening to those conditions and keep them under supervision. We can leave aside for the moment the prospect of a declining rate of inflation in Britain and the rate to which it will decline. We must not assume that the member countries of the Community are static. For example, the French have gone a long way down the track of removing their exchange controls and liberalising their currency movements. There remains a problem for individuals who wish to have foreign bank accounts or hold foreign exchange in France. But as any French Minister will confirm, France has already removed most of its controls and yet that has not had a destabilising effect on the exchange rate mechanism.
It is most unlikely that the Italians will fail to reach their target, despite the problems that anyone who looks at the Italian economy will understand. Politics comes into this, because the Italians will hold the presidency of the European Community in the second half of next year and 1 July is the target date for the removal of exchange controls. That may be when the intergovernmental conference is held, should one be called.
It is possible to say that by July 1990 there will be no exchange controls in countries which represent 80 per cent. of the Community's output. That is a significant and important factor. The timing must also take politics into account. The highly desirable achievement of the conclusion or a move to the conclusion of the internal market could well be speeded up if our colleagues understood that joining the exchange rate mechanism was part of a political trade-off. That needs to be kept in mind,

533
because it is in Britain's interests that the internal market should be realised. That implies that we must support the Commission when it wishes to take tough powers to enforce the deregulation of the European Community. That applies particularly to Sir Leon Brittan, the Commissioner responsible for competition policy and for removing state subsidies in countries which still practise it to an alarming extent. We should bear those factors in mind, because occasionally statements are made which appear to give the contrary view of our attitude to the Commission.
I shall now deal with economic and monetary union. It is not at all inconsistent for me to have stated clearly that I believe that we should join the exchange rate mechanism earlier rather than later and then to say that I utterly reject stages 2 and 3 of the Delors plan. They seem to be reminiscent of the constitutional discussions that are quite popular in France, where people spend much time trying to set up an edifice in order to solve a small problem. It seems that that is exactly what is happening in stages 2 and 3 of Delors. It is an unacceptable transfer of sovereignty to somewhere. I do not like the word "sovereignty". Let us say influence, power and decision-making being transferred somewhere with no provision for democratic accountability. Many of the measures relating to whether countries should be allowed budgetary and fiscal control seem to be meddling of the worst sort. What is worse—this is where we accord with the Bundesbank and the advisers to the Ministry of Economic Affairs in Germany—is that it does not guarantee the one thing that is very important in the whole process—sound money.
There is no guarantee that stages 2 and 3 of the Delors plan will ensure the one thing which will come out of the exchange rate mechanism, which is that we shall be linked to a sound monetary policy and the anchor currency, the deutschmark. The Bundesbank is worried about that. It has made it clear that it does not wish to see the move from the current system, where it calls the shots with a strong anti-inflationary policy, to something that is amorphous and in which no clear ground rules are laid down. Therefore, it must be clearly rejected.
I welcome as a major contribution to the debate the Government paper "An Evolutionary Approach to Economic and Monetary Union". The evolutionary approach must make sense because we are moving into an unknown area. It is impossible for us to try to invent institutions in the hope that the path that the process is taking will meet them at the right time and in the right place. That could well not happen and, as I said earlier, it could undermine the whole exercise. I am delighted that it is called "An Evolutionary Approach to Economic and Monetary Union" because there is an occasional thought that the Government might wish to keep resubstituting the word "co-operation" for the word "union". That is a significant point, because we have now to show our Community partners that our ideas are the best way to achieve in a much more effective manner what they have already decided that they want to achieve and that therefore they are not going back on their political commitments towards the realisation of economic and monetary union.
I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Treasury to make sure that we develop allies among the members of the European Community who think in a similar way. As has been pointed out, there is often a tactical difference because we go in making our objections well known when
534
it is clear that many other members of the EC have profound worries about what the Delors report has done. We must realise that our job is to get a lot of them on our side so that we can have a great influence on any outcome of calling an intergovernmental conference. A block of 11 against us on the continent, pursuing a different economic and monetary union, would be a grave disadvantage to us. Therefore, I urge the Government to make their proposals with great energy and to win friends for our cause.
7.30 pm
Mr. Tony Benn: This is a political debate, and not an economic seminar in which people discuss inflation rates and money supply. We are talking about the future of Britain and of Europe. There are interesting questions about the rapidly changing situations. We are not discussing the Europeans against the anti-Europeans. We are all European. History and geography decided that. How do we want to see this rapidly changing continent develop? We are not discussing nationalism against internationalism, because nobody believes that one country can isolate itself from what happens in the world. We are discussing whether we should be free to respond to what is happening in other parts of the world or whether we are to be told by others how we ought to respond. We are not discussing the past versus the future, because the founders of the treaty of Rome have been wholly overtaken by the events in eastern Europe. Furthermore, this is not a party battle, as is evident from the variety of opinions expressed. We are discussing the guiding principles on which we should proceed.
The hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) spoke as if the purity and clarity of the market were the beginning and the end, and that if one had a pure and clear market one had solved one's problems. Listening to him, I wondered how many other guiding principles we had had in our history. When Julius Caesar and William the Conqueror tried to get us into the Common Market, separated by 1,000 years, their ideas were either to uphold the Roman empire or to uphold the glory of Normandy. I suppose that later, when the crusades were conducted by Richard Coeur de Lion, it was the Christian versus the infidels. Then there were the mercantilists, who said that if one could get all the money one would have the world. They set up the board of trade, with Mr. Speaker on it. I do not think that a Speaker has been on it for 100 years. Then there were the imperialists, who said that it was all about the empire; then it was all about free trade; and then it was about the gold standard. One has to decide what one thinks life is all about before one can decide what structures one wants.
I do not believe that a pure and open market is what life is about. Nor do I believe that those who struggled hard to elect Members of Parliament to come here think that that is what it is all about either, or they would have taken shares in small companies, attended annual meetings, and hoped that they would have had some influence via the financial market.
Furthermore, we are discussing the constitution under which we are governed. The French had a revolution on the basis of "liberty, equality and fraternity". The Americans, a year or two later, had one based on "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". We are told that it is about the "free movement of capital and labour" and we must sacrifice everything else to that. I have heard of people going to the stake for their belief in liberty, but I

535
have never heard of somebody going to the stake because he took a different view of the public sector borrowing requirement. That is not what life is about. That is not what motivates people, so let us cut some of that out of the debate and have a real discussion.
Since the Common Market was set up after the war, for a variety of reasons, there has been an inexorable drift towards greater central control. We debated the EEC in the House, and I participated in the debate from the Front Bench in 1971. I played some part in the referendum, which decided the matter publicly. The Prime Minister went along with British membership. She was a member of the Cabinet that signed the treaty of assession. In 1985 she signed the 1992 agreement and she has given assurances in Madrid, which, however one interprets them, show that it is at least the public posture of the Government to go in. I think that she will be driven into the ERM mighty quick, for one reason. The power of capital is so great that they will not accept a Prime Minister, even an elevated Prime Minister, who stands against what they demand.
I remember the Prime Minister once making a speech from the Front Bench in which she said that she would not pay our contribution. That was the boldest stance on Europe that I have ever heard anybody make, from either Front Bench, and within a week or two it had changed. In the latest Cabinet that she has appointed, the majority are in favour of joining the ERM, and perhaps even the economic and monetary union. With pressures, we shall see her change. We are told that the lady is not for turning, but perhaps she is for wriggling. As the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) said, within a few months, we shall be in the ERM.
Some intend to go in for a full political union, but I have detected in the debate a sort of turning of the tide. I do not know how to describe it, but I think that the last federal enthusiasts have begun to get themselves out from under. I detected in the speech of the new Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose views are important, a certain healthy caution. I agree strongly with what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) said about the nationalisation of the Bank of England, and he sounded a note of caution about it. We are beginning to recognise that the changes in the world are not in the direction of bigger and better, and are turning against an idea that was popular when I was Minister of Technology 20 years ago. It was then that, if one merged everything in, the end result would be stronger. We are moving in the opposite direction.
The Commission and the organisation in Brussels are centralised, bureaucratic and secretive. I remember, during the time of my presidency of the Energy Council, suggesting that Ministers met in public. My right hon. and learned Friend was a Minister in the Department of Energy then. The last thing that they wanted was anyone to know what they said in the privacy of the Council of Ministers. They wanted to give things away in the Council of Ministers and then give press conferences to say how marvellous they had been upholding their national interests.
Nobody has yet mentioned that the Federal Republic of Germany is the one country that could leave the Common Market the day that German reunification occurs. The Federal Republic has always made it a condition that they
536
would never sign a treaty that bound a united Germany, which it did not then have. The bargaining power of Germany is not the Bundesbank or the strength of the deutschmark; it is the power of Germany to dictate the future of Europe by deciding whether to stay in the EEC or move in another direction.
I strongly welcome the changes in eastern Europe. But does anybody think that the development of democracy and the desire for representative Government instead of the dictatorship of proletariat would be replaced by an enthusiasm for the dictatorship of Jacques Delors or of the Bundesbank? Does anybody think that the market place, with its special Brussels bureaucracy, will look better than Gosplan, which they are just getting rid of? Does anyone think that the United States would agree to be governed by 15 commissioners instead of a president whom the people elect? Does anyone think that the structure of the EEC has any future? Of course it has not. It is in retreat because it is out of date and meets neither our interests nor the interests of Europe.
The Prime Minister has set down funny conditions for going into the ERM, with which I do not agree. I do not agree with the Prime Minister on many things. She says that if the power of the market were supreme, she would go in, if only the other member states would give up their democratic safeguards and reservations. That would mean that the market would be in charge, instead of Delors. I do not believe that bankers should run this country, because I am a democrat and believe that people should be in power through election. The day that bankers are elected, I shall look on them with greater favour.
I do not agree with the assessment made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East of the policy review. I will try to read what was said, but I have left my specs somewhere.
Mr. Tony Worthington: Have mine.
Mr. Benn: I do not know whether they would help much, but I will try. I suppose that, now there is a charge for eye tests, we shall all be sharing specs soon. Yes, I can read well. The policy review says:
"We believe that the European Monetary System, as at present constituted, suffers from too great an emphasis on deflationary measures as a means of achieving monetary targets and that it imposes obligations which are not symmetrical. We oppose moves towards a European Monetary Union which would further impede progress in this area."
That is followed by other references to the European exchange rate mechanism.
The problem that I have with my right hon. and learned Friend is this: we have had one Chancellor of the Exchequer resign and I do not want my right hon. and learned Friend to resign before he assumes that office. I think that the incoming Labour Government will find that they are in office before 1992. The Prime Minister will become the Countess of Dulwich living in Finchley or the Countess of Finchley living in Dulwich. There will, however, be a change of Government, and the incoming Labour Government will be faced with a massive deficit, high inflation, high unemployment, weak industry and a weak pound that is under pressure.
My right hon. and learned Friend is wrong in supposing that the ERM will offer full protection and that confidence will return. Instead, pressure will be institutionalised and legalised, and he and the other members of the next

537
Labour Government will have to live with it in the same way as the IMF made the previous Labour Government live with it, and that cost us the general election in 1979.
The instruments that we shall need will be wide-ranging, and I do not suppose that Conservative Members will agree with them. We shall need exchange rate control, exchange control, industrial policy, public investment and perhaps import controls. We shall have to use the Bank of England and interest rates, and that will be our right, if a Labour Government are elected. If the Conservative party does not like that, let it defeat us. No one can say that, because a deal has been done with Mr. Delors, a Labour Government must abide by it.
The only answers to Britain's problems lie in Britain. We cannot get Delors to give us a social charter. We shall have to fight for that ourselves. We cannot get the Prince of Wales to get us better buildings: we shall have to fight for decent architecture. We cannot rely on proportional representation to defeat the Prime Minister: we shall have to win a parliamentary majority. Until the Members of this place recognise that responsibility for change and the future of Britain lies with those who elect them, which is why we must speak the truth to them, we shall continue pursuing the chimera of economic and monetary union and a federal Europe, and we might on that exceed our time limit.
7.42 pm
Mr. Neil Hamilton: We have heard a most beguiling speech from the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). I thought I heard the right hon. Gentleman speaking with the same enthusiasm, nay passion, that we hear from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on similar topics when she has appeared on television without a script. We may find that the right hon. Gentleman has more in common with my right hon. Friend than he would like to think.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Chesterfield that in Britain there is not the slightest desire for economic and monetary union with other countries in the European Community, apart from a few harmless eccentrics such as the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). In general, Britain is entirely opposed to Mr. Delors's proposal. I suppose, however, that there is one compelling reason for at least going so far as to accept stage 1 of the proposal, and that is the threat of a Labour Government. Labour Governments have always needed external disciplines to control the domestic money supply. That benevolent function was provided by the gnomes of Zurich in the mid-1960s and by the IMF in the mid-1970s. It usually takes about two or three years for the bailiffs to be called in. At the end of the day they have had to do roughly what has been proposed by means of the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS.
I do not believe that the Labour party has a serious policy on the EMS. I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) has left the Chamber temporarily because I am about to refer to my attempts to intervene in his speech. I was unable to intervene because he has taken to not to allowing me to do so. He is not as amiable to me in the Chamber, unfortunately, as he is in the Tea Room. I wanted to ask him how he can reject stages 2 and 3 of the Delors plan, on the basis that they would give power ultimately to the Bundesbank, which would be outside Britain's economic
538
policy, and yet accept stage 1. The ERM is effectively a deutschmark zone. It is because of the stability that is provided by the Bundesbank, which drags along all the other currencies in its wake, that the economic sovereignty of Britain would be prejudiced by the ERM.
Policy in the Labour party is usually made in unscripted interviews with the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), who is then swiftly contradicted by the Leader of the Opposition. In this case, however, even that degree of policy making has not been adopted by the Labour party. It has produced a remarkable set of conditions for entry into the ERM, and I think that we should find that it would be impossible for them to be met.
It is extraordinary that the Opposition say that the essential element in their negotiations to join the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS would be an agreement by all the other members to change the most essential feature of the arrangements. which is the extent to which the control of the ERM bears down upon inflation and monetary control within the Community. It is moonshine to believe that the other member states, especially Germany, will be ready to negotiate away the one redeeming feature of the system. I do not believe that the Opposition's policy is a serious one.
I welcome the adoption by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of a policy of competing currencies. As with so many of the successful policies of the Government, it was first foreshadowed in a No Turning Back Group pamphlet entitled "Europe Onwards from Bruges", which was published in April. I am sure that once the good sense of that pamphlet sinks in, it will be met with a great deal more support than it received initially.
I believe that it is dangerous for us to get mixed up once again with the world of rigged exchange rates. It has produced tremendous problems for us in the past three or four years. We shall be presented with many more problems if ultimately we enmesh ourselves in it permanently. The inflationary stimulus which we have suffered over the past three or four years derives from the G5 and G7 meetings at the Plaza and the Louvre, which were designed to attempt to massage downwards the value of the dollar.
Our temporary, unscripted and unannounced membership of the EMS in 1987 until the early part of 1988 was responsible for exacerbating and prolonging the inflation that we have suffered. A requirement of maintaining a certain value of the deutschmark was that we should intervene massively in the foreign exchange markets to hold down the value of the pound, thus boosting enormously broad money measures. It was necessary for us sharply to reduce interest rates, and that compounded the inflationary stimulus which was present. That was a catastrophic development which produced ultimately the political turmoil which we have suffered over the past few days. It is a pity that we have not learnt fully from the experience of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer in the late 1970s. The right hon. Gentleman learned that it is impossible simultaneously to pursue monetary and exchange rate targets, except in limited circumstances.
I believe that we have a choice. We can have either a stable exchange rate and volatility in our domestic economy or a flexible exchange rate and reasonable stability in our domestic economy. There is a distinct choice, and I think that the conditions that the Government have placed upon our entry into the exchange

539
rate mechanism will be sufficient to determine that we shall never enter it. If we were to enter it, however, many of the difficulties that we have experienced in recent months would become permanent features of our political and economic system until the system itself broke down.
I believe that that will happen when the other countries in the Community abolish their exchange rate mechanisms. Those exchange controls have managed to reconcile the conflicting pressures which we, who have not had exchange controls over the past couple of years, have been unable to reconcile, but I am not in favour of the restoration of exchange controls. I consider that their abolition was the most significant act for which the Government have been responsible over the past 10 years, and it has been beneficial in the main.
I am astonished that Opposition Members are nostalgic for all the economic difficulties from which their Administrations have suffered. If anyone wants an object lesson in the troubles that those difficulties would bring in their wake, let him read the autobiography of Harold Wilson, as he then was, and the distinguished memoirs that have recently been published by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East. I know that autobiographies more properly should be shelved under fiction, but in the memoirs of Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, as he now is—I have in mind pages 447–61 on the 1964–70 Labour Government —there are wonderful passages about the difficulties and complications that were imposed upon that Government because of their absurd fixation in keeping the pound in a fixed relationship with the dollar. Paradoxically, the attempt to maintain a stable exchange rate in a world that is anything but stable ultimately produces an instability the opposite of that which it is desired to achieve.
I am sorry that eminent gentlemen such as the Governor of the Bank of England should seek to promote the argument that if we do not join the EMS now, whatever the cost it might impose on the British economy, Britain, in some mysterious way, would lose influence in the Community, or within the world, or within the financial world generally. I have never heard such arrant nonsense in my life. As if Britain's importance depended in any way on grand meetings of bureaucrats, bankers and politicians. The real strength of a country depends on what its people produce and consume and their economic strength in relation to others.
The City's success would not in any way be compromised by our failure to be part of the EMS. After all, the City has gone from strength to strength in the past 40 or 50 years, particularly since Britain deregulated its financial markets, although we have only been a member of the European currency rigging mechanism for a small portion of that time.
That opinion ignores the important trend in recent years towards the increasing internationalisation of business and decision taking and the increasing internationalisation of capital. As markets are freed up and regulations are done away with around the world, capital is footloose and fancy free, and that is one reason why, above all, artificial mechanisms designed by politicians and bureaucrats to attempt to control what are, in effect, uncontrollable amounts, because the official
540
reserves with which one tries to do that are far too small in relation to the amounts of money that are flowing around the world, are ultimately doomed to failure.
London will remain a favoured centre for finance and, notwithstanding our staying out of the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system, we shall prosper as a financial centre, and continue to prosper because of the inherent abilities and strengths of the London market.
I recommend that my right hon. and hon. Friends should continue with a policy which will ultimately preserve Britain's economic and financial sovereignty and political sovereignty. It is a mistake to believe that the argument ends here. As the right hon. Member for Chesterfield pointed out, this is the beginning of another chapter in the long saga of political control and integration in the EEC.
I could not support a policy whereby we exported the political control of our social policies to Brussels and our financial policies to Bonn or Frankfurt. Therefore, in supporting the policy of my right hon. Friends in general, I counsel them to be even more cautious—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but I must interrupt the hon. Gentleman because he has overrun his time.
7.52 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith: With support like that, the Government hardly need opponents.
Two strange and conflicting claims have been made during the debate. One is that a consensus is emerging during the debate which demonstrates widespread support for membership and full participation in the EC. The other is that a consensus is emerging on the range of conditions which must precede any further steps in that direction. They cannot both be true and I fear that the latter rather than the former is true of those present, but that neither accurately reflects opinion in Britain.
What seems to be emerging is an ever-larger scaffolding of conditions upon which a wide variety of people can stand—the Prime Minister's conditions, which are clearly interpreted by the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) on the one hand, just as the Leader of the Opposition's conditions are interpreted by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), on the other hand, as making it quite clear that we shall not enter the EMS. That is the interpretation that they each place on the conditions advanced by their respective party leaders, each of which claims to be in favour of our entering the ERM. What a confusion is there here. Every time the debate continues, the scaffolding of conditions is further extended. In particular, every time the Prime Minister opens her mouth, still further conditions and variants on conditions pour forth.
On the Government Benches there is also confusion on the interesting subsidiary debate which was dramatically raised by the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), in his intervention on Tuesday, about the independence of the central bank. A number of Conservative Members share my interest in that idea and my belief that the lack of independence of Britain's central bank is a weakness in our tackling of inflation.
One of the merits of a European central banking system which enjoys some political independence is that it could provide an anti-inflationary mechanism which was not so

541
subject to the short-term whims of politicians as elections approached. There is considerable merit in that. Nor is it a constitutional abnormality or enormity to have mechanisms which are in part for a time removed from immediate political influence. The judiciary has precisely that position. Many other aspects of the constitutions of other member countries provide some measure of temporary detachment from the political process, and for good reason.
The Government have added further to the confusion in their own ranks and elsewhere by producing the extraordinary paper that appeared in the Vote Office today, the title of which I do not disagree with at all, "An Evolutionary Approach to Economic and Monetary Union." That sounds like a fine and generous principle, but the proposal that is put forward is a recipe for the deutschmark to be the predominant and successful competing currency and for the Bundesbank to be Europe's central bank. That does not seem to make a great deal of sense if the objective is that we should be full participants in European monetary union.
I favour a European central banking system somewhat on the lines of that proposed by Delors in the belief that we will be full participants in it. Indeed, it should be based in London. That must be the most natural place for a European central bank since that is where banking expertise has been built up over the years. But it will not be if, by open competition, we allow the deutschmark to become the European currency and the Bundesbank to be, in effect, Europe's central bank.
The confusion is no less on the Labour Benches. One has but to read the comments of various Opposition Members who have spoken today, or even Members of the shadow Cabinet such as the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), who has made no secret of his dislike for the EMS and his much greater dislike for European monetary union of any kind.
I understand that an interesting debate on the subject is going on in the Labour party, but that it has had to be adjourned uncompleted because so many people wished to speak. It will be a long time before we find out what we did not find out today, which is whether the Labour party has any policy on European monetary union other than hostility to it. We had a repeat of the definition of Labour's current policy on the exchange rate mechanism—not much supported by Opposition Back Benchers—but we had no clear statement of Labour's position on European monetary union.
That was the case when my party argued in this Chamber two and a half years ago that we should be working towards European monetary union. That is attended with as much hostility on the Labour Benches now as it was then, whatever may be said by the Front-Bench spokesman.
The key advantages that we must keep in our minds are surely the stable framework which can be provided for our exchange rate by membership of the ERM, the anti-inflation capacity of that mechanism, the removal of transaction costs which could be achieved by British business if we were participants in that mechanism, the role that London could have in a developing European central banking system and the need for Britain to be in the lead in a process which will take place whether we take part in it or not—let there be no doubt about that.
542
It does not follow from what I have said that I have to agree with every word written in the Delors report. It would be difficult to do so, because the Delors report went beyond the objective of monetary union into other areas. As Sam Brittan rather vividly put it, they were looking in a dark room for a black cat that was not there, as they searched for other dimensions of economic policy on which union could be achieved. That is why the Delors report went wrong in areas of fiscal harmonisation which are not technically necessary to monetary union, are not of practical advantage in securing it and which are likely greatly to increase the unpopularity of any other moves that we are trying to make in Europe.
Control at European level of national budgets has no reasonable basis in the argument for monetary union. As the Chancellor effectively argued before the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, it is not necessary to have control of national budgets in order to operate monetary union any more than it is necessary to have federal control in the United States of the budgets of the states of the Union. Nor is it necessary to have the control of local government budgets that the British Government insist upon.
I was surprised that the Chancellor used that argument, but he was right to do so because such control over the budgets of member countries is not necessary for monetary union. It is necessary only to ensure that large deficits cannot be financed by monetary means, which will not be possible once monetary union has been achieved. In the transitional stage of the EMS some limit must be placed on budgets but under European monetary union it will not be possible to finance large deficits by monetary means.
Lurking behind all this is the Prime Minister's prejudice, which is shared by other Conservative Members. Even the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), who has so profoundly disagreed with the Prime Minister so many times, shares her hostility to any loss of sovereignty or any loss of power to make decisions, many of which are already being made elsewhere. The sovereignty that some Conservative Members are trying to safeguard and defend—it is admitted more openly by Labour Members, because they know what they are after and are prepared to admit it —is the ability to devalue the currency and to print more money. The Prime Minister has rightly criticised previous Governments for doing that, so why is she so desperate to safeguard it?
As with other subjects, I find it difficult to understand how the Prime Minister can turn her dislike of losing power into something that is more important than the objectives about which she is supposed to believe deeply. Hon. Members who have expressed doubts and tried to introduce fresh conditions want to protect the right of the British Government to devalue our currency and print more money. We could usefully accept curtailment of those freedoms in order to achieve stable currency, defeat inflation and provide a framework in which Britain can prosper.
8.1 pm
Mr. Anthony Nelson: I am very much in agreement with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). I congratulate the Government on arranging this debate and on producing a document that we can consider.

543
The debate is thought-provoking if overdue. It is fortunate that it is on the Adjournment of the House, which is probably better than a substantive motion. It is, however, unfortunate that it did not take place before Madrid, as the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee pointed out, but at least it is happening before further discussions take place about European monetary union post-Delors part 1.
My credentials are that I am, and have been throughout my 15 years in the House, a committed European. Many people say they are committed Europeans, and the sentiments behind the statement are understood. Both parties have been laggards in Government and have not realised the full potential of our membership over the years. As the past week has progressed, and as this debate has progressed, I have judged the tenor and content of speeches by whether hon. Members are committed to achieving the aspirations that were set out when we joined the Common Market. These were to create for our people more prosperity, more opportunity, more trade, more stability and more security for the future. On the other hand, would they prefer Britain to be a fringe member? We can all read the coded messages in these speeches, which fall into one camp or the other.
I know where I stand, and I know where I stood when I became a Member of Parliament. When the European monetary system was established, I argued that we should become a full member. In 1978, with my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley), I tabled an early-day motion which said:
"That this House believes that the creation of a European Monetary System could do much to increase the prosperity and political stability of Europe; and, recalling the failure of Great Britain to join the EEC in good time, and the problems that have resulted, urges Her Majesty's Government to make every effort to work out with our EEC partners an acceptable system of monetary co-operation"
That was 11 years ago, and I was encouraged to receive signatures of support from the chairman of the Conservative party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), the Government Chief Whip, my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), the Secretary of State for Energy, my right hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Wakeham), the Secretary of State for Scotland, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark), who is chairman of the Conservative party finance committee, many past and present Ministers and many Conservative Back Benchers. I hope that this will bolster the determination of four or more senior Cabinet Ministers to seek full membership of the EMS sooner rather than later. What was right then is even more right now. We have lost out by not being full members of the EMS in the past, and we should at the earliest opportunity become full members.
Much of the debate has revolved around conditionality. I have been concerned at how the goal posts seem to have been moved by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and others, in an apparent attempt to put off the day when Britain becomes a full member of the EMS. I may be wrong, but I believe that the hope is that, following the removal of remaining exchange controls in France and Italy, such will be the pressure on the EMS that it will break apart. They will then he able to throw up their hands
544
and say, "It was an untenable system and we should not have joined it." The system would be much more resilient if we were members of it now. How much more likely it would be to continue and to remain durable after the removal of exchange controls if Britain was playing its part now. Why are we not leaders within the system? Why are we not playing our co-operative part within the exchange mechanism to bring about that stability?
The EMS is not just a political argument within this place and Europe. It has economic and financial consequences for our constituents and for the businesses in the areas that we represent. We are paying significantly more in interest rates than we need to because we are not a member of the EMS and a full member of the ERM. In my judgment, that is currently costing us at least 2·5 per cent. more in interest rates. If we were members, such would be the confidence of the international financial community in the currency of Britain that we would not alone have to support our exchange rate by massively high rates of interest.
I sometimes feel that those who criticise and oppose the system do not understand its mechanics. They do not fully appreciate that the parameters within which currencies are allowed to move against each other have behind them a co-operative effort of central banks in Europe. There is not just one central bank trying to support its own currency in the foreign exchange markets—as the Bank of England has been doing over the past week at massive cost to our foreign reserves—but the Bundesbank, the French banks and other European banks combine to stabilise currencies within the ERM. If there is a deviation, the knowledge of that intervention is such as to inspire confidence and not make the fluctuations so great. It is a self-fulfilling mechanism, and the history and experience of other members of the ERM in the past 10 years is that it has proved to work. Their interest and inflation rates are significantly lower than ours.
The Prime Minister and others may say, "We have a massive trade deficit, which is why we must have high interest rates. Our interest rate policy may be affected by immediate membership."
However, we have incurred that massive trade deficit when we have not been members of the EMS. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman), who made a courageous and forthright speech, I believe that we have much more to gain than to lose from subscribing to the best prudential practices of the central banks in Europe. As the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said, why are we so suspicious of joining a system which will make the management of our monetary aggregates and the exchange rate of our currency less susceptible to political opportunism? As an election comes closer, the temptation for Government manipulation becomes more likely. For all those reasons, we have much more to gain than to lose by becoming a member, not tomorrow, not today, but if possible yesterday.
We should toss aside this conditionality and take a bold step forward. If we act immediately and have courage and conviction in our actions, we can carry people with us. If we show that we are determined to make it work, we can make it work. If we dither and wait until every condition is met, we will never join.
Is Government policy really evolution towards European monetary union, or is it a never-never approach? I have the highest regard for and faith in the

545
integrity of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Treasury. I ask them to get on with the job and to take the message, which is evident from the tenor of the debate, that it is in the interests of the people of this country to join the exchange rate mechanism sooner rather than later. We want to see political courage exercised. If the Government do that, they will be vindicated by the result at the next general election and they will have made the most decisive contribution yet to full participation in the European Community, bringing about long overdue financial rewards in terms of the standard of living for all those whom we represent.
8.10 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing: The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) urged us to join the exchange rate mechanism now. He also remarked, appositely, that this is a debate on an Adjournment motion. I refer to that matter as Chairman of the Select Committee on European Legislation, which recommended a debate on the Delors report as long ago as 10 May 1989 because we knew that the decisions made at Madrid would be important. As we were charged by the House to recommend debates of such importance, we thought that we would get one, but the resolution of 30 October 1980, which binds the procedures of the Committee, and the Government, referred to "any proposal" for European legislation. The Government did not believe that the Delors report fell into that category. They said, "No, it was a recommendation for future legislation, which we can debate later." I believe that that is something of a get-out and a tautology, and so did the Committee.
In paragraph 16 of our full report on the Madrid summit—HC 15—xxxiii—which was published during the recess and which I commend to the House, we unanimously said:
"The Committee considers that the House could reasonably have expected to have had an opportunity to express its view on the principles involved before a decision of such importance was taken by the European Council. It considers that the Government's failure to meet this expectation was contrary to the spirit of the 30 October 1980 Resolution. As a result, the House will, in practice, simply be left with exercising the subsidiary role of influencing the details of the relevant implementing proposals for Stage 1 of economic and monetary union. In the light of the exchange of correspondence between the Chairman of the Committee and the Leader of the House on the timing of debates in circumstances such as arise in this case, the Committee looks to the Government to ensure both that there is no repetition of this failure in similar circumstances in the future and that, in any event, the House is given an opportunity to consider any proposals for further steps in relation to economic and monetary union well before any decisions are taken as regards their nature and timing."
As the hon. Member for Chichester said, today's debate is not on a substantive motion. It is good sometimes to have an all-round debate on a matter such as this, but I hope as a parliamentarian that at some stage there is a substantive motion and that the opinion of the House is somehow defined, even if on a Division. If that does not happen, all our talk about scrutiny and the input of the House of Commons will be as naught. The debate should have been held before Madrid. The Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee said so, too. The Government said no. We look forward to future debates of this type.
I turn to some more personal views. It seems to me —this has been echoed in the debate—that the function of the ERM can be twofold. It may be a bridge towards
546
advance to EMU. If it gets that far, can European parliamentary union be far behind? They are twin concepts which cannot be separated. It may be being used as a moat to prevent the ERM from advancing beyond that stage. I suspect that many of the conditions that the Government have laid down are to that end. I have no objection to these safeguards which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) outlined and to which my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) referred. I disagree with what the Chancellor said. I do not think that there is a universal commitment in the House to the objective of economic and monetary union. However, as the Select Committee was told when meeting the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. Maude), in legal terms we were probably committed from 1972 and the White Paper.
I was sorry that the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) did not give way to me, especially as his remarks were made before 7 o'clock and he had the time to do so. He said that movement towards a united states of Europe was not possible and referred by analogy to the United States of America. The House had better come to terms with one major and important matter: the European Community is a unique constitutional creation. The evidence shows it to be federal in the taking of its powers but unitary in exercising them. As the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has pointed out, the states of the United States have their own important and unique financial powers, whereas I do not think that the European Community—because of its constitution and the institutions that form its core—would allow member states to exercise such powers.
Economic union, as distinct from monetary union, means unity of legislation, monetary policy and taxes. That is why Delors referred to it. It means that there is a unitary system of economic policy. The United States does not have that, nor does any federal system where the states have their own money-raising powers and are not significantly controlled centrally. Unless people, including senior spokesmen such as the right hon. Member for Devonport, come to grips with that, we will be misleading ourselves. Some people say, "I do not believe that the treaty of Rome leads in that direction," and of course they are right. It leads in the direction of a unitary state with unitary institutions.
The path to those unitary institutions is full of peril for the House. It is perilous in terms of what my hon. Friends wish to do for our nation. Clearly it is splitting the Conservative party. The idea has also diminished debate in this place. If the proposals from Madrid were clearer and did not pose that threat, we would have debated them before Madrid and before today.
8.18 pm
Mr. Ray Whitney: The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) said that he was speaking in a personal capacity, but the negative, even hostile, attitude to the European Community, which he displayed with admirable consistency, is closer to the centre of gravity of most members of the Labour party than the views that we heard from the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith). If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not pursue that negative role but will turn to the broader issues.

547
As the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) said in a noteworthy contribution, this is a very important debate. It will be as important as any we have this side of the next general election. The debate is not only about the technicalities of exchange rate policy or even the broader issue of economic management. During the past seven days, debate has arisen about the attitudes of the Government and the Conservative party towards the European Community. The events of the past seven days and, in particular, the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) in the debate on Tuesday have put the issue of Europe firmly on the public and parliamentary agendas, and it is right that that should be so. Our attitude towards Europe is of overwhelming importance to the future of the country and of the people whom we represent.
It is strange that the Conservative party should be debating its attitude towards Europe. We have known for years that the Labour party is at sixes and sevens in its attitude, but, apart from a small, well-versed and effective minority of my colleagues, who seem to be having their dinner at the moment, the majority of the Conservative party has been convinced that we must belong to the European Community 100 per cent. so that it develops into a liberal, market-oriented society of nation states. For many years there was never any doubt about that, but doubts have been sown during the past 12 months, starting with the Prime Minister's Bruges speech.
It is a sad irony that the five principles enunciated by the Prime Minister in that speech were completely unexceptionable and absolutely right. They included active co-operation between independent sovereign states, the need for a practical Community which encourages enterprise but does not adopt protectionist policies and the need to maintain defence through the mechanism of NATO. Sadly, the Bruges speech sparked off again arguments against our membership among people—some in my party—who have never been convinced that it was right and saw an opportunity to reopen the debate. That is deeply regrettable, but it is the problem that we now face.
Some of us warned persistently of the dangers after Bruges. In the debate in December and the run-up to the European elections in June, we warned that the Conservative attitude to Europe has been laid open to question, although I have no doubts that the Cabinet and the Prime Minister are committed to Europe. My party ran an unsuccessful campaign for the elections to the European assembly which reached its nadir with the notorious advertisement paid for by our generous supporters:
"Stay at home on June 15th, and you'll live on a diet of Brussels."
That completely misread the views of the British people who, I believe, understand that for the foreseeable future —for the rest of this century, possibly the next 10, 20 or 50 years—there will be three centres of power in the world: north America, Japan and the Pacific developing countries, and western Europe. It is in our gift to adopt such a negative attitude and to be left behind in western Europe. I understand that some people regard that prospect with equanimity, but I do not, and nor do the British people.
548
The debate about our Europe has continued for decades. Most of our constituents would be bored stiff with the ins and outs of the ERM and the other technicalities that we are trying to grasp tonight, but they understand in their guts that Britain's future is in Europe. It is our duty to deliver that, but it is beginning to look as though we may fail. My party must recognise that that is what is at stake.
Some hon. Members have talked scathlingly about the business community. The business community on which we depend, virtually to a man and a woman, is clear about our commitment to Europe and the ERM. It has become confused during the past year. The Department of Trade and Industry ran an effective campaign about 1992 and the single market. At the same time, perhaps inadvertently, the Government created negative vibes about their attitude to Europe.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) asked what would happen in Germany. He seemed to imply that, because of changes in central Europe and the possibility of change in the two Germanies, we should lift up our skirts and move away from western Europe or join some extraordinary own-goal concept of a union from the Atlantic to the Urals. That is nonsense. All our European colleagues want Britain firmly in Europe to help them avoid the position to which my right hon. Friend alluded in his typically fey way. We must avoid such a position by playing our part in Europe.
The weakness in the way in which we conduct our affairs, which is as much a matter of style as of substance, is demonstrated by the social charter which, rightly, has been attacked several times during the debate. The sad fact is that many members of the European Community have misgivings about the social charter, including the Germans, the Irish, the Spanish and the Portuguese. If we allow ourselves to be marginalised we cannot take advantage of that or use our influence where it is so badly needed. That is the tragedy of the Government's style.
As for the substance, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) said so effectively, we must take a positive step towards the exchange rate mechanism. Tuesday's debate made that case incontrovertibly, as anyone with a balanced view would agree. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby said, we must join sooner rather than later. We should not set down conditions and invent new ones, but should join as soon as is practicable. We all understand that there are differences in exchange rates, but it is in our national, political and economic interest, and for the sake of the exchange rate and inflation to cease shilly-shallying. We must enter stage 1 of the ERM and make our voice heard. The debate must continue about whether we should enter stages 2 and 3. The paper provided by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has contributed to the debate. I am uneasy about the competitive currency system that he has offered, as it would not stand close examination.
In conclusion, I draw the attention of the House to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's call for unity in the European Community in August 1984 in a memorandum on the future of Europe to her colleagues in Europe. She began by declaring the need to
"heighten the consciousness among our citizens of what unites
us".

549
That is what the Government must do. They must emphasise in Europe what unites us and not concentrate on what divides us.
8.29 pm
Mr. Tony Worthington (Clydebank and Milngavie): I have listened carefully to the debate and I have found it one of the most enjoyable experiences in the short time I have been here. The debate has been wide-ranging, and some of the finest minds in the House have addressed themselves to it.
I have sometimes asked myself what I can contribute to this debate. I have tried to take the argument back from the wider political, historical and economic issues raised by other speakers to what the subject means to my constituents. I link this with what the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), said this week when he admitted that we are once again on the downswing and that a "dull 1989" will be followed by a "difficult 1990". "Difficult" means that we are heading for a home-inspired recession. It also means the collapse of investment, very high interest rates for a long time to come and, in my area at least, mounting unemployment.
A crucial aspect of the debate is to consider whether we should have found ourselves in this position if we were in the exchange rate mechanism. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Chichester (M r. Nelson) making a point that corresponds with my view that we would not have the high interest rates that are currently plaguing us if we had been in the ERM. People are not investing in us at present; They are speculating in us. In all the talk about sovereignty, I ask myself what sovereignty we have with the interest rates we currently face.
Our economic affairs seem to be conducted in the frenetic atmosphere of the City, dominated by City interests. The former Chancellor has a high reputation as a poker player and it seems to be those skills that are dominating the conduct of our economy. I hope that membership of the ERM—and I take a pragmatic approach—would allow us to concentrate on the real economy to a far greater extent. It is interesting that over the past few weeks, the term "real economy", which previously only the Opposition used—and were scoffed at for using—has started cropping up among Conservative Members as they realise that there is a difference between what occurs in the City and what happens in the country as a whole.
I want to concentrate on three areas in which I hope to illustrate how membership of ERM would have helped us. It may seem quite a jump from ERM to housing, but my first point concerns the basic need for housing. I remember meeting, to my surprise, Sir Nicholas Goodison, the former chairman of the stock exchange. He said that it is only when we stop investing so much in housing and invest more in industry that we shall start to get ourselves out of our present problems.
Over the past 10 years and especially in the frenzy of the past three or four years, increasingly more of the country's assets have been invested in housing. The former Chancellor has said that the British public has lost the habit of saving, but that is not true. The money has increasingly gone into people's houses.
I am grateful to the Library for working out how much people would he paying on a £100,000 mortgage, which is not exceptional in this part of the world, over 25 years at
550
14·5 per cent. For a mortgage of £100,000, they would pay £351,000. That is an incredible sum to go into a house that has been bought several times over, and the assets are usually realised only in the case of death. Is it sensible for so much of our money to go into houses? The Government's policy of high interest rates would have been moderated in the ERM and fewer of our resources would have had to go into sustaining our houses. If fewer resources had been used in that way, we might have had more money going into industry.
The second area, the workings of the financial markets, is my benchmark for testing ERM. The financial markets have a peculiarly frantic atmosphere which seems to be at the root of our problems of under-investment. Years ago, when I was innocent, I used to believe the claims of the stock exchange film about what the stock exchange did, such as investing in British industry. I expect that most hon. Members have seen the film, in which the stock exchange claimed that its word was its bond and that people went to their stockbrokers to put their money into British industry. How naive can one be! All that happens in the stock exchange is concerned with the generation of profit rather than investment. One enters a world of fantasy. The firm of Amstrad, for example, is now one quarter of its value of a year ago. It must be a strange market that can value companies so accurately.
Do our competitors work in such a frantic atmosphere? Are the West German and Japanese markets as fevered as ours? Much of our money goes into the housing market and the stock morket, but it is not invested in British industry. I am especially concerned about the operation of institutions such as the pension funds, which control vast sums of our—not their—money. The money does not seem to go into supporting British industry; it goes into causing growth in dividends, rather than a growth in wealth.
Will the ERM take some of the frantic, frenetic atmosphere out of our present obsession with the markets? It is strange that, whenever we have a crisis, the BBC and ITV park their television cameras in the City and ask what is happening there. It is assumed that what happens there has a connection with the people who work in my constituency. We must find mechanisms—the ERM may be one—that allow us to think in terms of investing in the long term, rather than finding, as happens at present, that every decent industrialist despises the City and sees the City not as a friend, but as the means by which the decent industrialist who is investing long term will be the leverage for takeovers. We must aim for long-term interests to overpower short-term interests.
The third area is regional policy. Under this Government we have had a collapse of regional policy. In so far as there has been such a policy, it has led to a choking up of the south-east and to consistent damage in the area I represent. If we were in the ERM, the Scottish economy would not have to close down when it has reached ice-coldness because of overheating in the south of England. Having considered housing, the business of investment and regional policy, I believe pragmatically that we should be better off within the exchange rate mechanism rather than outside it.
8.39 pm
Mr. Patrick Thompson: I am grateful for this opportunity to speak, because I believe that this has been one of the most interesting debates that I have

551
had the opportunity to attend since I first entered Parliament in 1983. I agree with the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) that the discusson is very worth while and I congratulate him on the thoughtful way in which he approached the topic.
Time and again, hon. Members have transcended the usual party political divide and different views have been expressed even by hon. Members within the same political groupings. I agree with the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and with my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) that this is a very important and interesting debate. Although I rarely agree with the right hon. Member for Chesterfield, I agree with him that this debate is about vision and about the future of this country rather than simply about the technicalities of the exchange rate mechanism which, frankly, I do not think that I will ever really understand.
Like the right hon. Member for Chesterfield, I took part in the referendum campaign on Europe, but on the opposite side. In a way, we are re-running that debate because we are debating our attitudes and vision towards Europe. It is interesting to look back to the debate on the European monetary system which took place on 29 November 1978. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) and the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) both referred to that debate, in which they both spoke. Their views have been completely consistent throughout, and they repeated today the attitudes that they took then.
The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench, showed the divided and even schizophrenic approach to the subject that the Labour Front Bench showed in 1978. It was not clear whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman wanted to move towards the ERM faster than the Government, more slowly than the Government, with more enthusiasm than the Government or with less. The confusion on the Opposition Front Bench seems to be total.
It has been good to listen to this debate for another reason. So often we debate the European Community and European matters very late at night. It is only 8·42 pm and it is much better to be speaking now than at 1 am or 2 am. Anyone watching those late night debates would have the impression that a group of sincere Members were totally opposed to the European Community and were somehow fighting a continuing rearguard action against an unending series of complex legislation which appears fleetingly before the House only to disappear into statute, never to be seen or understood again.
Even if time permits me to say no more, I must state that we need more debates of this kind on the future of Europe in prime parliamentary time. Let us do this more often. After all, this is an important subject and the contributions this evening have only emphasised the truth of that.
Events are moving very fast in Europe. Business leaders and others in my constituency have told me that the direction that we take in Europe over the next few years is the most important political issue that we face. I agree with them. During my study of the voluminous papers before us for this debate, I came across some graphs showing inflation rates and other statistics for the various members
552
of the European Community. No more than a cursory, inexpert glance at the graphs is needed to show how closely bound is our financial well-being with our partners in the European Community. That is all too plain from a simple glance at the diagrams and graphs.
As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said today, we are debating means, not ends. It is right that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have welcomed the Treasury paper on the evolutionary approach to economic and monetary union. I do not have time to debate the details of that, but I welcome its initiative and the opportunity to debate it further. In debating the means, we must not lose sight of the spirit which lay behind the signing of the Treaty of Rome in 1957.
There has been a strong feeling in this debate against the Delors report—or at least against stages 2 and 3. It seems obvious to me, even though I am not an expert, that stages 2 and 3 of the Delors report are probably wrong. If that is so, as I suspect, it is vital that we seek in a positive and pro-European way to persuade our Community partners of the superiority of our view. That point has been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House today. We should not let events run out of control.
I take a particular interest in the engineering industry. Throughout Europe—not just in this country—there are continuing problems despite the economic successes and improvements by this Government, of low productivity and, perhaps even more importantly, of poor innovation. There is also the appalling threat of industrial action in that industry.
Those problems can and must be solved on a European scale. That means co-operation. Even those opposed to the whole idea of the Community must at least be in favour of European co-operation. The European Community countries spend as much on research as Japan, but because those efforts are duplicated and there is not adequte co-operation, we still fall behind Japan with regard to the results of that research and innovation.
The wider European political background far outweighs some of the finer technical points that we have been learning about tonight. Peace and reconciliation were the prime motivations of the creators of the Community. I have not forgotten reading a biography of Konrad Adenauer in my teens and being impressed by the historical background to the European Community. That has had a great effect on my attitudes in politics.
We must be sure that our true motive in putting forward alternative approaches to the Community or the European monetary union, in addition to the protection of our national sovereignty, is also a much needed enthusiasm for European civilisation and European culture and a desire for prosperity, stability, peace and a desire to influence the exciting events that will occur in western and eastern Europe in coming years.
8.48 pm
Mr. Ron Leighton: I very much agree with the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) that this has been a fascinating debate. I have heard most of it, and it has been one of the best on European matters. There has been a great deal of agreement across the Floor of the House that the House does not want to buy the Delors package. That has been the view from both the Government and Opposition Front

553
Benches, and it was echoed by the right hon. Members for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) and for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen). That is a wide cross-section in the House.
The hon. Member for Norwich, North said that the debate was to an extent a re-run, of some of our debates on the Common Market. There are always echoes, but I believe that this debate has been different. It is moving the discussion on to new areas. It is not quite a re-run, because the Delors package was not part of the prospectus on which the British people voted in the referendum. The manifesto issued by the Government during the referendum stated clearly that there would be no loss of sovereignty. It said that no decision would be taken in Brussels without the agreement of a British Minister answerable to the House of Commons. The Delors package is completely different. All that went with the Single European Act, which introduced majority voting for the single market.
The Delors package contains three stages. Some hon. Members say that they are not too fussed about stage 1, and they can live with it. However, even the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) made it clear that he was totally opposed to stages 2 and 3 on political grounds because it would mean establishing a central bank that was not answerable to anyone. I have read the evidence that he gave to the Select Committee and which it has done a good job to publish.
Nowhere in the Delors report is there any mention of democracy or democratic accountability. The right hon. Member for Blaby was opposed to that because he said it would eventually mean a centralised, supranational super-state with a directly elected European Parliament and a pan-European Government, and virtually every hon. Member in the House is opposed to that.
I must inject a note of caution into the debate. We cannot rubbish the Delors report and say that it does not matter. It was not just Jacques Delors, the politician who put his name to it. He was the chairman, but the rest of the people on the Committee were primarily governors of the central banks, including the Governor of the Bank of England who put his signature to it. He said that the heads of state told the committee what they wanted and he assumed that the heads of state who agreed on economic and monetary union meant what they were saying. He said that the committee was instructed to recommend how it could be achieved. The Treasury document entitled "An Evolutionary Approach to Economic and Monetary Union" does not carry credibility. In typical British fashion it says that we shall have an evolutionary approach. This is a type of joke document. It complains about the Delors report and says that there are two approaches—that of the United Kingdom and that of Delors. The report will not be a runner: I think everybody agrees on that.
The Delors package is the real option. We must not kid ourselves about the Treasury document. The British whinge, complain, sometimes stamp their feet and wave their handbags, but then they give way and go in, talking about safeguards, but the ratchets get ratcheted up and we get led into something we do not want.
If we do not want Delors stages 2 and 3, I suggest that we do not have Delors stage 1. The Treasury and Civil Service Committee report makes that clear when it quotes Delors:
554
"the decision to enter upon the first stage should be a decision to embark on the entire process".
The Governor of the Bank of England says that stage 1 is irrelevant and meaningless and that one would not accept stage 1 if one did not want stages 2 and 3. I say that, because I do not want stages 2 and 3, 1 do not want stage 1 either.
Some hon. Members talked about the advantages of the exchange rate mechanism. It seems that some people take the view that, because of the economic crisis and because the pound is in trouble, we ought to wave a wand. We should have a panacea and put the pound into a safe haven, a casualty ward where all the central bankers would look after it, feed it every day and make sure that it is OK. That does not make a lot of sense.
If countries have different rates of inflation and of economic productivity, the value of their currencies will differ. That is an economic fact of life. If a country such as Britain, with a higher rate of inflation, links its currency to that of a country with a lower rate of inflation, for example, Germany, after a time that will lead to a de facto devaluation of the mark and an upwards revaluation of the pound. That would make German goods cheaper than British goods and enable them to build up a surplus. That is what the Germans have been doing.
The European monetary system has not led to balanced trade, but the opposite. In the past, the strain has been taken by the exchange rate. What will happen if one cannot do that? The Treasury Select Committee asked that question, and the Treasury gave a clear answer:
"when exchange rate adjustment is no longer possible other ways of adjusting to disturbances that affect the relative position of different countries would have to be employed. The best mechanism would be a market adjustment such as wage flexibility and labour mobility."
What that means in plain English is that workers' wages are lowered in deficit countries. Mobility of labour means that they will have to get up and moveto get on their bikes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) is not here now. Workers in his constituency might have to move to the south of England or to the golden triangle.
Regional policy could theoretically be the answer to the problem. The budgets of nation states are often around 40 per cent. of gross domestic product, but the EC budget is only around 1 per cent. and that is tiny. Most of the budget goes on agriculture and very little to the structural funds. The United Kingdom, in net terms, does not get a penny, but subsidises richer countries to the tune of nearly £1·9 billion this year. We subsidise them, rather than receiving any money for regional policies in Britain.
The regional fund would have to be on a heroic scale to have an effect. I cannot imagine people in Germany paying huge sums of money to Clydebank. In any case, they would be at the end of the queue. The Mediterranean countries would head the queue.
Some hon. Members have said that the social charter will compensate us. The Select Committee on Employment invited Mrs. Papandreou, the EEC Commissioner, to talk about the charter. It became clear that it is a political gesture to the trade union movement to keep it sweet and on board. The social charter will not happen. The Government need not get too worried or upset about it, and Labour Members should not get excited, thinking it is the solution to the problem. As the Commissioner explained to us, the charter is not legally binding.

