Sitting of 28 June 1990

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS

    CLYDE PORT AUTHORITY BILL
    Order for Third Reading read.
    To be read the Third time on Monday 2 July at Seven o'clock.

    ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [25 June],
    That this House doth agree with the Lords in their amendment to clause 3, page 3, line 10, to leave out '85' and insert '85E', instead thereof:
    Debate further adjourned till Thursday 5 July.

    REDBRIDGE LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL (By Order)
    Order for consideration of Lords amendment read.
    To be considered on Thursday 5 July.

    MEDWAY TUNNEL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

    BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
    Order for consideration, as amended, read.
    To be considered on Thursday 5 July.

    BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [26 February],
    That the Bill be now considered.
    Debate further adjourned till Thursday 5 July.

    SHARD BRIDGE BILL (By Order)
    Read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

    GREAT YARMOUTH PORT AUTHORITY BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Tuesday 3 July.
    Mr. Speaker: As the remaining eight private Bills set down for Second Reading have blocking motions, with the leave of the House I shall put them as a single group.
    PORT OF TYNE BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    LONDON UNDERGROUND BILL (By Order)
    HEATHROW EXPRESS RAILWAY BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    CATTEWATER RECLAMATION BILL (By Order)
    VALE OF GLAMORGAN (BARRY HARBOUR) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Thursday 5 July.

    LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL (By Order)
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [10 May],
    That the Bill be now read a Second time.
    Debate further adjourned till Thursday 5 July.

    SOUTHAMPTON RAPID TRANSIT BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Thursday 5 July.

    EXMOUTH DOCKS BILL (By Order)
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [29 March],
    That the Bill be now read a Second time.
    Debate further adjourned till Thursday 5 July.

Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Set-aside Scheme
    Mr. Hague: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to review the workings of the set-aside scheme.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): We have been reviewing the scheme in the light of the first two years of operation and we shall be announcing decisions when the third year of the scheme opens.
    Mr. Hague: Does my hon. Friend agree that the set-aside scheme will need significant changes if it is to be made acceptable to farmers and the public? Will he consider bringing forward cutting dates and supporting an extension of the countryside premium scheme? Most important, will he ensure that any proposals to support the so-called grazed fallow do not allow the grazing of additional breeding stock on set-aside land, because that would undermine the business of existing traditional livestock producers?
    Mr. Curry: The Government recognise the great importance of the uplands for livestock grazing. However, there are anomalies in the present scheme. For example, if a farmer who has set-aside and livestock suffers from drought and runs out of fodder, he cannot use set-aside land to feed his livestock. There is a case for some flexibility, which would also be in the interest of the environment. If we make changes or introduce flexibility, they will be limited and designed to protect the traditional activities on the uplands, which I and 25 of my hon. Friends represent.
    Mr. Skinner: Notwithstanding the complex question of the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), is not he really saying that he wants farmers to get more money to watch the grass grow?
    Mr. Curry: Watching the grass grow is an environmentally friendly activity and, of course, many wild species breed in the grass, so there is a good case for watching it grow. The scheme does not pay farmers to do nothing because they have to maintain their normal farming activity over the major part of the farm, and the taxpayer gets an extremely good deal for not having to finance surplus production on land that is set aside.

    Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
    Mr. Holt: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many parents of schoolchildren in Cleveland have made representations to him about BSE.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Gummer): I have received representations about BSE from various organisations and individuals. I am sure that many parents of schoolchildren in Cleveland are unhappy that children compulsorily taught science and scientific values are now compulsorily being denied beef on entirely emotional grounds.
    Mr. Holt: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. I should be surprised if any parents had written directly to the Ministry. There is no evidence from my postbag of any such representations from Cleveland parents. I have checked with my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) and he has not had any either. Yet despite that, the Labour-controlled county council imposed a ban on beef long after most of the other county councils that did, damaging farming interests in the north-east and giving comfort to our competitors on the continent.
    Mr. Gummer: One should not judge the matter on the basis of whether this or that interest is damaged. One must judge it on the scientific basis of whether eating beef is safe. The chief medical officer said unequivocally that it is and the scientific advice given to the Government and the EC supported that statement. I find it odd that Cleveland county council considers that its local advice is better than the national advice.
    Mr. Bell: I am sure that the Minister would not wish to mislead the House. Is he aware that good quality lean beef is still on the menu in Cleveland schools? What are not on the menu are products made from beef offal and mechanically recovered beef, and that is completely different. Is the Minister aware that Cleveland county council received advice from Professor Peter Blair of the department of environmental medicine, Newcastle university, and from Dr. Ted Holt at Middlesbrough general hospital, who specialises in BSE and scrapie? Therefore does the Minister accept that the subsequent decision was not alarmist but a sensible response to the representations of school governors, parents and teachers? Was not that a sensible approach when there was near panic on the continent of Europe?
    Mr. Gummer: I should have thought that, of all hon. Members, the hon. Gentleman would be careful about taking the medical advice of an individual of one sort or other. He knows how careful one has to be. Therefore, I say quite clearly that the chief medical officer, an independent person, made it clear that, in all the areas that the hon. Gentleman is talking about, beef is safe to eat. The European Community's scientific advice is exactly the same, as is the advice given to the Government. Science cannot be taught, and we cannot expect it to be accepted in our schools, if local education committees refuse to accept scientific advice and proceed on an emotional basis.
    Mr. Marland rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Is it about Cleveland?
    Mr. Marland: It is, Mr. Speaker.
    Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in seeking to reassure the schoolchildren of Cleveland and other British citizens about the purity and safety of British beef, he has been greatly frustrated in his task by a bogus professor and by Opposition Members who make completely unsubstantiated claims, unscientifically based, about the possible dangers, as they see it, of British beef?
    Mr. Gummer: I think that my hon. Friend would want me to be clear that my first priority is to protect the health of the nation. I have absolutely no other priority. Great damage has been done by the creation of unnecessary anxiety. Part of that damage is that our ability to warn

    473
    people where warnings are necessary has been undermined, as we found, for example, on the contamination of seafood. Yes, we must stand firm on the fact that British beef is safe to eat for adults, children and even the most vulnerable. I hope that Cleveland will soon reverse its ban.
    Dr. David Clark: Does the Minister appreciate that parents in Cleveland are often also pet owners? Does he realise that many of them, in the same way as pet owners elsewhere, are deeply concerned that four cats have been verified as having died of spongiform encephalopathy and that a further 20 are suspected of having done so? Will the Minister grapple with that problem and take decisive action by banning the use of cattle and sheep offal in all pet food?
    Mr. Gummer: I think that hon. Members will agree that we are concerned about the interests of pet owners and pets. But I wonder why the hon. Gentleman has moved the question from the subject of schoolchildren in Cleveland. Is it because he does not agree with Cleveland county council's ban? The hon. Gentleman's figures are completely wrong. Twenty cats were tested and found not to have an encephalopathy. Four cats—and I announced the figures one by one, of course—were found to have one, but there is no evidence that any of them were connected with BSE.

    Food Safety
    Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the National Federation of Women's Institutes to discuss food safety.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Maclean): Representatives of the National Federation of Women's Institutes were present at the first periodic meeting on 3 April 1990 between my right hon. Friend and consumer organisations. The next meeting is planned for 12 July. In addition, I had a meeting with the women's institutes on 16 January.
    Mr. Jones: The Minister will shortly be receiving representations from the National Federation of Women's Institutes about the problem of bovine somatotropin, when he will be asked to use all his efforts to have the product banned in the European Community and not to grant a licence for its use. Will he take those points on board and respond to them?
    Mr. Maclean: I read carefully the motion that was passed at the WI conference, and I have no hesitation in saying that there is no question of the British Government allowing any product, including BST, to be used in this country unless it fully satisfies licensing requirements. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is currently a moratorium on BST imposed by the European Community, which we are content to go along with.
    Mr. Riddick: When my hon. Friend next meets that august body of ladies, will he explain that one of the most likely consequences of the BST threat will be an increase of beef imports from countries in South America and Africa, where regulations against diseases such as foot and mouth and tuberculosis are far less stringent than here? Does not that represent the real threat to food safety in this country?
    474
    Does my hon. Friend agree that Labour Front-Bench spokesmen who have done so much to stir up fears about BST ought to be thoroughly ashamed of themselves?
    Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the high standard of foodstuffs in this country, especially beef. I can reassure him that we do not allow into this country any food that poses a health risk, so the concerns that he expresses about beef from other parts of the world should not materialise. He is also right to condemn the official Opposition, just as they were condemned by every party in the House when my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food delivered his statement late on Thursday 7 June, after returning from negotiations in Brussels. They were rightly condemned because they were seeking to create a new myth that, somehow or other, the British housewife is less well protected than the foreign housewife—and that is just not true.
    Dr. David Clark: When the Minister meets WI representatives, will he discuss with them the authoritative study by the Audit Commission showing that almost one in eight food premises in England and Wales presented a significant or imminent health risk? Given that it has been deliberate Government policy to reduce support for environmental health officers and that we are now more than 400 officers short, will the Minister announce a reversal of that policy and an increase in the number of trained inspectors and environmental health officers?
    Mr. Maclean: If the WI does not put that item on the agenda, I should certainly like to do so. I warmly welcome the Audit Commission's findings on food safety enforcement, and if environmental health officers discover in their survey a certain number of premises that do not come up to standard, they will have the Government's full backing in taking action against them. That is why the Food Safety Bill was passed in another place yesterday. It provides an extra £30 million for enforcement and gives new powers to environmental health officers to take action against the unacceptable minority. We have some of the finest food in the world here and we will not let a minority of filthy, scruffy takeaways or downmarket restaurants or shops destroy the reputation of the majority of our excellent eating establishments.

    Food Exports
    Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what contribution the food industry has made to Britain's export performance in the current year.
    Mr. Curry: In the year to March 1990, United Kingdom exports of food and drink amounted to nearly £5·7 billion, about 6 per cent. of the total value of our visible exports.
    Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend gives slightly more encouraging figures than has been the trend in recent years. As he is widely acknowledged as a gourmet, he will know that British raw materials for food are about the best in the world. What are the Government doing to encourage people abroad to benefit in the same way from British food? Given that the food and drink industry is the largest employer and the largest industry in the European Community, and that many of the largest companies are

    475
    multinational, we must ensure that our products are available throughout the Community on a wider basis after 1992.
    Mr. Curry: I agree with my hon. Friend. As he will know, we have just appointed Mr. Paul Judge as the new chairman of Food From Britain, which is our major promotional arm, and which has been endowed with £3.5 million. The Government will contribute £1 for every £3 raised by business to promote British food. This is an important issue, and we intend to ensure that British food is widely available on the continent because of its excellence.
    Dr. Godman: Fish and shellfish form part of our exports. As regards the export of farmed Scottish salmon, what action is the Minister taking to persuade the European Commission to institute anti-dumping measures against Norwegian farmed salmon producers? Was not that one of the recommendations in yesterday's Agriculture Select Committee report on "Fish Farming in the UK"? What action are the Government taking to persuade the Commission to sort out that dumping problem?
    Mr. Curry: The Government have actively promoted the anti-dumping case on behalf of farmed salmon producers in the United Kingdom. I have spoken directly to the Norwegian Minister responsible for trade about the issue. I understand that in recent months there has been some relief, in the sense that the Norwegians have taken certain measures, and that prices of farmed salmon have begun to recover. This is a most important issue, and we shall continue to press the case with the Commission until we are certain that competition is fair throughout the Community.
    Mr. Gregory: Will my hon. Friend hold discussions with his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry to ensure that the food industry has the backing of our offices abroad as far as possible, especially because of the difficulties that some food industries have encountered with counterfeiting, so that we may increase exports by the food industry and that great British companies, in particular, confectionary companies, do not continue to suffer in this way—and Kit Kat can be exported without the problem of counterfeit Kit Kit?
    Mr. Curry: I shall certainly undertake to discuss that matter with my friends from the Department of Trade and Industry. My hon. Friend will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently visited several countries in eastern Europe with the specific purpose of promoting, among other things, British food exports and exports of British food-producing machinery to those countries.

    Scotch Whisky
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he plans to meet the representatives of the Scotch whisky industry; and what subjects he expects to be raised.
    Mr. Curry: I shall discuss anything that the industry wants, provided that it is within my competence.
    Mr. Canavan: Will the Minister discuss the concern of the Scottish Consumer Council about the introduction of
    476
    the 25 ml measure to replace the existing choice of measures, normally a quarter or a fifth of a gill in Scotland and a sixth of a gill in England? As that would mean a slight increase in the normal measure served in English pubs, but a decrease of about 12 per cent. in the average measure in a Scottish pub, will the Government intervene to ensure the retention of a choice of measures, or at the very least, to ensure that the Scottish punter gets the benefit of at least a 12 per cent. cut in price for the metric short measure?
    Mr. Curry: This appears to be yet another example of the Scots getting more per capita than the English. I shall certainly mention it to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. Of course, we want to ensure that consumers throughout the United Kingdom have the benefit of the excellent product that is made in Scotland.
    Mr. Bill Walker: When my hon. Friend discusses with the Scotch whisky industry its future, will he draw attention to its splendid record in the export market and to the fact that the quality of its products—worth £1,000 million of exports every year—has been protected by the Scotch Whisky Act 1988? Can my hon. Friend say what stage we have reached with the implementation of that Act and the subsequent orders?
    Mr. Curry: As my hon. Friend will know, because he has taken a strong interest in the matter—indeed, he promoted the Scotch Whisky Bill—the Scotch Whisky Order 1990, which protects minimum strength and defines Scotch, was passed by the House last month, and the spirits Drinks Order, which adds the final touch to the process, is to complete its passage today. That gives the Government an excellent record in protecting and promoting Scotch whisky.
    Mr. Allen: When the Minister meets representatives of the industry, will he discuss with them the difficulties of small independent brewers who, following the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report, expected—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Whisky is not brewed, is it?
    Mr. Allen: The small independent brewers expected to introduce guest beers into some of the larger breweries' pubs. Will the Minister meet—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is rather wide of the question, which is about whisky, not beer. I hope that he will finish his remarks quickly.
    Mr. Allen: The small independent brewers also wish to retail Scotch. Will the Minister meet his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and ensure that those small independent brewers can sell Scotch whisky and their own beers over the counter in pubs throughout the land?
    Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman is clearly used to drinking his Scotch with a beer chaser, even if he had some difficulty in accommodating whisky in his question. I also represent a constituency that has an outstandingly small brewery, which brews the beer "Old Peculier" in particular, and I shall of course ensure that I do my best to protect the interests of the small artisanal beer producer.

    Consumer Panel
    Mr. Morley: to ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when his consumer panel last met; and what matters were discussed.
    Mr. Maclean: The last meeting of the consumer panel was on 2 May 1990. We discussed a wide range of issues, including water quality, food labelling, BSE, food irradiation and hygiene training for food handlers. A copy of the minutes of the meeting is in the Library of the House.
    Mr. Morley: Does the Minister agree with the recent Consumers Association report, which says that the public are losing confidence in the Ministry's assertions about all the recent food scares? The Consumers Association says that the "bland assurances" that the public have received have failed to reassure them on a whole range of issues and that what is needed is an independent food agency. Does the Minister agree with our view that we need a food standard agency, independent of both the industry and the Government, which can give the public and the consumer the assurances that they need?
    Mr. Maclean: Despite the best attempts of the official Opposition to rubbish British beef, more than 80 per cent. of our consumers are still buying it because they are content to believe the assurances of the British Government, the independent experts who advise us and the chief medical officer. The hon. Gentleman asks for a source of independent advice. What does he think the Food Advisory Committee, the Advisory Committee on Pesticides, the Veterinary Products Committee, the Tyrrell committee and the Southwood committee are there for? The hon. Gentleman asks for independent advice, but when we get such advice and act on it, the Labour party goes out and tries to rubbish the self-same advice that it claims it would like to believe.
    Mr. Colin Shepherd: When my hon. Friend next meets the consumer panel, will he impress on its members the remarkable contribution that is made to our economy by the agricultural sector of the food industry? Will he express his regret that the efforts of the farmers of Britain should be undermined and maligned at every possible opportunity by the Opposition, when they should be praised for their productivity, dedication and effectiveness?
    Mr. Maclean: I think that the official Opposition will regret some of the wilder statements that they have made about British beef and other food issues in the past few months. British consumers realise, as my right hon. Friend said on the day when he was made Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, that farmers' interests and consumers' interests are one. If the consumer is satisfied with the quality of our food, that is in the interests of our farmers who produce such excellent food.
    Mr. Geraint Howells: After months of adverse publicity, does the Minister agree that it would be advantageous for consumers and producers in Britain if hon. Members or official agriculture spokesmen from every political party in the House were to issue a joint statement saying that British beef and British foodstuffs are healthier than any others in the world?
    Mr. Maclean: I wholeheartedly endorse what the hon. Gentleman has said. It is notable that throughout this
    478
    issue he has followed the scientific advice and accepted the facts as given to him and he has been supported by the Welsh nationalists, by the various Irish parties and by all other parties present in the House late on Thursday 7 June. The hon. Gentleman's remarks are very welcome and I support his initiative.

    Food Research
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much he plans to spend from his Department's funds on food research in the current year.
    Mr. Gummer: My Department plans to spend more than £20 million on food research in 1990–91, of which more than £15 million is earmarked for safety, hygiene, applied nutrition and consumer protection.
    Mr Arnold: Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that that considerable sum is being invested in food research which responds to public concern about food safety and which also highlights the high standards of our food processors and packagers? Will he give examples of the different forms of research being carried out?
    Mr. Gummer: As we are concerned with more than 800 different projects at the moment, my hon. Friend will understand if I do not go through them all in detail. We are trying not only to respond to the public disquiet about this and that, but to ensure that there is no public disquiet about things which might arise. When I visited the food research laboratories in Norwich recently, I was interested to see a wide range of research, all of which will help to ensure that British food continues to be the safest in the world.
    Mr. Ron Brown: Is the Minister aware that on the east coast, and especially on the east coast of Scotland, sprats are caught by Scandinavian fishermen, taken to Scandinavia for canning and brought back here labelled as sardines? Surely the British consumer has the right to know what the product is and where it comes from. Will the Minister have a word with his counterparts in the Scandinavian countries to ensure that at least the labelling is correct so that consumers know what they are buying?
    Mr. Gummer: I am not sure that in this case the labelling would have a direct effect on the safety of the sprats or sardines when eaten, but if there is a problem in terms of misleading the consumer I shall be happy to take it up at once because it is a fundamental principle of the Ministry that we ensure that the consumer has full information so that he can make his own decisions and not have them forced on him by others who think that they know best.
    Mrs. Peacock: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House and many worried people in Britain whether any of the money that he proposes to spend will go to Professor Lacey and his research?
    Mr. Gummer: When we choose the recipients of money for research, we do so on the advice of their peers—their scientific equals. One of the difficulties with some people who seek to do research is that they are not over-eager to provide information about their research to their scientific equals or to the committees set up to judge them.

    Live Exports
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the animal welfare implications of the trade in live exports.
    Mr. Gummer: There are detailed controls to ensure that animals leave this country rested, fed and watered, and inspected. We shall seek to maintain proper welfare safeguards under the proposed Community measures on transport of animals.
    Mr. Taylor: I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware that there is a lobby today on this issue and that there is great concern that the new EC rules will remove measures that the House has seen fit to pass to protect animals being transported in terms of where they go and the conditions in which they are transported. Horses are not exported live at present, but they could be in the future.
    Will the Secretary of State take every possible step and fight every inch of the way to defend the existing Government protections which apply to animals in Britain and which far exceed the protections in other parts of the EC? If necessary, will he invoke article 36 which allows us to prevent free trade on issues of public morality so that we can protect those animals?
    Mr. Gummer: I have already said, some months ago, that I want to increase European Community standards on animal welfare across the board. I notice that today's lobby is led by Compassion in World Farming. I cannot manage matters outside the Community, but we have to solve the problem of animal welfare not only in Britain but throughout the Community. Some of the proposals that have been put forward could harm the welfare of animals in the rest of Europe by raising standards here but not throughout Europe. It is a European matter and I am determined to take the lead in that regard.
    The Government will fight all the way along the line for the present system of minimum value for the export of live horses. Other animals are subject to EC rules, so those rules must be of the highest standard. There is no possibility of using article 36. I am advised quite clearly that it would not apply.
    Dame Janet Fookes: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement about the export of horses, but can I persuade him to accept the view of the British Veterinary Association that animals should be slaughtered as close to the point of production as possible? Will he seek to put that view to his allies in the European Community?
    Mr. Gummer: Our purpose is to raise standards throughout the European Community. The problem with the transport of live animals is that many other countries in the European Community do not share the view of the British Veterinary Association. My job is to get the best answer that we can and then to improve on it. My hon. Friend has my wholehearted support in her efforts to bring pressure on my allies in the European Community. On the matter of animal welfare, the number of my allies could do with some augmentation.
    Mr. Tony Banks: I appreciate that the Secretary of State is a voracious carnivore and likely to eat anything with legs other than a table, but is he aware that, despite his assurances to the House, a great deal of suffering is still
    480
    caused to animals moved out of Britain for slaughter? Would not it be better, and meet the demands of the great majority of people in Britain, if no live animals were allowed to leave our shores for slaughter on the continent?
    Mr. Gummer: The fact is that that would be illegal, and this country stands by the law. Under European Community regulations, there has to be the movement of live animals. My job is to improve those regulations. The hon. Gentleman blames the European Community, but at least in the European Community we have a chance to raise standards for all animals in Europe, or perhaps the hon. Gentleman takes such an insular view that he cares only about British animals.
    Sir Richard Body: Does my right hon. Friend agree that since, on grounds of animal welfare, we ended the system of rearing calves in veal crates, there has been a massive increase in the number of calves exported to France, Belgium and the Netherlands? About 1,000 calves per day are now exported to those countries. What proportion of those calves does my right hon. Friend believe are being reared in the very crates that we sought to abolish in Britain?
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend puts his finger exactly on the point. If we do not raise standards throughout Europe, we shall make changes at home, for estimable reasons, only to find that the situation is worse in the rest of the continent. For that reason, three days ago I took the lead in the European Community Council to press for higher standards which would eliminate the very practices to which my hon. Friend refers. We now have a new programme which will make major changes in the rearing of calves and also the way in which pigs are cared for. I hope that that will be a further earnest of our determination to improve animal welfare throughout the Community.

    Toxic Algae
    Mr. Morgan: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether his Department has carried out research into links between the recent toxic algae outbreak on the east coast and pollution.
    Mr. Curry: The evidence is that blooms of toxic algae are naturally occurring and are triggered primarily by combinations of calm water and good sunlight.
    Mr. Morgan: I accept the Minister's answer, but does he agree that the emergence of a 300-mile toxic algal scum slick shows that using the North sea as an international flush lavatory is not doing the quality of the water any good? Does he further agree that we need an international agreement to stop these long sea outfalls? In the light of the comments made yesterday by the Minister of Sport about the effluent tendency, does he agree that the main body of people in this country with a tendency towards effluent are Ministers?
    Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman is getting his science mixed up. There is no link between the production of these blooms and pollution. They were first noticed in 1814, which was mainly a pre-industrial society. The most recent manifestation was on the west coast of Scotland. It is difficult to get further than that from population centres or intensive agriculture. That supports the evidence that it is

    481
    naturally occurring. In only five years since 1968 has some warning not had to be posted, so the relationship between that phenomenon and what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting is impossible to prove.
    Sir Hugh Rossi: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Ministry must accept that there is a nexus between nutrients and growth? Does he agree that nitrates and phosphates are fed on greedily by algae? Although they must have benign warm conditions in which to flourish, if their source of food were reduced or cut off they would not grow to the extent that they are growing at present.
    Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend is perfectly correct, but nitrates and phosphates occur naturally in the water, as they did at the beginning of the 19th century when the phenomenon was first noticed. There is no link between the discharge of sewage into the North sea, which we have undertaken to stop, and these blooms.
    Mr. Morley: The House cannot accept that at all. We know very well that phosphates increase algal bloom. I urge the Minister to listen carefully to the comments of the Chairman of the Select Committee on the Environment. Will he confirm that the Ministry's scientists have said that one of the reasons why the outbreak was so long and intense was that there was a constant source of nutrients in the sea off the east coast, the main source of which is raw sewage dumping and raw sewage outfalls?
    Mr. Curry: That is simply not the case. The blooms appeared because currents brought the seeds to the surface, where they were in warm water and sunlight. That has occurred around Britain's coast, most recently in the west of Scotland, where there are no population centres or major intensive farming which would supplement the water with nutrients, so the link simply has not been established.

    Sausages
    Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what effect the EEC directive on minced meat will have on the future of the British sausage.
    Mr. Maclean: The Government will fight to ensure that future Community measures will have no adverse effect on the British sausage.
    Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: Does my hon. Friend agree that, as currently drafted, the EC proposals endanger the future of the British sausage after 1990? Does he agree that it is a safe, succulent, satisfying snack and with mash it is almost superlative? The British public enjoy £500 million worth of sausages each year. The proposals will do nothing to improve food hygiene and are likely to increase the cost of this most estimable product to the British consumer. If we have no objection to other countries' salami and bratwurst, why can they not leave our toad in the hole alone?
    Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend has made a number of valid points. Many of us in the House have moved straight from the baby's bottle to the British banger. The proposed draft directives will have no effect on hygiene requirements for the existing British sausage. People in the House and outside who want to eat raw minced beef or steak tartare
    482
    can choose to do so, but the millions of people in Britain who want to eat cooked British sausages do not need unnecessary EC rules.
    Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept that the logic of the rules may not be to improve hygiene, but to achieve unfair competition and commercial advantage at the expense of manufacturers in this country, which could lead to the loss of valuable jobs in many areas, including my constituency? Will the Minister ensure that he stands up and fights for the future of those jobs?
    Mr. Maclean: I will certainly do that. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take to task the Opposition agriculture spokesman who said that he would refuse to eat British beef sausages, when there is absolutely nothing wrong with them. We all understand the necessity for tougher rules on minced beef which might be eaten raw, but there is no need for the rules about cooked sausages.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Couchman: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 June.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): 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, including one with the Governor of Hong Kong.
    Mr. Couchman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that properly enforced tough controls on dangerous dogs and their owners offer far greater security and reassurance to the public, and particularly to children, than a bureaucratic dog registration scheme of the kind currently obsessing the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the upshot of which would be that responsible owners would register and irresponsible owners would not?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. It is not the identification of the owner which has been the problem, but to make certain that owners control their dogs properly. Yesterday further significant proposals were announced to toughen the law. Our proposals will strengthen the powers for dangerous dogs to be seized and, if necessary, destroyed. They will create new powers to allow courts to have dogs muzzled. We are also looking at the possibility of banning certain dog breeds all together.
    Mr. Kinnock: Since the Prime Minister has publicly admitted that she was, in her own words,
    "aware of the … terms and conditions of the arrangements reached with British Aerospace"
    in relation to the sale of Rover, will she confirm that her knowledge of those arrangements included details of the £44 million sweeteners of which Parliament was never to be told?
    The Prime Minister: As I indicated on 14 December 1989
    "I was kept aware throughout of the progress of the negotiations with British Aerospace and … of the basic terms and conditions of the agreements reached".—[Official Report, 14 December 1989; Vol. 163, c. 770.]

    483
    Our priority at the time was to safeguard the interests of the company, the employees and the taxpayer. That objective was secured and billions of pounds of future state aids and taxpayers' money was thus saved.
    Mr. Kinnock: On 30 November last year I asked the Prime Minister twice if she knew of all the arrangements about the sweeteners. She dodged the question then, and she is trying to dodge it now. Will she give a straight answer to a straight question? When she says that she knew of the arrangements, did her knowledge include, or did it not include, knowledge of the sweeteners of which this Parliament, the European Community and the British people were never to be told?
    The Prime Minister rose—
    Hon. Members: Yes or no?
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    The Prime Minister: I answered the question on 14 December 1989. I was kept aware throughout of the progress of the negotiations at British Aerospace under the basic terms and conditions of the agreements reached. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes or no?"] Our main objective was to secure the privatisation of this company which was utterly bankrupt and broke and on which the taxpayers—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes or no?"]—had already spent £3·5 billion in aids and a further £1·6 billion in contingent liabilities. We successfully privatised the company and it is profitable, but that means nothing to the right hon. Gentleman. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes or no?"] The right hon. Gentleman would probably have preferred to have the company nationalised so that taxpayers could continue to be fleeced.
    Mr. Kinnock: What does mean something to me, and should mean something to the Prime Minister, is the integrity of the right hon. Lady herself. Did she know, or did she not know, that £44 million of illegal sweeteners was part of the deal?
    Hon. Members: Answer!
    The Prime Minister: I answered the hon. Gentleman in the reply that I gave on 14 December 1989. May I say how very much the Opposition have changed their tune—[interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister has been asked a series of questions and she wishes to reply.
    The Prime Minister: The Opposition have changed their tune from the line which they took on 14 July 1988 when—
    Hon. Members: Yes or no?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is intolerable that when the Prime Minister has been asked a qustion she is not given an opportunity to reply. [HON. MEMBERS: "She will not answer."] Order. I call the Prime Minister.
    The Prime Minister: On 14 July 1988 my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, as he then was, informed the House of the results of the negotiations and what had taken place. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), replying to my right hon. and learned Friend—
    Hon. Members: Answer—yes or no?
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Allen: She has had three chances.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is the House of Commons and we listen to the answers given to questions.
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Member for Dagenham, replying to my right hon. and learned Friend and referring to my right hon. and learned Friend's latest visit to the Commission as going cap in hand to Brussels to beg for concessions said, if the House is quiet enough or interested enough to hear—
    Mr. Allen rose—
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Member for Dagenham said—
    Mr. Allen: She has taken seven minutes.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman continues to shout, of course it will take time.
    The Prime Minister: When my right hon. and learned Friend the then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was announcing the result, the hon. Member for Dagenham said of the Commission:
    "How is it that an unelected official can tell the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that his terms are non-negotiable?"—[Official Report, 14 July 1988; Vol. 137, c. 613.]
    That is what the hon. Gentleman said, but the Opposition have changed their tune.
    Mr. Jessel: On the occasion of the most welcome visit of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegates from India, led by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, will my right hon. Friend confirm the Government's policy as being to continue to uphold Britain's excellent relations with India?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. I was not aware of that visit, but we have excellent relations with India. We give it priority with our aid, and have recently agreed to help it each year to enable it to keep its rain forests.
    Mr. Ashdown: Now that we know that nuclear power is twice as expensive for the consumer as any other form of power, and that it is less cost effective than energy conservation in protecting the environment, why does the Prime Minister insist that every electricity consumer should pay a special nuclear tax amounting to £25 on the average electricity bill to meet the cost of her obsession and her Government's bungling over nuclear power? Have not Sizewell B and the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson) already cost the nation too much, and should not the right hon. Lady pull the plug on both of them?
    The Prime Minister: I will take the question on Sizewell B first. Sizewell B will cost more than originally expected because the original order was for four nuclear power stations of a particular design. However, now that only one is definitely to be built—Sizewell B—all the original design and development costs will have to be added to the cost of that one station, instead of being spread over four. It is not unusual for the costs to increase. If we had four nuclear power stations, the cost of Sizewell B would not be great.
    In the right hon. Gentleman's second question, he said that nuclear power cost more. We know the costs for the disposal of the fission products of nuclear power. When

    485
    that is compared with the cost of obtaining electricity from coal or oil, the problem is that we do not know the costs of dumping carbon dioxide in outer space, which could be much worse in the long run than those of nuclear power. The right hon. Gentleman may remember that France has a good record on reducing carbon dioxide emissions because the majority of her electricity is generated from nuclear power.

    Lebanon
    Mr. Latham: To ask the Prime Minister whether she will make a statement on diplomatic contacts designed to achieve the release of British citizens held captive by Iranian-backed terrorist groups in Lebanon.
    The Prime Minister: The plight of the British citizens held hostage is constantly in the minds of all of us. We have raised the matter with a wide range of Governments and organisations which might have influence on the hostage holders. We shall continue to use every contact and follow up every lead that we believe might bring results.
    Mr. Latham: Will my right hon. Friend press the Iranian Government to abide by normal decent standards of international behaviour and bring about the release of those entirely innocent people in Lebanon forthwith? Will she also press that Government to do something about the absolutely abominable human rights situation in Iran?
    The Prime Minister: Our position on hostages is well known. We take precisely the view that my hon. Friend has just expressed. Any nation that has any information, or any influence on those who are holding hostages, should do all in its power to secure their release, as that is the only norm of civilised behaviour. We ask Iran to do that as well. My hon. Friend knows that our ambassador in Lebanon is actively following up every lead.
    With regard to human rights in Iran, we welcome the decision by the Iranian Government to invite the United Nations special representative on human rights to pay a second visit to Iran. We hope that he will be given full facilities to investigate thoroughly all aspects of human rights there, and any breaches of those rights by the Iranian Government.
    Mr. Brazier rose—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I believe that the hon. Gentleman has recently returned from the Lebanon.
    Mr. Brazier: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while we must have the greatest sympathy for the hostages and their families, we must never do anything to undermine her strong stand against international terrorism? We must remember at all times that these groups are backed on the one hand by Iranians who have condemned a British citizen to death and on the other by the Syrians who continue to shelter the principal suspects of the Lockerbie bombing.
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As he knows, we broke off diplomatic relations with Syria because of its part in helping to place the bomb on the El Al aircraft. Diplomatic relations could not possibly continue in those circumstances. We do not think it right to restore those diplomatic relations yet, but we plead with Iran and Syria to do all in their power in the modern world
    486
    to secure the release of hostages. That is the only way for civilised nations, which expect to be welcomed into diplomatic international circles, to behave.

    Engagements
    Mr. Marland: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Marland: As my right hon. Friend knows, Gloucestershire county council is run by the soggy hand of the Liberal Alliance and has spent millions of pounds over an already excessive budget, which is causing great anxiety to many of my constituents. In her review of the working of the community charge, will my right hon. Friend seek to ensure that some mechanism is introduced to curb such profligacy?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is quite right about Gloucestershire. This year it has increased its expenditure by twice the rate of inflation. In our review of the community charge we are certainly bearing in mind that chargepayers want to be protected against the excessive spending of such councils. We shall bring forward proposals before the House rises.
    Mr. Haynes: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Haynes rose—
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Haynes rose—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us give the hon. Gentleman a fair chance.
    Mr. Haynes: Mr. Speaker, Sir. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"] Is the Prime Minister aware that the crime figures presented today are appalling? Is she also aware that the morale of the police force in the various constabularies across the country is at its lowest ebb? Is she also aware of the fiddle that has been going on about Aerospace? How does she expect British citizens to behave themselves when the Government go on like that? Is she aware that the Government sanction—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the House has now been made aware of two questions—that is enough.
    The Prime Minister: In so far as I was able to hear the hon. Gentleman, yes, the crime figures out today are extremely disappointing, although we must remember that violent crime in this country occurs on a very much lesser scale than in some other countries. The overall figures show that 25 per cent. of all crime is car related, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary intends to have talks with car producers to see if we can reduce that figure.
    I do not accept that the morale of the police is low. They have had a very good deal on pay—so good that everyone else wants to emulate them—and they have had full support from the Government in their most important work.

    487
    With regard to British Aerospace as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry explained in his statement on 30 November 1989, the relative items of which the hon. Gentleman was speaking were included
    "in the estimates and reports to Parliament. Full details were made available to the Comptroller and Auditor General"—[Official Report, 30 November 1989; Vol. 162, c. 859.]
    Finally may I point out what the Commission says in its report—
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Did you know?
    The Prime Minister: The Commission said that the price of £150 million represented a reasonable purchase price, given all of the circumstances of the sale.
    Mr. Haynes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to make it clear to you—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I will take points of order later.

European Council (Dublin)
3.35 pm
The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement on the European Council in Dublin on 25–26 June, which I attended with my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary.
The text of the Council's conclusions have been placed in the Library of the House. I will go through the main points in order.
Completion of the single market represents the biggest and most far-reaching change under way in western Europe. Useful progress has been made under the Irish presidency in the transport and energy sectors, on public procurement and on company taxation. In Dublin, we set priorities for the next six months. They include items of particular importance for the United Kingdom; financial services, insurance, further liberalisation of transport and public procurement.
But it is not just a matter of taking decisions. They need to be implemented. The Commission circulated to the Council a chart showing Britain right at the forefront of member states when it comes to implementation. It will in future make regular reports to the European Council on this.
The members of the Council also called on Germany to reconsider its discriminatory tax on lorries, about which the Commission is taking the German Government to the European Court.
The Council continued its discussion on political union. It was agreed that an intergovernmental conference will begin in December. Our determination to see national institutions and national identities fully respected is clearly understood and increasingly shared. The debate is more and more about how to make existing Community institutions more effective. We shall continue to argue that the Community should be involved only where particular objectives cannot be achieved by national action.
In that context, I drew attention to the unnecessary, indeed harmful, proposals put forward by the Commission on part-time and temporary work. If implemented, they would only lead to loss of jobs.
We had a brief discussion on economic and monetary union. We confirmed that an intergovernmental conference on that will begin in December, in parallel with the conference on political union. I commended the excellent proposals put forward by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We shall ensure that they are fully considered before, and at, the intergovernmental conference. I reminded my colleagues of the strong opposition expressed by this House to economic and monetary union on the basis proposed in the Delors report.
The Council agreed a useful declaration on the environment, and further steps to combat drug addiction and trafficking. Our proposals for a European drugs intelligence unit and for a conference of eastern and western European countries on drugs issues were endorsed.
The Council underlined the very great importance which the Community attaches to a successful outcome to the Uruguay round of the trade negotiations and our intention to make a full contribution to that. That will be discussed further at the economic summit in Houston.
490
We had a thorough discussion on assistance to the Soviet Union. Britain has constantly been at the forefront in supporting Mr. Gorbachev and his policies of greater democracy and reform. We are very ready to consider various forms of assistance, provided it is clearly linked to economic restructuring, so that we know it will actually be effective. The Council agreed that a thorough analysis should be undertaken of the size of the problem and how the Community and other western countries can help. This will be conducted by the Commission, together with experts from the new European bank for reconstruction and development, the World bank and the IMF, the OECD and others. When that is complete, we can see what needs to be done, and then we can take decisions.
Foreign Ministers discussed a number of foreign policy issues and agreed statements dealing with the middle east, South Africa, Cyprus, nuclear non-proliferation, anti-semitism and the Iranian earthquake.
The Council called on all parties in South Africa to refrain from violence and advocacy of violence, which of course covers the ANC's continued support for armed struggle, of which we strongly disapprove. The principle of a gradual relaxation of sanctions, for which we have been pressing for months, was accepted and is reflected in the statement. But the Council was unable to agree to make a start now. We shall look at this again under the Italian presidency, in the light of further progress in South Africa. In practice, several countries have already begun to lift various measures. I am sure that that will continue.
Finally, the Council agreed a statement utterly condemning terrorism and expressing sympathy for the victims of the terrorist bombing of the Carlton club. I am sure that the House will be grateful for the sympathy and support shown by our partners.
It was a useful Council—no dramatic decisions, but steady progress in several important areas. That is how it should be.
Mr. Neil Kinnock: I welcome the statements made by the Council of Ministers on the environment, terrorism, drugs and organised crime, and nuclear non-proliferation. The whole House will particularly share the revulsion expressed by the Heads of Government at recent manifestations of anti-semitism and racism. All in this Parliament will agree that the crimes of desecration and race hatred deserve strong condemnation and severe punishment.
All Opposition Members welcome the Council's further unanimous endorsement of the social charter. We all support the extension of the mandate of Mr. Delors as President of the Commission and we all derive satisfaction from the fact that it was our Prime Minister who seconded the nomination of notre frère Jacques.
We welcome the decision of the meeting to provide both short-term credits and long-term support for structural reform in the Soviet Union, and we congratulate the Prime Minister on reversing her short-sighted attitudes on that matter.
Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to state exactly where her Government stand on European monetary union? Is she aware that last Tuesday the deputy Prime Minister described the Chancellor's proposals for a hard ecu as being "perfectly capable" of leading to a single European currency? The Governor of the Bank of England has described the Chancellor's proposals as a "very useful step" to a single European currency. The

491
Chancellor and the Foreign Secretary obviously feel the same. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister says that it must not come in her lifetime and yet, on Tuesday in Dublin, she signed up to specific commitments in a specific timetable. How long does the Prime Minister hope to keep up this two-faced performance, especially when it confuses her hon. Friends and does not even impress the neighbours?
In Dublin, the Council of Ministers, in the words of the communiqué,
"agreed to intensify the process … of European Union" in economic, monetary and political terms, and to secure "ratification by the end of 1992."
The Prime Minister signed up for all of that, but still she says it is others who are coming into step with us. Is the Prime Minister really trying to tell us that all along she has secretly been in favour of integration on that scale, or is the truth that at last the modern realities of the Community are beginning to impress themselves, even on the lady of Bruges?
Does the Prime Minister accept that it is obvious that, in this European Community of nations, distinctions of national identity and national institutions are of great and enduring value? Does she also realise that the influence of Britain is not advanced, and its interests are not served, by her tinpot, tin drum nationalism?
The Prime Minister: I shall try to answer some of the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman. I noticed what he said about the programme for social action. From what he said, it seems that he thinks it is quite right that the Commission should interfere with rules related to part-time work and overnight work in the United Kingdom, and that he would give the Commission that and such other piffling little powers in the name of subsidiarity. It is for us to decide those things. They come under the doctrine of subsidiarity, which the Commission is always talking about and never honouring.
With regard to giving help to the USSR, I remind the right hon. Gentleman, as I reminded colleagues at Dublin, that there is already in this country a line of credit of £800 million under the Export Credits Guarantee Department which has not yet been drawn upon. Therefore, we do not need any lectures from anyone about making loans available to the Soviet Union. I think that the Soviets are wise to consider before drawing them down. They know full well that what they spend the money on needs to have an effect on their whole future and their capital future. If they spent the money on consumer goods, it would tie a great big debt around their neck and not do them any long-term good. On this matter they are rather wiser than the right hon. Gentleman.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the single currency. He should read paragraph 26 of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's speech. [Interruption.] I am about to read it out. Speaking about his proposals, my right hon. Friend said:
"They are practical, they are progressive, they offer choice, not prescription. They evolve naturally from stage 1 and have the potential to evolve further. In time the ecu would be more widely used. It would become a common currency for Europe. In the very long term, if peoples and governments so choose it could develop into a single currency, but that is a decision we should not take now for we cannot yet foresee what the size and circumstances of the new Europe would be."
492
I do not think that it could develop into a single currency without altering the European monetary fund, which my right hon. Friend also described in detail in his speech.
The right hon. Gentleman then suggested that we had signed up for something merely because we signed a procedural motion at an intergovernmental conference. Perhaps he does not realise that that decision can be taken by a plain, straightforward, simple majority, but that any conclusions reached by the conference must be straightforward unanimity. There is no possibility of not having one because the majority wanted one. We shall reserve our detailed arguments for the intergovernmental conference.
The right hon. Gentleman says that we signed up to economic and monetary union. We signed up to that before we joined, because it was part of the terms agreed in 1972 before we joined the Community, and it was still incorporated in those terms after the Prime Minister at the time, now the noble Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, had completed his renegotiation.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. As the House is aware, there is a business statement after this and also a statement on British Aerospace. We then have a debate on the scrutiny of European legislation for which the House has been waiting for a long time. I propose to allow questions to the Prime Minister to continue until 4.20, and then we must move to the other statements.
Mr. David Howell: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that she will not be deterred from her thoroughly sensible proposals for a common currency for Europe and a European monetary fund? They hold out far more promise for the future than a single centralised European bank which would be impossible to operate in the European monetary system. In view of the likely failure of the Uruguay round, can my right hon. Friend say whether there were any firm proposals at Dublin for developing an alternative world trade organisation or expanding the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development into an Atlantic-wide free trade and investment area?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I agree that the proposals that have been put forward by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer are substantial and right, in that they still leave choice in people's hands as to whether they should go for a common currency or continue to deal only in their own. Those proposals are much more substantial than stage 2 of Delors and quite different.
Many people would have difficulty with locked currencies, as we all had difficulty with Bretton Woods, and many would have difficulty going to Delors stage 3. Not only this Parliament but others could not do it without enormous subventions from other members of the Community. We would not be prepared to do that. The Chancellor's proposal is much more substantial than the present stage 2, and we say that it is the next stage on which everyone could agree. It is not for us to say what may happen in 10 or 20 years because we do not know the circumstances that will pertain then. It would be an effective second stage.
My right hon. Friend mentioned the Uruguay round. As he knows, the agriculture problems present difficulties. Some other Members of the Community are much more

493
rigid on those than we would be, and we have made proposals for determining the different level of subsidy in the United States, the Community and Japan through some kind of producer subsidy equivalent. I agree that that will be the most difficult part of the Uruguay round. There is a tendency in some respects for members of the Community to be more protectionist than we are—for example, Germany, with its stance on lorries and its discriminatory taxes. We have not prepared an alternative mode of negotiation. We must strain to make the Uruguay round successful and to increase world trade.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I listened carefully to the Prime Minister's answer a moment ago on economic and monetary union. We all know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that his system left open the option of moving towards a single European currency, but that runs counter to the implication of the Prime Minister's comments after the Dublin summit and to her specific answer to my question last week. Therefore, will she how answer unequivocally the question which she has so far dodged: will Britain join a single European currency under her leadership—yes, no or maybe?
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman cannot have listened to the paragraph of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's speech that I read out, which says clearly that that is not a decision that we should take now. It could not have come from the structure of the European monetary fund set out in my right hon. Friend's speech. If the right hon. Gentleman has read that, he will know full well that the ecu would be issued as a currency only against other currencies placed with that board. That would ensure that it was non-inflationary. It could not be done under that structure. Why do we not get on with things on which we can all agree? It would give those who wish to use a common currency the right to do so. Why does the right hon. Gentleman arrogate to himself decisions that are for future generations in the House to take?
Mr. Hugh Dykes: I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement today and for her robust and strong position at the Dublin summit which not only represented and safeguarded Britain's genuine interests but took us further along the road to European monetary union and the formation of political union in whatever form the member states may decide. Does she agree that it is highly likely that the market place pressures will, in reality, produce a common and/or single currency in due course because the market pressures will be great both from institutions and companies, and from consumers, as the ecu develops?
The Prime Minister: Our proposals would lead to a common currency which people could choose to use more or less as they wished, or they could continue to use their own currency. I do not believe that that formula could develop into a single currency. The Delors formula for a single currency involves a board of 12 bank governors with powers over monetary policy and some powers over budgetary policy. Once we surrendered all our powers over monetary and budgetary policy, we would not have a great deal of sovereignty left, and I do not believe that that would be acceptable to the House. Those who advocate a single currency would do well to remember that, because they would be voting to diminish fundamentally the powers of the House—powers which it is for us to uphold.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: What did the discussion on international terrorism add up to in practice? Did it deal with the vexed problem of extradition?
The Prime Minister: We did not go further on extradition. As I think the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Ireland are studying the cases of extradition which have been heard recently to see whether they add up to what we thought the law on extradition meant. There was some discussion during one meal and particularly at a press conference. It is important that we have extradition so that people can stand trial in the country where the crime was committed. Just as it is important that no one who is innocent should be found guilty, it is equally important that those who are guilty should be found guilty, properly and duly in the courts of law.
Mr. William Cash: My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on the immense progress that she has made in continuing to stand up for democracy and accountability, not only in this Parliament but in Europe. The simple questions that arise are: who is to control our economy, and are we to retain the authority of the House on vital public expenditure and taxation matters? Will she accept the congratulations of Conservative Members on her achievement in maintaining the authority of this place?
The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that the argument about accountability makes more and more headway every time that we raise it. Many people are very concerned that the Delors stages 2 and 3 do not properly address that question. As others look more carefully into stages 2 and 3, they have very different objectives from that of the deutschmark. It is clear that the objective of some of them is not to maintain the value of the currency and protect it from inflation but to put growth before that, which could possibly undermine the value of a currency. Those differences are coming out more and more. I described what my hon. Friend put forward. The rest of our colleagues were very interested, and I believe that his proposal will be studied very carefully.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: In a previous answer the Prime Minister said that she believes that the commitment to economic and monetary union stems from 1972. Does she agree that the then Government took us into the EEC without public mandate, and that she headed a Government who, without public mandate, signed the Single European Act, which for the first time made it possible for the laws of this country to be determined against the wishes of the public, Parliament or the Government? As to political union, has not the Prime Minister now agreed to what she calls a procedural motion without resolution of the House? How does she reconcile such conduct with the defence of the British constitution and parliamentary democracy in the United Kingdom?
The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Single European Act extended the qualified majority—it did not invent it—for the purpose of achieving the internal market under article 100A, and specifically delineated areas that would still require unanimous voting. We feel sometimes that those areas are being undermined by

495
decisions of the Commission. I do not believe that they have yet been to the courts. It is vital that, in the areas where the unanimous vote is retained, it is clearly upheld.
As for economic and monetary union, it was referred to—as the hon. Gentleman knows that it was in 1972—in the preamble to the Single European Act. In one of the crossheadings, it was defined as economic and monetary co-operation. That is still how I prefer to define it. I believe that that is the right definition.
Mr. Christopher Gill: What are the prospects of convincing our European partners that, if we are to help eastern Europe to create a free market economy, it is better to encourage the private sector to invest in eastern Europe rather than squander taxpayers' money on centralist schemes of dubious economic benefit?
The Prime Minister: I wholly agree with my hon. Friend. It is much better for the private sector to invest. It would send in good management to show how the private sector operates, which is very much needed. All the people from eastern Europe who come to see us—yesterday I saw Mr. de Maizire from East Germany, and we have also had visitors from Hungary and Czechoslovakia—are anxious to pursue privatisation. They know full well that it will produce a much more prosperous standard of living for their people than the totally centrally controlled nationalisation under which they have lived to this day.
Mr. John D. Taylor: The Prime Minister confirmed in her statement that she has committed the Government to intergovernmental conferences in December on economic, monetary and political union. Will the Prime Minister confirm that she has committed herself to a process that will inevitably lead to a federal Europe, a single currency and a central bank, and to the eventual diminution of the sovereignty of this nation? If she accepts that, would it not be better to tell the British public the truth now rather than to disguise it until after the next general election?
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is giving a false impression. At any time in one of the main councils of the Community, a vote could be put to the 12 present on whether there should be an intergovernmental conference. That vote is decided by a simple majority: seven votes to five would get an intergovernmental conference. That is normal procedure. It was quite clear that there were few people around the table against an intergovernmental conference, and there is no reason why we should not be prepared to go into one about political union, because we have many proposals to put forward about the Commission's accountability for the moneys that it uses, and many other proposals to make the Commission and the other institutions work much better. We wanted a conference so that we could put our proposals forward.
It has been made clear at all times that this House would not accept a single European currency on the Delors plan because that would mean yielding up monetary and fiscal sovereignty; so we would not agree to Delors stage 3, and we have not agreed to stage 2. We were in favour of Delors stage 1, because we were already set on that course before he came out with stages 2 and 3.
Mr. Robert Rhodes James: Have discussions been held about the location of the European environmental agency? Is my right hon. Friend aware that I am enthusiastic that it should be in Cambridge, which is a suitable place, and I hope that the Government are pressing for that.
The Prime Minister: There were discussions about the sites of European institutions. As my hon. Friend is aware, whenever we discuss that, the question whether the Parliament should continue to meet in Strasbourg, Brussels and Luxembourg comes up. Those are some of the liveliest debates that we ever have in the Community. Countries which have institutions within their borders wish to keep precisely what they have and do not want change. Unless they are assured of that, they will not agree about where the environmental institution and the trade-mark centre should go. So we got no further. That has happened several times. The matter has been put to the next presidency—which will be Italian. Having got the European bank for reconstruction and development, there is no possibility of our getting the centre for environmental studies.
Mr. Peter Shore: Is it not clear, whatever else happened in Dublin, that the Prime Minister has not been able to stem, let alone halt, the Gadarene rush towards economic, monetary and political union in Europe; and that once the intergovernmental conferences take place there is a great danger that this country will be sucked into major decisions against our interests and, as I understand it, against the wishes of the Prime Minister? As we will probably stand alone and say that we disagree with the rest of the EC at the end of that process, will she now make clear to the country—this terribly ill-informed country, with ill-informed media—the dangers and difficulties to the British economy, to jobs and industry and to the Westminster Parliament of being locked into permanently fixed exchange rates in the sort of system that Delors has wished upon us?
The Prime Minister: I must congratulate the right hon. Gentleman; he is beginning to sound more and more like me. I have made that speech several times, and consistently. I am against locked currencies. We have lived with locked currencies and they collapsed. I am against a single currency, and I do not believe that we shall be sucked in—for one good reason: if we were to come to this Parliament with a single currency which deprived the House of its customary authority, I do not believe that it would go through the House. I thoroughly agree with the right hon. Gentleman and with his conclusion.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Did the Prime Minister have the opportunity to raise the question of interim relief, decided by the European Court this week? Has not that matter taken on a new urgency in view of the information from the Home Office this morning that the agents for the German state lottery are taking action in the United Kingdom courts in relation to the fact that the distribution of German lottery tickets, is in contravention of the European Court under the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976? Would it not be a bit ridiculous if people in Britain were forced to subsidise the German health service by buying German lottery tickets, when lottery tickets are illegal under a law passed unanimously by the House?
The Prime Minister: We did not raise that particular matter. As my hon. Friend knows, we have dealt with it at Question Time, pointing out that our courts had been given the power to override our law in favour of Community law, although to what extent they did so was still a matter for the decision of our courts. We did not go into the matter further at the Council. I understand that the matter that my hon. Friend has raised is at present before the courts, and they will therefore decide it in the first instance.
Mr. Ernie Ross: On the declaration on the middle east, the whole House will welcome the Government's affirmation of the untenability of the status quo in the occupied territories and the Government's explicit reference to the obligations on all state parties to the Geneva convention to show respect for that convention. We also welcome the further call for action to ensure that protection. Does the Prime Minister agree that that statement breaks new ground and will give cause for hope that Britain and its European partners are prepared to act to protect the basic human rights of Palestinians on the west bank and in Gaza pending the resumption of a meaningful peace process?
The Prime Minister: I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman's underlying view. It is worrying that we have no negotiations going and seem to have little prospect of negotiations. It is vital that we get negotiations going that respect Israel's right to exist and also respect and uphold the decision of the Palestine Liberation Organisation to recognise article 242, to recognise Israel's right to exist and also to disapprove of violence as a means of pursuing its objectives. I know that there is some ambivalence on that last point, particularly with regard to activities in the occupied territories.
I share the hon. Gentleman's view that it is important for us, both in the Community and with the United States, which can perhaps bring more pressure to bear on Israel than any other country, to try to get negotiations going in spite of all the difficulties. Otherwise we may lose some of the advances that have been made. We disapprove of terrorism or violence, by the PLO or any other organisation, and that makes it more important that, where there are legitimate grievances, they should be addressed by negotiations.
Sir Peter Hordern: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her evolutionary approach to a European common currency. As the European monetary fund is to be responsible for monetary policy, in the sense that it will determine interest rates, will my right hon. Friend tell us to whom the European monetary fund will be responsible?
The Prime Minister: It will be responsible for interest rates only on the ecu, which is currency board issued. Our interest rates and our own currency are, and will continue to be, matters for us. The fund would be responsible for the deposits made with it and the amounts that it lent out for common currency. We shall still be responsible for our own.
Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Prime Minister aware that her insistence on the restructuring, of the Soviet Union economy sounds reasonable but could be very dangerous? The Soviet leaders are already aware of the need for restructuring, and any imposition of sudden changes on their crumbling economy could put it in a state
498
of chaos and collapse. By all means let us give economic aid and expertise, but the best people to decide the pace of change in the Soviet Union are Soviet leaders, not western leaders.
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will realise that the very difficult circumstances which the Soviet Union faces now are a result of 70 years of central power and control, of the nationalisation of practically every decision and of no responsibility or initiative among its people. That is what has virtually brought about the collapse of the standard of living about which the right hon. Gentleman speaks.
The right hon. Gentleman will recall that when we set out to help Poland and Hungary—and now others—we insisted that the International Monetary Fund had a look at their economies and that they took advice to change their economic direction and to have more privatisation and more private enterprise against a proper framework of regulation and law. We did not give the aid until we were certain that that change had been approved, and therefore had some chance of getting under way. The change does not have to be totally complete—that would not be possible or reasonable—but those countries must have got the main change under way.
There are one or two joint ventures and we have some. They do not always work because the raw materials and the semi-fabricated goods which should come to the factory which is part of a joint venture—often from the Soviet side—do not arrive. I think that the best venture in the Soviet Union is probably McDonald's beefburgers, because it has its own farms, its own lorries and the biggest queue. I am sure that it is right to get an economic structural change going.
Sir John Wheeler: I am confident that my right hon. Friend will welcome the progress towards improved co-operation to suppress serious crime and international terrorism. Does she agree that the most important way to achieve that is to improve the intelligence arrangements and gathering systems? Can she comment on whether the German Government are willing to amend their constitution to allow their citizens to be subject to extradition to other EC countries to stand trial there?
The Prime Minister: We did not discuss that particular point. However, we did discuss the importance of intelligence among all European countries—even across the European divide—in tracking down criminals, especially those peddling drugs. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that to get intelligence in time—and to take action on it—is one of the most important factors.
Mr Anthony Coombs: While suporting the vigorous programme of aid and assistance by the EEC to newly democratic eastern European countries, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be inappropriate—indeed wasteful—to pour a large amount of aid into the Soviet Union until it has not only formed a market economy but has taken a greater stride towards a truly pluralist democracy and shown more sensitivity to the needs of its national minorities in, for example, the Baltic states?
The Prime Minister: The Soviet Union must sort out the powers that belong to central Government and the powers that belong to the separate republics, bearing in

499
mind the fact that some of the separate republics are very large and that they are now taking powers unto themselves because they are varied and they dislike some of the decisions of the central authority.
It is important that we get the change with regard to aid. It has been suggested that we put up quite a lot of loan money for the Soviet Union to buy consumer goods to put on the shelves. In my view, that would do no one any good, least of all the Soviet Union. The sum mentioned was $15 billion, which would be equivalent to about $2.5 billion coming to Britain. The idea that that would solve all the problems is ridiculous. It would make them worse, because people would buy the goods quickly. The Soviet people would then be left with a large amount of debt hanging round their necks. Their last position would be worse than their first.
Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Prime Minister aware that, while there is widespread feeling that harmonisation between fully self-governing countries is desirable in western Europe, eastern Europe and more generally, there is absolutely no electoral mandate for economic, monetary and political union, which is to be discussed further at the special meeting later this year? There is little public understanding of it, no public support for it and, above all, we have no authority from the voters to move in a direction which would take away power not from the House but from the people who send us here. Sovereignty belongs not to the House of Commons but to those who put us here and can remove us, and the continued operation of the Crown prerogative, which is the only power that the Prime Minister has to agree to any of those things has already rendered the House virtually impotent in defence of the rights of those who sent us here.
In the light of what is happening worldwide—in Quebec and elsewhere—is the right hon. Lady not aware that there is no longer that passion for increasingly large super-power units, whether in Moscow, Brussels or anywhere else, and it is time that she stopped beating the nationalist drum and taking us further into an impasse which, when the people discover it, will lead to great public anger which could undermine confidence in parliamentary democracy?
The Prime Minister: I hardly thought the day would come when I would agree with a good deal of what the right hon. Gentleman says—and I am sure that he is as surprised as I am—but I do not agree with all of it, which perhaps is the saving grace. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman agrees with increased co-operation between democracies for defence, security, trade and many matters. Co-operation is freely given by nation states, each answerable to its own Parliament—with 12 nation states sitting round the table, we are each answerable to our own Parliament.
I agree with step-by-step, steady, increasing co-operation in those matters on which it is wise to co-operate. I do not agree with giving up our sovereignty and going into anything like a federation of European states. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is evident across eastern Europe that, whereas people thought that they could suppress national identity by a political creed, they have discovered that they cannot
500
suppress it. I would go further and say that one should not suppress it. We can co-operate as nations because we wish to co-operate, and that is the way we shall do it.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I welcome the Prime Minister's robust statement on aid to the Soviet Union. We are talking about taxpayers' money and any money that is allocated must have strings attached in terms of economic reconstruction. However, if she has trouble selling the principle of a two-tier currency system, let me put a suggestion to her. She should give Members of Parliament two options: they can be paid in ecu, or they can be paid in sterling. I am sure that many of my hon. Friends who have been pro-European since the early 1970s would opt for ecu, but I am sure that the anti-European backwoodsmen would have to consider their position very rapidly.
The Prime Minister: I rather agree with the hon. Gentleman on his last point, but at the moment the ecu is not a currency; it is a measure of the value of a basket of currencies. Under the European monetary fund and the system proposed by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, it could issue as a hard ecu only against other European currencies so we would not get inflation. It might be as well to allow people that choice. The hon. Gentleman has made his judgment as to how they would use it, but there is no reason why they should not make that choice.
I am very grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said about aid to the Soviet Union. We were faced with a sudden proposition, a demand for about $15 billion-worth of aid without any papers whatsoever before us, and I was bound to say that that is not the way we do business.
Sir Ian Lloyd: As a member of the small but diminishing band that has consistently opposed sanctions for the best part of 25 years, may I congratulate the Prime Minister on her success in persuading some of her colleagues to abandon that bandwagon, on which the four horsemen of the apocalypse are teamed with the World Council of Churches and Mr. Mandela.
On the more fundamental point of political union, may I test the proposition that my right hon. Friend advanced—that European political institutions will be given power and sovereignty only when national political institutions cannot do the job? She will be aware that a Committee of Parliament pointed out that national political institutions simply no longer could deal with air traffic control. Was that discussed in Dublin and, if so, with what result?
The Prime Minister: Air traffic control was not discussed, but we obviously need maximum co-operation right across Europe. It would be difficult if there were one system right across Europe, because a few people going on strike could place the rest of the system in difficulty. We need much more co-operation between air traffic controllers. As my hon. Friend knows, we are installing the latest computers for our system.
With regard to sanctions, the countries are coming our way, and not only in the communiqué. Italy has lifted her ban on investment in South Africa—a very well-judged decision—Spain has set up a new cargo airline for delivering goods to South Africa, and Denmark has returned her ambassador to South Africa. Although they are not formally agreeing to disband some of the few remaining sanctions, they are nevertheless having increasing contact with South Africa, which is the right

501
decision. It helps President de Klerk and all those in South Africa to look forward to a higher standard of living in a full non-racial democracy.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I am sorry that it has not been possible to call all hon. Members. Today, I have given some precedence to those who were not called on 1 May and on 12 June.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: No, you have not.
Mr. Speaker: I have not been able to get them all in, but I shall keep a list and see what I can do next time.

Business of the House
4.22 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week.
MONDAY 2 JULY—Estimates day (1st Allotted Day, 2nd part). There will be a debate on assistance to eastern Europe. Details of the estimates concerned and the relevant Select Committee report will be given in the Official Report.
Ways and Means resolution relating to the Finance Bill.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
TUESDAY 3 JULY—Opposition day (17th Allotted Day). Until about seven o'clock there will be a debate entitled "Crisis in our Schools". Afterwards there will be a debate on Housing. Both debates arise on Opposition motions.
Motion on the Education (Student Loans) Regulations.
WEDNESDAY 4 JULY—There will be a debate on the Arts and Heritage on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
THURSDAY 5 JULY—Motion on the Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order.
FRIDAY 6 JULY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 9 JULY—Consideration of any Lords amendments which may be received to the Social Security Bill.
Relevant document, Monday 2 July: Third Report from the Foreign Affairs Committee of Session 1989–90 on FCO/ODA Expenditure 1990–91 (House of Commons Paper No. 233).
Dr. John Cunningham: May I warmly thank the Leader of the House for providing time for a debate on the arts and heritage—a debate for which we have been asking for some time? I express my gratitude to the Leader of the House for announcing that the debate will take place.
Will the Leader of the House reconsider the position of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill? It is obvious that there will be insufficient time to consider it in this Session unless it is drastically altered. I concede that discussion of it to date has shown that there may be room for major changes, but, given the shortage of time and the pressure for major change, would it not be far more sensible to withdraw the Bill, have it rewritten and introduced again in the next Session, when there would be a large measure of agreement not only about its contents but about its rate of progress through the House?
A number of local authorities had lawfully to fix their poll taxes in April. They have subsequently been poll tax-capped by the Government and will retrospectively have to make major changes to their budgets and therefore to their expenditure and their ability to deliver services to many hundreds of thousands of people. Why have we still not had any indication of when the Government intend to bring those poll tax capping orders to the House for debate? I emphasise to the Leader of the House that the Opposition believe that it is very important that adequate time be given to debate orders that affect 20 local authorities.
I thank the Leader of the House for trying to find proper accommodation for Mr. Nelson Mandela to

503
address hon. Members when he comes here next week. I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has tried, but I would like to ask him to try again, to secure suitable accommodation for Mr. Mandela's address. When I was in the United States, I saw Mr. Mandela address the Senate and the House of Representatives jointly on the floor of the Congress. I am not suggesting that Mr. Mandela should be invited into this Chamber—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—but will the Leader of the House consider whether Mr. Mandela should be invited to address us in the Royal Gallery of the House of Lords? That would be an appropriate and fitting setting for an historic occasion at which many hon. Members on both sides of the House—this is not a party political point—and other people in Parliament would wish to be present. Will the Leader of the House consider that again?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's welcome for my announcement of the debate on Wednesday, in which my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts will have a chance to give an account of his substantial achievements.
I listened yet again to what the hon. Gentleman said about the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill. It is currently making progress in Standing Committee. It received a Second Reading with a substantial Government majority, and I believe that it should continue to make progress in Committee.
The hon. Gentleman was right to observe that I made no announcement about the charge-capping orders today. As I have said more than once, the question of a debate on the orders is best left to discussion through the usual channels.
I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman said about the endeavour to find a suitable place in which Mr. Nelson Mandela may be invited to address hon. Members of both Houses. However, I am afraid that I cannot accept his suggestions. As he knows, there is a great difference between the traditional availability of invitations to speak in the Royal Gallery, which are seldom extended, and invitations to speak to both Houses of Congress in the Senate. A comparison between the two is not appropriate.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask hon. Members to confine themselves to one question about the business for next week. I would like to call on the next statement at 4.50 pm.
Mr. Harry Greenway: I want to raise a matter that is important to Londoners. Miss Constance Scrafield, who was prosecuted for allegedly galloping in Richmond park, brought a petition to me on her horse this week asking for new regulations about cantering in royal parks in London. May we have a debate on that subject so that people are not persecuted for allegedly galloping?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have not received many representations on that point, but I shall give it the attention that it properly deserves.
Mr. James Wallace: One of the functions of this House is to monitor public expenditure. As a report of the Energy Select Committee published yesterday gave one of the most damning indictments of Ministers for a long time on the costs of nuclear power,
504
may we have a debate in Government time on that important issue? Sir William Wallace, who sought freedom from oppression for his people against alien oppression, spoke in Westminster Hall. Would not that be an appropriate place for a speech by Mr. Nelson Mandela?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to make his view known on the second point, but I am not prepared to agree with him. On the Energy Select Committee report, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy has already replied clearly and vigorously to the comments made in that report, and that should be sufficient for the time being.
Mr. Roger Gale: In the light of the response of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food earlier on the export of live animals, the failure of the unelected European Commission to observe the wishes and recommendations of the Members of the European Parliament expressed in their submissions to the Council of Ministers and the strong feelings of the RSPCA, the British Veterinary Association and the all-party animal welfare group of the House on the export of live animals, will my right hon. and learned Friend find time for a debate in the House so that we can send a clear message to the Council of Ministers reflecting the feeling in the House?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not sure that I can offer the prospect of an early debate on the matter. As my hon. Friend knows, unilateral action on the matter would not necessarily be compatible with the European Communities treaties. Certainly it will be one of our objectives to ensure the introduction in all member states of measures which would achieve higher standards of care than those which currently prevail.
Mr. Robin Corbett: Has the Leader of the House seen all-party early-day motion No. 1096?
[That this House notes that the drug Erythropoietin, EPO, that can greatly improve the lives of kidney patients may be denied to some of them because of financial pressures in the area in which they happen to live; and calls upon the Government to make a thorough assessment of the benefits of the drug and, if appropriate, to ensure that it is equally available to all kidney patients who would benefit from its use.]
Will he find time for an early debate on the denial of Government funds for the use of the drug?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The assessment of the benefits of EPO is a matter for the clinicians involved. The current way forward is for each region to assess patients' requirements for the drug and make appropriate plans to ensure that those needs are met. Our reforms of the national health service will make it easier for treatment to be made available in that way.
Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: During the debate on Northern Ireland on Thursday, will the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland give the House an update on his talks with political parties and in Dublin about future political initiatives in the Province?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand my hon. Friend's interest in that matter. The debate next Thursday will be extensive in terms of time. It would not be proper for me to anticipate what my right hon. Friend will say.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: My question is also on Thursday's business. Will there be a full answer on the letter that the Prime Minister received on 10 June from Mr. Colin Wallace which contained a document which may well have been a smear? The document was typed by Mr. Christopher Whitehead, currently head of public relations for the prison service. It linked Charles Haughey with the IRA. May we have a full explanation of that letter of 10 June?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot possibly answer that question. The fact that the hon. Gentleman has raised the matter on the Floor of the House today will undoubtedly be taken into account by those of my hon. Friends who speak in the debate.
Mr. Rupert Allason: My right hon. and learned Friend will know that on Monday night we had just three hours to debate the forthcoming police housing allowances and that many hon. Members failed to catch Mr. Speaker's eye. Many topics were discussed. Surely that demonstrates the need for a debate on the subject as soon as possible and, in particular, on some of the other topics raised, including the amalgamation of the police forces and the introduction of a national detective force. Those issues should be debated in the House because important decisions will soon be made that will affect every citizen in the country. It is important that we should debate the matter before the recess.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I know that the House debated the regulations on Monday night, and the debate ended in a substantial majority in support of the Government's proposals. However, that is no reason for me not to accept the proposition that I should recommend my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to consider those topics.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The Lord President will know that I would welcome a statement next Thursday about setting up a Northern Ireland Select Committee. However, in view of the speculation that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland intends to make a definitive statement during the renewal debate, would it not be wiser to circulate a detailed document to the leaders of the parties with which he has been in consultation so that there could be a considered response rather than off-the-cuff remarks in such a debate?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The question of a Northern Ireland Select Committee is under consideration by the Select Committee on Procedure, and it can be raised in the course of next week's debate. It would not be right for me to try to inhibit the way in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland approaches the important matters that he is discussing.
Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Winnick.
Hon. Members: He is called every week.
Mr. David Winnick: Will the Leader of the House give further serious consideration to where Mr. Mandela will speak when he visits the House next week? Does he recognise that, when Mr. Mandela has visited Parliaments in Europe and elsewhere, he has been given every possible facility and hospitality, and that the Grand Committee Room is not an appropriate venue, whereas the Royal Gallery is? Why on earth are the Government
506
adopting an attitude that must be regarded as a snub to one of the most distinguished and heroic figures in southern Africa, who has spent more than 25 years in prison for fighting for the liberation of his country?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not mean to say anything that does not accord proper respect to Mr. Nelson Mandela, his achievements or his aspirations, but the fact must be faced that many Heads of State and Governments would have sought to address both Houses in the Royal Gallery, and only a small number of such people have ever been invited to speak there.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. May I say to the whole House—and not to any hon. Member in particular—that those who are called last at business questions one week are always called first the next week?
Mr. Stuart Bell: I refer the Lord President to his answer to me last week in relation to the Government's proposed changes in private Bill procedure. He was kind enough to say that he has published a consultation document—I am not entirely sure whether it was a Green Paper, a White Paper, a pink paper or a peach paper. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that three private Bills of a political nature are before the House at the moment—the Associated British Ports Bill, the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill and the Clyde Port Authority Bill? Would it not be appropriate, given the Government's intention to change the law in relation to private Bills and how they are operated in the House, to have an early debate on the subject so that the entire House can comment on those proposals?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The whole House is invited to comment on the proposals: that is precisely why the consultation document has been published. I shall look forward to reading representations and observations from any hon. Member who wishes to let me have them.
Mr. Bob Cryer: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 1152, on the destruction of the ozone layer?
[That this House, in view of the overwhelming scientific evidence of increasing ozone depletion and the unforeseeable consequences for the health of the planet and all life on it, urges the Government, at the environmental conference in London from 27th–29th June on the 1987 Montreal Protocol, to support a total phase-out of all ozone destroying compounds in the immediate future.]
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure the House that there will be a statement next week by the Secretary of State for the Environment, so that hon. Members can find out what he has been doing, and whether he has been pressing for the rapid phasing out of all substances that damage the ozone layer, especially in view of the scientific evidence that has been produced to show greater destruction and damage than was previously thought to exist? The Government's phasing-out date—the year 2000—simply is not adequate. We need more action, and a report from the Secretary of State to demonstrate that he has undertaken some action.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I expect that the House will appreciate that the Government are indeed committed to the ultimate phasing out of ozone-depleting substances at the fastest possible speed that can be agreed globally.

507
During the renegotiation of the Montreal protocol at the second meeting, the European Community made proposals for the control of CFCs that are tougher than those of any other country. I shall draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the suggestion that he should make a statement on the outcome of those proceedings, but obviously I cannot commit him.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 1200?
[That this House expresses its deep disquiet that 29 surviving former Labour Lambeth councillors, who have already been disqualified for five years and who have already paid over £300,000 in surcharge and costs, have again been surcharged for £212,726 and are sought to be disqualified for a further five years; deplores an unprecedented double penalty imposed for the same conduct which was penalised five years ago; and calls for the immediate remission of these further penalties and a reform of the Law which discriminates against councillors as compared with other public representatives and infringes the civil liberties of those who seek election.]
It has been tabled today and it concerns Lambeth councillors and the second surcharge and disqualification from office imposed on them. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that there should be a report or a debate on this matter because Lambeth councillors have already been surcharged £300,000 and been subject to a five-year ban from public office? For the same offence, those councillors have been penalised another five years and subject to another £213,000 surcharge. That treatment must be contrasted with the way in which Lady Porter and her gang at the Tory Westminster council got away with the £5 million land deal fiddle, and with the £44 million of sweeteners from the Government in the Rover sale. Surely, if such treatment applies to one group of people, it should apply to another. The surcharge and the ban from public office placed on the Lambeth councillors should be lifted.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman does not find it easy to understand that there are due processes of law for consideration of all those matters. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will be answering questions this afternoon about the response to the ruling of the European Commission in relation to Rover.
As for the Lambeth councillors, the surcharge and disqualification of councillors are matters for the auditor and the courts. I cannot make any comment in that particular case. The matter must be resolved through the courts, not through debate in this House.
Mr. Greville Janner: May we have an early debate on the latest example of the savaging of the national health service in Leicestershire—the closure of five wards, including children's wards, in the Leicester royal infirmary and the imminent redundancy of 167 people employed at the hospital announced by the management to the unions of that hospital yesterday? Is the Leader of the House aware that all hon. Members representing Leicestershire are deeply disturbed at the effect that the cuts in the health service are having and are likely to have on the health of our people? This matter should be debated in the House.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have the impression that the topic has been drawn to my attention in a number of different ways on more than one occasion by hon. Members on both sides of the House. My response is the same as my previous ones: there has been a general increase in real terms in the resources available to the relevant Leicestershire health authority.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: I draw to the attention of the Leader of the House early-day motion 1196 on the loss of the MV Derbyshire.
[That this House calls on the Secretary of State for Transport, using powers vested in him by the Merchant Shipping Act 1970, to re-open the Wreck Commissioner's inquiry into the loss in 1980 of MV 'Derbyshire' to hear vital new scientific research on why that British-built, British-classed and British-flagged vessel sank without trace; notes that the research now with the Royal Institution of Naval Architects was carried out by the late Professor Richard Bishop, Vice Chancellor Brunel University and his partners, Professor Geraint Price and Pendari Temarel; further notes that their research indicates that the stresses in the hull of the 'Derbyshire' were grossly underestimated; believes this has important implications for the safety of other vessels still at sea; and notes the Wreck Commissioner's report into the loss of the 'Derbyshire' said last year that if the stresses in the hull of the ship had been underestimated, that could lead to different conclusions about the structural integrity of the ship.]
Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the new scientific evidence has been brought forward? Is he aware that there is widespread concern in the public domain about the fact that, 10 years ago, the families affected were treated shoddily? The Government have made no attempt to consider the new evidence recently produced.
Will the Leader of the House bring to the attention of the Secretary of State for Transport the need for a debate as soon as possible on the MV Derbyshire so that the House can hear the new available evidence?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand that the court of formal investigation into the loss of the MV Derbyshire reported as long ago as January 1989 and that no fresh evidence has been presented to the Department of Transport since then. My right hon. Friend will study the research material to which the hon. Gentleman referred once that becomes available to him. In the light of his examination, he will decide what steps may be appropriate.
Mr. Ron Brown: I am most grateful, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in this place. You will recall that, last week, you said that those who were not called would be given the first opportunity to put questions to the Leader of the House today. Apparently, I am the last one on the Opposition Benches to put a question to the Leader of the House, and I accept that as some sort of compliment.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Please get on with the question—and good luck next week.
Mr. Brown: I may be short in stature, but I am not short in principle, I hope.
Will the Leader of the House arrange for a special debate next week on GEC-Ferranti of Edinburgh? Many of the employees are worried because they are losing their jobs. Such job losses may occur repeatedly throughout Britain, but it is important that we have a debate on this issue bearing in mind the fact that the favoured son of the

509
Tory party, Lord Weinstock, has taken over Ferranti. Will the Government be quiet, or will they speak up to allow the Opposition to have a go at them? The issue at stake is 550 jobs—550 families. The people of Scotland are concerned. If this place means anything and enables us to challenge issues, the Government should allow the debate to take place. I suspect, however, that the Leader of the House will make some excuse for not having a debate.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: As the hon. Gentleman knows, decisions of that nature are commercial ones for the company or companies concerned. No doubt my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is aware of the issue to which he has drawn attention, but I cannot offer the prospect of a debate on it.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that important discussions are taking place in the Department of Trade and Industry on a new regime connected with export credits? Is he aware that that is of considerable interest to a number of industrial firms in my constituency? Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that, before any final decision is taken on such important, critical matters, it will have an opportunity to debate them?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand the continuing importance of export credit guarantee schemes. I cannot offer the certain prospect of a debate on the matter, but if my hon. Friend seeks to represent the views of the firms in his constituency I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will take them into account.
Mr. Spencer Batiste: Bearing in mind today's remaining business, can my right hon. and learned Friend say whether he has had any suggestion from the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) that he will seek an opportunity to come to the House to apologise for the appalling, unfounded statements he has made to the effect that the Government illegally assisted British Aerospace through changes in the taxation system that would have been wholly outside the law of the land?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have received no such representation.

British Aerospace
4.46 pm
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the decision reached yesterday by the European Commission following its review of the arrangements reached with British Aerospace regarding the sale of the Government shareholding in Rover Group.
The Government believe that, in the circumstances at the time, the additional concessions granted to British Aerospace were a necessary part of our agreement so that the privatisation of Rover Group could proceed. That deal brought considerable benefits: it freed the taxpayer from the contingent liability of the Varley-Marshall-Joseph assurances—that liability then amounted to £1·6 billion and was set to rise substantially over the corporate plan period. It ensured that Rover Group's needs would not in future require special Government aid, which had amounted to £3·5 billion while under public ownership. It safeguarded over 190,000 jobs, mostly in the west midlands, and it made a desirable contribution towards restructuring within the European motor industry.
Under BAe's ownership, the corporate plan is being fully implemented. Rover has already committed more than £500 million of new capital investment. The new model range is highly successful and the company has returned to profitability.
The Commission's principal decisions are as follows: that
"£150 million represented a reasonable purchase price for the company";
that the Government should provide an undertaking that any arrangement between BAe and the Inland Revenue will not allow Rover Group to use more than the £500 million of trading tax losses specified in the sale agreement with BAe, and that those losses will remain within Rover Group—I am, of course, very happy to give an undertaking that the terms of the sale contract will be adhered to; that BAe should automatically be required to pay financial penalties if there is any change in control of Rover Group or its principal subsidiaries before July 1993—we shall be exploring precisely what this means with the Commission; that the grant of £1·5 million towards Rover Group's costs incurred in the acquisition, and the £9·5 million contribution towards BAe's costs in buying out the minority shareholders, should be repaid; and that the benefit to British Aerospace of deferring payment of the £150 million consideration for Rover Group should similarly be repaid.
In relation to this deferment, the Commission has concluded the BAe should be required to pay an amount of £33·4 million, calculated as the estimated gross interest saving to the company. Fairness suggests that any such benefit, and therefore any repayment, should be assessed net of tax, thus reflecting the true value of the deferment to the company. We estimate that the equivalent post-tax benefit would be some £22 million, a difference of £1·.4 million.
If the Commission's decision is on the basis of the gross interest saving, the net cost to BAe will depend on whether tax relief is available in respect of the repayment under normal United Kingdom tax law. The availability of tax

511
relief on the £33·4 million will need to be settled in due course between British Aerospace and the appropriate tax authorities, and perhaps ultimately in the courts.
The Commission also notes that expenditure of aid agreed in 1987 for restructuring of the Leyland Daf commercial vehicle operation has been slower than anticipated, and it suggests the possibility that up to £40 million of that may eventually need to be repaid. It acknowledges, however, that that figure is speculative and that the final outturn of expenditure will not be known until next year.
As the Commission's efforts to bring all state aids within the Community under control are beneficial for the development of the single market, the Government believe that it is important to support them. We have thus always acknowledged its ultimate right to reach its own judgment on the status of those additional arrangements in the context of the 1988 decision. We also accept that any benefit received by a company which the Commission properly decides is a state aid incompatible with the treaty should be repaid.
Equity suggests that the repayment should represent the net value of the benefit received by the company and not contain any unintended element of penalty. We are therefore concerned that the Commission has decided on £33.4 million in respect of the interest when the estimated benefit to British Aerospace is some £22 million, handing down a decision in gross terms without regard to whether or not the repayment will be allowable against tax under normal United Kingdom law.
We shall, accordingly, wish to give careful consideration to that aspect of the decsion and to any representations by BAe. Subject, however, to that, the Government, having carefully studied the arguments and to demonstrate our support for Community policy on state aids, have decided to accept the Commission's decision on repayment. We shall be discussing with the Commission and British Aerospace other detailed matters raised in the Commission decision. I am advised that British Aerospace will consider its position in the light of this statement and after studying the Commission decision in detail.
Mr. Gordon Brown: Given that the Minister said in his final few words that the Government will accept the Commission's general verdict to repay, will he now confirm that the Government wrongly gave away millions of pounds of taxpayers' money by deferring payment of the Rover purchase price, and that Parliament should have been but was never properly told?
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that £9.5 million of British Aerospace's costs in acquiring Rover were wrongly paid by the Government and that the House was deliberately kept in the dark? Will he confirm that £1.5 million of Rover's costs for being acquired were wrongly paid by the Government and that Ministers delivered as a matter of policy not just to deceive the European Commission but to deceive Parliament as well? Will he also confirm that, far from the matter being closed, the European Commission has demanded a full report into tax concessions and tax allowances that might have resulted from a series of private meetings involving the Department of Trade and Industry, the Inland Revenue and British Aerospace? Will he now tell the House his estimate of the full value of those concessions?
512
Will the right hon. Gentleman now confirm not only that money was illegally paid but that, as the correspondence give to the House demonstrates, Ministers entered into an elaborate web of deception, even to the extent of a detailed discussion of the risks of being found out?
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that Ministers actually considered how omissions in the national accounts might or might not be spotted, at least by some hon. Members, that they actually considered presenting late payments of cash just as if they had been made earlier and that there was within Government an ascending order of risk that secret concessions might be picked up by the European Commission?
In those circumstances, how can the right hon. Gentleman come to the House today and justify such abuses as what he calls necessary behaviour? Is he seriously telling us that, in other sales of public assets to private companies, the Government would offer similar hidden subsidies and mislead yet again?
Will the right hon. Gentleman now say what responsibility the Prime Minister, who says that she was consulted on the details of the deal, is prepared to shoulder for the errors of judgment and the deception? As for the Government's responsibility to Parliament, will the right hon. Gentleman say why, after nearly two years, after a critical National Audit Office report and after this damning new judgment from the European Commission, there has been as yet no full explanation of events, no apology, no admission of responsibility, no statement of who is to accept the blame and no new rules proposed to prevent similar abuses during the sale of public assets to private companies in future?
Does not this sorry and shameful tale of incompetence and deception—incompetence even in deception—now followed by this humiliating public rebuke in the front of the whole of Europe emphasise that the short-term obsession with privatisation at any price and at any cost overrode all considerations of the public interest, up to and including the good name and integrity of government?
Mr. Ridley: I answered the hon. Gentleman's first questions in my statement. He went on to suggest that the Government had misled Parliament. I repeat that each of those items was properly reported. The deferment of the consideration and the payment of the £1·5 million to Rover Group were reported in a revised summer supplementary estimate laid before Parliament on 14 July 1988, the day of the announcement. The payment of £9·5 million to BAe was reported in the 1989 Industry Act report. All the facts were made available to the National Audit Office at the outset of its investigations. So the hon. Gentleman is wrong about that.
The Government have agreed to accept the Commission's findings and to implement them. Is the Labour party now prepared to accept the Commission's findings and to stop making such charges as that the Government undervalued the Rover Group? As the Commission said:
"£150 million represents a reasonable purchase price for the company."
So may we have a withdrawal of that accusation from the Labour party?
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman has written three times to me and once to the Prime Minister, and many times he has been to the media, and accused the Government of