555
At the next summit meeting, heads of state will be invited to agree to a solemn declaration. I do not know whether the Prime Minister will agree—she might. If they all agree to it, what legal effect will it have? None whatsoever.
The social charter mentions a minimum wage. I asked how much that wage was. There is no such thing. It would be different in each country and each region of a country. So much for that.
I heard Glyn Ford on the radio the other day saying that the workers at GCHQ would be able to join a trade union because they will have that right under the social charter. Not so: Mrs. Papandreou explained that each country's legislation would have precedence.
Whereas for the single internal market there was a White Paper, a treaty that provided a legal base and majority voting, for the social charter there has been no White Paper, no treaty and no majority voting; there must be unanimity. Even if it obtained a solemn declaration, the Commission would have to go away and draw up about a dozen draft directives, each with an uncertain fate. Unfortunately, the social charter simply will not happen.
8.58 pm
Mr. Alan Haselhurst: I am never entirely sure from which angle Labour Front Benchers will choose to talk about the European Community. Generally they bring such a wealth of differing experience to the subject that they go twice around the same circuit—except the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), who has shown a remarkable but depressing consistency over the years.
I see three kinds of objection to economic and monetary union. There are the technical objections, the fear about where it will all lead and, in some cases, even a questioning of Community membership. Some wish to use debates about the details of movement towards economic and monetary union as an opportunity to rehash the arguments about whether we should be in the Community at all. The British public, however, do not understand such doubts—they now believe, whether enthusiastically or pragmatically, that we are in the Community and should make the best of it and play our role to the full.
Anxiety is being induced by the way in which the path towards harmonisation, convergence and unity is being portrayed. Words such as "federalism" are being used, and we are being invited to worry about a potential loss of sovereignty. I do not have too much difficulty with those possibilities. I do not know when we might form democratic political organisations commensurate with economic and social events, but I do not wish to exclude them in advance—it will depend how we proceed. The idea, however, that there is a viable alternative in the form of full sovereignty in today's Parliament, constituting complete power over our affairs, is surely an illusion. Certain events could rock Britain, and could not be faced up to by Britain alone. Only by pooling or sharing sovereignty could we find the means to be equal to such events. We must then examine our democratic structures to ensure that they are capable of keeping us in charge —in a democratic way—of the institutions that we have joined and developed, to attain meaningful sovereignty in today's world.
556
The technical objections are, of course, much more difficult. The history of the EMS and ERM reveals disagreement between economists about how beneficial they have been. If technical argument about what such systems have achieved in the past is a possibility, there is certainly scope for argument about the way in which they will go in the future. There are many questions to be answered, and it would be foolish to imagine that there is any certainty about the results of joining or not joining, or about the impact of sterling on the ERM. We cannot forecast all the consequences, although on balance I feel that we would be better off in the system—for all the arguments deployed so eloquently by many of my hon. Friends.
Above all, I believe that a positive attitude is needed, not a negative or grudging one. I hope that we shall breathe a full-hearted commitment into stage 1 of economic and monetary union—and that means going into the ERM at the earliest possible moment, if we believe that it is right. We must demonstrate a constructive approach to economic and monetary union. If we cannot even get to first base, there will be deep suspicion about Britain's attitude to what might happen later.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) said on Tuesday, we must also show that we have the political strength and will to participate. It is vital for us to show that we are committed, and are actively looking for the right way forward. I am certainly not prepared to endorse every last dot and comma in the Delors report, but we must be realistic and accept that the report is there on the table. It is one of the first documents to be there, and it is of great symbolic significance. Although my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has today produced a paper "An Evolutionary Approach to Economic and Monetary Union", we shall have to be extremely ingenious to persuade our partners that that is necessarily better than what is already on the table. However, as long as we are positive and forward-looking, I hope that our arguments will be accepted in good faith by our partners in the Community.
Although there are positive reasons for wanting to be as constructive as we can be, we must also accept the downside risk. If we are not prepared to go along with the spirit of moving closer towards economic and monetary union, there is a danger that our partners will go ahead without us. Too often in the history of our relationships with Europe, we have been behind and had to catch up. We have then faced with terms which are not necessarily the most advantageous to us. It would be better for us to be on a par with our partners right from the beginning, exercising the maximum influence.
The other danger is that we must not ignore the momentous events occurring in central and eastern Europe. We desperately need to be in close partnership with our allies in the European Community so that we are in the best position to guard the future. We do not know exactly what will happen, but we cannot afford to be out of the influential council chambers of the European Community when these new opportunities of different relationships with the eastern European countries develop in the years ahead, as it now seems that they might.
While I understand that there will obviously be heart-searching among some of my hon. Friends about the fact that, however cautiously or boldly we move, we are willing a different role for this Parliament in relation to the institutions of the Community and the European

557
Parliament, it will not serve the interests of our people best if we are faint-hearted. I hope that we shall go forward with a spirit of determination to gain success and a willingness to compromise in order to do so.
9.6 pm
Mr. Calum Macdonald (Western Isles): In the brief time available to me, I shall forgo some of the more technical issues that have been raised in the debate and will try to give it a peculiarly Scottish perspective, which I hope will be useful.
Some of the speeches—I am thinking of those from hon. Members whom one can generally consider to be anti-European, to put it at its crudest—have been labouring under somewhat of an illusion. Indeed, that illusion could be found in the memorable speech by the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) last Tuesday. He said that he had a desire or commitment to see a Europe of nation states. In using those words, he evoked the words of the Prime Minister at Bruges. Underlying that phraseology—"a Europe of nation states"—is what I would term an Anglocentric illusion. It is the illusion that the United Kingdom is a nation state. On the contrary, as the very names "Great Britain" and "United Kingdom" tell us, Great Britain is not a nation state. It is an amalgam. It is an economic, monetary and political union of four nations with different historical traditions. The United Kingdom is a union of nations. It is a supranational state.
Indeed, apart from its excessively centralist character, with which, I am sure, we would all disagree, the United Kingdom is a model of the kind of supranational European economic and monetary—and, I believe, eventually political—union that those who support the notion of a nation state wish to deplore. There is thus an underlying inconsistency and incoherence to those who falsely defend the notion of the United Kingdom as a nation state and who posit that against the notion of a European supranational state.
The importance of the balance of payments deficit has already been mentioned. From time to time some Conservative Members like to pretend that in today's global financial environment the national balance of payments no longer matters. Mr. Samuel Brittan, the financial columnist already referred to tonight, said in support of that point of view that, today, no one, for example, worries about the putative imbalance in the balance of trade or the balance or payments between Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom.
That is fundamentally wrong. Of course there is no official accounting of the flow of trade and the balance of payments between different regions of the United Kingdom, but that does not mean that such imbalances do not occur. They occur and they matter. We are constantly concerned about the deep-seated regional imbalances which such figures, if available. would show within the United Kingdom.
If we get down to economic basics, we should remember that the balance of payments is a form of accounting that merely highlights a more general economic phenomenon —different geographical areas enjoy different rates of economic growth at different times. When those differences are merely temporary, there is no cause for alarm, but when they appear to be endemic and long-term, they are certainly a cause for concern, as the inevitable result is an ever-increasing gap in the average wealth and
558
living standards of the people in those different regions. In the past 50 years we have seen that happen not only in the United Kingdom, but between the United Kingdom and its international competitors.
Two responses can be made to the general phenomenon of different rates of growth. One is to make adjustments in exchange rates and the other is to smooth out the results of the divergence in growth by following a policy of fiscal transfer. That means that fiscal policies are used to transfer wealth from the faster growing areas to the slower growing areas. The first response is the usual one used when economic imbalances occur between different currency areas and the latter response is characteristic when imbalances occur within an individual currency area.
Some of my hon. Friends hold completely different views from mine, but I suspect that, when faced with choosing between the two means of tackling regional problems, which are inevitably caused by different patterns of economic growth, it is obvious that—certainly as Socialists—that we should prefer, as we do in practice, a strategy of fiscal transfer. That strategy is more direct, efficient and equitable than any adjustment to the exchange rates.
Surely the case for such a strategy is so strong that no hon. Member, no matter his opinion, would today propose that we should return to having a separate Scottish currency area to tackle the regional problems that are obviously caused by the different rate of economic growth between Scotland and the south-east of England. The Chancellor was extolling the virtues of competitive currencies, but I note that he did not think to import that marvellous device into the United Kingdom, although that has been suggested by some of his Front-Bench colleagues in various pamphlets.
Were it not already the status quo I do not believe that anyone would defend—in any case it would not be right to do so—the existence of separate currency areas within the European Community. I have already outlined the superiority of the fiscal transfer strategy as opposed to adjustments to exchange rates as a means of evening out or narrowing regional imbalances. Therefore, when economic and monetary union is achieved, it is important that there is also a powerful social dimension. I am not talking just about a social charter which advocates basic employment and welfare rights, but about a full range of policies and instruments of fiscal transfer available to other federal governments. Therefore, regional and industrial policy, the development of the social fund and even a properly targeted common agricultural policy could be used.
It also follows that economic and monetary union with a strong social dimension must mean a continuing and obvious increase in the Community budget. A further consequence of that increase would be a gradual but inexorable gathering of power at the political centre of the Community, in the institutions of the European Parliament and the Commission. Hon. Members may not like that, but that is the truth. We Scots have learnt to live with this since 1707 and, after 300 years, it is not that bad.
Despite the Government's foot dragging, we have set out on an historic road which will enventually lead to a supranational Europe which I welcome and hope will have the strong powers necessary to enable it to pursue on a Community level the regional policies which enlightened member states already pursue on an individual level.
9.15 pm
Mr. Patrick Ground (Feltham and Heston): I respect and understand the views of those hon. Members who accept that stability in exchange rates is desirable, but believe that it is undesirable if bought at the cost of expensive intervention or inflation caused by reducing interest rates to let down the value of the currency. If those criticisms of the exercising of such policies here are valid, they are invalid criticisms of the record of the exchange rate mechanism during its existence.
The outstanding achievement of the ERM in the past few years has been increased stability between the currency of members and a significant lessening of inflation. It is true that it has achieved this with exchange controls in two major countries, but it is a great improvement on what preceded it.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) referred to the horrors of intervention. It is quite difficult to obtain figures on what intervention has cost in th ERM. However, the signs are that only the Belgians and French have spent large amounts of money on intervention, as the philosophy of the Bundesbank—that intervention on any substantial scale is a waste of money—appears to have taken the field.
Despite what the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) said, there have been, and still are, large variations in interest rates between, for example, the mark and the lira. Despite what many hon. Members have said about the rigidity of the exchange rate mechanism, for many years there have been quite wide bands for some currencies, and those bands have been adjusted at least seven times during the mechanism's existence.
Therefore, I support those who say that we should enter the exchange rate mechanism and that the only question is that of timing. With the mark worth about 2·90 to the pound, and the franc about 9·90 to the pound, the time is right to enter the mechanism if we are right that inflation is on the way down. The crucial factor about entry is the market rate of the currency at the relevant time. That is much the most important factor to consider. I doubt whether we are right to resist joining until all the exchange control rules have been abandoned. It is better to join sooner rather than later.
I have been a bit disappointed by the debate on stages 2 and 3 of the Delors proposals and by the debate on the Government's proposals for an evolutionary approach to economic and monetary union. There will be a demand by business for more usable currencies throughout the Community, and the Government are right to look for greater freedom in the use of currencies in commerce. We have not done justice in this debate to these proposals and they should be considered much more in the future.
I accept that there are great constitutional difficulties in proceeding further with the Delors proposals for stages 2 and 3, but I am attracted, as a move in the direction of a more unified currency, by the proposals for a freer role for the Bank of England. The Federal Reserve and the Bundesbank have certainly been more successful in currency matters than most central banks, and I would welcome a change in the Bank of England in the same direction.
9.20 pm
Mr. George Robertson (Hamilton): We have all agreed that this has been an excellent debate on an issue of crucial and fundamental importance to the future of this country. In what is usually described as a wide-ranging debate, we have heard from many people with an amazing variety of experience. I estimate that we heard four ex-Treasury Ministers and one former Foreign Office Minister—the changes seem to be rung as rapidly as figures on a cash register these days.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) made a relevant contribution to the raging debate on this issue, but the House may have found most interesting the words of another ex-Treasury Minister—the former Chief Secretary and right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), who was an anti-marketeer before he became a Treasury Minister and subsequently Leader of the House. He then met an iceberg in the shape of the Single European Act, but it did not knock him off his perilous course—he pushed it through the House with a guillotine, no less. Now that he is back on the Back Benches, however, the old scepticism re-emerged.
Mr. Biffen: They call it resurrection.
Mr. Robertson: There was no iceberg in the story of the resurrection, but anything can be reborn—including the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) who made his maiden speech after having been parliamentary private secretary to the late lamented Chancellor. We welcome him back.
Three Select Committee Chairmen also made a wide-ranging set of contributions. I particularly welcome the fact that a Foreign Office Minister is to wind up the debate. As many hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), have said, the issue that we are debating has enormous foreign policy implications, and it is right that it should not be seen merely as a Treasury matter—or even a Treasury-Downing street matter, as most things appear these days.
It is unfortunate that the new Foreign Secretary is not with us this evening. That is not to say anything against the Minister of State, against whom I have plenty of other things to say, but the Foreign Secretary will have the vote —if a vote is ever held—in the Cabinet on the great issues that we are debating this evening. Just as the Prime Minister expressed her sympathy for the 48 who voted against Britain at the Commonwealth conference, so we have considerable sympathy for the 22 ranged against her in the Cabinet day by day.
The debacle in the last seven days which has so appalled the British people has highlighted the real tragedy of the Government in this important area. The whole continent of Europe is changing faster and more fundamentally now than for at least two generations. Communism is collapsing in the eastern bloc states. [Interruption.] Communism, not Socialism, is collapsing and after 40 years democracy is coming alive in Poland and in Hungary and is even stirring in the German Democratic Republic. Even the Soviet Union, after 70 years of totalitarianism, has seen elections, an embryonic Parliament and real debate. All those things are bursting through the soil.
The cold war seems to have ended and the eastern bloc does not appear in any way monolithic. The frozen post-war structure which has endured for 40 years is

561
rapidly blowing away. We are seeing a bonfire of the certainties that have survived since the war. The European Community is beginning to look at fundamental issues such as whether to go for full-blown political and economic integration or whether to stop for a moment to look at developments to the east to see whether there are new structures that could be developed to encompass the exciting possibilities ahead.
During all those developments, what has the Cabinet been doing? It is bogged down in an acrimonious, suicidal squabble about the invention of ever more ingenious conditions in order further to renege on the commitments regularly given by Conservative Ministers to join the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system. We are at a genuine crossroads in European history, but this constantly reshuffled bunch of Ministers are fighting like ferrets in a bag over who meant what in the last or the last but one commitment to the EMS.
While that is going on, other people and other nations have a vision and they are expressing it. For example, France, for its own reasons perhaps, wants to seize back some of the control that has been lost by its institutions to the German economic machine and has a vision about where Germany should be in the western nations. France is pursuing that objective but where in all that is the British vision? Where did we hear in the Chancellor's speech in the debate or in any of the speeches that we have heard recently about the vision which disagrees with that or a prospectus that would allow the British people to see where in the new reshaping of Europe we wish to be fitted in?
The debate on economic and monetary union goes to the heart of the matter. It is a matter of honour for Britain, but that honour has been betrayed by twists and turns of promises, declarations and commitments on European monetary union. They have been relentlessly rephrased, rejigged and ultimately reneged on. Crucially, it is a matter of the influence that Britain should have in the reshaping of the Community that will take place with us or without us. As hon. Members have said, it is a matter of keeping faith with the aspirations of the British people for a place in Europe's future and with the obligations that we have accepted as a nation in the Community of 12.
On the question of honour, how can the Government stand with any dignity among our European partners, having signed all the declarations itemised for us by the Chancellor? For example, the Stuttgart declaration of 22 June 1983 says in specific terms that the objective was:
"Strengthening of the European Monetary System, which is helping to consolidate an area of monetary stability in Europe and to create a more stable international economic environment, as a key element in progress towards Economic and Monetary Union and the creation of a European Monetary Fund."
There it was in Stuttgart, as it was in the Single European Act, and as it was in Hanover in the communiqué which established the Delors committee report.
The former Chancellor, when asked about this by the Select Committee, replied:
"This does not, in the opinion of the British Government, mean that the British Government is committed to monetary union."
Somebody read that afterwards. We do not know whether it was somebody in Downing street. Whether it was Sir Alan Walters we shall not know until he tells The Sunday Times. Somebody read it and went back, because it says at the bottom:
562
"Note by witness. Further to this answer, the witness wishes to make it clear that the reference in the last sentence is to the monetary union set out in the Delors report.
The Delors report says:
"This report has been prepared in response to the mandate of the European Council `to study and propose concrete stages leading towards economic and monetary union'."
We have come full circle. The Government say that they are in favour of concrete steps towards economic and monetary union and have signed the Stuttgart declaration and the Single European Act. They subscribed to the Hanover communiqué, but now we are reduced to the dodging, weaving, bending and twisting that are the hallmark of Government policy.
Mrs. Theresa Gorman (Billericay): I agree that an enormous change is taking place in eastern Europe, and the communist bloc appears to be breaking up. As one of the basic concepts of the European Community was opposition to that bloc, is this not a good time to pause and have second thoughts about what we are doing in forming or going on with our own bloc?
Mr. Robertson: The Community has nothing to do with opposing the eastern bloc. The hon. Lady may be mixing it up with NATO, which was formed at roughly the same time but with a slightly different purpose. I subscribe to her conclusion, however, that this is the right time for the major debate on how to accommodate the aspirations of new democracies which may be developing in a part of the world that we had written off for democracy.
We have seen this situation developing, the deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the House has pointed out. He said:
"At Madrid we said yes, we want the existing EMS to be strengthened. Yes, Britain should join and will join the ERM. We committed ourselves to stage one of the Delors report."
The right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), in his resignation speech which transfixed the House on Tuesday, made exactly the same point. Instead of confirmation from the Prime Minister, however, the Walden programme saw the "higgledy-piggledy" insult thrown at the ERM which she had previously endorsed, while Sir Alan Walters disappears into the American jungles with "half-baked" as his description of it.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Francis Maude): This is all very interesting, but will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether he supports the objectives of economic and monetary union and, if so, in what form?
Mr. Robertson: We shall be interested to see what the Minister says about this. After all, he is in the Government. I wonder where he was when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) was speaking earlier this afternoon. My right hon. and learned Friend dealt with the point specifically and told the House our views both on stage 1 of Delors and on stages 2 and 3.
Although Conservative Members would like to ignore or neglect the problems and traumas of the past week—I am sure that even the beneficiaries would like to forget some of the agony—we have to live in a situation in which condition has been added to condition, to the extent that 1992 no longer seems to be a date but rather the number of new conditions invented as preconditions for joining the ERM. Each time the Prime Minister is questioned and asked for her view, the goalposts move. Indeed, they move

563
even more quickly than the number of different Foreign Secretaries. It is small wonder that Mr. Andrew Marr of The Scotsman commented on Monday that, when Conservative Members had watched the Walden programme, many sighed with relief, but many more just sighed.
Mr. Biffen: It seems that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about a lack of specificity in the conditions laid down by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Will he be specific and say at what level the exchange rate would have to be struck to make membership of the mechanism acceptable to the Opposition?
Mr. Robertson: It would be entirely inappropriate for me to say that. As a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Gentleman knows very well that it would inevitably be a matter for negotiation. It would be interesting to know whether the right hon. Gentleman would make a specific pledge or whether anyone on the Treasury Bench would care to venture a suggestion.
Mr. Major: We do not have to do that.
Mr. Robertson: Perhaps the floating rates of Sir Alan Walters will determine the result. The right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) described the Prime Minister's contribution to Mr. Walden's programme as excessive verbiage and in excess of the whittled down points which she put to the House after the Madrid summit. This week we have a new Foreign Secretary, after the debut of his predecessor at Question Time last Wednesday.
Mr. Cash: My right hon. Friend has experience.
Mr. Robertson: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was about to say something entirely different and rather more relevant.
What the new Foreign Secretary said in a "Panorama" programme was of considerable significance. When asked about the deputy Prime Minister's speech, which the Prime Minister had not seen in advance, he said:
"The Government have a policy; let's stick to it."
That would be fine if there were a policy, but if there is indeed a policy, whose is it? There is the Prime Minister's policy as articulated on Saturday evening or there is her policy as broadcast at lunchtime on Sunday, and there may be a few more icebergs ready and willing to take holes out of the side of whatever new administration is running the ship in the next few weeks.
More crucial to the future of the United Kingdom is influence. What sort of influence will Britain have in the Community that we have been discussing with such profundity today when a commitment made by the Government seems to mean so little? What sort of influence can we have on our partners when we stand isolated on so many issues in the Community? We stand alone on the social charter, which all our partners in the Community, Left-wing or Right-wing, believe to be a crucial and essential precondition for the balanced development of the single European market. We even stand alone on matters as trivial as cancer warnings on cigarette packets. Cabinet Ministers are sent to Brussels to express views which are then described by the Prime Minister as not worth making a song and dance about. We
564
stand alone on the Lingua programme for language teaching in schools. We stand alone, too, on pensioners' bus passes and the Framework research programme. All the time we are marginalising and failing to let Britain's voice be heard.
Mr. Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Robertson: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. He wants regularly to have a dialogue with me, but time is limited.
In the Daily Mail on 18 May, Sir David English came out with one of the great truths in an editorial which appeared side by side with the Prime Minister's famous interview. He wrote:
"In Europe's Council of Ministers, with its primitive form of proportional representation, shifting coalitions of member states are going to reign supreme. That is the power game in Europe. For our own sake and Britain's, it is one that she must learn and indeed master."
We are seeing in this debate on the ERM—and we shall see the same in the debate on what is to come under European monetary union—that that lesson has not been learnt from Sir David English and it is not likely to be learnt from any of the Prime Minister's Cabinet colleagues. The European elections, however, show that the British people know precisely which side of the argument they take.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East outlined in some detail and with considerable eloquence the Labour party's view on the exchange rate mechanism and the specific nature of the conditions. We have made our conditions plain. They are unambiguous and attainable. We stand by them as a basis for stage I of the Delors report. As my right hon and learned Friend has said, they have been publicly welcomed for the constructive contribution that they represent—not to say the contrast that they provide with the contrary and fickle posturing of a Government who remain completely divided even at the highest level.
As the debate has shown, nobody pretends that going beyond stage 1 of the Delors report will be easy or uncomplicated. The many views that have emerged in the debate have illustrated that. The report was, after all, written by bankers and, in many ways, for bankers. There are essential principles which must underline the policy which takes us beyond the present debate. There are principles which must underlie the campaign and the negotiations which will take place. There are ground rules for any subsequent debate that must take place and they must be established before the intergovernmental conference is convened.
That is why the resolution of the European Parliament, passed last week with all the Labour party's conditions and policies contained within it and with the support and acclamation of Conservative Members of the European Parliament, is a good signpost to where the Government should be taking us in the future. If it is good enough for Conservative Members of the European Parliament, the residual few who manage to hold on to their seats—it should be good enough for the Government.
The debate has shown that there is wide interest in this matter both in Parliament and in the country, and this belated debate has shown how important it is for our future. I doubt whether the Government have the conviction to go beyond the Prime Minister's prejudices, and I doubt whether they have the nous or the imagination to take on the challenges which face us today in the great

565
European continent. The only way for the British people to have a future in the Community which will deliver what they want and demand is to elect a new Government at the earliest opportunity.
9.41 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Francis Maude): Some debates in the Chamber follow what seems to be a preordained course, but everyone who has spoken in the latter parts of this debate has paid tribute to the nature of the debate. It has been a rare and special occasion, one which the House of Commons has taken extremely seriously. There has been a degree of consensus among virtually everyone who has spoken which I had not foreseen at the outset, but which is a source of considerable pleasure to us.
Views have been expressed from members of most parties in the House and from most parts of most parties. Those who have contributed to the debate have shown considerable breadth and depth of experience and expertise.
One would expect the House to take the matter seriously because it goes to the heart of the reasons for the existence of the House. What has shone through the debate is the fact that Mr. Delors' grand design, the blueprint for a stampede into effective federalism, has not a friend in the House.
It was remarkable that the Labour party was desperate to find ways of disagreeing with the Government. The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) made a speech which was remarkably close to what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor had already said and, listening to the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), I thought at one stage that he had hijacked my right hon. Friend's speech.
I suppose that it was inevitable that much of the debate focused on the exchange rate mechanism. I have only this to say about that. Our commitment is one made in good faith. It reaffirms the commitment made in Madrid and we will stick to it. Many of the conditions have to be fulfilled by others. We hope that they will be fulfilled sooner rather than later.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor said on Tuesday that the ERM was not a panacea, and nobody should expect it to be so. My hon. Friend the Member for Chicester (Mr. Nelson), who made a passionate and effective speech, came close to expressing the belief that it is a panacea. We should not fool ourselves that that is so. There could be nothing more disastrous than to take, for political reasons, what must be an economic decision. Above all, it would be absurd to take such a decision simply to demonstrate our commitment to the Community, a commitment which is amply demonstrated in any event. It is far too important an issue to be the subject of gesture politics.
Remarkably few suggestions have been made that we are dragging our feet about Europe. The right hon. Member for Devonport, in his quite notable speech, made a slightly ritualistic complaint about us being isolated from time to time, but he tempered his strictures by accepting that there will be times when we are right to resist, even if we are alone, and the House would expect no less of us.
A number of hon. Members spoke of the social charter. The right hon. Member for Devonport, in a fit of nostalgia, referred to it as the social contract. He rightly
566
deplored the minimum wage provisions of the charter. We are not holding out ferociously against any social charter, but we insist that any charter we sign gives full weight to the unanimous conclusions of the Madrid council. There should be no EC action where national action will suffice. It should respect national traditions and voluntary practices, and it should give top priority to job creation. The present draft does not do so, and while it remains in that form we will not sign it. At present it is a document designed to make politicians feel better about themselves, not to bring benefits to our people.
On so many matters, far from being laggardly, Britain is ahead, driving the Community forward. We are not doing so alone. In alliance with the Commission and other member states, we want faster and better progress. For example, the single market is an aspiration that is 30 years old, but only now is it becoming a reality. Who has pressed for that?—the United Kingdom. It is only now, after years of urging by us, that it is beginning to take shape. Who is holding up progress? Whose foot is on the brake? The Germans are reluctant to expose their insurance companies to open competition. The French are trying to frustrate the Commission's drive to open up competition in telecommunications.
How can we have a single market when lorries are crossing frontiers empty because protectionist regulations prevent them from picking up return loads? Who is holding that up? It is France and Italy, while we support the Commission's proposals. Who are the keenest proponents of the people's Europe? Again, it is France and Italy. Which country is holding up progress on one of the measures that would benefit our citizens most directly, the liberalisation of air transport to make it easier and cheaper to travel to Europe? Yes, the French and Italians. These are not objectives that Britain is trying to foist on an unwilling Community. They have been agreed time and again unanimously by all 12 member states.
We do not claim to be alone in our virtue, but time and again we have started in the minority, with allies, and won over the majority. It is high time that more member states matched their deeds to their words.
Let us consider compliance with Community law and the implementation of measures that have already been agreed. On every count we are leading; we do what we have all agreed to do. Stage 1 of the Delors report has been agreed by all 12 of the member states, but it is being pursued more enthusiastically by ourselves than by others. Others are at last catching up on abolishing exchange controls. We shall strongly support the Commission's action to strengthen competition policy to reduce the distortion that unequal state subsidies bring. How can there be European integration and progress to economic and monetary union when the Italians alone give state subsidies of £16 billion a year, eight times the amount that we give? We are all agreed in principle that that must stop. The Commission deserves the full support of all 12 member states in its renewed drive to turn principle into practice.
Those measures are all essential components of further integration. The form of integration has already been agreed by all of us, but it has been heavily promoted by US. Far from wanting to hold it back, we want more speed, not less. We have no difficulty with the further integration involved in progress towards economic and monetary union. The objectives which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out at the opening of the debate are ones

567
with which we agree and which we support. But we have concerns about the route by which those objectives are obtained. It is the clear view of the House tonight that it is not unreasonable to raise concerns about what is proposed in stages 2 and 3 of the Delors report.
We do not accept the proposals for yet further increases in regional and structural aid. There is no reason to suppose that achieving economic and monetary union through the operation of the market would damage less prosperous areas. We argue strongly in our paper that only by allowing less prosperous areas to benefit from their cost advantages can disparities be eradicated. Again, we do not accept that binding Community rules on national budget deficits are needed. It is possible to have further integration in practice while allowing national Governments and Parliaments to retain control over national budget deficits. Any proposal to the contrary would be resoundingly rejected by the House.
We do not accept that economic and monetary union requires a single monetary policy, a single currency and a single central bank. All these are in conflict with the principle of subsidiarity—to which much lip-service is paid —that things should only be done at Community level when they cannot be done at national level. All those proposals would centralise powers that are critically important in a way that is unnecessary and undesirable.
Mr. Worthington: I thought that I heard the Minister say that the free market would eventually bring about an equalisation of living conditions in different regions. Does he agree that, over the past 10 years, there has been an espousal of free market principles under this Government and a widening of the gap between north and south? When may we see a reversal?
Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman could not be more wrong. I certainly did argue that. I believe that the facts sustain our argument. One need only look at the burgeoning of prosperity in the north-east and, indeed, in Glasgow, the hon. Gentleman's area. The free market has brought that about. The disparities were at their worst when subsidies were at their highest. I do not resile in any way from the proposition that the free market would bring about this eradication of disparities.
In any event, there could be no guarantee that a single, centrally run monetary policy would converge on the best anti-inflation record of member states, no matter what the treaty might say. It is more likely that inflation would tend to converge on the average inflation rate across the Community. Therefore, this centralist and regulatory presecription would be likely to have the reverse effect to that claimed for it. Inflation could well turn out higher than under our market-led, liberal proposals.
Although we are not alone in having these grave anxieties about those aspects of the Delors report, it would clearly be wrong for us simply to sit on the sidelines and snipe at it. As members of the Community, we have never done that, and we will not do it now. Our role in the Community has been central and hugely influential. We need only look at how some of the Community's problems are resolved. We can look at the vast budget imbalances —so skilfully negotiated by the last Labour Government —and the huge surpluses of the common agricultural policy. Both yielded only to the vigorous urging of my
568
right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, arguing not from the sidelines or the margins but from our central position in the Community.
So it is with these proposals. We say that there is another route to economic and monetary union. It is one that works with the grain of the market, a solution that will, by evolution, build on what we already have. It is a solution that could easily be quicker than the prescriptive and centralist route of Delors. The precedent of the Werner report—with its timetable, blueprint and centralist and prescriptive approach—is not such as to give one confidence that the Delors approach will deliver quick results. A step-by-step approach is by no means a slow one. It could be a jog, it could be a sprint, but it will not be a leap in the dark.
We argue that our approach would deliver the objectives of economic and monetary union, on which we are all agreed. It could even deliver those objectives more quickly than the Delors report. Above all, and of great importance to this House, our approach would retain control of the fundamentals of economic policy with the British Government and the British Parliament.
Many of my hon. Friends have endorsed the approach we have offered in our paper published today. There has been some criticism, mainly from the Opposition, but most of it appears to have been based not on a reading of our paper, but on garbled reports of the Council meeting at Antibes. Some hon. Members referred to it as a scheme of competing currencies. It is not; it is a scheme for competing monetary policies.
The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East was somewhat shy when asked about the views of the former economic adviser to the Labour party. I shall tell him what David Currie said:
"there is a serious case yet to be made in favour of the idea of competing currencies. This idea need not be in conflict with the objective of exchange rate stability, so that it is not incompatible with the EMS. Competition between currencies need not mean exchange rate instability. Rather it may mean competition over responsible monetary policies, encouraging their spread within Europe."
The right hon. and learned Gentleman should listen to advice.
Mr. George Robertson: As the hon. Gentleman has quoted one piece of Professor Currie's article, would he care to complete it? There was a condition to his endorsement of the idea of competing currencies. He said: "provided that it is recast within the EMS framework. Currencies can compete one with the other within the type of fixed parity system towards which the EMS is evolving." Does the hon. Gentleman endorse that as well?
Mr. Maude: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for making precisely the point that we made in our paper. Whatever views the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends may have about advisers, it might not be a bad idea for them to listen to one occasionally.
All of this could be achieved within the constraints of the existing treaty. How could it make sense for us to commit ourselves to further treaty reform when we have by no means exhausted the possibilities of the existing treaty? There is still much to do within the treaties we have already signed.
Some of my hon. Friends have argued that we speak from the sidelines and that we are marginally involved, but that is not correct. My right hon. Friends and I regularly attend Council meetings. We are not only involved

569
centrally, but hugely influential within the European Community. We shall be arguing not from the sidelines, but from the centre and we shall continue to be extremely influential.
It should not be thought that the United Kingdom is alone in expressing scepticism about stages 2 and 3 of Delors. We are not alone in wanting to consider alternatives or in emphasising the need to avoid rushing into hasty decisions. The president of the Bundesbank has said that economic and monetary union needs neither a central bank nor a common currency. He went on to say that the basic issue in discussions of a European central bank was the transfer of monetary sovereignty away from the present national institutions and that this had been grasped by relatively few people, one of whom was the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. In October this year, he said that economic and monetary union must be an evolutionary process.
His ideas represent only one of several strands of thought in Germany, but an important one. As is well known, Mr. Genscher favours rapid progress towards Delors stages 2 and 3. To add flavour to the debate, the German Economics Ministry has published a distinctly critical analysis of the Delors prescription. Those differences of opinion show a healthy public debate in Germany on this important issue. Similar differences have emerged in many other member states. Foreign Ministers often see political advantages in the rapid progress down the route of prescription. Finance Ministers, who must deal with the practical effects, take a more sober view. That is why the United Kingdom paper is so important. It sets out a comprehensive and consistent approach to economic and monetary union which takes account of political objectives and economic realities.
We shall argue the case for our approach very vigorously in the Community. It offers two substantial prizes. First, it offers the attainment of the objectives of economic and monetary union. at least as quickly as the Delors report. Secondly, and we believe equally important, it will retain national control of economic policies. In many cases we have argued our position vigorously, and we have persuaded and won over other member states.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(5) (Standing Committees on European Community documents.)
GAS APPLIANCES
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 4093/1/89 and 8819/89 relating to gas appliances; and welcomes the Government's aim of breaking down barriers to trade in gas appliances as a step towards the completion of the Single Market.

NUTRITION LABELLING
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 8673/88 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 24th July 1989 and 8446/89 on nutrition labelling of foodstuffs; and supports the Government's intention to negotiate satisfactory arrangements to harmonise food labelling and to ensure the standardised presentation of nutrition so that consumers can compare products more easily thus helping them to choose a balanced diet.—[Mr.Lighbown.]
Question agreed to.

PETITION

  Travellers' Site (Leicester)
  10 pm
  Mr. Keith Vaz: I wish to present a petition on behalf of Sally Brookebank of 27 Holden street, Leicester, Peggy Smith of 123 Loughborough road, Leicester, county councillor Margaret Berridge of Windsor avenue, Leicester and 60 other residents of Belgrave in Leicester who are very concerned about the fact that the city council has decided to impose a site for itinerants on the junction of Ross walk and Loughborough road. They believe very strongly that they should have been consulted by the city council before any site was chosen. The petition
  Sheweth that they, being residents of Belgrave are opposed most strongly to the proposal of any site for travellers in the area of Ross Walk and Loughborough Road because there has been no prior consultation with residents.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will urge the Secretary of State for the Environment to intervene in this matter.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Health and Safety Commission and Executive
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown.]
  10.1 pm
  Mr. Greville Janner: I am very pleased to have the opportunity in such distinguished company to raise the issue of the powers, authority and work of the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive. I do so following a vast series of accidents, each one of which has occurred in an area outside the powers and supervision of the Health and Safety Commission, each one of which has led to an inquiry, has caused death and misery and many of which would have been avoided had the Government ensured that the commission and the executive had powers over those areas.
  I will list some of the incidents and state which Department had responsibility. They include the Marchioness pleasure boat accident on the Thames, the Clapham train disaster, the King's Cross fire, the Lockerbie air disaster, the Kegworth air disaster and the Herald of Free Enterprise Zeebrugge ferry disaster, all of which were the responsibility of the Department of Transport and the Piper Alpha oil rig fire which was the responsibility of the Department of Energy. That litany of disasters was outside the responsibility of the one body in this country capable of ensuring, in so far as is humanly possible, that accidents are prevented instead of simply being investigated once they have occurred.
  It is an oddity that in the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 the Health and Safety Commission and the executive were created to look after health and safety, but the Government could require the contracting out of functions to specific Departments—in particular the Department of Transport and in the case of offshore oil, the Department of Energy.
  It is remarkable that the Health and Safety Commission and executive have achieved so much success with the resources that they still have—resources which, unfortunately, are being reduced. There are not enough inspectors, of course, and I am not asking that their jurisdiction be increased while their numbers decrease. I pay tribute to Dr. John Culler, the energetic and excellent chairman of the commission, for the work that he supervises and leads, and to his colleagues.
  I ask the Government to say that we should stop farming out work that should properly be carried out by the commission and executive to Government Departments that are ill-equipped to deal with it. It is no coincidence that almost every disaster that has occurred, with massive loss of human life, has been outside the purview of the commission and executive, and no coincidence that the Departments of Transport and of Energy have been the ones that have had to set up investigations in almost every case.
  Nor is that quite the end of it. We also have the horror of the Hillsborough football tragedy, where the local authority is responsible. In the county of Leicester—part of which I am proud to represent—we have seen the misery of the Donnington race track pop concert, where two youngsters were trodden underfoot and died. With the help of Mr. Fertleman, my researcher, I have gone into the details of that tragedy. Last week I saw Earl Ferrers, who
  572
  did not know much about it, because it does not seem ever to have been brought to the attention of the Home Office in a way that would sink in. He had not seen the awful video taken by the police, showing a crowd of 100,000 youngsters on the race track listening to the music. As people were trodden underfoot, others lifted them up and passed them over their heads as they surged forward with the music. It is a miracle that only two people were killed.
  When we asked who had been responsible for safety, it turned out not to have been the Health and Safety Commission or the Health and Safety Executive: the operation was licensed by the local authority, the police carried out their function and the ambulance and security people carried out theirs. The promoters did their best, but no one was in command. No single authority had the power to say to that group of performers, "Stop: there is a danger." No one had the chance to co-ordinate the people who were looking after those 100,000 youngsters.
  The miracle is not, of course, that there were deaths, which, judging by the video, were an absolute inevitability. The wonder is that there were not more. How many more death will there have to be before the Government say, "We must stop the nonsense of leaving crowd safety to local authorities"? When will they stop allowing major events attended by 100,000 to be left to the whim, almost, of people who are not trained or co-ordinated, and who do not know how to handle crowds?
  I inquired of the Minister, "What are you going to do?" His answer was, "Well, we have not seen the video." I obtained it from the chief constable of Leicester, and the Minister will have received it today: he will see on it a sight that I had never believed possible.
  We have a sorry arrangement—or disarrangement—in this country. Instead of all safety co-ordination being in the hands of experts, it is spread out. Experts have their own areas of expertise but, of course, there will still be miseries. Indeed, there was a disaster in Leicestershire only today. There was an explosion and people were injured. There will always be problems, carelessness and risks and alas—there will always be deaths. However, the Government should be minimising those risks by ensuring that prevention is carried out under proper supervision by those who are skilled, equipped and trained to do that job. That means making use of the organisation that was set up by the House in the 1974 Act. It was an all-party effort and a statute that everybody supported. To me it seems crazy that, when there is such a set-up, proper use is not made of it.
  I ask the Minister to be good enough to consider whether he should say to the Department of Transport, "Stop setting up inquiries after tragedies." That is not good enough to deal with tragedies such as the Marchioness, the Clapham train crash and the King's Cross fire. Indeed, Which? magazine reported only today:
  "Large numbers of passengers could be trapped if London Underground is faced with another emergency like the King's Cross fire . … Despite the disaster, some of the busiest stations still have plastic fittings which can give off black toxic smoke in a fire."
  The consumer watchdog said that safety had improved since the tragedy two years ago this month in which 31 people died, but added that some of London Underground's improvements will take a considerable time. How long do we have to wait? How long do hundreds of thousands of people have to travel in unnecessary danger?

  573
  I should like to inquire of the Minister why there were no prosecutions after the Zeebrugge ferry disaster. Why did it have to be left to individuals to take action? How is it conceivable that there were no prosecutions when the ferry sailed with its back gate down? Who is supervising the Department of Transport? It is not doing its job. This is not a party political matter; it is about people's safety. I do not understand why action was not taken.
  Why should crowd safety be left to local authorities? Why should not somebody co-ordinate? Why should that individual or body not be organised and equipped to do the job? Why must we always wait? Why should we wait until there is a crash or until something happens as was the case at Donnington? Why can action not be taken now before there is another complaint?
  As chairman of the all-party industrial safety group, I remember people asking me. after the Marchioness pleasure boat sinking, "Why did it happen?" Of course, it was a terrible error and it might have happened anyway, but one reason is that nobody bothered to take the necessary steps until after dozens of youngsters died.
  Therefore, I ask the Minister to carry out a census, survey or audit of the safety arrangements under his control. The Department of Employment is in charge of the Health and Safety Commission and Executive. Therefore, it is his responsibility. There is no reason why the Departments of Transport and of Energy should not hand back to the Department of Employment the functions that they should never have been given in the first place. However, the Government are not prepared to take that action. Their responsibility is a heavy one, because there will be another disaster. We do not know where or when, but we do know why—because we are waiting for disasters to happen before we take action to prevent them. Therefore, I ask the Minister to give a positive response to my real plea, which is made on behalf of the relatives of the people who have died in these tragedies.
  We know what happens with each individual inquiry, but what is the Minister going to do to prevent such tragedies from occurring in the future? In the spirit of co-operation that has always existed in the House on matters of health and safety, I ask the Minister to give a positive answer, some hope and at least an undertaking that he will consult, consider and take the steps within his power to strengthen the Health and Safety Commission and Executive to try to prevent such accidents occurring in the future.
  10.14 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Employment (Mr. Patrick Nicholls): I thank the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) for giving us the opportunity to discuss health and safety matters. I also compliment him on the way in which he opened the debate. Even if I cannot agree with every conclusion that he draws and accept every nuance of what he said, it is right that I should remind the House that he has a long-standing interest and passionate devotion to this cause. He introduced the subject this evening with his customary eloquence.
  The Government are committed to seeing that workplaces enjoy the highest standards of health and safety that are reasonably practicable. That is why we met in full the Health and Safety Commission's requests for the
  574
  resources it judges necessary to do its job. That point must be stressed as it is the main area in which I must disagree with the hon. and learned Gentleman, particularly on what he said about resourcing. If time permits, I shall return to that subject. It follows naturally that we also wish to ensure that work activities do not affect the health and safety of members of the public.
  Health and safety is an area where a degree of common ground should, and I believe does, exist between all parties, and the hon. and learned Gentleman was right to remind us of that. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 is an outstanding example of that common ground. The legislation was drawn up by a Conservative Goverment and put on the statute book by an incoming Labour Government.
  Before responding to some of the interesting points which have been raised this evening, I would like to explain in broad terms how the Health and Safety Commission and its Executive operate. Both are, of course, statutory bodies, created by Parliament through the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. Their powers and functions flow from that Act and related legislation.
  The commission is appointed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and is responsible for advising Ministers on matters of policy relating to health and safety and for proposing new regulations 1:0 Ministers. The commission's area of responsibility is thus extremely wide. It is concerned not only with health and safety in the workplace, but with the protection of all those who may be affected by workplace activities. In some areas of health and safety, the commission is answerable to Ministers outside the Department of Employment. For example, the commission oversees nuclear safety and is answerable to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  One of the commission's major statutory objectives is the modernisation of earlier health and safety legislation 1 o produce a new integrated system of regulations and approved codes under the 1974 Act. Recent important regulations include the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations, which replaced more than 40 pieces of earlier outdated legislation. All were developed following in-depth consultation with interested parties, including both sides of industry.
  The commission's major instrument is the Health and Safety Executive which, through its inspectorates, enforces health and safety law to protect both work people and the public. The executive advises the commission in its major task of laying down safety standards through regulations and practical guidance. It has been fully involved in Europe, helping to mould directives to ensure they reflect domestic legislation which meets the needs of modern industry, while at the same time protecting health and safety without detriment to competition.
  Having set out the responsibilities of both the commission and the executive, I should like to describe how they exercise those responsibilities with specific reference to public safety. The executive is responsible for enforcing the 1974 Act. Section 3 of that Act is wide ranging in that it places a duty on an employer to conduct his undertaking in such a way as to protect, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety of non-employees. Section 4 of the Act also places certain duties on persons in control of non-domestic premises towards members of the public. "Undertaking" covers an

  575
  infinitely wide range of premises and activities such as factories, railways, airlines, fairgrounds, and sports stadiums, to name but a few. It is therefore inevitable that section 3 will cover activities for which there exists specific legislation which is the responsibility of other enforcing authorities and, therefore, other Government Departments.
  For this reason, the commission has adopted the policy that, as a general principle, HSC and HSE will wish to avoid duplication with other enforcing authorities. But in deciding its approach to any hazardous area, HSE's main concern would be the health and safety of employees, the self-employed and the public. It aims to achieve this efficiently, effectively and economically, with fair and consistent policies responding to legitimate public concerns. That sometimes means an area being dealt with by HSE alone, sometimes by another authority or authorities, occasionally by a mixture of the two. When the general provisions of sections 3 or 4 of the Act overlap with other, more specific legislation enforced by other authorities, the executive seeks to agree demarcation lines with those authorities, in the light of health and safety expertise, economy. efficiency, effectiveness and suitability.
  In many areas of overlap, agreement has been reached that the executive should not generally attempt to enforce the requirements of sections 3 and 4, because public safety will be adequately guaranteed by the enforcement of other legislation covering the risk in question. An example is the use of vehicles on the public highway, which is subject to the Road Traffic Acts and the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations. There are similar agreements over general fire precautions, which are the responsibility of fire authorities, over consumer safety, over the structural safety of buildings and many other areas of potential risks to the public. In its demarcation discussions with other authorities, the executive seeks to avoid needless duplication of enforcement, while ensuring that no area of risk remains uncovered.
  However, it should be remembered that the executive is not the sole enforcing authority under the Act. The commission can appoint agents and it works in conjunction with local authorities, which enforce the Act in a wide range of non-industrial premises, such as offices, shops and warehouses. The commission has made a number of agency agreements with other expert bodies to enable them to enforce the Act in place of the executive, where this fits well with those bodies' other responsibilities. Some agreements have been made, for example, with the Department of Energy in respect of the offshore industry and with the Department of Transport in respect of railways. In these areas, the commission retains its overall policy responsibility for advising Ministers.
  Similarly, agreements can and have been made for the executive to enforce other legal requirements where the executive has the relevant expertise and the new duties are consistent with its basic responsibilities. For example, the executive enforces part III of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 and the associated Control of Pesticides Regulations, under an agency agreement with several Government Departments.
  I turn to some of the specific points raised by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West tonight, in
  576
  particular the existing arrangements between the commission and various other Government Departments. In the time available, I shall highlight a couple of them.
  HSE inspects sports grounds to ensure that employers are complying with their duties in relation to their employees. However, they do not seek to enforce section 3 with respect to spectators because there is more specific legislation in existence—the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975. The Act is the responsibility of the Home Office and it sets out the safety controls at sports grounds. For that reason, the Home Office has been the lead Government Department in the investigation of the Hillsborough disaster. However, the HSE assisted the inquiry with technical issues concerning, for example, crash barriers and the means of entrance to, and exit from, the ground. However, the HSE has responsibility for sports grounds not covered by the 1975 Act.
  Currently, the HSE has overall responsibility for the enforcement of the 1974 Act. However, many local authorities have taken powers under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 to license pop concerts and put crowd safety and control conditions into any licence which is issued. The executive works with the local authority issuing the licence, as do others such as the police.
  In the Donnington tragedy of 1988, to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred so well and in which two people died when the crowd surged forward and lost its footing on soft ground, the local authority were the licensing authority for the event and so undertook the investigation. The executive gave advice to the local authority about staging the 1989 festival, and I believe that it has responded that way again to a request about the 1990 festival.
  The establishment of the Health and Safety Commission and Executive has demonstrated, I believe, that there are advantages in having a central body which covers a wide range of health and safety matters. But it does not necessarily follow that the coverage of such a body has to be universal. While there was general agreement when the HSC and HSE were set up as to which inspectorates should become part of the executive, it was more difficult to draw the line in relation to some industries. It is therefore understandable that from time to time questions should be asked about the suitability of current arrangements.
  What I believe is important—this has been recognised by the commission—is the need to have the boundaries between commission responsibilities and those of other authorities clearly defined to avoid duplication and perhaps even more fundamentally to ensure that there are not areas which fall between various authorities. The commission keeps this matter under continuing review.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman has criticised the sponsor Department having responsibility for the regulation of safety matters. I do not believe that such arrangements are in themselves detrimental to safety. Some industries—for example, marine and aviation transport—demand very specialist expertise which usually is only found in those working in the industry. The Departments are well placed to draw on the specialists from those industries. For other industries such as railway transport and offshore oil, the agency agreements allow the commission to exercise some general oversight of the policy pursued.