513
separate tax concessions, hidden tax deals, fiddles on the tax side and secret meetings. That is not true. I want from him an apology and I want him to undertake to withdraw those allegations. He should either put up or shut up.
Mr. Kenneth Warren: Now that the Commission has given its decision, may we hope that both sides of the House will recognise the high value to this country of the Rover and British Aerospace enterprises? Will my right hon. Friend make available in the Library of the House in its entirety the correspondence that he has received from the Commission? May I ask him, not as Chairman of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry but as a Back Bencher, to give the House an assurance that there was never any intention by Her Majesty's Government to deceive Parliament?
Mr. Ridley: I agree with my hon. Friend about the great value to the country and taxpayer of Rover Group passing into the private sector and being owned by British Aerospace. Indeed, from what the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) said, it seems that he regrets that bitterly and wishes that it was still losing money in the public sector.
I have not yet formally received the full decision letter from the Commission. I have no doubt that it will appear in the newspaper columns even before I receive it, so it will become a public document. I have already answered the question about the presentation of these matters to Parliament, which should end that matter.
Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether, prior to approving the British Aerospace-Rover deal, the Prime Minister and the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry were advised that some aspect of it were likely to be regarded as unlawful?
Mr. Ridley: My predecessor, Lord Young, obviously received legal advice from the Department. He alone must be responsible for the advice that he received. I have not seen his legal advice.
Mr. Roger King: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, in relation to some parts of the European Commission's findings, one could argue that a state company, if it wants to sell something, must first ensure that it owns it, and an element of purchasing the minority shareholding should not be construed as a form of state aid? Notwithstanding that, will my right hon. Friend reflect that the working people of the west midlands, so many of whose jobs depend on this business, have looked forward to, and worked to establish, a prosperous and profitable company? Had that business not been privatised—the negotiations were certainly tricky—with a British solution, we might be here now discussing a European Commission directive to prevent the state further subsidising a state business?
Hon. Members: Come on, Tricky Nick.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Ridley: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's last point, because if the company had still been in public ownership, there is no doubt that there would have been a state aid ruling that we should desist from pumping
514
taxpayers' money into it. I would have been pleased to see it, but that is what we would have had. This is a different matter.
I think that my hon. Friend's first point is logically right. The owner of a company should be able to become a 100 per cent. shareholder. I cannot contest that the Commission has come to a different conclusion, which the Government have decided to accept.
Mr. David Nellist: Is the Secretary of State aware that, while he may be relieved that sticky fingers were rapped yesterday only to the tune of £40 million, most car workers in Coventry and the west midlands are still unsure whether, in the past few months, there has been Government incompetence or corruption? In any event, the case still stinks to high heaven. Some £3.5 billion of public, taxpayers' money has been put into, first, British Leyland and then Rover. Once that car company reached a position of stability, the people whose money was put into it should have had the return; the money should not have been given away to British Aerospace. That is what this is all about—we are talking about not just £40 million, but the fact that a public asset was given away to the Secretary of State's mates.
Mr. Ridley: Car workers in the west midlands and the hon. Gentleman's constituency will be only too grateful that they have good, secure jobs in an expanding, successful company, and are not at risk from a state aid directive stopping us pumping money into a bankrupt nationalised enterprise.
Sir Hal Miller: Will my right hon. Friend confirm the facts of the case, which are that Rover was successfully sold to a British company when there were no other applicants and the Opposition had objected to a previous suggestion that Ford and General Motors might take over responsibility for the company; the taxpayer was relieved of the burden of guarantees to £1.4 billion and of the necessity of undertaking an investment programme of £1 billion, which would now, no doubt, have had to be repaid; there was then a considerable risk that the two new models would not be the successes that they were; and there was a heavy, overhanging liability for the redundancy payments for the work force? Therefore, we should all be pleased that the matter is a success, instead of indulging in conspiracy theories, muckraking and the denigration of a successful British company and successful British workers.
Mr. Ridley: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I remind the House of the words of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) on 4 May 1988, when he was the shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry:
"If we are really concerned about the future of the Rover Group and volume car manufacturing in this country under British ownership and control … we need the commitment of an owner who is willing to make the long-term investment that is required. We need an appreciation by the owner of the long-term importance of the industry to the British economy. We need pride of ownership."—[Official Report, 5 May 1988; Vol. 132, c. 941.]
We have achieved that as a result of the BAe deal, but the Labour party is now carping, criticising and wishing it had never happened.
Mr. Alan Williams: Is not the crucial and central point of the decision that has been handed down that the Government behaved illegally? In so far as

515
they did so, why on earth has the Secretary of State come here today without having checked on the legal advice given to his predecessor? While we accept that he is not allowed to see advice given to a previous Government, surely if he is coming to answer questions in the House on illegal conduct by Her Majesty's Government, he should at least have checked the records to find out how the decision was arrived at.
Mr. Ridley: No such question arises. The Government have decided to accept the Commission's report for the reasons that I have given. There is no point in the right hon. Member trying to prove something of that sort. We ultimately made our decision in the way that I have described.
Mr. Paul Channon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that what really matters in this case is that we have a prosperous, efficient, car industry in this country in which people have good jobs? Does he agree that, in the past, the Opposition have sabotaged any effort made to try to put the company on a profitable footing? Does he also agree that the British taxpayer has poured billions of pounds into that company and was liable to pour in even more billions of pounds, and the solution that he and his predecessors adopted not only saved the taxpayer a great deal of money, but provided a prosperous car industry for this country in future?
Mr. Ridley: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right and I applaud his part in the final outcome when he had the job that I now hold. This is what the whole House said that it wanted in May 1988, but now that we have actually got it, the Opposition appear to have changed their mind and want to go back to the old bad days.
Mr. Doug Hoyle: Will the Secretary of State stop attempting to defend and whitewash the Government's actions in their attempts to deceive the House, the European Commission and the general public by hiding the sweeteners given to British Aerospace—efforts of which the Prime Minister was aware? Instead, will he thank and support the vigilance of the Comptroller and Auditor General in unearthing this deception? Will he take his responsibility for the setting up of the slush fund and resign, along with the Prime Minister?
Mr. Ridley: I assure the hon. Gentleman that to the last of my days I shall continue to defend the Government and attack the rabble on the Opposition Benches. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's second point, we made a full report to the Comptroller and Auditor General, which he passed on to the Public Accounts Committee. The House was fully informed because, from that process, publication was made—I am not saying by whom—which was the right way to carry out the procedure.
Mr. Michael Grylls: Does my right hon. Friend agree that most sensible people in the House and outside will observe that, after months of study by the Commission, there has been no criticism whatever of the price at which this company was sold to British Aerospace? Synthetic opposition is voiced by Labour Members simply because they cannot bear to see that the company has been successfully privatised and is
516
prospering. Jobs are very much safer and productivity has improved. It has become a highly profitable British-owned motor car firm, and we should be proud of that.
Mr. Ridley: The force of my hon. Friend's arguments has driven the Leader of the Opposition from the Chamber because he could not take any more. Opposition Members are looking as glum as can be, and the Leader of the Opposition, who should be leading from the front, is not about. My hon. Friend is right. Political point scoring is more important to the Labour party than the successful future of the Rover group.
Mr. Stan Crowther: It would be in everybody's interest for the Government to drop their policy of subterfuge and cover-up. How can the Secretary of State pretend that all the facts were made known at the time, when it is perfectly obvious that, if they had been fully reported to the House and the Commission there would have been no need for the second Commission inquiry or the second inquiry by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry which hopes to report shortly? How can he pretend that the facts were made known, when it is perfectly obvious that they were hidden?
Mr. Ridley: I resent the use of the word subterfuge. On behalf of the Government I have accepted the Commission's report. I have not heard the Opposition or the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) say that they accept it. The scandalous charges that he has been making should now be withdrawn.
Sir Anthony Grant: The Commission has quite clearly found that British Aerospace received no special tax treatment and that Rover Group was not overvalued. In view of that, will my right hon. Friend once again invite the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East to withdraw his wild and irresponsible remarks? If the hon. Gentleman is not big enough to do that, will my right hon. Friend put that crazy correspondence in the Library so that the House can judge the credibility of the Opposition's attack?
Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend is right. I repeat the invitation to the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his allegations. I have already put in the Library all the correspondence with the Inland Revenue and the House has seen it. I shall certainly place in the Library my correspondence with the hon. Gentleman, and the House can judge him as well.
Mr. Stuart Bell: The Opposition are simply trying to hold the Government accountable. For once it would be nice for the Secretary of State to come to the House and accept responsibility for a Cabinet decision. Does he agree that the Commission, rather than the British Government, has had to defend the British taxpayer? According to the Secretary of State's own figures, £33·4 million, £9·5 million and £1·5 million have to be repaid. That is a total of £44·4 million. He says that the Government will implement the Commission's decision. When and how will they collect the money, and when will they stop wriggling on this specific matter?
Mr. Ridley: I am in the House accepting responsibility on behalf of the Government. We are discharging our obligation to tell the House what the Commission has decided and what the Government have decided to do in response. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the taxpayer

517
is protected by this decision of the Commission, without paying any heed to the £3·5 billion of taxpayers' money which went down the drain before this deal was ever done, he has another think coming.
Dr. Keith Hampson: Does my right hon. Friend accept that two critical aspects of the matter have been ignored by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East? First, two years ago under a different Commissioner, it was not at all clear that the deferment of the purchase price, which is by far the largest element in the extra package, would be categorised as state aid. Secondly, at the heart of the matter is the fact that in early July two years ago it was by no means certain that the British Aerospace board was united in wanting to take on this huge loss-making operation with staggering liabilities. Without the extra £30 million package British Aerospace would not have bought Rover and it would not now be British and as successful as it has become.
Mr. Ridley: I have accepted the Commission's decision about the nature of the benefit that arose from deferring the interest on the £150 million for 20 months. However, I question whether it is right that the benefit to British Aerospace of that deferment, which was about £22 million, should result in that company being asked to repay £33 million. That seems to be a point which we can legitimately raise. My hon. Friend is right when he says that there was considerable reluctance on the part of British Aerospace to proceed at all. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said in the House that he thought that it was a rotten deal for British Aerospace shareholders, and many City commentators suggested at the time that the shares should be marked down.
Mr. Chris Mullin: Can the Secretary of State give the House a categorical assurance that neither these nor similar arrangements applied in any other privatisation deal?
Mr. Ridley: I cannot quite understand how the hon. Gentleman is saying that there is something here which is different in relation to any other privatisation. I think that each case has to be taken on its merits and I am very happy to defend this privatisation as one of the most successful launches of a new motor company that we have seen for a long time.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that one of the most important considerations in the Government's mind must have been the preservation of the sales network of Rover Group dealers in the United Kingdom and abroad? Is he aware that, when the Trade and Industry Committee looked at the collapse of the Rootes motor group, which was rescued by Chrysler, the evidence given by the dealers to the Committee was that the whole sales network was collapsing hour by hour because of the uncertainty? Does he agree that there was a severe risk to the whole future of the Rover group if the quickest possible reasonable sale had not been consummated?
Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend is entirely right about that. It is crucial to the on-going success of a motor company for the dealer network to remain intact and loyal. The continued uncertainty, much of which was caused by the Opposition making a tremendous fuss about any possible
518
purchaser for Rover Group, had made the dealer network rather jittery. That was the reason for the urgency in July 1988.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: The Attorney-General has been sitting stony-faced throughout the statement. Will the Secretary of State confer with him and obtain confirmation that the Prime Minister and Lord Young were told that this deal was unlawful?
Mr. Ridley: I would never dream of accusing the hon. Gentleman of being stony-faced. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is the soul of delightful company and wit—when he is not taking his responsibilities very seriously, as of course he is now. He is completely satisfied with my statement and what I have told the House, and I have nothing further to add about the legal advice received by my predecessor.
Mr. Tim Janman: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Commissioner Millan, a former Labour Member, voted against the Commission's recommendation on the basis that he wanted its action to be even harsher? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be outrageous if he did that in an attempt to gain party political advantage? Does he further agree that Commissioner Millan may well have been put up to it by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East?
Mr. Ridley: I hope that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East will respond to that point. We have had a remarkable silence from him about his rather unsavoury part in these affairs and I hope that he will respond to my hon. Friend. I think that it is true that the only Commissioner who voted against the recommendation in the hope of achieving a tougher settlement against British Aerospace was Commissioner Millan.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Is it not true that many people believe that the Secretary of State has got off extremely lightly with a helpful report from the former Tory Minister Leon Brittan, who was himself severely criticised by a Select Committee for his duplicity? Will the Secretary of State now confirm clearly that he, Lord Young and the Prime Minister received information that the rip-off of hundreds of millions of pounds from the taxpayer was illegal?
Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman's last statement is absolutely untrue. I must rebut that entirely. The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong in his first point as well.
Mr. Charles Wardle: Is not the kernel of the matter the fact that the amount now demanded by the Commissioners confirms their judgment that the assets sold were not undervalued?
Mr. Ridley: Yes, that is an important point. It is not just that the Commissioners felt that they could not reopen the decision of Commissioner Sutherland; it was on the merits of the case as set out in their letter that they came to the conclusion that the valuation which my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Young accepted with British Aerospace at the time was correct. We are still looking for a withdrawal from the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East of his statement only eight days ago in the House to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Industry that there was a gross undervaluation. It is time that he withdrew that.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: If there was no deception, why does the letter that I have here, signed by Lord Young, show a deception in relation to repayment and notional interest rates saved? Is it fair that a company valued by Nikki Securities of Japan at £1,000 million today should have been sold for only £150 million a couple of years ago?
Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman puts his own interpretation on things. I prefer to believe what the Commission said. It is probably more impartial and has more sense than the hon. Gentleman. I am happy to see what the Commission says about valuation and I, too, am prepared to accept that.
Several Hon. Members rose—.
Mr. Speaker: Order. In view of the importance of the next debate, in which some hon. Members who are now rising are anxious to participate, I shall call three more Conservative Members and the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman and then we must move on.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his relaxed demeanour in the face of this synthetic little storm in a Dunfermline teacup. It is now obvious that the Government took the right decision to stand by Rover and obtain a good deal for the British taxpayer and preserve jobs, and are also probably right reluctantly to abide by the Commission's ruling. But on that point does my right hon. Friend share my cynical view that the so-called level playing field in European competition rulings is full of political lumps, and that he might not have been asked to repay £40 million if Renault had not been asked to repay £1·2 billion some months ago, which it has not yet done?
Mr. Ridley: I agree with my hon. Friend about the Dunfermline teacup. We were promised a firebrand, an effective Opposition spokesman, in the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East, but I am afraid that he has proved a great disappointment. We wish that he could sometimes put some good points for us to answer. In fact, he sits on his bottom and does nothing most of the time.
On the serious point made by my hon. Friend, it is a little disturbing that there have been rumours in the newspapers of the matter being treated by the Commission as some sort of political punishment which is negotiable. My concept of state aid is that it should be a precise calculation and that that alone should be what it asks to be repaid.
Mr. Edward Leigh: Further to the question asked by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), have not some people forgotten that at the time people said that the Varley-Marshall guarantees of more than £1·6 billion were an enormous albatross round the neck of Rover? Indeed, the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) asked the House whether it was true that institutional shareholders had already been telephoning to express their objections. People forget such things now. Will not most reasonable taxpayers come to the conclusion that they have had a
520
good deal? The Government have offloaded a loss-making, ramshackle organisation which was sending £1·6 billion down the pan and now have a profitable British company.
Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend is right, but it does not seem to matter how successful the Government's economic and industrial strategy is, Opposition Members simply want to find party political points to make against us.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: May I bring my right hon. Friend's mind back to the role of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown)? Is not it right that the Commission has clearly reported that there was no special tax treatment for British Aerospace and that there was no undervaluation of Rover for British Aerospace? In the circumstances, when we continually ask the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East to withdraw the allegations that have now been proved to be false, why does the hon. Gentleman not do so? Would my right hon. Friend care to speculate on his motives?
Mr. Ridley: I endorse every word of my hon. Friend's question. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East may wish to—
Mr. Gordon Brown: Answer the question. What has the Commission said about the tax concession?
Mr. Ridley: No, my hon. Friend asked me to speculate on the hon. Gentleman's motives for not coming forward and making a clean breast of the fact that he has got it wrong. I could do that, but, although I have not found the hon. Gentleman very damaging these past two months, I have developed a certain affection for him, so I will not press the point.
Mr. Doug Henderson: Of the many questions which still remain unanswered, will the Secretary of State give a clear answer to two? First, will he confirm that the European Commission has demanded further written information on the tax concessions given to British Aerospace? Secondly, when the Secretary of State puts correspondence in the Library, will he include with it the legal advice that was given to Lord Young and the Prime Minister?
Mr. Ridley: I am afraid that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East has not responded to the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay). He seems to be completely unable to speak.
I am delighted to answer the two questions put by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson). He has my assurance that all documents on the matter that are not normally kept confidential will be placed in the Library. Documents between the British Government and the Commission are treated as documents between two Governments and are not normally released, but the hon. Gentleman will have no difficulty in obtaining any information that he wants. I can give him an assurance that we have no difficulty whatever in answering the points about the tax treatments, which are mainly, I think, due to the Commission's failure to understand how the system works.

Points of Order
5.29 pm
Mr. Dave Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Alex Carlile: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that I called both hon. Members. What is the point of order? I call Mr. Nellist first.
Mr. Nellist: Given the specific questions asked by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) and my hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), and as the Attorney-General is still present in the Chamber, will you, Mr. Speaker, confirm that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman were to approach you now to be allowed to make a statement about the legal advice given to Lord Young, you would allow him to make one?
Mr. Speaker: I have received no notification that the Attorney-General wishes to do that.
Mr. Richard Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, I may inadvertently have misled the House, and if so I want to correct myself. At one stage during Question Time, I alluded to a rather nefarious contract negotiated by Middlesbrough council. I suggested that a Middlesbrough councillor was on the board of the new company concerned. I was mistaken. It was a Cleveland county councilor.
Mr. Speaker: I am not sure whether that is a point of order for me.
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is a rule, regarding the tabling of questions, that matters relating to internal Government administration are not answerable. Will you, Mr. Speaker, confirm that legal advice given by the Attorney-General to a Minister on an important issue of public policy, such as the sale of British Leyland, does not fall into that category,
522
and that questions about that aspect put to the Attorney-General and to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry are answerable?
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I recollect that, when the then Mr. Sam Silkin was Attorney-General, he not only refused to tell the Trade and Industry Committee what advice he had given but refused to attend the Committee to give it legal advice, saying that it was the established custom of the House to refuse both such requests.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), who is an expert on such matters, has given the House an answer to the question of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer).
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Attorney-General is still in the Chamber, and you were asked to approach him with a view to allowing the right hon. and learned Gentleman to make a statement. The point was made by several right hon. and hon. Members that the Attorney-General should come clean. It is clear that he knows more, and he should be given the option of making a statement now on the legal advice that he tendered to the Prime Minister, Lord Young or anyone else as to the illegality of the Rover deal.
Mr. Speaker: The whole House knows that that is not a matter for me. Furthermore, there is ahead of us an important debate for which the whole House has been waiting for a long time. I shall take one more point of order.
Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm that, in respect of the Property Services Agency and Crown Suppliers Bill, the Solicitor-General was required to attend the Committee to give it advice relating to internal workings and to explain the advice that had been given to Ministers?
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps that matter would more appropriately be the subject of a question from the hon. Member for a future Question Time.

European Legislation
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chapman.]
[Relevant documents: Fourth Report from the Select Committee on Procedure, Session 1988–89, on the Scrutiny of European Legislation (HC 622, Vols. I and II) and the Government response (Cm. 1081); First Special Report from the Select Committee on European Legislation Session 1989–90, on the Scrutiny of European Legislation (HC 512)]
Mr. Speaker: A large number of right hon. and hon. Members wish to participate in this debate. I hope that it will be possible to accommodate them all, so I ask for brief contributions.
5.32 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): The Order Paper identifies as relevant to the debate the fourth report from the Select Committee on Procedure, and the Government's response to it. Both are important and constructive contributions to a continuing debate about how to improve the input of national Parliaments—in this case the House—to the formulation of European Community legislation as adopted by the Council of Ministers.
The Council, composed of Ministers drawn from national Governments, is of course the principal law-making body of the Community, so it is important that those Ministers should be fully sensitised to the views and interests of national Parliaments. Hence our belief that the House should be given the best means reasonably possible to achieve that. The Government's response to the Procedure committee's report is meant in that spirit.
This afternoon's report by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the outcome of the Dublin European council emphasised the degree to which the EC is embarked upon a period of dynamic change. It involves the strengthening of Community institutions, the evolution of some form of European monetary union—stage 1 of which begins this Sunday, 1 July—and the completion of the single market by the end of 1992. The Community has to cope, too, with a challenging series of external issues, ranging from the unification of Germany, to the successful completion of the Uruguay round.
Taken together, these simultaneous challenges amount to what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has called the labours of Hercules. So we are quite naturally committed as well to a more effective, more democratic Community whose institutions are well adjusted to cope with the challenges of change.
Against that backdrop, we welcome the opportunity that the Procedure Committee report offered to review the participation of the House, through its relationship with Ministers, in the law-making process of the Community. We have witnessed during recent months a growing interest in the role of national Parliaments in that process, linked to the more general debate about possible institutional reform, which will now carry through to the intergovernmental conferences that will begin in Rome in December.
In stressing the role of national Parliaments vis-a-vis the Council, I do not underestimate the real and growing significance of the European Parliament. But we should
524
view the two Parliaments as complements, not competitors, in the process of enhancing democratic accountability within the Community. The European Parliament has a valuable part to play in suggesting amendments to the Council. Our proposals for institutional reform also suggest that it should play an enhanced role in holding the Commission to account, in overseeing its administration of agreed Community policy and helping to ensure proper financial accountability.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: My right hon. and learned Friend speaks of the enhanced role that he sees for the European Parliament, yet one of the most vital roles that this Parliament has to play in scrutinising legislation depends on Ministers giving accurate information to right hon. and hon. Members. On 23 April 1986, my right hon. and learned Friend told the House that he derided as "children with fantasies"—I think was the phrase he used—those who feared the European Parliament, the European Court, and other European institutions taking increased powers. All the ridicule that flowed from my right hon. and learned Friend on that occasion has proved to be totally and utterly wrong. When it comes to the question of scrutiny, it is vital that the House is given accurate information from the Dispatch Box.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The essential and most accurate information that is the foundation of comprehension here is given in a written answer in today's Hansard by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, which sets out clearly the extent to which, for example, the issues arising from the case reported last week flow directly from the European Communities Act 1972, which itself implements article 5 of the treaty in that respect, which was not significantly altered by the Single European Act. All those matters flow from the decision by Parliament at that time and from the development of European Community law as part of the directly applicable law in this country.
The systems for national parliamentary scrutiny of draft EC law that we already have in this House and in another place are often cited as models from which other national Parliaments can learn. My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) is right to want them improved still further, and this debate is designed to achieve just that.
Dr. Keith Hampson: May I emphasise that many of us who are pro-European Community believe that national Parliaments are of premier concern rather than the growth of the European Parliament, and that the best way of ensuring that the views of national Parliaments are communicated to the European Parliament would be some form of second chamber, such as exists in Germany and Sweden? It is a long tradition in Europe that the individual constituent's interests are reflected in a second chamber. National Parliaments could have direct representation in the European Parliament in that way.
Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the current process does not mark the end of his thinking and that he will consider in the intergovernmental conferences to come a major institutional switch of the kind that I described?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: That is a broader question, which I have no doubt that my hon. Friend can develop in his own speech, if he is lucky enough to catch the Chair's eye. I must today deal with the procedures of this House.
On anyone's analysis it is important that this House should be as well equipped as possible to focus on new issues of concern to the United Kingdom as they arise in the Community, so that the Government can take proper account of the views of the House in negotiations leading up to legislative decisions by the Council of Ministers. That is the essence of what we have come to call parliamentary scrutiny.
It does not of course mean—this is common ground on both sides of the House—that the United Kingdom's views will necessarily prevail in those deliberations. The widespread use of majority voting inevitably means that the United Kingdom will sometimes find itself in the minority, but the best way to influence the course of negotiations, and so secure the best result for the United Kingdom, is to have clear objectives from an early stage. Parliamentary scrutiny of the intentions and objectives of the Ministers concerned makes a crucial contribution to that process.
The present procedures were designed by a Committee under the chairmanship of our former colleague as Member for Northwich, the late Sir John Foster, in 1973. Although they were reviewed in 1978 by the Select Committee on Procedure, they have remained largely unchanged since our accession to the Community. However, with the adoption of the Single European Act in 1986, and the subsequent enactment by Parliament of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1986, it was clearly timely for the Procedure Committee to examine the options for bringing the scrutiny process up to date.
The Government, indeed the whole House, are therefore most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) and his Committee for this timely, thorough and well judged report. I shall draw attention to three or four of its key findings.
First, and perhaps surprisingly, the report notes in paragraphs 11 and 12 that neither the volume of European documents coming before the House, nor the number recommended for debate, has risen significantly in recent years. That puts in perspective any suggestion that we are being overwhelmed by a rising tide of documents from Brussels.
Secondly, the report found in paragraph 15 that the adoption, before completion of the scrutiny process, of proposals designated as legally or politically important was comparatively unusual. In 1988–89 there were no such occasions, and there have been only two so far this Session, both of which involved urgent measures for aid to Poland and Hungary. So debates are normally being held in time to influence the United Kingdom's negotiating objectives at the relevant meeting of the Council of Ministers.
Thirdly, the report contains the following important conclusion in paragraph 116:
"The notion that the House of Commons lags behind other EEC Parliaments in the effectveness of its scrutiny machinery was not corroborated in any of the evidence we received and, indeed, was contradicted by a number of authoritative witnesses."
That is encouraging. Several other member states have been examining our system with a view to strengthening their own procedures. But of course we must not be complacent in this respect.
Dr. John Cunningham: I concur with the conclusion of the Committee, based on the evidence presented to it, but the conclusion could be read in an entirely different way—one which suggests that throughout the Community there is no effective scrutiny of this legislation in any member state.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: It can be read to support the proposition with which I started: that there is growing interest throughout the Community in the establishment of more effective scrutiny of this kind. The House has what is widely regarded by other Parliaments as an exemplary system, but I do not think that we should regard our system with such complacency—hence this debate and this report.
Mr. Ron Leighton rose—.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I should like to make a little headway.
Finally, the report notes:
"We have been struck by the unanimity of the evidence submitted to us about the continuing need for a body to perform the sifting functions of the Scrutiny Committee."
So, again, on behalf of the Government, and the whole House, I gladly record our view that the Scrutiny Committee, under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), performs that essential task thoroughly, effectively and conscientiously.
The Government therefore welcome the fact that the report of the Procedure Committee seeks to build on and improve the existing system, rather than trying to start again from scratch. We are also grateful to the Scrutiny Committee for its special report, published only yesterday, and we will look carefully at the points that it makes when formulating our final proposals.
Mr. Leighton: Is it not true that we can scrutinise until we are blue in the face, but the point is that power is being taken away from this Parliament?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: To the extent that the treaty makes provisions for decisions to be taken by majority votes—as I have already said—we cannot ensure that our will will prevail. That has been the position from the moment we acceded to the European Community's treaty in the first place.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: It was confirmed by referendum.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: It was confirmed by referendum and modestly extended in the subsequent provisions of the Single European Act. That is the point that I have already made. Scrutiny is important to ensure that British Ministers who attend the Councils go there armed as effectively as possible with the views of the House to see whether they can get those views to prevail.
Mr. Leighton: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recall that, in that referendum, the Government of the day issued a manifesto which said that no important decision would be taken without the agreement of a British Minister, answerable to the House of Commons.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I was not a member of the Government of the day because it was a Labour Government: The position is as I have described it.

527
Majority voting was provided for from the outset in some 40 articles of the treaty of Rome and in about a dozen more articles under the Single European Act.
As hon. Members will know, the Select Committee rejected the idea of a single Select or Grand Committee for Community matters, and proposed instead the creation of a new system of European Standing Committees—as we think they might be called—with specific subject areas. It recommended closer informal contacts between Members of Parliament and MEPs. It suggested that the Scrutiny Committee's remit, as well as the range of documents available to it, should be widened. It wanted more forward-looking general debate before European Councils, but it shared the near-universal recognition by those who gave evidence to the Committee that the late night, one-and-a-half hour debates on the Floor of the House on EC documents have become progressively less useful for their declared purpose, and progressively more inconvenient for the House.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: I intervene in this encouraging and optimistic speech because there are hundreds of ladies outside asking if there is anything that we can do to prevent the Common Market from removing the restrictions on the export of live horses and ponies to the continent. As I have advised them—rightly or wrongly—that there is nothing that I or any other hon. Member can do about that, can the Secretary of State say whether the new arrangements will make any difference? It is important that people who take the trouble to come to the House of Commons to complain about something be given some idea about whether we have such power now—I understand that we do not—or will have under the new arrangements.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Nothing that we are debating today will alter the provisions of the treaty and associated provisions on that issue. I am not in a position to offer precise advice about the exact state of national or Community law on it. I suspect that the outcome may depend, in some respects, on how far we are able to persuade our Community partners to accept a general framework of law that would meet the objectives that my hon. Friend has in mind. To that extent, this debate is relevant, because if the improved procedures that we are discussing enable my hon. Friend—with even more assiduity than usual—to arm Ministers from this country with stronger arguments, the debate will have been of advantage. I cannot answer about the precise provisions of Community law on that topic without notice.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Perhaps I can help the Leader of the House. The hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) could suggest to his constituents that, if the European Parliament were given a greater legislative role, they might be able to lobby it more effectively, and see their lobbying translated into action. It is the actions of hon. Members such as the hon. Gentleman that have prevented that change, which many of my hon. Friends have wanted.
Mr. Teddy Taylor rose—.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am afraid that I cannot give way to answer further questions from my hon. Friend. I remind him that I am not speaking as the Secretary of State—still
528
less as the Foreign Secretary or the Solicitor-General. I am merely the Leader of the House and there is a limit to my imputed knowledge in respect of these matters. There is even a limit to my omniscience as deputy Prime Minister.
That insight about the importance and effectiveness of the late-night debates will form the central basis of the Government's response. In offering our response, however, we did not wish to pre-empt the views of the House. That is why we have not yet moved to make any detailed amendments to the Standing Orders. We shall certainly consider all the points that may be raised in this debate before putting our detailed proposals before the House later this Session, with the aim of operating any new arrangements from the start of next Session.
I am pleased to say that the Government are willing to accept the great majority of recommendations in the Procedure Committee report.
The main change, which I have already mentioned, would be the establishment of a series of new European Standing Committees, each of them specialising in particular subjects. Unlike the ad hoc Standing Committees on EC documents, which are selected afresh for each debate, the new Committees would have members appointed for a Session, so that they could build up expertise in particular subjects. We have also accepted that the new Committees should have powers to question Ministers for up to an hour about the relevant EC proposals before debating the documents.
The Procedure Committee report recommended the establishment of five such Committees, but, as the report acknowledges, there is a limit to the number of hon. Members who could be expected to make such a commitment. So, for strictly practical and not for philosophical reasons, we propose to start by setting up three Committees and to review the matter at the end of the first Session. Given the uncertainty involved in any new system, I hope that that approach will commend itself to the House.
Mr. Bowen Wells: Is my right hon. and learned Friend suggesting—it is not clear to me from the report—that the Committees will enjoy the same continuity that Select Committees enjoy and will be established for a Parliament?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: As I explained, the present intention is to establish them for one Session. That is in contrast to the existing Standing Committees on EC documents, which are established on a one-off, ad hoc basis. It has not yet been concluded whether Members will be reappointed and I look forward to hearing the views of the House on such matters during the debate.
Like the Procedure Committee, we felt that a single Standing Committee or a Grand Committee would be unable to handle the number and variety of debates—about 50 per Session—that are recommended by the Scrutiny Committee.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: May I comment on that in the presence of the Chairman of the Procedure Committee? We spent a lot of time on the matter and I had strong views in favour of a European Grand Committee. It was argued that we would not get the necessary membership. But could not we have had a Committee with a fixed quorum, an established membership and, in addition, a rotating membership? Such a Committee could have become a forum for debate on European matters where hon.

529
Members could come and go and debate these matters. I think that such a Committee would always have been manned.
The problem with the recommendation is that we may have a lot of trouble in attracting hon. Members who want to question Ministers, as the Leader of the House suggested, and to fulfil the responsibilities that we recommend in our report.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am trying to give way as often as I sensibly can, but I would rather not give way to hon. Members who have already fought these battles in the Select Committee. It is important that I should try and conclude my speech, and, although I respect the wisdom of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), I hope that he will forgive me if I move on.
It is important to stress that, under our proposals, any hon. Member would be free to attend the Committees' debates if they wished. To encourage that, I am considering another recommendation on the best way of drawing attention to the Committees' forthcoming debates in my weekly business statement.
The establishment of the new Committees is central to the new system. We foresee a number of benefits. First, the new system will allow most debates to take place at a civilised hour and reduce the number of late-night, sparsely attended EC debates, which are all too frequent at present.
Secondly, it will offer hon. Members, including those who are not members of the Committees, the opportunity to play a more effective role by allowing them to question Ministers and thus to assess and influence Government policy more fully.
We are still considering the breakdown among the three Committees—of the matters to be considered—and in particular whether the division should be on a subject or on a departmental basis. We should welcome the views of the House on that. Clearly, however, it will be desirable that the number of debates is split as evenly as possible between the Committees, although allowances must be made for variations in the subjects on which proposals are emerging from Brussels. That matter, too, would be subject to review at the end of the Session.
There is one point on which we have gone beyond what the Procedure Committee recommended and on which I know the Scrutiny Committee takes a different view from the Government. It relates to the system of referring documents to the Committees. We believe that the new arrangements will allow more effective scrutiny in Committee and to allow them to prove their effectiveness we wish to work on the presumption that the majority of debates will in future be taken in Committee instead of on the Floor of the House as at present.
To that end, we propose to change the balance of the present referral system so that all documents will automatically stand referred to a Committee unless, after discussion through the usual channels, a motion is tabled to hold the debate on the Floor of the House. I expect that to change the proportion so that about two thirds of the debates will take place in Committee rather than on the Floor of the House as they are at present. It will be open to the Scrutiny Committee to recommend that a particular document should be debated on the Floor of the House if it regards that as especially important, and the Government would naturally take that into account.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: It might be better to clear this matter up now rather than later. The difference between the Scrutiny Committee's views and those of the Leader of the House is rather less than he supposes. I think that, for the reasons that he explained, it is likely that the majority of referrals from the Scrutiny Committee will be to the new Standing Committees, and the presumption ought to be that they should be so referred. The difference between us has to do with whether the judgment should ultimately lie with the House, or with the Government, in consultation. For all sorts of reasons, the House would prefer that the judgment should remain with it, although, in all honesty, I think that if that happened, we should still achieve the result that the right hon. and learned Gentleman seeks.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that compact and courteous intervention. I have studied the report that the Scrutiny Committee produced yesterday on this very topic. What emerges from the analysis in that report is that our proposals go with the grain of actuality, which is another way of saying that the outcome may be much the same. It is our judgment that it is best to tilt the balance of decision making in that way, and that is perhaps an understandable difference of judgment between us. No doubt views will be expressed on the matter during the debate.
The Government's response also confirms our continued intention to try to bring proposals before the Scrutiny Committee rapidly and to arrange prompt debates when that Committee so recommends. We have, in general, steadily improved our record in that respect. On occasion, there may be a balance to be struck, as the report notes: a debate too early in the life of a proposal increases the risk that it may be approved in a substantially different form. Even so, we expect that a presumption in favour of early debates will make it increasingly rare for proposals to come to a Council for adoption before the House has had a chance to debate them. Because of that, the Government have not accepted the suggestion that Ministers might make oral statements before a Council as a substitute for a debate.
The Procedure Committee report also advocated that improved opportunities should be provided for hon. Members to debate general developments in the EC—as opposed to specific legislative proposals before the Council of Ministers. The Government welcome that. The most recent six-monthly debate was already more forward-looking and took place before the Dublin summit. In future, such debates might be renamed simply "European Community debates" and would give the House an opportunity to express its views on issues that are expected to be considered at European Council meetings.
On a more technical point, we have accepted the recommendation for a modest extension in the terms of reference of the Scrutiny Committee. That will regularise the Committee's position by giving it a more formal mandate to carry out inquiries which the Government felt that it was already able to conduct. The hon. Member for Newham, South has been suggesting such a change for a number of years and, as suggested in yesterday's special report from his Committee, we shall be discussing with him the precise wording.
The Government response recognises the benefits to be gained by building up informal links between this Parliament and Members of the European Parliament. We

531
fully support initiatives such as the conference of scrutiny committee chairmen from the 12 member states—with European Parliament representation—held in Cork last month and the proposed parliamentary "assizes" at which both European Parliament and national Parliament representatives would be present, which is to be held in Italy later in the year to discuss preparations for the intergovernmental conference.
Mr. George Robertson: I simply seek information from the Leader of the House about the idea of assizes, which has been put forward by the European Parliament. Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House more about that proposal? When is it likely to be held, will there be a delegation to it from this Parliament, and how will it be chosen?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I thought for a moment that I was going to be cross-examined about the linguistic background to the use of the word "assizes" in this context. As a former member of the Wales and Chester circuit, I have a clear understanding of what the assize commission is like. I doubt whether this assize will be anything like that. It is an interesting example of a possible mistranslation of the word "assize", which means something quite different from what we used to know at the Lampeter assizes.
This gathering is likely to take place in October, during the Italian presidency—which is the next one. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has already commended it in concept to the House, in the debate the other day. On that basis, we hope that representatives from this Parliament will be present. I cannot yet give the House any more information, save to say that both he and I have given a favourable response to it, so one hopes that there will be a reasonably favourable outcome.
Various channels are already in operation between Members of Parliament and Members of the European Parliament. Many of those are on a party basis for contact and for the exchange of views between hon. Members and Members of the European Parliament. The European Democratic group now meets regularly in the Palace of Westminster. It meets proudly, progressively and effectively here. I hope that such contacts can be cultivated and that more contacts and channels can be opened.
I know that the recommendation in the report on telephone and postal charges for communications with Community institutions will be especially valued by hon. Members, and the Services Committee has commissioned further work on both. I hope to make further progress on all of this in the not-too-distant future. We are also looking at the question of wider access for Members of the European Parliament to the House facilities in other respects.
The principles on which the Government have based their response to the report are first, that Britain wants to maximise its influence in the Community, secondly, that the House wants to play a constructive part in influencing the content of Community legislation and thirdly, that Westminster and the European Parliament can, each in its own distinctive ways, significantly increase the democratic accountability of both the Council and the Commission.
Against that background, the Government hope and believe that this response will help to bring our scrutiny
532
procedures up to date and will allow the House to play a proper role in the consideration of Community legislation. For these to work effectively requires a positive commitment by the Government—which I give—and a commitment by the House. On that basis, our combined input can be substantial, and I commend these documents for consideration by the House.
6.2 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: It is good that this debate is taking place on a motion for the Adjournment of the House, because that provides an opportunity for all of us to reflect on the documents before us: the report of the Select Committee on Procedure of November 1989, the Government response of May of this year, and, last but not least, the report by the Select Committee on European Legislation which was published yesterday. I welcome the opportunity spelt out in the speech of the Leader of the House for us to give our observations and comments, and for the Government to take them away and to consider them before any definitive proposals are brought to the House for a decision.
There is general agreement about the need for improved procedures for scrutiny of European business and legislation. That must be so, not only in the present circumstances but because of the increasing momentum of change in Europe, the completion of the single market in 1992 and the developing debate on economic and monetary union. The debate on the social charter is of particular importance to Labour Members and I deplore the Prime Minister's description of it as "piffling little powers". There are many important issues embodied in the social charter and we want to see an informed debate about them. When we also consider the possible enlargement of the Community and the dramatic changes in eastern Europe, we can only conclude that all this vital—and often exciting—train of events will demand and deserve more time for debate and consideration in the House of Commons.
Today, we have had the latest example of the need to have more effective and more wide-ranging financial scrutiny and control of our own Government in respect of their dealings involving the European Community. I wish to put on record the fact that no Labour Member decried or denounced the achievements of Rover under the ownership of British Aerospace. That was not the issue. The issue was a deception of Parliament and the European Community by the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the predecessor of the present holder of that high and important office.
The Leader of the House made the point that our existing procedures for scrutiny have barely changed since they were introduced in 1973. I agree that we should see the Strasbourg Parliament and this House as complementary—as working in co-operation on these important issues of policy and these important developments—and not as being in conflict. There is ample opportunity for both Parliaments to improve the scrutiny and control of legislation.
Mr. William Cash: I have been looking at the wonderful document, "Looking into the Future", produced by the Labour party as a run-up to the next general election. The Labour party has a great deal to say there about the European Community. Can the hon. Gentleman give us some idea how this so-called

533
"complementary relationship" would function if the Labour party agreed to allow the Community institutions to acquire a higher function—in relation, for example, to a central bank than Conservative Members would be prepared to allow? Can he comment on the way in which that scrutiny would operate?
Dr. Cunningham: That intervention has nothing to do with the debate. As the hon. Gentleman has not even got the title of the document right, I do not have much confidence in his analysis of the contents. [HON. MEMBERS: "What are they?"] I am quite happy to depart into a debate about the Labour party policy and the document "Looking to the Future." That is not one of the documents on the Table of the House for discussion today, but if the Leader of the House will provide time, we may be able to come to that matter.
I recognise the importance of the work of the Procedure Committee in preparing its recommendations to the House under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) and improvements in procedures are always welcome to me personally. I take no pleasure—this week is a perfect example—in sitting here until the early hours of the morning scrutinising legislation, whether it be United Kingdom legislation or legislation from the European Community. It is an unsatisfactory way for any Parliament to operate, and anything which improves that is, in principle, welcome to me and, I believe, to most Opposition Members.
I also applaud the work of the Select Committee on European Legislation under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who is indefatigable in devoting himself to his responsibilities in these matters. He is always skilful and certainly always tireless in his pursuit of the issues, and we are grateful to him and to his Committee for the publication of their report yesterday in time for discussion today.
Sir Russell Johnston: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that keeping the House up for an hour voting last night was a waste of time and simply used up hon. Members' energy? That was in the power of the Labour Chief Whip.
Dr. Cunningham: In the midst of controversial legislation, the House often has many Divisions. I cannot say that I enjoy it, but it is often important for political parties to put on record their views of particular issues—and the hon. Gentleman's party is no exception. As there is such a wide gulf between the Labour party and the Government on issues involving the national health service, in the judgment of my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) it was important for us to record our position in the Division Lobby last night. Like the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), I cannot say that I enjoyed it, but sometimes it is important to put matters on record.
Despite all the hours that many hon. Members spend in this place and all the work that we put in, the House of Commons is a relatively weak and deficient legislature—in many respects, not just in its scrutiny of European legislation. In the past decade, the momentum of legislative change has increased dramatically. From a Government who came to office professing less government, we have had more government and more legislation than ever before. Yet our democratic processes
534
and political and constitutional arrangements have apparently been beyond question, protected on some mythical high ground as a tidal wave of change washes over everything and everyone else. I welcome debates of this kind, because at least we are talking about the need for a strengthened, modernised and better informed House of Commons, which can begin to redress the imbalance between a centralising executive Government and the House which has the duty to examine, question and hold them to account.
As I have said, we have just witnessed an example of that imbalance in the totally inadequate statement and responses from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on the Government's deception with regard to the sell-off of Rover to British Aerospace. That was ironic when just last month, following the European Community summit meeting, the Prime Minister said that she would do her best to see that as much information as possible comes before the House. Her message certainly did not get through to her Trade and Industry Secretary—or perhaps it did and, characteristically, he simply dismissed it.
Accountability in decision-taking at whatever level is a basic requirement of democracy. If the European Community is to be more effective, it must develop an improved system for making decisions. Over the years, the Community has gained powers from this and other national Parliaments. That process has not been accompanied by greater accountability and scrutiny. Where decisions are rightly made at the European level, the decision makers must be accountable.
We believe that the European Parliament should also be given the powers that it needs to complement and not replace national parliaments. The scrutiny of European Community legislation is an important aspect of our work and it will continue to grow in importance. At present, the House deals with European business in what is universally regarded as an inadequate fashion. As the volume and importance of decision-making in Europe has increased, we in the House have failed to keep pace with developments.
The Opposition therefore welcome the debate on specific proposals to improve the procedures with which we scrutinise that business. I should make it clear that in my view, whatever Ministers may say—the Leader of the House seemed somewhat complacent—the way in which the Government have restricted opportunities for hon. Members to question Ministers on European matters over the past decade has not been a good example of how to proceed. Statements on Ministerial Councils have become a rarity, being made only when a Minister wants to publicise a so-called success, usually blocking a progressive move for co-ordinated action on the environment, for example.
Twice-yearly debates on Community developments often occur months after the period reported, but I am pleased to welcome the proposed changes, the suggestion that we should have a European affairs general debate and the proposal that the Leader of the House should announce at business question time each Thursday what European business will be coming before the House.
As a result of the Single European Act, the Council of Ministers can decide on measures to implement the 1992 single market by a qualified majority vote. That may have focused our minds on the fact that our scrutiny of European legislation has become somewhat out of date,

535
but it has made the status quo even more unacceptable in the process. We therefore have to move to a new, better and more effective system of dealing with such matters.
The practice of regular ministerial statements after important Council of Ministers meetings has almost disappeared and nothing has been done to fill the gap and to enable Parliament to question Ministers. That remains a major problem. The decisions taken by the Councils are to important for the House not to have adequate opportunities to influence them or to express an opinion on their work. Hon. Members need more information and access to what is happening in the European Community. Given the increasing volume and speed of decision-taking at Council levels, the House needs to be far more alert.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: In that connection, do the Opposition support the idea of postage and telephone call facilities? Without any disrespect to the way in which the Services Committee operates, the danger is that the consideration and study of the matter will mean further weeks and months of delay while a relatively simple system is put in place which most other Parliaments have adopted long since as a matter of routine. Will the Opposition undertake to support celerity and haste in this matter?
Dr. Cunningham: The short answer to that is yes, but I will explain in more detail a little later.
I commend to the House the memorandum submitted for consideration by my Friends the Members for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) to the Procedure Committee. Here lies the major difference between the Government and the Labour party. As I have said, I welcome much of what the Leader of the House has said, but I do not welcome the proposal for three Committees. We adhere to our view that a Grand Committee on European affairs is a far better and more practicable approach. It is a matter not of ideology but of having a practicable system for working in the House.
I have reservations, which are shared by the Whips Office, about the ability permanently to provide sufficient hon. Members to man the Committees in the way envisaged by the Leader of the House. Inevitably, there would be some pretty serious differences of opinion about the distribution of places on those committees between the parties. I do not believe that anything like sufficient consideration has been given to those matters.
I share the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) in an earlier intervention about the Government deciding automatically whether a matter should be discussed in Committee rather than on the Floor of the House. That is a proposal to take power away from the House of Commons and vest it in the Executive. I have considerable hesitation about agreeing to that proposal. There is no record of the House being obstinate or obdurate about these matters, so I ask the Leader of the House to reconsider that proposal.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, would his objection be overcome if the Committee upstairs were accessible to all hon. Members, so that they are not frozen out by it being moved upstairs?
Mr. Cunningham: That is the proposal, but it does not meet the point that I am making. The whole House should have the opportunity to discuss these matters, and I put that on the record for further consideration. With a little more discussion, we may be able to reach agreement.
I welcome what the Leader of the House said about improving relations between hon. Members and Members of the Strasbourg Parliament. I understand the historic angst about Members being appointed or indirectly elected, but now there are democratically elected Members of the European Parliament representing Britain and we must have sensible working relations with them. The way in which they are treated when they come to this House is appalling. When I visit the European Parliament, I am made welcome as a guest. I have wide-ranging access to its facilities, yet Members of the European Parliament must queue like anyone else to get into this place. They have no access to the Galleries of the Chamber.
We have a Gallery for distinguished strangers, a Gallery for Peers, and other designated Galleries. I cannot for the life of me understand why we cannot have a row in the Gallery designated for Members of the European Parliament. That would be a simple way of showing the determination of the House to seek better relations with our colleagues. There are other ways in which we should enable elected Members of the Strasbourg Parliament to have access to other facilities in the House, but I shall not go into detail now.
I turn to the point made by the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes). It is a matter of astonishment to everyone, particularly business people, when I explain that if my Euro-Member of Parliament writes to me, he does so in effect at the taxpayer's expense, but if I reply to him I do so at my own expense. If he telephones me—he is a Conservative Member, but never mind—from Strasbourg or Brussels, the call is paid by the European Parliament from public funds. If I telephone him in Brussels or Strasbourg, I receive a bill. That is surely nonsense, and I hope that the procedures can be accelerated so that we can resolve it soon.
As the Leader of the House knows, European Members of Parliament can travel anywhere in Europe on legitimate parliamentary business. I see no reason why hon. Members should not be able to make a limited number of visits to Strasbourg or Brussels, at public expense, in pursuit of legitimate business on behalf of their constituents. Until we involve ourselves in what is happening in Europe and other member states, we shall always be seen as reluctant, or we shall lose out because we are not using the institutions of the European Community half so effectively as the national Parliaments of other member states.
I hope that my response to the introduction to the debate by the Leader of the House, much of which I agreed with, has been helpful and constructive. I further hope that, when we finally decide how the procedures should be changed, there will be much agreement across the Floor on the changes that should be implemented.
6.23 pm
Sir Peter Emery: The debate is on two considerable matters of importance, and one follows from the other. First, we must make people understand, whether Members of Parliament like it or not, that major parts of British sovereignty and the direct control of part of the

537
British law have passed from the British Parliament to the European Economic Community. That is a fair but bland statement to make, but one that frequently is not clearly understood. Therefore, it is of greater importance than in the past, when British Ministers could veto EC directives and regulations, that the House should be able to examine carefully and, where necessary, debate the new laws passed by Brussels.
However, it must be understood that changes in procedure, which we are debating today, will do nothing to lessen our treaty obligations or the overall effect of the Single European Act. The fact that the Council of Ministers determines more and more issues under the majority voting procedure does not, nor should it, lessen the importance of the House maintaining proper scrutiny of the action of British Ministers. The expansion of majority voting may mean that there is a need to examine, and perhaps develop, new channels of influence. Therefore, two of the recommendations in the report deal with links with the European Parliament. None of that lessens the essential requirement for Ministers to be answerable 10, and examined by, the House for their action on European matters.
I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House and the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) for the kind remarks that they have made about me and the Select Committee on Procedure. The Committee does the work; I am only its instrument. I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for agreeing with my request that the Government's response to our report on the scrutiny of European legislation should be in the form of a White Paper rather than a letter to the Committee. That has allowed hon. Members to enter the debate fully informed of the Government's views and able to react to the report rather than having to listen to the speech and make judgments on a prima facie basis. Without wishing to sound pompous, I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on providing a response to every one of the 28 recommendations and not side-stepping any of them.
I need not repeat that the report is the first in-depth report providing detailed consideration of how the House deals with and scrutinises European legislation since the Procedure Committee report in 1978. We attempted to do a thorough job so that perhaps it will not be necessary to carry out a further investigation for another 10 years.
May I therefore divide my analysis of our report's recommendations into four different sections. First, I refer the House to paragraph 43 of our report:.
"In the evidence submitted to us there was general agreement that the way in which the House currently debates European legislation is profoundly unsatisfactory. Particular criticism focused on the amount of time spent by the House after Ten o'clock on European business, notably in the form of debates subject to a 1½ hour limit under Standing Order No. 14. These were variously described as 'cursory' and 'not very well attended'. In addition, the then Leader of the House referred to the tendency of such debates to attract Members more interested in rekindling the embers of the argument over the principle of membership of the Community than in examining the detailed merits of a particular proposal … Stress was also laid during questioning on the great unpopularity of these late night occasions, particularly amongst backbench Members whipped for divisions which seldom materialise."
We were impressed by the strength of feeling about debates on Europe being set for a late hour and the sterility of major debates, which are taken twice a year in prime
538
time and were, until today, set only to consider matters in retrospect. Equally, we realised that to make demands on prime time for all the matters that the Scrutiny Committee considered and recommended for debate by hon. Members could not be practical.
We therefore recommended that the two major debates should be organised in the two weeks prior to the twice-yearly summit meeting, that the debate should be on a substantive motion and that the Government should be responsible for providing the House, prior to the debate, with a list of the matters likely to be on the summit agenda. Obviously it would be helpful if we could have the exact summit agenda, but I am informed that that is frequently not available until a few days before the summit meeting. However, the Foreign Office must know approximately what is likely to be debated at the summit meetings and it is obviously right and proper that the House should know about that before our debates take place.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is not the description that my hon. Friend has just given of late night attendances equally true of attendances at 6.30 pm? That strengthens our point about having such debates upstairs in Committee rather than in an almost empty House.
Sir Peter Emery: My hon. Friend may well be right. I was hoping that the two debates every six months on European matters would attract a greater number of hon. Members interested in them if hon. Members were to be debating matters for the future rather than referring to things that had happened weeks or months previously and upon which the views of the House could have no effect.
The second major alteration to procedure is our recommendation that the new special European Standing Committees should be established, with the same membership, for a year instead of for the duration of a Parliament. We thought that it would be too much to ask someone to commit himself to such a Committee for the length of a Parliament. We thought that it was reasonable for someone to commit himself for a year to consider upstairs the bulk of the matters which the Scrutiny Committee recommended should be considered by the House.
Those special European Standing Committees should have power to hear statements from Ministers and to cross-exaine them on the relevant documents before the Committee before proceeding to the normal consideration by way of a debate on the documents. We considered whether those Committees should be given powers to call for papers and persons, but we thought that that would duplicate the work of the departmental Select Committees. We thought that it was necessary to have details about the documents before the Committee and that that could best be achieved by cross-examining the Minister responsible.
Mr. David Winnick: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of our important recommendations in the report was that there should, as far as possible, be a link between the new Committees—the Government have accepted at least three of those—and the departmental Select Committees which cover the same subjects? Would it not be unfortunate if, for example, the Select Committee on Agriculture did not know what the special scrutiny Committee on Agriculture was doing? There should be a link, and that is why we suggested that at least two members of a departmental Select Committee should be members of the special Standing Committees

539
that we are recommending. That linkage is important because, if it does not exist, the two Committees will not know what is going on.
Sir Peter Emery: The hon. Gentleman has kindly dealt with a whole paragraph of my speech, to which I now need not refer.
We saw the importance of the hon. Gentleman's point. My only criticism of having three special Committees instead of five is that it will be difficult to ensure a link with two Committees, perhaps between finance and trade and industry, which would involve four members of the Select Committee, so that only six other members would be left on that Select Committee. There are difficulties, but I agree that there must be seen to be a link between the departmental Select Committees and the work of the specialist European Standing Committees.
To encourage greater interest in European regulations, we believe that matters on the same subject being considered by those with a particular interest and whom we hoped would want to serve on those Special European Committees would provide better and more expert consideration, especially as service over the year built up and the committee members understood the problems that they had to consider.
There must be no misunderstanding about the fact that all hon. Members can attend and speak at the special European Committees. We want to encourage all hon. Members interested in particular subjects to do that. The only limitation is that they will have to catch the Chairman's eye and they would not be able to vote on the motion before the Committee because that would be the responsibility of the members appointed to the Committee. Hon. Members would have full powers to attend the Committee and to question the Minister so long as the Chair recognised them.
Mr. Wells: With regard to linkages, the Select Committee on European Legislation has the power to call for persons and papers. Indeed, the British sausage was discussed in the House today and the European Legislation Committee undertook considerable investigations to inform the House about that issue. Therefore, such information would be available to the special European Standing Committee before it sat.
Sir Peter Emery: My hon. Friend is right, and that is why there should be co-operation between the two bodies. That underlines the point made by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick).
We have asked the Leader of the House to announce in his weekly business statement what documents will be considered by each of the special European Standing Committees, the day on which the debates will take place and which matters will be considered. This information should also be included in the party Whips. That would encourage hon. Members to attend the special Committees. It would also provide them with an opportunity to attend. We hope that this will provide a regeneration of interest among hon. Members instead of leaving those important matters to hon. Members who have been described as the "European buffs". The availability of such information would stimulate full and proper interest in the matter before the Committee instead
540
of leading to a debate which degenerated into arguments about whether we should or should not have signed the treaty of Rome.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend continues to make assessments of those late night debates as comprising a bunch of idiots talking about past events, but I cannot recall his presence at many of those late night sittings.
Sir Peter Emery: I suggest that my hon. Friend is much too interested in taking part in such arguments to observe the number of people who must be kept here late at night as a result of his arguments. He fails to notice the number of people sitting about the Chamber or in the Corridors listening to those quite useless debates.
The Government have responded to our recommendation about the members of the special European Standing Committees by suggesting the appointment of only three instead of the five recommended by the Procedure Committee. My Committee recommends five because the vast majority of the work falls reasonably into the subject headings of agriculture, finance and treasury, trade and industry, transport and the environment and, finally, other subjects. That would seem to spread the load fairly evenly, although most of the work in the past has been on finance and agriculture.
We understand the arguments about limiting the number to three Committees, but it is essential that they are subject oriented. They should not all be general Committees. Indeed, the division might be agriculture; finance, Treasury and trade and industry; environment and transport with other subjects referred to whichever Committee seems most appropriate.
In order to attract hon. Members to serve on the new committees, it is essential that they know what major subjects each committee will consider. They must know when they ask to serve on one of the three Committees what subjects they will be asked to consider.
I must make it clear that the recommendations of the Procedure Commitee do not mean that every matter referred for consideration by the Standing Committee must be considered in Committee. There are bound to be some subjects—I am glad that the Leader of the House realises this—which both the Government and the House consider to be of sufficient importance to demand consideration on the Floor of the House. The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, can debate more clearly than me who should make that decision.
I hope that when matters are considered on the Floor of the House there will be perhaps more than one debate on one day and they will be arranged to take place before 10 o'clock at night. If the debates are sufficiently important to be considered on the Floor of the House, they are important enough to attract some part of prime time.
The shadow Leader of the House referred to the possibility of creating a European Grand Committee. We studied that closely. As the members of the Committee will know, there was a divergence of views on the matter. The suggested rolling membership of the Grand Committee seemed to some of us to have a disadvantage. We were attempting to set up committees of people with specialist knowledge who could understand and deal in depth with specific subject matters that came before them. It seemed that such matters could be dealt with more sensibly by specific Committees than by a European Grand

541
Committee. On the difficulty of appointing members to the new Committees and obtaining volunteers, I remind the House that we already man a considerable number of Standing Committees on European Community documents each year. Such Committees may have different members, but the manning, or womaning—
Dr. Cunningham: Staffing.
Sir Peter Emery: Indeed, the staffing of such Committees is undertaken at present. The difficulty of finding members for the new Committees need be no greater than for Standing Committees now and hon. Members should be more willing volunteers.
Dr. Cunningham: I do not want to go into too much detail, but there are some important unanswered questions. For example, what will be the role of Opposition spokesmen in the Procedure Committee's proposals, which were largely endorsed by the Leader of the House? What will be the breakdown of the membership of the new Committees between the parties? It would be much easier to find members for one Grand Committee and maintain it with a reasonably limited quorum. If necessary, the Grand Committee could have sub-committees. That seems a far more practicable way to proceed. It will allow the creation of a forum in which both Ministers and members of the Committees can work. It is not clear whether the hon. Gentleman envisages that Ministers will be members of the Committees. Where would that leave Opposition spokesmen? If we had a Grand Committee the lines would be much more clearly drawn. It would be much more likely to lead to agreement between the parties.
Sir Peter Emery: Clearly, a Minister would have to be a member of the Committee because he would be cross-examined. We considered that it was obviously necessary to include an Opposition spokesman, whether the primary shadow Minister or a number two. That happens already in the manning of Standing Committees on European Community Documents. There is no great difficulty there. I hope that there will be no greater difficulty in future with the new committees than in the past. Of course, I understand that matters such as the hon. Gentleman mentioned would have to be dealt with. It would be foolish of me to suggest that there will be no complications. There are always complications when any change is made. But I hope that by creating new Committees, the change will be of considerable benefit.
I have not yet touched on our recommendations for the Scrutiny Committee. I understand that the Chairman of that Committee will seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. He can speak for himself; he does not need me to speak for him. He does an admirable amount of work for the House, and his new report published only yesterday is worthy of thorough consideration by the House. Although my Committee has not considered the recommendations of the Scrutiny Committee, I think we would basically agree with them.
Five other matters are worthy of note. The House is not behind other European Parliaments in the scope and detail of the consideration that it gives to European regulations. We are further ahead in our detailed consideration of scrutiny than any other Parliament. That does not mean that we are perfect, but we are further ahead than any other Parliament. The only nation that has a joint
542
parliamentary and MEP committee is Belgium. We considered the possibility of setting up such a committee. However, it was interesting to note that the Belgian committee does not consider any of the proposed regulations in detail. Mainly it holds general discussions on broad-brush issues affecting the EEC.
Among my Committee's witnesses there was almost a universal view that late-night one-and-a-half-hour debates have become ineffectual. We need to provide a means by which important European matters, and often new laws for Britain, can be considered by a much larger number of Members of Parliament than is the case at present. Lastly, the remit of the Scrutiny Committee should be extended somewhat.
I now turn to the relationship between Parliament and the European Parliament. The relations and contacts between Members of Parliament and MEPs are dealt with at the end of our report. As greater power passes to the European Parliament, as ways of questioning majority decisions by the Council of Ministers now lie with the European Parliament, and as members of the Commission and Commission decisions can be questioned by Members of the European Parliament, it behoves Parliament and Members of the House to work more closely with British MEPs than ever before. If not, the influence of Parliament on EEC decisions will become less and less. I believe that MEPs wish to encourage that closer relationship. We Members of Parliament should reverse our past general indifference to MEPs and warmly welcome greater contact and co-operation with them.
To some of my colleagues I must say that it is too late to fight past battles. We are now part of Europe. Let us help to lead the EEC, not sit and complain about it.
This debate will not be world shattering, nor are our recommendations and the Government's acceptance of them revolutionary. However, I honestly believe that there is a great need to improve present consideration by the House of European regulations as they affect Great Britain. Our present procedure has become moribund. The proper working of the suggested improvements, if considered and used by Members of Parliament, will provide a more detailed scrutiny and debate of European regulations and directives than ever previously achieved by the House.
6.49 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me at this stage. It enables me, as Chairman of the Select Committee on European Legislation—commonly called the Scrutiny Committee—to thank the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure and his colleagues for all their work last autumn in producing a comprehensive report on matters relating to EEC scrutiny. Without that, the Government White Paper—to which the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) referred—would probably not have been of the same quality. I also thank the Leader of the House not only for presenting that document as a White Paper, but for arranging today's Adjournment debate, which allows broad discussion. I thank him especially for what he said in his speech about proposed further discussions with me—I would represent my colleagues on the Committee—with a view to reaching a common agreement about changes in the Committee's

543
terms of reference, and in the all-important resolution of 1980 under which the Government operate, by order of the House.
The Committee did not issue its report until 7 o'clock last night. The delay was due to the crush of European legislation. In his speech less than 24 hours later, the Leader of the House has accepted at least one of the Committee's important requests and recommendations. I am tempted to say, "Is that a record?" Our special report HC 512 of this Session deals only with matters relating specifically to our terms of reference. I shall refer to that in a moment.
Publicity is the petrol of politics. It may not be well known to some hon. Members or to the public, but while the House is in session we publish a weekly report summarising important documents published by the Commission. Every week the report lists at the back the documents that are still lying on the Table of the House awaiting debate. They are listed in departmental order. That is an example of glasnost and visibility. Unfortunately, as not enough hon. Members know of the report, when European documents are debated in Committee or late at night in the House, some hon. Members are not so well prepared as they might be.
The Committee agreed with many of the recommendations of the Procedure Committee, especially the idea of turning the six-monthly debates into prospective views rather than discussions of a report which, of course, should still be laid. It also agreed with the request for more publicity for debates, and an undertaking by the Leader of the House—which he has repeated today—that during business questions he would announce what Committees will be in progress the following week.
Sir Russell Johnston: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the debates to which he has referred, although supposed to be about the report, have largely been concerned with the future and what was taking place at the time in the Community?
Mr. Spearing: Yes. The twice-yearly debates were invented when the then Ted Short was Leader of the House. We want the debates—as does everyone—a week or two before the official twice-yearly European Council meeting, but the agenda of that meeting is not always known. I shall not go off my track and talk about the arrangements and procedures adopted by the Council, but they sometimes make it difficult for the House to debate subjects which may come up at short notice.
The report of the Scrutiny Committee has been published and speaks for itself: I have a copy here for hon. Members who wish to read it. However, I should like the House to be aware of one or two important matters. The terms of reference of our Committee are still too narrow. As long ago as 1986, when we read about the Single European Act, we suggested that our terms of reference should be wider, and the Government have come some way towards that. We are grateful to them for saying that we may be able to see working documents and others that are not formally published but which come into the Government's hands. That would be helpful.
We would also like to see the Commission make documents available to interested parties in the United Kingdom. Why should trade associations or anyone else
544
be better informed than the House about the Commission's thinking? I hope that the Government will bear that request in mind, not just for the benefit of the Scrutiny Committee but for the benefit of other Select Committees—if not in the terms of reference, at least in terms of conduct.
The Committee welcomes the suggestion, in recommendations 17 to 19, that a Minister should be subject to perhaps an hour's questioning in Committee. Although various procedural matters may need to be worked out, I think that everyone agrees with the principle. However—as I said when I intervened in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham)—the Committee is unanimously opposed to the Government's suggestion that all documents should be referred automatically by Standing Order to a Committee. As I said to the Leader of the House in another intervention, I believe that many will be referred in any case, and the Committee would welcome that.
In the appendix to the Committee's report—published yesterday—we show that that is an increasing trend. A good morning Committee debate—especially if it is well publicised—can be more effective than a debate on the Floor of the House late at night, especially as hon. Members can speak more than once, which they cannot do in formal debates in the House. Nevertheless, there should still be a formal agreement on the Floor of the House to refer matters to a Committee. If there are any differences of opinion, they will be known, and the House will retain control.
I can give the Leader of the House good reason why that should be the case, if only to back up Government policy. When we meet our committee counterparts in other Parliaments, they are sometimes surprised at our powers, and amazed to learn that we can approach Ministers any time we like, although in reality they are usually contacted by our clerks on the telephone or by letter. While the powers of our Committees may not be as extensive as we would wish, they are none the less the subject of admiration. If there were automaticity, we could not make those claims. The Foreign Secretary has rightly said that we are beefing up the procedures of our Committees. It would be a pity if they were diminished. I hope that the Leader of the House will reconsider automaticity, because we would welcome the results.
The important resolution of 30 October 1980 considerably changed the way in which the House related to the Government. There have been major changes since 1975. That resolution still refers only to documents of legislation. The Government guarantee to have debates before a decision in Brussels, other things being equal, on legislative documents only. What is such a document? A White Paper is a notice of legislation. We all know that effective decisions are taken on a White Paper and that a debate on the subsequent Bill is not so effective as it might have been if one has not had a debate on the White Paper. The Select Committee on European Legislation is still unhappy that some matters of great importance are not necessarily debated. There was a little trouble over the Delors report because we did not debate it although we recommended such a debate. Unfortunately, the resolution did not bite.
The Scrutiny Committee has no competence under its terms of reference regarding the proposed three Standing Committees. My colleagues on the Select Committee share my belief that there could be practical problems if three

545
Committees only are appointed. We are more aware than anyone else of the volume of legislation which comes out as we wade through those documents every week. If that volume of legislation is channeled to the three Committees, albeit changed every Session and fortified—I was glad to hear from the Leader of the House that any Member attending will be attached to the Committee, which is what the Procedure Committee suggested—it may impose too great a work load on the Committee members. If a Committee dealt with trade and industry policy, the environment or various forms of transport ranging from air to shipping, one can imagine the volume and complexity of the issues to be dealt with by that one Committee. We know that Members have special knowledge or expertise in such matters, but the volume of work could present difficulties.
Perhaps we could undertake an experiment based on the present procedure for nomination to Committees undertaken by the Committee of Selection. I know that I might be calling horses for courses in that respect. More hon. Members than currently envisaged would be involved, but the number of documents and debates would be the same. Those hon. Members could be selected because of their specialist knowledge. Similarly, we could perhaps have a panel of volunteers available, selected by the usual organisers of our business. Plenty of notice should also be given to those hon. Members who have an interest in a particular subject but are not appointed members of the relevant Committee.
I thank the Leader of the House for the innovation evidenced on the Order Paper about which the Scrutiny Committee has been writing to him for some time. Last week there were no fewer than nine motions on the Order Paper which gave plenty of notice of the documents going upstairs. Today there are six such motions on the Order Paper—about cadmium in water, milk, meat safety and the rules relating to game and rabbit meat. They relate to specialised topics, but any citizen or hon. Member who reads our Order Paper will know that such topics will be debated in the near future. That will give hon. Members the opportunity to look up the relevant documents and to contact interested groups. It also gives the public the opportunity to contact hon. Members. Such interested hon. Members may volunteer to sit on the relevant new special Committee and perhaps the usual channels will go about their usual business. Those Committees mean that the Minister has an hour to set out his case and there is an hour of debate afterwards. That could lead to more effective scrutiny.
It is important to remember what the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) said. At the end of the day, we are only advising Ministers who go to the Council of Ministers to partake in discussions. They then come back to the House with what they have or have not achieved.
Sir Peter Emery: It is important that the proposed Committees consider various issues because they will not only advise Ministers, but allow Members of the European Parliament to know our views. It is important for British Members of the European Parliament who are debating specific matters to know that they have been considered in Westminster and to know our views.
Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The Second European Reading is equivalent to the second round, and it is most important that MEPs should know
546
what Members of this place think. If they read the Standing Committee record, they will have that information. I am sure that some members of the public—and, even important, people in industry and local government—are unaware that the Standing Committee proceedings are published within a couple of days of the sitting. The undertakings given by Ministers and the concerns expressed by hon. Members are published for the public to read. I hope that our colleagues in the European Parliament read those records before they take them to their respective committees. A great deal of work in the European Parliament is undertaken in such committees, and our records might prompt amendments to documents under discussion.
Mr. Leighton: We are torturing ourselves tonight talking about the unsatisfactory present situation and whether we should have one large Committee, three smaller ones or even more. We are doing so because we are trying to square the circle. We are trying to do the impossible. The truth is that the European Community and parliamentary democracy are incompatible. I do not know how many people read the Standing Committee records. Suppose a Committee considered the common agricultural policy and concluded it was a bad one because it put up food prices and damaged the third world. What effect would that have? It is difficult for the Whips to get hon. Members on to such Committees because of the essential futility of the scrutiny undertaken by them. It leads to nothing.
Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to my hon. Friend because I was about to say that, while I had made a speech which, I hope, was in the tradition of Chairmen of Select Committees and faithfully transmitted the Committee's views—my hon. Friends will let me know at the next meeting if I failed—I hope that it is in order to make a few more personal remarks with "Newham, South" across my head.
The first Member from West Ham, South was the founder of the party of which I have the privilege to be a member. The people of West Ham are not highly capitalised in terms of money, but in terms of skill and the expression of their opinions. They sent that man to represent their interests and to change the law because the law was the only protection that they had. That man came here on the day of the Loyal Address. He put down an amendment to it because it did not mention unemployment. It was selected and he divided the House.
The people of east London saw Parliament as their salvation, as it could change and make law. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) is right that the attraction of the debate depends on the effectiveness of the decision reached. If one can only influence rather than decide, debates are marked by a low attendance—that follows as night follows day. To that extent I agree with my hon. Friend.
It is important to consider broader matters that may have escaped the attention of the House, especially those that the Scrutiny Committee cannot consider. What is on the menu at the moment? There is the procedural motion that the Prime Minister mentioned earlier to agree to an intergovernmental conference on political union. I do not believe that one could get a bigger procedural motion than that. We also have a report by Foreign Ministers on economic and monetary union. I do not think that the

547
Select Committee on Foreign Affairs will be dealing with such issues, and I note that the Chairman of that Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), is in his place for the debate. We have a brace of Chairmen present this evening.
There is the question of parallel ecu currency—an issue which has caused much discussion. No doubt the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service will wish to deal with that. There is a famous court case concerning fishermen that has caused much concern, and there is the question of the intervention of the Commission on the subject of compensation to British Aerospace, about which we have had a statement today.
It is clear that more and more matters of a European Community nature are coming before us. Many of them are beyond the scope of scrutiny in terms of legislation, although they are extremely current. I am not sure whether the House realises—I am trying, although my views are well known, to be impartially descriptive—the situation in which the British Parliament now finds itself.
If I was asked to describe all this to an invited audience, I would ask my listeners to try to imagine what London was like before all the road changes had taken place. One could go and park where one liked, there were no one-way streets to speak of and, generally speaking, the traffic lights were in one's favour so that one could turn right or left almost with impunity. Today the situation on the roads is almost the reverse, with giratories, one-way streets, no parking, no right turns, no commercial vehicles, no buses and many other restrictions.
That state of affairs has been arrived at because of the situation into which Parliament has got itself in terms of law-making, with its obligations to the treaty of Rome. We brought it on ourselves, and the Leader of the House was right to refer earlier to section 2(1) of the treaty. On the water, if one goes through red traffic lights—even if those behind urge one to do so and even if fishermen say, "You must go through those lights—do not worry because we have the Queen aboard and we are all agreed, including the Queen's representatives, that it is permissible to go through those red lights"—one is liable to be booked and find oneself up before the beak. That happened in the current case concerning fishermen.
The same can be said of the British Aerospace case. A sign at the beginning of Aerospace avenue might say "No public vehicles." In defence of what we believe to be the national interest—I appreciate the position of the Government—Her Majesty's Government said, "As we cannot put up a public vehicle, we will put up a private vehicle with £40 million money aboard." Somebody noticed that, and we find ourselves in trouble.
That may be a crude illustration but, in essence, it is the position in which the Parliament of the United Kingdom is now placed. There may be offsetting advantages—that is an issue that we constantly discuss—but we must be realistic in accepting that that is the position from the point of view of our law-making activities, and things are getting more serious.
In that connection, I recall the Prime Minister's remark to me earlier today about procedural motions. A motion to which she has put her signature in the past two days
548
relates to a statement in annex 1 of the Community communiqué, which is concerned with political union. It spells out what is going on and refers to
"the ongoing transfer of tasks to the Community and the corresponding increase in the power and responsibilities of its institutions."
Nothing could be clearer than that.
On the question of economic and monetary union, I recall the time when Lord Cockfield appeared before a Select Committee. Those who have heard the noble Lord expound on the subject of the single market will not quickly forget his replies—I was about to say lectures—to questions asked at Select Committee meetings. He is an experienced and fascinating man to listen to. After he had been expounding on the subject to a Select Committee at which I was present, he was asked, in effect, "Surely the man on the Clapham omnibus or the lady on the Stuttgart tram says that this is a Government of bankers, by bankers for bankers—how would you reply to that?" I hope that I do Lord Cockfield no injustice when I say that he replied, in effect, "Bankers are stable, common-sense, useful people." But that is not what government is about.
It was once said in a famous speech made a long way from Brussels that government should be of the people, by the people, for the people. If this House were to disappear from the United Kingdom, that form of government would not vanish from the earth. People throughout the world want that type of government and they are attempting to create institutions which we in the United Kingdom have evolved, developed and practised for a long time. There is a danger—we can debate how great it is—that that form of government could perish from the United Kingdom and, therefore, from the institution in which we are now seated discussing these matters. Through lack of knowledge, it could perish by the votes of those who are Members of the Chamber which gave it birth.
7.16 pm
Mr. William Cash: Many people are cynical about whether scrutiny can operate. That being so, it is up to those who have the opportunity to indulge in scrutiny to make sure that it works. That is what this House has been about for as long as history books have been written. It has been up to the House from time to time over the centuries—in relation to many matters, taking one century with another—to deal with issues that are every bit as significant as those that confront us today in relation to the European Community.
There have been times over the centuries when the House has taken stock of the situation and has made sure that it exercises the supervision—scrutiny and control—that is necessary, given the realities of the circumstances in which that generation has found itself.
The Scrutiny Committee has done a better job than many people believe. For example, on 25 June last there appeared in The House Magazine—described rightly, because it is a first-class magazine, as
"The most widely read magazine in Parliament"
an article—focusing on Europe, under the heading, "Europe—meaning of unity."
Several hon. Members have referred to the relationship between MPs and MEPs. I make no bones about the fact that, so long as we apply the notion of subsidiarity in the sense in which I interpret it—which is that the European Parliament remains subsidiary to the national Parliament

549
on important questions such as we are discussing tonight—there is a case for ensuring cross-reference between ourselves and MEPs. We keep them in touch and discuss matters with them. There is nothing to stop us doing that, and we should do it.
The article referred to what Lord Bethell MEP described as "an important political issue." He was talking about saving the British sausage and said, making what he obviously believed to be a serious point:
"What is the House of Commons doing about all this? The civil servants are hard at work on it. The European Parliament will soon have it in committee. But, as far as I know, the House of Commons is doing nothing. A £500-million-a-year British industry is at stake and the MPs Scrutiny Committee does not have it on board."
After saying,
"This is what is meant by the 'democratic deficit'",
he said, referring to our activities as Members of Parliament:
"the MPs will wait until the whole thing is sprung on them as a very unpleasant surprise, involving jobs in their constituencies."
There are many butchers and people involved in the meat trade in my constituency. I live in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), who knows more about the subject than the rest of us put together. The matter was raised in the Scrutiny Committee some months ago. I pressed for it to be thoroughly considered and said that we should acquire information which only certain people could provide for us so that we could have a proper and well-informed debate on the subject in the House, and perform our functions as a Scrutiny Committee and a scrutinising Parliament.
It would have been helpful if the degree of complementarity had been extended to Lord Bethell, discovering what was going on in this Parliament because we are well ahead of the game—I say that without wishing to be unkind to the noble Lord. The evidence that we have accumulated will have a significant impact on the way in which that legislation develops.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: How?
Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend asks how, and I shall explain. When one considers legislation in the House, of whatever kind, whether domestic or European, it is up to us to do so early enough and to take appropriate steps to ask the right questions. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) is a most valiant defender of the process precisely because he always asks the sort of questions that are highly relevant to finding out the truth—I admire him for that. It is essential that we do the same with European legislation and use the opportunity to ask the right questions early enough.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East would be right to say to me, "We have not been doing that very well so far." I would dispute that, because I think that we have on a number of occasions, but that does not alter the fact that it is the function of this debate and the report produced by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) to improve the scrutiny process in the context of the developments that have been taking place in the Community. Therefore, in a sense, this is an exercise of scrutiny about scrutiny.
The remedy lies with us. We must make it our business to find out what is going on at an earlier stage. I got hold of the Christopherson paper produced for the Ashford castle meeting on economic monetary union seven days
550
before the meeting. It gave most important information about what was being decided and discussed at that meeting in relation to economic and monetary union. I do not claim any great credit for that. I simply felt that I was doing my job and made it my business to find out about the issue because it was so essential to the on-going debate on economic and monetary union. I raised the matter in the Select Committee. It is important that we should all be vigilant.
The vast range and impact of legislation going through the European system necessitates our improving the scrutiny process for the good reason that, during the past several years the volume of legislation from the European Community, which has a direct impact on all our constituents, has grown enormously. The volume of domestic legislation often seems utterly irrelevant in comparison with the impact of that coming from Europe. The volume of, and time we spend on, legislation should be proportionate to the impact it has on our constituents.
We must also look carefully at legislation coming from other national Parliaments, and its impact on us. There should be a much more level playing field with regard to the manner in which legislation is scrutinised in other countries and here. Recently, we had a meeting with the Bundestag European affairs committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton spoke about which way the other European member states scrutinise their legislation. There is no doubt that we legislate and scrutinise our legislation in a better, more comprehensive way, through our Select Committee system, than do most of the other member states. As developments take place in the European Community, it is essential that we do everything we can to talk to the other national parliamentarians to persuade them to engage in the same sort of scrutiny as this debate provides.
7.25 pm
Sir Russell Johnston: I apologise for not being present when the Leader of the House opened the debate. I was conducting a radio interview about the death of Bob Carvel. The House has lost someone who was not only a remarkable journalist, but a good man and lovable critic whom we shall all miss.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure, for the work that his Committee has done. Time, as always, is limited, so the main part of my speech will consist of five general points. First, one factor that clearly emerges from the report is that the Government, while claiming to be great defenders of Parliament—as they frequently do—against the erosion of the terrible powers from Brussels that are about to clasp us in their bureaucratic arms, have made no serious attempt to give Members of Parliament a real, effective and timely opportunity to contribute views on European policy as it is formed. The position is contradictory and not easily defended.
The Government say that they will do better. Whenever the Leader of the House says anything, I am always seduced by his cuddliness and evident good nature.
Mr. Tony Banks: He is a right old pushover.
Sir Russell Johnston: Yes, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is an absolute pushover, but time will tell.