  577
  The hon. and learned Gentleman has also made out arguments for transferring some outside inspectorates back to the commission. We are aware of the arguments, and as with any question of how best to fulfil our responsibilities in any area of Government activity, we keep the matter under review.
  Health and safety are vital. They concern us all, whether at work or as members of the public going about our normal business. I am pleased to note that through their commitment to health and safety and their professionalism the commission and executive have won the confidence and respect of both industry and the public. I am sure that that is common ground between us.
  The Government have sustained health and safety by ensuring that the commission is properly funded and operates in an efficient and effective way. We have also gone out and put over the message that health and safety are vital. However, it must never be forgotten that the prime responsibility for health and safety lies with employers and that their responsibilities include the protection of the public.
  I said that in the time available I would try to deal in more detail with the hon. and learned Gentleman's point about resources. They are vital, because without proper funds the commission and the executive could not discharge their obligations. Contrary to what has been claimed on several occasions, this Government's funding of the commission and the executive has been at least as good in real terms as that of the last Administration. At constant prices, the figure for 1978·79 was £100 million against £109 million for 1988·89. The executive has a I April 1990 target of 160 nuclear installations inspectors —up 30 per cent. in two years—and more than 800 factory and agricultural inspectors—up 9 per cent. in two years. In the public expenditure survey negotiations of the past two years, the commission has received in full the funds that it has bid for.
  I hope that I have been able to reassure the hon. and learned Gentleman that we shall consider what he has said. He has an acknowledged expertise and interest in this area, but it must be stressed time and again that ultimately it is not merely a question of throwing money at the problem. There is more to it than that, but the situation must be kept under review.
  Mr. Janner rose—
  Mr. Nicholls: Unusually for a debate of this nature, I am glad to give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  Mr. Janner: Will the Minister be good enough to undertake that he will discuss with fellow Ministers in the Departments of Transport and Energy the possibility that they should transfer the powers that they have in safety matters back to the Health and Safety Commission, in view of the awful disasters that have occurred in the areas of responsibility contracted out to them and of the fact that many people believe that at least some of those disasters could have been avoided had there been proper central control?
  Mr. Nicholls: I should like to make two points in reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I hope that I have made it as clear as I possibly can that the common ground between us is the need to see legislation working effectively. The hon. and learned Gentleman was fair enough to say that accidents will happen, but we have to do everything in our power to minimise their number.
  I do not accept the slightly too easy conclusion drawn by the hon. and learned Gentleman that if everything was dealt with centrally there would be no problem. The conclusion implicit in what the hon. and learned Gentleman said was that the matter was not properly centralised under the Commission. He repeated the word "transport". I will not quibble with the hon. and learned Gentleman about whether the word that he used was "many" or "most", but, it was central to his theme that the matter should be centralised. I am glad to see that the hon. and learned Gentleman accepts that summary. On the evidence that I have, I do not accept that that would be the answer. It is well known that the arguments are in the public domain. It is implicit in everything that I have said in the debate that we are listening and want to see the situation improving. I suspect that the solutions may not be as easy as the hon. and learned Gentleman would want, but I promise him that the matter is kept under constant, real and active review.
  Question put and agree to.
  Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Gaelic Television Services
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from organisations and individuals supporting an expansion of Gaelic television services.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have received representations from a number of organisations, from Members of Parliament and from members of the public in support of an increase in the provision of Gaelic television programmes.

  Traffic Offences
  Mr. Tebbit
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many alleged traffic offences within the Metropolitan police area are currently under consideration for prosecution; whether that number is increasing or decreasing; and what was the position two and four years ago.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Tebbit
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what has been the longest time between the commission of an alleged traffic offence and notification of the intent to prosecute during the past two years;

  (2) what is the average time between the alleged commission of a traffic offence and the notification of the driver concerned of whether a prosecution will be brought.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is not available.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information his Department has on the length of time taken to respond to letters from hon. Members.

  Mr. Waddington
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him on 30 October 1989 at column 38.

  Forensic Services
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in the light of new regulations involving payment by the police forces for forensic services, he will consider establishing independent forensic units, along the lines of that based on Strathclyde university; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There are no such regulations, but we have accepted the recommendations of the Select Committee on Home Affairs that the police should pay 266
  directly for the forensic science services they use. The establishment of forensic science units independent of the Government is a matter for private initiative, and the police would be free to use such units if they wished to do so.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many cases are pending with the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board at the latest date;

  (2) how many cases have been dealt with by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board at the latest available date.

  Mr. John Patten
  On 30 September 1989, the number of applications resolved since the board's inception was 433,276 and 94,113 cases awaited resolution.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons whose cases were referred to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board subsequently died before determination.

  Mr. John Patten
  The board does not collate this information.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how much compensation has been paid in(a) Liverpool and (b) Merseyside by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board at the latest available date;

  (2) what is the highest payment by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to a claimant from Liverpool at the latest available date.

  Mr. John Patten
  The board does not keep information on the payment of compensation by locality. Details of the highest award made each year are given in the board's annual reports, copies of which are in the Library.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how much has been paid in compensation by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board at the latest available date;

  (2) what is the amount of compensation awarded by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board at the most recent date.

  Mr. John Patten
  Between 1 April 1964 and 30 September 1989, the board paid £389,718,739 in compensation. The board does not keep a running total of awards made but not yet paid.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he has any proposals to improve the working of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he has plans to put the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board on a statutory basis; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  We are in close touch with the chairman of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board about the means of tackling the board's acknowledged problems of delay and the increased workload and backlog of cases of which it is the result. The Criminal Justice Act 1988 provides for a criminal injuries compensation scheme closely resembling the present non-statutory arrangements, but the most pressing task is to overcome the board's immediate problems. This must take priority over the introduction of the statutory scheme.
  267
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will include deaths or injuries caused by joy riders within the cover of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.

  Mr. John Patten
  Compensation will generally be available under the owner's insurance or arrangements made by the Motor Insurers' Bureau for injury or death caused by either an uninsured driver or an untraced driver. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board will entertain claims where death or injury is caused by a driver who intentionally drives at the victim. We therefore see no need to extend the criminal injuries compensation scheme.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the reasons for the delay in resolving the claim of Mr. Terence Anthony Lafferty of Liverpool to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.

  Mr. John Patten
  As the board is independent in its day-to-day operations I have asked the board to write to the hon. Member about this case.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to include victims of rape as possible claimants to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.

  Mr. John Patten
  They are already included.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is the practice of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to answer letters from solicitors acting for people who have made an application to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.

  Mr. John Patten
  I understand from the board that it is its normal practice to reply to letters which require an answer as soon as possible.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the average waiting time for cases to be decided by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board at the most recent convenient date;

  (2) what is the longest waiting time for a case to be accepted by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board at the latest date.

  Mr. John Patten
  The board does not keep information about waiting times in cases now disposed of. Information about the percentage of cases resolved by the board within certain periods from registration is shown in paragraph 6 of its latest annual report (Cm. 536), a copy of which is in the Library.

  DNA Testing
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to announce a centrally organised DNA testing scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Government's intention to introduce DNA testing into the entry clearance process was announced earlier this year. We will shortly be inviting tenders for the work of carrying out DNA tests. We will make a further announcement about the implementation of the Government scheme when the necessary arrangements have been completed.

  Firearms Certificates
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he has given to the proposed directive on the national regulations of firearms certificates; and if it will be determined by majority vote.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My hon. Friend is no doubt referring to the Commission's proposals for a Council directive on the control of the acquisition and possession of weapons. The Commission has signalled its intention to put forward a revised draft of the directive, but it has not yet been formally submitted to us. We will of course look at any new proposals very closely, including the legal basis, to ensure that the Commission's plans do not weaken in any way our ability to carry out those checks which we believe necessary to preserve security and maintain public safety.

  British Summer Time
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what powers have been given to the EEC in relation to the determination of British summer time after the three-year period of consultation permitted to the United Kingdom in terms of EEC document 7876/88.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The position of the EC will be same for the sixth directive on summer time arrangements covering 1993 onwards as for the current fifth directive covering the period 1990 to 1992 inclusive.

  Drugs
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those places which have been selected for locally-based drug prevention teams.

  Mr. Mellor
  We are not yet in a position to do so.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many representations (i) he and (ii) immigration officers received from Members of Parliament during(a) the first quarter of 1988 (b) the first quarter of 1989 to delay the removal of passengers refused entry at British ports of entry; and, for both periods, how many representations resulted in (i) the delay of the passenger's removal for up to a week, (iii) the delay of the passenger's removal for more than a week and (ii) reversal of the immigration officer's decision.

  Mr. Waddington
  [pursuant to the reply, 28 July 1989, c. 1057]: I regret that the information contained in that reply was incorrect. In the first quarter of 1988 representations received by Ministers resulted in deferment of removal of passengers refused entry in 382 cases. The rest of the information requested is not available centrally.

TRANSPORT

  Hong Kong Shipping Register
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the strategic implications for the United Kingdom of the transfer of the Hong Kong shipping register to the Chinese flag.
  269
  Mr. McLoughlin
  On the transfer of Hong Kong to the People's Republic of China in 1997 vessels on the Hong Kong shipping register will not be available to the United Kingdom for defence purposes.

  Studies (Costs)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the total cost to date of the London assessment studies and, separately, the central London rail study.

  Mr. Portillo
  The total cost of the four London assessment studies to date is about £8½ million. The central London rail study is expected to cost about £800,000.

  Pedestrian Footbridges
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what advice his Department offers to local authorities seeking to build pedestrian footbridges with transport supplementary grant from his Department with regard to access for the disabled.

  Mr. Atkins
  We recommend that for schemes supported by TSG local highway authorities should use the technical design standards issued by the Department. The Department's design criteria for footbridges are contained in departmental standard BD29/87. This standard lays particular emphasis on the importance of ensuring that the needs of disabled people are taken into account. It specifies "enhanced criteria" which should be adopted as far as practicable for the benefit of disabled people, such as the provision of both ramps and stairs and a minimum clear width of 2m.

  I am arranging for a copy of the standard to be placed in the Library.

  A5 (Shropshire)
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce a start date for the A5 road improvements in Shropshire.

  Mr. Atkins
  The inspector's report on the recent inquiry into the final statutory orders for the A5/A49 Shrewsbury bypass is being considered. The decision will be announced later this month. Subject to that being favourable I hope construction will start next April.

  Road Accidents
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what figures are available on the makes of cars involved in fatal and serious injury accidents on Britain's roads over the past two years.

  Mr. Atkins
  No information is available on makes of cars involved in fatal and serious injury accidents on Britain's roads over the past two years. However, arrangements are now in hand to ensure that this information is recorded for future years.

  Aircraft Incident (Edinburgh)
  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if, when he next meets the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority, he will discuss with him the incident involving British Midland Airways flight BD 057 at Edinburgh on Sunday 22 October; and if he will make a statement.
  270
  Mr. McLoughlin
  The statutory responsibility for the safety regulation of United Kingdom civil aviation rests with the Civil Aviation Authority. The incident will be the subject of a mandatory occurrence report submitted by British Midland Airways to the authority, and on receipt of that report, the authority will decide what action needs to be taken. I have drawn the hon. Member's question to the attention of the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority.

  Learner Drivers
  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will consider changing the regulations relating to learner drivers so that no passengers may be carried other than the experienced driver accompanying the learner driver.

  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has any plans to introduce legislation to impose a maximum speed limit on drivers in the first 12 months following the date on which they obtained a full United Kingdom driving licence; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  We have a major programme of research in hand to cast light on the accident record of learner and newly qualified drivers. As the results become available we shall be considering whether there are any aspects of the driver licensing regime that need to be improved.

  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has any plans to change the regulations concerning the driving experience of those who accompany learner drivers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  I am reviewing whether there is any case for this.

  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has any plans to introduce legislation to require those supervising learner drivers to(a) have attained a prescribed minimum age or (b) have held a full driving licence for a specified number of years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  I am reviewing whether there is any case for this.

  Radioactive Material
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to study the recent critical appraisal of the safety of flasks designed for the air transport of plutonium, presented to the annual conference of the Safety and Reliability Society in Bath in October.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The International Atomic Energy Agency's regulations for the safe transport of radioactive materials are subject to continuous review and updating. Any relevant information on this transport will be studied.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what information he possesses on the current considerations by the International Atomic Energy Agency's standing advisory group on the international safety regulations for the carriage of radioactive materials.
  271
  Mr. McLoughlin
  The chairman's report of the seventh meeting of the group has been received and its conclusions and recommendations are being studied.

  Air Traffic
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to open an east coast airway for commercial air traffic to serve areas between the north of Scotland and the south of England; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  This is a matter for the Civil Aviation Authority and the National Air Traffic Services. I will draw the hon. Member's question to the attention of authority's chairman.

  Mersey Tunnels
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the financing of the Mersey tunnels; what his response has been; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The financing of the Mersey tunnels is a matter for the Merseyside passenger transport authority. Over the last three years we have had extensive discussions with the authority about the debts of the Mersey tunnels and we have helped to produce projections of the tunnel's financial performance. If the PTA considers that it has a case for Government financial assistance we will be prepared to consider it.

  Roll-on Roll-off Vessels
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many roll-on roll-off vessels have been lost at sea since 1979.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Between 1 January 1981 and 31 December 1988, a total of 23 roll-on roll-off vessels have been lost at sea worldwide. The figures for earlier years do not identify losses of roll-on roll-off vessels.

  Manchester Ship Canal Company
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to be able to announce his decision on the inspector's report on the public inquiry into the harbour revision order applied for by the Manchester Ship Canal Company.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I have been considering, in the light of the inspector's report, whether all the provisions sought in the order properly could and should be included in a harbour revision order, and hope to be able to reach a decision in the reasonably near future.

  Port Authorities
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what means of redress or appeal exists in the case of maladministration or inefficiency by a body such as a port authority.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Harbour authorities that are companies or statutory trusts are autonomous bodies running commercial undertakings. Any complaint should be made to the chief executive or chairman, and if 272
  satisfaction is not obtained the complaint can ultimately be pursued through the courts. For harbours run by local authorities there are also the usual channels for seeking a remedy from the actions of a local authority. In addition, there are two statutory rights of appeal to the Secretary of State: in respect of all harbour authorities, against their dues and, if they are competent harbour authorities under the Pilotage Act 1987, their pilotage charges; and in respect of a few authorities whose local legislation contains power to license works in the harbour area, against their licensing decisions.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has any plans to abolish the Clyde port authority and to replace it with another body.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  No. But I understand that the authority has been considering the possibility of seeking a change in its status.

  Vehicle and Component Approvals Division
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the latest annual report of the vehicle and component approvals divsion is to be published; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The report for 1988–89 was published at the end of September. Copies are available in the Library.

  The certification work carried out by VCA staff makes an important contribution to road safety through checks on vehicle and equipment design and quality standards. During the year covered by the report, the VCA handled an increased workload and managed to better its first unit cost target.

  Further steps were also taken to move to a businesslike footing with adoption of new accounting methods and the preparation of the first business plan. These will help provide a firm financial structure for the proposed move to executive agency status next spring.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Family Law
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the Government Departments represented on the interdepartmental working party established to oversee work on family law and business following the passage of the Children Bill.

  The Attorney-General
  The Government Departments represented on the family law and administration working party are as follows:

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  Home Office

  Department of Health

  Her Majesty's Treasury

  Department of Social Security

  Welsh Office

  Traffic Offences
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the criteria used by the Crown Prosecution Service in deciding whether or not to prosecute in respect of traffic offences.

  The Attorney-General
  In deciding whether or not to prosecute in respect of traffic offences, as with all criminal
  273
  offences, the Crown Prosecution Service has to satisfy the two criteria set out in the code for Crown prosecutors. promulgated under section 10 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. These require that there is sufficient admissible, substantial and reliable evidence to afford a realistic prospect of conviction and that the public interest requires a prosecution in the circumstances.

  Northern Ireland Court Service
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Attorney-General whether any changes have been made to the cash limit and running cost limit for the Northern Ireland court service.

  The Attorney-General
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class XI vote 8 has been increased by £21,000 from £14,725,000 to £14,746,000 and the running costs limit by £21,000 from £11,700,000 to £11,721,000. This increase has been charged to the Reserve and will not add to the planned total of public expenditure. The increases arise from a policy decision which transferred responsibility for the funding of the PRAMIS computer project from Northern Ireland Departments 1 (NID 1) to individual Departments (including Northern Ireland Court Service). The corresponding decrease in NID 1's cash limit and running costs limit was announced on 13 July 1989.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Student Loans
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what annual level of inflation has been used to calculate the projected cost of the student loan scheme.

  Mr. Jackson
  The costings set out in annex E of Cm. 520 were expressed in constant 1990 prices. To estimate the pace at which inflation will erode the real value of the grant, an inflation rate of 3 per cent. per annum was assumed.

  Mr. John P. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the progress of the introduction of student loans.

  Mr. Jackson
  The preparatory work described in my right hon. Friend's statement on 19 June,Official Report, columns 21–22, is proceeding.

  Schools (Data Protection Act)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, further to his answer to the hon. Member for Leyton,Official Report, 17 October, column 87, how many schools he estimates are currently in breach of the Data Protection Act; and if he will place in the Library the guidance to schools he intends to publish.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Department does not collect information about schools' compliance with the Data Protection Act. A copy of the promised guidance will be placed in the Library on publication.

  Committee of Vice Chancellors
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last met the Committee of Vice Chancellors; and what matters were discussed.
  274
  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend discussed a wide range of higher education matters with the committee at its annual meeting on 27 September. We meet representatives of the committee from time to time in the course of normal business.

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what grant assistance is provided by his Department to local education authorities to fund in-service training for teachers.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The main source of grant assistance is the local education authority training grant scheme, details of which are set out in Department of Education and Science circular 20/89, a copy of which is in the Library. In 1990–91 the scheme will support expenditure of £214·7 million with grant of £125·7 million.

  Teachers' Negotiating Rights
  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to ensure that teachers' negotiating rights are restored as soon as possible.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend is currently engaged in a series of meetings with the teacher unions and the employers at which a range of possibilities for new permanent pay determination arrangements is being discussed.

  European Research Council Meeting
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the outcome of the European Research Council meeting in Luxembourg on 17 October.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have been asked to reply.

  I represented Her Majesty's Government at the meeting of the Community's Council of Ministers (Research) in Luxembourg on 17 October.

  The Council adopted a common position on a Community programme of research on the competitiveness of agriculture and management of agricultural resources. The programme will receive Community funding of 55 mecu (37 million) over five years. Priority will be given to research work which helps to identify alternative outlets for products and uses for land, conserves natural resources and develops production systems in harmony with the environment.

  There was also a further exchange of views on several aspects of the Commission proposal for a framework programme of Community activities in the field of research and technological development (1990–1994).

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list(a) the total amounts raised by domestic rates in each of the years 1984–85, 1985–86, 1986–87 and 1987–88, (b) the rate in the pound in each year and (c) the estimated number of domestic

  275
  hereditaments on which rates were payable for each year in the London boroughs of (i) Islington, (ii) Camden and (iii) Lambeth.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The figures sought are:

  Domestic rate income £m

  Average domestic rate poundage Pence

  Number of domestic hereditaments '000s

  Islington

  1984–85

  49·1

  233·5

  68·6

  1985–86

  46·9

  229·1

  69·0

  1986–87

  42·8

  184·3

  69·4

  1987–88

  41·5

  172·1

  70·5

  Lambeth

  1984–85

  62·3

  233·1

  104·6

  1985–86

  60·4

  224·6

  105·4

  1986–87

  58·4

  217·2

  106·6

  1987–88

  54·5

  205·6

  108·3

  Camden

  1984–85

  59·2

  202·7

  78·2

  1985–86

  60·9

  209·0

  79·2

  1986–87

  62·6

  209·4

  80·1

  1987·88

  65·1

  213·2

  81·5

  Note: Figures for domestic rate income are net of rate relief grant and gross of rebates.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the current cost of a revaluation of domestic properties for rateable purposes.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Government do not consider a revaluation of domestic property to be viable using rental values because of the lack of market rental evidence. I have therefore made no such estimate.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what policy has applied since 1982 towards the revaluation of domestic properties for rateable purposes; what estimates he has of the number of domestic properties in the London boroughs of(a) Islington, (b) Camden and (c) Lambeth, which have been revalued for rateable purposes since 1982; and what are the general reasons for those revaluations having taken place.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Since the last general revaluation in 1973 rateable values of domestic properties have been altered most commonly because of a change in the physical state of the property or in its environment. I estimate that some 3,200,000 alterations have been made to the rateable values of domestic property in England since 1982. No estimates are available for particular local authority areas.

  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the percentage registration for the community charge in the Cherwell district council area.

  Mr. Chope
  I understand that registration for the community charge is going ahead successfully in Cherwell and that to date some 98 per cent. of chargepayers have been registered.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on the community charge.

  Mr. Chope
  I have received representations from individual local authorities and other bodies. My Department has also held a number of discussions with the local authority associations.
  276
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether any consideration has been given to exempting foreign language assistants employed in the United Kingdom from paying the community charge.

  Mr. Chope
  It would not be appropriate to provide exemption for foreign language assistants. They will be subject to a personal community charge if they are solely or mainly resident in Great Britain. Foreign language assistants who fall within the definition of full-time students will be eligible for 80 per cent. relief of the charge. Decisions on whether an individual is solely or mainly resident in Great Britain, and is a full-time student, are initially for the community charges registration officer.

  Property Revaluation
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimates he has of the number of domestic properties in England that have been revalued for rateable purposes since 1982; and what are the general reasons for these revaluations having taken place.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier today.

  Chief Inspector of Pollution (Resignation)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek permission from the author to publish the letter of resignation submitted by Mr. Rod Perriman, the former chief inspector of pollution.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  No. I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the then Secretary of State for the Environment, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) on 29 November 1988 at column 135.

  Property Services Agency
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has now reached his decision on the future of the Property Services Agency in Cardiff; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The PSA is in the process of reorganising into two main businesses: PSA Projects dealing with major projects, and PSA Building Management dealing with maintenance, estate management and smaller projects. Both businesses intend to maintain offices in Cardiff, drawing their staffing initially from the existing PSA Wales Office.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make an assessment of the recent report by Professor David Bowen of the University of Wales Institute of Earth Studies on the geological stability of the sub-seabed region off Sellafield and the geology below Sellafield with regard to plans to dispose of the radioactive waste underground near the British Nuclear Fuels Sellafield site.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  In the first instance it is for UK Nirex Limited to consider such reports in submitting proposals to Government for the development of an
  277
  underground radioactive waste disposal facility for low and intermediate level waste. In assessing these proposals, HMIP will take into account any relevant information.

  Habitats
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report the Government's response to the draft European Community directive on the protection of semi-natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora; whether he will seek to amend the draft directive (a) to provide funding to encourage individuals to adopt management and development practices and (b) to tackle the devastation and destruction of habitats outside the envisaged network of special protection areas; and whether he will seek to allow non-governmental organisations to attend meetings under the directive as observers.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We have made clear on several occasions that we, in common with all other member states, regard the present draft text as deeply flawed. The House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities reached a similar conclusion in its scrutiny report published in August.

  We are keen to see progress towards a worthwhile Community measure in the field of nature conservation. It is for the French Presidency to decide how to take things forward, and I understand that discussions are taking place with a view to breaking the deadlock. Matters such as funding, protection of habitats outside special protection areas, and observer status for non-governmental organisations can be expected to feature in these deliberations. We shall continue to contribute constructively to the discussions on all aspects of the dossier.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what new initiatives he will take to reduce the present level of homelessness in young people aged under 18 years of age; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The conclusions of our review of the homelessness legislation will be announced shortly.

  Radioactive Waste Management
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has met the chairman or officials of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee to discuss(a) environmental management of and (b) international safeguards applicability to plutonium contaminated wastes at civil nuclear facilities and safeguardable nuclear material balance areas in dual-purpose facilities.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My right hon. Friend has not yet met the chairman and members of Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee, but plans to do so in January. The agenda for the meeting has yet to be decided.

  Estate Action
  Mr. Knowles
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total budget for the current year for Estate Action.
  278
  Mr. Chope
  A total of £190 million is being made available for my Department's Estate Action programme in 1989–90. In addition, local authorities are normally expected to contribute about 50 per cent. of the total cost of approved projects as a measure of their commitment to those schemes.

  Safety Glazing
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish the consultation document on the standard of safety glazing to be included in the building regulations.

  Mr. Chope
  I hope to be in a position to publish the consultative document shortly.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Share Ownership
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent changes have been made to the ceilings of percentage in shares of Rolls-Royce and British Aerospace respectively which may be held by persons or bodies not within the United Kingdom; what communications he has received from the Commission of the European Communities on this and the period within which any such new limitation shall operate; and if he will place copies of any such correspondence in the Library.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced on 3 August that the Government had decided that, following discussions with the European Commission on Rolls-Royce, the limit on foreign shareholdings could reasonably be increased for both Rolls-Royce and British Aerospace from 15 per cent. to 29·5 per cent. Extraordinary general meetings of the two companies held respectively on 11 September and 16 August approved special resolutions to raise the limit to the new level. In reaching this decision the Government took into account not only the concern expressed by the Commission about the effect of the restriction on other EC nationals wishing to buy shares in Rolls-Royce, but the wishes of Rolls-Royce and British Aerospace to have the limit increased given the international nature of their business. As the discussions with the European Commission were confidential, documents cannot be placed in the Library. The Government agreed with the Commission that it would review at the end of 1992 the limit on foreign shareholdings in the light of any changes in the structure of the European defence industry and in the pattern of defence procurement over the period.

  North East Shipbuilders
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North, on 20 October,Official Report, columns 268–69, if he will estimate the cost to Her Majesty's Government arising from the closure of North East Shipbuilders Ltd., excluding any costs incurred by British Shipbuilders but including (a) unemployment benefit to redundant employees, (b) housing and other social security benefits to redundant employees, (c) remedial measures taken by Her Majesty's Government and (d) any other costs.
  279
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  It is very difficult to give an assessment of the Exchequer costs, because no one can reliably forecast the circumstances of Sunderland and other places that would have been affected had those decisions not been taken. For instance, had the Government decided not to close the yards at the end of 1988, very substantial redundancies would in any event have been necessary, and costs would have been incurred elsewhere, particularly on the Clyde, had other sales notified to the Commission in December 1988 been frustrated by delayed EC clearance.

  Had the Government decided to notify new shipbuilding proposals in July, the likelihood would have been a delay to the economic recovery of Sunderland as a result of the uncertainty about the enterprise zone and other measures. On the other hand, talks are taking place between British Shipbuilders and interested parties about the use of various of the assets of NESL which in turn may generate additional employment to that likely to result from the enterprise zone.

  My right hon. Friend announced on 7 December a remedial package for Sunderland estimated at £45 million. Of that sum, £10·5 million is being provided through British Shipbuilders, to fund the activities of Sunderland Enterprise and Training Ltd., including those being administered by the Wearside Opportunity.

  Insurance Companies Act
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will now introduce regulations to require companies to report on their arrangements to meet the duty imposed by section 31A of the Insurance Companies Act 1982.

  Mr. Redwood
  I undertook on 26 July to consider introducing a new regulation requiring insurance companies to report on their arrangements to meet the duty imposed by section 31A of the Insurance Companies Act 1982. This section requires insurance companies to ensure that adequate arrangements are in force for securing that transactions affecting assets of the company (other than transactions outside its control) do not operate unfairly between different funds of the company. I have now made regulations, which come into effect on 1 March 1990, which have been laid before Parliament today. The regulations require a certificate to be signed by the directors, to be annexed to the annual report, which will state that for the past financial year the company has had in force arrangements to meet this duty.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give(a) the total number of applications for regional selective assistance received between 1 April 1988 and 30 September 1989, (b) the total number of applications approved, (c) the total amount of expenditure involved and (d) the total estimated expenditure for 1988–89, 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92 in cash and constant prices for each of the Department of Trade and Industry regions.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 30 October 1989]: The number of applications for regional selective assistance received between 1 April 1988 and 30 September 1989 was 2,542. The number of regional selective
  280
  assistance applications approved between 1 April 1988 and 30 September 1989 was 1893 and the value approved was £165·2 million.

  Expenditure on regional selective assistance in 1988–89 by the DTI region was as follows:

  £ million

  North East

  34

  North West

  22

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  21

  East Midlands

  1

  West Midlands

  25

  South West

  4

  England

  Actual

  129

  at 1989–90 prices

  137

  At the regional level the figures include only industrial and training grants. The England total also includes some unallocated project grants and expenditure under the business improvement services and exchange risk guarantee schemes which it is not possible to provide on a regional basis. The figures are net of domestic receipts.

  The forecast provision for 1989–90 is £145 million; this figure is contained in the Supply Estimates for 1989–90. The above figure is net of domestic receipts and includes expenditure on industrial and training grants, and the business improvement services and exchange risk guarantee schemes: Figures for future years will be reflected in the 1990 public expenditure White Paper.

  Investment and Innovation Grants
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give(a) the total number of applications for investment grants and innovation grants from 1 April 1988 to 30 September 1989, (b) the total number of applications approved, (c) the total amount of expenditure involved and (d) the total estimated expenditure planned for 1988–89, 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92 in cash and constant prices for each of his Department's regions.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 30 October 1989]: Regional enterprise grants (REGs) became available on 1 April 1988 in the development areas and on 1 September 1988 in South Yorkshire. The information requested, for the English regions for which the DTI is responsible, for 1 April 1988 to 30 September 1989 is as follows:

  Number of applications

  Number of offers

  Value of offers £000

  North East

  968

  692

  4,880

  North West

  857

  502

  4,240

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  516

  320

  3,289

  East Midlands

  78

  56

  612

  South West

  279

  197

  1,191

  Total England

  2,698

  1,767

  14,212

  "Total expenditure for regional enterprise grants in 1988–89 was £0·9m (£0·95 million at estimated constant 1989–90 prices).

  The provision for investment and innovation grants as published in the June revised supply estimates, for 1989–90 is £27·6m.

  Plans for future years will be reflected in the 1990 public expenditure White Paper.

  The amount of expenditure which will be paid out in any particular area will depend on demand for the scheme and the appraisal of individual applications."

  Regional Development Grants
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give(a) the total number of applications for regional development grants outstanding at 31 March 1988, (b) the total number of applications processed by 30 September 1989, (c) the total amount of expenditure involved and (d) the total estimated

  North East

  North West

  Yorkshire & humberside

  East Midlands

  South West

  Number of applications outstanding at 31 March 1988

  3,260

  2,740

  830

  240

  540

  Number of those applications processed by 30 September 1989

  3,251

  2,736

  830

  240

  540

  Amount approved £m

  55

  36

  9

  7

  4

  Expenditure in respect of the original and revised regional development grant schemes in 1988–89 by DTI region is as follows:

  £ million

  North East

  79

  North West

  50

  Yorkshire & Humberside

  19

  East Midlands

  8

  South West

  6

  England

  Actual

  162

  1989–90 prices

  170

  Notes:

  The figures shown are net of domestic receipts.

  Planned provision in respect of both schemes for 1989–90 is £125 million (as contained in the Supply Estimates for 1989–90). This figure is net of domestic receipts.

  The level of provision is expected to be reduced in the forthcoming winter supplementary estimates. Figures for future years will be reflected in the 1990 public expenditure White Paper.

  Industrial Output
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will supply figures on the level of industrial output, in constant terms, for each standard planning region of the United Kingdom for every year since 1979 and for each month since 1 January.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 23 October 1989]: I have been asked to reply.

  The information is not available in the form requested. However current price estimates of regional gross domestic product by industry are published annually in Economic Trends. The latest published figures may be found in Economic Trends No. 421, November 1988 pages 92 and 93: a copy is available in the Library. Constant price estimates are not made because there are no regional price indices.

  Investment Spending
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will supply figures on spending on investment expressed in constant value terms, for each standard planning region of the United Kingdom for every year since 1979 and for each month since 1 January.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 23 October 1989]: I have been asked to reply.
  282
  expenditure planned for 1988–89, 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92 in cash and constant prices for each of his Department's regions.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [Holding answer 30 October 1989]: The information requested in respect of the revised regional development grant scheme with regard to applications outstanding at 31 March 1988, the number of those processed by 30 September 1989 and the amount approved to date on those applications, is as follows:

  The information is not available in the form requested. However current price estimates of regional investment by selected industries and by the Government are published annually in Economic Trends. The latest published figures may be found in Economic Trends No. 421, November 1988 pages 97 and 98: a copy is available in the Library. Constant price estimates are not made because there are no regional price indices.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Incomes
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give for each year since 1974 the average annual increase in real income for(a) a married man with two children, (b) a single person and (c) a retired person, including tax changes and price rises.

  Mr. Lilley
  Consistent information since 1974 is available only for pensioners. This is given in table 1. A more limited range of years is available on a constant basis for the other family types and the average annual growth rates in real incomes are given in table 2. Figures are derived from the family expenditure survey and are subject to sampling variation.

  Table 1

  Percentage annual change in average real net income of pensioners

  per cent.

  1974

  6·2

  1975

  -0·5

  1976

  -0·3

  1977

  -1·1

  1978

  7·0

  1979

  -1·7

  1980

  1·9

  1981

  4·9

  1982

  -0·9

  1983

  10·5

  1984

  -1·1

  1985

  1·7

  1986

  4·5

  Notes:

  1. The figures show, for the each year, the percentage increase over the previous year in average real net incomes (ie incomes net of tax, adjusted for changes in the Retail Price Index).

  2. Pensioners are defined as all single people over the statutory retirement age together with married couples where the husband is over retirement age.

  283

  Table 2

  Percentage change in average real net income at an annual rate

  Married man with two children (non-retired) per cent.

  Single person (non-retired) per cent.

  1979–81

  -2·3

  -2·1

  1981–85

  3·1

  0·6

  1985–86

  7·1

  8·6

  Note:

  The figures express at an annual rate the increase between the years shown in average real net incomes (ie incomes net of tax and national insurance adjusted for changes in the Retail Price Index).

  Equities
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of United Kingdom quoted equities are held by(a) pension funds, (b) unit trusts and (c) investment trusts.

  Mr. Lilley
  Reliable up-to-date figures are not available, but I understand that the stock exchange will shortly be publishing a survey giving the proportion of equities held by different types of investor. I will write to my hon. Friend and arrange for a copy to be placed in the Library in due course.

  Capital Gains Tax
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the annual yield of capital gains tax in each year since 1979 (i) at 1979 prices and (ii) at 1989 prices.

  Mr. Lilley
  Estimates of receipts of capital gains tax paid by individuals and trusts are as follows:

  £ million

  Year of receipt

  Actual receipts

  At 1979–80 prices1

  At 1989–90 prices1

  1979–80

  431

  430

  860

  1980–81

  508

  430

  850

  1981–82

  526

  400

  800

  1982–83

  632

  450

  900

  1983–84

  671

  460

  910

  1984–85

  730

  480

  950

  1985–86

  908

  560

  1,120

  1986–87

  1,064

  640

  1,270

  1987–88

  1,379

  790

  1,560

  1988–89

  2,323

  1,230

  2,450

  1989–902

  2,100

  1,060

  2,100

  1 Converted using the GDP market price deflator.

  2 Forecast.

  Receipts in each year result from liabilities incurred over several previous years. These figures exclude receipts from capital gains of companies taxed within corporation tax.

  Fiduciary Issue
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans to amend the limit of the fiduciary issue as part of his anti-inflationary policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  No. Interest rates are the only way to deal with inflation.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information his Department has on the length of time taken to respond to letters from hon. Members.

  Mr. Ryder
  Letters from hon. Members to Treasury Ministers receive a deadline for reply of not more than 15 working days. Most are replied to within this period.

  Northern Region
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will estimate the number of shareholders in the northern region as a percentage of the adult population.

  Mr. Lilley
  The Joint Treasury-International Stock Exchange survey in January 1989 estimated that 13 per cent. of adults in the northern region were shareholders. This proportion will have increased as a result of the recent flotation of Abbey National plc.

  Delors Report
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made in consideration of the Delors report on economic and monetary union in the European Community.

  Mr. Major
  The Delors report suggests a three-stage process leading to economic and monetary union. The Government's acceptance of stage I, which will start on 1 July 1990, was reported by the Prime Minister in her statement on 29 June,Official Report, columns 1107–22. I have today laid before Parliament, and placed in the Library of the House and in the Vote Office, copies of a paper entitled "An Evolutionary Approach to Economic and Monetary Union". This paper sets out the Government's views on an alternative approach to stages II and III as described in the report by the Delors committee, and will be a contribution to discussion at Ecofin on 13 November.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate(a) the impact of every 1 per cent. rise in interest rate on the costs to industry, (b) the estimated extra costs likely to have been incurred by industry in the period May 1989 to October 1989 as a result of interest rates rises and (c) the estimated costs to industry of the present interest rate level continuing for a period of three months, six months and 12 months.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 26 October 1989]: The estimated direct cost to industrial and commercial companies of a one percentage point increase in United Kingdom bank base rates is about £0·5 billion in the first year after the change, based on industrial and commercial companies' current holdings of assets and liabilities with variable rates of interest linked to United Kingdom bank base rates. The estimate takes no account of possible changes in net borrowing following a change in interest rates or of consequential changes in tax liabilities.

  By comparison a one percentage point interest rate increase costs industrial and commercial companies far less than a one percentage point rise in pay settlements.

  It is not possible to answer parts (b) and (c) without making assumptions about the actual responses to interest

  285
  rates and changes in borrowing for any other reason. But the key point is that industry would suffer much more from a general rise in inflation than from interest rate increases.

  Voluntary Giving
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans or programmes he has for publicising schemes for voluntary giving, such as Work Aid, and other similar statutory arrangements; and what funds have been allocated from what votes for what specific purposes.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 17 October 1989]: It is primarily for the voluntary sector to promote voluntary giving. Leaflets are available from the Inland Revenue explaining the tax reliefs for charitable giving. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made a grant of £25,000 to the Payroll Giving Association to support its work on promoting the payroll giving scheme. The grant is on a matching pound-for-pound basis. A further grant of up to £25,000 may be made on the same basis. The payroll giving scheme is available to all civil servants and to Members of Parliament. This opportunity has been publicised.

  Exchange Rate
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to permit sterling to establish its value in the exchange markets without intervention directed to any particular exchange rates with other major currencies.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 31 October 1989]: Foreign exchange intervention will continue to be used as necessary to check undue fluctuations in the exchange rate.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the net contribution to the EEC in 1989.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 31 October 1989]: The Government's latest published estimate of the United Kingdom's net contribution to the Community budget in 1989 is £1,966 million. A new estimate of the United Kingdom's net payments to European Community institutions for the financial year 1989–90 will be published in the Autumn Statement.

  Contingency Reserve
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what amount has been allocated from the contingency reserve so far in the current financial year; and whether he will list the amount by Department.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 1 November 1989]: The Autumn Statement will show the estimated outturn for the 1989–90 planning total by Department, along with changes from the plans in the 1989 public expenditure White Paper.

WALES

  Children with Special Needs
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has made any estimate of the extra resources needed to enable children with special needs to participate fully in the national curriculum.
  286
  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The cost of implementing the national curriculum will be met from the redirection of existing resources. However, the Government are making specific grants available to local education authorities to support the introduction of the national curriculum. In Wales, in this financial year, there is support for almost £7 million expenditure.

  It is for authorities to decide how much to spend within this total to enable children with special educational needs to participate fully in the national curriculum where appropriate.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will ask health authorities in Wales to review their adherence to WHSC(IS)117 and report back.

  Mr. Grist
  The 1989 manpower resource planning exercise currently being undertaken in the NHS in Wales includes an assessment by district health authorities of the demand for and availability of staff who are able to practise through the medium of Welsh. We will also be reviewing the guidance contained in WHSC(IS)117 "The Health Service and the Welsh Language" in the light of the Welsh Language Board's strategy document and proposals for the public sector.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will take steps to ensure that those patients whose first choice of language is Welsh are adequately provided for.

  Mr. Grist
  The quality of service provided to all those who come into contact with the Health Service is of paramount importance. The Department recognises that there must be appropriate arrangements for those who are more fluent in Welsh than in English, and for many years the Health Service has been encouraged to adopt a language policy through guidance contained in WHSC(IS)117 "The Health Service and the Welsh Language". We will be reviewing that guidance in the light of the Welsh Language Board's strategy document and proposals for the public sector.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what provision is proposed for the professions allied to medicine, speech therapy and psychology to receive training in the Welsh language for those whose first language is Welsh, and if he will support the proposed establishment of a centre for health studies in University College of North Wales to develop such training.

  Mr. Grist
  The future extent, format and location of training provision for these professions in Wales and the proposal to establish a centre for health studies in north Wales are currently being considered in the light of the manpower resource planning exercise being undertaken within the NHS in Wales, the implications of the proposals contained in the White paper "Working for Patients" and the recommendations contained in the report of a review of the role of the combined training institute at Cardiff.

  Environmental Research
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his Department's role in the radioactivity, research and environmental monitoring committee since its inception.
  287
  Mr. Grist
  The Department has been represented on the committee since its inception in 1986 by a scientific adviser who reports to me its activities relevant to the Welsh environment.

  Rents into Mortgages Scheme
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any plans to promote his rents into mortgages scheme and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already written to every tenant of the Development Board for Rural Wales to explain the basis of flexi-ownership and the Department will be announcing the formal start of the scheme very soon.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will estimate the amount a tenant, paying an average Welsh council home rent, would pay if he participated in his Department's rents into mortgages scheme, showing the method of calculation.

  Mr. Grist
  The Development Board for Rural Wales will make two adjustments to rents when calculating how much tenants will need to pay when buying their homes under flexi-ownership. First, 10 per cent. will be added to the rent to reflct the greater benefit deriving from home ownership, then £5 (£7·50 in the case of flats) will be deducted as a notional allowance for insurance and maintenance costs. So, for example, if the rent was £21·84 (which is the current Welsh average council house rent) adding 10 per cent. and deducting £5 would give a figure of £19·02 per week. The amount of low start mortgage which this figure would buy is the amount the tenant would have to pay initially to buy his house under flexi-ownership. The balance between this amount and the market value of the home would be met by discount and deferred payment. Discounts will be 15 per cent. less than the right-to-buy discount entitlement.

  Low-paid Workers
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the total numbers of(a) male and (b) female workers in (1) Gwent and (2) the rest of Wales who are in receipt of wages below the wages council's recommended levels.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The information is not available in the form requested. In 1988, wages inspectors identified 897 workers in Wales who had been paid less than the statutory minimum due. Inspectorate records do not identify whether workers are male or female. Statistics are not compiled for areas smaller than Wales as a whole.

  Environment in Trust
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many copies of the Environment in Trust leaflets and brochures were published by Her Majesty's Government; how many have been distributed in Wales since May; and if he will list all the titles of Environment in Trust literature published to date.

  Mr. Grist
  A total of 36,000 sets of the leaflets have been printed and about 700 sets have been distributed in Wales since March. Information on numbers issued since May is not available.

  The titles are as follows:
  288

  Environment in Trust

  Cleaner Seas

  Air Quality

  River Quality

  Radioactive Waste Management—A Safe Solution

  The Countryside

  Pollution Control Systems

  A further leaflet in the series entitled "One World" has recently been published and will be distributed in the near future.

  Welsh Water
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy that the land holdings of Welsh Water plc shall be transferred into a public trust prior to the sale of shares and that the trustees be obliged to oversee such land for the benefit of the people of Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  The hon. Gentleman no doubt welcomed the announcement made by Welsh Water on Tuesday that a charitable trust has been set up to care for approximately 43,000 acres of its landholdings in the Elan valley. Much of the land remaining in the ownership of Welsh Water is in national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty or other areas of special scientific interest which are safeguarded by the provisions of the Water Act 1989.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy that Welsh Water plc shall concentrate on providing high-quality wholesome water and an efficient sewerage service to the people of Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  The duties of water and sewerage undertakers are set out in the Water Act 1989. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has taken steps to ensure that these will be carried out by appointing Dwr Cymru Cyfyngedig to be the water and sewerage undertakers for the area of the former Welsh water authority.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the names, occupations and salaries of the board members of Welsh Water.

  Mr. Ian Grist
  The information requested concerning appointments to the Welsh Water plc is set out in the following table:

  1. Executive Directors:

  John Elfed Jones—Group Chairman (£43,860)

  David Abbot Jeffrey—Group Managing Director (£59,125)

  Graham Alfred Hawker—Group Finance Director (£46,440)

  2. Non-executive Directors:

  John Mansel James—(£5,375). Appointed group managing director of Laura Ashley Holdings in 1981 and promoted to chief executive and vice-chairman in 1988. He is also a non-executive director of Control Techniques.

  David Grant Hawkins—(£5,375). Chairman of Target Computer Group where he has been a director since 1980. Prior to this he was, for three years, finance director of Sterling Credit Holdings, a company in the Sterling Credit Group.

  Iain Richard Evans—(£5,375). A founding partner of the LEK partnership and is currently the senior partner in their London office.

  Timothy Knowles—(£5,375). He is a chartered accountant and was, until recently, group managing director of the HTV Group.

  Small Bakeries
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will make it his policy that food regulations affecting Wales shall take into account the operational needs of small bakeries and family bakers in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  Consultations have recently been conducted with a number of interested organisations on draft amendments to the food hygiene regulations. The proposed amendments involve particularly extending temperature controls to certain foods for retail sale in order to safeguard public health. It is proposed there should be certain exemptions for bakery products, including pies, pasties and sausage rolls which are for sale within 24 hours of preparation. The comments which have been received in these consultations are currently receiving consideration.