551
Secondly, this position is hardly surprising, since this is not the way that Parliament works anyway. We are essentially a Parliament, after the event, and respond to things once they have happened. As Lord Hailsham said, we respond to the elective dictatorship in our midst. We inveigh against, condemn and vote against it. It seems pretty intellectually indefensible to argue that Parliament should have a pre-legislative role only in respect of European legislation, when our procedures and customs—one might say rituals—deny us that in relation to domestic legislation. In the jargon of the day, I do not think that one can build a ring fence around European legislation, because there is too much overlap.
Thirdly, the report of the Select Committee on Procedure refers more than once, understandably, to the problem of finding time to deal with everything. I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) to remind him of what the House did last night. We spent an hour after midnight, when everybody was tired and should have been tucked up in bed, engaged in voting—an entirely pointless and vacuous activity with no relevance whatever. It simply exhausted people and the time could have been spent in positive activities, such as thinking, writing or scrutinising. No doubt some hon. Members slept late this morning and those who did not will have been less effective today. The hon. Member for Copeland is a decent chap and mounted a defence which might be described in chess as the Cunningham diversion. He said that such voting formed part of the way in which this place was run, but I do not think that he believed that himself.
Fourthly, the Community is already quasi-federal in its construction. We must face that. The citizen has two routes to express an opinion on European legislation. First, he can go to Westminster in the hope of influencing the Minister, who in turn may influence the Council of Ministers. Secondly, he may go to his MEP and hope to exercise some influence through the European Parliament. We must not focus too much on our status as an institution. The issue is about how our citizens can be best enabled to have their opinions heard and their interests taken into account.
The Government prevaricate about facilities to phone the Community, and that is negative. The hon. Member for Copeland spoke about that and the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) intervened and elicited from him a clear view. I do not know what the Services Committee can dig up that we do not know already. We have been in the European Community since 1973 and have known about these things for a long time. The Government should extend to the Community institutions the free phone facilities that hon. Members enjoy in the United Kingdom. After all, hon. Members would not phone Brussels for fun. I do not pick up the phone to amuse myself but in order timeously to register constituency concerns.
I have a strong feeling that my fifth point falls into the category of crying at the moon, but I shall make it anyway. We regularly congratulate ourselves on being members of a rather unique debating Chamber, a place which is unlike the continental chambers that the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) dislikes and where every so often there is a series of set speeches. That does not lead to
552
the interplay and the give and take of debate that we expect in this place. However, we have less to be proud of than we assert.
Let us look at the form of winding-up speeches. I am not sure whether the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury), who is in the Chamber, will make the winding-up speech in this debate. Such a speech usually falls into three parts. In part one the Minister runs through the names of the Members who have spoken and says, "My hon. Friend the Member for Bloghampton, South made a fascinating and important contribution. My right hon. Friend the Member for Little Significance, North would not expect me to be over-precise in responding to his question. Turning to the Opposition, the hon. Member for Utopia, Central, made an interesting speech but it did not seem entirely to accord with my reading of his party's constitution. The Liberal party Member for Elysium with Nirvana further demonstrated his long separation from power"—and so on. One can make such speeches quite easily.
Part two of the winding-up speech is usually longer and sets out somewhat less than objectively the rectitude of the Government's position. Part three, which runs into the peroration, unequivocally damns all the persons, spokesmen, works, ideas and shibboleths connected with the official Opposition and says that they must be dismissed. It is easy not to fit into that formula. For example, federalism is central to the European debate and is espoused not only by British Liberals but by German socialists and Italian Christian Democrats. However, because it is not the policy of the Government or of the official Opposition, we do not debate it in a proper way. The House is not always good at debating ideas. We debate only major party attitudes, and I am afraid that we do that only in a confrontational way. We should spend more time dealing with arguments, and if we made the effort we could do that.
Having made those general points I shall conclude with specific references to the Select Committee's report and the Government's response. I am greatly impressed by the phrase "the Government will respond sympathetically." I have heard it many times and, although it sounds smooth and emollient, alas, such a response does not always come to pass.
Recommendation 3 deals with the availability of documents. There is no good reason why such availability should not be agreed. The Government aften regard documents as confidential and keep them close to their chest until the last minute.
I do not agree with the Committee or the Government about a separate European Community question time. There should be a slot for that during Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs questions. That matter should be reconsidered, and in that context I have the agreement of the Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee, the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing).
I am worried about more committees being established. At a certain point the burden on hon. Members becomes so great that the opportunity to challenge the Executive is reduced, although in theory this is what it is supposed to be for. I lean towards some sort of open Grand Committee rather than more Committees which hon. Members would have to man.
In future, the detail of European legislation will be dealt with in the European Parliament and not here. We shall

553
have to concentrate on broad Second Reading principles. The Scrutiny Committee is unquestionably hard working and its Chairman is a paragon of diligence, but I do not think that the Committee has succeeded in changing anything. The Leader of the House said that two thirds of European debates will go upstairs and the other third will take place here, probably at an inappropriate hour. If that happens, it will not be much of an improvement.
Mr. Spearing: I think that the hon. Gentleman's kind remarks about me are unjustified. The staff and members of the Committee are also involved in its work. It is not the task of the Scrutiny Committee to change or to influence the Government. Its job is to ensure that there is an opportunity for hon. Members to influence and press the Government before decisions are taken in Brussels. The Committee is procedural and provides opportunities. It is the members, in the motions and the amendments to motions that they table, who influence the Government's activities. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will consider that.
Sir Russell Johnston: The hon. Gentleman is not only diligent but modest. What he says is true, but at the end of the day, if the Committee is worried about something, it points it up and in that sense seeks some change to be effected.
Fourthly, there is not enough about the European Parliament in the document. The House has taken the wrong approach to the European Parliament. I do not intend to argue about the balance of power, but I agree with the hon. Member for Copeland who, speaking on behalf of the Labour party, said that our relationship should be co-operative. Could we at least open the door to its members? If we do not let them into the Chamber—I would not exclude their admission under certain thought-out circumstances—we can at least let them into the Dining Room. As the hon. Gentleman said, we should give them somewhere to sit upstairs. In short, we should treat them in as civilised a way as they treat us when we visit them.
I conclude by picking up something that the Leader of the House said towards the end of his speech. He said:
"Britain wants to maximise its influence within the EC."
That expresses the issue in the wrong way. What he means is that the Government want to maximise their influence in the EC. The proper objective is to maximise the influence of the individual British citizen in the EC. That should be our aim.
I am a Liberal, a minority person. I have long experience of the consequences of what I think to be unfair representation in this place. The total exclusion of Liberal Democrats from the European Parliament is not simply wrong but stupidly excludes a valid British standpoint from expression there. The view of Britain is not just the view of the Government. It finds reflection in the various views of its individual people, and to give that expression must be the objective of what we are seeking to introduce.
7.41 pm
Mr. Teddy Taylor: I understand that there is a tradition in the House of Commons that hon. Members do not make savage personal attacks on other hon. Members when they are not present and have not been given notice of the intention to do so. Therefore, I find it difficult to refer to the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) who, unfortunately, is no longer here.
554
But, Madam Deputy Speaker, I think that you will agree that to describe our late-night debates on European measures as useless, pointless, sterile and simply battling over the past is not a fair reflection of those constructive debates in which people with special knowledge discuss the issues.
It is interesting that the people who laugh about those debates are the people who never attend them. None of the 10 Members of that great Procedure Committee is here tonight to discuss their great proposals, and of those 10 great Members I recall only—
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am here.
Mr. Taylor: My apologies to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Tony Banks: I am here too.
Mr. Taylor: I apologise. I have a list of 10 names and if the hon. Gentleman was a member of the Committee he has not been recorded as being present.
To refer to our debates in that way is rather unfair. The Select Committee's proposals for the consideration of EC legislation are of no real significance. The Select Committee and the House have no powers to do anything about the mass of Euro-laws which come out of Brussels, and the new Committees will also have no power.
In practice, the basic feature of the exciting recommendations is that the general embarrassment caused to the Government by the revelation of certain measures will be reduced. Instead of measures being considered late at night by a small group of difficult and critical Back Benchers, they will be considered by carefully selected Committees which will meet in the morning. Their members will be happy because they will have the power to question Ministers and, through time, they might even acquire the power to travel to Europe and elsewhere to discover more about the issues that they are describing. In effect, nothing will change, save that the Government will be a little less embarrassed and Back Benchers will be able to go to bed a little earlier.
The proposals are simply another example of the policy that we have adopted for years on Euro-matters—simply pretending that reality should be ignored and looking on the brighter side of things. To pretend that we can make the way in which the Community works more democratic is simply kidding ourselves. That is why we have hardly any representation here from the Select Committee and why it has put forward the measures as though they are some exciting new development.
The day-dreaming goes on all the time. We had it this afternoon in that quite splendid statement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the discussion which stemmed from it. We found agreement almost all over that we should have no surrender and would fight to the death to hold on to what powers we have. But I think that we all knew in our hearts that the power was slipping away all the time.
For example, we found that if the ladies outside tonight, who are so rightly concerned about the rights, liberties and freedoms of ponies and horses come to us, we will be able to do nothing, and if they take the advice of the Liberal party and go to see their MEPs, they will tell them that they passed a unanimous amendment which was sent to the Commission and that a respectable man called Mr. MacSharry threw out their recommendation, so nothing

555
happened. Democratically, those poor ladies who are so rightly worried about the export of live cattle can do nothing at all.
Mr. Spearing: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that on 11 January this year a Standing Committee considered that matter and the Government moved a motion for which they sought the support of the House which said:
"supports the Government in their intention to negotiate a satisfactory welfare standard."
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the Council will not agree to the maintenance of our minimum value export order. But, even more important, is he aware that sections 40 to 49 or the Animal Health Act 1981, which imposed those rules, will be negatived by a regulation, and that the repeal of that Act will not come before the House unless it is directed for agreement to repeal? Therefore, the powers of which he speaks are even greater than perhaps he supposed.
Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is right. That shows how much democracy is basically disappearing almost completely. For the liberal party, even with its smiling face, to tell people not to worry, because if they cannot do anything the nice people in the European Parliament will be able to, is to mislead people wholeheartedly.
Mr. Dykes: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Taylor: No, my hon. Friend will probably make the point that there are a number of amendments, but that is a load of rubbish because the ones that are accepted are the ones that come from the Commission anyway, as he well knows.
We must not try to pretend that things are what they are not. We talk about free trade in 1992, but we all know that that is basically a joke. For example, we heard today that insurance will be on the basis of free trade, but we know that nothing of the sort is contained in the proposals. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) will support with great rejoicing an EC initiative to spend a great deal of money on the promotion of lower-tar tobacco and the Anti-Cancer Year. I think that will cost about £60 million. Yet we ignore the fact that this year the EC is spending more money than ever on dumping high-tar tobacco on east Europe, Africa and the third world. Such things go on and no one wants to know. Basically, we try to pretend to ourselves that things are being sold. Despite what we are doing, power is going away without our deciding it.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: When the hon. Gentleman debates parliamentary democracy with his constituents, how does he explain the massive indifference shown by hon. Members to these important matters? I remind him that, even on the night that we debated the interim judgment of the president of the European Court of Justice on section 14 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, there were very few more souls in this place than there are at the moment.
Mr. Taylor: I well remember that debate, and the hon. Gentleman was present, as he usually is when an important issue is discussed. It was tragic that, when we were tearing up a United Kingdom law for no good reason, only a handful of hon. Members were present.
556
Difficult, complex and controversial issues are debated late at night or referred to a safe Standing Committee comprised of safe Members who will cause no embarrassment to anyone, but usually with one statutory "difficult" Member included. That is not done because the Government are trying to hide anything from the public, for the same practice would be adopted by a Government of a different party.
Mr. Cash: I am very interested by my hon. Friend's line of argument. The new ad hoc Committees will have the power to ask Ministers to appear before them. Does my hon. Friend agree that, if a Committee has the power also to ask for papers and records, it will be able to get at the root of issues early enough in the day, as I know my hon. Friend would want it to do? Does he really believe that that is possible?
Mr. Taylor: It simply will not be possible. My hon. Friend knows very well that, even if the Committees had the power to ask for every paper and to see very Minister, or, if things got difficult, to send a deputation, at the end of the day they could achieve nothing, because power is slipping away from us. My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House said that even if some power leaves us, there is still the protection given by the Single European Act, but we know that the Commission is taking unto itself more and more legislation by exercising the majority vote provision in article 100A, and there is nothing we can do about that.
Mr. Dykes: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend is being ridiculous.
Mr. Dykes: I am glad that my hon. Friend is giving way at long last. He referred to me a number of times, or at least once. Why does he not have the courage to extend his analysis and say that the logic would be that, if the European Parliament and MEPs had more power, the ladies who came to the House today concerned about the safety and welfare of export animals would be able to work with Members of Parliament and Members of the European Parliament conjointly to achieve the results that my hon. Friend seeks? My hon. Friend is not prepared to admit that the European Parliament should have increased powers and work with national Parliaments.
Mr. Taylor: I never like to give way, because it simply takes up time. Unfortunately, my hon. Friend has a total obsession with the EEC. He knows that there is no way that the European Parliament could take effective powers unless there were a European Government, including a European Foreign Secretary, Transport Secretary, and Minister for Health. To pretend that we are being given new powers of inspection and supervision, and to make proposals, is all kidology. As the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) said, we are kidding ourselves if we try to pretend that we can enhance our democracy.
You heard for yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, about the new decision on interim relief. As the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) said, that issue arose a few months ago. The European Court assumed a power—whether or not it had the right to do so we do not know—in respect of interim relief from British laws. A second case arose today. I received a lovely letter from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the

557
Home Department saying that the German state lottery company is taking action in the British courts that could give it the power to question the validity of the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976, which prevents lottery tickets from being sold in Britain. It is taking that action on the basis that that legislation contravenes the treaty of Rome. It may be right or wrong, but if that company applies for interim relief, our law will be scrapped for up to two years—and then my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East will have the pleasure of advising his constituents to buy German lottery tickets so that they can help finance the German health service, even though Parliament voted against the running of lotteries in this country.
Let us not pretend that we can solve anything by changing from late night debates to carefully selected Committees that will meet in the morning, and which will appear to be very wise and pontificate but get nowhere at all. Remember the ladies who came to the House today. If any of us had to speak to them, what could we say as democrats? One would have to say, "We can do nothing to protect horses and ponies; nor can the MEPs." Democracy is at risk.
Dr. Godman: I was unable to be present earlier for this debate because I did not leave a Standing Committee until 7.15 pm, but is not the hon. Gentleman being too defeatist? Surely he should be arguing for a change in the structure of the relationship between the European Parliament, national legislatures, the Council of Ministers, and the Commission.
Mr. Taylor: That would be a joke, unless one could establish the basis on which proposals from the Commission are decided by the Council of Ministers. Nothing can be done unless two steps are taken. We are looking at monetary union, and Labour Members talk about the ecu and all the rest of it. If the Opposition's supporters do not like the present Tory Government and their economic policies, they can chuck the Government out. If there is a Labour Government and the electorate feel they are being unfair to Southend or to Scotland, that Government, too, could be chucked out. However, if powers are given to a central bank—as Labour is tempted to do—and it follows economic policies that are bad for Britain and for jobs, or which are unfair by comparison with Germany or France, the public could do nothing.
We should not kid ourselves with silly Committees, because there are only two ways we can go. First, we could adopt what one might loosely call the Ridley plan, saying, "Please do not let us move any further away from democracy. The other European nations can take that path, but we will not follow." Secondly, the next time that the Common Market has no cash, we could impose conditions on extra cash from Britain, and in that way try to introduce some semblance of democracy.
I know that I speak a lot about such issues, but after many years in the House representing people of all political opinions, I find it tragic that we are slowly destroying our democracy. No one seems to notice or to care. That is not being done by a Conservative Government because they are nasty people, but we have the responsibility for starting the whole thing off. Labour does not want to talk about it because it is a changed party now and basically supports the Common Market. The Liberals do not want to talk about it because they were in favour of the Common Market before anyone else.
558
Rather than blame the Conservatives or Labour, or anyone else, we should try to ensure that our democracy does not fade away. That cannot be done by transferring powers to the European Parliament. That is a joke unless one goes all the way and establishes a European Government. Instead of establishing new Committees and saying that late night debates are useless, and instead of members of the Procedure Committee telling us what to do and then not attending the subsequent debate on their proposals, it will be far better if we look at the basis of democracy in the EEC. It is a big issue, but not a party issue, and it will not go away. We should all consider it.
7.57 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: I may tell the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) that I am a member of the Procedure Committee, so obviously I want to hear the views expressed this evening. I have not listened to every speech, but I shall certainly read Hansard very carefully. The hon. Member for Southend, East appears to be checking the list of the Committee's members. He will find my name among them.
Mr. Teddy Taylor indicated dissent.
Mr. Banks: I do not know to which document the hon. Gentleman is referring, but if he examines the Select Committee's report, "The Scrutiny of European Legislation", he will see that my name appears first in the list of members, in alphabetical order. Let us assume that the hon. Gentleman is capable of scrutinising EEC legislation more accurately than he is of scrutinising the report of the Select Committee.
The doggedness of the hon. Member for Southend, East is legendary, so it was a little rich of him to accuse the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) of having an obsession with the EC. However, the hon. Gentleman's most important point came at the end of his speech, when he said that if we are to scrutinise EC legislation properly and to give powers to the European Parliament, we would have to move towards adopting a form of federal structure, with a European Prime Minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer, Foreign Secretary, and so on. That is precisely the way that we are going. No doubt the hon. Member for Southend, East deplores that fact, as do many hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), to whom I pay tribute for his dogged chairing of the Scrutiny Committee.
I am one of those people who, if they have not precisely had a change of heart about the EC, have been caught up by the developments in eastern Europe, to the extent that I want to see the boundaries of Europe stretch rapidly beyond the narrow limits of the Twelve towards a greater Europe. I like the idea of being a European in a European federal state that stretches from the Atlantic to the Urals—it excites me.
I realise that there is a long way to go before we reach that stage, but, it is the way of the future. I do not need to apologise to the House for the views that I have held about the EC. My opposition to it was, and remains, based on the fact that the EC was essentially an economic and political entity to confront the east. That was the important point about it—it was a political entity which was intended to give western capitalism the greatest

559
possible firing power when confronting socialism in the east. But there has been such a change in eastern Europe, and that is why I want a wider Europe.
However, a wider Europe has to be democratic. In this place we have the worst of all possible worlds. We have a bureaucratic structure in Brussels that pumps out more and more legislation affecting people in this country. Hon. Members who are elected to look after the interests of their constituents cannot do so any more. I understand exactly what the hon. Member for Southend, East and my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South mean when they complain that power is leaving this place. In the long run that is inevitable, but that does not mean that we should allow power to haemorrhage away. We have to ask how we can control events.
Mr. Christopher Gill: I am interested by the hon. Gentleman's use of the word "power". Surely he agrees that a loss of power only results because we have ceded so much cash to the European Community. So many of the ideals that the hon. Gentleman and many hon. Members on both sides of the House support and admire could be achieved without such an immense transfer of cash to the European Community. It is that transfer of cash to the Community that gives it the power that the hon. Gentleman is now criticising.
Mr. Banks: No, legislative power is the key. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South will have the budget figures more at his fingertips, but this country's contribution to the EC budget, compared with our total gross national product, is not massively significant. We are talking about legislation, not money, when we talk in terms of power leaving the House.
The other aspect of the EC that makes it so unacceptable to many hon. Members on both sides of the House is that 60 per cent. of the EC budget goes to the common agricultural policy, and it ends up in enormous food mountains in my constituency, where we have an intervention store. I find that obscene, given the proverty in the borough.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: The hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) was talking about the Common Market, and my hon. Friend was referring to money. We have spent about £12 billion on being a member of that outfit since this Prime Minister came to power. She is supposed to have brought back barrel-loads of money from the Common Market, yet it has cost the British taxpayer £12,000 million. That farmer on the Conservative Benches is one of the people who is making money out of it. Every family in Britain contributes £16 a day to the common agricultural policy to line the pockets of the hon. Member for Ludlow and the rest of them.
On top of that there is fraud—about £7 billion of it—or what is known as the "gravy train". God knows how much money they are making out of that, and out of the set-aside scheme for farmers, which is a kind way of saying, "Here's a payment of £80 an acre for farmers to watch the grass grow."
Mr. Banks: When my hon. Friend describes the EC, I could cheerfully kick it to pieces. The scandals in the EC make it such an abhorrent institution to so many hon. Members. But I am trying to argue that we should go
560
beyond that. The EC is not merely the common agricultural policy—or it should not be—and it is not merely the fraud which is taking place within the 12 states, and which must be stopped. It is so much more than that.
I do not want to talk for long, because I know that many hon. Gentlemen, and perhaps the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), want to speak, but I must tell the hon. Member for Southend, East that, whether we like it or not, we are in the EC up to our ears. It is a question of where we go from here. Withdrawal from the EC is no longer a viable political objective, or a viable political statement to make. Although withdrawal certainly remains Labour party policy, according to previous manifesto commitments and conference decisions, I do not think that even Labour Members who are most vituperatively opposed to the EC believe that a future Labour Government will take us out of the Common Market.
We have to decide whether we will end up standing on the sidelines, complaining about the erosion of power from this place—which I readily accept is happening—or start doing something about it. We must say that we do not like the EC institutions, but we are going to consider the concept of a wider Europe—we must capture the imagination that flows from people such as Gorbachev and respond in an imaginative way. We must say that we want a peaceful redrawing of the map of Europe which would be one of the most blessed events that any of us could experience in our lifetime—especially as many hon. Members have seen Europe plunged into war at least once this century.
Recommendation 10 of the Select Committee's report is that an oral statement should be made to the House before the Council of Ministers' meeting, and it is important that that be accepted fully. We all feel frustrated when we realise that we are often impotent over EC legislation, and we are not even given the opportunity to voice our opinions before major events take place. In many cases, we are not even given the ample opportunity that we should have to voice our opinions after momentous decisions have been taken.
We must find more time for debate. After all, that is all that the Opposition can do. At least, as the Government control the time of the House and have the majority vote, Conservative Members can do something. As Opposition Members—although we will not be in opposition for much longer, I am glad to say—we have to confine ourselves to going on about legislation that we do not like, whether it is domestic legislation or EC legislation. We can only query decisions that the Prime Minister has made up her mind on and told the House about subsequently.
The more time we have to discuss the major events that are taking place in eastern Europe, the more we shall be able to influence them and the less we shall be regarded as a bunch of whingers, standing at the fringes of Europe wringing our hands and saying, "We do not like what is going on but we shall not throw ourselves enthusiastically into trying to influence future events."
In the end, the Select Committee did not recommend that we should have a special EC Question Time, although I spoke in favour of such a recommendation because I think that we should. The Government are never in the mood to give a Select Committee more than it asks for, so they have naturally endorsed recommendation 15. I think that we should have a specific time for EC questions, as we did until 1985, because questions represent an effective

561
way of raising issues. It is not necessarily a question of getting answers from Ministers, as Ministers always have the last word and can give us any answer or no answer at all. But questions are fully understood by those outside this place and are an effective way of keeping the Government in check.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Francis Maude): Is there any reason why the hon. Gentleman should not ask EC questions of individual Ministers at their own departmental Question Time? After all, no single Minister has overall responsibility for European Community matters.
Mr. Banks: Of course not, and that is precisely what one does. I suspect that most of today's questions to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food were about the impact of EC legislation on British agriculture, and that is so for all the other Departments. But, with the random selection of questions and the shuffle at 4 o'clock, there is no guarantee that one will find, within the reachable confines of the list of questions, those that directly address EC matters. There is an element of pot luck involved.
We could have sections of Question Time allocated to EC matters or just one general EC Question Time at which all the Ministers were lined up. I understand that that is what happens in the Australian Parliament, where one can ask anything of any Minister at any time. The best thing is to choose the Minister who is nodding off and ask him to answer a question off the top of his head. Usually, the poor soul wakes up to realise that he has been asked a question. No doubt the Government would oppose the idea of having all the Ministers there at once, but the fact remains that questions are a useful way of holding the Government to account, and I am sorry that the Select Committee—of which, I regret, the hon. Member for Southend, East did not realise I am a member—did not recommend that.
I realise that there are divisions on the Opposition Benches, but many of them are more imagined than real. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South knows more about the EC than I do. When he and I get into a detailed argument, we generally find—after we have cleared away the important minutiae of the way in which the EC operates at present and started to think about the concept of a wider political entity stretching from the Atlantic to the Urals—that we can join hands on the ideal of a socialist United States of Europe. That is the sort of thing that we are looking for and, in the end, that is what history will give us.
8.12 pm
Mr. Bowen Wells: First, I wish to pick up the general philosophical point, which most hon. Members have made, that we are concerned about democracy. We want to ensure that constituents, companies and groups throughout the country can influence legislation which they must, by law, obey. I shall concentrate on one aspect of democracy—consent. The idea that has informed our democracy in Britain is that we all have the ability to discuss any proposal that the Executive may place before us, and we agree that when we have debated the matter, the majority will rule and the minority will accept and abide by the majority's decision.
562
If Europe is to succeed, we must ensure that the same applies there. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) does not like the European Community, but as we are in it and intend to go ahead with it, he wants to ensure that it is both sucessful and democratic. We must find ways to achieve that aim through this House and, if it is not presumptuous to say so, we must find ways of helping our fellow members of the Economic Community to do the same.
It is alarming to see what happens in Italy. The Italians are well behind in implementing many of the European directives and resolutions that will come into force when the single European market is completed in 1992. The punter in Naples, or further south in Sardinia or Brindisi, has absolutely no idea what his parliamentarians have agreed in Strasbourg or Brussels. Even the parliamentarians who meet in the Italian Parliament in Rome have not considered many of the European directives.
I understand that the directives are all considered and passed once a year on the same day. That means that the ordinary man in the street in Naples will suddenly find himself having to adhere to a law of which he has no knowledge and on which he has been unable to consult Members of his own Parliament, let alone Members of the European Parliament. What will be his reaction when he is told that he must serve fish in one particular way or make sausages in another, or perhaps adhere to European legislation on more important issues?
Mr. Teddy Taylor: He will say, "Get lost."
Mr. Wells: I think that that is true, and if so, it is a dagger at the heart of the European Community and its success. If we all begin to say that, none of the directives or laws of the European Community will be implemented. We shall have massive problems in achieving a European Community governed by the rule of law, consented to by its people and with its member states willing to implement even those laws with which they do not agree.
Mr. Dykes: I realise that this is a generalisation and that there may be variations, but it would seem that in Italy men and women in the street operate directly through their MEPs. My hon. Friend will have noted that, in the European elections in June 1989, the turnout in Italy was 89 per cent., and that 92 per cent. also voted in a referendum for greater European union. There is a general enthusiasm there, which we may not have here.
Mr. Wells: My hon. Friend is entirely right. One of the difficulties in persuading the Italians to take a closer interest in the legislation of the European Community is that there is enormous enthusiasm for the general concept. The same is true in Spain. Those countries do not take an interest in what is actually being proposed. They simply pass the legislation en bloc and say, "Hooray! That is what we joined the Community for." The adherence of the ordinary person in the street to European directives and law is much more widespread in Britain than it is in Italy or Spain because of the procedures, however inadequate, that we have used in this House.
For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) has for many years played a valuable role in the Select Committee on European Legislation. We are trying to improve the way in which we deal with European legislation, so as to achieve what my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) wants

563
—to ensure that we at least are being as democratic as possible. We have not yet achieved that—even with the report.
I wish to refer briefly to the terms of reference and the resolution. As the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) said, taken together they prevent the House from considering anything recommended by the Scrutiny Committee which does not directly refer to a legislative document coming from the Community. We must be able to debate issues that are coming before the European Council which, since the passage of the Single European Act, has become the major policy-making instrument of the Community.
Our Committee must be able to consider those matters, to call for persons and papers if the matter requires it and to make a report to the House to enable the House to discuss matters before the Prime Minister goes to any European Council meetings or before she or other Ministers attend Council of Ministers meetings. We are not in that position and my right hon. and learned Friend's proposal does not make that explicit. He says that he will consider adapting and adopting the terms of reference and the resolution.
Mr. Skinner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Wells: I would prefer not to.
We must adopt and adapt the resolution of the House and extend the terms of reference of the Select Committee to permit us to have such a debate. When the Madrid Council met, we all knew, because of what had been happening at the European Council meeting at Hamburg, that the questions of European monetary union and of the Delors report would be discussed. The Select Committee considered that, as did the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service. Both Committees presented reports to the House before the Prime Minister was due to take off for Madrid. However, we were unable to command, to recommend or to get the Leader of the House to institute a debate before the Prime Minister departed.
That is a thorough-going undermining of the privileges of the House. Parliament was unable to take a part or to influence or advise the Prime Minister before she made very important decisions on our behalf. Although she came back to tell us what she had done, that is not exactly being accountable to this Parliament. We must put that right. I hope that when my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House considers the terms of reference of the Select Committee on European Legislation and the resolution that follows, he will make certain that the Committee can consider such matters and recommend them for debate.
The setting up of special Standing Committees leave a great deal to be desired. In the debate this evening, other Members, such as the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), have said that they believe that a European Grand Committee might be the right answer. If we do not get the construction of the proposed three Committees right, we shall need something like a European Grand Committee to do the job for us.
We must consider the membership in detail. On some matters, the new Committees may need members from the relevant Select Committees. Can we therefore appoint the
564
members of all 10 of the Committees for the whole of a Parliament? Should there not be some core members, the Committees then being added to as the subject matter changes? If we have just three Committees and the subject matter is varied, we shall need other hon. Members in them. It is essential that other hon. Members can attend and speak, and I welcome that suggestion.
How will we staff the Committees? They will need expert and continuing staff so that they can build up the expertise of both staff and regular members of the Committees. No reference has been made to how the committees will be staffed. I suggest that they are staffed at least as well as Select Committees, and possibly better.
Another question that has not been addressed is what the chairmanship will be. Will the Chairman be chosen from the Chairmen's Panel, or will he or she be selected from among the members of the Committee, as is the case for Select Committees? There needs to be a Chairman for the Session, so that he or she builds up expertise in a particular area for the Committee.
I endorse what the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) said about automaticity. It must remain possible for a matter of strong political debate and discussion to be taken on the Floor of the House and not in Committee. The committees would not be a good forum for such debates. We need only 20 hon. Members to be standing in their places to insist that a debate takes place on the Floor of the House, and I recommend that.
The size of the Committees also needs to be considered. I am not certain that 10 is a sufficient number if a Committee is to sit constantly. If the European Legislation Committee is to be given the additional powers to which I have just referred, the number of members must be increased from the present 16.
Sir Peter Emery: My hon. Friend talks about 20 Members being able to ensure that a matter is debated on the Floor of the House, but how often does he think that that might happen? If it is to be a frequent occurrence, we shall return far more to the debates from 10 pm to 11.30 pm that we are trying to avoid. We must achieve a balance between the two.
Mr. Wells: I could not agree more. My hon. Friend is quite right, but the record shows that it is only on rare occasions—I do not think that there has been one in this Parliament—that 20 hon. Members have risen to insist on a debate on the Floor of the House when a matter has been proposed for reference to a Committee.
Mr. Skinner: There is a problem about time in this place and about fitting in the agenda. The Common Market gets pushed to the back because the Government know only a few hon. Members on either side of the argument take part in the debates, and most are anti-market.
Another part of the agenda, called the private Bill procedure, has been increasingly used—in fact, it has been abused. We have a private Bill almost every week. In my time in the House—you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will confirm this—the procedure has been growing apace. We could adopt the report on the private Bill procedure which recommends that we change it and make promoters go back to planning authorities to get permission for port Bills and so forth. There is another private Bill on Monday. There are three hours in the palm of the

565
Chairman of Ways and Means. Without private Bills, we could have Common Market debates on the various issues and we might be able to have six or eight a year.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of telling the Prime Minister what to do before she went to a meeting. I know that he is not after a knighthood. If he were, and he told the Prime Minister what to do, he could forget the knighthood and the peerage because she will chop his legs off.
Mr. Wells: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the question of a knighthood has long since gone. I have already tried the procedures that he has suggested and been rejected. None the less, I will continue to give my right hon. Friend advice.
Whether we shall have more debates on the Floor of the House is a matter of time. We should have most of the debates in the enhanced Committees, but there should be a relatively easy way to override the normal direction and ensure that debates are held on the Floor of the House. Politically contentious matters are properly dealt with on the Floor of the House.
Brief mention has been made of the special Standing Committees and whether Ministers and shadow Ministers should be members of those Committees. That matter must be addressed, especially when important legislative matters are being considered. I remember when my hon. Friend the Minister, when he was at the Department of Trade and Industry, used the procedures of the House to influence the debate in the European Parliament by ensuring that we had debates here on, for example, the insurance directive, well in advance.
I remember when my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Lilley) arranged early debates which were read by the Commission and which strengthened the negotiating hand of my hon. Friend in the Council of Ministers. That early use of debates in the Chamber should overcome the pessimism of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor). If we use the procedures and set up the Committees properly, it is possible to influence the course of events and the legislation which goes through the European Parliament.
We should give serious consideration to offering membership of the special Standing Committees to European Members of Parliament. We have been unable to get European Members of Parliament informally to attend the European Legislation Committee because that involves procedures within the European Parliament as to who should be sent and whether only British Members of the European Parliament should attend the British Parliament. Sometimes the European Parliament gets in a muddle and suggests that its spokesman on a particular subject should be sent to the British Parliament. I believe that instead of approaching the European Parliament we should offer membership of our Committees dealing with European matters directly to European Members of Parliament. Perhaps they should not be able to vote in those Committees, but they should be invited to attend them.
In conclusion, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary suggested, we have to develop the European Parliament to check the Commission and to make the Commission accountable to the European Parliament. In that connection, our Ministers have had to accept a Commission decision in relation to today's statement on British Aerospace. But who is to bring the Commission to account? Where is the Committee which examines the
566
Commission as to how and why it took that decision? At the moment the Commission is not subject to such examination. The European Parliament should do that job.
Equally, our national Parliament should be related directly to the Council of Ministers. Procedures such as those that we are debating today can bring our Ministers to account. If all the national Parliaments represented at the Council of Ministers did that, we should begin to regain democratic control over Community institutions. It is vital that we continue to strive to make Europe the democratic organisation that we all want it to be.
8.32 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes: It might be too dramatic to say that we are discussing the future of the House of Commons, although my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) spoke about the combined future of eastern and western Europe. however, the documents that we are considering deal with some aspects of the future framework of the House of Commons.
At one time, one could say that Britain did not have a constitution and was dependent on its past statutes. Nothing was binding for the future, as the House could change the law. However, the treaty of Rome, the Single European Act and other measures that have flowed from the operation of the treaty of Rome make that argument no longer feasible. Although we cannot bind the future, our treaty obligations, the decisions of the European Commission and the deals and discussions within the Council of Ministers can bind our future and limit the power of the House. The more we bed down into the European Community, the greater the legislative restrictions that bear down upon us. The saga of the Spanish fishermen is merely the beginning and is a logical consequence of our entry into the European Community.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West, who said that we were in the worst of all possible worlds in regard to the European Community institutions. We do not have democratic provisions, so the democratic bandwagons must move either towards pan-European democracy and a reformed Europe, or towards trying to return sovereignty to the House and to remove those restrictions. It is not always easy to see which alternative is the most feasible.
The Government's response to the documents from the Procedure Committee and from the Scrutiny Committee was fairly grudging, especially on matters concerning democracy, scrutiny examination and knowledge. Democracy does not involve simply formal legislative decision-making and democratic rights and procedures. Knowledge and information build upon democratic rights and procedures, and remain important.
Some of the current developments in Britain are anti-democratic. The ancient right of petitioning, which existed long before the democratic franchise, has acquired greater significance as it is being eroded. Sometimes the weaker aspects of democracy need to be defended to advance the democratic process. That is why the reports that we are considering are not futile. They should not be disregarded, as they provide levers and avenues by which to extend understanding, which is an important part of democratic procedures.

567
The Government's response was not in keeping with the spirit of the report by the Scrutiny Committee and the Procedure Committee. The Government's clearest responses to the Procedure Committee dismissed certain proposals or made negative ones. The Procedure Committee said that there should be no change in Question Time and the Government agreed. I believe that the Procedure Committee and the Government are entirely wrong. The Scrutiny Committee suggested that there should be slots, and other proposals have also been put forward.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West suggested the Australian pattern in which Members could question several Ministers. That system also operates in Canada where the Opposition ask the questions and the Ministers decide among themselves who should respond to each question. That is not necessarily better than our system, but it could operate for European Community questions by having all the relevant Ministers present and open questioning as we have in Prime Minister's Question Time.
The Government agreed with the Procedure Committee in dismissing some proposals and endorsed its rejection of others. There is to be no European Community Grand Committee as that proposal was rejected by the Procedure Committee and the Government jumped on that bandwagon. They seem to have reached a compromise on the proposal that one European Grand Committee should deal with all European affairs and the suggestion from the Procedure Committee that there should be five special Standing Committees. The Government agreed that there should be three Committees. That resembles their compromise on whether we should be out of the European Community or be part of a grand pan-European democratic structure. The result is a bureaucratic, undemocratic system which is deemed to deal with unitary control from the centre and on which we have few democratic checks.
I could mention other aspects of the Government's response which are negative. It was suggested that there should be no formal links with MEPs and the Government agreed with that. The Government accepted certain proposals only with qualifications as they hummed and hah-ed over various proposals. They accepted extending the Committees' terms of reference but then stated that that should be strictly in relation to deposited documents and that there should be no free-standing studies on broad policy issues. However the Leader of the House suggested that there might be some discussion on broadening the terms of reference to make them more acceptable to the Scrutiny Committee than had ever been imagined.
The language of the Government's response is not very inspiring. The Government tend to say, "We are already doing many of the things that have been suggested." When more documents are requested by a Committee, they say, "We have been doing this for a while. You can trust us." It is partly because there has been no trust in the procedures and partly because the Executive are tied in with the activities in Europe that reports such as this have been prepared.
The report suggests that there should be business-type statements to allow general discussion to take place. The Government reject that. The proposal made by the
568
Procedure Committee for automatic referral to the new special Standing Committees, which the Scrutiny Committee does not like, suggests that 40 hon. Members standing in their place should be able to force a debate on the Floor of the House. The Scrutiny Committee says that 20 hon. Members is appropriate. We can argue whether 20 or 40 is appropriate, but, whatever the figure, it gives hon. Members the opportunity of some control on significant measures.
If the procedures that are adopted lead to greater knowledge of European affairs, more hon. Members will want to say to the Government, for example, "You are wrong about the recommendations from the Scrutiny Committee, and there are enough of us to force a debate on the Floor of the House."
Other parts of the report are acceptable and are in line with the recommendations made by the Procedure Committee. They are not of staggering significance, but they will be worth while. Business statements will mention special Standing Committee meetings so that hon. Members are aware of them. But when business statements are made, most hon. Members ask a prepared question and say, "Why will not this, that or the other be discussed this week?"
The report mentions how pressure groups will be able to scrutinise parliamentary activity and inform hon. Members what is taking place. That adds to the checks and balances of a democratic system.
Given the problems, it is little wonder that the Scrutiny Committee has said that it is looking for changes to its terms of reference that are not merely cosmetic. It hopes that its recommendations about pre-legislative documents being available will be accepted in a positive spirit, and it rejects automatic referral to the new Committees and stresses the point quite strongly.
What should the House do about these measures? Paragraph 117 of the report shows what is required, mentions the volume of work and
"the fact that a small number of documents continue to be adopted before scrutiny is complete; the ineffectiveness of late night debates on European documents; and the impact of the increased use of majority voting on individual member states' ability to block legislation to which they are opposed."
It acknowledges
"the inevitable constraints imposed by the United Kingdom's treaty commitments on the House's ability to improve the effectiveness of scrutiny and the corresponding need to approach the subject with realistically modest expectations."
That paragraph shows what will be required in terms of information, knowledge and understanding to enable hon. Members at least to check what is taking place elsewhere.
The issue of democratising Europe is much wider than the issue in front of us. It might be suggested that the report proposes rather nit-picking and insignificant measures. That is not so, and must run with what is available. If we do that, we may begin to open many wider issues. Luckily, democracy is not just about formal voting procedures, the right to vote or other legislative avenues; other aspects are associated with it. The principal aspects are the formal arrangements and, whether they are being attacked in Europe or in this country, we must consider them closely.
I hope that hon. Members who have spoken strongly about democracy will pay some attention to what is happening in this country, such as the disfranchisement of

569
many people. About 600,000 people are missing from the electoral roll. That is an important point to make, even if it is not immediately relevant to the debate.
8.46 pm
Mr. Alan Haselhurst: As the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) moved towards the end of his remarks, I found myself in more agreement with him than I had been at the beginning, although he ended on a note with which I am not immediately sympathetic. The hon. Gentleman was unfair to accuse the Government of being grudging in their response to the report of the Select Committee on Procedure. Rather, the hon. Gentleman was grudging about the report and the commentary of my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House on it.
The Procedure Committee recommended what it believed to be the right approach—an all-party Committee—and the Government seem to have made a generous response to the report. We should be grateful for that and for this debate. I hope that it will be the first of a series of debates. We cannot consider only the issues disclosed by the report and those that have been tagged on to it in the debate, in the belief that we can settle them in one series of discussions with Government, produce new procedures and that we shall be all right for the next 10 or 20 years. Clearly we will not be, because events are moving very fast.
The characteristic of the scrutiny offered by the Select Committee on European Legislation is that it is very meticulous but highly restrictive. We are confined to a somewhat blinkered approach. We have the document and nothing but the document, unless, by a sidelong glance, it is yet another document that we can link to it. That role is too suffocating for the Committee.
I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House will not accuse me of ingratitude if I concentrate on the points on which I disagree with the Government's response, because I acknowledge that there has been a welcome move by the Government to realise that more must be done to improve the scrutiny of European legislation. I am delighted that the Government are willing to move on the terms of reference, but I am disappointed that apparently they are not prepared to move far enough.
My right hon. and learned Friend said that he was introducing some modest measures. I should like to persuade him to be immodest. I do not invite him to make a major change because the Scrutiny Committee is not seeking that. However, we need to break the link with documents. If we cannot do that, our role will continue to be stultified. If I heard my right hon. and learned Friend correctly, he said that in the process of scrutiny we should be trying to focus on the new issues that should concern the House. The Scrutiny Committee would like to have that role. For example, two important intergovernmental conferences were agreed at the Dublin summit. However, we will not be allowed to comment on those.
The Select Committee on European Legislation's second special report of the 1985–86 Session—and the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), has already referred to it—stated:
"as a Scrutiny Committee, we were never able to report on the Act"—
the Single European Act—
"or on the Inter-Governmental Conference held in accordance with the Treaty in autumn 1985 which produced
570
it, because both were outside our terms of reference. A similar situation has occurred from time to time in the budgetary affairs of the Community, when an Inter-Governmental Agreement has been used to supplement Community funds."
We will be similarly confined as other events occur.
In their response to the Procedure Committee, the Government appear to be worried by the thought that the Scrutiny Committee might become involved in
"free-standing studies of broad policy issues which might tend to duplicate the work of other Committees."
Let me reassure my right hon. and learned Friend: we want only a modest extension of our role. Would he consider a quota which might be allocated to us of special investigations that we might carry out?
Let us experiment. There is a spirit of experimentation infusing some aspects of the Government's response to the Procedure Committee. Why cannot that spirit of experimentation overflow into this area as well? If it does not work, or if—perish the thought—the Government are uncomfortable with the product of an investigation by the Scrutiny Committee, the Leader of the House can come back to the House and tell us that it is not working and that he wants to suggest another change. However, let us experiment. We should not adopt the attitude at the outset that there cannot be any change.
Mr. Spearing: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has said. However, I believe that his case about quotas is even stronger than he is making it. Does he recall that in the year to which he referred an arrangement had been reached with the Select Committees that, if they did not want to consider a particular matter, there was no reason why an enlarged preference for our Scrutiny Committee could not be used to investigate that matter? Without such a power, there is a visible gap in Select Committee investigations.
Mr. Haselhurst: I was trying not to be too immodest in the proposal that I was putting before my right hon. and learned Friend. If the Government are concerned about the Scrutiny Committee spreading its wings, is it really wrong to suggest that it should be allowed to flutter them a little? Let us see how such a modest extension of the role, perhaps on a quota basis, would work out. That is an essential move if scrutiny is to take on a more comprehensive meaning.
I support the Scrutiny Committee's view about the special European Standing Committees and the power of referral. I suggest that the Government should see how we get on with the new European Standing Committees before they reach a final view on automatic referral. They should step back from that proposal at the moment. Let us run the new Committees for a year and see how the system works. If it goes wrong, the Government's case is made and the House will no doubt accept their view. However, they should not press the matter before we have seen how the new Committees work.
I endorse my colleagues' opinion that we should accept the Procedure Committee's view and have five of those Committees. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), I believe that the burden on three Committees would be too much. It would be wise to spread the load and see how we go. I understand the problem about whether hon. Members will turn up to the Committees. It is a matter of how seriously the House as a whole believes that the job must be taken.
I do not want to sound too censorious, but in some ways the tone is set by the Government. If there is any