  Schools
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales ( 1 ) if he will list for Wales tables showing(a) the total amount bid for schools' capital expenditure by local education authorities, (b) the total amount allocated by his Department, and (c) the percentage of (b) over (a), broken down by (i) county and voluntary-controlled schools, (ii) voluntary-aided schools, and (iii) all maintained schools for each financial year from 1974–75, and in constant and current prices, and showing the percentage of each year's allocation represented by (i) basic needs and (ii) re-organisations;

  Table 1

  Public Expenditure figures for Education Capital

  £ million

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Cash

  30

  34

  35

  34

  29

  40

  50

  49

  51

  Constant Prices 1988–89

  43

  46

  45

  42

  34

  45

  54

  49

  48

  Table 2

  Capital Allocations to Voluntary Schools

  £ million

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Cash

  1·00

  1·10

  1·20

  1·30

  1·60

  2·50

  2·10

  2·70

  Constant Prices

  1·35

  1·42

  1·47

  1·51

  1·81

  2·68

  2·10

  2·56

  Table 3

  Capital Bids for New Starts at Voluntary Schools

  £ million

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Cash

  0·87

  1·38

  2·96

  1

  6·05

  4·00

  5·00

  7·00

  Constant prices

  1·17

  1·78

  3·64

  2

  6·83

  4·29

  5·00

  6·64

  1 No bids required as levels of outstanding commitment pre-empted available resources.

  2 Constant prices revalued to 1988–89 prices using GDP.

  Health Service
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the total spending per head on the National Health Service for Wales for the most recent 10 years.

  Mr. Grist
  The information requested is set out in the following table:

  National Health Service Expenditure per Capita (£)

  Year

  Amount

  1979–80

  171

  1980–81

  220

  1981–82

  251

  290
  (2) if he will list in the Official Report tables showing the capital allocation for each local education authority in Wales made by his Department for capital expenditure for (a) county and voluntary-controlled schools, (b) voluntary-aided schools and (c) all maintained schools, the amount of the bid in respect of each such allocation, and the percentage which each allocation bears to its respective bid, in current prices and in constant prices for each year from 1984–85 to 1989–90.

  Mr Wyn Roberts
  The information is not available in the form requested as the system of capital allocations to local education authorities is formula rather than bid based. Capital allocations since 1984–85 are unhypothecated between services. The public expenditure provisions for education capital at an all-Wales level for those years is shown in table I.

  The system of allocation to voluntary-aided schools falls outside local authority block allocations. Table 2 shows allocations to voluntary-aided schools for new build, alterations and works of repair and maintenance. These figures are shown from 1982–83, which is the earliest year for which they are available, and can be given only on an all-Wales basis. Figures for earlier years and an analysis by local education authority could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Bids are required for major new build and alteration work only at voluntary aided schools. The total of those bids since 1982–83 are set out in table 3.

  Year

  Amount

  1982–83

  277

  1983–84

  294

  1984–85

  318

  1985–86

  339

  1986–87

  363

  1987–88

  401

  1988–89

  445

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his proposals for the implementation of the community charge transitional relief scheme.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I am completing my talks with local authorities.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Cambodia
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will withdraw United Kingdom recognition from any Cambodian delegation at the United Nations which derives support from the Khmer Rouge; and if he will make a further statement on United Kingdom policy towards Cambodian representation at the United Nations.

  Mr. Maude
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) on 25 October.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the various factions contesting for power in Cambodia.

  Mr. Maude
  We support the non-Communist factions of the Cambodian resistance. We do not support the Khmer Rouge and have made clear our abhorrence of Pol Pot. Neither do we have dealings with the Phnom Penh regime. Our aim is a comprehensive political settlement in which the Cambodian people can elect a Government of their choice.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information his Department has on the length of time taken to respond to letters from hon. Members.

  Mr. Maude
  As a general rule, letters from hon. Members should receive a substantive reply within a three-week period. In practice, the large majority of letters will receive a reply within two weeks. Exceptionally, replies to some letters about complicated immigration cases or matters receiving considerable public attention at the time of writing, may be delayed until a substantive reply can be sent. In most cases the delay should be no longer than four weeks.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to implement those provisions of(a) the Genocide Act 1969, (b) the Geneva Convention Act 1957, (c) the Nuremberg principles, (d) the Geneva protocal 1977 and (e) all other customary and conventional law which would make it an offence to use, or to plan to use, weapons of mass murder; and if he will make a statement.
  292
  Mr. Waldegrave
  While the use of certain weapons of mass destruction is controlled or prohibited by international treaty, there is no treaty dealing specifically with the use of nuclear weapons. However, any such use would be governed by the applicable laws of war, as is the case with other weapons. Since the use of nuclear weapons would, according to the circumstances, be lawful, so the deterrent threat of their legitimate use is similarly lawful. The enforcement of the Acts of Parliament referred to is a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will support the proposed referral of the question of the legality of the deployment of nuclear weapons to the International Court of Justice through the United Nations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We are not aware of any proposed referral of this question to the International Court of Justice.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if his Department was represented at(a) the International Congress of Scientists in London in April; (b) the conference in Brighton in September of the International Peace Bureau; and (c) the conference in The Hague in September of the International Associations of Lawyers against nuclear arms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the members of the Commonwealth that have not ratified the international convention on human rights.

  Mr. Maude
  Thirty Commonwealth countries have not yet acceded to or ratified the international covenant on civil and political rights or the international covenant on economic, social an cultural rights: Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Belize, Botswana, Brunei, Dominica, Ghana, Grenada, Kiribati, Lesotho, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Nauru, Nigeria, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Swaziland, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Western Samoa and Zimbabwe.

  The Solomon Islands and Uganda have ratified the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights but not the international covenant on civil and political rights.

  Conventional Forces Treaty
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he intends to publish the report on the verification of a conventional forces treaty in Europe, commissioned jointly from the Verification Technology Information Centre and the United Kingdom Council for Arms Control, and delivered to his Department on 29 September; how many copies of the report will be printed; and to which organisations and bodies he intends to circulate the report.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The report was commissioned by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on a classified basis,
  293
  for use by British officials in formulating policy, both nationally and in consultation with our allies, on the verification of a conventional arms control agreement. The authors are aware that should they wish to produce an unclassified version of the report, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office would be prepared to publish it.

  Environmental Protection Conference
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what involvement Ministers and officials of his Department have had in the conference on environmental protection in Sofia in October organised by the conference on security and co-operation in Europe; what papers were presented on behalf of the United Kingdom; and if any official United Kingdom representatives at the conference have had any meeting with the unofficial Ecoglasnost Bulgarian environmentalist organisations.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have sent a delegation to the CSCE meeting in Sofia on the protection of the environment which includes officials from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department of the Environment and the Health and Safety Executive. A member of the Green Alliance was also in the delegation. Our delegation has not itself submitted any proposals to the meeting, but has played an active part in the processing of ideas advanced during the meeting. It has co-sponsored a proposal drawing attention to the role of independent organisations and individuals in the field of the environment.

  Members of the delegation have had a number of contacts with representatives of Bulgarian non- governmental organisations interested in the environment, including Ecoglasnost. Her Majesty's ambassador in Sofia and the head of the United Kingdom delegation jointly hosted a reception at the embassy on 25 October which was attended by representatives of these organisations.

  Conventional Forces Reductions
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment has been made of the prospect for further talks on the reduction of conventional forces in Europe after the conclusion of the current round of negotiations on conventional forces being held in Vienna.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The third round of the negotiations on conventional armed forces in Europe (CFE) concluded on 19 October. Progress to date has been encouraging and there is a good prospect of a treaty being achieved by the end of next year.

PRIME MINISTER

  Fishing Vessels (Registration)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Prime Minister if, following the recent interim injunction of the European Court of Justice, Her Majesty's Government have any proposals to repeal section 14 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, relating to the registration of British fishing vessels; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  An Order in Council was made yesterday to give effect to the interim order of the president 294
  of the European Court of Justice on 10 October 1989. This Order in Council removes the British citizenship requirements (but not the residence and domicile requirements) of section 14 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1989, so far as they relate to fishing vessels which were fishing under the British flag up to 31 March 1988 and were owned by nationals of member states of the European Communities.

  Environmental Protection
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on recent initiatives by the Government to protect the environment.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government have taken a wide range of initiatives to protect the environment. Nationally this includes the creation of the National Rivers Authority to control water pollution and approval of a major programme of investment by the water industry over the next 10 years. We have recently submitted to the EC a programme for full compliance with the EC bathing waters directive in the 1990s costing £1·1 billion. We have now one of the largest programmes in Europe to control airborne pollution by sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides.

  Internationally this Government have taken a lead in securing commitments to cut down ozone damaging chemicals, and in proposing in the United Nations a conference on global climate change.

  We shall build on these achievements in the years to come. At the centre of our efforts will be environmental protection legislation, and a White Paper on the environment to guide policy in the last decade of the century.

  West Yorkshire
  Mr. Kirkhope
  To ask the Prime Minister when she next proposes to visit West Yorkshire.

  The Prime Minister
  I have at present no plans to do so.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Prime Minister when she next expects to pay an official visit to a textile mill in West Yorkshire.

  The Prime Minister
  I have at present no plans to do so.

  Education Reform
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on the progress of the Government's education reforms.

  The Prime Minister
  Substantial progress has been made in implementing the Government's education reforms which will improve the quality, relevance and efficiency of education at all levels.

  Lockerbie Air Crash
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Prime Minister on what date she was informed of the difficulties that existed between the Strathclyde police investigating the crash at Lockerbie and the West German federal police; and what action she took to facilitate a speedy resolution of the problems.

  The Prime Minister
  The Dumfries and Galloway constabulary, who are carrying out the investigation with
  295
  the assistance of Strathclyde and other forces report to my noble and learned Friend, the Lord Advocate, who has confirmed that a good working relationship has been maintained with the West German police and prosecution authorities.

  From very early in this investigation arrangements have been in place to enable the police to obtain the Government's assistance in international aspects of their inquiries. These arrangements have operated very satisfactorily and it has not been necessary for any matters to be referred to me.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will convene an inter-departmental committee to promote action to reduce the number of young people under 18 years of age who are homeless.

  The Prime Minister
  There is already good liaison between the Ministers and Departments with relevant responsibilities, who will continue to keep this area under review.

  Engagements
  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 November.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 November.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 November.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 November.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 November.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.

SCOTLAND

  Environmental Protection
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what funding has the Scottish Office devoted specifically to environmental protection matters in each year since 1979.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It is not possible to provide a breakdown of all Scottish Office expenditure on environmental protection except at disproportionate cost. However, the actual expenditure on(a) the running costs of Her Majesty's industrial pollution inspectorate and of the hazardous waste inspectorate within the Scottish Development Department, and (b) grant paid to local authorities and other bodies are as follows:

  Table 1

  Year

  HMIPI £

  HWI £

  1983–84

  —

  20,000

  1984–85

  —

  30,000

  1985–86

  —

  50,000

  296

  Year

  HMIPI £

  HWI £

  1986–87

  624,630

  119,000

  1987–88

  819,628

  124,000

  1988–89

  920,728

  194,000

  Note: Until 1987–88 the running costs of HMIPI were partly met by the Health and Safety Commission. The Scottish Office contribution in those years cannot be provided except at disproportionate cost.

  Table 2

  Year

  Clean Air Grants

  Special Environmental Grants

  UK 2000

  £

  £

  £

  1979–80

  65,148

  —

  —

  1980–81

  65,938

  —

  —

  1981–82

  83,978

  —

  —

  1982–83

  94,320

  —

  —

  1983–84

  54,442

  —

  —

  1984–85

  105,843

  —

  —

  1985–86

  164,535

  —

  —

  1986–87

  130,967

  —

  55,970

  1987–88

  178,222

  150,000

  249,959

  1988–89

  52,991

  200,000

  200,000

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to secure the founding of the European Environment Agency in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The funding of the proposed European Environment Agency is not a matter for the Scottish Office. However, its location is under consideration and siting it in Scotland is one of the options advanced on behalf of the United Kingdom.

  Planning Appeals
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average time taken to decide planning appeals submitted to him; how many such appeals are outstanding for the district of Angus; and how long each such appeal has been before him.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The average time during 1988 was 34 weeks. There are 14 planning permission appeals currently being processed for the district of Angus. Of these four were accepted as valid appeals in July; two in August; two in September and the remainder in October.

  Acid House Parties
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to co-ordinate action against acid house parties; and if he is considering the introduction of a police special intelligence unit similar to that set up in England.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend, in consultation with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, is keeping this matter under careful review. The policing of parties of this nature is an operational matter for chief constables. They are well aware of the problems which these events might cause and will take whatever action is necessary.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information his Department has on the length of time taken to respond to letters from hon. Members.
  297
  Mr. Rifkind
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 24 October 1989, at column 456.

  European Environment Agency
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the Scottish Council for Development and Industry seeking Government action to persuade the European Community to locate the proposed European Environment Agency in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The council's northeast area committee has sent to the Secretary of State a copy of its submission to the Secretary of State for the Environment proposing a location for the agency in the Grampian region.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has made a study of the relevance to the Scottish nuclear industry of the 1989 report "Plutonium Fuel: An Assessment" by an expert group of the Nuclear Energy Agency at the Organisation for Environment Co-operation and Development.

  Mr. Lang
  I am aware of the report. Plutonium fuels are currently in use in Scotland in the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority's prototype fast reactor at Dounreay. For technical reasons mixed uranium-plutonium oxide (MOX) fuel is unsuitable for use in Magnox reactors. I am advised that, for economic reasons, it is unlikely to be used in advanced gas-cooled reactors (AGRs) in Scotland.

  New Towns
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to publish the full details of the surveys on the transfer of housing assets and related matters undertaken in the new towns of Cumbernauld, Glenrothes, Livingstone and Irvine.

  Mr. Lang
  It is intended that the full results of the tenants' survey will be published on 30 November 1989 as a Scottish Office central research unit paper. I will place a copy in the Library of the House. Further copies will be available from The Librarian, Room 144, New St. Andrew's House, Edinburgh, priced £3.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the number of young people under 18 years of age who are currently homeless; and how these estimates have changed over the last three years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Development Department does not make such estimates, and the information is not available in that form.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what new initiatives he will take to reduce the present level of homelessness in young people under 18 years of age; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Government's continuing concern with the problem of homelessness in 298
  relation to young people has been demonstrated by the various initiatives taken to ensure that housing needs in Scotland are more closely matched by housing availability. In particular, the Government have pursued policies to introduce more choice in the housing market, including the revival of the private rented sector and the expansion of the housing association sector, both of which will benefit young people.

  The Government are committed to maintaining an effective legislative framework for dealing with homelessness. Section 25 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 makes it clear that homeless families with dependent children have a priority need for accommodation. It is for local authorities to deal with cases of homelessness and the Scottish Development Department has emphasised to them in its code of guidance on the exercise of their homelessness functions that homeless young people who are at risk of sexual or financial exploitation should also have a priority need.

  We have also been concerned to ensure that local authorities and other bodies which deal with homelessness are adequately resourced. We have provided grant aid lo voluntary bodies such as the Scottish Council for the Single Homeless which are particularly concerned with homeless young people. Local authorities have been encouraged to take additional measures to deal with homelessness, including the adoption of cash incentive schemes to encourage their tenants to move into the private sector, thus releasing houses for homeless families.

  The Government will continue to monitor the problems of homelessness and will bring forward new initiatives when appropriate.

  Noise
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what statutory powers are available to environmental health officers to take action to prevent noise made by commercial premises situated in residential areas disturbing members of the public who live in the vicinity; what plans he has to strengthen those powers; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Local authorities' duties and powers in relation to noise are defined in Part III of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and include provision to take legal action against the perpetrators of a noise nuisance. The Act also allows private individuals to take similar action on their own account.

  I am not aware of any serious criticism of the noise provisions of the Act.

  Glasgow Community Conference
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Scottish Office received a request from the organisers to provide a speaker at the Glasgow east end community conference on 28–29 October; whom the Scottish Office provided; what was the cost to public funds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  A request for a speaker was made to the Scottish Conservative party rather than to the Scottish Office. No Scottish Office representative took part in the conference.

  NHS Spending
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the total spending per head on the national Health Service for Scotland for the most recent 10 years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Total gross expenditure on the National Health Service in Scotland per head of population, since 1979–80, is set out in the table:

  Total gross NHS expenditure per head of population in Scotland

  £

  1979–80

  205

  1980–81

  259

  1981–82

  296

  1982–83

  321

  1983–84

  344

  1984–85

  369

  1985–86

  392

  1986–87

  419

  1987–88

  455

  1988–89

  504

  Skye Bridge
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans for further consultations with residents throughout Skye and Lochalsh over the provision of Skye bridge; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It is proposed that promotion of the Skye bridge will follow procedures similar to those for a publicly financed scheme in Scotland. There will therefore be the usual scope for discussion and comment on the scheme.

  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye of 18 October,Official Report, columns 163–64, he will now, in the light of Highland Regional Council's recent decision concerning a Skye bridge, announce approval for replacement ferries on the Kyle of Lochalsh-Kyleakin route; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Caledonian MacBrayne and the Scottish Development Department have already begun a detailed appraisal of the case for replacement ferries in the light of Highland regional council's decision. This will take into account up-to-date information on all relevant factors, including the significant increase in traffic this summer. An announcement will be made as soon as the appraisal has been completed.

  Vacant Dwellings
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will show vacancy rates as a proportion of the total stock of dwellings in each tenure in 1989, or in the latest year available.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 1 November 1989]: It is estimated that at 31 March 1989, 3 per cent. of the public sector stock was vacant. Comparable figures for the private sector are not collected centrally.

  Respiratory Disease
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information his Department has of the incidence of respiratory disease among the Scottish agricultural work force; and what steps he is taking to promote improvement in this situation.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I have been asked to reply.

  Only one case of occupational respiratory disease occurring in agricultural workers in Scotland was reported to the Health and Safety Executive under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations, 1985, in the two years 1986–87 and 1987–88, the two years for which information is available. However, data collected under the regulations is regarded as an incomplete measure of the true incidence of occupational disease.

  The Executive's employment medical advisory service is about to begin a publicity campaign lasting 12 months, on occupational lung disease with the objective of increasing the awareness of employers, employees and the medical community to this group of diseases. Also, the Executive is currently supporting a project on the surveillance of occupational lung disease from reports of consultant chest physicians and occupational physicians.

ENERGY

  Nuclear Plants (Robots)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what research is sponsored by his Department on the use of robots for remote intrusive maintenance of nuclear plants; what consultations he or officers of his Department have had with the United States Department of Energy over its research programme in this field; and whether he has any information on developments in Japan and France in this specific use of robots.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My Department contributes towards the costs of certain UKAEA programmes which cover a number of robotics and remote handling applications, particularly in the areas of radioactive waste management and decommissioning. My Department is also participating in a European Community research and training programme (TELEMAN), which is concerned with the contribution that robots and remote handling equipment can make to nuclear safety in routine inspection and maintenance, in accident management, and in decommissioning. This programme keeps us in touch with the programmes of our Community partners, including France. (Further details of this programme are available in the Official Journal of the European Communities dated 3 August 1989 and 22 September 1988, copies of which are available in the Library of the House).

  Consultations with the United States Department of Energy (USDOE) are carried out under a formal co-operation agreement with the UKAEA. There have also been discussions on the application of robotics to decommissioning with USDOE, both as part of a bilateral agreement and as part of the OECD/Nuclear Energy Agency exchange agreement on decommissioning.

  Information on developments in Japan is received through published documents and through the atomic energy counsellor in the British Embassy in Tokyo.

  Plutonium Fuel
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has made a study of the relevance to the United Kingdom's nuclear industry of the 1989 report, "Plutonium Fuel: an assessment", by an expert group of the Nuclear Energy Agency of the Organisation for Co-operation and Development.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  For technical reasons, mixed uranium/plutonium oxide (MOX) fuel is not suitable for use in Magnox reactors. As stated in the report, its possible use in advanced gas-cooled reactors (AGR) and pressurised water reactors (PWR) has been examined by the Central Electricity Generating Board in conjunction with British Nuclear Fuels Limited. The results suggest that there is more to be gained from MOX use in PWRs than in AGRs. However, it is not envisaged that the recycle of plutonium could be undertaken in the United Kingdom on any significant scale before the turn of the century.

  Electricity Boards
  Mr. Michael Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Doncaster, North of 30 October, if he will list the individuals appointed to the electricity boards and their respective backgrounds.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The individuals appointed to the electricity boards since 1 October 1987, in chronological order, are as follows:

  J. F. Harris

  J. C. Smith, CBE

  R. W. Gurney

  The Rt. Hon. Baroness Gardner of Parkes, JP

  A. Crowder

  J. A. Harmsworth

  Mrs. V. Pollard

  J. M. Griffiths, OBE, JP

  M. J. Calvert, JP

  A. G. Stoughton-Harris

  Mrs. J. M. Wilson

  R. T. Gales

  I. D. Coutts, CBE

  Professor R. J. Eden, OBE

  G. A. Squair

  R. V. Giordano

  W. Waring

  D. H. Jones

  P. D. Nicholson

  Dr. R. H. Cummings, OBE

  A. G. Schroeder

  J. W. Evans

  D. A. Ross

  D. J. Prosser

  J. N. Hardman

  G. M. W. Owen

  J. A. Rigg, CBE

  K. G. Harvey

  G. H. Wilson

  R. A. Cox, CBE

  D. A. Davis

  D. R. Morris

  Mrs. D. J. Parker

  A. P. Hichens

  A. N. Thatcher

  C. M. Fisher

  D. S. Barber

  R. N. Gunn

  Sir Ian McLeod JP

  P. W. L. Morgan

  C. A. Prendergast CBE

  A. N. R. Rudd

  302

  Mrs. D. C. Eccles

  J. N. Duncan

  M. S. Schreiber

  Sir Graham Wilkins

  J. O. Gough MBE

  F. C. Graves OBE

  L. W. G. Priestley

  Sir Keith Stuart

  D. B. Clark CBE

  J. Porteous

  In addition four appointments have been offered but not yet announced, and Mr. Harvey has been appointed twice to different boards.

  It is not possible without disproportionate cost to provide details of each appointee's background.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his latest estimate of the price of nuclear-generated electricity after privatisation.

  Mr. John Wakeham
  Negotiations on contracts for the supply of nuclear-generated electricity are currently taking place between National Power and the area electricity boards. I cannot pre-empt their outcome.

  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has made an assessment of the impact of privatisation on prices of electricity to industry.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Prices for large industrial users of electricity will depend on the outcome of individual negotiations between customers and suppliers or generators, subject to relevant statutory and licence requirements. The resulting prices are likely to depend on a number of factors, including the degree of load management that the customer is prepared to accept.

  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has made an estimate of job losses in the coal industry as a result of electricity privatisation.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The coal industry will need to ensure that its future output and prices meet the needs of its main customers including the privatised electricity generators. Employment in the industry will depend both on demand for coal and on future productivity gains.

  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has made an estimate of the sale proceeds of National Power, Power Gen, the area boards and the national grid.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The level of proceeds from the electricity industry sales will depend on a number of factors including the overall capital structure of the individual companies, and the state of the market at the time of flotation. It is therefore too early to speculate on the outcome.

  Electricity Industry (Coal)
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the tonnage of British coal agreed between National Power, Power Gen and British Coal for the next triennial year.

  Mr. Wakeham
  This is a matter for commercial negotiation between each of the generators and British Coal.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the occasions on which he has visited the Duchy of Lancaster since he took office.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  In the course of my duties with the Duchy of Lancaster I have attended upon Her Majesty on her visit to the Whitewell estate in Lancashire on 7 August.

  I have also attended upon my magisterial duties in Birkenhead on 27 September, and have of course visited the Duchy Office in London.

EMPLOYMENT

  Employment Training
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the number of accidents on employment training, fatal, major and minor, for each month since the start of the scheme to the latest available date; and in that same period how many employer-based work placements and how many project-based work placements have either been rejected or closed on health and safety grounds.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Employment training accident figures are collected quarterly the same as for YTS. Table A gives the accident figures.

  Table A

  Accidents1

  Fatal

  Major2

  Minor

  5 September to 31 December 1988

  Nil

  24

  91

  1 January to 31 March 1989

  Nil

  31

  161

  1 April to 30 June 1989

  Nil

  53

  276

  1 July to 30 September

  Nil

  52

  286

  Separate figures for closures and rejections for employer-based and project-based work placements are not kept. However table B gives the figures of closures and rejections on health and safety grounds from 5 September 1988 to the present date. These figures are provisional.

  Table B

  Closed

  Rejected

  15

  Nil

  1 Training Agency figures have been compiled on a similar basis to those prepared by the Health and Safety Executive on employed persons. However, the Training Agency's figures will include a number of accidents to trainees in educational establishments and road traffic accidents which may not have been reportable to the Health and Safety Executive had the individuals been employed.

  2 Major injuries are classified according to the severity criteria laid down in the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has on the number and proportion of employment training leavers who have obtained a recognised qualification on their course and on the nature of the qualifications gained.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) on 7 July,Official Report, column 318.

  Construction Industry Training Board
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his policy on the future of the construction industry training board and its levy.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) on 31 October 1989. My right hon. Friend hopes to be in a position to make an announcement shortly.

  Wages Council Inspectors
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the number of wages council inspectors per 1,000 workers for each year from 1974 to 1989.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Statistical returns of the numbers of workers employed in establishments within scope of wages councils are not collected but periodic estimates are made. The information in the following table uses those estimates.

  Average number of wages inspectors

  Year

  per 1,000 workers

  1974

  0·04

  1975

  0·04

  1976

  0·04

  1977

  0·05

  1978

  0·05

  1979

  0·06

  1980

  0·06

  1981

  0·04

  1982

  0·04

  1983

  0·04

  1984

  0·04

  1985

  0·04

  1986

  0·03

  1987

  0·03

  1988

  0·03

  Figures for 1989 are not yet available.

  The reduction in the inspector/worker ratio for the last three years reflects the simpler and quicker task of checking compliance with wages orders following the reform of the wages council system in 1986.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was(a) the number and (b) number per 1,000 claimants of Department of Employment staff employed to investigate benefit fraud by unemployed people claiming benefits in each year from 1978 to the latest available date.

  Mr. Eggar
  This Department's fraud investigation work was reorganised in 1984 and comparable figures for earlier years are not available.

  The number of fraud investigators and the number of fraud investigators per 1,000 claimants are as follows:

  Number of fraud investigators

  Number of fraud investigators per 1,000 claimants

  1984–85

  450

  0·15

  1985–86

  650

  0–20

  1986–87

  720

  0·23

  305

  Number of fraud investigators

  Number of fraud investigators per 1,000 claimants

  1987–88

  785

  0·29

  1988–89

  820

  0·39

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the amount of money recovered from successful prosecutions of unemployed claimants, in current and constant prices in each year from 1978 to the latest available date.

  Mr. Eggar
  Actions to recover compensation awards and overpayments are undertaken by the courts and/or local benefit offices. In consequence, the information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what was the number and proportion of unemployed claimants successfully prosecuted for benefit fraud who were prosecuted for claiming benefit whilst working in each year from 1978 to the latest available date;

  (2) what was the number and proportion of unemployed claimants successfully prosecuted for benefit fraud in each year from 1978 to the latest available date.

  Mr. Eggar
  This Department's fraud investigation work was reorganised in 1984 and comparable figures for earlier years are not available.

  The number of legal proceedings instituted by this Department are as follows:

  Girocheque fraud

  Benefit fraud

  Total

  1984–85

  253

  1,997

  2,250

  1985–86

  639

  2,161

  2,800

  1986–87

  1,139

  2,511

  3,650

  1987–88

  924

  3,036

  3,960

  1988–89

  571

  3,474

  4,045

  This Department does not collect information centrally on the outcome of prosecutions and the information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Young Workers
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the employers who have indicated that they are employing young people whom they would not otherwise have employed because of the removal of young people from wages council protection in 1986.

  Mr. Nicholls
  It is not this Department's practice to disclose the authorship of correspondence that it receives.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what, in percentage terms, was young workers' pay relative to their adult counterparts in each year from 1979 to 1989.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information from the new earnings survey is provided in the table:

  Earnings of those aged under 18 as a percentage of the earnings of those aged 18 and over

  Percentage

  1979

  43·7

  1980

  43·0

  1981

  42·9

  306

  Percentage

  1982

  42·4

  1983

  40·1

  1984

  38·8

  1985

  39·8

  1986

  39·6

  1987

  40·0

  1988

  40·8

  1989

  40·0

  Note: Average gross weekly earnings of all full-time employees working a full week, April of each year.

  New Claimants (Cumnock)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many new claimants signed on each week of 1989 at the Cumnock unemployment benefit office; what delays there are in interviewing them; what requests have been received for additional staff; and what has been his response.

  Mr. Eggar
  The number of new claimants who signed on each week of 1989 is shown in the table. Claimants are generally interviewed within three days of making a n appointment.

  The area manager responsible for Cumnock met with the trade union side on 2 October to discuss issues including staffing numbers throughout the area including Cumnock. It was subsequently agreed that an additional executive officer would be posted into the Cumnock office from 13 November 1989.

  Claims taken at Cumnock UBO from January 1989 to present

  Week ending:

  Number of claims taken

  6 January

  28

  13 January

  185

  20 January

  78

  27 January

  67

  3 February

  68

  10 February

  68

  17 February

  38

  24 February

  49

  3 March

  85

  10 March

  54

  17 March

  56

  24 March

  48

  31 March

  46

  7 April

  48

  14 April

  79

  21 April

  56

  29 April

  48

  5 May

  39

  12 May

  47

  19 May

  78

  26 May

  52

  2 June

  100

  9 June

  78

  16 June

  103

  23 June

  129

  30 June

  86

  7 July

  129

  14 July

  49

  21 July

  46

  28 July

  71

  4 August

  51

  11 August

  53

  307

  Week ending:

  Number of claims taken

  18 August

  83

  25 August

  46

  1 September

  73

  8 September

  74

  15 September

  71

  22 September

  50

  29 September

  42

  6 October

  91

  13 October

  67

  20 October

  69

  Note: These figures represent the numbers of new claims for which a national insurance number if readily available input to the Computer. Details of the number of non-computer claims are not available.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current establishment, at each grade, of the unemployment benefit office at Cumnock; how many deal directly with interviewing of new claimants; what representations he has received concerning the lack of staff to deal with claimants; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The number of staff in each grade is as follows:

  Number

  Higher executive officer

  1

  Executive officer

  13

  Administrative officer

  14

  Administrative assistant

  5

  Casual administrative assistant

  1

  1 Of which one is an administrative officer on temporary promotion.

  One executive officer deals directly with new claimants, with a second executive officer having an element of interviewing within his post. Area management met with the trade union side on 2 October to discuss area issues including staffing requirements. It has subsequently been agreed that the third executive officer post would be filled on a permanent basis.

  Women aged 60–64 years inclusive (thousands, spring 1988)

  United Kingdom

  Scotland

  All (000s)

  of which: married (000s)

  All (000s)

  of which: married (000s)

  All women aged 60–64

  1,515

  1,031

  141

  88

  of which:

  in employment

  282

  196

  24

  15

  full time1

  86

  53

  10

  —2

  part time 1

  196

  143

  14

  —2

  Source: Department of Employment, preliminary 1988 labour force survey estimates.

  1Based on the respondent's own assessment, not on the number of hours actually worked.

  1Estimate not shown: less than 10,000 in cell.

HEALTH

  Funding
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether additional funding will be given to Oxford regional health authority to ensure a growth range of

  Health and Safety (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, in relation to each of the occupational categories identified in the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys occupational mortality decennial supplement, what proportion of each occupational category, by sex, are drawn from ethnic minority groups.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information on ethnicity is not available for the occupation categories identified in Office of Population Censuses and Survey's occupational mortality decennial supplement, since questions on ethnic origin were not asked in the 1981 census and are not asked at time of death registration.

  The nearest available information on ethnicity by occupation is derived from the labour force survey, a sample survey conducted by Office of Population Censuses and Surveys on behalf of the Department of Employment. From this survey, the Department of Employment publish aggregated years data on ethnicity by broad occupation group. The most recent published data covers the years 1985 to 1987, and can be found in the Department of Employment Gazette, December 1988, page 638. A copy of this and the latest edition of the labour force survey (1987), can be found in the Library.

  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many women aged 60–65 years there are(a) in the United Kingdom, (b) in Scotland, (c) in full/part-time employment, United Kingdom and Scotland and (d) married, and receiving their full state pension entitlement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I have been asked to reply. The information requested in parts(a), (b) and (c) of the question is supplied in the table. Information is not available as to the number of married women who receive their full state retirement pension.

  Since 1 October 1989 women aged 60–65 years are now able to choose to continue working and claim their own, category A, state retirement pension.

  between 1·25 and 1·75 per cent. is maintained, in view of the higher level of inflation than forecast at the time of this commitment.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The range of 1·25 per cent. to 1·75 per cent. to be assumed for real terms growth nationally in 1990–91, published in the Resource Assumptions and Planning Guidelines (HC(89)24), was provided to assist authorities in their short-term planning. The figures form
  309
  a largely technical part of the planning process and are to be used as a basis for cautious and prudent planning. Actual allocations for 1990–91 have yet to be decided and are dependent on the outcome of this year's public expenditure survey.

  Burnley General Hospital
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will call for a report from the Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale health authority regarding the emergency closure at Jackson ward in the Edith Watson maternity ward unit at Burnley general hospital.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There is no requirement upon district health authorities to report to the Secretary of State for Health when implementing temporary closures or changes in the use of hospital wards. We have been advised that the temporary closure of one of the three maternity wards at Burnley general hospital reflects a reduction in the number of maternity cases since last year and was not undertaken until detailed discussions had taken place with the consultant obstetricians and directors of midwifery services. The situation is being kept under review and the ward will be reopened if there are sufficient patients to justify that decision.

  Insulin
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on the number of doctors who have transferred their patients from animal to human insulin.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We do not collect this information centrally.

  Spending
  Mr. Haselhurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the latest comparative figures on health spending per capita and as a proportion of gross domestic product for the United Kingdom and its European Community partners; and what is the effect on these figures of the distinction between public and private funding.

  Mr. Freeman
  The tables show public, private and total expenditure on health per capita and as a percentage of GDP for the United Kingdom and its European Community partners in 1986, the latest year for which comparative figures are available for most of the countries.

  The source of these figures is the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

  Per capita expenditure on health in EEC countries in 1985, £ sterling

  Public expenditure per head £

  Private expenditure per head £

  Total expenditure per head £

  Belgium

  357

  107

  464

  Denmark

  457

  80

  536

  France

  493

  128

  622

  Germany

  507

  143

  650

  Greece1

  99

  5

  104

  Ireland

  278

  42

  320

  Italy

  309

  79

  389

  Netherlands

  441

  117

  558

  Portugal1

  57

  23

  80

  310

  Public expenditure per head £

  Private expenditure per head £

  Total expenditure per head £

  Spain1

  131

  52

  183

  United Kingdom

  324

  53

  377

  Source: OECD.

  Note:

  Luxembourg excluded due to reported inconsistencies in its national health accounts.

  1 Data for 1984.

  Public, private and total expenditure on health as a percentage of GDP, 1986

  1986 Public

  1986 Private

  1986 Total

  Belgium

  5·5

  1·6

  7·1

  Denmark

  5·2

  0·9

  6·1

  France

  6·7

  1·8

  8·5

  Germany

  6·3

  1·8

  8·1

  Greece

  3·7

  0·2

  3·9

  Ireland

  7·0

  0·9

  7·9

  Italy

  5·2

  1·5

  6·7

  Netherlands

  6·6

  1·7

  8·3

  Portugal

  4·0

  1·6

  5·6

  Spain

  4·3

  1·7

  6·0

  United Kingdom

  5·3

  0·9

  6·2

  Source: OECD.

  Note:

  Luxembourg excluded due to reported inconsistencies in its national health accounts.

  Pay Review
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about pay review procedures for Health Service workers.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Pay review bodies were established for doctors and dentists in 1969, and for nurses, midwives and the professions allied to medicine in 1983.

  Health Service Review
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what latest representations he has received about the Health Service review; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have received more than 12,000 representations regarding the Government White Paper "Working for Patients".

  Female General Practitioners
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many female general practitioners are currently in practice; and what was the figure 10 years ago.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In 1988 there were 5,686 female general practitioners in England. This figure comprises unrestricted principals and assistants. In 1978 the equivalent figure was 3,273.

  Alternative Medicine
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to bring suitable forms of alternative medicine within the scope of the National Health Service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department of Health is primarily responsible for medical treatment provided under the
  311
  NHS, and there is already provision for the use of complementary therapies within it. NHS practitioners can offer to use any form of treatment, including any of the complementary therapies, if they consider it to be in the interest of their patients and they feel competent to provide it.

  The wider use of complementary therapies in the NHS depends on those doctors already practising these methods convincing more of their fellow practitioners of the benefits and effectiveness of these forms of treatment.

  NHS Reform
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what safeguards for the future of medical education and research will be introduced to coincide with the implementation of the National Health Service White Paper; and what will be the effect of the changes to the National Health Service on(a) multi-centre clinical trials and epidemiological studies and (b) rapid dissemination of research results in the service.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  My right hon. and learned Friend explained in a speech on 10 July to leading members of the medical academic community how we will safeguard medical education and research. We have placed copies in the Library. We do not believe that multi-centre clinical trials, epidemiological studies, or the dissemination of research results will in general be harmed by our plans for a more efficient Health Service.

  Welsh-speaking Patients
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps will be taken in the National Health Service White Paper to safeguard the linguistic rights of Welsh-speaking patients.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have no plans to take any additional steps to safeguard the linguistic rights of Welsh-speaking patients in England. Nor are we introducing any changes that would adversely effect any existing safeguards. The question of appropriate measures for such patients in Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Pharmaceuticals
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are his estimates of the yield of the discount clawback levy imposed from 1 May 1988 on community pharmacists in respect of the assumed trade in parallel imports of pharmaceuticals.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The most recent month for which information is available is July 1989. We estimate that in the period between May 1988 and July 1989 some £7 million has been recovered from pharmacies in England in respect of discounts obtained on parallel imports.

  Counterfeit Medicines
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many incidents of counterfeit medicines reaching the United Kingdom distribution system have been reported to his Department in the last 12 months; what countries were the alleged sources of fake products; and what estimates he has of the number of National Health Service patients who have been dispensed counterfeit medicines in the current year.
  312
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  During the past 12 months the Department has had one report of a counterfeit medicine entering the United Kingdom distribution chain. The product was a copy of Greek Zantac 150 mg. The source is under investigation.

  The counterfeit was marked with a genuine batch number. The evidence suggests that only one importer may have been supplied with counterfeits. He distributed 240 packs from the batch in question, each containing 20 tablets. This would be sufficient for one month's supply for 80 patients. But it is not known what proportion of the 240 packs may have been counterfeit so no accurate figure can be given of the number of patients to whom counterfeits may have been dispensd. On analysis the counterfeit product appeared to present no hazard to patients. As a fast-moving product, it proved impossible to recall any of the batch from retail pharmacies.

  A separate incident also involving counterfeiting of Greek Zantac was reported to the Department in which the importer recognised the product as outside specifications and returned it to his supplier before any of the product was distributed within the United Kingdom. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that my hon. and learned Friend gave on 10 March at columns 718–19.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he proposes to ensure that National Health Service patients are protected from receiving counterfeit medicines; and whether he has any proposals to tighten the regulations covering the licensing of parallel imports of pharmaceuticals.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Existing controls involve;

  (1) a sampling and testing programme operated by the Medicines Inspectorate with analysis undertaken by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society's medicines testing laboratory at Edinburgh.

  (2) An annual programme of inspection carried out by inspectors of the Medicines Control Agency and the Royal Pharmaceutical Society. All manufacturers, importers, wholesalers and community pharmacists are inspected regularly.

  (3) particular checks carried out by licensed importers to verify the identity of each batch of imported material.

  We are considering whether any changes may be necessary to the United Kingdom parallel import licensing scheme. We have received proposals and need to consult with all interested parties, taking account of our European Community obligations.

  Medicines (Imports)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any plans to reconsider the discount clawback arrangements in respect of purchases of parallel imported medicines by community pharmacists.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimates he has of the number of community pharmacists who now trade in parallel imports of pharmaceuticals; and what was the figure up to 1 May 1988.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We do not routinely collect information on the number of pharmacies which dispense parallel imported medicines. An inquiry conducted in 1986 showed that about 1,600 pharmacies were using parallel imports at that time. A further inquiry is taking place this year.
  313
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the value of imports of pharmaceuticals from Greece in 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989 to the latest available figures.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I understand that the information requested, which is contained in division 54 of table 2 of the overseas trade statistics of the United Kingdom, which is available in the Library, is as follows:

  £'000

  1986

  4,075

  1987

  6,728

  1988

  11,845

  11989

  9,652

  January to August

  NHS Computer Programme
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the latest assessment of the cost of the National Health Service computerisation programme; and if he will give an estimate of the extra staff needed to run the system.

  Mr. Freeman
  In general, the responsibility for deciding how much to spend and how many staff to employ on hospitall computer systems rests with NHS managers. However, hospitals receiving computer based information systems as part of the hospital information and support systems and resource management programmes in 1989–90 will have a substantial part of the cost of those systems met centrally.

  Food Temperature Control
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make it his policy that food temperature control regulations should be so set as to keep the controls on fresh-baked produce, such as sausage rolls, to the minimum consistent with public health requirements;

  (2) whether he will make it his policy that food temperature regulations shall take into account the needs of small and family bakeries which produce traditional products such as pork pies.

  Mr. Freeman
  Draft amendments to the Food Hygiene Regulations, on which consultations have recently been conducted, propose extending temperature controls to certain foods for retail sale, consistent with the need to protect public health. Certain exemptions are proposed for bakery products, including pies, pasties and sausage rolls for sale within 24 hours of preparation. Comments received in the consultations on the amendments are currently being considered.

  Mentally Handicapped People
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to make special provision for local authorities to enable them to offer a day place to every mentally handicapped person in their area who requires one.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government's proposals for the future organisation and funding of community care announced by my right hon. and learned Friend on 12 July at columns 975–98, will create a unified source of funding for social care services. This will enable local authorities to 314
  plan and deliver these services so as to meet individual needs more effectively, but the extent of provision of any particular form of service will continue to depend on the resources available locally.

  Acute Care at Home
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has received a copy of the proceedings of the Kings fund conference on acute care at home held in June; and whether he will take steps to set up a national community care development agency to promote the idea of hospital at home.

  Mr. Freeman
  An advance copy of the report "Hospital at Home—the Coming Revolution" is being studied by officials. We have no plans to set up a national development agency for community care.

  NHS Expenditure
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the total spending per head on the National Health Service for England for the most recent 10 years.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is as follows:

  NHS spending per head (England) £s

  1979–80

  166

  1980–81

  216

  1981–82

  242

  1982–83

  264

  1983–84

  280

  1984–85

  300

  1985–86

  316

  1986–87

  340

  1987–88

  371

  1988–89

  411

  1989–90

  444

  Medical Negligence
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in introducing a health authority indemnity scheme for medical negligence.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We announced on 25 July that, subject to a satisfactory resolution of the outstanding issues, the Government intended to introduce arrangements with effect from 1 January 1990 whereby health authorities would take financial responsibility for the negligent acts of their medical and dental staff in the course of their National Health Service employment. I am pleased to say that those issues have now been resolved and that the new arrangements will apply to claims for damages (in respect of negligent acts) which were initiated in earlier years as well as to new claims arising from 1 January 1990. This agreement is subject to the satisfactory conclusion of detailed discussions about the allocation of existing assets of the medical defence organisations to meeting liabilities which will be taken over by health authorities. The arrangements will apply to the hospital and community health services only. Detailed guidance on the operation of the new scheme, including the handling of both new and existing claims, will be issued to health authorities in due course.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list in the Official Report the criteria for defining a bovine spongiform encephalopathy-free herd.

  Mr. Curry
  There is no official definition of a bovine spongiform encephalopathy-free herd.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list in the Official Report the representatives of the National Farmers Union and the Scottish National Farmers Union with whom he met prior to the implementation on 30 July of new European Community animal health rules on bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

  Mr. Curry
  My officials met representatives from the National Farmers Union and a number of other organisations on 27 July to discuss implementation of Commission decision 89/469. The Scottish National Farmers Union, although invited, was not represented. The composition of the delegations attending such meetings is a matter for the organisations concerned.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total money being spent by Government-funded institutions on research into the effects of bovine spongiform encephalopathy on(a) the hereditary chain and (b) the food chain.

  Mr. Curry
  It is estimated that Government-funded institutions will spend over £2 million on research into bovine spongiform encephalopathy in 1989–90, including some in relation to the hereditary and food chains.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many live cattle have been declared as unfit for export following upon the implementation on 30 July of new European Community animal health rules on bovine spongiform encephalopathy;

  (2) how many live cattle, already cleared for export, were returned from exit ports to the farms of origin, as a result of the implementation on 30 July of new European Community animal health rules on bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

  Mr. Curry
  I have received no reports of cattle, presented for export following implementation of Commission decision 89/469 on 30 July, being declared unfit for export to other member states because they failed to meet the certification requirements of that decision in relation to bovine spongiform encephalopathy. However, several export consignments had to be rejected before 30 July because the Republic of Ireland unilaterally imposed import restrictions on 25 July. I have no information about the number of live cattle involved.

  Cereal Substitutes
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list in the Official Report the total tonnage of cereal substitutes imported into the United Kingdom for each of the last five years, indicating the country of origin where possible.
  316
  Mr. Curry
  The total tonnages of cereal substitutes imported in to the United Kingdom in each of the last five years (1984–88) were set out in columns 284–85 of the Official Report for 10 April 1989 in response to an earlier question.

  The 1988 total tonnage has now been revised to 1,108,000 tonnes. Nearly half of the total consists of maize gluten feed, almost all of which comes from the United States of America.

  Horses (Transporting)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy on the retention or amendment of the minimum values regulations governing the conditions under which live horses are transported from the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The system of minimum values designed to prevent the export of horses for slaughter is a purely national agreement. As part of the single market programme the Commission has made a proposal for a Community regulation on the protection of animals during transport and as drafted this makes no provision for our controls on horse exports to continue. Our objective will be to ensure that there will be adequate welfare standards during all journeys and that these are implemented and enforced rigorously throughout the Community to protect horses and ponies.

  Animal Feed
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the ban on the use of animal protein in animal feed is currently in force; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  A ban on feeding ruminant-derived protein to ruminant animals is currently in force.

  Research
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the activities that are carried out in his Department's(a) veterinary investigation centres and (b) farm and countryside service laboratories.

  Mr. Gummer
  The veterinary investigation centres provide laboratory and veterinary support to the field service of the state veterinary service in respect of my statutory animal and public health obligations and in the investigation of new and emerging diseases. They also provide diagnostic, advisory and consultancy services to the livestock industry through practising veterinary surgeons, liaise with medical and local authorities on the control of zoonotic disease and support approved research and development.

  The farm and countryside service laboratories provide professional analytical chemistry, (covering crop husbandry, soil and animal nutrition), entomology, plant pathology, microbiology, and wildlife and storage biology services in respect of my statutory obligations, in support of research and development, and in the provision of advice on a direct commercial basis to the agricultural and related industries.

  Food Advisory Committee
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the organisations with whom he consults prior to a Food Advisory Committee meeting about the subjects to be discussed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The agendas of the Food Advisory Committee meetings are published in advance of each meeting as a press release. This is distributed on a standard circulation list to nearly 900 individuals and organisations known to have an interest in food matters, including trade, academic, consumer and enforcement bodies. Any requests for addition to the list will be sympathetically considered.

  Food Safety Directorate
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement on the setting up of a food safety directorate within his Department.

  Mr. Gummer
  The food safety directorate that I am establishing in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, will bring together under the Minister responsible for food, my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. David Maclean) all the main aspects of food safety work for which the Minister is responsible. At the same time, I am setting up a consumer panel chaired by my hon. Friend to keep under review from a consumer's viewpoint, the implementation of policies on food safety and consumer protection. The food safety directorate, together with new arrangements for bringing to bear more directly and systematically the views of consumer organisations, will strengthen my Department's organisation for dealing with food safety issues.

  The food safety directorate will consist of four main groups, each headed by a grade 3 under-secretary. The food safety group will have overall responsibility for policy on food safety and quality, including composition, labelling, additives, contaminants and new production processes. The food science group, headed by the chief scientist (Food) and staffed at senior levels by scientists, will provide the scientific back-up on food safety issues. This group includes the new food science laboratory at Norwich which will carry out necessary analytical and research work in support of food policy additional to that commissioned from other laboratories. The third group will deal with pesticide safety approvals, veterinary medicines and biotechnology issues. Finally, the fourth group will handle meat hygiene, animal health and the related public health issues, and animal welfare. The initial complement of the food directorate is 695. The resources devoted to this work have been increased and will be kept under review.

  The consumer panel will provide a forum in which the Minister will be able to hear directly from representatives of consumers their views on food safety and consumer protection issues. The consumer panel will include representatives nominated by each of the main consumer bodies. The panel will provide a more formal and systematic means of maintaining contact between my Department and the consumer organisations. I shall make an announcement shortly on the membership and terms of reference of the consumer panel.
  318
  These new arrangements do not diminish in any way the continuing need for advice from the existing expert and independent committees, namely the food advisory committee, the advisory committee on pesticides and the veterinary products committee, as well as the Department of Health committees on medical aspects of food, toxicity, carcinogenicity and mutagenicity and the joint MAFF/ DoH Committee on novel foods and processes. The food safety directorate will work closely with the state veterinary service and will be advised on public health questions by the Government's Chief Medical Officer.

  These changes will focus my Ministry's resources more effectively on to maintaining the safety and quality of the nation's food supplies. The food safety directorate will be responsible for keeping the public informed on food safety matters.

  Export of Animals
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will undertake to ban all export of animals for scientific purposes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government have no plans to introduce such a ban.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensions
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received concerning discrimination on grounds of sex and the state pension age; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We received a total of 274 representations between 19 October 1988 and 17 October 1989.

  Young People
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment has been made of the minimum income after paying rent and rates required by single people below(a) 25 years, and (b) 18 years to meet other costs of living.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  No such assessment has been made. The level of support approved by Parliament for those receiving income-related benefits varies according to personal circumstances, including factors such as disability.

  Service Pensions
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the cumulative total number of those service men who have been in receipt of a war pension or allowance from his Department because their deaths were attributable to their service in the armed forces who died(a) in service, (b) after retirement from the armed forces and (c) after being invalided out of or medically discharged from the armed forces for each year from 1959 to the latest available date; and, for each of the above categories for the latest year for which records exist, what was the number of war widows' pensions in payment from his Department.
  319
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  This information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. A total of 57,571 war widows pensions were in payment at the end of 1988.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what new initiatives he will take to provide additional benefit to young people who are under 18 years of age and who are homeless.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Homeless people, including 16 and 17-year-olds, continue to be entitled to claim a range of benefits in the usual way.

  The need for most 16 and 17-year-olds to rely on benefit was removed in September 1988 when a youth training scheme place, with a training allowance, was guaranteed for all those not in a job or full time education. Certain groups of young people may receive income support. These include lone parents, the disabled and the long-term sick who may claim at any time. Young people forced to live independently can claim income support during the child benefit extension period while they look for work or a youth training scheme place. They can also receive housing benefit. Moreover, a package of changes was introduced in July which recognised the special difficulties being experienced by some 16 and 17-year-olds with no option but to live away from home. An important element of this was to pay them higher rates of both income support and housing benefit.

  We have an important safety net which enables those 16 and 17-year-olds who would otherwise not be entitled to be paid income support to prevent severe hardship.

  Those who are homeless may claim a social fund crisis loan to enable them to secure accommodation.

  We continue to monitor the 1988 Social Security reforms including those affecting young people.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications there have been for family credit in each month since April 1988; and how many awards have been made.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information is as follows:

  1988

  Claims

  Awards

  April

  96,505

  40,213

  May

  41,721

  June

  52,293

  36,145

  July

  46,100

  37,912

  August

  46,376

  40,249

  September

  47,759

  24,158

  October

  56,373

  44,944

  November

  57,850

  46,234

  December

  44,834

  35,797

  1989

  January

  63,638

  42,712

  February

  60,318

  45,180

  March

  68,637

  47,184

  April

  96,752

  43,300

  May

  123,038

  39,187

  June

  107,276

  73,778

  July

  66,075

  50,004

  August

  62,397

  48,158

  September

  80,792

  54,498

  October

  80,670

  50,510

  Notes:

  1. The figures are for the four or five weeks ending on the last Friday
  320
  of the month.

  2. The figures for claims received include those made to renew existing awards and those made more than four weeks before the expiry of an existing award (and therefore invalid).

  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many and what proportion of family credit recipients are women.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  A total of 315,000 comprising over 98 per cent. Apart from lone parent families headed by a man, family credit is almost invariably paid to women, since in two-parent families the claim is made by, and payment is made to, the woman unless the circumstances are quite exceptional.

  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing(a) the number of families and (b) the number of children receiving family credit and what proportion each makes up of those entitled to family credit.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The latest comprehensive information is for July 1989 when over 320,000 families, containing 671,000 children, were receiving family credit. Estimates of the total eligible population at that stage cannot be made until information from the 1989 family expenditure survey becomes available.

  Income Support
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social security how many children are in families receiving income support.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The latest available information is that there are 2,092,000 children in families receiving income support.

  War Widows
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was his Department's total expenditure, at 1979 prices, on war widows' pensions in the years 1978–79 to 1988–89.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 25 October 1989]: The information requested is in the table.

  Actual expenditure

  Expenditure at 1978–79 prices

  £

  £

  1978–79

  116,705,438

  116,705,438

  1979–80

  128,840,466

  110,455,980

  1980–81

  145,803,473

  105,437,973

  1981–82

  165,598,881

  109,115,611

  1982–83

  174,091,975

  107,127,120

  1983–84

  177,358,000

  104,304,650

  1984–85

  176,325,000

  98,814,576

  1985–86

  192,859,160

  102,449,032

  1986–87

  191,496,000

  98,563,466

  1987–88

  189,581,000

  92,716,484

  1988–89

  199,695,000

  91,020,184

  Industrial Injuries
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when Statutory Instrument 1989/1824 was referred to the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council; and what advice the council gave.
  321
  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 31 October 1989]: The proposals relating to the regulations in this statutory instrument were referred to the council in January this year. They did not raise any formal objection.

  Child Benefit
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many children are in families that will receive child benefit in 1990–91.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer the hon. Member to table 15.6 of the Public Expenditure White Paper (Cm 615) published in January this year.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Anglo-Irish Relations
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on recent developments in Anglo-Irish relations.

  Mr. Brooke
  There have been three recent meetings of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental conference, at which issues affecting the confidence of the community in the security forces figured prominently. Copies of the joint communiques issued after each meeting have been placed in the Library of the House and the Vote Office. As a result of recent events a number of measures have been set in train by the Government. The recent difficulties in Anglo-Irish relations have illustrated the value of the agreement in permitting discussion of the issues involved, with a view to resolving differences.

  UDR Soldiers (Murder Convictions)
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he has taken to discover if an injustice may have been done to four Ulster Defence Regiment soldiers convicted of the murder of Adrian Carroll; and if, in the light of experience gained from the Guildford case, he will seek to have examined a radio statement by the main witness that she was deceived into giving incorrect evidence.

  Mr. Cope
  All the representations made and documents presented in this case to date, along with the transcript of the radio programme, have been carefully examined. No grounds have been found to justify referring the case to the Court of Appeal, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will consider any new evidence or representations which may be made to him.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the use of animals for experiments at Queen's university; how many animals are presently kept at the university; what is the nature of the experiments; and what level of pain and suffering is estimated to be inflicted on the animals.

  Mr. Needham
  It is not the practice to disclose information about experiments authorised under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 at any particular establishment.

  Long-term Unemployment
  Mr. Bidwell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the impact of the Social Security Order (1989), on the long-term unemployed.

  Mr. Needham
  It is too early to assess the impact.

  Anglo-lrish Agreement
  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether a further date has been arranged for the next meeting of the signatories to the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

  Mr. Brooke
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry) earlier today.

  Intergovernmental Conference
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was discussed at the last Intergovernmental Conference; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  The Intergovernmental Conference last met on 18 October. Discussions continued on a range of issues relating to confidence in the security forces and the system of justice. Security co-operation, cross-border economic co-operation and the implementation of the conclusions of the review of the working of the conference were matters also discussed. The joint statement issued after the meeting was placed in the Library of the House and the Vote Office.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on recent meetings of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the discussions he has had within the framework of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

  Mr. Brooke
  There have been three recent meetings of the Intergovernmental Conference, and copies of the joint statements issued after each have been placed in the Library of the House and the Vote Office. A large part of the meetings was taken up with issues affecting the confidence of the community in the security forces in Northern Ireland, and further discussions are likely at future conference meetings.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he intends to take to reduce unemployment in west Belfast.

  Mr. Needham
  Much action has already been taken to tackle the problems of unemployment in west Belfast. The Belfast action team and the "making Belfast work" initiatives have focussed attention and resources on encouraging employment and enterprise in west Belfast. To date these initiatives have proved successful in stimulating local enterprise. Further plans have been
  323
  drawn up to build on the initial local successes which have been assisted by major private sector investments such as the choice by Montupet of the former De Lorean factory for its 1,000 job project.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he intends to act upon the recommendations of the Phoenix West Belfast development trust.

  Mr. Needham
  I am pleased to say that many of the recommendations are already being implemented, particularly under the "making Belfast work" and Belfast action team initiatives. Contacts have also been made to enable Phoenix to discuss its proposals for jobs creation directly with IDB and LEDU.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current level of unemployment in the Province.

  Mr. Needham
  On 14 September 1989, the latest date for which figures are available, seasonally adjusted unemployment in the Province stood at 103,000 which is its lowest level since November 1982.

  UDR Recruits (Vetting)
  Mr. Barry Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received concerning vetting procedures for recruits to the Ulster Defence Regiment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  Recent events have given rise to concern that a small minority of members of the Ulster Defence Regiment may have associations with members of illegal paramilitary organisations, or other associations, which are incompatible with membership of the security forces. This is unacceptable and the General Officer Commanding has therefore made improvements in the process of screening new recruits to the UDR, including transfers from other Army units, and for follow-up action such as re-screening in cases of doubt. Among the new measures is the establishment of a special unit for screening UDR recruits, which will be manned by members of the Regular Army. They will have advice from the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Some representations have been received which, in general, support these changes.

  Local Government
  Mr. Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what response he has received in relation to the consultative document on local government in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Over 60 responses to the local government consultative paper were received.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in what ways he intends to change the system of local government in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Government's proposals for changes in the system of local government in Northern Ireland were set out in the local government consultative paper last November. Responses to that paper are being considered.

  EC Structural Fund
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to promote the types of cross-border developments eligible for European Community structural fund awards.

  Mr. Cope
  In anticipation of an EC Commission initiative to introduce a transfrontier programme, Ministers from the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland following a recent intergovernmental conference, instructed officials of both Governments to prepare proposals for submission to the Commission. A preliminary list of cross-border proposals has already been passed to the Commission, and further work is continuing. A formal application cannot be lodged until details of the EC programme become available.

  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he is taking to further cross-border programmes eligible for support from the European Community structural fund.

  Mr. Cope
  In anticipation of an EC Commission initiative to introduce a transfrontier programme, Ministers from the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland following a recent intergovernmental conference, instructed officials of both Governments to prepare proposals for submission to the Commission. A preliminary list of cross-border proposals has already been passed to the Commission and further work is continuing. A formal application cannot be lodged until details of the EC programme become available.

  Devolution
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland from which constitutional political parties he has received a written submission as a framework for devolution in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Brooke
  I have been told by the leaders of all the main constitutional parties in Northern Ireland that they support devolution and they have drawn my attention to ideas, expressed earlier in writing and orally, about how progress towards that objective might be achieved.

  Home Helps
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he will take to prevent further cutbacks in the home help service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  The level of resources devoted to particular services is a matter for Health and Social Services boards to determine. Northern Ireland provides the highest number of home helps per 1,000 population in the United Kingdom, and there has been no reduction in the level of funding for the home help service in 1989–90. There has however been increasing demand, and in order to avoid overspending, several boards have reassessed the need among individual clients for the number and extent of visits. In each case every effort has been made to minimise the effect on clients and to ensure that the service is targeted on those most in need.

  Debt Payments
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has had seeking the repeal of the Payments for Debt (Emergency Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1971.

  Mr Cope
  In the last year there have been three questions from hon. Members and one written representation on this subject.

  Transport
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the transport needs of Northern Ireland in the context of the single European market.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The transportation programme was submitted to the European Community on 25 September and the Government await a formal response.

  Voters (Identification)
  Mr. Molyneaux
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will take action to simplify the rules for identification of voters at polling stations.

  Mr. Cope
  The list of specified documents used for electoral purposes is kept under review. I should be pleased to consider any improvement which the right hon. Gentleman or other hon. Members would care to suggest.

  UDR
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has any plans to alter the role of the Ulster Defence Regiment in relation to the Royal Ulster Constabulary; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  No.

  The Royal Ulster Constabulary has primary responsibility for the maintenance of law and order in Northern Ireland; the Armed Forces, including the Regular Army and Ulster Defence Regiment, will continue to operate in support of the police but only for so long as the threat from terrorism makes that support necessary.

  Roadworks
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will specify the anticipated completion dates for(a) the Killead bypass and (b) the dualling of the A26.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  It is not possible, at this early stage, to specify the completion date for either of these schemes.

  Arts
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the level of spending per capita on arts in Northern Ireland.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Government spending per capita is £2·85.

  Accident Statistics
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the level of public funding in each of the past three years for which figures are available 326
  to counter deaths and injuries as a result of (a) road accidents, (b) accidents in the home and (c) terrorist attacks.

  Mr. Cope
  It is not possible to separate out the precise level of public funding attributable to these purposes.

  Maryfield Secretariat
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the total cost of the Maryfield secretariat, including security, from the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement to date; and what is the total cost of security for the same period.

  Mr. Cope
  The cost to the British Government in maintaining the Anglo-Irish secretariat since its establishment in December 1985 to 30 September 1989 was £3,132,000, of which £2,003,000 related to manpower costs for security. The cost to the Irish Government is a matter for them.

  Mr. Paul Hill
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the cost of transporting Paul Hill from the Old Bailey to Belfast on 19 October; and what method was used.

  Mr. Cope
  The cost of transporting Paul Hill from the Old Bailey to Maghaberry prison on 19 October 1989 was £2,890·78. He was flown from RAF Northolt to RAF Aldergrove. Connection journeys were by road.

  Japanese Investment
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the level of investment in Northern Ireland by Japanese companies.

  Mr. Needham
  There are three manufacturing companies in Northern Ireland which are either wholly or partly owned by Japanese companies.

  In addition a fourth Japanese company operates a marketing and distribution outlet there.

  It is not possible to give precise figures for investment.

  Further Education
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to extend further education in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Enrolment at colleges of further Education has increased by almost 40 per cent. over the last 10 years. The Department of Education and the area boards have responded to increased demands by the provision of new permanent and temporary accommodation, increased staffing and enhancement of equipment.

  We will continue to respond to needs as they arise.

  Political Parties (Discussions)
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met representatives of the political parties in Northern Ireland; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Brooke
  Over the past three months I have had introductory meetings with the leaders of the Alliance
  327
  party of Northern Ireland, the Democratic Unionist party, the Social Democratic and Labour party, the Ulster Unionist party, the Ulster Popular Unionist party and the Workers party, and with other elected representatives. My meetings with the party leaders covered a wide range of subjects, including especially the prospects for achieving political progress in Northern Ireland.

  Education and Library Boards
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the total membership of each of the five education and library boards; how many female members he has appointed to each of these boards; and if he will make a statement on the level of female representation on the education boards.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The membership of each of the five Education and Library boards is:

  Membership

  Of whom: are female

  Belfast

  35

  7

  South-Eastern

  35

  3

  North-Eastern

  35

  6

  Southern

  35

  7

  Western

  32

  5

  In making appointments to Education and Library boards the Department of Education is keen to ensure that boards are representative of a wide range of educational interests. Bodies which are asked to put forward names for consideration are encouraged to include the names of women.

DEFENCE

  UDR
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the Ulster Defence Regiment.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Ulster Defence Regiment is an indispensable element of the Army's efforts in support of the Royal Ulster Constabulary in Northern Ireland. I have every confidence that the overwhelming majority of the UDR will continue to carry out their duties professionally, loyally and impartially. The UDR will continue to play its part in the fight against terrorism and no changes are envisaged in its role.

  Anti-tank Weapons
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the implications for the design of anti-tank weapons of the development of protective armour on Warsaw pact tanks.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The implications of developments in the protective armour of Warsaw pact tanks are kept under review, and, where necessary, improvements made to the design of our anti-armour weapons.

  Quality Assurance Headquarters
  Mr. Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will report progress on the relocation of the quality assurance headquarters and laboratories from London to a site in Teesside; and if he will make a statement.
  328
  Mr. Neubert
  My Department is hard at work on a whole range of matters including the definition of user requirements, the selection of an external consultant to manage the design and construction work, negotiations for the purchase of land and the provision of utilities and road access, and various personnel aspects of relocation.

  Mr. Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the policy of his Department in relation to the appointment of an external project manager with regard to the relocation of the defence quality assurance headquarters and laboratories to Teesside; what consideration is given to the appointment of local firms; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what is the policy of his Department with regard to the involvement of locally based companies in the process of relocation of offices and services out of London to the provinces; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  The Department's policy generally and in relation to the appoinment of external project managers is to follow the Government rules for fair and open competition. Successful bidders need to demonstrate that they have a clear understanding of departmental requirements, practical and efficient proposals to meet them and the necessary capacity and experience to manage projects of the size and complexity envisaged. Local knowledge is considered to be a useful additional asset.

  Decentralisation
  Mr. Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's policy with regard to decentralisation of offices and services out of London to the provinces; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  As has been stated in the House on several occasions, it remains our objective to see a more even spread of defence employment across the regions. We are currently examining a range of further relocation possibilities and shall continue to pursue every opportunity to relocate defence work. But all such moves must be justifiable in both operational and economic terms.

  UKADGE
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who owns the intellectual property rights associated with the improved United Kingdom air defence ground environment.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I have nothing to add to the answer given to the hon. Member on 7 July at column 302.

  Service Pensions
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service men killed in action from 1 April 1973 to the latest date for which records exist, who were engaged on pensionable terms, failed to complete the minimum period of service required in their rank for the award of an occupational pension from his Department before being killed in action.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Pensions awarded under the occupational scheme for the Armed Forces include long-service pensions, invaliding pensions, and attributable invaliding pensions. Since 31 March 1973 there has been no minimum period of service required to qualify for
  329
  the award of an attributable invaliding pension. Consequently, all married service men killed in action since that date have been able to qualify their eligible widow for an occupational pension from the Ministry of Defence.

  However, I assume that the hon. Member, in referring to the award of an occupational pension, is concerned with those long-service pensions awarded on normal retirement or discharge. The minimum period of reckonable service normally required to qualify for such awards is, for officers, 16 years and, for other ranks, 22 years.

  Information on the number of service men killed in action since 1 April 1973 who had not given these periods of service before their death is not readily available and could he obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the cumulative total number of those service men whose deaths were attributable to their service in the armed forces who died(a) in service, (b) after retirement from the armed forces and (c) after being invalidated out of or medically discharged from the armed forces, from 1959 to the latest available date; and, for each of the above categories for the latest year for which records exist, what was the number of war widows' pensions in payment from his Department.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information requested on the number of service men whose death was attributable to their service in the Armed Forces is not available. Where applicable, war widows pensions corresponding to those deaths are paid by the Department of Social Security.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence why the award to the widow of a service man of an attributable forces family pension does not assume the promotion of her husband beyond the rank in which he was killed.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is normal practice in occupational pension schemes that benefits, whether payable on retirement or death in service, are based on the level of salary actually received by the scheme member at or preceding the last day of service. The Armed Forces pension scheme uses rank held as an alternative to actual salary.

  Service Ranks
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the average period of time for which a service man remains in the rank of private or equivalent, for the latest year for which records exist and for each of the armed forces.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The average times spent in the rank of senior aircraftman (SAC) for those leaving the rank on promotion or exit during 1988–89 are given in the table. The time does not include time spent as an aircraftman (AC) or leading aircraftman (LAC). Similar figures are given for promotions during 1988 from able seaman (not including time spent as an ordinary seaman) and marine 1 (not including time spent as marine 2). The average time spent in the ranks of able seaman and marine 1 for those leaving the RN or RM during 1988 are not readily available. Figures for the Army are not readily available.
  330

  Average time (in years) spent in the ranks of Able Seaman/Marine 1/SAC

  Total

  On promotion

  On exit

  Able Seaman (1988)

  n.a.

  4·7

  n.a.

  Marine 1 (1988)

  n.a.

  5·7

  n.a.

  SAC (1988–89)

  5·7

  6·3

  5–3

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what is the average period of time for which a service man remains in the rank of Army captain or equivalent, for the latest year for which records exist and for each of the armed forces.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The average times spent in the rank of flight lieutenant for those leaving the rank on promotion or exit during 1988–89 are given in the table. Similar figures are given for promotions during 1988–89 from Lt(RN) and Lt(RM). The average times spent in the ranks of Lt(RN) and Lt(RM) for those leaving the Royal Navy or Royal Marines during 1988–89 are not readily available. Figures for the Army are not readily available.

  Average time (in years) spent in the ranks of Lt(RN)/Lt(RM)/Fl Lt(RAF)

  Total

  On promotion

  On exit

  Lieutenant (RN)

  n/a

  8·4

  n/a

  Lieutenant (RM)

  n/a

  7·3

  n/a

  Flight Lieutenant (RAF)

  9·4

  8·5

  10·7

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the average period of time for which a service man remains in the rank of corporal or equivalent for the latest year for which records exist and for each of the armed forces.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The average times spent in the rank of RAF corporal for those leaving the rank on promotion or exit during 1988–89 are given in the table. Similar figures are given for promotions during 1988 from leading hand (RN) and Royal Marines corporal. The average times spent in the ranks of leading hand and RM corporal for those leaving the RN and RM during 1988 are not readily available. Figures for the Army are not readily available.

  Average time (in years) spent in the equivalent rank of corporal

  Total

  On promotion

  On exit

  Leading hand (1988)

  n/a

  4·1

  n/a

  RM corporal (1988)

  n/a

  5·8

  n/a

  RAF corporal (1988/89)

  5·7

  6·8

  4·7

  Marconi Communications Sets
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Marconi 2955A radio communications test sets have been ordered for the Royal Air Force and Army; and for which services it is his intention to order more.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  A total of 330 of these sets were ordered in December 1988 after a competitive tendering action had produced an assessment that they represented the most cost-effective technically viable solution to a particular problem.
  331
  Future requirements, should they arise, may also be subject to a competitive tendering exercise.

  Submergence Rescue Vehicle
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if it is his intention to publish the results of the recent trials by the Royal Navy of the deep submergence rescue vehicle.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not our normal practice to publish the results of such exercises but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that this exercise, which is conducted at regular intervals, successfully achieved all its objectives.

  Advanced STOL Aircraft
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy towards the development of the advanced short take off and vertical landing aircraft.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  We are engaged with the United States Government in a bilateral programme of studies into the technologies which might be required for an advanced short take off and vertical landing aircraft. This programme, which began in 1986, is expected to take some five years to complete.

  Battle Tanks
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy towards the NATO future main battle tank.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  For a statement on plans to co-ordinate the development of the next generation of tanks I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones).

  Upholder Class Submarine
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the most up-to-date prediction of the date of delivery to the Royal Navy of the first type 2400 Upholder class submarine.

  Mr. Neubert
  We currently expect that the first type 2400 Upholder class submarine to be delivered to the Royal Navy next summer.

  Anti-Air Warfare
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to announce his decision between the NATO anti-air warfare system and the family of anti-air missile systems for Royal Navy warships.

  Mr. Neubert
  An announcement will be made in the near future.

  Army Equipment Exhibition
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence where the 1990 British Army equipment exhibition will be held; and on which days it will be open to(a) overseas customers, (b) the press and (c) the British public.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The British Army equipment exhibition will be held at Aldershot during the week 3 to 8 June 1990. 3 June is a press day which the national 332
  provincial and technical press may attend. Overseas customers may attend from 4 to 8 June 1989. The exhibition is not open to the general public.

  Potton Island (Wastes)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what amount of(a) toxic wastes and (b) radioactive wastes arising from military experiments exist at Potton island in Essex; under what environmental regulations these wastes are managed; what is the long-term plan for the disposal of these wastes; and what is his estimate of the total cost of this disposal strategy.

  Mr. Neubert
  There are no known toxic or radioactive wastes at Potton island. The area is being cleared of residual conventional munitions and explosives. To date this has cost some £40,000.

  Nevada Test Site
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the total charge levied by the United States in collective historic pounds and in current pounds for United Kingdom use of the Nevada test site for the nuclear testing of United Kingdom warheads(a) since the programme began and (b) since 1979; and what arrangements have been made by the United States authorities for the management and disposal of radioactive wastes arising from these United Kingdom nuclear warheads.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  It is not our policy to publish the costs of these tests. Arrangements for the management and disposal of radioactive wastes are included in the costs levied by the United States authorities. Such wastes are disposed of by the United States under recognised procedures.

  Chemical Warfare Agents
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what volumes and what types of chemical warfare agents are maintained at the Porton Down chemical warfare research establishment as part of his Department's defensive prophylactic research programme; when the entire stocks of these chemical warfare agents will be destroyed; and under what conditions.

  Mr. Neubert
  As has frequently been stated in previous answers, the MOD does not possess a chemical warfare research establishment. The role of the Chemical Defence Establishment, Porton Down, is to provide effective protective measures for the United Kingdom Armed Forces against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them. The United Kingdom abandoned all offensive chemical warfare work over 30 years ago.

  As stated in my predecessor's reply to the hon. Member on 25 January at column 653, the MOD holds small experimental quantities of agent, for research into protective measures against chemical and biological attack.

  These small quantities will be maintained for as long as necessary. As stated in my predecessor's reply to the hon. Member on 23 March at column 754, the MOD does not disclose details of the location of these small quantities for security reasons.

  Military Aircraft Flights
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if flights by non-Royal Air Force military aircraft over the United Kingdom require prior authorisation; and if all such flights are recorded.

  Mr. Neubert
  It is standing operational practice for each flight undertaken by a military aircraft operating within the airspace of the United Kingdom to be authorised by a competent authority. No central record of such flights is maintained.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions, to the latest available date in 1989, and in each of the last three years, unauthorised flights by military aircraft have taken place over the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  Reports of unauthorised flights are investigated by the appropriate authorities. No central records are kept of such flights.

  Frigates
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if there has been any alteration in the last six months of the long-term plans to order type 23 frigates;

  (2) if there has been any alteration in the level of funds available for future orders for the type 23 frigate.

  Mr. Neubert
  It is not our practice to comment on long-term planning assumptions. Decisions on orders will be announced as appropriate. The Government remain committed to maintaining a force of about 50 destroyers and frigates and will order sufficient new ships to achieve this target.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what ability those type 23 frigates not fitted with an automated command and control system will possess to identify aircraft as either friendly or hostile.

  Mr. Neubert
  The classification of an aircraft as friendly or hostile is based on information from a variety of sources including the ships identification friend or foe (IFF) system and other sensors. In T23 frigates not fitted with a command system this information will be available but will not be correlated automatically.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the average annual number of frigates that have been ordered between 1982 and 1988, excluding those vessels ordered to replace Falkland losses.

  Mr. Neubert
  Fourteen frigates were ordered in the period. Excluding the four ordered to replace Falkland losses, this gives an average annual number of 1·4.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what regard he has had to the employment implications of future orders for the type 23 frigate;

  (2) what regard he has had to the industrial investment implications of future orders for the type 23 frigate.

  Mr. Neubert
  The Government's policy is to place orders for warships following competition, the aim being 334
  to secure best value for money for the defence budget. Tender prices and compliance with contract conditions will be the major considerations in the current competition for type 23 frigates.

  However, as the MOD confirmed in its response to the 31 report from the Committee of Public Accounts (Session 1987–88), its strategy is to maintain sufficient warship-building capacity to meet likely future defence requirements and a competitive base and these twin objectives are always taken into account in the placing of individual ship and submarine orders.

  RAF Flights
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the Royal Air Force is able to account for all flights by its aircraft over the United Kingdom in 1988.

  Mr. Neubert
  No detailed account of such flights is required.

  Destroyers
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what are the implications of the Government's withdrawal from the NFR90 collaborative project;

  (2) what assessment has been made of the need to replace the type 42 destoyer.

  Mr. Neubert
  The Royal Navy has a continuing requirement for a replacement for the type 42 destroyer to come into service at the turn of the century. Following the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the NFR90 programme, we are now addressing how best to proceed with this requirement, including the possibility of alternative collaborative arrangements for elements of the programme.

  Warship Building
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has on the amounts of Government subsidy provided to warship building yards in other NATO nations.

  Mr. Neubert
  None.

  Thailand and Cambodia
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what military assistance has been provided to the Government of Thailand in the last 10 years;

  (2) whether any Cambodian nationals have received military training or instruction from serving members of the British armed forces at any time in the last 10 years;

  (3) whether any military assistance has been provided by the Government for Cambodian guerrillas at any time in the last 10 years;

  (4) whether any service personnel, apart from those attached to the British embassy, have worked in Thailand at any time in the last 10 years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) on 30 October 1989 at column 43.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers —Read by the Lord Bishop of Liverpool.
The Earl of Woolton The Earl of Woolton —Took the Oath.

IBA: Greek and Turkish Services
Viscount Hanworth Viscount Hanworth asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the relative allocations by the Independent Broadcasting Authority of broadcasting time to Greek and Turkish language programmes are in accordance with the responsibilities of the authority, especially in view of the current political situation in Cyprus.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the Independent Broadcasting Authority has a duty to ensure that programmes from each station meet the needs of the local population.
The arrangements for Haringey are that the frequency for the area is shared by two ethnic community radio stations, London Greek Radio and WNK, an Afro-Caribbean station. It was originally intended that London Greek Radio should provide two hours of programming in the Turkish language to meet the needs of the smaller Turkish Cypriot community in the area. I understand the IBA has now decided that London Greek Radio will not broadcast programmes in the Turkish language and that the responsibility for broadcasting such programmes will now rest with WNK.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, which meets a great many of our worries. However, is it not a fact that some time ago the Government realised the importance and desirability of giving ethnic broadcasts but they also recognised the difficulties of doing so? They had to ensure that anyone who was responsible for a programme was financially viable and that such programmes were not taken over by an undesirable group providing the finance; for example, communists. The Government also had to ensure that a large number of problems which have occurred in this area, such as political problems, did not arise. Does the Minister agree that perhaps the IBA has not been over-clever in its original proposals?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Viscount is right. This is a matter for the IBA. That body has regard to the proposals for a suitable service to increase local listener choice on a self-financing and technically sound basis.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, following the decision that I believe was arrived at last week, have there been any representations by the Turkish community, especially as the broadcasting time of that
338
community has been cut by half? Further, does the Minister agree that these events highlight the importance of making frequency space available to the many aspirant broadcasters, especially among ethnic groups in urban areas? Will he say whether there is a possibility of unused frequencies on the BBC sub-bands being made available for this purpose?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, it was an IBA decision after representations from and negotiations with the Turkish community. The proposed new radio authority will be expected to invite proposals for a large number of new stations across the country, some of which will serve ethnic communities. Account will be taken of audience demand and the availability of frequencies.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I believe I am right in saying that for five years the Greeks have had a pirate station. I believe that station has been conducted fairly well. Why have the Government done precisely nothing to stop that?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am not sure that the noble Viscount is correct. I believe that prosecutions have been made in that case.

Wages Councils
3.12 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have yet decided whether it is in the public interest that the wages councils be retained.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, no final decision on the councils' future has yet been taken.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that at least one is relieved that a negative decision has not been taken? Is he aware also that there is a widespread feeling not only among employees and their representatives but also among employers that the wages councils perform an essential role? The conclusion that it is hoped the Government will come to is that the councils should be maintained in force. I am not saying that the councils are incapable of improvement, but in principle I and many other people hope that the Government will decide they must remain in being.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord's views will obviously be taken into account before a final decision is taken.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, will the Minister note that those of us who have experience of wages councils have found that the wages that they set, which are the minimum wages permitted, are then adopted by many employers as the maximum?
Lord Strathclyde: Yes, my Lords. Perhaps I should point out that two-thirds of the workers who come under wages council schemes are paid more than the minimum.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that in the main the wages councils which are still in existence cover relatively poorly paid and poorly qualified people, often from ethnic minority groups, who are the most exploitable people in the workforce? Does he further agree that it would be in the public interest to ensure that those people have some continuing form of protection?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am not sure that I agree entirely with the premise of the noble Baroness. Regarding training, as she knows well, the Government have made great changes in the way in which workers are trained in order to improve the situation across the board.
Lord Thorneycroft: My Lords, will the noble Lord remember that wages councils tend to restrain wages among the most successful and cause unemployment among the weakest members of society? Will the Government therefore consider very carefully before developing the system?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, there is a certain amount of evidence to support what my noble friend has said.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in many parts of the country in jobs covered by wages councils wages are paid which are well below the minimum wage set by those councils? He shakes his head; I can give him instances from my own experience in the Norfolk area. Is that not the result of cuts in the number of inspectors, who can no longer enforce the decisions made by the wages councils —cuts which have been made by this Government? Is it not the case that there are fewer wages inspectors than there were when this Government came into office?
Lord Strathclyde: No, my Lords. Compliance in that area works out at a rate of between 96 per cent. and 97 per cent. I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that that is an extremely high rate. There are 71 inspectors who visit annually 30,000 establishments and continue to do a very good job. There has been a slight increase in the number of prosecutions. However, as I said, the level of compliance is very high indeed.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend say when the decision will be announced as to whether those relics of the economics of the 1960s and 1970s are to continue?
Lord Strathclyde: Yes, my Lords: before the end of the year.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, can the noble Lord assure the House that in reaching their decision the Government will take full account of the views of bodies which are well able to give them advice; for example, the Institute of Personnel Management?
Lord Strathclyde: Yes, my Lords. There has already been a major consultation exercise.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Lord gave figures relating to the number of inspectors but he did not answer my question. Is it the case that the number of inspectors has been reduced? If so, does that not cast doubt on the figures for compliance which he gave, since there are insufficient inspectors to do the inspecting?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the number of inspectors is adequate given the high rate of compliance, and that is what counts.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, would it not be better to await the result of the government decision and then debate the matter properly when the facts can be fully explored?
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, would it not be better if the noble Lord were to answer the question which the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, has put? He was asked a specific question. If he does not have the answer, should he not admit that and offer to write to the noble Lord later in accordance with normal procedure?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the number of wages inspectors has been cut twice since 1979. In 1980 an increase made by the previous Labour Government was slightly curtailed, reducing the level of inspection which had obtained immediately prior to 1978. However, I must point out that the important point regarding the number of inspectors is the compliance rate. The compliance rate is extremely high and therefore the number of inspectors is adequate.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, will the Minister please tell the House what evidence there is to support the statement that wages councils keep wages down?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, there is a substantial amount of evidence, which I shall not read out. Perhaps I could write to the noble Baroness with a list of eight publications issued over the past six or seven years. She will find that the evidence is adequate to back up the various claims that have been made.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that there is a difference of opinion on some aspects of the matter. There is a large body of opinion which takes a different view from that which he has just expressed. Is it not the case, indisputably, that if wages councils were abolished we should be the only member of the EC without any legislative protection for the low paid? Does the Minister agree that the Government will not want to be in a minority of one yet again?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, some other countries have a token minimum wage. This Government do not believe in token gestures.

Cabinet Records
3.20 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing Lord Orr-Ewing asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the current regulations concerning the release of information about past Cabinet proceedings.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, the records of Cabinet proceedings are subject to the provisions of the Public Record Acts 1958 and 1967. Records may be retained or closed for longer periods than 30 years under appropriate sections of the Public Records Act 1958 and in accordance with established criteria. It has been the practice of successive administrations not to disclose the content of records which are so withheld from public release.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, will my noble friend say whether ex-Ministers nowadays abide by the recommendations of the 1976 Radcliffe Committee which were agreed and approved by the Labour Government of the time and by the Conservative Opposition? Do parliamentarians also abide by their Privy Counsellor oath not to reveal in memoirs matters touching any other of their Cabinet colleagues until 15 years later, and then only after checking the memoirs with the Cabinet Office?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the 15-year rule applies to both. My noble friend is quite right in putting his finger on the obligation on former Ministers who want to publish memoirs. They are therefore required to submit their manuscripts to the Secretary of the Cabinet and to conform to the principles set out in the Radcliffe Report of 1976. I must tell my noble friend that, quite honestly, I have not been able to trawl through all the memoirs which have been published. I cannot answer his final point as to whether there are any exceptions.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, although the convention of consulting the Cabinet Secretary is still respected, it has nevertheless been greatly attenuated since the Crossman case? It was attenuated because, in the Crossman case, instead of proceeding as everyone, including the publishers, expected, under the Official Secrets Act the Government decided to extend the law of confidence. When the matter came before Lord Widgery he said that, although it was rather a sensational book, there was nevertheless no question of embarrassing anyone and there was nothing that could not be revealed at that time, and he allowed the entire book to be published.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, that is an enormously interesting question. I wish that I could answer it, but sadly it does not arise from the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does the noble Lord the Leader of the House agree that the rules to which he referred and which were also
342
mentioned by his noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing are breached in ways other than by memoirs or other books? For example, is it not the case that a Cabinet memorandum about the effect of electricity privatisation on the coal industry, alleging that 1,800 jobs would be lost in the coal industry as a result of privatisation, was leaked? What action is to be taken about that?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, now that the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has sat down I am delighted to tell him that I have no information to give about a government document, or, if such a document has been leaked, the regrettable circumstances in which that must have occurred.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, will the noble Lord the Leader of the House bear in mind that the matter should be seen in proportion? For instance, while Mr. Benn —for whom I hold no brief but whose diaries I have just finished reading —goes into great detail about Cabinet proceedings of 13 years ago, we had an example in the course of this year in which, not within 13 years but within 13 hours, the Downing Street Press Office briefed the press, it manifestly so came, to the effect that the Secretary of State for Wales, whom I think was in particular disfavour at the time, had not been called to participate in the Cabinet discussions. There was a grandstand commentary at the time upon Cabinet proceedings. Those matters need to be seen in a certain perspective. It does not fall strongly into the hands of noble Lords opposite to throw not merely stones out of glasshouses but boulders out of crystal palaces.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord is habitually fair. I should not have thought that what he has just said about his experience of the Government's publicity services in any way contravened any of the existing rules. The noble Lord says that he has no brief for the right honourable gentleman to whom he referred. The noble Lord once had a brief for him. Perhaps he can answer his own question.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Lord tell us whether a discussion between the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the privatisation of the Bank of England constitutes a proceeding in Cabinet and, if so, what action is to be taken against Mr. Lawson?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I shall give the same answer that I gave before. I can see nothing in what the noble Lord said which breaches any of the existing rules. However, perhaps I may bring the House back to the Question. This is a Question about the release of information about past Cabinet proceedings and there is nothing further that I can add on that subject.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is it not the convention that when a Cabinet Minister resigns he is entitled to ask Her Majesty's permission to give a resignation speech and, if he obtains it, is free to give the reasons for his resignation?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend. That is something that has happened, very often with distinction, over the years.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, perhaps I may be permitted to say that I am grateful to the House. I was not seeking to raise the dirt here. I thought that the rules should be known to parliamentarians so that we know where we stand. It is sad that those who breach the rules may be well rewarded and those who feel honour bound not to breach them obtain no rewards at all.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his final supplementary question. Perhaps I may say that I agree with him. Let us hope that the rules are kept.

Employment: NOP Survey Analysis
3.26 p.m.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they intend to publish the article containing the full analysis of the National Opinion Poll survey summarised in paragraph 2.22 of the Green Paper Removing Barriers to Employment.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, an article containing a full analysis of the data obtained in the survey carried out by NOP Market Research Limited will be published in the next issue of the Employment Gazette, which will be available on 9th November.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Is it likely that the article will explain how it comes about that this tiny survey, which asked only 25 people who were in pre-entry closed shops, now tells us that there are 1·3 million in pre-entry closed shops? Where does that figure come from?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord will have to be a little patient and wait until 9th November to find out.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is a slender sample upon which to base far-reaching proposals in relation to closed shops? Is it not a fact that closed shops now exist only where there has been a substantial majority in a ballot of the workforce? I believe that 80 per cent. of the workforce must be in favour. Is it not an interference with democracy to try to come along now and make further changes in the current legislation?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the Question referred to a request for information. The information will be published on 9th November. I do not understand how the noble Baroness can say what she has just said without having looked at the evidence. I am sure that when it comes out on 9th November both the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, will be able to ask plenty of questions which I shall be delighted to answer.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that we on these Benches have no love for the pre-entry closed shop, a matter that features prominently in this survey? If I may speak more generally, is it not about time that the Government began to think less in terms of continuing restrictive legislation and more about the need to encourage greater co-operation between management and employees and their representatives in the workforce?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that has always been one of the aims of this Government.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, on the subject of democracy, is it not one of the problems of the closed shop that many employees either agree or collude with trade unions to maintain a closed shop in antithesis to the concept of democracy? Is not that one of the reasons the Government are seeking, as a matter of policy, to put an end to the closed shop?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that point. I hope that we shall have an opportunity to debate the pre-entry closed shop later.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, according to the press statement that the Government have already issued, 600,000 of the people in pre-entry closed shops must be provincial actors, since that is the only form of closed shop which operates in that way? Where are the 600,000 actors who are in closed shops, if they are not in Equity?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will find the answer to that question next week when he reads the information in the paper.

Great Yarmouth Port Authority Bill [H.L.] (formerly Great Yarmouth Port and Haven Bill [H.L.]) Happisburgh Lighthouse Bill [H.L.] River Tees Barrage and Crossing Bill [H.L.]
3.30 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the promoters of the bills have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon, in order to proceed with the bills, if they shall think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so be lodged in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three o'clock on the day before the close of the present Session, and that all fees due thereon up to that period shall have been paid;
That such bills shall be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three

345
o'clock on the third day on which the House shall sit after the commencement of the next Session of Parliament, with a declaration annexed, signed by the agent, stating that the bills are the same in every respect as the bills at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session;
That the proceedings on such bills shall in the next Session of Parliament be pro forma only in regard to every stage through which the same shall have passed in the present Session, and that no new fees be charged to such stages;
That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on bills are regulated shall not apply in the next Session of Parliament to such bills in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed during the present Session. —(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Penzance Albert Pier Extension Bill
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the promoters of the bill have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon, in order to proceed with it if they shall think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so be lodged in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three o'clock on the day before the close of the present Session, and that all fees due thereon up to that period shall have been paid;
That, if the bill is brought from the Commons in the next Session, the agent for the bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration, signed by him, stating that the bill is the same, in every respect, as the bill which was brought from the Commons in the present Session;
That the proceedings on such bill shall in the next Session of Parliament be pro forma only in regard to every stage through which the same shall have passed in the present Session and that no new fees be charged to such stages;
That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on bills are regulated shall not apply in the next Session of Parliament to such bill in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed during the present Session. —(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

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

Employment Bill
3.31 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 12 [Protection of Sikhs from racial discrimination in connection with wearing of safety helmets]:
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved the following amendment:
Page 11, line 35, leave out ("cannot") and insert ("may").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not want to beguile the House into thinking that because this is a simple amendment it is a simple matter. It is not. It is very complicated indeed. In Committee and Report stages we inserted into the Bill clauses which were not there when the Bill was first presented to this House. Those clauses deal with the position of Sikhs and wearing protective helmets on building sites.
The clauses grant to Sikhs complete immunity from the requirements of the law or any regulations issued under it, even though that immunity may cut right across the policy of the industry to promote safety on building sites. It is absolute and it is complete.
Certain consequences flow from that immunity. One of them concerns what happens if there is cause for proceedings against a Sikh for injury sustained either by him or by others because of his conduct in not wearing a helmet. Under the Bill the law requires that for all such purposes it shall be supposed that the Sikh was wearing a helmet even though he was not. Therefore no action can lie against him for not wearing a helmet. Whatever action may lie against him must be for something that would have occurred had he been wearing a helmet.
That stretches the immunity well into the civil law of compensation and actionable conduct. One cannot really go further; but the Bill does. That is why my amendment seeks to moderate the extremism of the provisions in Clause 12.
Apart from that circumstance, the question of racial discrimination comes into the matter. Under the racial discrimination Acts there exists what is called indirect discrimination —for example, preventing a person doing something or insisting that he shall do something, and although what one asks for may be reasonable in itself, there may be a discriminatory motive behind it. If that exists, indirect discrimination can be alleged: it was not what he was asked to do that was important but the reason why he was asked to do it.
I turn to the position of an employer who feels that in a particular case and under certain circumstances a Sikh who is not willing to wear a helmet had better not remain in a dangerous area but should go to a less dangerous place on the site. In such circumstances the worker may say, "This is all beneath me. This site is no more dangerous than the others. I am just being shifted on racial grounds". It is to that matter that this part of Clause 12 and my amendment relate.
In circumstances of an allegation of indirect racial discrimination the employer has no defence if he attempts to justify the move on grounds of health and safety. He would have to disprove the claim of racial discrimination but he could not enter a justification on his own account. That is why I propose to delete the word "cannot" —he cannot prove and is not allowed to use as a defence that his action was justified in the circumsatnces of the case —and to insert the word "may" in substitution. It will give the employer the possibility of satisfying a court in its discretion that he had a case for what he did apart from the question of racial discrimination.
This is taking the matter into a very obscure and involved position but it is very important because it is probably not understood that under our racial discrimination laws we have deprived people of the right to particular defences, which otherwise would be good in law, simply because they involve the issue of racial discrimination. That is the position now. I believe that applying that position to this situation produces circumstances which are completely indefensible.
I am not raising again the main issue of general immunity. I had some remarks to make at Committee stage and I do not propose to repeat them. I want to deal simply with the amendment. It may be alleged that introducing a discretionary justification for the action of the employer undermines the completeness of the immunity in the clause. We are not undermining it. I suggest that we are modifying it. I believe that we are justified in making such a modification.
If we are prepared to pass this measure, the time will come when such ethnic and religious issues, which are by no means confined to Sikhs, will frighten us all to the extent of letting everybody get their own way. I do not think that we should do that. This matter does not involve questions of religious education or social policy. It is not sought to make lawful marriage to two or three wives or to allow children to go to segregated schools. We shall get that in due course all right but it does not arise here.
The issue here is solely one of safety. In the interests of having no racial discrimination we have tightened the law so much that we have impaired the employers' discretion to act in the interests of safety in circumstances in which it might be alleged that such action constituted indirect discrimination. If that is alleged, an employer's case falls to the ground.
I am not a lawyer, but I hope that I have done as well as possible to explain the amendment. We must take a stand. I believe that that stand is to be taken on the extremism of what we are asked to provide. I do not think that that is unreasonable.
Finally, with great respect, in the time ahead your Lordships' House will be tested very severely on questions of human freedom, our civic rights, our culture and other issues connected with our outlook on life. There are movements afoot —I need not enlarge on them —that will be extremely tiresome to cope with. I do not suggest that there is any such bother here. However, although it has taken three
348
years to get this far, the Government have gone too far in placating the Sikh point of view against the reasonable safeguards of the employer who is trying to maintain safety on his site and to save other people from injury as well as the Sikhs. I believe that we ought to give him the chance of pleading justification and allowing the court to decide whether or not the requirement was justified. I beg to move.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I should like to support very strongly the amendment that has been proposed and moved by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. He will recall that we had a debate on the general proposition at Committee. We had a further quite long debate at Report stage. I do not wish to go into all the issues which were raised. However, I wish to reiterate one or two points that I raised then.
One cannot escape from the fact that if one discriminates in favour of one section of a workforce or a people one is bound to discriminate against another section. It is difficult enough in my experience to persuade the general body of workers to wear safety helmets and other safety clothing under normal circumstances. If they are required to work alongside a group of workers who are exempt from that provision, such persuasion will be even more difficult. For that reason it was unwise to put this provision in the Bill.
Noble Lords may not be aware of this factor. The amendments to the original Bill which now constitute Clauses 11 and 12 are amendments to regulations that have not yet been before the House or another place. We are therefore being asked to amend the provisions of the regulations which we have not seen. That is dangerous. I do not believe that this House or indeed another place should be railroaded (if I may use that term) by the Government in that respect.
As the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby asked: how far shall we go along this road of discrimination? During the passage of the Bill through its Report stage I mentioned that many people were becoming concerned about different standards that are applied in our society. I instanced the case of a certain Moslem who called for the murder of one of our fellow citizens —one of his fellow citizens. To my knowledge there has been no such action taken. I suggest to noble Lords that if you, I, or anyone else outside this Chamber, other than perhaps a Moslem priest, had incited people to murder one of our fellow citizens, we should have been arrested, tried and either put in prison or a lunatic asylum. I realise that those are strong words. However, we must be very careful about what we are doing. We must ensure that the laws that we pass are seen to be sensible and fair to the whole of society. If we once start discriminating in favour of one section of society, then our laws will not be observed and they will not be respected in the way that we all wish.
Finally, I can envisage a position where an employer requires all employees in a certain situation to wear safety helmets. Among his employees there may well be a Sikh who says, "I will