571
feeling of ambivalence about the Government's commitment, some hon. Members might not believe that this is the most important thing that the House can be doing. It is clear from everyone who has spoken today, particularly from those who are most hostile to the Community, that there is a realisation that the process must be taken seriously and that, if we are to make a success of scrutiny, we must all be committed to it.
As I said, the tone must be set by the Government. However, I do not believe that those who are still fighting in principle the battle of 1971 are doing much good. They are not helping to develop a serious approach to scrutiny in the House. They are not helping us move on to more effective control of European legislation. They intone about the solemnity of this Parliament, but what is Parliament but the embodiment of the will of the people? The will of the people has been determined on the matter of whether we should be involved in the European Community. They should trust what the people have decided and put those arguments behind them.
In the spirit of experiment, I hope that the Government, after they have reflected on this debate, will follow the Procedure Committee's recommendations. I want to refer to several minor points. They are minor in comparison to the Procedure Committee's recommendations, and they are dealt with in what amount to footnotes in the report.
I endorse what the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said about the use of telephones. He made his point very well and we must pay attention to it. I am glad that the Services Committee has been asked to consider that matter, and I hope that we will have positive and not grudging action.
With regard to the relationship with Members of the European Parliament, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells). Perhaps the new European Standing Committees will be the vehicles by which MEPs are introduced into our proceedings. The Procedure Committee said that that would require primary legislation. If that is so, we should face up to it. If we are taking scrutiny seriously, perhaps we should have a little primary legislation. If primary legislation will strengthen the role of this House, we would not make a meal of it; let us get on with it. It is just possible that the creation of the new Committees could evolve to allow in MEPs in certain prescribed circumstances. That would help us to liaise effectively on the whole question of scrutiny.
A point was made earlier about travel. I would not necessarily want to go as far as the suggestion of the hon. Member for Copeland that individual Members should have the right to travel. I am not unsympathetic to what he said, but I said to myself in parenthesis that to call for individual hon. Members to have the right to travel on the continent when currently it is proposed to tax them on travelling within their own constituency seems a bold call. If we cannot go as far as the hon. Member for Copeland suggested, perhaps we should consider special arrangements for the Scrutiny Committee.
Mr. Robertson: I was waiting to see whether the hon. Gentleman would confine the largesse to members of the Committee. Many of them are in the Chamber tonight. With regard to the taxation of benefits and the threat that all travel by hon. Members will come within the tax net, I
572
wonder whether there would be more enthusiasm for taxing hon. Members' travel in their constituencies if Ministers' cars were treated on the same basis.
Mr. Haselhurst: I gave way to the hon. Gentleman in a spirit of good will—I have a great deal of respect for him—but it was clearly a mistake. He pursued the parenthesis that I had embarked on. I do not wish to be drawn any further on it.
The hon. Gentleman anticipated me. I was about to suggest that a more modest proposal than to allow everyone to travel on the continent would be to adjust the terms affecting the Scrutiny Committee. I do not suggest that out of any selfish reason. I simply wish to put it on record that the Scrutiny Committee needs to travel within Europe to a degree to do the job with which it is charged. It is not a matter of the Committee deciding, for example, that it needs to study how the dairy industry in New Zealand is faring. The Committee must meet the European Parliament, the Commission, and the United Kingdom permanent representative in Brussels and liase with parliamentarians in countries which are about to hold the presidency. That is a modest proposal.
It would be helpful to keep the expense of the Scrutiny Committee's travel apart from the normal expenses of the departmental Select Committees. By implication, we should have to include in that the members of the European Standing Committees.
Mr. Dykes: My hon. Friend makes an important point. He seems to suggest that members of the Scrutiny Committee are no longer nervous about going abroad and meeting foreigners, that they feel much more at ease when they do and that those journeys can no longer be classified in conventional terms as visits abroad because we go to the Community and meet other parliamentarians. Does he agree that his suggestions are even more relevant and unavoidable in the context of the European Parliament's response to various initiatives? The assizes in Italy are coming up in the autumn and other developments are going ahead fast. It appears that the European Parliament will respond positively to the idea of receiving Scrutiny Committees from national Parliaments in a formal sense on regular visits and, indeed, individual members of the Committee when they visit the Strasbourg Parliament. Would he encourage that process, too?
Mr. Haselhurst: I hear what my hon. Friend says. I would certainly encourage that process. We must recognise that we are part of the Community. We ought occasionally to be seen in other parts of it if we are to appear a credible force and be taken seriously when perhaps we object to some aspects of developments with which the majority of our colleagues in the Community agree. We must be seen as serious players in the game. That does not just mean Heads of Government and Ministers. Increasingly, Members of this House must be seen abroad. Those who lament the loss of power of this House should heed the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes).
The ever-closer union of the European peoples is coming ever closer, whether it is perceived to be inching towards us or galloping towards us. It will happen. Those who worry that that takes away the sovereignty and power of this Parliament should pause to wonder what power and what sovereignty will be left in this Parliament if Britain stands outside a Community that goes from strength to

573
strength, whether it stretches from the Atlantic to the Urals or there is merely a modest increase in the present number of member states.
If we are to command proper control of events that will affect the destiny of this country, we must consider our procedure ever more carefully and ever more regularly. I say to my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House, again in a spirit of experiment and flexibility, that if he is prepared to take a few chances with some of the suggestions put to him both by the Procedure Committee and in the debate today, there is no reason why there should not be a supplementary report from the Procedure Committee or the Scrutiny Committee after 12 months. We could then debate the further report.
We have had a useful debate today, but it is unfinished business. We must return to the subject again and again in fast-changing circumstances to ensure that the relationship of this Parliament with other Parliaments of the Community and the European Parliament is as right as it may be.
9.4 pm
Mr. Michael Knowles: My hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) made his case in a gentle and kindly way—understanding the Government's point of view—that was illustrative of his character. Perhaps I could put my points more robustly. After all, today's Order Paper refers to "Scrutiny of European Legislation", as does the Select Committee report.
The Government's proposals were very well taken apart by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes). His criticisms of them were, in my view, absolutely right. My biggest criticism is this: perhaps they are all right if one considers that scrutiny is enough, but I do not.
I am a member of the Select Committee on European Legislation, and agree with its report. I endorse what was said by our Chairman, the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing)—at least in the first part of his speech—but I believe that we should go much further: we must return to the idea of some form of Grand Committee to examine forward policy. At present, any scrutiny policy means looking at a piece of paper that has already been produced; the policy is already well down the path. It is already half committed, and secret deals have been done in the Council before it ever sees the light of day. The problem for the House is that it does not get ahead of the game as far as European policy is concerned. That is the challenge that we must face.
If the Government had introduced their proposals 10 years ago, they would have been fine, but they are not good enough now. We are promised that in the future something will be done about the nonsense of telephoning or posting a letter to anywhere else in the Community. The sums concerned are trivial; hon. Members are more than prepared to pay themselves. However, it betrays an attitude that has not changed, judging by the Government's response to the proposals. We have a major battle to advance an inch, whereas it should be something that happens automatically with virtually no discussion.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am delighted to hear my hon. Friend refer with such enthusiasm to these matters. I want to convey to him the clear impression that the Government would be delighted to press ahead as quickly as possible,
574
but—until recently—that proved difficult because the attitude to which he has referred lingered in some parts of the House. The Government's attitude is "the quicker the better" in regard to most of these practical and sensible proposals. I would find the general tone of the debate encouraging if it were less critical of the Government.
Mr. Knowles: I understand my right hon. and learned Friend's position. In these matters we are all pushed into role playing: he sits on the Front Bench and defends the Executive, whereas I sit on the Back Bench as a legislator. It is natural that I should wield the tools I have to bring pressure to bear.
When have we debated in the House recent reports from the European Parliament? Recently, there has been the Martin report, which was concerned with where the European Parliament wants to go; the Colombo report—the new draft treaty for European union; the Giscard d'Estaing report on the principle of subsidiarity—we have endless discussions in the House on subsidiarity and federalism, and I recommend that fascinating report on those topics; and the Devuager report and the assizes, which were mentioned in passing earlier. There was an offhand reference to discussions through the usual channels. European Parliaments are supposed to be represented in the assizes, rather than the two Front Benches.
When will the House discuss those matters and who will represent the House in Rome in October? That must be decided within the next month because the House will not return from the recess in time to reach a decision. We need to keep a weather eye on that.
Mr. Haselhurst: Perhaps I could help my hon. Friend by nominating him.
Mr. Knowles: I thank my hon. Friend for that kind thought. At all times he is a kind and generous man.
Some of today's speeches have betrayed the fact that hon. Members have an arrogant attitude towards the European Parliament. It is as though this Parliament were the only representative assembly not only in Europe, but in the world. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) suggested that we did the job of scrutiny so well that the other 11 national Parliaments should copy us—they would then be all right. I find that arrogance stunning. Usually it is preceded by the misquote that this is the mother of Parliaments, but it is England that is supposed to be that mother. I must admit that some of our offspring do much better than us on occasions.
I understand the 19th century classical parliamentary system where members of the Executive sit in the Chamber and answer to the legislature. I understand the separation of powers. The modern British political system is characterised by tight control by the Executive and tight party systems. That means that the Executive virtually controls the legislature. I am not sure that we shall be lecturing other people much longer. The idea that the British system is the best at all times and in all circumstances is remarkable. We should consider the Parliaments of our European partners.
In Denmark, Ministers appear two or three days before a Council of Ministers meeting with the agenda and go through it with the relevant committee so that it has some idea about what will be discussed. That is a vast

575
improvement on the parliamentary control excercised by the Executive. We can learn from other Parliaments, and we must give up our arrogant attitude.
One of my hon. Friends spoke about checking the Commission. That is right, and the only body to do that is the European Parliament, but who checks the Council of Ministers? At one time, the idea was that national Parliaments checked the Council because every individual Government had the power of veto that came with the Single European Act. Earlier, my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House said that the Council is a legislative chamber, but it is the only one I know in the western world that meets in secret. That is a cause not for pride but for criticism.
We must grapple with the principles that lie behind the arguments on subsidiarity and the federal system. I agree with the hon. Member for Inverness, North and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston). I would rather move to a federal system where powers are delineated so we know where we are. It is also argued that legislatures can control the Executive at two levels. Power has now slipped from the national level, but it has not been acquired at the European level. If we are not careful, the power of scrutiny will not be exercised by either tier.
We must stop looking on our colleagues in the European Parliament as opponents. They are our colleagues and we are in the same business together. Let us get on with that business and ensure that we establish a democratic Europe.
9.13 pm
Mr. Christopher Gill: It may not be an exaggeration to say that 1990 may prove to be a watershed in the history of European affairs considering the dramatic events in eastern Europe and the developments within the European Community—demonstrated by the fact that two intergovernmental conferences are planned. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister also made a significant statement this afternoon, which was followed by a most interesting set of exchanges. My right hon. Friend gave us one of the clearest expositions of Britain's position in the EC that the House has yet heard.
This debate is significant for two reasons. First, we are demonstrating that the will of Parliament can be heard. I take issue with the contention of Lord Bethell, who was quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) and who implied that European legislation was not properly scrutinised. It is well known that hon. Members can obtain from the Vote Office a piece of paper—I have a copy of it in my hand—each week which explains practically everything going on in the European Commission. It is possible by that means for hon. Members to appraise themselves of the legislation that is coming to this House and to take steps to ensure that, at some stage of our procedure, it gets adequate consideration.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) was critical of the way in which we consider European legislation. He thought that the pass had been sold and that our deliberations today about change were neither here nor there. I do not regard that as sufficient reasons for not making changes.
576
As my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Waldon (Mr. Haselhurst) pointed out, if the changes prove insufficient, there is no reason why we should not make further changes later. Like others, I was glad to hear the Leader of the House say that there was no reluctance by the Government to review the situation and perhaps to go faster in future.
The second important feature of the debate is that at last we are sending out the right message to the nation about the importance that we attach to the consideration of European business. For too long, the nation has heard too little about our consideration of such matters, mainly because our debates take place late at night when the press have gone home, so our remarks are not reported in yesterday's or tomorrow's papers, when the radio stations have closed down and when the prospects of getting coverage for our deliberations are slim. As hon. Members have said, our debates often occur at the eleventh hour and we are debating matters in retrospect.
I welcome the positive commitment of the Government to improve the procedures for scrutiny. The proposed changes recognise the realities of the situation, and not before time. While much of what we discuss by way of European legislation and directives is mundane, it includes important issues. There are matters of principle and policy at stake. In addition, much of the legislation, because of practical considerations, is irreversible and takes precedence over national law.
I welcome the determination to debate future events. Looking to the future, it is vital for Britain to make a success of our membership, and to do that we must demonstrate to the country that we have the will power and determination to do what is necessary.
I shall sound a word of caution—the exchange rate mechanism and the European currency unit will not do more for us in this country than we are prepared to do for ourselves. If we want to create sound money—I am sure that we do—lower interest and inflation rates and better exchange rates, those aims are all within our control. No one must run away with the idea that because we join the exchange rate mechanism, those things will be done for us. It depends so much on the political will of this Parliament and House, and the individual will of men and women throughout the country, whether as managers of our industries or members of the work force within industry. We should make no bones about it: competent countries will go ahead within the Community regardless.
I accept that the Council of Ministers will have to remain the main decision-making organisation in the European Community. I have frequently spoken about the importance of protecting the principle of subsidiarity, and I do not intend to speak about that any more this evening.
There was an interesting exchange some time ago involving power and the relationship between the powers of this House and those of the European Community. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) seemed reluctant to accept that power and cash were inseparable and indivisible components, and that one cannot have power without cash. He implied that legislation could be passed without costing money. I strongly question that. That old-fashioned and outdated idiom that power came out of the barrel of a gun is now a dead letter. That has been epitomised in eastern Europe. Power today, in modern Europe and the modern world, means economic power.

577
The hon. Member of Newham, North-West said that divisions among Opposition Members in relation to Europe were more apparent than real. Does he really mean that? Where was he this afternoon when we saw the phenomenal spectacle of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) agreeing with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister? I do not think that it was possible for the Prime Minister to include the Leader of the Opposition in that. No doubt the divisions that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West declines to recognise were recognised by Conservative Members.
The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) intervened on the issue of structural funds—he would because it is an essential plank of socialism to have large central funds that can be dispersed for those purposes that socialist politicians feel that the state can serve best. Socialists support the structural funds; I do not.
The hon. Member for Bolsover also said that that was the means by which farmers lined their pockets. He suggested that agriculture did well out of the structural funds. However, the state of British agriculture today is the poorer as a result of the structural funds. I am certainly not reluctant for the common agricultural policy to be dismantled. I believe—I have said this to the House many times—that structural funds are totally unnecessary in the context of what wer are trying to do in Europe. We can create a prosperous and peaceful Europe without structural funds.
Europe needs us for our pragmatism, our experience, our sense of history and our acceptance of the rule of law. Above all, they need us for our courage. That is well personified by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who is not afraid to say no when unacceptable proposals are put to us.
9.22 pm
Mr. Dykes: I shall be brief. The winding-up speeches are awaited with great anticipation because we are anxious to see whether there is a meeting of minds between the Government and the Opposition on the scrutiny proposals. I thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House for the Government's positive response to the suggestions of the Procedure Committee and the Scrutiny Committee. However, I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will reconsider the automatic referral syndrome that is proposed as part of the Government's response, because that would be an extension of the Executive's power over Parliament. That is the kernel of the debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) said, perhaps the matter could be considered in a year or two, depending on how matters turn out.
In the debate there has been a realistic recognition that we are part of the European Community. I was struck by a leader in a newspaper on Sunday which said:
"If Britain had been well governed over the decades and had enjoyed decades … of steady economic growth, combined with social harmony, the decision … about our membership would be more difficult. In almost every way our European partners have done better and continue to do better than us."
When my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House was Foreign Secretary, he was acknowledged as an enthusiastic exponent of our membership of the Community. He served Britain well in that role by
578
defending our interests and recognising the reality of our membership of Europe. That is what the central scrutiny procedure is to be about.
Like other hon. Members, I am pleased that we have got away from pretending that scrutiny is a fringe activity, carried out originally, because for some hon. Members the form and structure of our legislation for entering the Community was controversial. That is why the Foster committee was set up.
I was impressed when the Spanish scrutiny committee approached us after the return of democracy to Spain. Its members said that they would like to speak to us about our work and about how they should proceed in Madrid. One of the terms of reference of the Spanish scrutiny committee in Madrid was "to promote and accelerate the development of the Community in Spain." From memory, those are the exact words. I wish that we had had such self-confidence at the beginning of our membership. However, we approached it in the classic British way which has stood the test of time.
We are all grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) and to the members of his Committee for their excellent suggestions. I strongly agree with most of them. Unlike some hon. Members, I welcome the Government's response to the idea of individual subject Committees. Whatever the number of such Committees—and I realise that that might cause difficulties—that is a better approach than the Grand Committee idea.
We have now reached the later stage of mature scrutiny and must maximise liaison with our colleagues in the European Parliament. I should like to see Conservative Members liaising with Labour Members and Members from other parties in that Parliament. I agree with the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) that it was unfortunate that we have an election system which produces results judged by other Members of the European Parliament to be monumentally unfair. There are no Liberals in that Parliament. We may have to face that issue and in due course may well decide that for European elections it would be right to have proportional representation, even if we do not change the voting system for election to the House of Commons.
The scrutiny procedures are capable of being highly developed, provided we recognise that the additional layer of political, economic and social activity, which is the European Community layer, is not our enemy but our natural ally. The success of that depends on cross-fertilisation of ideas between the Christian Democrats, the Socialists and the Liberals in the European Parliament and their national equivalents in the Parliaments of member states. They are all struggling and/or working together for the political results that we wish to achieve, not one excluding the other, looking down on the other, describing British MEPs as of no consequence. All those days are now over. We are now into the stage of new realism.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House said with his characteristic humour just now, his chances, as a very good Leader of the House, if I may embarrass him by saying so, of promoting scrutiny in the House are now improved and enhanced because at long last the Labour party, after only 15 or 16 months, has miraculously transformed itself with some exceptions—such as one or two of those elderly hon. Members who questioned my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister today on her statement on the summit, the hon. Member for

579
Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and others—into a pro-European party for the first time. That has occurred in an extraordinarily short time.
It was the lack of such support which stalled the possibility of proper practical measures of scrutiny, telephone calls, postage and passes for MEPs. Labour Members in the Services Committee and elsewhere would have none of it. They did not want such people here with their continuing theme. I remember that it took several years to extrude a modest system of passes for MEPs. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will remember, even then, how grudging Labour Members were at the late-night debate when they conceded that.
Now it is all roses, light and enlightenment for Labour Members. I do not refer to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) whose views have been consistently enthusiastic. But we shall have to watch closely to see whether that change is more than skin deep in the future. I think that the Conservative party, with the Liberals, will retain their natural monopoly of enthusiasm for the EC, but perhaps Labour will come up to scratch later.
Whatever the case may be, we are now embarked on a much more serious and profound scrutiny procedure, and I hope that we shall have the practical concomitants of that—telephone calls, postage facilities and all the rest which would make that work useful not only for the House and Britain, as the Procedure Committee has recommended, but for every elector, contrary to the anxieties of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing).
9.31 pm
Mr. George Robertson: It is nice to be able to follow the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), whose opportunism and idealism shine through, despite the fact that he was being glowered at by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). There is a much wider gulf between them than the two and a half sword lengths that divide the two sides of the House.
This has been a remarkably even-handed debate, not given to the normal cut and thrust of partisan politics, and that is as it should be. This matter transcends party politics. We are considering how Parliament can strengthen its role within an increasingly powerful European dimension. A constructive approach has been taken, which I am sure the Leader of the House will reflect on and then bring forward his further proposals.
We have been considerably helped in our work by the report of the Procedure Committee which was expanded upon by the Chairman, the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery). He will be aware that I disagree with some of the conclusions of his report. He chose to reject the evidence and ideas that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) put forward, but that does not undervalue the strength of his recommendations. I shall deal with the question of the Grand Committee later.
We were also helped in our deliberations by the work of the Select Committee on European Legislation whose Chairman, my hon. Friend for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), graces these sessions with an assiduousness that is unparalleled. He brings a considerable clarity to our debates. He and I disagree on a number of issues relating
580
to Europe but on the key question of the importance of scrutiny and the way in which Parliament should deal with that, we are at one.
I was interested to note the approach taken by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to the question of scrutiny in our debate on the European Community a couple of weeks ago. The hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) asked whether the right hon. Gentleman could mention a single debate
"in which the Government changed their position as a result of the views expressed in the House?"
The Foreign Secretary replied:
"Having taken part in such debates, I am sure that the Minister's view is often shaped"—
and there were cries of dismay at that point, or perhaps they were cries of disbelief. After all, the Foreign Secretary is a writer of fiction—of extremely good novels—and perhaps right hon. and hon. Members felt that he had slipped into his writing mode as distinct from his ministerial mode. Nevertheless, he went on:
"No, I mean that. Ministers' views are shaped and shifted by many angles of approach as a result of such debates. That is what Parliament is about. One does not expect Ministers to do 180 degree turns in public but one expects them—and this is what happens—to be influenced and to tell their officials as they leave the Box, 'I do not want to go through that again'." —[Official Report, 11 June 1990; Vol. 174, c.26.]
Hansard records that there was laughter at that point, and so it should.
The new doctrine of scrutiny and accountability of the Executive is to give the Minister a sufficiently hard time that the barometer of dissent is taken to the officials in the Box, whom we are not supposed to mention, with the message that the Minister does not want to go through a similar experience again. I do not know whether that was a description or an incitement, but it certainly gave an interesting insight into the way that the Government view such matters. The Leader of the House may say that Parliaments throughout the Community, if not across a wider spectrum, view us with considerable envy, but I feel that we should have a rather more systematic method of tackling accountability.
The Government's approach is illustrated also by the Prime Minister's throwaway line when she reported to the House this afternoon on the European summit. In the off-the-cuff way in which she seems now to conduct her diplomacy, she described the social charter—against which huge battalions of Government Ministers and endless numbers of civil servants are deployed, on the grounds that the charter would jeopardise jobs and pose the threat of a Marxist regime on this nation—as conferring "piffling little powers".
That way of balancing the business that we conduct in relation to the Community has been a characteristic of the past 11 years. Although the Government have come round to the conversion of the power and role of the British Parliament, the past 11 years have been characterised by a gradual but increasingly pronounced reduction in the role of parliamentary power over the Executive.
One significant example is the reports from what used to be called the Foreign Affairs Ministerial Council, which meets monthly and is the senior Council of Ministers meeting held between the Heads of Government summits—the European Council. It has been renamed the General Affairs Council, but it retains a supervisory and almost executive role.
For many years, it was a matter of form to make an oral report to Parliament, followed by cross-examination in

581
this chamber, on reports from that Council. More recently, there was a two-and-a-half year gap between oral statements, and on 21 February this year, it was only through your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, on a request made by myself, that the Government were forced to the House on a private notice question to account for the deliberations of the extremely important Foreign Affairs Council on 19 and 20 February, when the British Government were beached on the question of sanctions against South Africa.
So, on the one hand, the Prime Minister's view, expressed in a reply on 1 May to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) is:
"We should stop any more centralisation and make certain that the future of the Community is implementation of measures through the national Parliaments."—[Official Report, 1 May 1990; Vol. 171, c. 907.]
That is the rhetoric but, as the Daily Mail so prosaically puts it today, the other side of the prime ministerial coin is clearly different, and we realise that Parliament has been kept constantly in the dark for 11 years. If we are witnessing a change in the Government's position, we welcome it strongly. My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) made that clear in his opening remarks.
We are talking about the balance of accountability between the Executive and the legislature and about how Ministers can be held accountable, not just for their ministerial role and duty, but as legislators in the Council of Ministers—an organisation which meets behind closed doors, and whose deliberations are not open to the same scrutiny as are parliamentary affairs in this country and throughout the European Community.
The Government's response to the recommendations of the Procedure Committee goes some way towards meeting the desire, demand and need for accountability, but perhaps it does not yet go far enough. All too oftern we forget that the Community, through the Council of Ministers, deals not with peripheral, subsidiary legislation but with primary legislation which—as we have seen in the past few weeks—has supremacy over British law. That is the qualitative distinction: matters may have been considered by national or supranational Governments until now, but the Community is engaged with primary legislation, so this Parliament has a right to be involved in the process because it affects the daily lives of people in this country.
Hon. Members have dealt with a number of issues which I shall briefly touch upon. Inevitably, as Members of Parliament, we look to our own role here. The restrictions on telephone calls outside the United Kingdom and on travel have been a continual irritation. I am glad that the Leader of the House has pledged to make progress on that matter. I hope that progress will not be held up by any attempt to do package deals, which might frustrate the needs, desires and the operational effectiveness of hon. Members.
I am not suggesting an open-ended commitment to travel within the European Community, but it should not be confined to members of Select Committees. One of the regrettable features is that foreign travel is mostly confined to Select Committee members. I am not making a point as Opposition spokesman on foreign affairs and a shadow Minister, but we are one of the few categories not entitled to travel and to investigate the affairs that we have to talk
582
about. If we are to consider ability to travel within the European Community, as we should, it should not be confined to members of Select Committees.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland said, we believe that too few special Standing Committees are being proposed and not enough people will be involved. There are problems of their organisation: how will Ministers, who are members of Committees, at the same time be subject to cross-examination by those same Committees?
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South referred to the concept of automaticity. We believe that, on balance, the House should have the right to make the decision, rather than documents being referred to the Committees on a large scale.
I disagree with the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber that we should go back to having a European Question Time slot, as there is not a single departmental Question Time that does not involve a large proportion of questions about the Community. To push European matters back to Foreign Office questions would be to restrict ourselves to institutional affairs, which would restrict hon. Members' rights to deal with other issues.
I strongly support the view expressed by the Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South and by the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) that in the interim the Scrutiny Committee should be able to consider wider issues than those to which it must confine itself at present. The hon. Member for Saffron Walden made the valid point that two intergovernmental conferences are about to start and said that the Scrutiny Committee will not be able to consider the wider issues involved because there is no document on which it can base its considerations.
Mr. Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Robertson: I am afraid that I am running out of time. On a world service broadcast that we recorded this afternoon, I told the hon. Gentleman that I should feel inclined to allow him to intervene in my speech—but not in the last minute. If I did so, it would deprive the Minister of the right to be intervened on by the chairman of the Bruges group.
I regret that the Procedure Committee rejected our idea of a European Grand Committee. I stand by that idea, as I still believe that such a Committee would have immensely good qualities. I am sure that if the House looked into the matter in greater detail, it would be attracted to the idea.
The Leader of the House was right in one important regard as well as in some of the details. This debate is, and should be, about maximising the influence of Britain in the increasingly important European law-making procedures. That is the common interest of hon. Members on both sides of the House. The Government's contribution to the debate has been positive in that regard, even if it has been slightly defective in the limited respects that we have identified.
For the moment, we reserve judgment and await the considered response to this constructive and wide-ranging debate.
9.46 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Francis Maude): When the House of Commons debates its own role and functions, there is occasionally a tendency for our discussions to lapse into

583
narcissism and introversion. There is sometimes even a sense of undue self-importance. I am happy to say that this has not been such a debate. It has been a serious and sensible debate about an important matter which concerns not only the House of Commons but the process of government and the way in which the United Kingdom operates within the European Community.
One of the many good things about the debate has been the atmosphere surrounding our discussion of specific proposals. I have some sympathy with the remarks in the Procedure Committee report about some of our late night debates. I do not want to disparage those debates, to which I shall refer later, but it seems that there is a tendency for old and general battles of principle to be refought—although, as I have said, I do not disparage those points of principle, because many of them are important. What has emerged from this debate is the sense that however we feel about the European Community—whether we are enthusiastic about it, whether we are idealistic, whether we think that it is perfect or imperfect—we are in it and we have to live with it and make the best of it. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House said, we must look at ways of maximising our influence within the Community. That concept has provided a good framework for the debate.
I was not here for the whole of the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), but I have seen a note of it and I heard some of it. If I have a criticism of the way in which my hon. Friend puts his case, it is that he is perhaps somewhat defeatist about the role that the House can play. My hon. Friend is absolutely right when he says that the House of Commons, in the process of scrutiny, does not exercise direct legislative control and that it does not go through matters clause by clause in the way that it does on domestic legislation. However, that does not mean that the process of scrutiny is an empty process, or that it is meaningless or merely a sop to the House of Commons. I cannot emphasise too much that we take the process extremely seriously.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East and other hon. Members are right to say that qualified majority voting—both in the treaty as it was originally and as extended in the Single European Act—makes a difference. We are very rarely out-voted. Since the Single European Act was passed, we have been out-voted on three occasions. Two were on the same dossier because, far from our being dragged into something excessively European against our will, we were concerned that it was not proceeding towards fast enough integration. We were having difficulty overcoming protectionist restriction elsewhere.
Scrutiny of Community legislation has played an important part in the work of the House of Commons since we joined the Community. As the report of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emergy) makes clear, there has not been a significant review of the procedures for the past 12 years. I am sure that the changes that the Procedure Committee has made—and the changes that the Government are canvassing—will make those procedures even more effective.
I regard myself as something of a veteran of the late night debates. In my role at the Foreign Office, I undertake few of them, but when I was a Minister at the Department
584
of Trade and Industry conducting the 1992 negotiations, it seemed as if all 50 of the scrutiny debates were conducted by me personally. There were times when I was participating in one every week and many were late at night. That was not always terribly convenient. Nevertheless, they were good debates and those who took an interest played a full part.
I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) drew attention to the fact that the debates increasingly take place early in the process. It has been the Government's deliberate intention to ensure that the House has an opportunity to influence and to shape the decision-making process early when it is still capable of being shaped.
I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) that it is rare for those debates to take place in retrospect. I can think of few occasions when that has happened recently. If it does happen, it is regrettable, but it is sometimes inescapable if events move very fast, and the Government are keen to ensure that the debates take place in good time.
I hope that that keenness and the fact that Ministers take those debates seriously will show my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) that the Government take this process seriously. I know of no Minister who is involved with day-to-day Community business—there are many of us now—who takes lightly the process of scrutiny and of submitting himself or herself to answer to the House of Commons for the Government's position.
Mr. Cash: Does my hon. Friend recall that with respect to both the Madrid summit and the Ashford castle meeting on economic and monetary union, with the paper presented by Mr. Christophersen, there did not appear to be an opportunity for the House to consider the implications, although the papers were available through the European Community?
Mr. Maude: That point is familiar to me, and the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) also made it. I do not think that any of us are under an illusion. As we move towards the intergovernmental conferences which begin at the end of this year, the House must have a proper opportunity to debate the position. We have already had the chance to debate economic and monetary union. It was an extremely good debate on important matters that the House of Commons should debate. Whether they fall strictly within the process of scrutiny, as the hon. Member for Newham, South and my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) would wish, is a matter of secondary importance.
The process of scrutiny is effective. If I may put it personally, it certainly feels effective when one is the Minister expounding a measure to Parliament. The House contains a fund of expertise and specialist knowledge to which Ministers are exposed in scrutiny debates and cannot fail to be influenced. In many of the debates, my opening speech frequently resembled the process of giving evidence because there were frequent interventions from hon. Members asking detailed factual questions or questions of principle. It is right that Ministers should be subjected to that cross-examination and required to answer to the House of Commons on the effects of any

585
proposal and on the Government's position. The proposed improvements will make that system an even stronger discipline.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) was right to say that a good strong scrutiny process strengthens the hands of negotiators by providing a clear expression of parliamentary views. That advantage is shared by few other Ministers around the negotiating table. That is not a claim that we are the only perfect representative system in Europe, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) might suggest, but our system of scrutiny is better developed than most others within the Community. That is a fact that is recognised by others as well as being trumpeted by us.
A particular example of the strengthening of the Government's position as a result of debate was the debate on economic and monetary union to which I have referred. Last November, it became clear that a single currency in the manner of Delors stage 3 simply was not acceptable to the House of Commons. That is not to say that it will never be acceptable to a later House of Commons, but it is not acceptable to this House of Commons. That means that the Government's position in those negotiations is perfectly clear.
The pattern of scrutiny in other member states is changing. In some countries there is detailed debate. In Denmark, for example, where scrutiny has been less highly developed hitherto, there is a growing interest in developing that process. In France, the scrutiny committee meets weekly, the German committee was in London this week, to discuss our arrangements, the Dutch committee meets fortnightly and I know that new scrutiny committees have been established recently in Spain and in Greece. Many other member states now have scrutiny procedures, many of which are being reviewed.
All that work was given a renewed boost by the conclusions of the Dublin Council this week, on which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister reported earlier. The documents on institutional reform prepared by the Foreign Ministers clearly stated that one of the mechanisms for improving democratic legitimacy in the Community is the greater involvement of national parliaments. Two years ago there was almost no discussion at Community level of the role of national Parliaments within the Community. We have always argued for that,
586
and Mr. Delors, the President of the Commission, helped to stimulate a wider discussion in his speech at the European Parliament last year.
It is worth examining briefly what we already do. Making Ministers answerable to the House of Commons for what they do in the European Community goes much wider than the simple process of scrutiny. The process of parliamentary questions to Ministers and to the Prime Minister involves a great degree of accountability. It is not right to condemn European Community questions to a ghetto of their own, because Ministers should answer to the House for what they do in the Community, as they do for domestic responsibilities.
I give evidence to the Scrutiny Committee every six months, at the beginning of the presidency, on the plans for the presidency and submit myself to its expert interrogation. Before going to the European Council, the Foreign Secretary gives evidence to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. The Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee has made a study of economic and monetary union, and there is a wide range of other aspects of accountability.
I know that there is much anxiety about automatic referral, and my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) suggested that the proposal might be left for a little while. We shall consider the matter carefully.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Statutory Instruments, &c.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT
That the draft Employment Subsidies Act 1978 (Renewal) (Great Britain) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 15th May, be approved.

AGRICULTURE
That the Home-Grown Cereals Authority Oilseeds Levy Scheme (Approval) Order 1990, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th May, be approved.
That the Home-Grown Cereals Authority Levy (Variation) Scheme (Approval) Order 1990, dated 15th May 1990, a copy of which was laid before this House on 24th May, be approved—[Mr. Greg Knight.]
Question agreed to.

Romania
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]
10.1 pm
Mr. George Galloway: In opening this debate on the Government's policy on Romania, I should make a couple of declarations. First, although I have no pecuniary interest in Romania, I am writing a book on the history of the Romanian revolution. I am advised that I should declare that as a potential interest; I certainly hope that it will become one.
Secondly, I should give a political health warning. Although I have travelled regularly to Romania since the revolution, I never travelled there before it and would not have done so, such was my abhorrence of the evil and criminal Ceausescu regime, which was overthrown by the Romanian people's revolution on 22 December.
That political health warning is important, because I want to show that the Government's policy on Romania is seriously flawed, that the Government completely misjudged the dramatic events that unfolded in the capital, Bucharest, earlier this month, and that as a result they seriously over-reacted in a way that was inimical not only to our interests but to those of the Romanian people and the broader cause of bringing the former regimes of the Soviet bloc into the mainstream of European life.
In making that case, I wish to draw on several statements made by the Minister in the days and hours after those dramatic events. Making due allowance for the fact that events moved fast, I must say, although I greatly admire the Minister and often agree with him on foreign affairs matters, that some serious errors were made.
The Minister—I have gone through the transcripts of his interviews with several television and radio reporters—took a consistent line: that the Romanian Government had been responsible for the brutal crushing of a peaceful demonstration, mainly by students, against the Government of Romania and its policies. The Minister told Brian Hanrahan:
"We have seen no reports of a systematic attempt at a coup … What we are worried about is the way in which at the first challenge from opposition groups, which I have no doubt was an inconvenient challenge, they seem to have reacted in a way all too reminiscent of the old days."
In interview after interview, that line was maintained. The statements made at the time equated in many respects the new elected authorities in Romania with the old discredited authorities. The comparison was deeply offensive to the democrats and revolutionaries in Romania who had overthrown the dictatorship. They had risked their lives at a time when it was not clear how the dice would fall. Those men put their lives on the line and it was offensive to them to be compared in that way.
I have the advantage over the Minister because I was on the streets of Bucharest during those dramatic events. I can assure the Minister from what I saw with my own eyes that if it was not an attempted coup that was unfolding in Bucharest, I do not know what an attempted coup is. I followed the crowd and mob through the streets of Bucharest. Sometimes I was only a few yards behind them, although in most cases I was 100 yards or so away from the events.
I watched the crowd of what the Minister described as student demonstrators invade the Interior Ministry, which is the Romanian equivalent of the Home Office. They
588
stormed that building and set it ablaze. I followed them as they moved on to the central police station which is their equivalent of Scotland Yard. They smashed a police truck through the station's locked doors. I saw them invade the central police station and set it ablaze. They freed prisoners and they looted artefacts in the police station. They even broke into an armoury and had begun to liberate weapons before the police opened fire. If that was not the beginnings of an attempted coup, I do not know what it was.
I followed the crowd to the ugliest incident—the siege of the television station, that extremely emotive totem of the December revolution. The crowd invaded the television station and they beat hell out of everyone they could get their hands on. Even the weather man was savagely beaten by the crowd. Journalists and broadcasters were beaten and film was destroyed. The transmission of the entire country's television went off for an hour. The central television station was occupied by hundreds of demonstrators, but the Minister described all that as if it was a common or garden demonstration of the kind that we might see on our streets. However, we did have a particularly bad demonstration some weeks ago, and I was there as well. The whole country was rightly angered and shaken to the core by the scenes of violence, but they bore no resemblance to the serious situation in Bucharest in those late Tuesday and early Wednesday hours.
I was able to test the character of the crowd of what the Minister persisted in describing as students. On the Sunday after the events I have outlined, the Observer described the crowd as liberals. I make no apology for repeating what I have said in the House before: the political character of a significant number of the people in that demonstration was ultra-right, racist and anti-semitic.
Two of the slogans that I heard from innumerable people in that demonstration were "Out with the Spanish yid Roman"—Prime Minister Petro Roman, whose mother is a Jew—and "Iliescu was a whoremaster presiding over a brothel of reds and yids." For the nationalists and anti-semites in the crowd, the terms "communist" and "Jewish" were entirely synonymous. The Minister is aware that that is a problem across central and eastern Europe. It would be a fundamental mistake for the British Government to imagine that that was a crowd of student liberals out on an everyday demonstration. It certainly was not that.
While I am at it, I wish to correct a particularly offensive error that the Minister made in every one of the transcripts. In every interview he accused President Iliescu of Romania of describing the demonstrators as gipsies. There is no record of the president using such a description. The word for gipsy is "tigani". In any record that I have seen—I have searched for it—the president never used that word. He used the word "golani" which in Romanian means tramps or low-life characters, which some, if by no means all, of the demonstrators were. The Minister's accusation was entirely wrong. His mistake was politically important. It is the ultra-right in Romania which hates the gipsies, the Jews and other minorities in the country. It is important that that reality is understood.
If the House does not believe me, I quote to it an authority to whom I do not usually turn. Conor Cruise O'Brien is a well-known Conservative commentator and he wrote an article in, of all places, The Times on 22 June this year. It said:

589
"Mobs of both persuasions menace Romanian liberty. Conor Cruise O'Brien argues that student protestors threaten democracy as much as miners with clubs … This was no protest, but a student-led attempt at a putsch against the recently elected government of Romania. … The great difference between the two sets of mob violence is that the first was directed against the elected government, while the second was initiated by the elected government in its own defence."
That is another fundamental reality which the Minister has not recognised and should recognise this evening. Not to do so would be to draw the wrong conclusions.
The Government's conclusions have been mean and spiteful. They amount to a demand for economic sanctions against the Romanian Government. In his speech to the Press Gallery on 20 June, the Foreign Secretary said that with his advocacy, but not his alone, the Romanian Government would not be invited to the discussions of the Group of 24 with the emerging European democracies and the European Community. He said that conditionality must apply. On the basis of that conditionality, the Romanian Government would not receive the aid package that other east European Governments would receive.
Such a stance sits uneasily with the Government's attitude to other countries. They do business as usual with Baghdad and Peking. Baghdad has committed crimes against our own country and Peking has committed crimes on a gigantic scale, mowing down thousands of people with machine guns. We can do business as usual with them, but we take a mean and spiteful attitude to the Romanian Government for the events that I have described in the time available to me and which Conor Cruise O'Brien described in The Times at greater length, very well. The Government should have the courage to say that, in retrospect, knowing facts that they did not know previously, they are prepared to think again.
To his credit, the Minister made it clear in all the transcripts that the National Salvation Front Government have the support of the great majority of the Romanian people. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) and the deputy leader of the Labour party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) were observers at the elections. The National Salvation Front Government seek to build a mixed economy and are heading towards a market economy. They are determined to develop parliamentary democracy in their country. If we turn our back on them and slam the door in their face, we shall send the message to them that the European Community and countries such as Britain are not interested in helping them through these difficult times.
The Romanian people need our help to defend and develop their democracy. They feel that Britain is a cradle of democracy which has a lot to teach them. However, we can only teach people with whom we are engaged in dialogue. We could help to provide a genuine police force. In the events that I have described, the police ran away: they hightailed it out of town, so frightened were they of the mob. We could help them train a police force which could face up to civil disorder, and so avoid the ugly scenes involving the miners and other workers on the streets of Bucharest.
We should also encourage trade. Romania is not some impoverished banana republic in central Africa or Latin America, but a European country with no foreign debts, tremendous natural resources and a big market for us—24 million people. It would be foolhardy of Britain to turn its
590
back on such a country. The French will not do so; French diplomacy is active in Romania. Nor will other European countries take the view that Britain is taking.
I have spoken to the Minister previously about the question of child AIDS in Romania. There has been a tremendous response to that from the British public through articles in The Guardian, an article by Anna Smith in the Daily Record and another by Bob Wylie in The Observer. Those powerful articles have brought the human tragedy—the legacy of the Ceausescu period—to the attention of the British people. They have achieved a phenomenal response from British donors, who have sent hundreds of thousands of pounds. Many other groups, such as orphans and people living in penury on low wages, have had almost nothing to buy for the past 10 to 20 years.
Let us not turn our backs on those people.The British people would not understand if, at the same time as they were giving with their cheque books to help Romania, the British Government were slamming the door in the face of the Romanian Government. I beg the Minister and the Government to think again.
10.16 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. William Waldegrave): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) for giving the House the chance to have this timely short debate on Romania, and also for his fiery and heartfelt speech. He will not be surprised if I do not agree with everything that he has said, but we both agree that we care for the future of Romania.
All hon. Members and members of the British public who watched the events of the revolution through those moving television broadcasts wish Romania success. My argument with the hon. Gentleman is not about the horrors out of which Romania has fought its way. I pay tribute to him: unlike a number of others—whom I will leave him to name—he did not accept the hospitality of the previous dictator. His hands are clean in that regard. He has also made a considerable contribution on the humanitarian side, along with other hon. Members from both sides of the House.
How do we judge the recent events? It is clear that, after 40 years of a particularly ruthless communist dictatorship—including 25 years under President Ceausescu, and his predecessor was no picnic—it was too much to hope that the transition to freedom would pass without any difficulty or hitches. The Ceausescu era fostered intolerance and, above all, distrust and mutual suspicion. The strongest feeling that I encountered when I visited Romania was the lack of trust between people that had been engendered by those years. Everything had to be learned from scratch. In other countries of eastern and central Europe, the often sullen, slow-moving and incompetent communist bureaucracies could at least be turned to democratic use. However, in Romania even the bureaucracies were corrupted by Ceausescu and the organisations—down to the football teams—were often corrupted, and involved in the Securitate.
After the revolution, from January onwards, the National Salvation Front came under criticism from its political opponents in the reformed and newly reconstituted political parties, and on the streets, for its ties with the personnel and the behaviour of the old regime. Nevertheless, the fact that such opinons could be freely