349
not do so". Under the present provisions without the amendment, if the employer does not sack him but moves him to another situation, the Sikh may then claim detriment against the employer: that he has been injured in some way, financially or otherwise, by being moved to another position. He has not been sacked but moved to another part of the building site, plant, or whatever the case may be. It is an intolerable position in which to put employers.
I have heard the Government's answer. I have heard what the noble Lord opposite has said in Committee and Report stages. However, I hope that he will accept at least this very simple and essential amendment to protect employers who are trying to safeguard the health and welfare of their employees.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I should like to ask for clarification from the lawyers on the interpretation by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, of indirect discrimination. I believe that it is extremely important in this context. As I understand it, it is not a question of intent, but that if a requirement is laid down which cannot be fulfilled by a substantial proportion of one ethnic minority, an employer is guilty of discrimination. However, he is not guilty of discrimination if he can show that that requirement is justifiable.
If that understanding is correct —and I believe that it is —in the case postulated by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, if an employer said that for a certain job everyone had to wear a helmet, and he moved the Sikh to another job, and he could show that it was justifiable to require that helmets should be worn on the job from which the Sikh had been moved, he would not be guilty of indirect discrimination. It is a matter for the lawyers; but it is a very important point when we are discussing this issue. I do not argue that point, but I am asking the House to decide whether it is possible that the employer could do precisely what the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has said and not be guilty of indirect discrimination. Will the lawyers comment?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, at times was seeking to go back on the decision of the House taken at earlier stages that in deference to the Sikhs' religion they should be exempted from the obligation to wear helmets in circumstances in which all other workers were bound to wear them. We had a considerable discussion at earlier stages on that point. I do not propose to weary your Lordships by going over it again. The net result is the Bill as it stands. At least it has the merits of being clear.
If the noble Lord's amendment was inserted the Bill would lose a great deal of its clarity and in many circumstances employers would be placed in a position of considerable doubt. If they have to take account of the particular circumstances, which would include the degree of danger to the Sikh and to his fellow workers, they will be left without any guidance about the degree of danger which will exempt them from being prosecuted for
350
discrimination. They will also be left in an area of uncertainty where certainty is required.
Although I do not accept it, I understand the view of those who say that if people's religion demands such a thing they should receive no exemption. However, once it has been decided, as your Lordships' House has decided, that there shall be an exemption in deference to these people's religion —and my view is that one should pay great respect to people's regard for their religion —it is necessary that the situation should be clear. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, will leave employers puzzled and uncertain about whether in different circumstances they are entitled to move a Sikh worker from one job to another. In those circumstances, I hope that your Lordships will not accept an amendment which will undo a good deal of the value of the clause on which the House has spent a great deal of time.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, the building trade employers' organisation has strongly urged me to move the amendment and is fully behind my actions. Therefore I suggest to the noble Lord that he need not concern himself with the uncertainty of the employers because they want this measure of possible relief from the rigidity of the Bill as it stands.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Lord has it all wrong. The fact that for whatever reason the building trade employers' organisation —which, incidentally, does not always represent the trade—wishes to put itself in a position of difficulty is no reason why your Lordships should agree to this. In fact, we ought to save them from themselves.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, your Lordships will be aware that we on these Benches have been most worried by government amendments proposed in earlier stages. At Report stage we did not press our amendments to a Division but my noble friend Lord McCarthy made clear that we had a number of concerns. We were worried principally on health and safety grounds. Indeed, when speaking about the exemptions the Minister said:
"We are not talking solely about health and safety provisions. The Sikh will be less safe to a certain extent wearing a turban than a helmet".—[Official Report, 30/10/89; cal. 80.]
The Minister has never suggested otherwise.
We were concerned about safety not only as regards the Sikhs but also other people working on the site. We are also concerned about what would happen to site discipline in situations where some Sikh workers were exempt from wearing protective head gear and others were not. We have always regarded it, as a health and safety question. We believe emphatically in religious and racial toleration. However, because we are so worried about safety, we believe that the noble Lord's amendment tabled even at this late stage has merit. It would give some flexibility to employers who employ Sikhs on a construction site.
I am sure that noble Lords know that construction sites are dangerous places. I regret to say that the construction industry has a lamentable accident

351
record with a number of fatalities each year. I have been told by people working in the industry that in recent years fatalities have increased rather than diminished. Health and safety are important factors. For all those reasons the proposed amendment is worthy of consideration and support. It is a small amendment but it gives employers a degree of flexibility. It would enable them to assess whether it is safe to employ a Sikh wearing a helmet in a particularly dangerous situation.
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, introduced his amendment in a most elegant and clear manner. I suspect that he did so better than many lawyers could have done.
During the course of the Bill we have debated this subject for more than two and a half hours and covered more than 30 columns of Hansard. But it did not come as a great surprise to learn that the noble Lord was bringing back this important subject for discussion on Third Reading. Perhaps it will not come to him as a great surprise to learn that the Government are unable to accept the amendment because it reverses the intended effect of subsection (1) of Clause 12.
As I explained when we discussed this matter on Report, the decision to exempt turban-wearing Sikhs from the regulations concerning the wearing of safety helmets on construction sites was not an easy one to make. There are strong arguments for and against treating Sikhs in the construction industry as a special case. Indeed, many of those arguments have been expressed during the course of our debates. However, having considered the matter fully, the Government decided that the arguments in favour of an exemption, particularly those relating to the hardship that the requirement would impose on the Sikh community, relations with that community and the issue of religious freedom, outweighed those against.
Once the decision had been made to exempt turban-wearing Sikhs from the regulations it was only right that the Government took the necessary steps to ensure that the exemption would work in practice. It was for that reason that we introduced Clause 12 in order to make clear the effect of the exemption on the application of the Race Relations Act 1976.
We are certain that the majority of employers will recognise the deeply-held religious beliefs of those turban-wearing Sikhs who wish to take advantage of the exception and will apply it without difficulty. However there may be a small minority who would, despite the exemption, insist that all their employees wear safety helmets and the refusal by turban-wearing Sikhs to comply with such a requirement would in their view be sufficient reason to dismiss or not to employ Sikhs.
Although the employer might apply the requirement equally to all his employees, the proportion of Sikhs who could comply with it would be smaller than the proportion of non-Sikhs. Therefore the requirement could amount to indirect racial discrimination and the employer could be
352
subject to a claim under the 1976 Act. The employer would no doubt justify his action on grounds such as health and safety and the necessity to maintain good relations between employees.
If upheld, such a defence would render the exemption worthless. The Government are therefore of the view that an employer should not be able to argue a claim of indirect racial discrimination by arguing that such a requirement is justifiable. And that is why subsection (1) of Clause 12 makes it clear that a requirement on a turban-wearing Sikh to wear a safety helmet on a construction site cannot be shown to be justifiable when defending such cases.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, who has a great interest in the subject, said that in making a decision to look after one particular part of society one directly discriminates against others. To a certain extent that may well be true, but in this case we are talking about religious tolerance.
The noble Lord also complained that we were amending regulations which had not yet been through the House. The point is that regulations dealing with health and safety which are passed through both Houses on the negative resolution procedure cannot contain exemptions on grounds other than health and safety. As I made clear during previous discussions, we are not talking about health and safety; we are talking about discrimination against turban-wearing Sikhs.
I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, made an extraordinary speech. I felt that she wanted it both ways. On the one hand, she said how important ethnic minorities were to the Labour Party and to the future of the country and how there is tremendous solidarity between her party and ethnic minorities. On the other hand, the noble Baroness wishes to support an amendment which would possibly increase discrimination against Sikhs. Let us be quite clear about it. The clause removes any prospect of discrimination. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said that he wanted employers to have a choice.
4 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but the whole burden of my argument is that in our opinion this is not a question of discrimination but a health and safety issue. We are concerned about health and safety here and not discrimination. That is the difference between us and the noble Lord.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am afraid it is not. The noble Baroness read out what I said in Committee. I said that turban-wearing Sikhs would be less safe than if wearing a helmet. That is plain common sense. However, the implication is that we are putting turban-wearing Sikhs in a worse situation than they are at present; and that is not true. We are raising the general level of safety on construction sites by making the wearing of hard hats compulsory.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, except for some people.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, of course except for some people. We are not increasing the risk of accidents. At present, accidents happen at a certain level without the wearing of hard hats. If we make the wearing of hard hats compulsory then presumably the number of accidents will decrease.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, it seems almost by definition that we must be increasing the possibility of accidents. If that is not the case, why are we urging people to wear hard hats and in the law making it compulsory for them to do so? The noble Lord said what seemed to him plain common sense. It seems to me plain common sense that people wear hard hats to avoid accidents. If someone, for whatever reason —and we are not particularly concerned at the moment about that reason although I share my noble friend's reservations about it —will not wear a hard hat, ipso facto there will be a greater danger that that person will have an accident.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I suspect that I have not made myself sufficiently clear. At present there is no requirement to wear hard hats on construction sites, so accidents occur. We are bringing in regulations to make the wearing of hard hats compulsory. Therefore, we are raising and not reducing the level of safety.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I am on the Minister's side on this matter but we must have better arguments than that. If the hard hats regulation is introduced to reduce accidents and then certain people are exempted from wearing them, as a matter of plain logic, the number of accidents as compared with now will be reduced but there will still be more accidents than if everybody had to wear a hard hat.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Baroness has put that very clearly and I agree with her. I never said that the accident rate will increase as a result of this exemption. There is no evidence to support that and I have never implied that in any way.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, is the noble Lord correct? As I understand it, Clause 12(1)(b) only applies where the employer has reasonable grounds for believing that the individual worker —that is, the Sikh —would not object to wearing a helmet. Therefore, the amendment says that if he takes that view, he may be justified but he may not. Whether or not he is justified will turn partly, as we have said, on health and safety but it will also turn on whether or not the individual worker would have worn a helmet. That will come into it. This can only apply if there is the compliance of the worker himself. Therefore, we must have a situation where the worker agrees to wear a helmet and where there is a question of health and safety involved. What is wrong with that?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, would open up a loophole and allow employers to choose to decide themselves whether or not there could possibly be discrimination. That is not the Government's intention. Their intention is to
354
remove doubt altogether. Thus, in the example used by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, where the Sikh was moved to another job, if he claimed he had suffered a detriment, it would be open to the employer to argue that no detriment had been suffered. That is the position under the clause as it stands.
On a more general level, tolerance and respect for religion and freedom of expression are an important part of our heritage. I believe that these discussions on health and safety are ultimately a digression from the main principle. This amendment would lead to confusion and doubt as to the effect of the exemption contained in Clause 11. Therefore, that would undermine its application. I hope that in the light of what I have said, the noble Lord may feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I am very grateful to those who have taken part in the debate on this amendment. I am sure that noble Lords will have concluded, in listening to the debate, that the extremities and rigidities of our law regarding racial discrimination are quite extraordinary. It is pursued to the nth degree. That is why in this particular matter if indirect racial discrimination is alleged, no other defence of justification is possible. That must be determined by the court on the ground of indirect racial discrimination. I suggest that that answers the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. If racial discrimination is brought into it, there is no other justification. The matter has to be decided by reference to the allegation of racial discrimination.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, it states quite clearly that one can bring in a defence of it being justifiable. There is no question about that. It can be argued that it is justifiable. Your Lordships will remember cases concerning women and the requirement of height. If an employer said that a woman had to be six foot tall and could show that she could not do the job unless she was, then the discrimination was justifiable.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I must repeat that the amendment proposes to introduce the opportunity to an employer of advancing justification for what he did in answer to the charge made against him. At present he would not be able to advance any justification for what he did. He would have to advance the case against the allegation of racial discrimination. That is the basis on which, as I understand it, the matter would have to be decided.
Otherwise, what are we talking about? The employers say that they want this degree of easement as regards the rigidity of the proposal in this clause to enable them to advance grounds of justification for what they did as the merit of their case for action. As the Bill stands the law would not permit them to do so. This is an extraordinary situation. It seems to me that we are seeking to justify the disciplines of religious conviction to the exclusion of all other considerations either of justice or even of common sense. This is a situation that your Lordships should not accept. I urge that, having regard to the fact

355
that this Bill has yet to go to another place, your Lordships should express prima facie some doubt about the clause as it stands. Let us have further consideration and thoughts given to it in another place.
It would be, if I may say so with great respect, an ill service to the cause we are here to serve if we were to reject this amendment and allow another place to think that this is our judgment on the merits and the justice of the situation. We are asked to stretch everything that we stand for in justice and in the flexibility of the law against the injustices of rigidity in order to place beyond any doubt whatsoever the case of the Sikh to complete immunity from the regulations which would otherwise be imposed.
This is a matter upon which your Lordships ought to feel very strongly and I must ask the House to pass judgment on the amendment.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, before the noble Lord finally takes his decision, if I may intervene, would it not be better, rather than pressing his amendment at this stage after such full discussion in Committee and Report, if—the argument having been advanced on both sides —it were left for another place to reconsider the position?
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I am afraid that, at 91, I am suffering from certain deficiencies of hearing and I have not heard what the noble Lord said.
4.12 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 57; Not-Contents, 147.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Ardwick, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Birk, B.

Leatherland, L.

Blease, L.

Lockwood, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

McCarthy, L.

Bottomley, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Brightman, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Molloy, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L

Northfield, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Reilly, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Rugby, L.

David, B.

Scanlon, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Serota, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Shannon, E.

Ennals, L.

Slim, V.

Gallacher, L.

Stallard, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Stoddart of Swindon, L. [Teller.]

Greenway, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hacking, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Halsbury, E.

Tryon, L.

Hayter, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Underhill, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

White, B.

Hughes, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jeger. B.

Willis, L.

356

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Kearton, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Kimball, L.

Arran, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Aylestone, L.

Knollys, V.

Banks, L.

Liverpool, Bp.

Barber, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Beloff, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Belstead, L.

Long, V.

Bessborough, E.

Lyell, L.

Birdwood, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Blatch, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Blyth, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Borthwick, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Margadale, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Marley, L.

Brookes, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Butterworth, L.

Mayhew, L.

Caithness, E.

Merrivale, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mersey, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Milverton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mottistone, L.

Carnock, L.

Mountevans, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Cottesloe, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cox, B.

Nelson, E.

Craigavon, V.

Norfolk, D.

Crathorne, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Ogmore, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Onslow, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Orkney, E.

De Freyne, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Oxfuird, V.

Dilhorne, V.

Pender, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Dormer, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Eccles, V.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Effingham, E.

Quinton, L.

Elles, B.

Rathcreedan, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Reay, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Renton, L.

Elton, L.

Renwick, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Ripon, Bp.

Ezra, L.

Rochester, L.

Faithfull, B.

Rodney, L.

Falkland, V.

Sainsbury, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

St. Davids, V.

Ferrers, E.

Seear, B.

Fortescue, E.

Somers, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Gainford, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Gridley, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Grimond, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L

Sudeley, L.

Terrington, L.

Hampton, L.

Teviot, L.

Hanworth, V.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Thurlow, L.

Harvington, L.

Tordoff, L.

Havers, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hemphill, L.

Trumpington, B.

Henley, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hertford, M.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hesketh, L.

Walpole, L.

Hives, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Holderness, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Winstanley, L.

Hooper, B.

Wise, L.

Hunt, L.

Wolfson, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Ilchester, E.

Young, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.21 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
This is not by any means the longest or most complex Bill we have had to deal with in the present Session but it has raised many important and sometimes difficult issues. I would mention in particular the provisions on the employment of young people, the new framework for industrial training and the matter we have discussed again today at some length; namely, the question of the Sikh community and the construction industry. Your Lordships' House has understandably been concerned to explore the implications of these measures very carefully.
It will be no surprise if I say that once again the House has risen to the challenge and proved its worth. The level of debate has been consistently high. Contributions on all sides have been serious, penetrating and to the point. On the government side we might sometimes wish that your Lordships' scrutiny was not quite so penetrating, but taking a broader view we welcome the opportunity to explain and justify the measures we have put forward for your consideration. I hope that we have been able to reassure your Lordships that the Government have considered the arguments carefully and that if at the end of the day we agree to differ it is because we take a different judgment of the issues and not because we take the objections to our proposals lightly.
At this late stage, when we have discussed the issues very carefully and fully, I shall not detain your Lordships further with a detailed exposition of the Bill. I shall conclude by thanking all who have been involved with the Bill for their many and varied contributions. In particular I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in our debates for the serious and courteous way in which they have approached the matter. That is indeed no more than we have come to expect in this House but it is always a pleasure to acknowledge it. I should like to thank my noble friends on this side of the House for their helpful contributions, often based on long and deep experience of industry and commerce. In particular, I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Campbell of Alloway for their many wise and perceptive comments.
I should also like to thank noble Lords opposite for their vigorous but always fair and reasoned contributions. In the best traditions of your Lordships' House they have brought their formidable expertise and powers of analysis to bear on the often complex issues we have been discussing. I single out the balanced and constructive approach of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who have led their teams so ably. The noble Lords, Lord McCarthy, Lord Wedderburn and Lord Rochester, have also made contributions of the greatest weight and substance. Where else but in this House would we find such a concentration of expertise and knowledge of the issues before us?
I wish not to overlook the assistance we have received from the officers and staff of the
358
House—without whom we would quickly grind to a halt —the officials in my department and all those in the world outside who have been involved in consultations or who have otherwise contributed to consideration of the issues. I thank them all, and I now commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass. —(Lord Strathclyde.)
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for many of the things that he has said about us and for saying that we provided him with a formidable analysis. He acknowledged the weight and substance of our arguments. He said that he did not take what we said lightly. Unfortunately he did not take it seriously or heavily enough to agree with us on a single amendment that we put forward.
At Second Reading I said that this Bill was the fifth son of Frankenstein. In fact that is wrong because it is the sixth son. There were others in 1980, 1982, 1984, 1986 and 1988. This is the sixth time that we have sought in this House to narrow and restrict the collective rights of workers, or more particularly as regards this Bill to abolish or circumscribe the individual rights of workers against employers.
We know that this Bill is only the sixth son. The noble Lord told us earlier today that there is a seventh son in the wings dealing with the abolition of the pre-entry closed shop and unofficial strikes. We know that there is an eighth son in the womb, to be concerned with the abolition of the remainder of the wages councils. The ninth son is as yet unconceived —the previous ones were stillborn. However, the Government tell us that sooner or later they will be bringing before us legislation as regards essential services.
So we march on and on —in the words of the Prime Minister in 1983 —"until we get it right". So it is not unreasonable for us to look back now at some of these Bills and to look in more detail at this Bill in order to see the similarities and dissimilarities. The first point to make concerning collective provisions is that the Bill is not as bad as most. There is nothing in this Bill like the withdrawal of immunity in tort in 1982 or the removal of all rights to discipline in trade unions in 1988.
On the other hand, we can say that collectively probably more workers will lose more rights as a result of the Wages Act 1986 than anything proposed in this Bill. In terms of individual rights, probably the undermining of rights to unfair dismissal by the two-year rule and the exemption for small firms are much worse for most people than anything in this Bill. This Bill begins where the others leave off so that the Government are going further and further. If the steps in this Bill are somewhat smaller than those taken in 1980, 1982 and 1988, they are further steps down the road.
It is still the case that we are the only European country, certainly in the EC, which feels that it has to advance economically on the backs of the workers by lowering their standards, by lowering their rights and by taking away their collective privileges and immunities. Naturally we in this House and in the Opposition could not be expected to take this lying

359
down. We have sought to move a considerable number of amendments during the passage of the Bill through the House.
It has been a matter of considerable pleasure and gratification to me that we have found ourselves this time—and also in relation to recent annual Bills that this Government have brought forward on the subject—in conformity and in the same Lobbies more frequently with the other Opposition parties. There is a wider appreciation on this side of the House and outside that this Government have got industrial relations and trades union legislation on the brain. They go on and on. However they may change their economic and political objectives, when it comes to industrial relations they say the same thing year after year after year.
As regards the amendments we have tabled, it is not only this year that we have not received any concessions from the Government. We have had a series of government spokesmen speaking for a series of Bills. We got little from the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie; we got less from the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers; nothing from the noble Lord, Lord Young; tea and sympathy from the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne; while the heart of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, remains, in the current phrase, as unassailable as ever.
Yet the provisions that we have asked for have been modest in the extreme. We have asked for modest changes in the area of narrowing workers' rights against the employers; we asked for a modest reduction in the proposed two-year period of probation. We asked for some modification of the abolition of dismissal procedures for firms with below 20 employees. We asked for a slightly less objective definition of trade union time off. We asked for reasons for dismissal where an employee has worked for less than two years. We asked for some modification of what we regard as the unfair, unjustified and unworkable system of pre-hearing reviews. But the Government stood firm. They conceded nothing whatever throughout the debates.
We had no more success when we sought to advance standards of protection in a modest way —for example, to prevent discrimination at engagement point on grounds of age or disability. Nothing was done. It may be said that that was consistent with the line laid down by previous Ministers in previous Bills. But we received nothing more when we moved into the more novel area of the Bill where the Government are seeking to dismantle protections for women and young persons. One might have thought that in this new area of de-regulation there were particular reasons why the Government might listen to modest amendments. After all, as we said over and over again to the Minister, much of what he was proposing to do was not supported by those who are frequently regarded as the Government's friends. I refer to the CBI, the EEF, the IPM, the BIB and even the Institute of Directors. We read out to the noble Lord over and over again what those parties have said, but to no avail.
360
Much of what the Government wish to do in this area is against international standards and their proposals would undoubtedly sin against EC regulations. We cited those points over and over again but we had no help from the noble Lord. We even cited the words of remaining quangos such as the Health and Safety Commission and the EOC. The changes for which they asked were the basis of many of our amendments. Once again the noble Lord remained as unassailable as ever.
We tried to amend the Bill so that women could refuse to work underground and retain their social security benefit. That was a small, modest and almost pitiful amendment. The noble Lord would have none of it. We tried to allow for a detailed assessment of the proposals to dismantle the regulations on dangerous machinery. The noble Lord would have none of it. Similar proposals were put forward on heavy work and on young people being sent home at night. We mentioned again and again in Committee and on Report that those provisions are undoubtedly against international conventions. The answers were as unsatisfactory, as contradictory and as depressing as ever.
One must mention briefly the general arguments which the noble Lord put forward. I do not have to apologise for concentrating only on the noble Lord's arguments, because the arguments of those few members of his own party who supported him in the debate were identical. They could have read his brief. Perhaps they did —perhaps they wrote it. Everything they said was identical to what the noble Lord said, either before he said it or afterwards.
The argument he used most frequently was, as one might expect, a market argument. There were two contentions; each was mutually contradictory of the other. We were told that there could be no concession to anything we were asking because even our most modest amendments would add to the employer's costs. If they added to the employer's costs, so sensitive and delicately balanced was the labour market that any addition to employers' costs would mean an immediate loss of jobs. So it could not be done. We were also told that no concession was possible because no concession was necessary.
As regards women and young people, we were told that there was now a black hole and that the labour market was moving back in their direction. We were told that there was no need to protect them because their position was so strong. They did not require it because they could demand it, even if they were not unionised or organised.
Economists call the first contention market elasticity, where the elasticity of demand is substantially above unity. They call the second contention market inelasticity. In this case the elasticity of demand is much less than unity. Only this Government can have an elasticity of demand for labour which is both sensitive and insensitive and above unity and below unity.
If the Government did not like that argument they had some others. On HIV protection, the noble Lord actually told us that the people involved did not want it. We were told that they would not want it to be made clear that they could not be unfairly

361
dismissed. However, a little later he told us that they had protection anyway because the tribunals would never agree that such dismissals were fair.
The noble Lord said the same thing about women working in the mines. On the question of consultation and further investigation before the abolition of all protection for young people and women, he said that he had already consulted those who mattered but that unfortunately the Government could not tell us what they had all said. We were never told what the EOC said on these matters. We were told that although the Government believe in consultation they do not believe in telling us the results of consultation.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Lord could not remember what they had said.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. The noble Lord could not remember what they had said.
There were many other arguments. The one which I found most annoying was that our amendments, or some of our amendments, were discriminatory themselves, and that in this Bill the Government wanted to eliminate discrimination. There are several points to be made about that. There are provisions in the Bill which the Government say are clearly and openly discriminatory. We discriminate in this Bill in favour of the Oxford and Cambridge women's colleges. I am not against that; but it is discriminatory. We refused to repeal the whole of Section 51. The Equal Opportunities Commission says that that is discriminatory. The very proposal that Sikhs should not be compelled to wear helmets is discriminatory. As the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, discrimination is all right if one can justify it. That is what the law says, that is what the EC says and that is what the fair treatment directive says. The Government say that their discrimination is all right but that our discrimination is all wrong.
We were given a number of other excuses. We were told that we were trying to delay the Government and that our points were covered by our old friend the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. We were told that the Government will issue a consultative document and that the EC will come up on the outside with a consultative document. We were told to wait for those.
We have been faced with a series of excuses in different forms. They were directed at the same objective, which was to refuse to accept all our amendments. I have left until last the defence which I liked least of all. It was a defence put forward by the Minister on 17th October. My noble friend Lord Wedderburn was referring to the terms of the international standards that Britain now does not observe and was making the point that we are generally regarded as the worst country in the European Community. What really annoyed the noble Lord and the Government was that we were thought generally to be below Greece. The noble Lord rose not to refute what my noble friend had said but to say (referring to my noble friend):
"Does he not agree that if that is so, one of the reasons for it might well be that in the past we have had the most powerful,
362
the most dangerous, the most ugly unions of any European country over the past 20 years. That has led us into the severest economic decline … It is only since that has been overcome that this country has begun to perform efficiently economically". —[Official Report, 17/10/89; col. 865.]
Naturally enough, my noble friend asked the noble Lord for a single piece of evidence to show that before 1979 the British trade union movement was regarded as, "the most powerful, the most dangerous, the most ugly". Naturally enough, noble Lords would not expect the Minister to have given any evidence. Indeed, I think he may have thought better of it because the next day (at col. 898 of Hansard) he said:
"I do not hate trade unions. I think that there is a time and a place for everything and that trade unions provide a valuable service at the right time in the right place. However, this is not it".
I ask the Minister to think again if he feels that he must come to the House and make such statements in support of Bills of this kind. I ask him to think seriously whether this is the view taken of the British trade union movement in the ILO in Geneva and in the ICFTU in Brussels.
I suggest to the Minister that there are many trade union movements which are much more powerful than the British trade union movement and which have fought in their countries to bring benefit to their economies. I refer to those in Sweden, Norway, Austria and Australia. I further suggest to him that in the international trade union movement most trade unionists know many more trade unions in many other countries which are more corrupt, more highly paid and less dedicated than the British trade union movement.
I think that the Minister's statement —and I use my words carefully —is a disgrace and an insult to the British trade union movement, coming as it does from a Minister of the Crown. I thought that the Minister looked curiously isolated when he said it. In fact I think that he has been curiously isolated throughout our discussions. He has taken on this burden alone. The boy stood alone on the burning deck in this debate. I do not think that that is accidental. The noble Lord must be careful. The tide is going out for the haters and despiser of the British trade union movement and for those who can think of nothing to do to try to develop the economic power of this country other than to introduce such Bills.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, your Lordships may agree that it is quite a novel idea that a Third Reading speech should be half as long again as a Second Reading speech. I can assure noble Lords that I have no intention of competing in the stakes for the longest speech in the winding up of a Bill. However, I should like to say that I found this Bill extremely disappointing. It is doctrinaire and rigid; it is a Bill of lost opportunities.
My first objection is, as I think is widely accepted, to the amount of new material introduced at a very late stage. We have complained about this on every possible occasion and we must continue to do so. It is quite unreasonable that your Lordships should be expected to accept new material which is presented

363
at a very late stage of the Bill's proceedings. We very much hope that this practice, which has been growing in recent months, will now diminish.
I turn now to the lost opportunities and the dogmatism. They are really the marks of this Bill which are so unacceptable. We tried to get a little common sense applied to the Bill. It contains the removal of such sensible protection as that in regard to hours of work of youngsters of 16 to 18 years of age. The arguments put forward of market protection, or the market doing the job and therefore no other protection being necessary, are so hollow, so unbelievable and so doctrinaire that I cannot believe for one moment that the noble Lord gives them any real credence.
It is hard to believe that a 16 year-old will bargain with the employer to be sent on a training course. This is the last thing a great many 16 year-olds would wish to do. Indeed, most youngsters would be well pleased if they could earn a little more money and not go on a course. This is a very short-term view of the situation. Further, it is completely incompatible with the Government's declared intention to improve the situation at long last —and I give them credit for having done a fair amount to improve the standard of training in this country. But it seems completely contradictory and against all common sense that such an idea should have been introduced into the Bill.
Alongside that factor there is the doctrinaire approach and again the application of market ideas to the minimal protection for people on night work and especially women going home late at night. We ask that there should be some requirement in this respect and that there should be decent arrangements for transport. Can the Government not get off their dogmatic high horse, look at the realities in a case of this sort and introduce sensible adjustments in a reasonable way to match the changes which they are making?
As regards lost opportunities, this is an employment Bill. The whole employment position is changing, as the Government have repeatedly and rightly said. In many parts of the country, although not all, we have moved away from high unemployment to staff shortages. Therefore, it is most important that our legislation should give encouragement to groups of people who can be useful in the labour market but who need assistance to that end. I refer to women on the one hand and old people on the other, and of course disabled people are the third category. We attempted to introduce into an employment Bill encouragement for all those categories of people so that better use could be made of them, quite apart from the humanitarian opportunities which this may give them, in terms of getting a better labour force which would be properly trained.
At this stage, with the recovery in the labour market and faced as we will be with the competition which 1992 will bring, this is the Bill into which such changes ought to have been introduced. However, they have not been. All our attempts to bring them in by way of amendments have been
364
turned down flat, with no concessions whatever. It is extremely disappointing.
I have one final point to make, although I shall not do so in quite the same terms as did the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. I was a little surprised at his flowery remarks about how co-operative we have all been on this side of this House. Of course there are times when we must agree in opposing the more ridiculous suggestions of Her Majesty's Government. However, that does not suggest any great intimacy on our part.
The attitude towards trade unions reflected in the Bill is lamentable. The Government claim that they have had a very limited strike record during recent years. Of course they have. It is well known, and well supported statistically, that the number of days lost through strikes when there is high unemployment always fall. It happens without fail. But you cannot rely upon that as an asset towards the development of proper industrial relations of the kind needed when there is a booming economy. The Government have done nothing to prepare the way for sane, progressive industrial relations under conditions of full employment. This will have most serious consequences as soon as we achieve real full employment; indeed, that factor is already showing at present. It was shown by the anxiety of both Chancellors of the Exchequer, as I understand it, as regards the increase in wage claims and wage settlements.
This has been a lost opportunity. Provisions could have been introduced into this Employment Bill which would have helped towards obtaining the kind of industrial relations that we shall need if we are to be a successful economy. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, it is an extremely disappointing Bill.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I respectfully differ from the noble Baroness in what she has just said. It seems to me that, on the contrary, this Bill helps to clear the way, not least by the removal of outdated restrictions, for a new era in which we all hope and believe that there will be a very high level of employment. Therefore it is especially important that there should not be outdated restrictions on the work that people may do or on the way in which they may do it.
Having said that, I have some sympathy with one point made by the noble Baroness. I agree with her that in regard to this Bill there has been to some extent —although, in other Bills to a greater entent —far too much material introduced at a fairly late stage. Moreover, apart from suggesting a lack of adequate forethought before the Bill was introduced, this imposes considerable extra burdens on your Lordships as regards the duty of reviewing, considering and, if necessary, criticising and amending legislation. I hope that my noble friend will pay some attention to that perfectly reasonable observation of the noble Baroness, with which I happen to agree.
I am always fascinated to see the amount of physical exercise that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, takes in the course of a speech. It must account for his obvious high degree of physical

365
fitness. His speech was, on the whole, one with which I am afraid I do not find very much to agree. He said, however, that he thought the Government had trade unions and trade union law on the brain. Broadly speaking, I believe that he has that right, because the Government have been applying their brains, which are the right things to apply, to the tangle of trade union law and practices which they inherited when they came into office in 1979. By successive measures, they have been clearing up a great deal of the mess they found. That undoubtedly involved a great deal of brainwork.
I do not want to weary your Lordships by going fully into the general terms of the Bill, but I welcome the removal of out-of-date restrictions on work by women and young persons. Those restrictions are in many cases irrelevant to modern conditions of work and to the much higher standard of physical fitness of today's young generation compared with that of previous generations. I have only one trifling regret in that context. There is a real problem that once we free young people to be employed at night, once we free women to work underground —once we remove those restrictions —there must be some apprehension as to how those freedoms will begin to operate in practice.
It is important for the Government —I hope that my noble friend will pay attention to this point —to give fair and emphatic guidance to industry as to how the interests of those people, now freed from restriction, are looked after and how care arrangements for them are made as the new freedom begins to operate.
I was sorry that in the case of young people working at night my noble friend at an earlier stage rejected the idea, which had been put forward from the other side of the House as well as this side, that there should be instituted a code of practice produced by the Government to regulate arrangements for night transport and similar practical considerations, when working late hours, when those young people use their new freedoms to work. I hope that the Government will give further thought to that point. My noble friend said that they were contemplating producing a pamphlet, but those of us who have been in government know that governments produce a great many pamphlets and not all of them are given serious attention by everyone; whereas an official code of practice, backed by the Government and notice of which can be taken by the courts, is a much more serious matter.
Although my noble friend no doubt —I understand his problems with the department —felt bound to reject the suggestion of a code of practice, I hope that those responsible in the department and his right honourable friend will give further thought to that point. It would make for an easier transition from the restricted area into the new freedom and prevent it from becoming discredited by a number of silly and unnecessary incidents which could be avoided if proper and sensible arrangements were made to care for young people, in particular, who exercise the new liberty to work at exceptional and late night hours. I hope that my noble friend will pay some attention to that issue.
366
I welcome the Bill as a whole. It is an important measure. Mercifully, it is a great deal shorter than most of the Bills with which your Lordships have been troubled in recent months; and no one complains about that. Nonetheless, it is an important Bill in the whole series of measures on the subject. It carries forward the Government's policy of increased freedom from restriction in the industrial sphere which has already contributed a great deal to this country's economic recovery. I therefore welcome and fully support the Bill.
I should like to say one thing more about my noble friend. All your Lordships will agree that he has conducted the Bill with enormous skill. My noble friend has not been in ministerial office for long, but he seems to have got the hang of it with remarkable celerity and skill. I hope that he will allow me to say, as a friend of them both, how proud and delighted his father and grandfather would be if they could see him today.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Seear explained, in her characteristically forthright way, the view that we take of the Bill as it leaves the House. I wish to add only a few words on the subject of industrial training, not so much concerning the substance of the measures that the Government are introducing as the manner of their introduction.
In a debate that I was privileged to initiate in your Lordships' House last April I said that it was plain from the White Paper Employment for the 1990s that the Government were seeking to effect a cultural change in this country's attitude to training. The Government were not to be reproached for having that aim, but they were to be criticised because they were going about it in a way which showed that they had an impoverished understanding of how to manage change. In my experience of these matters, for what that is worth, there is no credibility in a command strategy that fails to give those having a stake in the problem an adequate say in its solution.
To judge from the Government's treatment of Parliament and of others having an interest in the vital matter of industrial training, they still do not seem to have a grasp of that concept. They may think that their policies can be implemented successfully by better presentation, but in my book if one wants to gain effective acceptance of change one has first to identify, confront and overcome obstacles standing in the way of the minds of those affected by the change, whether, as in this case, they are trainers and employee representatives or, for that matter, teachers, doctors, lawyers or anyone else.
The Government will obtain their Bill, but unless they learn to show more concern for the views of others involved they will not succeed in their objective. Having delivered myself of those strictures, as one who has sat through practically every moment of the Bill's various stages I should like to join in complimenting the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, not merely for the stamina that he has shown when piloting the Bill through the House on his own but for the courtesy and good humour he has shown throughout our proceedings.
5 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I said on Second Reading that this was a rag-bag of a Bill with a number of disparate issues jumbled together. As it has progressed through your Lordships' House, it has become even more of a rag-bag than before. As several of your Lordships have said, we had several lengthy amendments dealing with other subjects added during the Bill's passage. We had amendments dealing with industrial training added to the Bill, when, as we said, there should have been a Bill on the subject. The amendments indicated just how unsatisfactory is the Government's approach to training. The Government, as we know, are absolutely committed to the notion that industrial training must be employer-led, despite the fact that this has not led to good training in the past. Bodies with a good record in this field, like the EITB and the CITB, are apparently to be replaced with successor bodies which will not have a statutory role. If my information is correct —and this has not been denied by the Government —the ending of the statutory role for the EITB and the switch to entirely voluntary training will mean the loss of money from the European Social Fund since it is only available to a country which itself spends some public money on training.
There has been no assurance that good projects embarked upon —like the project for women —will be continued by the successor bodies, nor that necessary projects for ethnic minorities and the disabled will be embarked upon. The whole thing is most unsatisfactory, as is the Government's insistence that tripartitism must go and that unions have no role to play in training. Training looks like becoming a victim of the Government's ideological approach to everything.
So far as concerns the rest of the Bill, we have explained to the Government—but unfortunately they have not listened —that they could have used this Bill as a vehicle for improving the law on discrimination in ways that have been recommended by the Equal Opportunities Commission. We have sought to try to give assurance to unfortunate fellow citizens suffering from HIV or AIDS that they will not be discriminated against in employment as well as having to bear the appalling knowledge that they are suffering from a dreaded disease.
At least in that area, while refusing to accept our amendments, the Minister has indicated that the Government are sympathetic, that more education is needed, that they will update and reissue their guidance and advice, and that no risk should mean no discrimination. We are grateful for those assurances, but as I said at Report we will have to return to the possibility of legislation if the education programme does not appear to be working. We cannot have discrimination in employment added to the burdens that sufferers from AIDS have to bear.
On the matter of women working underground, we tried to ensure that when the Government said it would be a matter of choice for women —genuine choice —that was indeed the case. We endeavoured to provide, as my noble friend Lord McCarthy has
368
just said, through our amendments that a woman would not be forced to work underground by a threat of the loss of benefit if she did not. Unfortunately we did not succeed. Despite what the Minister said about our approach discriminating against men, we believe that with such a new departure it would have been justified to allow at least a time when there would be no element of compulsion via the social security system.
We regret also that the Government did not take the opportunity to look at conditions existing underground —for men as well as women —if not via a Royal Commission, which is one of the suggestions we made in Committee, at least possibly by a Health and Safety Executive investigation. This is still a very dangerous industry. Many are killed and injured, even in National Coal Board pits, and the situation is much worse in privately owned pits. We think we are justified in pointing to those facts when the Bill is before your Lordships' House.
In regard to young people, again we have endeavoured in the course of the Bill to write in some limited protections. The Government, unfortunately, are prepared to wipe out all protection for young people formerly covered by various pieces of legislation. If it is felt that those pieces of legislation are out of date or archaic, the opportunity existed for introducing a proper framework or, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said, a code of practice for the employment of young people in consultation possibly with the Health and Safety Executive. That is an approach which would have been favoured by a number of organisations but the Government refused to have anything of it.
However, the Government took the opportunity provided by this Bill to remove a few more employee and trade union rights. Restrictions on time off with pay for trade union duties have been tightened, and employees in small firms have lost the right to be told of the disciplinary procedures in existence in writing, while employees with less than two years' employment will lose the right to be told the reasons for their dismissal, if they are dismissed; though of course the clerk at the social security office will be told.
The Government seem to be obsessed by the notion that there are lots of vexatious litigants out there wasting the time of industrial tribunals. There is no evidence at all that that happens on any substantial scale, but we shall now have legislation, when this Bill is passed, requiring deposits of up to £150 prior to IT hearings if a pre-hearing review, which incidentally can be conducted by the chairman sitting alone, takes the view that it is a case of a vexatious or frivolous nature or is unlikely to succeed.
As we have maintained throughout, the people who will be put off by this are not obsessed individuals determined to have their day in court. Somehow or other they will find their £150 deposit. Those who will be put off are the poorer person to whom appearance before a tribunal is an ordeal anyway. Again, we endeavoured to amend this in ways less likely to bear heavily upon such individuals, but we failed to achieve our purpose.

369
So we have had another piece of legislation about employment. I said at Second Reading that I thought it was a nasty little Bill. It is a now a slightly bigger nasty Bill. It is not one that we on these Benches can commend to your Lordships' House, and I join with other noble Lords on this side of the House in saying to the Government, "Don't you think you have done enough as far as trade union legislation is concerned? Don't you think that the time has come to leave unions alone?" As my noble friend Lord McCarthy said so eloquently, British unions are not ugly unions, as the noble Lord the Minister said, I hope inadvertently. I trust that next time round his further comments were meant to withdraw that implication. We have unions that generally speaking have played a major role in improving employee condtions in this country, that are respected internationally and that do not deserve the kind of treatment that has been constantly meted out by this Government.
The unions in this country endeavour to comply with legislation even though that is becoming more and more difficult. Indeed, successive tranches of legislation have made the legal situation more and more difficult to understand and harder and harder to cope with, and there really is now no basis for introducing further legislation. However, this is probably a forlorn hope and all that we can do in this House is to trust that it will not be very long before this and similar legislation is replaced by laws which are more equitable and fairer to the 26 millon who constitute the workforce in the UK.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, if I may, I shall briefly respond to some of the points made by noble Lords. I was quite surprised when the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, started off in such a mild way, but my patience was rewarded later because he then gave us an exposition of his favourite hobby-horse for nearly 20 minutes. But I wonder. Even the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, cannot deny the economic success, the huge and continuous reduction in unemployment and the steady rise in wages and living standards that we have seen over the past 10 years. The noble Lord chose to quote me— have to say he did so slightly selectively —without taking into account the situation of the general debate. I do not deny what I said. It reflected fully what I have felt about trade unions in the past, and both the quotes that he used are exactly what I feel now.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said that this is a disappointing and doctrinaire Bill. I am sorry that the noble Baroness felt that. I hope, though, that she found that some aspects of the Bill were encouraging, particularly those on sex discrimination, and that we were generally heading in the right direction.
Both the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, mentioned the fact that we have brought in a considerable amount of new material. That may be so. It is something that we regretted when it was introduced at Committee stage. It was, however, very important material. We have had the chance fully to discuss it and I think that it will benefit the statute book. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, also gave credit to initiatives to improve training. I sincerely hope that the initiatives we have introduced will continue to
370
attract her support and be extremely successful in the long term.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter offered me some very kind words. I am extremely grateful to him for that. I should say to my noble friend that the Government never particularly like introducing new material. However, as I said, it was important to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, mentioned training. He has an enormous amount of experience in that sphere. We shall have to see how the important changes that the Government are bringing in will work. I am committed to those changes and I am sure that they will vastly improve the situation. I should also tell the noble Lord that the Government listen and consult very carefully with a very wide range of views right across the spectrum of society in this country.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, called this a ragbag of a Bill. I am sorry that she called it that. I am aware that we have covered an enormous amount of subjects. In a way that is what has made the Bill so interesting. The noble Baroness mentioned the changing statutory role of the ITBs. As I have said before, the situation is still being looked at closely. If it is any comfort to the noble Baroness, an announcement will be made very shortly.
The noble Baroness also mentioned the case of industrial tribunals. On the point of vexatious claims, if the noble Baroness is correct in saying that few people bring vexatious claims to industrial tribunals, there will be no need for deposits. There is no compulsion in this Bill for there to be deposits, only when claims are vexatious. We shall have to see over time whether the noble Baroness or the Government are correct, but this has been a good spirited debate.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Football Spectators Bill [H.L.]
5.12 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered. —(Lord Hesketh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS AND AMENDMENTS MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill 160 as first printed for the Commons.]