591
expressed was a measure of the change that had occurred. When I was in Romania in January, I found chaos and disorganisation, but also optimism and hope for the future.
In the campaign leading up to elections on 20 May, there was certainly no shortage of well-founded allegations that Mr. Iliescu and his colleagues in the NSF were not playing the democratic game as it should have been played. The opposition parties faced the intimidation of their candidates and supporters and persistent difficulties in setting up publications and making their voices heard. The NSF took maximum advantage of its control of radio and television.
To leave the Romanian Government in no doubt about our concern at what was going on we summoned the Romanian chargé on 11 May and pointed out that the way in which the elections were held would have a great impact on British and western attitudes to Romania in the future.
In the event, few independent observers doubt that the campaign, as it was run, helped to increase the already substantial support enjoyed by the NSF. Despite the limitations of the campaign, however, the elections were, if hardly a paragon, at least an important step towards democracy. Throughout the long day at polling stations nationwide Romanians of different political persuasions co-operated, in the main peacefully and enthusiastically, to elect a President and two chambers of a Parliament.
That there were many departures from ideal democratic practice—instances of malpractice and fraud—is not in doubt. Most independent observers, however, including hon. Members from both sides of the House, came to the conclusion, which I share, that even if the campaign and the poll had been scrupulously fair, Mr. Iliescu and the NSF still would have won a considerable majority. They concluded that the election should, by and large and in the circumstances, be taken as valid.
By early June, we were therefore hopeful that Romania was starting on the difficult road to democracy, although we had no illusions about the magnitude of the task facing her. The events of 13 and 15 June put paid, for the time being, to our cautious optimism.
To some extent the hon. Member for Hillhead has conflated two separate events. It is true that in the early hours of 13 June the Romanian security forces cleared, by force, the demonstrators, at that time largely peaceful, from University square. He is right that the second event involved a group of largely young thugs—possibly egged on by others with grudges against the Government. We shall probably never know the full story. They attacked the police and others with sticks, stones and petrol bombs.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there were scenes of disgraceful violence. The hon. Gentleman saw demonstrators storm the police headquarters and the television station. I do not for one moment condone that violence directed at everybody. I think that there is still little evidence to show that it marshalled forces that could possibly be described as those representing an incipient coup. It is perfectly fair, however, for the hon. Gentleman to say that in a democracy—everyone in Romania should now be seeking to build democracy—those opposing the elected Government should do so peaceably. There can be no excuse for the mayhem of 13 June in Bucharest.
592
What we must judge—we deal with Governments—is the response of the Romanian authorities. Here I part from the hon. Gentleman. The violence organised by the Romanian authorities was of a different order altogether. It is the duty of an elected Government not just to win an election, but to wield power within the law. That is why we were so profoundly shocked by President Iliescu's decision to call on the miners to act as vigilantes. The systematic and ruthless attempt by those miners to incapacitate the main opposition parties was profoundly shocking not just to Britain, but to other western countries.
The hon. Gentleman gave his own eye-witness account. There are many others, for example, the report carried by the Daily Express of Monday 18 June about Mrs. Rodica Glaser, who was also in Bucharest and whom my officials have questioned. She saw the systematic beating and killing of people and the raping of women by those so-called miners.
There is no doubt that the brutal savagery of 14 and 15 June was directed by people in positions of authority. How else would those miners have been able to find straight away the offices and homes of the Liberal party and Peasants' party leaders? Why else would there be so many reports of well-dressed figures directing the violence, while the police—not in every case running away, according to accounts that I have had—stood idly by?
When groups of vigilantes called in by the highest figure in the land roam the streets dispensing summary justice to those whose opinions, or even appearance, they do not care for, and when the elected leader does not condemn such activities but instead thanks their perpetrators, prospects for democracy are dark indeed.
Those so-called miners went on a rampage through the gipsy quarter, handing out violence of a high degree. That is why the British Government have roundly condemned President Iliescu's action. We did so by way of an immediate diplomatic protest in London, and in Bucharest on 15 June. On 18 June the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and his European Community colleagues issued a vigorously worded statement—all of them, not just us—deploring the behaviour of President Iliescu's Government. They decided unanimously to put off a decision on signature of the European Community—Romania trade and cooperation agreement.
As a further sign of disapproval—again unanimously—Romania is not being invited to the ministerial meeting of the Group of 24 on 4 July to discuss aid to eastern Europe. Humanitarian aid must continue, but there can be no question at present of the aid that is conditional on the development of policies which we support being released as if those conditions had been met.
It is important that certain matters should be raised here and now because they may help. On 21 June the British ambassador in Bucharest invoked the CSCE human rights mechanism to raise with the Romanian authorities the fate of the three arrested student leaders—Munteanu, Dinca and Nica—and some hon. Members may remember meeting Mr. Nica when he was here in March for the political seminar organised by the IPU and the GB-East Europe Centre.
Even though, in all those cases, the Romanian Government have accepted that they hold the students in question, they had not as of this afternoon given access to Leon Nica, whose family has still not been allowed access to him or to contact him, and he has been moved from

593
place to place apparently without any information being given to his family, let alone to lawyers or to any other legal authorities.
Investigations are continuing. We shall watch carefully the way in which they are carried out and the way those under arrest are treated. Hon. Members will have seen that Mr. Munteanu was interviewed on Romanian television a couple of days ago and rejected the charges against him. We hope that that portends a more open-minded approach to those under arrest.
Mr. Galloway: How is it that it can be business as usual with Peking after the gunning down there of thousands of students, yet we are freezing out the Romanians in response to the events that we are discussing tonight?
Mr. Waldegrave: I had intended to deal with that point. We are doing business as usual with Romania. There is no question of economic sanctions against that country or of our trying to stop trade with Romania. Indeed, we—the British Council and others—are trying to step up contacts with Romania.
But we are saying that funds that we—bilaterally in this country or collectively in the Group of 24 and the European Community—have established to respond to the steps taken by eastern and central European countries which are building free institutions based on the rule of law must be conditional on progress being made.
It would be wrong and insulting to the reformers in Romania and elsewhere if we pretended that the progress in Romania was equivalent to that in Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland. It would be wrong and untruthful. That is why all the countries concerned in the establishment of those conditions, including France, have agreed that those conditional funds should not be released.
But that is not to say that we are boycotting Romania or are not trading with that country. We trade with many regimes worse than President Iliescu's. We must, for we have to live in the world and we still have much higher hopes that Romania, after this setback, will return to the road of optimism and progress.
594
We recognise the difficulties that Romania faced and still faces, but we must also recognise, and give the clearest signals, that the way in which the undoubtedly difficult situation was handled by the Government—the ruthless violence meted out by the vigilantes—cannot receive in Britain the same sort of support as the methods and peaceful developments that have taken place in Czechoslovakia and in other countries. We shall not forget Romania. Our wish to see her consolidate her revolution and develop into a truly free society is as strong as ever.
The hon. Gentleman will recall the criteria that the Group of 24 set out for assistance to eastern Europe. They included a multi-party system, and free and fair elections—those two are well on the way. The rule of law was shatteringly put at risk by the way the demonstrations, first peaceful and then violent, were handled. We are keeping a close watch on those who were arrested. I have not heard accounts of miners being arrested; all those arrested seem to come from the demonstrators' side—many of them, like Mr. Nica, students with long histories of peaceful activism against the previous regime. If we had seen the pursuit of some of those who raped women on the streets and beat up girls because they were wearing western clothes, we might have considered that encouraging.
The other criteria were respect for human rights, freedom of the media and economic liberalisation. It is clear to all of us in Europe, not just Britain, that for the moment, Romania falls short in many of those aspects. We recognise that not everything can be done overnight. We do not expect miracles, but we were greatly encouraged initially when Romania accepted all her CSCE commitments. It was a measure of our disappointment that we were so distressed when those fair words were followed, first, by fraud in the election—limited, but still serious—and now, by violence against the political opposition.
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twenty-nine minutes to Eleven o'clock.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Income Tax
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the revenue from(a) the higher rate of income tax and (b) the top 10 per cent. of income tax payers in 1986–87 and the latest year for which figures are available; and what is the projection for the current financial year.

  Mr. Lilley
  The information is as follows:

  Income tax liability at rates in excess of basic rate1 £ billion

  Total income tax liability of top 10 per cent. of income tax-payers £ billion

  1986–87

  2·8

  316·9

  1987–88

  3·7

  318·4

  1990–912

  4·4

  424·9

  1 The figures are the additional tax liability resulting from the difference between each higher rate and the basic rate of tax.

  2Estimates are based on a projection of the 1987–88 Survey of Personal Incomes and, are therefore, provisional.

  3 Counting a husband and wife as one income tax payer.

  4 Counting a husband and wife as separate income tax payers.

  Borrowing Requirement
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what means the Government intend to use to finance its borrowing requirement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The Government's funding policy is as set out in annex A to chapter 2 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1990–91".

  Capital Inflows
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of short-term capital inflows in 1988 and 1989.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The available information for 1988 and 1989 on the main categories of financial transaction in the capital account of the balance of payments is published by the Central Statistical Office in the press notice issued on 13 June—CSO (90) 80—a copy of which is in the Library. It is not particularly meaningful to distinguish between short-term and other capital flows.

  European Monetary Proposals
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has assessed the expert and lay public reaction to his European monetary proposals announced on 21 June.

  Mr. Major
  I am studying reactions to my proposals and look forward to discussing these proposals further with my European Community colleagues in the coming weeks.

  Petrol Duties
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue was raised in excise duty on(a) unleaded and (b) leaded petrol (i) in the three months prior to 20 March and (ii) subsequently.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue was raised in excise duty on(a) unleaded and (b) leaded petrol (i) in the three months prior to 20 March 1990 and (ii) subsequently.

  Mr. Ryder
  Data are not readily available for the exact periods prior to and after 20 March. For the period 15 December to 14 March, £417 million duty was collected on unleaded petrol and £1,128 million on leaded petrol. Provisional figures for the period 15 March to 14 May show that £347 million duty was collected on unleaded petrol and £847 million on leaded petrol.

  European Currency
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his proposals for a common European currency.

  Mr. Lilley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) on 21 June,Official Report, column 655.

  Output Statistics
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest information on the output per hour worked in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Japan.

  Mr. Ryder
  Output per hour worked in the United Kingdom in 1986, the latest year for which data are available, is estimated to have been about 50 per cent. higher than in Japan.

  Personal Income
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the increase in real personal disposable income during the last 12 months for which figures are available.

  Mr. Lilley
  During the first quarter of 1990 aggregate real personal disposable income was 5 per cent. higher than in the corresponding period in 1989.

  Inflation
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was(a) the level of the retail prices index and (b) the underlying rate of inflation in June 1989 and at the current time.

  Mr. Ryder
  The annual rate of increase of the retail prices index was 9·7 per cent. in May 1990. The underlying rate of inflation, as measured by the retail prices index excluding mortgage interest payments and rates-community charge, was 7 per cent. The corresponding inflation rates in June 1989 were 8·3 per cent. and 5·8 per cent. respectively.

  Interest rates
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the effects of interest rates on Welsh economic performance.
  291
  Mr. Ryder
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of such representations.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many letters he has received in 1990 from businesses about the level of interest rates.

  Mr. Ryder
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of such letters.

  Home Carers
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the range of possibilities for tax relief for those who employ carers in the home; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  All aspects of the tax system are kept under review.

  Shareholders
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the latest estimate of the number of individuals owning shares.

  Mr. Lilley
  According to the latest survey carried out in January and February this year for the Treasury and the stock exchange, nearly 11 million individuals own shares.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will review the introduction by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise of the serious misdeclaration penalty and default interest on value added tax.

  Mr. Ryder
  The working of the penalty for serious misdeclarations and the charging of interest on all underdeclarations will be closely monitored by Customs during the two years following their introduction on 1 April 1990 and reviewed in the first half of 1992.

  Energy Conservation
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any proposals to use tax incentives to stimulate energy conservation work.

  Mr. Lilley
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has no present plans to do so.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much was invested in improving the energy efficiency of the Treasury in the latest available year.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: Until now the Treasury's energy conservation role has been limited to running internal publicity campaigns on energy efficiency and day-to-day energy management. Costs have been de minimis. However, the hon. Member will be interested to know that as refurbishment of the Department's buildings takes place, such works will incorporate substantial energy conservation measures.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Agencies
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what further candidates for agency status have been announced in the last two months.

  Mr. Luce
  Three further candidates for executive agency status have been announced in the last two months: Chessington computer centre in the Treasury; the fisheries enforcement services in the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland; and the estates directorate in the Department of Health. This brings the total number of announced agency candidates to 26, in addition to the 31 established agencies.

THE ARTS

  Training Institutes
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what support his Department is giving to institutions training actors, actresses and other artistes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  Some training for the stage is provided in higher education institutions funded by the Department of Education and Science through the Universities Funding Council and the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council, and by further education colleges funded by local education authorities. In addition to this general support, the DES makes a direct grant to the Royal Ballet School and the Arts Council funds the National Opera Studio, which provides advanced training for singers. Most professional training for actors and dancers is however provided by independent establishments whose students may receive discretionary awards from their local education authorities.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how much was invested in improving the energy efficiency of his Department in the latest available year.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: Under the guidance of the Cabinet Office, staff are encouraged to follow simple but effective no-cost measures to help reduce energy wastage. Major investments to improve energy efficiency are the responsibility of Property Holdings and the departments which are the major occupiers of the two buildings in which my office is located.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  China
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements were made or conditions agreed with the Governments of the United States of America and the People's Republic of China which enabled Dr. Fang Li Zhi and his wife to leave the United States embassy in Beijing and enter the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  Following agreement between the United States and Chinese Governments that Dr. Fang should be
  293
  allowed to leave Peking, Dr. Fang and his wife have been given leave to enter the United Kingdom for an initial period of six months, which can be extended. No special conditions apply to this arrangement. Dr. Fang is a distinguished astrophysicist and intends to pursue his academic work for a time here. We warmly welcome the Chinese Government's decision to allow Dr. Fang and his wife to leave, and are glad that we have been able to contribute to a positive solution to this long-standing problem.

  Ivory (Hong Kong)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to ask the Hong Kong authorities to destroy all current stocks of confiscated ivory; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 14 June 1990]: No. This is a matter for the Hong Kong authorities. There is no obligation under CITES regulations to destroy stocks of confiscated ivory.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current total of confiscated ivory now held by the Hong Kong authorities.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 14 June 1990]: I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 21 June in which I stated that the current total of confiscated ivory held by the Hong Kong authorities was 2·4 tonnes. There has been no change since then.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why India and Canada are included as countries of export of seized ivory in his reply of 5 June,Official Report, column 472, but are not listed in his reply of 8 May, Official Report, column 25, as being countries of export of ivory seized by the Hong Kong authorities.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 14 June 1990]: We are making further inquiries with the Hong Kong authorities. I shall give the hon. Member a substantive answer as soon as possible.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his reply of 5 June,Official Report, column 472, what are the countries of destination for the 702·5 kg of ivory seized in transit by the Hong Kong authorities.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 14 June 1990]: According to the accompanying shipping documents, the intended destination was Macau.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what grounds the Hong Kong authorities seized 15·5 kg of mammoth ivory imported by Lee Chor Mui from Japan, as detailed in his reply of 8 May,Official Report, column 25.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 14 June 1990]: The mammoth ivory imported by Lee Chor Mui was seized for further investigation because customs officers initially suspected that it might be elephant ivory. Once the ivory had been examined and confirmed to be mammoth ivory, which is not controlled under CITES, it was returned to Lee Chor Mui.
  294
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why no reference was made in his reply of 5 June,Official Report, column 472, to the 15·5 kg of mammoth ivory seized from Lee Chor Mui.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 14 June 1990]: No reference was made in my reply of 5 June to the mammoth ivory seized from Lee Chor Mui because imports of mammoth ivory cannot be identified from Hong Kong Government's trade statistics.

  Moreover, as the ivory in question was not elephant ivory, it did not appear in the import statistics compiled by the CITES management authority.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  School Trips (Seat Belts)
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to make the fitting and wearing of seat belts compulsory in minibuses and coaches used for school trips; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The responsibility for this matter rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, who is pursuing possible action.

  Musical Education
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will take steps to protect the level of opportunities for musical education in the light of the current proposals to merge the Royal Academy of Music and the Royal College of Music.

  Mr. Jackson
  The committee which conducted the review of the London music conservatoires was appointed by the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council. The latter has now published the committee's report and invited comment on it by the end of September. It will then be for the council to decide what action to take in the light of the report and of the responses to the consultation on it. My right hon. Friend looks forward to hearing what conclusions the council comes to in due course.

  It is clear from its terms of reference that in appointing this committee the council had in mind the need
  "to maximise the efficiency and effectiveness of the provision of music education"
  in its sector and is seeking to discover how the three London music conservatoires within its aegis
  "may be organised so as to train young performing musicians to the highest national and international standard".
  Copies of the committee's report have been placed in the Library of both Houses.

  School Buses
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what advice he has given to education authorities concerning child safety on school buses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend works closely with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport on these matters. Two documents have been issued recently. First, "Children and Roads: a Safer Way", which was sent last month to all local education authorities and heads of all schools, sets out the
  295
  Government's proposals for reducing the number of child casualties on our roads, and includes a section on safer bus travel. Secondly, there is the Department of Transport's consultative document of 6 June, incorporating proposed regulations for distinctive signs on school buses and related safety measures, which has been issued to a large number of interested organisations for comment by 31 August.

  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has as to how many children travel to school each day by school bus in each education authority area.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The information is not collected centrally in England.

  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what advice he has given to education authorities concerning the criteria to be applied in determining whether a child qualifies to travel to and from school by school bus.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Local education authorities in England must decide the arrangements they consider necessary to transport pupils to and from school in the light of local circumstances and of the relevant legislation. In 1981, the Department sent a circular letter to education authorities in England giving general guidance on school transport issues. The advice it contains remains current. A copy is in the Library of the House.

  Physical Education
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to announce the membership of the national curriculum working party on physical education; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend hopes to make an announcement in the near future.

  Further Education Colleges
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list those local education authorities which are now operating a system of local financial management for further educaton colleges.

  Mr. Jackson
  The following local education authorities in England are operating a system of local finanical management for further education colleges.

  Avon

  Barking

  Barnsley

  Bedfordshire

  Berkshire

  Birmingham

  Bradford

  Brent

  Bromley

  Buckinghamshire

  Bury

  Calderdale

  Cambridgeshire

  Cheshire

  Cleveland

  Cornwall

  Coventry

  Croydon

  Cumbria

  Derbyshire

  296

  Devon

  Doncaster

  Dorset

  Dudley

  Durham

  East Sussex

  Enfield

  Essex

  Gateshead

  Gloucestershire

  Hampshire

  Haringey

  Harrow

  Havering

  Hereford and Worcester

  Hertfordshire

  Hounslow

  Humberside

  Isle of Wight

  Kent

  Kingston upon Thames

  Kirklees

  Knowsley

  Lancashire

  Leeds

  Leicestershire

  Lincolnshire

  Liverpool

  Manchester

  Newcastle

  Newham

  Norfolk

  Northamptonshire

  North Tyneside

  Northumberland

  North Yorkshire

  Nottinghamshire

  Oldham

  Oxfordshire

  Redbridge

  Richmond upon Thames

  Rochdale

  Rotherham

  Salford

  Sandwell

  Sefton

  Sheffield

  Shropshire

  Solihull

  Somerset

  South Tyneside

  Staffordshire

  Stockport

  Suffolk

  Surrey

  Tameside

  Trafford

  Wakefield

  Walsall

  Waltham Forest

  Warwickshire

  West Sussex

  Wigan

  Wiltshire

  Wirral

  Wolverhampton

WALES

  Rural Disadvantage
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what amounts of social policy expenditure have been allocated by his Department, and its agencies, to combat rural disadvantage.

  Mr. Grist
  Expenditure is not classified in the way implied by the hon. Gentleman's question. However, by
  297
  way of example, well over £3 million is being spent by the Welsh Development Agency each year to fund its various rural development measures including the allocation of £1 million a year for the next five years for the development of rural initiatives and venture enterprises—DRIVE. This is expected to generate a further £15 million to £20 million of private sector investment. Tai Cymru aims to allocate £25 million towards the provision of housing in rural areas in Wales in this financial year, which should generate around £7·5 million of private finance. In addition the gross budget for the Development Board for Rural Wales is £19·918 million for 1990–91. The formulae used for the allocation of resources to local authorities and to district health authorities both contain certain elements which recognise the particular needs of rural areas.

  Departmental Research (Expenditure)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total identifiable expenditure on research by his Department in each year since 1979; what proportion was awarded on a customer-contractor basis; and what proportion of his total departmental budget was expended on research for each year.

  Mr. David Hunt
  All of the expenditure will have been based on the customer-contractor principle, and the information is shown in the table:

  Total departmental expenditure on R&D £ million

  Proportion of departmental budget per cent.

  1979–80

  1·1

  0·15

  1980–81

  1·1

  0·13

  1981–82

  1·6

  0·17

  1982–83

  1·6

  0·14

  1983–84

  1·3

  0·11

  1984–85

  1·6

  0·13

  1985–86

  2·6

  0·20

  1986–87

  3·5

  0·24

  1987–88

  1·9

  0·12

  1988–89

  2·0

  0·12

  Hospital Laundering
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what capital expenditure has been incurred by health boards on the purchase of new laundering and dry cleaning equipment over the past two years.

  Mr. Grist
  Capital expenditure incurred by health authorities on the purchase of laundry and dry cleaning equipment over the last two years for which information is currently available is as follows:

  £

  1987–88

  136,243

  1988–89

  701,796

  Source: Health authorities annual accounts.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what capital expenditure has been incurred on the building of new national health service laundries and the renovation of existing laundry facilities over the last two years;

  (2) what proportion of the capital expenditure incurred on the purchase of a new laundry and dry cleaning machine and on the construction of new, and renovation of existing, laundry facilities over the past two years was for the creation of additional laundry capacity.
  298
  Mr. Grist
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Maternity Services
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many obstetric beds are available now in Wales, how many were available in each of the past five years; and what are the equivalent figures for each district health authority in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  Details of obstetric beds in district health authorities in Wales for 1988–89, the latest available, and previous years are published in "Hospital Bed Use Statistics", copies of which are in the Library.

  Mental Illness
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will make it his policy to allocate resources to support the role of voluntary organisations at a local and national level in Wales in the implementation of the all-Wales strategy for mental illness.

  Mr. Grist
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already allocated resources to voluntary organisations at both national and local level for a variety of purposes connected with the mental illness strategy.

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all working papers, implementation documents, departmental circulars and other publications, whether in draft or final form, that have been issued by his Department to date arising from the National Health Service and Community Care Bill, "Working for Patients", "Caring for People" and associated Government initiatives.

  Mr. Grist
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the comprehensive reply I gave him on 14 March 1990. An updated list of Welsh Office and Department of Health material arising from the National Health Service and Community Care Bill and related White Papers will shortly be placed in the Vote Office and Libraries.

  DHAs (Capital Assets)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give full details of the requirements he has placed on district health authorities in Wales in respect of drawing up a register of their capital assets.

  Mr. Grist
  District health authorities in Wales were asked to compile capital asset registers by 31 March 1990. The registers contain details of those assets managed or owned by each authority, including land and buildings, which individually have a value of £1,000 or above or in the case of groups of related assets with individual values of less than £1,000 exceed £250 and are collectively worth more than £1,000. The format of asset registers has not been prescribed but they should contain as a minimum:

  1. Asset identification and description.

  2. Asset location.

  3. Date of acquisition.

  4. Method of acquisition.

  5. Initial capital expenditure.

  6. Expected replacement cost.

  7. Expected date of replacement (or end of life).

  299
  Authorities may, however, wish to include additional information for their own asset management purposes. A comprehensive asset register will enable managers to undertake effective management and utilisation of capital assets as well as providing the basis for capital charging.

  No standard computerised recording system has been prescribed for maintaining and updating asset registers, but most authorities in Wales are using variants of the works information and management system—WIMS.

  Market Research
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all market research surveys(a) commissioned by his Department or (b) paid for by his Department in the current financial year.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  Project 2000
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) for what purpose the resources originally earmarked for Project 2000 for nurse training in Wales, but which will not now be used for that purpose, will be redirected;

  (2) what was the original total financial sum earmarked for the implementation of Project 2000 for nurse training in Wales; and what is the latest figure for this purpose.

  Mr. Grist
  The only provision which has been earmarked for the implementation costs of Project 2000 are the resources which have been made available for the current financial year which total £1,493,000. Funding requirements for future years will be subject to the decisions which my right hon. Friend will take on the distribution of his block allocation following this year's public expenditure review.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the original total number of nurses who would be trained each year in Wales under Project 2000; and what is the revised figure.

  Mr. Grist
  The estimated intake of nurses who would have trained in the first year of an all-Wales introduction of Project 2000 courses is as follows:

  Number

  North Wales

  240

  West Wales

  359

  South-East Wales

  590–630

  The decision to phase implementation will stagger these numbers. Traditional nurse training courses will continue to be run to meet the manpower requirements of health authorities until Project 2000 is fully introduced in Wales.

PRIME MINISTER

  Exchange Rates
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent representations she has received concerning exchange rate policy.

  The Prime Minister
  I have received a number of representations.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a further statement on her policy regarding intervention in respect of abuses of human rights in Commonwealth countries.

  The Prime Minister
  Where Commonwealth countries' practice on human rights has given cause for concern, we have made representations as necessary.

  Official Visits
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to make an official visit to Rugby or Kenilworth.

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

  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make an official visit to Leith.

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

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Prime Minister when she next proposes to make an official visit to Disneyland, United States of America.

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to visit California.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Prime Minister when she next expects to pay an official visit to a skill centre.

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

  German Unification
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent discussions she has held with Chancellor Kohl and other heads of European Community states regarding the representation of Germany, following unification, in the European Parliament; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The implications for the EC of German unification were discussed at the European Council on 25 and 26 June. It is our aim to achieve integration into the EC of the territory of the former GDR without change to the structure of the Community's institutions.

  Homelessness, London
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans she has to meet organisations representing the homeless in London.

  The Prime Minister
  I have no such plans. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and his ministerial colleagues have regular meetings with voluntary groups working with the homeless, and with local authorities in London and their associations.

  European Court of Justice
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister when she plans to visit the European Court of Justice.

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to visit the European Court of Justice.

  Local Authorities
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) how many official visits she has paid to local authorities since May 1979;
  301
  (2) how many meetings she has had with the leaders of the local authority associations since May 1979;

  (3) on how many occasions leaders of the local authority associations have been invited to official hospitality functions at No. 10 Downing street.

  The Prime Minister
  I have met numerous local authority representatives since May 1979, in the course of visiting their counties, towns and rural districts.

  Litter
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Prime Minister when she intends to implement her policy to introduce a £1,000 fine for dropping litter.

  The Prime Minister
  The maximum fine for dropping and leaving litter will be raised from its present maximum of £400 to £1,000 later this year, two months after Royal Assent of the Environmental Protection Bill. At the same time local authorities will be empowered to introduce schemes involving fixed penalties of £10.

  Legislation
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) whether there is any continuing review of existing legislation to determine whether the law in Scotland and in Northern Ireland should, as far as possible, be the same as in England and Wales(a) overall and (b) in relation to penalties for offences which are covered by different pieces of legislation in the different legal jurisdictions of the United Kingdom;

  (2) whether any automatic review of changes in legislation made in respect of England and Wales is made in order to consider whether the law in Scotland and in Northern Ireland should adopt the England and Wales position.

  The Prime Minister
  When preparing any individual piece of legislation in Scotland or Northern Ireland, related legislation is taken into account.

  Engagements
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 June.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 June.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 June.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 June.

  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 June.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 June.

  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, including one with the Governor of Hong Kong.

TRANSPORT

  Coaches and Lorries
  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what statistics are collected on tyre failures on coaches and heavy goods vehicles;

  (2) what information his Department has on trends in the number of tyre failures on coaches and heavy goods vehicles on motorways and major roads.

  Mr. Atkins
  The vehicle inspectorate has statistics on those tyre failures on coaches and goods vehicles which it obtains from its own accident investigations and from police and other sources where a safety defect is suspected.

  Since many tyre failures can occur without serious consequences or accident, these are not always brought to my Department's attention. Our statistics therefore are unable to reflect the actual field situation or failure trends. However, the statistics show that tyre failure was a contributory factor in less than one in every 250 accidents investigated.

  Departmental Research (Expenditure)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the total identifiable expenditure on research by his Department in each year since 1979; what proportion was awarded on a customer-contractor basis; and what proportion of his total departmental budget was expended on research for each year.

  Mr. Atkins
  The expenditure on research and development by the Department of Transport is set out in the table, together with the proportion this represents of the Department's total expenditure in the financial years 1979–80 to 1988–89. All research commissioned by the Department is based on the customer-contractor principle.

  Outturn prices

  Financial year

  R and D expenditure £ million

  Percentage of total DTp expenditure

  1979–80

  17·8

  3·0

  1980–81

  21·1

  3·0

  1981–82

  27·5

  3·0

  1982–83

  25·9

  2·4

  1983–84

  127·8

  2·8

  1984–85

  32·7

  2·7

  1985–86

  225·0

  2·1

  1986–87

  24·6

  1·9

  1987–88

  26·4

  1·9

  1988–89

  27·0

  1·9

  1 In July 1983, responsibility for air and marine transport was transferred to DTp.

  2 In 1985–86, BR and LRT assumed full responsibility for their own R and D expenditure. Government financial support continued to be provided through the general revenue grants to BR and LRT; but the research elements cannot be separately identified.

  Stockport Bypass
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what technical problems remain to be overcome in the planning and design of the A6(M) Stockport north-south bypass.

  Mr. Atkins
  The design of junctions at Offerton road (A627) and Buxton road (A6), and extensive diversions of statutory undertakers' apparatus along the line of the route are among issues to be resolved.

  British Rail (Freight)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from the Railfreight Users Group concerning the adequacy of preparations by British Rail for freight facilities.

  Mr. Freeman
  The recently formed Railfreight Users Group has been in touch with us and with British Rail. BR has offered the group an early meeting to discuss its concerns.

  Birkham Wood
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he made of the environmental implications before deciding to route a bypass through Birkham wood; and if he will now re-examine the designated route so as to minimise further the environmental damage.

  Mr. Atkins
  The road proposals affecting Birkham wood (Harrogate-Knaresborough southern bypass) have been promoted by North Yorkshire county council. Public local inquiries were held in 1989 to consider the proposals and the inspector has reported to the Secretary of State. At these inquiries evidence on the environmental implications of the route of the bypass through the wood was presented by the Nature Conservancy Council and others. This evidence was summarised in the inspector's report together with the county council's response.

  An interim decision letter was issued on behalf of the Secretary of State on 23 November 1989 which was concerned with a technical defect in the compulsory purchase order. Once this issue has been resolved the Secretary of State will come to a decision in respect of the orders.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much public money is expected to be spent on road improvements connected with the construction of the channel tunnel, up to the end of 1993.

  Mr. Atkins
  The trunk road infrastructure to serve cross-channel traffic using either the ports or the channel tunnel, when built, has been put in place progressively over a good many years.

  In addition to the network now in use, we have currently under construction or in preparation 31 schemes, valued at approximately £588 million at November 1987 prices, to complete or improve the major direct trunk routes concerned; of these, we expect that eight schemes to the value of approximately £268 million will have been provided by the end of 1993.

  Kent county council has a special package of 10 channel tunnel-related local road schemes, valued at approximately £75 million, which my Department is committed to supporting with transport supplementary grant. I understand that all but one of these schemes are expected to be provided by the end of 1993.

  MV Marine
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the action that he proposes to take following the publication of the report of the inquiry into the loss of the MV Marine by the Bahamian Government.
  304
  Mr. McLoughlin
  We have received the report and it is being studied by members of my Department, and it would be inappropriate to comment on the matter at this time.

  Railways (Noise)
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the names or grades of the members of his working party to study noise levels on railway routes with special reference to the channel tunnel high-speed link and other connecting routes.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my predecessor to my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) on 23 March 1990 at column 777, which gave both the terms of reference of the committee and its composition.

  Street Works Legislation
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he intends to bring forward a Bill to reform present public utilities street works legislation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government accept that the arrangements for utility street works are in need of reform and intend to bring forward new legislation to implement the main recommendations of the Horne report "Roads and the Utilities". A Bill based on proposals contained in the consultation papers issued by the Department of Transport last year will be introduced as soon as a suitable opportunity can be found.

  Radio Navigation System
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what information he has regarding the current attitude of the Danish authorities towards participation in a civil Loran C marine radio navigation system to cover north-west Europe and the north Atlantic and to the siting of a transmitter station in the Faroes;

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 25 April, Official Report, column 195, to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price), what estimate his Department has made of the cost to the fishing industry in the United Kingdom of the proposed change from the Decca navigation system to the Loran C system; and what proposals he is considering to assist the industry to meet the costs of the changeover;

  (3) with which countries his Department has discussed the proposal for an international civil Loran C system of marine radio navigation aid to cover north-west Europe and the north Atlantic; and what progress has been made in these discussions;

  (4) what representations he has received from the fishing industry regarding his proposals on the length of transitional period required to convert from the existing Decca navigation system to the Loran C radio navigation system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Discussions on the proposed north-west European Loran C system have been undertaken with Canada, Denmark, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Iceland, Ireland, the Netherlands and Norway. Discussions are still proceeding, both on technical issues and on the draft of an international agreement. The Danish authorities have not yet reached a final decision on their participation. A Loran C
  305
  transmitter already exists in the Faroes. The United Kingdom's continued participation is dependent on a satisfactory agreement being reached within an acceptable time scale.

  I have received no representations from the fishing industry about the transitional period since my right hon. Friend's announcement in April. This envisaged a period of over three years' joint operation of the Decca and Loran C systems before closure of the Decca service in 1997. The fishing industry had earlier urged the longest possible transition, ideally up to five years.

  I accept there would be additional costs to users where it proved necessary to replace Decca receivers prematurely. No conclusive forecast can be made of such costs, which depend on a variety of individual circumstances, including the age of receivers and the operating environment. Since six years' notice would be given of the ending of the Decca service, a significant proportion of receivers would be replaced in this period in the normal course of events, whether through wear and tear or more attractive technology. I have no proposals for financial assistance to users to meet the costs of change.

  Clyde Port Authority
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what evaluation he has undertaken of the trading or other performance of the Clyde port authority.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  None.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the current payments made to the(a) chairman, (b) deputy chairman, (c) board workers and (d) managing director of Clyde port authority.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  According to the authority's accounts for 1989, the annual remuneration received by the chairman was £10,000 and the other non-executive members received £3,500. The highest-paid executive on the board received £48,587 and the two other executive members received between £30,000 and £40,000.

  Vehicle Emissions
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to reduce harmful emissions from road vehicles; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  My Department has been active for many years in developing standards to tackle unacceptable vehicle fumes and noise and to secure a move from leaded to unleaded fuel. We have played a key role in securing agreement in the European Community to higher emissions and noise standards, and we have also taken the lead in making improved vehicle construction standards a priority so as to further improve safety.

  I welcome the interest and co-operation of manufacturers in seeking to develop more environmentally friendly vehicles. However, if they are to continue to reach the standards built into their initial design, vehicles need to be properly maintained and properly tuned. Garages already offer this service to their customers. I have concluded there is a good case for adding a simple emissions check to the MOT test for all petrol-driven cars and light vans, starting next year. My Department is today issuing a consultation paper outlining what is proposed and seeking views. In future, the existing MOT test would include a tuning
  306
  check. In the same way as the other items in the lest, motorists would need to ensure their vehicle met the test requirements if it were to continue on the road.

  It is estimated that this proposal should improve fuel consumption and hence carbon dioxide emissions by about 4 per cent. averaged over the 16·5 million cars and light vans in the MOT scheme, with substantially larger benefits to carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions. The net extra cost to motorists should be modest, given compensating benefits through reduced fuel bills. Like everyone else, the motorist will also enjoy the non-financial benefits from lower levels of pollution.

  We shall also be looking at ways of increasing checks and testing techniques for emissions from heavy goods vehicles and buses, and are working with European colleagues on effective standards for testing vehicles with catalytic converters.

  Select Registration Scheme
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the current timetable for the start of the select registration scheme.

  Mr. Atkins
  The select registration scheme will start on 1 October 1990 with the H letter. Buyers of new vehicles after that date will be able to purchase an entitlement to any registration mark from the numerical range 1 to 20, for almost all possible three-letter combinations. The sales scheme will be widely publicised and I have placed copies of the Department's information leaflet in the Library.

  M1 (Lane Closure)
  Sir Neil Macfarlane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what information he has on the name of the haulage contractor and the goods that were being conveyed on 25 June which caused the closure of two lanes of the M1;

  (2) if he will call for a report on whether the emergency services were affected by the closure of two lanes of the M 1 on 25 June during the movement of the wide load vehicle; what prior notification they were given; and by whom;

  (3) who took the decision to permit two lanes of the M 1 to be closed on 25 June for a wide load vehicle; and on what date and time the broadcasting authorities were informed;

  (4) if he will make it his policy not to permit the closure of two lanes, in daytime, on the motorways for wide load transportation; and if he will make a statement;

  (5) which section within his Department handles the arrangements for the movement of wide load vehicles on motorways; upon what criteria decisions are based; and who co-ordinates the details;

  (6) what discussions took place between his Department and the police authorities prior to the closure of two lanes of the M1 on 25 June for an abnormally wide load vehicle.

  Mr. Atkins
  The abnormal load in question was a large transformer being transported from Goole docks to Ratcliffe power station in Nottinghamshire. The move was urgent, being necessitated by an electrical breakdown at the power station. In order to reduce the length of the road journey, the transformer was moved from its storage place at Kingsnorth power station on the Thames, by sea to Goole, from where it had to complete its journey by road. The total weight of the transformer and trailer was 377
  307
  tonnes, its width was 5·6m and it height 5·25m. The haulier was Abnormal Load Engineering and the move was carried out on behalf of PowerGen.

  The police were notified at least three days before the move took place and they escorted the vehicles throughout the journey. The local radio stations and the Automobile Association were informed prior to the move. The emergency services were not affected, so far as I am aware. Had they been, the police were on hand to render assistance. I do not consider it necessary to call for a special report in this instance.

  Movements of this nature have to be authorised in advance by officials in my Department by delegated authority from the Secretary of State. Before authorisation is granted, the necessity for the move is determined and a suitable route is worked out between my officials, all the police forces and all the highway and bridge authorities concerned. This route is issued to the haulier and all the relevant authorities and must be followed in detail. When the route has been agreed and issued, the special order authorising the move is made and circulated. In this case the route had already been worked out, as is often the case for routes from port to power station, so it was necessary only to obtain confirmation from all concerned that it was still suitable. The order was then signed and issued on 22 June by the special order section in the vehicle standards and engineering division of my Department.

  The actual timing of a move such as this is determined by the police. They have the local knowledge to decide the best timing for minimising danger to other road users. In general, they consider that it is less dangerous to encounter a large, slow-moving vehicle in daylight, but they do appreciate that congestion is likely to be worse in the daytime and I understand that they are currently reviewing this policy. I do not consider it appropriate to interfere in this matter.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  National Quality Award
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 30 April,Official Report, column 386, on a national quality award, if he will outline his reasons for the reply given.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  To encourage firms to improve quality we provide support for consultancy under the enterprise initiative and advice under the "Managing into the '90s" programme. Other activities are undertaken by a variety of outside organisations, including the British Quality Association, which runs its own British quality awards scheme aimed at heightening awareness of the importance of quality. We do not believe that it is necessary for the Government to create an additional award scheme.

  Foundries
  Mr. Ted Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many United Kingdom foundries closed in 1989; and how many are still in production.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Business Statistics Office's figures for the number of foundries which were in production in 1989 will not be available until towards the end of this year. The comparable figure for 1988 was 308
  published in table 8 of the Central Statistical Office "Business Monitor" report on the census of production 1988—PA311.

  Industry Act 1980
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last made use of his powers under section 3(2)(a) of the Industry Act 1980.

  Mr. Ridley
  As reported to Parliament, in the summer supplementary estimates on class V vote 1, on 14 July 1988 my predecessor used his powers under section 3(2)(a)of the Industry Act 1980 to purchase a security in Rover Group plc for £547 million, following the agreement reached with British Aerospace plc, and approved by the European Commission, for the sale of the Government shareholding in Rover Group plc.

  Details of my predecessor's use of section 3 of the Industry Act 1980 are given in reports under section 3(4) of that Act which have been placed in the Library today. I regret that, due to an administrative error, the reports were not laid before the House earlier.

HEALTH

  Voluntary Organisations
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide a breakdown of the awards given to voluntary organisations under section 64 procedures for the financial years 1988–89 and 1989–90 into(a) awards for project funding and (b) core funding grants.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Our general scheme of grants under section 64 provides core grants to national voluntary organisations to assist with their administration costs; project grants to support discrete projects which are experimental or innovative; and a small number of capital grants. A breakdown of grants awarded in 1988–89 and 1989–90 has been placed in the Library.

  Mentally Ill Adolescents
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will visit the adolescent unit for the mentally ill in Nottingham district health authority.

  Mr. Dorrell
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has no plans to do so.

  Community Health Councils
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on procedures for funding community health councils.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Regional health authorities, RHAs, as establishing authorities for community health councils, CHCs, have a duty to pay CHCs' expenses which the RHAs consider the CHCs have reasonably incurred. How they go about doing so is for each RHA to decide.

  NHS Doctors
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the percentage change in the number of doctors within the national health service per 100,000 of population since 1979.
  309
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The requested information is given in the table.

  Hospital and community health service medical staff and general medical practitioners in England

  1979

  1988

  Doctors

  61,554·0

  70,995·0

  Population

  46,396·1

  47,536·3

  Doctors per 100,000

  132·7

  149·3

  Percentage change 1979–88

  —

  12·6

  Figures include permanent paid and honorary staff but exclude hospital practitioners and clinical assistants.

  Disabled People (Legislation)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to implement sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 without delay.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any plans to implement the remaining sections of the Disabled Persons Act (Services, Consultation and Representation) 1986 within the next two years.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Decisions cannot be taken on the implementation of these sections of the Act until we have established their resource and service implications. We are still awaiting cost estimates from the local authority associations.

  Stepping Hill Hospital, Stockport
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff, broken down into category, were employed at Stepping Hill hospital, Stockport on(a) 1 June 1979 and (b) 1 June 1989.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not held centrally. My hon. Friend may wish to contact the chairman of Stockport health authority for the details.

  Maternity Services
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many obstetrics beds are available now in each regional health authority in England; and how many were available in each of the past five years.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The latest information on numbers of beds available daily in maternity wards for each year from 1983 is contained in "Summary of bed availability, England 1988/89" a copy of which is in the Library. Information is no longer collected centrally on bed availability by clinical specialty.

  Public Works
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action has been taken by his Department to advise regional or district health authorities of the requirements of EC public works directive 89/440/EEC.

  Mr. Dorrell
  A copy of the works directive which was adopted by the EC in July 1989 was sent to regional health authorities on 22 February 1990. Preliminary guidance indicating the main changes to the earlier works directive was issued to regional and district health 310
  authorities on 30 March. Detailed guidance was issued to regional and district health authorities under cover of an executive letter (EL(90)MB/114) on 6 June; copies are available in the Library.

  Project 2000
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the original sum of money earmarked for the implementation of Project 2000 in England; and what is the latest estimated figure for his purpose.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The implementation of Project 2000 in England is to be phased in over a number of years. A total of £38 million has been earmarked and made available for 1989–90 and 1990–91. This will mean that between 1990 and April 1991 the number of Project 2000 places available will have doubled to 20,000–40 per cent. of all nurse training places. Additional funding will be made available in future years against the background of other competing needs.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the European Community directive on nurse training, due to be implemented by October 1991, will be achieved in the light of delays in the target dates relating to Project 2000; and if he will make resources available to meet the 40 weeks of theory training required by the directive.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Implementation of EC directive 89/595/EEC amending EC directive 77/453/EEC is a matter for the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting, which is the competent authority of the nursing professions in the United Kingdom. We have never set a target date for full implementation of Project 2000 in England.