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
1 Clause 1, page, 1, line 14, at end insert —
'( ) The Secretary of State shall not make a designation under subsection (2) above without giving the Football Membership Authority an opportunity to make representations about the proposed designation, and taking any representations he receives into account.'.
2 Page 1, line 15, after 'above' insert —
'(a)'.
3 Page 1, line 17, at end insert '; and
(b) may provide, in relation to the match or description of match designated by the order or any description of match falling within the designation, that spectators admitted to the ground shall be authorised spectators to the extent, and subject to any restrictions or conditions, determined in pursuance of the order by the licensing authority under this Part of this Act.'.
4Page 2, line 2, after 'if insert —
'(a)'.
5Page 2, line 4, after 'match', insert; or
(b) he is an authorised spectator by virtue of subsection (3)(b) above,'.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 5 en bloc.
We are coming to the end of this Bill and its passage through Parliament. It has received a thorough examination in both Houses of Parliament. I think that it is also fair to say that the Bill has aroused a certain amount of controversy inside and outside Parliament. At the same time, I should like to echo the point made by my right honourable friend, the Secretary of State, in introducing the Third Reading in another place on Monday. Debates on the Bill have been fierce but they have generally been conducted with courtesy and good humour. I thank noble Lords on both sides of the House for that.
We are to consider today a number of amendments made in another place. The most substantial amendments to Part I of the Bill concern the status and powers of the Football Licensing Authority, particularly in relation to safety matters. There are also a large number of amendments introduced in response to requests from the Opposition. The Opposition spokesman in another place, the right honourable gentleman, the Member for Small Heath, recognised this on Monday when he said, in dealing with the first amendment before us today that:
"in this and in other amendments the Minister has sought to meet points that were made in Committee". —[Offical Report, Commons, 30/10/89; col. 22.1
I hope that we can proceed in the same spirit this evening.
Amendment No. 1 requires the Secretary of State, before he designates any matches to which the scheme will apply, to provide the Football Membership Authority with the opportunity to make representations about the proposed designation. The amendment was introduced on Report in another place and fulfils an undertaking to consider a similar amendment tabled by the Opposition in Committee. The amendment makes clear that any views expressed by the FMA must be taken into account by the Secretary of State before he makes a designation order under Clause 1(2) of the Bill. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that the advice of the FMA should be available to the Secretary of State to assist him in reaching decisions about designating matches. This amendment ensures that this will be the case.
372
Amendments Nos. 2 to 5 will enable the Secretary of State, when designating a match or matches, to provide that spectators admitted to a ground are authorised spectators subject to any conditions or restrictions attached to the licence. Amendments Nos. 34 and 41 provide that the Football Licensing Authority may include conditions limiting the spectators who may watch a designated football match and on the other hand may direct, in respect of a certain match or matches, the licence to be treated as including special terms and conditions about the admission of spectators.
These amendments concern the application of the national membership scheme to international matches and to matches between Football League and non-League clubs. Your Lordships will recall that this was a matter of some lengthy debate in this House. The Government have made it clear, throughout the Bill's progress through Parliament, that it is our intention that matches played at Wembley and matches between League and non-League teams played at a League ground should have special arrangements within the national scheme. As I was at pains to emphasise to your Lordships at an earlier stage of the Bill there must be special arrangements under which supporters of a foreign team playing in this country or of a non-League team playing a one-off match at a League ground are to be authorised to attend designated matches.
The Football Licensing Authority will have an essential role to play in these special arrangements. The FLA will discuss with the local police, the club, or in the case of Wembley with the Wembley authorities, just what the arrangements should be. It will be able to take full account of the circumstances of the individual match and of the ground, and decide on the most appropriate arrangements under which a particular match should be played. It may wish to make different arrangements at different matches for different parts of the ground. These amendments will enable the FLA 1.o decide on the most appropriate way of handling these matches within the scheme.
Amendment No. 34 provides that the licence issued by the Football Licensing Authority to football clubs in order that they may admit spectators to a designated match, may include conditions requiring admittance to be refused to specified descriptions of spectators. The amendment thus allows for the possibility that an individual club or clubs might be required to ban a specified group of supporters for a specific match or series of matches. This is a reserve power, to be used if, for example, an individual club was regularly experiencing serious problems with away supporters. Noble Lords will be aware that the Football Association has sometimes taken action in respect of supporters travelling to away matches. The amendment was introduced in response to a request from the Police Federation to my honourable friend the Minister responsible for sport.
The main purpose of these amendments is to ensure that the Bill provides sufficient flexibility to enable the Football Licensing Authority to deal sensibly with the range of circumstances that it may

373
face —in particular at international matches, at matches between League and non-League teams and in the event that special problems may arise for individual clubs. I commend them to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments —(Lord Hesketh.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I wish to begin by echoing the words of my right honourable friend in another place. In Committee the Minister gave a number of undertakings which are now seen on the face of the Bill. My right honourable friend acknowledged that, and I do so now. However, what we are looking at are the words that the Government have injected into the Bill. This will provide us with the opportunity to seek clarification.
In speaking to the first group of amendments, the noble Lord referred to Amendment No. 3. I am bound to say to the Minister that I still require clarification here. That may not be the fault of the Minister; it may be my fault or it may be the fault of others. In col. 23 of the Official Report of another place the Minister responsible for sport used an illustration of an Italian supporter making a one-off trip to Wembley. That is the issue that engaged the attention of this House for many hours over many amendments. I hope the Minister will be a little more precise about the likely procedure in these cases.
The Minister said that the licensing authority will, in issuing a licence, ensure that, within the terms of the licence, provisions will be made for the exclusion from the scheme of individuals in certain circumstances, in certain parts of grounds and in other such circumstances. Are we to understand that with perhaps 92 separate licences there will possibly be 92 separate sets of conditions? Are we to understand that every licence will be tailor-made to suit the circumstances of the ground? Will the football club, the licensing authority and the police, in all of those circumstances, be able to reach different conclusions as to how the licence will apply to a ground, for example at St. James's Park in Newcastle or at White Hart Lane? They are all sensible, responsible people who are knowledgeable about football, but they are to be left to come to their own different conclusions as to how to exercise the powers in the Bill. The Minister needs to tell us whether, as I understand is the case, under the Bill a wide disparity of conditions can apply within the licence.
Secondly, can the Minister say a little more about who the licensing authority will be? We had great arguments about whether it was to be the Football Membership Authority. We on this side suggested that the local authority might be the licensing authority. The Bill includes a provision for a licensing authority: this is our opportunity to ask the Minister to spell out in more detail who will be the licensing authority. If it is to be one central body then that will be another quango. It will be another body peopled with the Minister's placemen and placewomen for the purpose of ensuring that the licence provisions are carried out. Can the Minister tell us who will do that?
374
I understand what the amendment seeks to achieve. I cannot understand from what the Minister has said how what we have been led to believe would happen, will happen. We have the benefit of the proceedings in another place. Regarding this very amendment it was said that:
"No doubt the Football Licensing Authority will wish to discuss with the local police, with the club or, in the case of Wembley, with the Wembley authorities just what the special arrangements for the matches should be. They will be able to lake full account of the circumstances of the individual match and of the ground and decide the most appropriate arrangements under which a particular game can be played. They may wish to make different arrangements at different matches and for different parts of the ground. It is important that they must be free to decide what is best in any particular case".—[official Report, Commons, 30/10/89; col. 23.]
I should like the Minister to help the House and the football authorities by indicating whether that means that those knowledgeable people may decide collectively that people who come front abroad —or as the case may be, from Scotland to England —are not required to be in possession of an ID card. If that is possible within the remit of the licensing authority will the Minister tell us? Does the Minister realise that that blows a wide hole in the argument that the control and management of games and grounds is as watertight as it could be.
That is my first essay on the series of amendments. As the Minister knows, I have put down amendments of my own, together with the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon. We shall pursue those with a little more vigour than I am pursuing this one. I simply ask the Minister to help the House.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, noble Lords will be pleased to hear that I do not propose to repeat all the admirable arguments which we put at the Committee stage of the Bill when we discussed it some months ago.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Graham, I welcome some of the amendments which have been made. I am glad that the Government have moved on the point which I raised in relation to the chairman of the authority and his connection with the industry.
However, without in any sense wishing to be disagreeable so early in the proceedings perhaps I may make it absolutely clear that the Bill arrived as a foolish Bill and it will leave this House as a foolish Bill. Sooner or later there will be a government, not led by the present Prime Minister, which will provide an opportunity for us to discuss the matter on its merits.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I shall be brief, because my voice is a little less reliable than I would like it to be.
I welcome the amendments, which seem to me to leave the original concepts of the Bill intact while addressing the problem that I raised at Second Reading; namely, that of my foreign visitors. It is to be welcomed that at international matches the authorisation mechanism will accommodate the considerable numbers of foreign visitors so that they can attend matches. I am also pleased that movements of groups of foreign fans coming to

375
watch league or cup football will be accommodated by the guest membership scheme.
I believe that the industry can work with those arrangements. However, there still seems to be one problem. It relates not to those coming to international matches or to league or cup matches in groups, but to those who come as individuals to watch football in Britain. I took advice from Tottenham Hotspur on the subject this morning. The club estimates that this year its home and league cup programme might attract 12,000 foreign customers. Of those, perhaps 8,000 will come in groups and will thus be covered by the guest membership scheme. However, 4,000 will be individuals who will not be so easy to deal with.
I seek only one assurance: that as guest membership is evolved to deal with those individual travellers —who are a small but highly rated element of our tourist traffic —the systems that are developed will be as user-friendly as possible, and that they will be kept under review if they are seen to be detrimental to the traffic that I have discussed.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, before the Minister replies perhaps I could take up the point raised by my noble friend. He asked about the nature of the licensing authority. I noticed that in the column of Hansard to which my noble friend referred it is indicated that the licensing authority will discuss the arrangements for certain matches with the local police. On 18th November the first round of the FA Cup will be played. Twenty non-league clubs will take part. Presumably special arrangements will have to be discussed for those matches. Will the licensing authority travel around the country and discuss those arrangements with the local police? If not, those are just words that mean nothing at all.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the point of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, expands on a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Graham. The reason for flexibility is perfectly straightforward. There is an enormous difference between an Italy-England game at Wembley and a first round FA Cup match between Towcester Town —which by some miracle has managed to make it into a league stadium—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Or Northampton Town.
Lord Hesketh: My Lord, I chose Towcester Town because it is an even smaller town which does not even have a grandstand.
Those examples are taken from each end of the spectrum. The arrangements which would be appropriate for those two games would be very different. I mentioned earlier three examples —an international game played at Wembley, a run-of-the-mill league game played in the divisions, and the entry of non-league clubs in cup competition. Regarding the point of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, essentially there would be three fundamental licences. Of course, there will be horses for courses and special circumstances will appertain, and I would not suggest that there will be only three
376
basic licences. I should say that there will be three basics from which we shall work.
With regard to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, concerning the attendance of the individual, it will be for the clubs to be able to admit the individual tourist —the 4,000 out of the 12,000 at Tottenham whom he mentioned. As he knows, it is administratively easier to deal with a group, but we do not wish to disbar the individual.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, took the view that this was, to use his words, a silly Bill on the way in and that it is a silly Bill on the way out, but I believe that there are many people who take a contrary view. I must remind the House that, interestingly, the Bill has always had a tremendous amount of support in the country, perhaps from those who are not so interested in football.
The other key point that the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, brought to our attention was the role of the FLA and the fact that it did not leave this House as a quango, but comes back as a quango. As the noble Lord will be well aware, there were tragic occurrences after the Bill left this House. In the light of events after the passage of the Bill, the licensing requirements, both for today and for the future, require an extension of the powers. We shall deal with that change in the FLA when we come to the next group of amendments.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I should like the Minister to be a little more helpful because I asked a direct question about who is the licensing authority. Clause 11 states that:
"The appointment of a person to be the licensing authority shall be on such terms as may be agreed".
Will the Minister be a little more specific? Are we talking about a person? What do we mean by that? Will the man or woman who is to be the licensing authority have the function of going all over the country to consult the police forces and 92 football clubs? If that is not the case —and that is how I read it —the Minister must tell us what or whom we are talking about. We tried to be specific on the last occasion, but it was not possible. It is down to the licensing authority to discuss the issue with the local clubs. Perhaps the Minister wishes to intervene.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, with great respect, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, is out of order. In answering him I said that we would come on to that point in the next group of amendments.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the Minister is speaking to Amendment No. 3 which includes the words:
"determined in pursuance of the order by the licensing authority".
If he alludes in his amendment to a licensing authority, I should have thought that the House would agree that I am entitled to ask for elucidation of what that means. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, need not rise to his feet. I am perfectly willing to wait until later, but the point needs to be addressed.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Graham, saw me move in my seat merely to try to indicate to him that, if he had said, "Before the noble Lord sits down", he would have been in order. I am sure that he did not intend to make a second or third speech because that would have been out of order. Had he used the words, "Before the noble Lord sits down", he would have been in order.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, after the noble Earl has sat down, I should say that I am very grateful.
The Minister has failed to satisfy me on the contents of the amendment, but there will be other opportunities and I shall give the Minister the benefit of the doubt. I hope that, having passed up this opportunity and failed to obtain answers, we do not find that, when the real opportunity comes, we still do not obtain the answers. People outside the House are fed up with the fact that the Bill will lay upon them responsibilities. Yet, when they try to carry out those responsibilities and things go wrong, it will not be the Government who will take responsibility for the problems; it will be the hapless people outside who are called licensing authorities, football membership authorities or whatever.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
6 Clause 2, page 2, line 40, at end insert —
( ) Where a person is charged under subsection (1) above with an offence of entering or remaining on premises, and was at the time of the alleged offence not disqualified from being a member of the national football membership scheme, it shall be a defence to prove that he was allowed to enter the premises as a spectator by a person reasonably appearing to him to have lawful authority to do so.'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6. For the convenience of the House, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 17, 31 and 38.
This group of amendments provides, in one form or another, for emergency admission to grounds. Following the debates in this House and in another place, we have given careful thought to whether it was right for the offence of unlawful entry in Clause 2(1) to be absolute; that is, to have no defence provided in the Bill. We have come round to the view that it would be right to provide such a defence and Amendment No. 6 achieves that with one important qualification: it will not extend to people who are disqualified from the scheme.
The primary responsibility for the safe operation of a football ground lies with the club, although the club will of course rely on the professional expertise of the police in matters of crowd control and public order. Learning a lesson from Hillsborough, we believe that it is imperative that provision for dealing with admission in circumstances of emergency should be detailed in the licence which should be tailored to each ground's particular circumstances. Amendment No. 17 introduces a requirement for the scheme to provide that.
378
Following Hillsborough, a great deal of concern has been expressed at the possibility of a dangerous crush developing outside the grounds —the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, was concerned about that point —despite everything that we are doing to try to avoid such an occurrence. In those circumstances, it would be essential to reduce the risks of serious injury or loss of life to those who are outside the ground and they would have to be admitted quickly and safely without normal checks on membership.
In those circumstances, it would be impractical to distinguish with certainty between members and non-members of the scheme and we now consider it right to exempt from the offence innocent people who are not members of the scheme; for example, those who joined the queue unaware of the requirement for a card or who were unintentionally caught up in the crowd. As I said, that does not, and should not, include those who are already disqualified from the scheme.
Amendment No. 31 qualifies the offence in Clause 8(1) of admitting spectators to unlicensed premises by the new defence that the responsible person did so in an emergency. Similarly, Amendment No. 38 requires the licensing authority to consider arrangements to deal with emergencies when granting a licence to admit spectators. That therefore puts implicitly within the scope of a licence the provision to admit spectators in an emergency, safeguarding the licensee from an offence of admitting spectators in breach of a licence condition in those circumstances. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment —(Earl Ferrers.)
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I do not think that any of us will oppose the amendment, but I am bound to say that in my view it will lead to the creation of a state of almost total confusion so far as concerns the law.
Perhaps we may examine what the amendment says. It provides a defence for someone who has entered the ground in the circumstances described by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, if he can prove:
"that he was allowed to enter the premises as a spectator by a person reasonably appearing to him to have lawful authority to do so".
If the Bill stated that the only people who could take action of that kind were the police, there would be no ambiguity. An officer in uniform could give him his consent to enter the ground. That would provide the person possibly charged with an offence with the defence specified in the amendment.
However, as we now know, the Government have been resolutely opposed to giving the police overall responsibility in this matter. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, Mr. Peter Lloyd, said on Monday of this week:
"The evidence to show that the supporter was inside the ground unlawfully will be given either by the club or the police, one of which will have declared the emergency. The inability to identify the person who has declared the emergency should not therefore prove to be a problem".

379
I should have thought that that was a very profound non sequitur. He went on to say that:
"the primary response for the declaration of an emergency will belong to the police, although there will also be a responsibility belonging to the club as the licence holder. One would expect clubs and police to negotiate". [Official Report, Commons, 30/10/89; col. 38.]
He says "negotiate" —in those circumstances when tens of thousands of people are trying to get into a football ground in the last few minutes! Or is there some other meaning to be read into the words of the noble Earl's colleague?
As I indicated, I still find it hard to understand why the Government have not given the police that clear and explicit authority. I believe that there will be great confusion caused by the division between the police and the club. No one will have a clear view of the matter to know who in fact is responsible; nor will the person who enters the ground in the circumstances which the noble Earl specified when he opened the debate.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I appreciate that in deference to our procedures I should not intervene in the Minister's speech or raise any points when he has sat down. Therefore any matters I need to raise should be mentioned at this point.
I understand what the Minister and his colleagues are driving at in this amendment. It takes account of the kind of circumstances that we outlined. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, made his point very clearly. I agree with him that in trying to be helpful the Minister has confused the situation even more. There has been no collusion with the noble Lord, Lord Harris. However, I am certain that my copy of Hansard is riddled with question marks and queries in the same place as his and we both noted the words of the Minister in another place.
Perhaps the Minister will indicate whether this series of amendments is that to which the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, referred, and whether this will be the proper place to obtain information on the licensing authority. If in fact it is not —and I believe that I heard the noble Earl mention Amendment No. 7 —it is in the next series of amendments and is a pleasure that has been only deferred.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I should like to support the arguments of both noble Lords who have spoken. As a magistrate, I tried to work out the practicalities involved. I seem to recall, particularly in the traffic courts, that people quite frequently pleaded that what they had done was lawful because someone had told them that they could do it. That plea was always rejected because there was no evidence that the other person had lawful authority to tell him that he could do it.
There seems to be an equal ambiguity here: the spectator had reason to believe that he could enter because a person who appeared to him to have lawful authority told him so. The mind boggles at that. Think of it in an emergency situation with people rushing about saying, "I have the lawful authority to allow you to do this" and "Why have you not got a ticket?".
380
I am bound to say, not to be too finicky, that I always thought that legislation was not supposed to have a double negative:
"was at the time of the alleged offence not disqualified."
There must be a better and clearer way of stating that. I can only think that it will add to the confusion.
When we make the law, I wonder how far we think of its practical application. It is only when one sees people struggling to apply the laws that one realises how important it is that everything should be completely clear so that everyone knows exactly what is meant.
Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, before the Minister gives his answer, perhaps I may make this point. I believe that he said in his opening that he would speak to Amendment No. 17. I am not sure whether that is in the grouping on the list and whether Amendment No. 17A would also be included. If he wants to refer to emergencies, perhaps when he replies he can say slightly more about the nature and degree of the emergency to which he refers and what is in the mind of the Government.
5.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may deal first with the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Graham. My noble friend Lord Hesketh is not very often wrong. He does not often made a mistake. However, he made one terrible mistake this afternoon. He implied that this amendment was the amendment on which the noble Lord, Lord Graham, should have asked his questions. In fact it is the next amendment. However, if that is the worst mistake that my noble friend should make, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, will concede that it was not a very big one.
I find it very amusing that some of your Lordships are enormously agreeable and understanding outside the Chamber but inside the Chamber it seems difficult to persuade some noble Lords that matters are perfectly reasonable. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Harris, vigorously castigating the Government when this Bill was discussed in this House before, because of what would happen in an emergency. People would not be allowed into the ground because they would have to be shown to have a card. We took on board all those complaints and suggestions and came up with some amendments which simply state that if there is an emergency people will be allowed to be on the ground without creating an offence. I fail to see how, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, says, that adds to the confusion. It is perfectly clear that if there is an emergency and gates have to be opened so that people do get into a ground when they are not in possession of a card, they will not be creating an offence provided that they are shown not to have been disqualified.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, is always concerned about responsibility. I think it right to make it plain that anywhere outside the match it is the responsibility of the police to control the crowd because it is in a public place. Once in the football ground, which is private property, it is the responsibility of the club in combination with the

381
police. The police do have responsibilities there but the overriding responsibility lies with the club.
If there is an emergency the police themselves can open the gates. They can do that under common law. They can instruct the club to open the gates and clearly the club will oblige because if it did not it would be obstructing the police in the execution of their duty. So in all those matters I do not see that there is any real cause for disquiet about where the responsibility lies. Of course there will be involvement with the police and the club but that is understandable because they are on private land.
The noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, asked: what is an emergency? We shall come to that point later. I do not wish to pre-empt the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and possibly it would be better to leave that matter until we come to it.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I shall use the form of words recommended by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and before the noble Earl sits down perhaps I may ask him a question on what he has just said. He appeared to suggest that noble Lords who raised the question of an emergency situation were being extremely tiresome because we would not accept uncritically what the Government had produced.
We welcome the fact that the Government are now dealing with the situation but we are puzzled about the form of words in this amendment. As I tried to explain to the noble Earl, it is providing a defence in a court and the question arises as to who in fact appears to the person who finds himself in court to have lawful authority to tell him to go into the ground in an emergency situation. That is the point. If the police have a clear responsibility in this matter in the way that the noble Earl suggests, as a number of noble Lords have pointed out on several occasions it would be immensely helpful to have that on the face of the Bill. However, the noble Earl went on to say, as did his honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, that the club also has a position in this matter.
I am trying to point out the ambiguity created by that situation. If a club steward on the highway encourages people to go through the gates in an emergency situation, does that or does that not constitute a position in which the spectator has an absolute defence. That is the issue.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am hesitant to rise again. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, used the magic words "before the noble Earl sits down" although I had in fact sat down. He now invites me to rise and to break the rules of order by making a second speech. Naturally I would wish to do anything to accommodate the noble Lord. Having said that, I have almost forgotten what the noble Lord asked me.
He was concerned about who allowed the people into the football ground. I have explained that if there is an emergency and the club opens the gates, people will go into the ground who may not have the authority to do so. I have explained that the police may open gates and as a result people may go into the ground who do not have a right to be there.
382
If the noble Lord reads the amendment he will see that where a person is charged under subsection (1),
"it shall be a defence to prove that he was allowed to enter the premises as a spectator by a person reasonably appearing to him to have lawful authority to do so".
In that case it will be either the club's servant to whom it has delegated, or the police.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is it either?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is either.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
7 Clause 3, page 3, line 5, at beginning insert 'Subject to subsection (3A) below,'.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7. In speaking to this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 27, and refer to the amendment to government Amendment No. 8, Amendment No. 8A, tabled by the noble Lords opposite.
This group of government amendments was brought forward largely in response to points raised by the Opposition both in this House and another place. It concerns the chairmanship and membership of the Football Membership Authority and imposes a requirement on the Secretary of State to make a report to Parliament in the event that he should remove the designation of a body such as the FMA as soon as possible after he does so. The question of the role of football supporters' organisations in the preparation of the scheme is the subject of the Opposition's amendment and of a later government amendment.
The Bill as introduced in your Lordships' House did not deal with the constitution of the FMA because the FMA will be a private company, not a quango, like the NRA or the Football Licensing Authority for that matter.
Perhaps I may dwell on this matter for a moment to answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, because we have now moved towards the direction of the FLA. In Amendment No. 30 we find the description that he requires which incorporates a chairman and between four and eight other members. We should not therefore be in the business of spelling out the detailed rules on how the FMA will operate, as we have to do for the FLA. However, we recognised that there was a strong desire to see certain aspects of the chairmanship and membership spelled out in the Bill.
The government amendments require that the authority shall have a chairman independent of any financial interest or other area of potential conflict with football and that it should have six other members. Two of those six members will be nominated by the Secretary of State; the remaining four will be approved by him and will, we hope, be agreed with the football authorities, if they take on the responsibility for the FMA. The chairman will also be approved by the Secretary of State, in agreement, we expect, with the football authorities. The amendment does not refer to the football authorities by name, because we must take account

383
of the remote possibility that they may not decide to take on the FMA. At the same time, the working party set up by the FA and the Football League to prepare for the FMA has been hard at work since the Bill's Committee stage and we envisage that they will together set up the company which the Secretary of State will designate as the FMA.
The government amendments do not refer by name to members appointed to represent the interests of football supporters. We have by no means ruled out the possibility that a representative of football supporters might be appointed, as the Minister for Sport made clear at Report stage in another place on Monday. I do not think that it is necessary or, in fact, particularly helpful to refer to the football supporters organisations by name, as the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, seeks to do. For one thing we cannot be sure that a body named in this way will still exist in a few years time. Nor do I think that it is helpful to attempt to insist that the Professional Footballers' Association should be represented. Of course we accept that the views of players are important to the running of football but we cannot fill up all the places on the FMA in advance. We believe that the Opposition's amendment does not work, for a body corporate cannot include representatives in this way. I suggest that the priority is not so much who the individual members of the authority are as to ensure that the football supporters' bodies have a say in what the FMA does.
The Government have always accepted that there is a case for football supporters to be more closely involved in running the game. A subsequent amendment therefore will require the FMA to give the representatives of football supporters an opportunity to make representations about the content of the football membership scheme. I understand that the football authorities' working party on the scheme has already held one meeting with both the National Federation of Football Supporters' Clubs and the Football Supporters' Association. The Bill has already begun to have a desirable effect and our amendment will ensure that they keep the consultation process going.
This group also includes an amendment which places a duty on the Secretary of State, where he withdraws designation of a body as the FMA, to lay a report before Parliament giving his reasons for the withdrawal as soon as it is appropriate for him to do so. The amendment met a point raised by the Opposition in Committee in another place and I understand that it was accepted at Report stage. I hope that your Lordships will also find it helpful.
These amendments were introduced by the Government in response to points raised by the Opposition. They may not have gone quite so far as the Opposition would have wished but the right honourable Gentleman, the Member for Small Heath was good enough to say that they represented "half a step" in this direction. I hope that noble Lords will accept them in the same spirit. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment —(Lord Hesketh.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, in speaking to this group of amendments, I believe that it is in order to speak to Amendment No. 8A. At the appropriate time when the amendment is called, I shall then take action.
The Minister is right. Of course we have made progress since the Bill left this House. There have been discussions. The first point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. We were concerned about the independence of the chairman. The Football Membership Authority will either be all powerful or it will be a fall guy. The Government are saying that many powers will be given to the FMA. However, at the end of the day the Secretary of State reserves unto himself three matters: first, he can dismiss the FMA whenever he likes; secondly, he need not renew its remit; and thirdly, when it produces the scheme he reserves the right to amend, reject, or substitute his own scheme, in place of it.
The Minister and the Government cannot have it both ways, which is what they are attempting to do. They are attempting to place powers and responsibilities on various bodies such as the licensing authority, the FMA, the Football Association, the Football League, and the football clubs, and at the same time they are reserving the right to reject or rubbish what they say.
The amendment states that as well as the independent chairman there shall be six other members, two of whom shall be nominated by the Secretary of State. Perhaps the Minister will assist the House. How does he envisage that the other four people will be nominated? If the situation is as he has stated, it does not rule out the possibility that some of those four could represent supporters. How will that arise? At the moment, the embryo FMA will consist of nominees of the Football Association and Football League. They would not wish to say that they represented the views of supporters. They do not. That is in no way disparaging or disrespectful to any of the bodies. The Football League and Football Association need the support of supporters' organisations, but they would not pretend to speak for them.
The Minister can be helpful to the House by explaining how the names will be submitted to the Secretary of State for his consideration and approval. For instance, will there be an announcement and a date, or simply a general understanding that if anyone wishes to nominate a person for consideration for one of the four places they may do so in writing by a certain date?
I remind the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, that on two previous occasions we discussed what we on this side of the House wanted. I did not coin the phrase especially but I said that supporters need a place on the top table. It is all very well for the Minister to say that there will be consultation, that there can be representation and that meetings have taken place. The Minister knows that when the door is closed there is no substitute for being involved in the decision-making. You need to sit down as a member together with others and not merely tell someone else what you hope will happen or try to influence what the FMA will do. You may be outvoted and outnumbered, but at least you are there as a right.

385
I cast no aspersions becaue I think that the Minister and his honourable colleague, the Minister for Sport in another place, are genuinely sympathetic to the views of supporters. Tonight the Minister will deal with another amendment where supporters' views will be taken into account. That is no substitute for being a member of the board, the club or the management committee, which are the decision-makers. We are saying that at this stage it is right and proper for the Minister to accept the fact that there should be a place among the four as of right. I am not arguing the case put forward in another place that there should be more. We are looking at the people who pay the money and who often do not have the chance to call the tune. Some disparaging remarks were made by a Member in another place when it was asked, "Who do these people think they represent?"
In the absence of a membership scheme the two bodies to which we refer represent the views of supporters. It is a disparate situation because they do not have memberships, registers and so forth but, warts and all, they are the voice of the supporters. We believe that supporters ought to be there.
Colleagues in another place have produced petitions with more than 400 signatures, and they are genuinely sought. Many may have been duplicated, but it is about the average attendance at a Saturday match at our league grounds. Almost every supporter has petitioned against the value of the scheme. The Minister for Sport in another place said that there is little point in taking note of the views of someone who says that he is against the scheme and involving him in the machinery. The Football League and the Football Association are against the scheme. I maintain that the police and many other bodies are also against it. However, the Football Association and others recognise the parliamentary reality —that there will be a Bill and an attempt made to make it work.
Among those who will make the Bill better than it might otherwise be if it gets off the ground are the supporters of 92 clubs and many others. The Minister needs to answer the allegations that rather than allowing them in, he is effectively keeping them out. That is not the way to make the Bill work.
6 p.m.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, when the matter was before the House on a previous occasion I made the point that the essential role of the Football Membership Authority is not clear. I suggested to the Minister, and I reiterated it in a letter to him, that we must be clear about whether the authority will simply administer a static scheme or whether it will have a wider role to advise as experience gathers momentum on any changes which may be needed to the way in which regulations affecting football spectators should be changed. In other words, I suggested that there should be a subsection providing that it must be the duty of the Football Membership Authority to keep under review the working of the Act and to report to the Secretary of State any changes that experience may suggest are required.
386
The noble Lord turned me down and said that he did not believe that such an amendment was necessary. However, now that we are dealing with the matter again the confusion remains. We have a Football Membership Authority which will administer the national membership scheme. It must make an annual report to Parliament. In doing so, can it report to Parliament its views on whether changes are needed in the scheme as provided in Clause 2? Can it say that in the course of administering the scheme it has learnt lessons which it wishes to draw to the attention of the Secretary of State? For example, can it go further and report to the Secretary of State that gathering experience proves that certain types of matches increasingly need to be left out of the operation of the scheme? I put that forward especially as under Amendment No. 1 he has given to the membership authority a role in respect of the designation of football matches. What is the body to do? I repeat, will it simply administer the scheme or will it be able, as I hope, to put before the Secretary of State its experience and knowledge of the way in which the system is working with a view to it being changed?
We need a clear answer to the question, because the football membership scheme has grown up rather like Topsy. It did not exist before and has come into the Bill bit by bit. It was never properly considered in the first place and therefore we are still not clear about how wide its role is intended to be. I ask the noble Lord those questions quite deliberately.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I have a very simple question. The Bill provides that:
"the Chairman shall be a person who has no financial or other interest as is likely to affect prejudicially the performance of his functions as Chairman.
We are not dealing with a company and therefore we are not dealing with articles of association in the same way. I am trying to envisage the financial interests that he may have which will affect his performance as a chairman. For example, one assumes that a professional footballer cannot be chairman but can anyone who has any financial interest in the club be the chairman? People have interests in professional clubs and act in a similar way to people in the theatrical world by becoming patrons.
I find the matter most obscure. The body will be most strange. I should like to know about the financial interests of the chairman. I ask the question because, as with many Peers, I have been lobbied by interested parties about the proposal to fit the machines. There is a great deal of confusion about whether it will be carried out by the individual clubs or by one body. What is the financial interest which would interfere with the performance of his functions as chairman?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I do not seek to answer the question put by the noble Baroness. As I indicated earlier, I am glad that the Government have made this amendment. I believe it would be highly undesirable for the chairman of the authority to be a dirctor of the club or have a financial interest in the club.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am in total agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Harris. In terms of "prejudicial" I would also include a shareholder or an officer of a company supplying software or hardware for the scheme. It is clearly essential that there is an independent chairman.
The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, referred to boxing coming up in bits and pieces.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, Topsy.
Lord Hesketh: In that case, I shall move onto the noble Lord's next point because I misheard him and my answer on that would in no way be satisfactory on that point. The situation is very straightforward as regards the six members. Two of those six members are appointed by the Secretary of State. There is no reason why a noted football supporter should not be one of those two nominations by the Secretary of State. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that the Secretary of State is a keen Tottenham Hotspur supporter.
I am sure that the Secretary of State wishes, as I do, for the voices and worries of the football supporters to be recognised. Nothing is set in concrete but if the Secretary of State felt that the four other members in no way represented the interest of football supporters, he would be within his rights to say, "I should like to put on a noted football supporter who represents in some way or another the views of such supporters".
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, suggested that in another place disparaging remarks had been made against supporters per se because of the two organisations. That is not the Government's intention. Their intention is that they wish the views of football supporters to be heard but, as I said earlier, we do not feel that two organisations which have not been in existence for very long should be put on the face of the Bill as those representatives. That is all I am saying to the noble Lord, Lord Graham. I want to make it absolutely clear from this Dispatch Box that we in no way deprecate the position of football supporters desirous of their views being heard. Of course that is reinforced by Amendment No. 13, which allows for those views to be heard by the FMA.
The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, asked about modification of the scheme. Of course, the Secretary of State with the FMA, under Clause 4(5), can decide to do that. If in the light of the scheme it is felt that is a good idea, then I am sure that will be done.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he say something about the point I made as regards who will put the names before the Secretary of State from which his choice of four will be made?
I have an uneasy feeling that the embryo FMA, which is wholly peopled by the FA and the Football League, will be the channel which produces the names. I want the Minister to say that there will be an invitation so that the Secretary of State will have 12, 15 or 20 names and biographical details which he will look at and then make his choice.
388
The Minister says that the Secretary of State may well feel that the voice of a supporter needs to be there. I should be appalled if anybody on the FMA was not a football supporter. However, we want a voice of the supporters' organisations. These days it is a question of muscle and the numbers in one's army, and it is therefore very important that the views of supporters should be heard. I do not make any great claims for those organisations but they happen to be the best available. Before I decide what to do on Amendment No. 8A, perhaps the Minister can help me on those points.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, has not answered my question. Is the role of the football membership authority simply administrative or is it expected that, in pursuance of its work and particularly in its annual report to the Secretary of State —which presumably will be published —it will review the working of the Bill, draw lessons about which matches should or should not be designated and advise the Secretary of State, the Government and the country on that? Will it, as I hope, have the power to say eventually that football is moving into a period of good order and that much of the Bill can be dispensed with in future because the situation has settled down? In other words, is it advisory as well as administrative? I simply want a yes or no answer.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the answer is, effectively, yes. I stated very clearly that the Secretary of State and the FMA can agree to change the scheme, subject to parliamentary approval.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, that is only the membership scheme.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the Secretary of State is there and will, when that report is presented, discuss particular points with the FMA. Of course, if the Secretary of State feels that those are sensible and constructive points, then he will ask what should be done about it and whether the scheme should be modified.
In answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, the invitation is already there. My right honourable friend the Minister for Sport said on Monday that if organisations wish to nominate to the Secretary of State people for the FMA they can do so. He said that on Monday and that is as clear an invitation as I know.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
8 Page 3, line 11, at end insert —
'(3A) The Secretary of State shall not designate any body corporate as the Football Membership Authority unless he is satisfied that its articles of association make provision securing —

(a) that its Board shall comprise a Chairman and six other members, of whom the Chairman and four of the other members are persons approved by the Secretary of State before their election as Chairman or as member, as the case may be, and the remaining two members are persons nominated by the Secretary of State, and

389

(b) that the Chairman shall be a person who has no such financial or other interest as is likely to affect prejudicially the performance of his functions as Chairman;

and all the members of the Board shall hold office in accordance with the articles of association of the body corporate.
(3B) The Secretary of State may withdraw the designation of a body corporate as the Football Membership Authority if he ceases to be satisfied of the matters mentioned in subsection (3A) above.'.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Hesketh.)

AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 8
8A Line 13, at end insert ("and
(c) provided that such body corporate includes representatives of the Professional Footballers' Association and representatives from the Football Supporters' Association.").
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 8A. I simply add this. I spoke fully about that part of my amendment which deals with football supporters. In my amendment I also draw attention to another element in football which your Lordships' House may think is important; that is, the players. I honestly believe that the principle that at the top table there should be someone who represents the views of supporters and players is sufficiently important for me to press this matter to a vote.
Moved, That Amendment No. 8A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 8, be agreed to. —(Lord Graham of Edmonton.)
6.18 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 35; Not-Contents, 84.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L. [Teller.]

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Airedale, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Ardwick, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Attlee, E.

Longford, E.

Aylestone, L.

Mayhew, L.

Blackstone, B.

Molloy, L.

Bottomley, L.

Northfield, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Ogmore, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Phillips, B.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Seear, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Stedman, B.

Craigavon, V.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Ennals, L.

Underhill, L.

Gallacher, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Auckland, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Belstead, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Blatch, B.

Arran, E.

Blyth, L.

390

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Killearn, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Kimball, L.

Brookes, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Butterfield, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Butterworth, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Caithness, E.

Marley, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Carnock, L.

Merrivale, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Mottistone, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Mountevans, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Mountgarret, V.

Craigmyle, L.

Munster, E.

Cranbrook, E.

Norfolk, D.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Orkney, E.

Dormer, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Elton, L.

Faithfull, B.

Reay, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rees, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Renton, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Gainford, L.

Rodney, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Shannon, E.

Grantchester, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Halsbury, E.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Harvington, L.

Sudeley, L.

Hayter, L.

Swinfen, L.

Henley, L.

Teynham, L.

Hesketh, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hives, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Holderness, L.

Trefgame, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hooper, B.

Ullswater, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Walpole, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment to the amendment disagreed to accordingly.
On Question, Amendment No. 8 agreed to.
6.25 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
9 Clause 3, page 3, line 19, leave out 'withdrawn' and insert `divested'.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9. I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 9 and 10.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment —(Lord Hesketh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
10 Clause 3, page 3, line 34, at end insert —
`( ) Where the Secretary of State withdraws the designation of a body as the Football Membership Authority, he shall, as soon as it appears to him to be appropriate to do so, lay before each House of Parliament a report stating his reasons for the withdrawal.'.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment —(Lord Hesketh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
11 Clause 4, page 3, line 47, after 'section', insert — `(a)'.
12 Page 3, line 47, after 'Association', insert ', the Football Association of Wales'.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 11 and 12.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments —(Lord Hesketh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
13 Clause 4, page 3, line 48, at end insert '; and
(b) give such persons as appear to it to represent the interests of football supporters an opportunity to make representations.'.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 13. I have made a slight error, this being the first time I have dealt with Commons amendments in your Lordships' House. I should have spoken to Amendment No. 11 and, in speaking to the amendment, speak to Amendments Nos. 12 to 15, including Opposition Amendment No. 13A; for which I beg your Lordships' forgiveness.
These amendments relate to the preparation and approval of the national membership scheme. Amendments Nos. 11 to 13 require the Football Membership Authority to consult certain interested parties before it draws up or modifies the scheme while Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 clarify the position of the Secretary of State when considering giving his approval to the draft scheme.
Amendment No. 12 adds the Football Association of Wales to the bodies the FMA must consult before it exercises any of its functions under Clause 4 of the Bill. The amendment was introduced by the Government on Report in another place in response to a request by the Opposition for the Welsh FA to be given a statutory role in the consultation process. The Government fully accepted the case for this, particularly as the three Welsh clubs which play in the Football League are not members of the Football Association only of the Football Association of Wales. It is therefore important that the views of the Welsh FA are taken into account by the FMA as the scheme is drawn up or in the event of it being modified. This amendment ensures that this will be the case.
I referred earlier this evening to the Government's wish to see football supporters more closely involved in the running of the game and to have a say in what the FMA does. To help achieve this we introduced Amendment No. 13 on Report in another place. The Amendment requires the Football Membership Authority to give the representatives of football supporters an opportunity to make representations on the detail of the membership scheme to which I referred earlier. The amendment will ensure that football supporters are involved in the drawing up or modification of the scheme and that their views can be taken into account by the FMA. I have explained already why we think it better not to refer to particular supporters' organisations by name. We
392
would also argue that we do not need the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, to this amendment. His proposal is to spell out that it is football supporters, whose entry to the ground depends on the successful operation of the ID card verification equipment. I do not think that any of us would dispute the proposition that it is in the interests of supporters to see the scheme working properly. Nor do I question the crucial importance of testing the technology for the scheme properly before it is introduced. It is in all our interests to see that the scheme is not introduced until we are sure that it will work effectively. I do not think, however, that it is necessary or helpful to insert the words which the noble Lord has proposed.
Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 clarify the drafting of Clause 4. They are necessary to ensure that the Secretary of State has a reasonable degree of discretion as to whether to approve or reject the draft scheme submitted to him by the FMA. The scheme, either as submitted or as modified, must be agreed between the Secretary of State and the FMA so there is no question of the Secretary of State imposing changes which the FMA cannot accept. These amendments simply serve to protect the Secretary of State.
The Government amendments in this group will improve the drafting and simplify the working of the Bill. They will also meet points raised by the Opposition and I hope that they will be acceptable to your Lordships and that the noble Lord will withdraw Amendment No. 13A.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 13. —(Lord Hesketh.)
6.30 p.m.

AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 13
13A Line 3, after ("supporters") insert (", whose entry to the ground depends upon the successful operation of the identity card verification equipment").
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 13A standing in my name. We accept that Amendment No. 13 goes some way towards assuring football supporters that their voices will be heard. I believe that the Minister rightly hit on the reason for this amendment. He said that there is no question of the scheme being put into effect until it has been properly tested. The Minister could help the House by spelling out what he and his colleagues intend to do in order to satisfy themselves that the equipment has been properly tested.
We have heard about a situation in one or two grounds in one or two leagues and over a short period of time which is wholly unacceptable. The Member for Welwyn in another place who is chairman of the Luton Club, admitted that the electronic equipment at his ground had broken down because of condensation. That can happen at any ground. I think in particular of Manchester United where there are more than 100 turnstiles at the ground all of which will have to be serviced. The equipment could break down there.

393
We have been speaking about the occasions when the police will have power to suspend the match without anyone trying to rush the gates or being drunk. If one finds that the orderly use of the turnstiles means that queues become longer and longer it will be the ineffectiveness of the machinery that will cause problems outside the ground. The entry of football supporters to the ground depends on the successful operation of the ID card verification equipment. Supporters are entitled to hear from the Minister what he has done in order to be satisfied that everything is satisfactory at 92 clubs in all weathers and under all circumstances.
I do not intend to be alarmist, but after a tragedy it is no use saying that we did all that we could if it transpires that the Minister has not done all that he could. All he has done is to take a sample of some grounds in some circumstances only to find —horror of horrors —that the circumstances have changed when a future tragedy occurs. I hope the Minister will accept that we want proper testing. What we have heard so far does not satisfy us on that point.
Moved, That Commons Amendment No. 13A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 13, be agreed to. —(Lord Graham of Edmonton.)
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the only point I wish to make is that it is rather surprising, in the light of what happened only a few months ago, that not a single Member of the Government Front Bench has so far referred to the impending final report from Lord Justice Taylor. He is assisted by two distinguished assessors, one of whom is the chief constable of Lancashire, and he is going to produce a final report within the next few months. A number of those recommendations may have a most direct impact on the provisions of this Bill. That being so, what do the Government propose to do to take account of the recommendations of Lord Justice Taylor when the report is produced?
Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, my name is attached to this amendment. I reinforce everything that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has said. I believe that people outside the House will be interested to know whether, as regards the testing of the scheme, the Minister can tell us what timescale he has in mind. I believe that question to be important for many people outside the House.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I made allusions to the Taylor Report at the very beginning when referring to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Graham. I pointed out to him that the arrangements for the Football Licensing Authority had changed very considerably when we came to discuss the matter as regards another amendment and that was because of the tragedy at Hillsborough and the Taylor inquiry which is going on at this moment.
We believe one of the advantages of the scheme is that, with the arrival of the Football Licensing Authority and this Bill, there will be a significant improvement in preventing a future tragedy. We have to await the third component which is the report itself. When it arrives we shall have to wait to see what are the recommendations. As we always
394
said, what comes after that will come before Parliament.
A great deal has been made of testing. I know very little in this world, but I know a little about testing. I have spent many years building vehicles. The fact is that if you are planning a serious undertaking you can assess pretty accurately how long it will take to obtain a technological resolution of the problem that lies in front of you. It may take a little longer, but if professional people tackle the job in a professional way, they will arrive at a professional solution within a fairly reasonable timescale.
The key point is that we are not planning for the scheme to be tested on the basis of a summer's day, with no one who has had a drink, in perfect conditions and with the widest entrances to the grounds. Of course we have to look at grounds that are difficult on a wet night in the middle of winter. In those circumstances the noble Lord's reference to condensation will be attributable.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wish to point out that he has alluded only to one set of circumstances. I could list 20 circumstances of a changed character, and the Minister knows that. We wish to know over how long a period will the testing take place? Will it take place at large grounds and small grounds? Will the testing take place in conditions such as those at Hillsborough which were not unique? That is a ground built in a residential area with narrow roads for access. We want the Minister to bear in mind that it is for the public to be satisfied. The Minister knows, for example, that the scheme introduced at Plymouth broke down as well as that at Luton. This kind of equipment is likely to break down now and again. We want to know whether we can be satisfied by what will satisfy the Minister.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I should like to —
Noble Lords: Order!
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I am not asking for a reply from the Minister. I occasionally get the feeling that the Government make the rules as they go along. It is difficult to know when one can intervene to make a sensible point. It is important that these machines should be 100 per cent. reliable. If the Minister travels on the Underground he will know of the confusion that has arisen since the installation of the new machines. Those machines are covered and are not subjected to varying weather conditions. It is important that the machines do not break down. I reinforce what my noble friend said. Testing is most important.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I do not think that I can usefully go further than repeat the words of my noble friend the Minister when he said that we shall not go ahead with implementation until we are satisfied that the technology is workable, efficient and safe.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, in the light of what the noble Lord said, I wish to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment No. 113A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 13, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 13 agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
14 Clause 4, page 4, line 3, leave out 'may'.
15 Page 4, line 4, after 'requirements' insert 'may if he thinks fit'.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 14 and 15.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments —(Lord Hesketh.).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
16 Clause 5, line 12, at end insert 'and requiring that in Wales any application form for membership of the scheme shall also be available in Welsh'.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 16. In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 18 and 19. Their purpose is to improve the Bill's drafting in relation to the operation of the scheme.
Amendment No. 16 requires that the national membership scheme must include provision for membership application forms in Wales to be available in the Welsh language. The amendment was introduced on report in another place and fulfils an undertaking to consider a similar amendment tabled by the Opposition in Committee.
Amendment No. 19 clarifies the position on charges for membership to be determined under the scheme. The drafting of the Bill as introduced imposed more of a restriction than we intended on the ability of the Football Membership Authority and the clubs to decide how much membership cards will cost. It may be, for example, that different clubs will wish to make different arrangements including issuing cards free or at a reduced fee to particular categories of spectator. This amendment provides flexibility.
Amendment No. 18 is an enabling amendment. It is designed to increase our ability to take account of any relevant recommendations in Lord Justice Taylor's final report on his inquiry into the Hillsborough stadium disaster. Its effect will be to allow the Secretary of State to oblige the FMA to include in the scheme, in relation to the admission of spectators, further requirements with which the scheme must comply, let us say, as the result of any relevant proposals from Lord Justice Taylor.
It will be for the FMA to determine how the requirement is to be met. It will also be subject, indirectly, to parliamentary approval in the sense that the Secretary of State will be likely to exercise this power, if at all, before the scheme is submitted
396
and approved and before Parliament is asked to confirm the Secretary of State's approval of the scheme.
I said a moment ago that the purpose of these amendments was to improve the drafting of the Bill in relation to the actual operation of the national membership scheme. I hope that it will be clear that they have that effect and I commend them to the House.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment —(Lord Hesketh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
6.45 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
17 Clause 5, page 5, line 15, after 'that', insert', except in an emergency,'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 17. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 6.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment —(Earl Ferrers.)

AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 17
17A At end insert ("including in particular the failure of the electronically controlled entry system").
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to seek clarification about responsibility. I can do no better than to refer to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, who quoted the words of the Minister in another place. The variations on who is responsible make the mind boggle.
My amendment refers directly to a circumstance that will be unique in the sense that electonically controlled entry systems will come about as a result of the Bill. We are talking about the responsible persons, the procedures to be followed and the equipment to be used in relation to any designated football match. We must be sure what constitutes an emergency and who decides whether there is an emergency. Who has responsibility and authority in an emergency? We are especially concerned with the kind of emergency that will occur as a result of a failure of the electronically controlled entry system.
Every one involved in business knows that electronically controlled systems can occasionally go wrong. The Minister told us that until he is satisfied that he has equipment that will never ever go wrong it will not be installed. If he is not satisfied that he has equipment that will never ever go wrong, he ought never ever to be satisfied with the scheme. If he has to wait until then, what are we spending our time in Parliament for? No system is 100 per cent. reliable. We are not saying that a breakdown will produce a tragedy, but knowing as we do the nature of football and of football grounds, and, more importantly, knowing the psychology of football fans, we want the Minister to help the House by saying who will be responsible in the kind of emergency that we believe is likely to happen.

397
I do not say that emergencies will happen often. Manchester United has 92 turnstiles. At Tottenham Hotspur, at Arsenal and at all the large gounds there are banks of electronic turnstiles. It has been argued that these are all separately terminalled, and that just because one breaks down does not mean that they will all break down. If one can break down, two can break down. If two can break down so can more. That cannot be allowed.
Even if it does happen, we want the Minister to say who will be responsible for taking steps to negative a disaster arising from an emergency caused by the breakdown of the electronically controlled entry system. I beg to move.
Moved, That Amendment No. 17A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 17, be agreed to. —(Lord Graham of Edmonton.)
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I support my noble friend. I shall not weary the House by quoting the remarks made by Mr. Peter Lloyd, Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office. I can give eight examples from the columns of the Committee stage report of another place of the complete confusion there exists over who has authority to determine what should be done in an emergency. In some cases it states quite clearly that the authority rests with the police. Later it refers to the fact that the body responsible is the club. Then further on we find that it is a question of the club and the police getting together. If the Minister disagrees with what I am saying I shall, with the leave of the House, recite those eight points which I have marked.
The important point raised by my noble friend relates to the question of the actual equipment breaking down. Who has the authority in that respect: The columns to which I referred also state that the club and the police should get together in advance and decide what could be the nature of potential emergencies —that they should make a list of all possible emergencies and consider what could be done. In an emergency nothing could be more important than the breakdown of the equipment. That is the issue with which my noble friend's amendment seeks to deal.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I suggest that Amendment No. 17A would be wrong in principle simply because, if you pick out one kind of emergency, you are thereby emphasising it in the statute and ignoring other emergencies of equal importance which might arise. It is a fundamental principle that we do not pick out one aspect when others may be relevant.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I realise the importance which the noble Lords, Lord Graham of Edmonton and Lord Underhill, attach to this amendment. However, I think that it is common ground that all concerned will do everything to avoid failures and congestions of any kind. It is of course prudent to recognise, as does the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that problems could arise and that they must be catered for. But the essential point is that where an emergency arises the right action is taken. As my noble friend Lord Renton said, I do not think it is necessary to distinguish the causes of an emergency.
398
Indeed, if one does so, as he said, it may cast doubt upon other emergencies which, although they are not mentioned, are still emergencies.
The important point is that any emergency needs to be provided for. After all, the failure of an electronically controlled device is only one possible cause of an emergency, and indeed not the cause of the worst possible emergency. It would be a great error to pick out one type of emergency and insert it into the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, will see the wisdom of that argument and will agree not to press the amendment.
The noble Lords, Lord Graham and Lord Underhill, asked who was responsible in the case of an emergency. That consideration does not come under the amendment. The noble Lord's amendment seeks to say that this particular emergency should be drawn out as being one which should be specially mentioned in the Bill. We are, after all, dealing with the fact that this part of the Bill allows requirements to be imposed upon responsible persons as regards the procedure to be followed and the equipment to be used in relation to any designated football match to secure that, other than in the case of emergencies, it is followed. I think that it is right to allow for all emergencies and not categorise one as being particularly more important than another.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I certainly do not intend to press this amendment. But I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that it is perfectly proper in the context of what is known as the ID card scheme that we address ourselves to the kind of emergency which can arise only as a result of the operation of such a scheme. Of course, if the noble Lord says that we are giving undue prominence to one kind of emergency by so doing, so be it; that is the purpose of the amendment.
On this side of the House we are convinced —and this may not apply only to this side of the House —that there is a grave danger of a breakdown in the electronic equipment. We have Seen evidence to convince us that that is possible. When the breakdown occurs there will be certain consequences. The fact that the machinery does not work does not of itself create an emergency. But as a result of the breakdown I venture to suggest that there will be very many different problems for the police both inside and outside of the ground. That is why we have highlighted this issue.
The Minister has not accepted either that this is a likely event or that it is an exceptional event; it is just one of the series of events which may be constituted as an emergency. In time I believe that we shall see that the kind of emergency which occurs will almost inevitably relate back to the malfunctioning of the electronic equipment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 17A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 17, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 17 agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
18 Clause 5, page 5, line 17, at end insert —
`( ) to such effect, in relation to the admission of spectators to the premises, as the Secretary of State may specify in writing;'.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, I should like to say a word about Amendment No. 18 and ask a question. It concerns an enormous power which is being taken by the Government. It is a power which the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, said is to be taken to take account of what Lord Justice Taylor may find in his report. But it is a very wide power. If one looks to the beginning of Clause 5 it can be seen that this refers to the national membership scheme. The amendment as drafted provides that the scheme must include provision,
"to such effect, in relation to the admission of spectators to the premises, as the Secretary of State may specify in writing".
Therefore, the Government are taking on the power to write statutory law, and not by statutory instrument or by any measure which is subject to parliamentary approval. It is quite extraordinary. To take the argument to the extreme, the Secretary of State could specify that people with black faces should not be admitted and people with green eyes should not be admitted. It is a wide power which could be used to implement any provision as regards the membership scheme without the approval of Parliament. Surely that cannot have been the intention.
As I understand it, this would also include the power to nullify some of the early part of the clause. Unless I am mistaken, it would give power to the Secretary of State to order in writing alterations to paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) to nullify the provisions already in the clause. In effect, it is an enormous power to vary the whole operation of this part of the clause. Can we therefore have an assurance either that I am reading this incorrectly or, if I am correct, that a statement will be made to Parliament concerning what the Government propose to put in writing and order to be added to the membership scheme? We cannot have a situation in which this power is put solely into the hands of the Secretary of State.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment while speaking to Amendment No. 16. The purpose of the amendment is to incorporate the flexibility in order to accommodate the report of Lord Justice Taylor. In order to accommodate the report changes may have to be introduced. Such changes would then become part of the scheme, which would then return to be considered by Parliament.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the noble Lord is really telling us that this form of words is being included in the Bill because the Government have chosen to legislate before receiving the final report from Lord Justice Taylor.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
19 Clause 5, page 5, line 33, leave out 'imposing charges specified in' and insert `for the imposition of charges under'.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
7 p.m.
Clause 6 [Phased application of scheme]
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Nugent of Guildford): My Lords, the Question is that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 20. As many as are of that opinion say Content, the contrary Not-Content. The Contents have it.
Clause 7 [Disqualification for membership of scheme]
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, the Question is that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 21 to 23.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, perhaps I may point out that no one has moved the amendments. The Deputy Speaker is putting the amendments without anyone moving that we agree with the Commons.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
20 Clause 6, page 6, line 20, leave out 'of this Act' and insert `above'.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 20. In speaking to this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 24.
These are purely technical drafting amendments, Clauses 6 and 7 contain cross-references to earlier clauses —Clause 1(2) and Clause 5(7). By changing the cross-references from "of this Act" to "above" we are bringing them into line with the style adopted in the rest of the Bill and most other legislation. I commend the amendments to the House.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment —(Lord Reay.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, the question is that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 21 to 23.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, they have not been moved.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I am putting the amendments en bloc.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, someone has to move that we agree with the Commons.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I think that I can resolve the problem. I believe that a document appeared today from the Public Bill Office, which I have not seen, which has that form of words on it. Perhaps we should try to resolve that difficulty. The document says "en bloc".
Lord Northfield: My Lords, with all respect to the Deputy Speaker —
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I hope that everyone will agree that someone has to move the Motion. That is what has been suggested. We do not

401
have to get into a great state about it, but someone from the Government Front Bench must move the Motion.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
21 Clause 7, page 6, line 44, leave out from 'with' to end of line and insert 'the date of the conviction.'.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 21. In speaking to this Amendment, I shall also speak to government Amendments Nos. 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 51, 91 and 92.
This group of amendments is concerned mainly with the procedures which will be followed when someone is convicted of a relevant offence and is thereby disqualified from the national membership scheme. We have I hope both clarified the procedures and improved the position of those affected. There are also two amendments concerned with the procedures for the making of a declaration of relevance under the Bill.
The amendments in this group to Clause 7 have two main purposes. First, they provide that the period of mandatory disqualification which is to follow conviction for a relevant offence should begin on the date of conviction rather than on a date to be set under the scheme. I hope that noble Lords will agree that that is a simpler approach.
Secondly, they provide for the court to explain to an offender, in "ordinary language" the effect of his or her conviction on his or her membership of the scheme. There will therefore be no reason for the person concerned to be in any doubt that the conviction means that he or she is barred from designated football matches for two or five years, as the case may be. There is also within this group a similar amendment to Part II of the Bill providing for a court to explain to an official in ordinary language the effect of a restriction order imposed on him or her.
There are also two amendments to the procedure governing an application for a declaration of relevance. Their effect is to waive the requirement that the prosecution must give the defendant five days' notice of its intention to seek a declaration of relevance in cases where the court believes that the interests of justice do not require such notice to be given. It may be that the circumstances are so clear that there is no need for notice to be given. If so, in the interests of swift justice, we should allow the court the discretion which the amendments provide.
None of these amendments will have a major effect on the Bill. They serve to clarify and simplify the procedures to be followed under the Bill. I hope that noble Lords will agree that they improve the Bill in the process.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Hesketh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
22 Clause 7, page 6, line 47, leave out 'be withdrawn' and insert 'cease on the date of the conviction'.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 22.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Hesketh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
23 Clause 7, page 7, line 9, after 'court' insert —
'(i)'
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 23.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Hesketh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
24 Clause 7, page 7, line 10, leave out 'of this Act' and insert 'above'.
25 Page 7, line 11, at end insert —
'(ii) shall explain to him in ordinary language the effect of the conviction on his membership of the national football membership scheme; and'.
26 Page7, line 14, leave out 'give' and insert 'send'.
27 Page 7, line 15, leave out 'administrator of the scheme' and insert 'Football Membership Authority'.
28 Page 7, line 19, leave out 'send' and insert 'give'.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 24 to 28.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
29 Clause 7, page 7, line 20, at end insert —
'( ) Where, on an appeal against a persons's conviction of the relevant offence or against a sentence of imprisonment imposed on him in dealing with him for the offence, his conviction is quashed or the sentence is reduced to one which is not a sentence of imprisonment taking immediate effect, the court which determines the appeal or, as the case may be, the court I o which the case is remitted, shall cause notice of the quashing of the conviction or of the sentence imposed to be sent to the persons specified in subsection (7)(b)(i) and (ii) above and, where his conviction is quashed, the Authority shall re-admit him to membership of the scheme, but without prejudice to any proceedings under the scheme to exclude him from membership'.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 29. In speaking to this amendment, I shall also comment on the amendment to it tabled by noble Lords opposite.
The purpose of the amendment which the Government moved in another place was to ensure that, if someone was convicted of a relevant offence and appealed successfully either against his conviction or against the sentence imposed on him, the FMA would be made aware of his success. The amendment therefore requires the court to notify the FMA and the police of a successful appeal either against a conviction for a relevant offence or against the imposition of a prison sentence for such an

403
offence. The FMA will then arrange for the appellant's membership of the scheme to be reinstated or take note that the mandatory ban has been reduced from five years to two years, as the case may be.
In the terms that the Bill was amended in another place, that would be without prejudice to the FMA's discretionary powers under the scheme to disqualify people from membership. The Opposition have tabled a further amendment here to delete the words "without prejudice" and so forth; but I think that it is important for the FMA to retain the power to ban people according to its own rules. If an appeal succeeds on the grounds of mistaken identity, for example, there would be no reason why the FMA should not wish the person to be reinstated without further ado. There could be other circumstances; for example, where a conviction were set aside on a technicality or a court found that someone's behaviour was not such as to warrant a criminal conviction, but where that behaviour did meet the criteria for disqualification under the national membership scheme. After all, one of the main points of giving the FMA discretionary powers to ban people is to enable it to deal with misbehaviour that does not constitute a criminal offence.
I should also make the point that, if the FMA were to decide against re-instating the membership of someone who had appealed successfully against a conviction of a sentence, it would have to do so according to the procedures required by the scheme. In other words, the authority would have to notify the person concerned in writing of the reasons for its decision and he or she would have the right to challenge it —as anyone affected by the FMA's discretionary powers can.
The government amendment makes sure that someone whose appeal against a conviction is successful can be re-instated into membership. At the same time it safeguards the ability of the FMA to deal consistently with the possibility of discretionary disqualification. I commend it to your Lordships and I invite noble Lords to withdraw their amendment.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Hesketh.)

AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 29
29A Line 11, leave out ("but without prejudice to any proceedings under the scheme to exclude him from membership").
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 29A. This is one of the more extraordinary elements of this extraordinary Bill. What are we discussing? We are discussing a situation in which a man or woman is charged with a criminal offence and is convicted in the magistrates' court. The FMA is informed and he or she is banned from membership of the scheme. That is clear, and in the context of the Bill cannot be challenged. We then move on to the situation where the person appeals. In an appeal from a magistrates' court decision there is a full re-hearing of the case. Then the appeal is allowed. At that stage the court
404
has to inform the authority that it should re-admit him to membership of the scheme, on the grounds that the earlier decision by the magistrates has been overturned.
What we now have is one of the clearest cases of double jeopardy that I have ever heard, because what then happens, according to the amendment, is that notwithstanding the fact that the case has been tried on two separate occasions —first in the magistrates' court and then in the Crown Court —there is then a risk that the person acquitted can be required to appear before some committee of the FMA and for a third time defend his reputation. Why? What conceivable grounds are used to justify this?
The noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, as though he is conferring some immense advantage on this citizen, says "He will have the right to challenge the ban." What does that amount to? We know what it amounts to because we discussed this matter earlier. There is a high degree of likelihood that he will never be able to confront his accusers in an oral hearing. Therefore, quite possibly, we will have a situation where this person, who has by this time gone through two criminal courts and eventually won, will not on the third occasion have the opportunity to challenge his accusers who, by definition, have failed to persuade a criminal court that the person concerned has committed an offence which would lead to him being banned under the scheme.
I have rarely heard a more preposterous suggestion from any government. It is a flagrant denial of the civil rights of an individual, and I am deeply shocked that the Government are prepared to stand up and attempt to justify a provision of this sort. It is a case, I suspect —if the Government get their way, as I have not the slightest doubt they will —which will eventually go to the European Court of Human Rights and I have little doubt what the result there will be. I beg to move Amendment No. 29A.
Moved, That Amendment No. 29A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 29, be agreed to. —(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, in pleading for the words which we seek to strike out, the Minister said that it could be that the case was quashed on a technicality. The Minister may very well believe, as many people do, that, when someone is proved innocent after he has been found guilty, he is still a villain and has a record and it is the kind of thing which he would do.
The Government are putting on the face of the Bill words which in effect say that, even if a man has fought his way through the courts three times and on the third occasion comes out with his character unbesmirched, there can still be reasons for this punishment to be inflicted upon him which, to a real football fan, would be a very grave punishment.
I wonder why the Government are so vindictive and so punitive in wanting to inject into the Bill a power which, if it were exercised, would bring not only the FMA but the Government into disrepute. Or are the Government really saying that if there is disrepute it is nothing to do with them —it is something to do with the FMA? Personalities,

405
settling scores, getting one's own back and teaching lessons are the kind of phrases which come to my mind. It is not a way in which any government ought to seek to legislate.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am in one way extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, because I was aware that the noble Lord might seek to return to the subject of the procedures to be followed by someone who wishes to challenge a discretionary ban imposed by the FMA under the Bill. The reason for this is that I was lucky enough to read with interest his article in the Guardian newspaper last Friday.
I would make only one small factual point which was not mentioned in the article, which is that this subject was put before your Lordships' House at Third Reading on 16th June when an amendment was moved and that amendment was also defeated. It can be fairly said that your Lordships have given the arguments a fair hearing already, but I think I should rehearse the main points of my argument again.
The government amendment at Third Reading, which has upset the noble Lord, Lord Harris, was one of a package concerned with the FMA's power to ban people at their discretion. The effect of this group of amendments was very clearly to strengthen the rights of those affected. They put a maximum of two years on the length of any discretionary ban. They added a requirement that the FMA should notify the person concerned in writing of the reasons for his disqualification. I do not accept the substitution of the independent review procedure for which the Bill now provides in place of the appeals tribunal which was originally envisaged.
I have to say that we believe that it is very much in the interest of those concerned to have their cases heard quickly, especially if the length of their ban is relatively short —say, three or six months. A full-blown tribunal would take far longer to arrange than the period of the ban and we have not excluded the possibility of an oral hearing. It will be for the independent review panel, which is to be established by the FMA, to decide whether an oral hearing is necessary.
But I should remind your Lordships' House that we consulted the Council on Tribunals on this issue, as the noble Lord proposed that we should, and its advice was that the independent review procedure for which the Bill now provides was a more appropriate means of resolving disputes about FMA decisons than a full-blown tribunal.
Finally, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, very elegantly entwined the two legal procedures that he mentioned at the start of his argument, and then stitched them into the lace of the complete argument on the FMA discretionary ban. We should always
406
keep it in mind that there is a very great difference between the first two parts of the supposition and the third.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, that was not a desperately persuasive reply. First, the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, was kind enough to refer to the article that I wrote for the Guardian last Friday —
Lord Graham of Edmonton: A very good one.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I am always glad to accept tributes of that kind from the noble Lord, Lord Graham, or anybody else, The Minister appears to object to the fact that I did not say that we were defeated in the House on this issue. Does he not realise that if we had succeeded on that occasion I would not have written an article for the Guardian in the first place? It was entirely because the Government used the Library vote in the way they normally do on this Bill, and secured the majority which they did —because they have a majority in this House —that one had to raise the issue in the first instance.
I should like to make two points, the first of which is about a technicality. The noble Lord implied how appalling it would be if a man acquitted on a technicality did not lose his membership of the scheme as a result. Does not the noble Lord appreciate that if a person wins his appeal he is an innocent man? If the prosecution have mishandled a case, that is a matter for them. The fact is that he is innocent. Does not the noble Lord realise that, as I have pointed out, there will be three separate procedures, two in criminal courts and the third before the independent review panel? The noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, said that there is no particular problem here because the review panel may well decide to have an oral hearing. There is no certainty at all of that. When we tried to insist that all hearings should be oral, the noble Lord resisted it as he is doing this evening. I repeat that this is a flagrant attack on the civil liberties of individuals who have been acquitted in the criminal courts.
I hope that, when the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, studies once again that article in the Guardian, as I am sure he will, he will take the opportunity also to read an article in The Economist which came out last week. The article is particularly appropriate in terms of the argument which the Government have used to justify this amendment. It states:
"The British have been brought up to believe that their liberties are protected by a sovereign Parliament. In the days when parliamentarians were not wedded to the prospect of office, nor in the grip of their party whips, that may have been so. It is not so now. If a government does not want to admit that it has mistakenly trampled on civil liberties, Parliament will not force it to … The Labour government of the 1970s was weak on civil liberties. But the record of Margaret Thatcher's governments is the worst in modern times".
I should add that I was a Member of the Labour government of the 1970s. Everything we have heard tonight justifies the view expressed in the article. We shall vote on the amendment.
7.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 19; Not-Contents, 56.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L. [Teller.]

Molloy, L.

Airedale, L.

Northfield, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Ogmore, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Craigavon, V.

Rea, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Seear, B.

Falkland, V.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Underhill, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Mayhew, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Belstead, L.

Hooper, B.

Bessborough, E.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Blatch, B.

Kimball, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Butterworth, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Caithness, E.

Long, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Carnock, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Colnbrook, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Morris, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Mountevans, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Norfolk, D.

Dormer, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Elton, L.

Orkney, E.

Faithfull, B.

Reay, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Rodney, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Harvington, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hayter, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Henley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hesketh, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hives, L.

Walpole, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
On Question, Amendment No. 29 agreed to.
7.29 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
30 Before Clause 8, insert the following new Clause —
'The Football Licensing Authority.
.—(1) There shall be a body called the Football Licensing Authority (in this Part of this Act referred to as "the licensing authority") which shall perform the functions assigned to it by this Part of this Act.
(2) The licensing authority shall consist of a chairman and not less than 4 nor more than 8 other members.
(3) The chairman and other members of the licensing authority shall be appointed by the Secretary of State.
(4) Schedule (The Football Licensing Authority: Supplementary Provisions) to this Act shall have effect with respect to the licensing authority.
(5) The expenses of the licensing authority shall be paid by the Secretary of State.'.
31 Clause 8, page 7, line 42, after `prove', insert `either that the spectators were admitted in an emergency or'.
32 Clause 9, page 8, line 9, at end insert —
`(2A) The licensing authority shall not refuse to grant a licence without —

(a) notifying the applicant in writing of the proposed refusal and of the grounds for it;

(b) giving him an opportunity to make representations about them within the period of twenty-eight days beginning with the service of the notice; and

(c) taking any representations so made into account in making its decision.'.

33 Page 8, line 16, at end insert 'and, if the Secretary of State gives to the licensing authority a direction under section (Power of Secretary of State to require conditions in licences relating to seating) below, the conditions may include conditions imposing requirements as respects the seating of spectators.'.
34 Page 8, line 16, at end insert —
'(4A) A licence to admit spectators may also include conditions requiring specified descriptions of spectators to be refused admittance to the premises to watch designated football matches, or specified descriptions of designated football matches or a particular such match.
(4B) Where a designation order includes the provision authorised by section 1(3)(b) above as respects the admission of spectators to any ground as authorised spectators, the licensing authority may, by notice in writing to the licence holder, direct that, for the purposes of any match or description of match specified in the direction, the licence shall be treated as including such specified terms and conditions as respects the admission of spectators as authorised spectators as the licensing authority considers appropriate; and the licence shall have effect, for that purpose, subject to those terms and conditions.'.
35 Page 8, line 31, after `notice', insert `in writing'.
36 Page 8, line 35, after `holder', insert 'in writing'.
37 Page 8, line 40, leave out `his' and insert 'the'.
38 Page 9, line 2, after `that', insert `except (in the case of the procedures) in an emergency,'.
39 Page 9, line 13, leave out `where he is not the licensing authority,'.
40 Page 9, line 24, at end insert —
`( ) The fees charged on the issue of licences —

(a) may be fixed so as to reimburse the licensing authority their expenses under this Part of this Act; and

(b) shall be paid by the licensing authority to the Secretary of State.'.

41 Page 9, line 29, after 'licence' insert 'or in the case of subsection (4B) in the direction'.
42 Page 9, leave out lines 32 to 34.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 30 to 42 en bloc. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(Lord Hesketh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
7.30 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
43 After Clause 9, insert the following new Clause —
'Power of Secretary of State to require conditions in licences relating to seating.
. —(1) The Secretary of State may, by order, direct the licensing authority to include in any licence to admit spectators to any specified premises a condition imposing requirements as respects the seating of spectators at designated football matches at the premises; and it shall be the duty of the authority to comply with the direction.
(2) The requirements imposed by a condition in pursuance of this section may relate to the accommodation to be provided at, or the arrangements to be made as respects the spectators admitted to, the premises.
(3) A direction may require the licensing authority to include the condition in the licence when granting it or by way of varying the conditions of a licence.
(4) Before giving a direction under this section in relation to any premises the Secretary of State shall consult the licensing authority which may, if it thinks fit, make recommendations to him.
(5) The licensing authority shall not make any recommendations under subsection (4) above without consulting the local authority in whose area the premises are situated.
(6) The power to make an order containing a direction under this section is exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(7) In this section "local authority' has the same meaning as in the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975.'.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 43.
The purpose of Amendment No. 43, and of Amendment No. 33, which has already been dealt with, is to enable the Secretary of State to invite the licensing authority to make recommendations about the replacement of standing accommodation with seating at grounds staging designated football matches. The Secretary of State can then decide to direct the licensing authority to make requirements about seating a condition of the licence for the club or clubs concerned, subject to parliamentary approval.
The intention is not to impose all-seater stadia throughout the Football League but rather, where appropriate, to ensure that the seating capacity is increased so that spectators can enjoy a high level of comfort and safety at football matches.
Each direction by the Secretary of State in respect of a club or group of clubs will be subject to specific parliamentary approval. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Hesketh.)
Lord Northfield: My Lords, I should like simply to ask a question about this important new clause. I should like an assurance from the noble Lord that very careful consultation will take place with the owners of the grounds and the clubs concerned. It is not simply a matter of ordering seats; there is a problem of paying for them. If the power were used at all unreasonably some clubs would have to fold immediately. They could not afford the degree of seating that the Secretary of State might try to impose.
I am aware that grants are available from various funds to help with the cost of seating. Again, it would be useful to hear from the Minister whether there has been consultation about the possibility of increased availability of grants for the cost of such seating. Clubs need to know to what extent they will have to meet those costs, which will mean a considerable change to their profit and loss accounts and capital statements at the end of the year.
It is a very important change indeed. I hope that the noble Lord will give an assurance on the two points that I have raised —namely, consultation with
410
the clubs concerned and the possibility of increased availability of grants to meet the necessary costs.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I can certainly provide the answer that the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, requires in respect to his first point. Of course there has to be consultation. We cannot possibly decide to impose requirements on football grounds without consultation.
I fear that it will not come as a surprise to the noble Lord that I cannot give him a cast-iron guarantee about grants.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down I should like to say that I did not ask for a cast-iron guarantee. I asked whether the Government would look at the whole issue of the availability of grants to see whether there was some possibility of increasing them, particularly for clubs which will find the burden crippling.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, will be aware, the Government's commitment is concerned mainly with safety. We have not made any commitment towards providing further financial assistance.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
44 Clause 10, page 9, line 47, leave out `, where he is not the licensing authority,'
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 44.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Hesketh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
45 After Clause 10, insert the following new Clause —
'Licensing authority's powers in relation to safety at football grounds.
. —(1) The licensing authority shall have the function of keeping under review the discharge by local authorities of their functions under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 in relation to sports grounds at which designated football matches are played and shall have the powers conferred in relation to those functions by the following provisions of this section.
(2) The licensing authority may, by notice in writing to the local authority concerned, require the local authority to include in any safety certificate such terms and conditions as are specified in the notice; and it shall be the duty of the local authority to comply with the requirement.
(3) Before exercising its power under subsection (2) above to require the inclusion of specified terms and conditions in any safety certificate, the licensing authority shall consult the local authority, the chief officer of police and either the fire authority (where the local authority is in Greater London or a metropolitan county) or the building authority (in any other case).
(4) As respects those terms and conditions, the local authority need not consult the chief officer of police, the fire authority or the building authority under section 3(3) or 4(8) of the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 before issuing a safety certificate or about any proposal to amend or replace one.
(5) A notice under subsection (2) above may require the issue under that act of a safety certificate incorporating the specified terms or conditions or the amendment under that Act of a safety certificate so that it incorporates the specified terms or conditions,
(6) Any inspector appointed by the licensing authority may, for the purposes of the discharge by the licensing authority of its function under subsection (1) above, on production, if so required, of his authority —

(a) enter at any reasonable time any sports ground at which designated football matches are played;

(b) make such inspection of the ground and such inquiries relating to the ground as he considers necessary; or

(c) examine the safety certificate and any records kept under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 or this Part of this Act, and take copies of such records.

(7) The licensing authority may, by notice in writing to any local authority, require the local authority to furnish to the licensing authority such information relating to the discharge by the local authority of its functions under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 as is specified in the notice; and it shall be the duty of the local authority to comply with the requirement.
(8) Section 5(3) of the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 (appeals against terms and conditions of safety certificates) shall have effect with the insertion, after paragraph (ii), of the words "but not against the inclusion in a safety certificate of anything required to be included in it by the Football Licensing Authority under section (licensing authority's powers in relation to safety at football grounds) (2) of the Football Spectators act 1989".
(9) Any expression used in this section and in the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 has the same meaning in this section as in that Act.'.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 45.
The purpose of the amendment is to provide for the licensing authority to monitor the performance of local authorities under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 and enable it to require changes to be made to safety certificates. Before making such changes the licensing authority has to consult the relevant local authority, the chief officer of police, and either the fire or the building authority. I stress that the exercise of that safety power will require a commencement order that can be debated by Parliament, depending on the business of the House, and in the light of Lord Justice Taylor's final report. I beg to move
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Hesketh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
46 Clause 11, leave out Clause 11.
47 Clause 12, page 11, line 20, leave out 'designated reporting agency' and insert 'police station'.
48 Page 11, line 31, at end insert—
'( ) The "enforcing authority" means such organisation established by the Secretary of State under section 41 of the Police Act 1964 (common services organisations) as the Secretary of State designates for the purposes of this Part of this Act by order made by statutory instrument.'.
49 Page 11, line 32, leave out subsection (7).
50 Clause 13, page 12, line 21, leave out from 'the' to end of line 26 and insert 'police station in England or Wales at which the person subject to the order is to report initially'.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 46 to 50 en bloc. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(Lord Hesketh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I propose to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 51 to 90 en bloc.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, it is almost an abuse of our procedures to move so many amendments, some of them quite substantial, without any explanation. If the noble Lord were to stand up and say that nearly all of them are drafting amendments or of no consequence perhaps my fears would be proved groundless. However, it is not proper to move some 40 amendments en bloc without a single word of explanation.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I apologise to the House. Before moving the amendments I should have stated to the House that I had agreed with the two Opposition spokesmen that we should proceed to Amendment No. 97A, which is the next Opposition amendment, if they had no objection. If I have caused the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, any offence or distress, I apologise.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, the position is that, if there is an objection to moving Amendments Nos. 51 to 90 en bloc, I must take the amendments separately.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, I have no objection to the amendments being taken in groups. However, they deal with totally different subjects. Some of them are important; some are unimportant. It would have been helpful if the noble Lord had risen to say, for example, that Amendments Nos. 51 to 56 are drafting amendments, Amendments Nos. 56 and 57 are something else, and so on, so that at least we should know where we stood. As it is Parliament is being asked to be a rubber stamp. It is not proper.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I propose to put Amendment No. 51 to the House.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
51 Clause 13, page 12, line 28, at end insert 'in ordinary language'.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 51.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Hesketh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
52 Clause 14, page 12, line 43, leave out from beginning to end of line 6 on page 13 and insert —

'(a) to report initially to the police station specified in the order within the period of five days beginning with the date of the making of the order, and

413

(b) subject to any exemption, to report on the occasion of designated football matches when required to do so under section 17(7)(b) below to any police station in England or Wales at the time or between the times specified in the notice by which the requirement is imposed.'.

53 Clause 14, page 13, line 12, leave out 'the designated reporting agency' and insert 'any police station'.
Earl Ferrers: I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 52 and 53. Amendments Nos. 52 and 53, 79 to 88 and 101 all refer to one matter. After the restriction order scheme was conceived we looked carefully at how best its requirements might be carried out. Various organisations were considered for carrying out the role of a reporting agency but from the outset the police service was a strong candidate in terms of its experience in dealing with offenders and its obvious network of local stations.
In consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers we set about developing a scheme which would be effective without imposing an undue burden on the police service. I wrote on 14th September to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and others of your Lordships to explain our plans.
We concluded that it would be right for police stations to be the locations to which those subject to restriction orders should register initially and thereafter report as required. However, in order to keep to a minimum the work falling on the local police station only those essentially local functions will need to be dealt with there. The great bulk of administrative work will be carried out in a central enforcing authority. I am pleased to say that the Association of Chief Police Officers is happy with the arrangement as proposed.
The amendments allow offenders to report to the police station and for the administrative work in connection with offenders to be undertaken by the enforcing authority. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(Earl Ferrers.)
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, was good enough to receive a deputation from the Association of Chief Police Officers, myself and the noble Lord, Lord Knights. We expressed considerable concern about Part II of the Bill in terms of its impact on police resources. As the noble Earl said, he wrote to me on the subject. I am glad that there has been agreement and I believe that that is a far better procedure than the one which was initially proposed in the Bill.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Earl for explaining the matter and I do not want to raise points on it. However, he will realise from what I said earlier that what he has now placed on the record is important, particularly to football clubs —for example, to Wembley, with which I have been associated —in helping them to understand how the Bill is to work. This therefore reinforces my
414
protest —it is not a very strong one; I am not critical —that we cannot take large numbers of amendments en bloc. It is important to set some of the points on the record.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I understand the concern of the noble Lord. As he will realise, various amendments are grouped together because they refer to the same subject. They are grouped together for the convenience of noble Lords as a whole, but on this occasion we might have been a little quick. I am glad to have been able to give him the explanation that he wished.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
54 Clause 16, page 13, leave out line 45 and insert 'enforcing authority;'.
55 Page 14, line 2, leave out from beginning to 'at' in line 3 and insert 'police station (addressed to the officer responsible for the police station)'.
56 Page 14, line 16, leave out from beginning to end of line 19 and insert 'enforcing authority; and'.
57 Page 14, leave out lines 20 to 24.
58 Page 14, line 31, leave out 'an agency,' and insert 'a police station'.
59 Page 14, line 35, leave out from 'the' to end of line 36 and insert 'enforcing authority'.
60 Clause 17, page 14, line 41, leave out from beginning to end of line 49 and insert —
'(1) The enforcing authority and the officer responsible for the police station at which he reports initially shall have the following functions as respects any person subject to a restriction order.
(2) On a person reporting initially at the police station, the officer responsible for the station may make such requirements of that person as are determined by the enforcing authority to be necessary or expedient for giving effect to restriction orders.'.
61 Page 15, line 1, leave out subsections (3) to (6).
62 Page 15, line 27, leave out 'registered with it, the agency' and insert 'the enforcing authority'.
63 Page 15, line 30, leave out 'agency' and insert 'authority'.
64 Page 15, line 31, leave out from third 'to' to end of line 34 and insert 'a police station at the time or between the times specified in the notice;'.
65 Page 15, leave out lines 37 to 44 and insert 'authority shall, if that person is one as respects whom subsection (8) below is satisfied, by notice in writing to that person, require him to report to a police station at the time or between the times specified in the notice'.
66 Page 15, line 45, leave out subsection (8) and insert —
'(8) No requirement to report under subsection (7)(b) above shall be imposed by the enforcing authority on any person unless imposing it is, in their opinion, necessary or expedient in order to reduce the likelihood of violence or disorder at, or in connection with, the designated football match; and the authority may establish criteria for determining whether any person or class of person sought to be required to report under that paragraph.'.
67 Page 15, line 49, leave out from beginning to 'shall' in line 4 on page 16 and insert —
'(9) The enforcing authority, in exercising their functions under this section'.
68 Page 16, line 7, leave out from 'subsection' to 'shall' in line 8 and insert '(2) above'.
69 Clause 18, page 16, line 16, leave out 'designated reporting agency with which he is registered' and insert 'authority empowered to grant exemptions under this section ("the exempting authority")'.
70 Page 16, line 18, at end insert —
'(1A) The enforcing authority may grant exemptions under this section in all cases, but where the application is for an exemption as respects matches to be played within the period of five days beginning with the date of the application, or a particular match to be played within that period, the officer responsible for a police station may, subject to subsection (1B) below, grant the exemption.
(1B) The officer responsible for a police station shall not grant an exemption without referring the question of exemption to the enforcing authority, unless he considers that it is not reasonably practicable to do so.'.
71 Page 16, line 19, leave out from beginning to 'from' in line 20 and insert '(2) The exempting authority shall exempt the applicant'.
72 Page 16, line 21, leave out 'agency's' and insert 'authority's'.
73 Page 16, line 26, leave out 'agency' and insert 'exempting authority'.
74 Page 16, line 29, leave out 'agency' and insert 'exempting authority'.
75 Page 16, line 30, leave out 'agency' and insert 'authority'.
76 Page 16, line 33, leave out 'agency' and insert 'exempting authority'.
77 Page 16, line 34, leave out 'agency' and insert 'authority'.
78 Page 16, line 36, leave out 'the agency is situated' and insert 'he resides'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 54 to 78 inclusive.
This group of amendments establishes the responsibility for the different functions of the restriction order provisions and establishes the mechanisms to enable those responsibilities to be carried out. The amendments to Clause 17 set out clearly and unambiguously the duties of the local police station regarding initial reporting and the duties of the enforcing authorities in respect of the call-up of those who are subject to orders when designated matches are being played abroad.
The amendments to Clause 18 place the responsibility for the consideration of the granting of exemptions from the requirement to report on the enforcing authority, other than in exceptionally urgent cases when, in the interests of speed, that will need to be taken on by the local police station. The police station will have to obtain authority for granting exemption from the enforcing authority unless it is impractical to do so. The enforcing authority will need to be satisfied that special circumstances exist and may anyway wish to seek advice from the applicant's local police station. I believe that it is right to take such decisions centrally, both to relieve the burden on local officers and to ensure a consistent approach to such applications. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
79 Clause 19, page 17, line 9, leave out 'designated reporting agencies' and insert 'the enforcing authority'.
80 Page 17, line 16, leave out 'designated reporting agencies' and insert 'the enforcing authority'.
81 Page 17, line 17, leave out 'registered with them'.
82 Page 17, line 18, leave out 'them' and insert 'police stations'.
83 Page 17, line 18, leave out from 'of to `to' in line 19 and insert 'the enforcing authority'.
84 Page 17, line 25, leave out 'an agency' and insert 'the enforcing authority'.
85 Page 17, leave out line 30 and insert 'a police station'.
86 Page 17, line 31, leave out 'an agency' and insert 'the enforcing authority'.
87 Page 17, line 35, leave out `, out of money provided by Parliament,'.
88 Page 17, line 36, leave out 'designated reporting agencies' and insert 'the enforcing authority'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 79 to 88 inclusive. These amendments have already been spoken to. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
7.45 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
89 Clause 20, page 18, line 42, at end insert 'and a document in that form shall be taken to be such a certificate unless the contrary is proved.'.
90 Page 18, line 42, at end insert—
`( ) In proceedings against a person under this section, the facts stated in such a certificate shall, on production of the certificate and proof that that person is the person whose conviction is certified, be taken to be proved unless the contrary is proved.'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 89 and 90.
Clause 20 enables the courts to impose restriction orders on those convicted of corresponding offences outside England and Wales. Subsection (9) provides that an Order in Council specifying corresponding offences may also specify the authority in each country which will be responsible for certifying the information required and the form of the certificate which is to be used.
Subsection (10), with which we are concerned here, declares that such a certificate is admissible in the courts of England and Wales. Amendment No. 89 establishes that the certificate is valid unless proof is provided to the contrary. Similarly, Amendment No. 90 establishes the presumption that the facts which are contained in a certificate shall be taken to be proved unless the contrary is shown.
The amendments provide a safeguard for the defendant by requiring proof that the defendant is the person named in the certificate. That will normally be resolved by the court asking the defendant, "Are you the person named in this certificate?", or, if he disputes that he is that person, by reference to the details provided in the certificate. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
91 Clause 21, page 19, line 3, at beginning insert 'Subject to subsection (IA) below,'.
92 Page 19, line 6, at end insert —
`(1A) A court may, in any particular case, make a declaration of relevance notwithstanding that notice to the defendant as required by subsection (1) above has not been given if he consents to waive the giving of full notice or the court is satisfied that the interests of justice do not require more notice to be given.'.
93 After Clause 23, insert the following new clause —
'Financial provision.
.—(1) Any expenses of the Secretary of State under this Act shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament.
(2) Any fees received by the Secretary of State under this Act shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund.'.
94 Clause 24, page 20, line 16, leave out from beginning to 'shall' in line 17 and insert `A statutory instrument appointing a commencement date for section 3 or section (Licensing authority's powers in relation to safety at football grounds) above'.
95 Page 20, line 25, after `Act' insert `, except paragraph 14 of Schedule (The Football Licensing Authority: Supplementary Provisions).'.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 91 to 95 inclusive. These amendments have already been spoken to. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
96 Clause 24, page 20, line 26, leave out subsection (7).
Lord Reay: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 96.
This amendment deletes the privilege amendment which is contained in Clause 24(7). As noble Lords will know, the privilege amendment is inserted in all Bills which commence in this House and which involve the expenditure of public money. That is so that Commons privileges are not infringed. As is standard practice, its removal is necessary in the Commons and Amendment No. 96 provides for that. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Reay.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
97 In the schedule, page 21, line 22, at end insert —
'( ) any offence under section 12 of the Licensing Act 1872 (persons found drunk in public places, etc.) of being found drunk in a highway or other public place committed while the accused was on a journey to or from a designated football match being an offence as respects which the court makes a declaration of relevance;
( ) any offence under section 91(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 (disorderly behaviour while drunk in a public place) committed in a highway or other public place while the accused was on a journey to or from a designated football match being an offence as respect which the court makes a declaration of relevance;'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 97, and I shall speak to Amendment No. 98 at the same time.
These amendments to the schedule of relevant offences were introduced in another place in response to a suggestion made by the Opposition in Standing Committee. The effect of the amendments is that anyone who is convicted of an offence of excessive drinking on the way to or from a football match would be disqualified from the membership scheme and could be liable to a restriction order provided that the court had declared the offence to be football-related.
As the Bill had been drafted, only those offences which were committed on football special coaches and trains would count. Similar offences which were committed on foot or in a car would not. Given the part which alcohol has to play in spectator violence, it is right that we should cover all offences in this way.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Earl Ferrers.)
AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 97
97A Line 4, leave out ("or from").
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 97A. I do not intend to make heavy weather of this matter, but I was a little surprised by one element of the Commons amendment. I understand the case for "drunk and disorderly". Clearly people who are drunk and disorderly may become involved in incidents which lead to violence, but so far as concerns the first part we are talking about the provision of the Licensing Act 1872 where a person is found drunk on the highway. If a person is drunk on the highway —an offence which used to be described as "drunk and incapable" —he is almost by definition incapable of creating violence. I do not follow the need for that provision.
Perhaps I may take an extreme example where after a football match someone went to have a meal in a restaurant, drank too much and was then found drunk on the highway after the match. I find it hard to believe that he constitutes any risk to anyone other than himself. Perhaps the noble Earl will be helpful enough to explain the provision.
Moved, That Amendment No. 97A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 97, be agreed to. —(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl will help us in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, suggested. He indicated —and I agree —that we are at one in wanting to deal with football-related offences which are in turn related to excessive drinking. We can well understand how such offences may be football-related if they involve someone on his way to a match or during a match. The football ground that I know best is Tottenham Hotspurs. Very often for at least art hour after a football match I see people between the ground and White Hart Lane railway station and Seven Sisters

419
Underground station who, especially since the Government relaxed the drinking laws, legitimately find it convenient to throw off their guise of a football supporter. They are then in effect the same as those hundreds and thousands of other people who traverse those roads. They go into clubs or pubs and become the worse for wear. That is not remotely related to football. It is not a football-related offence.
The Government have to be much clearer as to timescale and circumstance if they want the Bill to be respected and to stand scrutiny. The Minister must know that people outside this House will do everything possible to make the Bill work. The Football Association and the Football League in particular, as well as football clubs, will want to know that they are keeping a clean ship and acting as good citizens. They will want time to get ready and will want the Government to understand their problems.
There are people who have been to a football match, whether they have enjoyed themselves or not, who leave the ground stone cold sober, but in the course of the following hour or so get drunk. Although that has nothing to do with their having been to the match, the Government seem to be saying that they might find themselves in difficulties. They are dealt with not only because they are drunk but in addition because they have been to the match their cards will be withdrawn. I believe that that is punitive.
Although there is agreement on the general sense, the Government will understand that in this case they have gone a little too far. If they do not accept the amendment to the amendment they are buying themselves a lot of trouble.
Earl Ferrers: The passage of this Bill has been remarkable for some curious expressions of opinion and not least this evening with regard to this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, says that he does not see how a man who is drunk on a highway can possibly be capable of creating any violence. The noble Lord must not have been watching events. He knows perfectly well that alcohol has played a very significant part in spectator violence. I regret to say that we have seen ample evidence of nasty incidents that follow excessive drinking on the way back from football matches as well as on the way to them. I do not think the House needs to be reminded of the ugly scenes at motorway stations and so on which have involved groups of drunken football supporters who celebrate victories if their side has won or wallow in misery if it has lost.
The underlying aim throughout the Bill has been to divorce hooliganism from football. That should apply to the journey to the match, the duration of the match itself and the homeward journey. At the moment the Bill allows for a relevant offence to be one in which drunkenness takes place on trains and coaches. We suggest that it should be not only trains and coaches but any form of transport. Even if someone is on his feet, if he has been to a match and as a result is in an inebriated state and then
420
creates mayhem in some place, that ought to be an offence. What matters is that it has to be a relevant offence and that is specified in the Bill.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down perhaps he could deal with the circumstance that I outlined; namely, that of people who have been to a match and have left the ground stone cold sober. Subsequently they do not go home but decide to enjoy themselves in the vicinity of the football ground. They take advantage of having friends who live nearby and go with them into a club or pub. Their connection with football has ceased to exist. They have, as it were, become ordinary citizens. Like thousands of other ordinary citizens they run the risk of becoming drunk and, just like other people, they get drunk. Other people do not lose their football identity card but the person who has left the match, whatever distance he is away from the ground, has his card taken away from him. He loses his card not because he has transgressed any rule but simply because, like many others, he has got drunk after having too much to drink. That has nothing to do with the football match. Will the Minister address that point?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the matter is perfectly simple. The noble Lord suggests that if a person who has been to a football match goes back to friends and perhaps celebrates their wedding anniversary and in so doing gets drunk, because he has been to a football match he is incriminated and may lose his card.
But it is up to the courts to decide whether creating mayhem in the place to which he went, having simply celebrated someone's wedding anniversary, is a relevant offence. If the court decides that the person got drunk as a result of enjoying himself in celebrating his friend's wedding anniversary, presumably it will say that that is not a relevant offence. But if the court determines that because the man had gone to a football match and because his side had won he and his friends had celebrated by going to a local motorway station and beating it up, it might decide that that was a relevant offence. It is entirely up to the court to decide.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, as I indicated, I do not intend to make heavy weather of this amendment. I am particularly glad that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is present because I believe that there will be an attitude of immense gratitude from members of the Bar about the impending flow of work when issues of that sort are tested. All I can say is that we understand the argument of drunk and disorderly citizens misbehaving.
The noble Earl did not deal with the question of the man who is simply drunk and incapable. I believe that the Government have acceded to pressure in the other place to make this amendment to the Bill. I believe that it goes much too far and creates one law for people who are members of the scheme and a totally different law for those who are not members. However, that is but one of the objections to this ill considered Bill. At this stage I cannot believe that

421
we are likely to amend it in a more satisfactory manner. On that basis I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment No. 97A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 97, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 97 agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
98 In the schedule, page 21, line 32, at end insert —
'( ) any offence under section 4 or 5 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (driving etc. when under the influence of drink or drugs or with an alcohol concentration above the prescribed limit) committed while the accused was on a journey to or from a designated football match being an offence as respects which the court makes a declaration of relevance,'.
99 After the schedule, insert the following new schedule—
THE FOOTBALL LICENSING AUTHORITY: SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
Status and capacity
1. —(1) The licensing authority shall be a body corporate.
(2) The licensing authority shall not be regarded as the servant or agent of the Crown, or as enjoying any status, privilege or immunity of the Crown; and its property shall not be regarded as property of, or property held on behalf of, the Crown.
(3) The Licensing authority shall not be exempt from any tax, duty, rate, levy or other charge whatsoever, whether general or local.
(4) The licensing authority shall have power to do anything which is calculated to facilitate the discharge of its functions, or is incidental or conducive to their discharge.
Appointment and tenure of members
2. It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State —

(a) to satisfy himself, before he appoints a person to be a member of the licensing authority, that he will have no such financial or other interest as is likely to affect prejudicially the performance of his functions as a member; and

(b) to satisfy himself from time to time with respect to each member that he has no such interest.

3. Any person who is, or whom the Secretary of State proposes to appoint to be, a member of the licensing authority shall, whenever requested by the Secretary of State to do so, furnish to him such information as the Secetary of State considers necessary for the performance by him of his duties under paragraph 2 above.
4. Subject to the following provisions of this Schedule, a person shall hold and vacate office as a member or the chairman of the licensing authority in accordance with the terms of his appointment.
5. A person shall not be appointed as a member of the licensing authority for more than three years at a time.
6. A person may at any time resign his office as a member or the chairman of the licensing authority by giving the Secretary of State a signed notice in writing stating that he resigns that office.
7. Where a member becomes or ceases to be the chairman, the Secretary of State may vary the terms of his appointment as a member of the licensing authority so as to alter the date on which he is to vacate office as a member.
8. If the Secretary of State is satisfied that a member of the licensing authority —

(a) has been absent from meetings of the licensing authority for a period longer than three consecutive months without the permission of the licensing authority, or

(b) has become bankrupt or made an arrangement with his creditors, or

(c) is unable or unfit to discharge the functions of a member,

422
the Secretary of State may declare his office as a member of the licensing authority vacant, and notify the declaration in such manner as he thinks fit; and thereupon the office shall become vacant.
9. A person who ceases to be a member, or ceases to be chairman, of the licensing authority shall be eligible for re-appointment.
Remuneration and pensions of members
10. The licensing authority may pay to each member such remuneration and allowances as the Secretary of State may determine.
11. The licensing authority may pay, or make provision for paying, to or in respect of any member such sums by way of pensions, allowances or gratuities as the Secretary of State may determine.
12. Where a person ceases to be a member otherwise than on the expiry of his term of office and it appears to the Secretary of State that there are special circumstances which make it right for him to receive compensation, the licensing authority may make to him a payment of such amount as the Secretary of State may determine.
13. The approval of the Treasury shall be required for any determination under paragraphs 10, l1 or 12 above.
Disqualification of members of licensing authority for House of Commons and Northern Ireland Assembly
14. In Part II of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 (bodies of which all members are disqualified), the following entry shall be inserted at the appropriate place in alphabetical order—
"The Football Licensing Authority";
and the like insertion shall be made in Part II of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975.
Proceedings
15. The quorum of the licensing authority and the arrangements relating to its meetings shall be such as the licensing authority may determine.
16. —(1) A member of the licensing authority who is in any way directly or indirectly interested in any matter which falls to be considered by the authority shall disclose the nature of his interest at a meeting of the licensing authority and the disclosure shall be recorded in the minutes of the meeting.
(2) The member shall not take part after the disclosure in any deliberation or decision with respect to the matter.
17. The validity of any proceedings of the licensing authority shall not be affected by any vacancy among the members or by any defect in the appointment of a member or by any failure to comply with the requirements of paragraph 16 above.
Inspectors, officers and employees
18. The licensing authority may appoint such inspectors as it may determine to perform such functions as are assigned to them by or under this Part of this Act.
19. The licensing authority may appoin1 a secretary and such other officers, and take into their employment such other persons, as it may determine.
20. The terms and conditions of appointments under paragraphs 18 and 19 above shall require the approval of the Secretary of State and the consent of the Treasury.
21. The licensing authority shall, as regards such of its inspectors, officers and employees as with the approval of the Secretary of State and the consent of the Treasury it may determine, pay to or in respect of them such pensions, allowances or gratuities (including pensions, allowances or gratuities by way of compensation for loss of employment), or provide and maintain for them such pension schemes (whether contributory or not), as may be so determined.
22. If an inspector, officer or employee of the licensing authority —

(a) is a participant in any pension scheme applicable to that employment, and

(b) becomes a member of the licensing authority,

he may, if the Secretary of State with the consent of the Treasury so determines, be treated for the purposes of the pension scheme as if his service as a member of the licensing authority were service as an employee of the licensing authority, whether or not any benefits are to be payable to or in respect of him by virtue of paragraph 10 or 11 above.
Accounts and audit
23. The licensing authority shall keep proper accounts and proper records in relation to the accounts, and shall prepare for each accounting year a statement of accounts in such form as the Secretary of State, with the approval of the Treasury, may direct.
24. The accounts of the licensing authority shall be audited by auditors appointed for each accounting year by the Secretary of State.
25. A person shall not be qualified for appointment for the purposes of paragraph 24 above unless he is —

(a) a member of a body of accountants established in the United Kingdom and recognised for the purposes of section 389(1)(a) of the Companies Act 1985; or

(b) a member of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy;

but a firm may be appointed if each of its members is qualified to be so appointed.
26. A copy of any accounts of the licensing authority which are audited under paragraph 24 above and of the report made on those accounts by the auditors shall be sent by the licensing authority to the Secretary of State as soon as reasonably practicable after it receives them; and the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a copy of any accounts or report received by him under this paragraph.
27. The Comptroller and Auditor General may inspect any records relating to the accounts.
28. In paragraphs 23 and 24 above, "accounting year" means the period beginning with the day when the licensing authority is established and ending with the following 31st March, or any later period of twelve months ending with the 31st March.
Authentication of licensing authority's seal
29. The application of the seal of the licensing authority shall be authenticated by the signature of the chairman of the authority or some other person authorised by the authority to act for that purpose and that of one other member.
Presumption of authenticity of documents issued by licensing authority
30. Any document purporting to be an instrument issued by the licensing authority and to be sealed in accordance with paragraph 29 above, or to be signed on behalf of the authority, shall be received in evidence and shall be deemed to be such an instrument without further proof unless the contrary is shown.'.
100 In the Title, line 3, after 'spectators', insert 'to provide for the safety of spectators at such matches by means of such licences and the conferment of functions on the licensing authority in relation to safety certificates for grounds at which such matches are played';.
101 Line 4, leave out 'by designated agencies'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 98 to 101 en bloc.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, if that is objected to I shall not put the Question in that form.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, these amendments deal with totally different matters. They are not a group which hangs together. To correct myself slightly, they are not totally different, but inserting a totally new schedule into the Bill without any explanation is, I should have thought, almost an abuse of the procedure of the House. However, I shall not press the matter. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said, it is far from being satisfactory but there is very little that we can say at this stage that will have any effect on this ill considered Bill.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I shall put the Question that Amendments Nos. 98 to 101 inclusive be agreed to en bloc.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill
A Message was brought from the Commons that they have made the following orders, to which they desire the concurrence of this House:
That the Promoters of the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill shall, have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid.
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House.
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session.
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and shall be ordered to be read the third time.
That no further fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which fees have already been incurred during the present Session.
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.
House adjourned at one minute before eight o'clock.

  FOOD SAFETY DIRECTORATE
  FOOD SAFETY DIRECTORATE
  ECONOMIC AND MONETARY UNION IN THE EC: RESPONSE TO DELORS REPORT
  ECONOMIC AND MONETARY UNION IN THE EC: RESPONSE TO DELORS REPORT
  ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: REPORT
  ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: REPORT