  Health Authority Staff
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he will take to prevent a conflict of interest arising from district health authority staff preparing contracts with a self-governing trust which may subsequently employ them.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It is for health authorities to ensure that conflicts of interest between the purchasing and providing roles do not occur and to determine any mechanisms to prevent this from happening.

  Hearing Aids
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average waiting time for fitting hearing aids to national health service patients with hearing difficulties by the Hearing Aid Centre; and what was the waiting time five years ago.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not held centrally.

  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is being done to reduce the waiting time for national health service patients needing a hearing aid fitted by the Hearing Aid Centre.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Department is funding a pilot scheme, to start later this year, which is aimed at reducing waiting times for hearing aid services. Details of the scheme are contained in a consultation paper issued by the Department in April. A copy of the paper has been placed in the Library.

ENERGY

  Government Publicity and Advertising
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether the Government conventions on publicity and advertising have been revised, in view of his new responsibilities for co-ordinating the development of the presentation of Government policies.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The conventions on Government publicity and advertising have been revised to reflect the changes in ministerial responsibility. There is no change in the substance of the conventions. I am arranging for a copy to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Departmental Research (Expenditure)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the total identifiable expenditure on research by his Department in each year since 1979; what proportion was awarded on a customer-contractor basis; and what proportion of his total departmental budget was expended on research for each year.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Identifiable expenditure on research in the diplomatic and aid wings of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is shown in the tables. The diplomatic wing's research expenditure accounts for up to 0·5 per cent. of its departmental running costs. Comparable figures for years prior to 1984–85 are not available. A small additional amount of research was commissioned outside the FCO. For the ODA, research expenditure now normally accounts for over 2·5 per cent. of total departmental expenditure. It is now ODA's policy to commission research on a customer-contractor basis with specified aims and objectives, as exemplified by the new renewable natural resources research strategy. For neither wing is information available on the proportion of research undertaken on a customer-contractor basis.

  (I) Diplomatic wing: Expenditure on research 1984–85 to 1988–89

  £ million

  1984–85

  1·8

  1985–86

  2·0

  1986–87

  2·1

  1987–88

  2·3

  1988–89

  2·5

  (ii) Aid wing: Expenditure on research 1979–89

  Year

  £'000

  as percent of total ODA expenditure

  1979

  19,996

  2·1

  1980

  22,001

  2·3

  1981

  22,257

  1·9

  1982

  23,042

  2·1

  1983

  27,610

  2·4

  1984

  26,057

  2·0

  1985

  27,874

  2·1

  1986

  31,143

  2·5

  1987

  38,073

  2·9

  1988

  49,482

  3·0

  11989

  45,995

  2·6

  1 1989 figures are provisional.

  Aid Targets
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has anything to add to the oral reply given by the Minister for Overseas Development on 18 June,Official Report, column 680, on meeting gross national product, official development assistance targets.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I much regret that my reply to the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) contained an inadvertent error. I meant to say"we aim to meet those targets".
  As hon. and right hon. Members may be already aware, whereas we have met the 1 per cent. of GNP target for total flows in six out of the last 10 years, we have not met the 0·15 per cent. of GNP target for official development assistance to the least-developed countries.

ENVIRONMENT

  Global Warming
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps are being taken to investigate the use of the sea as a carbon sink to mitigate the effects upon global warming of carbon dioxide releases.

  Mr. Trippier
  Intensive research is being carried out both nationally and internationally to understand the role of the oceans in the carbon cycle. The United Kingdom is contributing to this through the Natural Environment Research Council's biogeochemical ocean flux programme which is currently investigating the uptake of carbon dioxide by plankton in the north Atlantic.

  Climate Change
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what papers were presented by civil servants from his Department or consultants to his Department at the meeting of the United Nations intergovernmental panel on climate change on 18 to 20 May.

  Mr. Trippier
  We are not aware of any IPCC meeting on the dates specified.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans his Department has to allow teachers to pay the community charge on behalf of those from overseas countries with whom they are involved in exchange schemes.

  Mr. Chope
  It does not need any special permission to allow this to happen.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) whether all those aged 18 years and over who are in full-time secondary education are wholly exempt from the community charge;

  (2) whether those leaving full-time secondary education with conditional or unconditional offers of places at institutions of higher or further education are regarded (a) as students for the purposes of the community charge between their dates of leaving secondary education and their date of starting higher or further education, or (b) as adults eligible for community charge benefit during this period;
  313
  (3) whether the liability of those aged 18 years and over who were in full-time secondary education to pay the community charge commences from the date of their leaving their secondary schools.

  Mr. Portillo
  The majority of those who leave secondary education at the age of 18 will be covered by the exemption from the personal community charge for those in respect of whom child benefit is paid, or would be paid but for the fact the person is in care, and may continue to be exempt for some time after their courses have ended. Those aged under 20 years of age and who are undertaking a qualifying course of education, other than as a result of a post or employment held, are exempt until the end of the course or until they reach their 20th birthday, whichever is the earlier. Qualifying courses for the purposes of this exemption are defined by the Personal Community Charge (Qualifying Courses of Education) Regulations 1990—S.I. 1990/712—which exclude courses of higher education.

  Ward weighted density

  All ages social index

  Indicator value

  Weight times indicator £ million

  Indicator value

  Weight times indicator £ million

  Kent

  Ashford

  2·14351

  1·057

  -2·6277

  -1·187

  Canterbury

  1·54525

  1·071

  -1·7101

  -1·085

  Dartford

  2·21797

  0·907

  -1·8458

  -0·691

  Dover

  1·96176

  1·106

  -1·2363

  -0·638

  Gillingham

  4·26523

  2·041

  -1·0305

  -0·451

  Gravesham

  3·12988

  1·421

  -0·5169

  -0·215

  Maidstone

  2·14507

  1·516

  -1·8742

  -1·212

  Rochester upon Medway

  3·42681

  2·632

  -0·4010

  -0·282

  Sevenoaks

  0·94695

  0·514

  -3·2050

  -1·592

  Shepway

  2·12467

  0·976

  -0·8121

  -0·342

  Swale

  1·43987

  0·857

  -1·2630

  -0·680

  Thanet

  3·20591

  2·178

  0·2060

  0·128

  Tonbridge and Malling

  1·14540

  0·607

  -2·8119

  -1·364

  Tunbridge Wells

  1·54320

  0·802

  -1·2322

  -0·586

  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to amend the Community Charges (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1989, regulation 62, so that the three-month period of grace dates from 1 April 1990 rather than from any earlier date.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I am reviewing the operation of the standard charge. Many people whose property was empty and unfurnished before 1 April 1990 will have benefited from either not having to pay any rates at all or paying lower unoccupied property rates.

  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will reconsider the standard spending assessment for Brighton and other holiday and conference resorts using the additional information which is becoming available on the extra burdens they face.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I have made it clear that I am willing to consider any fresh evidence on SSAs with a view to making future changes if that should prove necessary. Any information provided by Brighton or any other local authority in this context will be given full consideration.

  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the authorities which benefited in their standard spending assessment and revenue grant allocation from a consideration of the impact of daily population increases.
  314
  Entitlement to the 20 per cent. payable by students starts when a person is enrolled on a full-time course of education, as defined for the purposes of the community charge, and has begun to attend it. In the intervening period a person will be registered for the full personal community charge but may be eligible for community charge benefit of up to 80 per cent. of the charge set.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each district council in Kent, in respect of ward weighted density and the all ages social index, the values of indicators defined in annex A to the revenue support grant distribution report (England), and the amounts produced for each district council by applying the weights set out in paragraph 3·36(a) of that report, to those values.

  Mr. Portillo
  The values of the indicators and the amounts produced by applying the relevant weights are set out in the table.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave him to this same question on 4 April,Official Report, column 666.

  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the specific and supplementary grants to be paid to local authorities in 1990–91 showing in each case(a) the name of the grant, (b) the purpose of the grant, (c) the sponsoring Department, (d) the amount of grant, (e) the method of calculation of individual authorities' entitlements, including the percentage of expenditure grant-aided and any conditions attached to the grant, (f) when the principles and operation of the grant were last reviewed, and the conclusions of those reviews, (g) whether the grant is included within aggregate external finance and (h) whether the grant is for capital and/or revenue expenditure.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to chapter 21 of "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1990/91 to 1992/93"—Cm 1021—tables 21·4·3, 21·4·4. and 21·4·5 which, respectively, list revenue grants within and without aggregate external finance, and capital grants. The various departmental chapters provide details on the principles and operation of individual grants. If he has particular concerns I am sure the Departments concerned will be pleased to help.

  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what additional assistance was given in
  315
  calculating standard spending assessment and grant to Westminster city council on account of its daily population figure; and if he will set out the criteria used on arriving at that sum.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to him on 4 April of this year when he asked a very similar question.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much was the total level of local government spending in each of the last five years including the current year.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 27 June 1990]: The information is as follows. New definitions of local government spending were introduced in 1990–91 and comparable information for years prior to 1989–90 is not available. For years 1986–87 to 1989–90 (budgets) expenditure is defined as total expenditure gross of specific and supplementary grants and for 1989–90 (provisional outturn) and 1990–91 expenditure is defined as revenue expenditure, the measure equivalent to total standard spending.

  Local government expenditure

  £ million

  1986–87

  26,629

  1987–88

  28,943

  1988–89

  31,334

  1989–901 3

  34,317

  1989–902 4

  32,100

  1990–913

  36,600

  1 Including an adjustment for polytechnics (not in the local authority sector in 1989–90) to make the series up to and including 1989–90 comparable.

  2 After adjusting for system changes to make the 1989–90 provisional outturn estimates comparable to 1990–91 budgets.

  3 Budget.

  4 Provisional outturn.

  Local Services (Tendering)
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement on the response by local authorities to circular 7/90 regarding tender documents for public supply and works contracts.

  Mr. Portillo
  Circular 7/90 reminds local authorities in greater detail of their obligations under the treaty of Rome and the EC works and supplies contract directives, set out in DOE circulars 59/73 and 6/89, and imposes no new or added responsibilities or burdens.

  The Department has had a small number of telephone inquiries from local authorities on the application of tender specifications to particular contracts.

  Inland Revenue Office, Cumbernauld
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the cost to date of the refurbishment and new construction work currently being carried out at the Inland Revenue office in Cumbernauld.

  Mr. Chope
  The refurbishment work, which started in December 1988, has so far cost £2·5 million. There is no new construction.

  Nature Conservancy Council
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the report, "Strategic Roll-Forward Submission 1991–92", prepared by PE International plc, concerning the Nature Conservancy Council.

  Mr. Trippier
  This report is a management document commissioned to assist the NCC in preparing its proposed forward plans. It is not suitable for publication. In line with past practice, the Nature Conservancy Council's corporate plan for 1990–91 will be published later this summer.

  Local Authorities (Company Interests)
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the implementation of part V of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989: local authority interests in companies.

  Mr. Portillo
  In view of various points which have arisen on the drafts of the orders which we circulated for comment, we have concluded that it would be right to postpone the coming into force of those orders from 1 July 1990. I shall set a new date as soon as possible.

  Bulk Materials (Transport)
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his current policy in respect of imposing conditions in planning permissions which restrict the dispatch of bulk materials to rail transport, in circumstances where the volume to be dispatched from the site may be large, the number of destinations is few and the environmental damage to communities affected by the road transport of the material is likely to be insignificant.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: The Government's policy on the imposition of conditions on the grant of planning permission is that they should be imposed only where they are necessary; relevant to planning; relevant to the development to be permitted; enforceable; precise; and reasonable in all other respects. A key test is whether planning permission would have to be refused if the condition were not to be imposed. A condition may be invalid if it is unduly restrictive. Whether it may be appropriate to impose a condition to restrict the mode of transport of bulk materials to and from a site will depend upon the particular circumstances of an individual case, and is a matter for the local planning authority in the first instance.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Costs
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will give details of the costs out of public funds ordered by the courts in each of the years from 1986 to 1990.

  The Attorney-General
  Courts may order costs out of public funds in two circumstances. In civil proceedings where one of the parties is legally aided, the court can award costs against the legal aid fund in favour of a successful non-legally aided party. In criminal proceedings
  317
  the court can order the costs of a defendant or a private prosecutor to be paid from central funds. The information requested is collected on a financial year basis and for the years in question is as follows:

  £ million

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Costs of successful non-legally aided parties

  0·280

  0·227

  0·446

  0·524

  Costs from Central Funds:

  Orders made in Magistrates Courts

  11·050

  3·082

  3·825

  1—

  Orders made in Crown Court and higher courts

  30·522

  4·380

  4·047

  4·751

  Total

  41·852

  7·689

  8·318

  5·275

  1 This information is not yet available.

  Solicitors (Professional Negligence)
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Attorney-General what information he has as to in which European countries solicitors and barristers or their equivalent are liable to be sued for professional negligence.

  The Attorney-General
  The Government do not hold information about the liability for professional negligence of lawyers practising in other European countries.

  Land Registry
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Attorney-General when Her Majesty's Land Registry is to be established as an executive agency.

  The Attorney-General
  Further to my answer to my hon. Friend on 5 April 1990 at column 725, I am pleased to confirm that the Lord Chancellor will establish the Land Registry as an executive agency on Monday 2 July 1990. I have arranged for the Land Registry's framework document to be placed in the Library. Performance indicators for the Land Registry are set out in the framework document.

  The Land Registry has made significant progress in recent times in improving its productivity and its quality of service, both in terms of speed and accuracy. The performance targets set for the registry will require it to continue this improvement. The key productivity target is to reduce unit costs in real terms by 6 per cent. over the three financial years from 1 April 1991. Over the same period, the average length of time to finalise post-completion applications, which in December 1988 stood at 15·5 weeks is to be reduced to five weeks. The handling of pre-completion applications, which are more time-sensitive as they are part of the conveyancing process, will also be expedited with the proportion of applications dealt with within four days being increased from 90 per cent. at present to 92 per cent. in 1994. Targets have also been set increasing the already high percentage of error-free handling of applications.

  An open competition is currently being held for the selection of a person to be appointed as chief land registrar and chief executive of the agency to succeed the current chief land registrar, John Pryer CB, following his forthcoming retirement.

SCOTLAND

  Foodstuffs (Toxic Chemicals)
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what tests are applied to ascertain residue levels of toxic chemicals in imported foodstuffs from(a) eastern Europe, (b) the European Common Market and (c) the rest of the world; how many tests were carried out in each of the past five years and on what types of foods; and what changes he intends to make in this system.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Imported foodstuffs are examined for a wide range of potentially toxic substances such as heavy metals, natural toxins and environmental contaminants. Information on the surveillance of food imports is included in reports of the Government's steering group on food surveillance, copies of which are available in the Library of the House. District and islands councils in Scotland undertake testing of imported food as enforcement authorities but related statistics are not held centrally.

  Rural Solicitors
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he has held with the Law Society of Scotland or representatives of faculties of solicitors on the future of rural practices since 12 June.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There have been a number of informal discussions with the Law Society of Scotland about the Government's conveyancing proposals.

  Student Grants
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what advice he has given to Strathclyde regional council concerning the payment of grants to students undertaking courses provided by other education authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  None. My right hon. and learned Friend is responsible for providing financial support for students attending full-time degree and equivalent level courses. Financial support for students attending other full-time and all part-time courses is the responsibility of the education authorities under their bursaries arrangements. These bursaries are awarded to students at the discretion of the education authorities and I have no power to intervene.

  Elderly People
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the amount an elderly couple needs to spend every week on food to maintain a healthy diet; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  None. Given variations in individuals' dietary requirements and the cost of food it is not feasible to make such an assessment.

  Scottish Consumer Council
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the relationship of his Department to the Scottish Consumer Council; and if he will make a statement.
  319
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Direct responsibility between the Government and the Scottish Consumer Council rests with the Department of Trade and Industry.

  My colleagues and I do, however, meet the council from time to time to discuss matters of common interest, and welcome its comments on relevant aspects of Government policy.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Government intend to make the provision of nursery education in Scotland compulsory; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  The Government have no plans to impose a duty on education authorities to provide nursery education. Authorities are best placed to decide the extent of pre-school provision appropriate for their area having regard to local circumstances and competing priorities.

  Local Government Finance
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will inform local authorities about the introduction of the method of compensating applicants who did not qualify for poll tax rebate in the year 1989–90 because they had capital between £8,000 and £16,000; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Detailed draft proposals were sent to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities for comment on 14 June. I hope to receive the convention's response shortly so that regulations can be laid before the House.

  Council Rents
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the average council rent level as a percentage of(a) average male earnings, (b) average female earnings and (c) the national insurance retirement pension for a single pensioner and a pensioner couple in each of the years since 1984 for which figures are available.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: The information requested is set out in the table.

  Average council rent1 expressed as a percentage of

  Average male earnings2

  Average female earnings2

  Retirement pension for single person3

  Retirement pension for married couple3

  1984–85

  5·9

  9·4

  30·7

  19·2

  1985–86

  6·1

  9·7

  32·3

  20·3

  1986–87

  6·5

  10·0

  33·6

  21·0

  1987–88

  6·8

  10·4

  36·9

  23·1

  1988–89

  6·9

  10·6

  39·4

  24·6

  1989–90

  7·5

  11·1

  43·1

  26·9

  1990–91

  n/a

  n/a

  44·6

  27·8

  1 Average standard unrebated local authority rent in Scotland.

  2 Average earnings of full-time employees in Scotland on adult rates whose pay was not affected by absence, as recorded in April of each year.

  3 Basic national insurance pension payable in April of each year.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Electronic Tagging
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to consult with the first individual to be electronically tagged on the efficacy of the scheme: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  As part of the evaluation of the trials of electronic monitoring a sample of those monitored have already been interviewed about their experiences and views. The results of the evaluation will be published, but the defendants interviewed will not be identified.

  Prisoners (Suicides)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the trend in the number of suicides among prisoners on remand over the last 10 years.

  Mr. Mellor
  The table gives the figures for the number of suicides by remand prisoners during the last 10 years:

  Number

  1980

  12

  1981

  7

  1982

  8

  1983

  9

  1984

  12

  1985

  14

  1986

  12

  1987

  27

  1988

  19

  11989

  15

  1 21990

  1

  1 Inquests have yet to be held on one other inmate on remand who died in 1989 and on nine inmates on remand who have died this year and whose deaths are thought to have been suicides.

  1 To 25 June 1990.

  Suicides (Police Custody)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the trend in the number of suicides in police custody over the last 10 years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The number of persons who committed suicide while in police custody has been published, since 1980, in the annual reports of Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary and the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. The information is as follows:

  Number

  1980

  6

  1981

  4

  1982

  8

  1983

  5

  1984

  3

  1985

  2

  1986

  3

  1987

  2

  1988

  5

  1989

  5

  Information prior to 1980 is not available.

  Security, Palace of Westminster
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans exist to replace regular Metropolitan police officers employed in the House of Parliament by security officers;

  (2) what are the educational qualifications demanded of Metropolitan police security officers employed in the Houses of Parliament;

  (3) what is the average length of service of the Metropolitan police security officers employed in the Houses of Parliament;

  (4) what is the level of pay of the Metropolitan police security officers employed in the Houses of Parliament, including starting salary and average earnings;

  (5) what is the length of the training period of the Metropolitan police security officers employed in the Houses of Parliament;

  (6) how many Metropolitan police security officers have been employed in the Houses of Parliament in each year since their introduction; and how many are presently employed;

  (7) what plans exist to increase the numbers of Metropolitan police security officers employed in the Houses of Parliament.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  While my right hon. and learned Friend formally approves changes in the number of posts at the Palace of Westminster, security arrangements are primarily matters for the Palace authorities, who take their decisions on the basis of advice provided by the Metropolitan police.

  I understand that an inspection of the security force at the Palace of Westminster was carried out by the Metropolitan police at the beginning of the year to assess the changes needed as a result of the opening of the Norman Shaw complex. They recommended changes, including civilianisation of seven police posts, which, if accepted, would increase the number of police officers by three and the number of security officers by 22. The proposals are being considered by the Joint Committee on Security.

  The Metropolitan police took over responsibility for security officers at the Palace of Westminster in October 1977. The total number of security officers employed at the end of each calendar year since that date is as follows:

  Number

  1977

  93

  1978

  95

  1979

  105

  1980

  110

  1981

  113

  1982

  112

  1983

  104

  1984

  102

  1985

  114

  1986

  131

  1987

  129

  1988

  134

  1989

  1183

  1 Includes Norman Shaw building.

  A total of 180 security officers are currently employed at the Palace of Westminster.

  Information relating to the average length of service of Metropolitan police security officers could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.
  322
  Although there are no rigid requirements for educational qualifications, security officers employed at the Palace undergo a recruitment process which looks for good communication skills, reliability and common sense.

  On joining, all security officers undergo a six-week intensive training course which covers first aid, basic law, powers of arrest, fire appliance training, House regulations and passes. New officers then work alongside experiencd officers for a further six weeks. Additional courses covering explosives, car searches and respirator training are also arranged.

  The starting salary of a security officer is £9,594 per annum. This is inclusive of shift allowance but exclusive of overtime and premium payments for work on Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays. After six months a security officer becomes eligible for promotion and the starting salary for the higher grade is £11,381 per annum. Information about average earnings could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Criminal Offences, Basildon
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were(a) charged and (b) convicted of (i) public order offences and (ii) offences against the person in the Basildon area for each of the last seven years.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information for the Basildon area is not available, but the table gives information for Billericay petty sessional division and Chelmsford Crown court for 1986, 1987 and 1988. Comparable data for earlier years could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The 1989 data will not be available until autumn 1990.

  Persons proceeded against and found guilty of offences against the person (1) and public order offences

  Number of persons (2)

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Billericay PSD:

  Offences against the person Proceeded against3

  181

  240

  296

  Found guilty

  68

  84

  129

  Public order offences

  Proceeded against

  35

  56

  135

  Found guilty

  23

  33

  77

  Chelmsford Crown Court:

  Offences against the person

  For trial

  371

  478

  523

  Found guilty

  290

  370

  416

  Public order offences

  For trial

  47

  24

  95

  Found guilty

  38

  22

  45

  1 Violence against the person, sexual offences and robbery.

  2 As shown by the records held centrally, which are approximate.

  3 Including those committed to the Crown Court for trial.

  Chief Police Officers
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many serving police officers of Association of Chief Police Officers rank joined the service under the graduate entry scheme, or otherwise benefited from the special course at Bramshill; how many possess university degrees; how many achieved them through the Bramshill scholarship scheme; and how many hold other qualifications relevant to their responsibilities as chief officers.
  323
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The graduate entry scheme was introduced in 1968 to attract recruits with higher educational qualifications to the police service and give them the opportunity of accelerated promotion through the Bramshill special course. Most serving members of the Association of Chief Police Officers had joined the police service before this date, but two officers now of assistant chief constable rank were recruited to the service under this scheme. A further 80 officers of ACPO rank were selected for and attended the special course through the service's internal competition.

  The information held centrally is not comprehensive, and I shall write to my hon. Friend once I have been able to review and update all senior officers' personal records. In the meantime, the information currently available shows that 103 of the 241 members of the Association of Chief Police Officers hold degrees. (Our records do not distinguish between degrees awarded by universities, polytechnics and other institutions). Of these 103 officers, 50 gained their degrees through the Bramshill scholarship scheme. Nineteen current members of ACPO are companions, members or fellows of the British Institute of Management. Nineteen hold other management qualifications (such as the diploma in management studies and certificate in personnel management) or have completed senior management courses such as the top management programme at the civil service college or the Royal College of Defence Studies course. There is some overlap between these groups.

  Stone Roses Concert
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were injured at the Stone Roses concert at Spike island, Widnes, on 3 June; how many of the injured were treated in hospital; and how many were detained in hospital.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand that, in addition to those people (number unknown) who received minimal first aid treatment at the concert itself, two people, who sustained injuries when attempting to get into the event without tickets by climbing over a high fence, were taken to hospital, treated and discharged the same day.

  Immigration
  Mr. Channon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what categories of non-United Kingdom spouses of United Kingdom citizens resident in Hong Kong will have their United Kingdom residential qualifications for naturalisation waived or modified under schedule 1, paragraph 4(d) of the British Nationality Act 1981.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Paragraph 4(d) of schedule 1 to the British Nationality Act 1981 enables the Secretary of State, if he thinks fit in the special circumstances of a particular case, to waive the three-year United Kingdom residence requirement for naturalisation in respect of the spouse of a British citizen serving abroad in Crown or designated service for which he was recruited in the United Kingdom.

  In practice we would not normally expect to waive the United Kingdom residence requirement unless the marriage had subsisted for three years; the spouse was unable to meet the United Kingdom residence requirements for the foreseeable future; and the employing
  324
  organisation was able to show that naturalising the spouse would be in the interests of the organisation and its service to United Kingdom interests.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when a decision is to be taken on the applications of Mrs. Aswat Jan and Atlas Khan to enter the United Kingdom, referred to him on 26 November last by our post in Islamabad Refs: K157032 and K147580; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The entry clearance officer in Islamabad has now been authorised to issue entry clearance to Mrs. Aswat Jan. Atlas Khan's application is being considered under the terms of the concession announced by my right hon. Friend the then Home Secretary on 14 June 1989 at columns 461–62. A decision will be taken as soon as possible.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has had any communication with representatives of the Metropolitan police force in connection with the number of homeless young persons being arrested and convicted under the Vagrancy Act 1824.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Decisions about the deployment of resources to tackle crime are an operational matter for the Commissioner. However, we are conducting a study together with the Metropolitan police to establish recent trends in arrests and how the police might be helped to identify accommodation and other services to which homeless people can be referred.

  Channel 5
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his current estimate of the number of video recorders likely to require retuning to achieve Channel 5 output; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  We estimate that something over 750,000 video cassette recorders will need to be retuned or modified in order to prevent interference between the VCR output and the Channel 5 broadcast signal. The Broadcasting Bill provides that the cost of this work should be met by the Channel 5 licensee.

  Telecommunications Act 1984
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the total number of prosecutions under any section of the Telecommunications Act 1984.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information available centrally, which may be incomplete, indicates that there were 630 prosecutions in 1988 under the Telecommunications Act 1984.

  The 1989 data will not be available until the autumn.

  Forensic Science
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he has any plans to increase the level of funding of the Metropolitan police forensic science laboratory and for the Home Office laboratory at Aldermaston in the next financial year; and if he will make a statement;
  325
  (2) what is the current level of staffing at the Metropolitan police forensic science laboratory; and what was the level (a) five and (b) 10 years ago;

  (3) what has been the number of individual cases handled annually by the Metropolitan police forensic science laboratory for each of the past five years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Commissioner has told me that the number of cases handled by the Metropolitan police forensic science laboratory in each of the last five years was as follows:

  Number

  1985

  27,720

  1986

  32,406

  1987

  27,985

  1988

  19,040

  1989

  18,053

  On 27 June 1990 the strength of the Metropolitan police forensic science laboratory was 288. On 31 December 1980 and 31 December 1985 the respective strengths were 271 and 251.

  No decisions have yet been taken on the levels of funding for 1991–92 for either the Metropolitan police or the forensic science service.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fish Processors
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assistance his Department has given to fish processors to meet new EEC hygiene regulations.

  Mr. Curry
  Financial assistance is, and will continue to be, available under relevant European Community schemes to help fish processors and others improve their facilities.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met his counterparts in the Council of Ministers to discuss reforming the common agricultural policy.

  Mr. Gummer
  I last met my Community colleagues in the Agriculture Council earlier this week, when a number of specific reforms to the CAP were discussed.

  Information Guides
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what new guides giving farmers information on the help and advice available from his Department he has published in the last six months.

  Mr. Curry
  We have recently published a revised and updated version of "At the Farmer's Service". Copies of the booklet have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Dairy Sector
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next intends to meet the chairman of the Milk Marketing Board to discuss the dairy sector.
  326
  Mr. Gummer
  I have regular meetings with the chairman of the Milk Marketing Board and with other industry leaders to discuss the dairy sector.

  Food (Health Dangers)
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those foods which his Department has been advised to be a danger to health.

  Mr. Maclean
  I can think of no food that someone or other has not suggested is harmful. Nevertheless, my Department has not actually been advised that any type of foods is intrinsically a danger to health providing it has been properly handled and prepared. From time to time it is necessary for central Government or local government to issue warnings in relation to particular brands or batches of foodstuffs, and to take associated action. The chief medical officer has also given advice about the precautions to be taken when preparing and eating certain foods, and about the consumption of certain foods by particular vulnerable groups.

  Food (Temperature Controls)
  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to improve the temperature control standards of the British food industry.

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health is intending shortly to lay before Parliament the Food Hygiene (Amendment) Regulation, which will introduce temperature control standards for certain foods throughout the food chain including manufacture, distribution and retail sale.

  Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who, under the terms of the framework agreement for the agricultural intervention board agency, will decide on the future location of the board's premises.

  Mr. Curry
  The future location of the agency will be decided by Agriculture Ministers after considering, recommendations submitted to them by the board of the agency.

  Food Safety
  Mr. Marland
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what weight he gives to scientific research in determining the development of his Department's approach towards food safety.

  Mr. Maclean
  All the Government's measures towards greater food safety are based on the best available expert scientific advice, as we made clear in the White Paper "Food Safety—Protecting the Consumer". In addition to professional advice available within my Ministry and other Government Departments, objective, independent advice is provided by a number of committees including the Food Advisory Committee, the Advisory Committee on Pesticides, the Veterinary Products Committee, the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes, the Committee on the Toxicity of Chemicals in Food,
  327
  Consumer Products and the Environment and the steering group on food surveillance—which works through 10 working parties each of which carries out detailed work in specialist fields. We announced on 12 June that we shall be adding to these committees by creating a new advisory committee and a steering group on the microbiological safety of food, a development recommended by the Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food chaired by Sir Mark Richmond.

  The full scope of the extensive research and development programme on food safety can be gauged from the "Food Sense" booklet on the Government's food surveillance programme, issued at the beginning of this year. There are now 28 food surveillance papers available and the most recent, on "Programmes to Monitor Radioactivity in Food", contains some 48 pages setting out the major programme in this one area alone. A further paper in this series is to be issued shortly. Besides the Government laboratories involved, industry, research associations, academic institutions, consultants and professional organisations all contribute to the work on food surveillance. In addition to its role in providing advice to the Government and the basis it provides for effective legislative control and the harmonisation of trade in food and food raw materials, the programme is also becoming increasingly recognised at an international level as an important source of information and advice.

  National Farmers Union
  Sir Hal Miller
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the president of the National Farmers Union; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Gummer
  I meet the president of the National Farmers Union frequently to discuss a wide range of topics.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement on BSE and British beef.

  Mr. Gummer
  I can do no better than quote the Department of Health's chief medical officer, who said that beef can be eaten safely by everyone. This view has been endorsed by Europe's top scientists.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the Meat and Livestock Commission to discuss BSE.

  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the Meat and Livestock Commission to discuss BSE.

  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the Meat and Livestock Commission to discuss BSE.

  Mr. Gummer
  I met the chairman of the Meat and Livestock Commission on 8 June to discuss BSE.

  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evidence he has of the effect on exports from and imports into Britain of the BSE scare.

  Mr. Gummer
  As yet it is too early to draw any firm conclusions on the effect of the BSE scare on exports from and imports into the United Kingdom.
  328
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about his discussions with European Community Agriculture Ministers about BSE.

  Mr. Gummer
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement I made to the House on 7 June.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has on the incidence of BSE in other countries.

  Mr. Gummer
  BSE has been reported in the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland and Oman, where two animals previously exported from Britain were later confirmed as having the disease.

  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he intends to take further action to control the spread of bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Government have already introduced comprehensive measures to deal with BSE. However, should scientific advice indicate that further action is called for, I will not hesitate to act.

  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will report on progress concerning the incidence of BSE, its notification and elimination; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  It is not expected that there will be significant decline until 1993, after which numbers should fall until its subsequent disappearance.

  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a further statement on Government measures relating to bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Government have introduced comprehensive measures, based on the very best scientific advice, to tackle all aspects of BSE.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received regarding BSE.

  Mr. Gummer
  I have received representations about BSE from consumer, producer and other interests.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the damage to the industry resulting from the bovine spongiform encephalopathy scare.

  Mr. Gummer
  It is not possible to isolate the effects of BSE. Clean cattle marketings in England and Wales in the week ending 16 June were higher than those in the week before the import bans were imposed by France and other member states, and prices were also slightly up. Increased support buying of beef under the European Community intervention arrangements coupled with the lifting of the import bans imposed by certain member states should help to sustain the market.

  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further representations he has received from the presidents of the farmers unions of Wales on BSE; and if he will make a statement.
  329
  Mr. Maclean
  I have received representations about BSE from various quarters, including the National Farmers Union of Wales.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the implication of the Wilding committee's recommendation that basic research should be confined to specialist research institutions for the conducting of research into BSE at the central veterinary laboratory at Weybridge.

  Mr. Maclean
  I assume that the hon. Member's question relates to the report of the Wildy committee.

  The Department funds strategic and applied R and D into animal diseases and I am satisfied that the central veterinary laboratory at Weybridge has the necessary specialist expertise to carry out such research into BSE. The Ministry will continue to commission research at the CVL in an effort to understand, control and eradicate this disease. Basic research is of course currently being funded by the Department of Education and Science at the AFRC's Institute of Animal Health.

  Food Advisory Committee
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the chairman of the Food Advisory Committee; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Maclean
  I last met the committee's chairman on 7 December 1989 when matters of general interest were discussed.

  The committee meets regularly every six weeks and is currently undertaking a major review of food labelling. As a result of recent committee advice I have introduced new regulations prohibiting the use of potassium bromate as a flour improver from 1 April this year; published and sought comments on the committee's report on old compositional orders and will consider the responses before reaching decisions; and I am currently preparing proposals for legislation on colours following my acceptance of the committee's recommendations for stricter controls.

  The committee's agendas are published in advance of each meeting.

  Radioactive Fallout
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about restrictions on sheep sales in the United Kingdom due to radioactive fallout.

  Mr. Curry
  Movement and slaughter restrictions continue to apply to sheep from those upland areas of Cumbria, north Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland most affected by radioactive fallout following the 1986 Chernobyl accident. A mark and release scheme is in operation under which every animal from the restricted area is live-monitored prior to marketing, thereby guaranteeing full protection to consumers in all circumstances. It is not possible to say how much longer restrictions will need to stay in force. They will be lifted as soon as it is possible to do so without compromising the safety of the food chain. All monitoring results are regularly published and copies are placed in the Library of the House.

  Aujeszky's Disease
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the discussions held at the European Community Agriculture Council meeting on 25 and 26 June regarding Aujeszky's disease.

  Mr. Curry
  At the meeting of the Agriculture Council on 25 and 26 June, Aujeszky's disease was discussed in the context of a proposal for Community rules governing trade in porcine semen.

  I made it clear that we would not accept provisions which would jeopardise our hard-won freedom from the disease and I am therefore pleased to report that the directive which was eventually adopted contains the necessary safeguards.

  Consumer Panel
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when his consumer panel last met; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley).

  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the consumer panel last met; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Maclean
  The last meeting of the consumer panel took place on 2 May 1990. It discussed a wide range of issues including water quality, food labelling, BSE, hygiene training for food handlers and food irradiation. The minutes of this meeting are publicly available and have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Milk Production
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was milk production in 1989 and in each of the two previous years.

  Mr. Maclean
  United Kingdom milk production was as follows:

  Year

  Quantity (million litres)

  1989

  14,477

  1988

  14,684

  1987

  15,039

  Agricultural Development Advisory Service
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received recently about the future of the Agricultural Development Advisory Service.

  Mr. Curry
  Many of the representations I receive about ADAS express the view that the very valuable services which it provides to the industry should continue.

  Food Inspection
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any proposals to change the present arrangements concerning food inspection which lie within his responsibilities.
  331
  Mr. Maclean
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State stated in another place on 5 December 1989 that the powers in clause 5(4) of the Food Safety Bill to vary the division of responsibility for food law enforcement would be used to continue broadly the existing split of responsibilities in England and Wales.

  Agriculture (Fixed Capital)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total annual investment in fixed capital in agriculture during each of the last five years.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) on 19 April at columns 973–74.

  Factory Farming
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to further regulate factory farming.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have just laid before this House for approval regulations that will apply to all farm animals. These regulations will implement recommendations by the Farm Animal Welfare Council and include measures to improve compliance with the welfare codes, to make certain provisions in the codes mandatory, and to require ventilation systems in intensive units to have alarms and back-up systems in the event of a failure.

  I am continuing to press in the European Community for harmonisation of welfare standards at the highest possible level for all farm livestock species.

  Sea Defences
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to improve the financial arrangements for sea defences.

  Mr. Curry
  Under the Land Drainage Act 1976 drainage bodies (the National Rivers Authority, local authorities and internal drainage boards) have powers to carry out flood and sea defence works. Grants are available from my Department towards the cost of schemes which are technically sound, economically worth while and environmentally sympathetic. Basic rates range from 15 per cent. to 55 per cent., while sea and tidal defence schemes attract a supplement of 20 per cent.

  Following the 1988 and 1989 public expenditure surveys, increased Government funding totalling £29·3 million was announced over the period 1989–90 to 1992–93. The greater part of this additional provision is being targeted towards urgent sea defence works on the east coast and elsewhere, and to works which will protect people and property.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent measures have been taken by his Department to help improve Britain's coastal defences.

  Mr. Curry
  My Department maintains a close liaison with the National Rivers Authority and local councils responsible for the promotion of coastal defence work to ensure that the state of the nation's defences is continually monitored. To assist with the promotion of such defence 332
  works, increased Government funding totalling £29·3 million was announced following the 1988 and 1989 public expenditure surveys over the period 1989–90 to 1992–93. This increased funding is being mainly targeted towards the improvement of defences on the coastline and for the protection of people and property.

  Sheep Dips
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the continued use of organophosphorous sheep dips.

  Mr. Maclean
  All organophosphorous sheep dip products are subject to the licensing requirements of the Medicines Act 1968. A review of these products is currently under way as part of a wider review to ensure that all licensed veterinary medicines meet modern standards of safety, quality and efficacy. The review is expected to be completed early in 1992. My Department is also currently considering the guidance available on the disposal of sheep dips to see how this can be improved.

  Farm Pollution
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the uptake in the last 12 months of schemes designed to deal with on-farm pollution.

  Mr. Curry
  In the 1989–90 financial year, 8,082 United Kingdom farmers notified the agriculture Departments of their intention to claim grant to help meet the cost of equipment to handle, treat and store farm waste under the farm and conservation grant scheme, and £20·41 million was paid for such grants under the scheme and its predecessor the agriculture improvement scheme.

  Food Exports
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to improve the prospects for British food exports.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government are firmly committed to improving the prospects for British food exports. Earlier this year my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced further funding of Food From Britain. More recently he announced the appointment of Mr. Paul Judge, a successful and highly respected food industry entrepreneur, as chairman of that organisation. I now look to the industry to make full use of the resources and expertise of Food From Britain.

  Beef
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the prospects for the United Kingdom beef industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The European Community market support arrangements contain provision for special intervention measures which apply at times of particular market weakness. Under these arrangements, over 5,500 tonnes of beef have been accepted for purchase in the United Kingdom. This increased support buying coupled with the lifting of the import bans imposed by certain member states should help to sustain the beef market.
  333
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether normal shipments of beef have now been resumed to European countries.

  Mr. Gummer
  Following the 6 June Council of Agriculture Ministers shipments of beef have been resumed to all European Community countries. Austria has imposed import restrictions which we and the Commission are attempting to have lifted as soon as possible.

  Mr. Alison
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether his current scientific advice continues to show that beef is safe to eat.

  Mr. Gummer
  Yes.

  Mr. Robert Hicks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he proposes to introduce any further measures to restore confidence in beef production and consumption; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Our action on BSE will continue to be based on the best scientific evidence available. As the chief medical officer has said, British beef can be eaten safely by everyone. The special intervention arrangements now operating in the United Kingdom together with the lifting of the import bans imposed by certain countries should help to sustain the market.

  Agricultural Land
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to protect agricultural land.

  Mr. Curry
  I assume the hon. Member is referring to development involving agricultural land. Responsibility for day-to-day planning control, including the consideration and determination of applications for planning permission, rests with the appropriate planning authority in the first instance. The Government issue guidance to local authorities on development involving agricultural land, which is contained in Department of the Environment (Welsh Office) circular 16/87 (25/87) issued on 8 May 1987. Copies of the circular are available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will take steps to release more agricultural land for purposes other than agriculture.

  Mr. Gummer
  The use of land for most purposes other than agriculture is controlled by the town and country planning system. Responsibility for day-to-day planning matters, including proposals for development involving agricultural land, rests with local planning authorities in the first instance. Other non-agricultural uses of land are a matter for individual landowners' decision.

  Beef Prices
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the Meat and Livestock Commission to discuss beef prices.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the Meat and Livestock Commission to discuss beef prices.
  334
  Mr. Gummer
  I am in regular contact with the chairman of the Meat and Livestock Commission about matters relating to the livestock and livestock products industries, including beef prices. I last met the chairman on 8 June following the special Agriculture Council on 6–7 June.

  Consumer Protection
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the Consumers Association to discuss the protection of consumers.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the Consumers Association to discuss food safety.

  Mr. Maclean
  On 3 April 1990 representatives of the Consumers Association attended the first of the periodic meetings set up by my right hon. Friend with representatives of consumer organisations; a further meeting is planned for 12 July.

  Meat and Livestock Commission
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the Meat and Livestock Commission; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Maclean
  I last met the chairman of the Meat and Livestock Commission on 8 June, following the special Agriculture Council on 6 and 7 June, to discuss the implementation of the new certification arrangements for exports of beef.

  Mr. John P. Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the Meat and Livestock Commission to discuss exports of meat.

  Mr. Curry
  My right hon. Friend met the chairman of the Meat and Livestock Commission on 8 June to discuss the new certification arrangements for exports of beef.

  Farm Animal Welfare Council
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what reports he is awaiting from the Farm Animal Welfare Council.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) on 19 April 1990 at column 1543.

  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he intends to abolish the Farm Animal Welfare Council.

  Mr. Maclean
  No.

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the fishing industry in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Curry
  As I said in my reply to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) on 17 May landings of all species by United Kingdom vessels in the United Kingdom for 1989 were worth some £389 million
  335
  compared with £396 million in 1988. While fishing opportunities and earnings for North sea cod and haddock in 1990 have been reduced, the estimated value of landings so far this year based on the latest available information is at least similar to that at the same time last year.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met representatives of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations to discuss catches.

  Mr. Curry
  I last met my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) together with representatives of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, on 14 June, when a number of issues including catches were discussed.

  Research
  Mr. Wolfson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the latest developments in horticultural research.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what contribution his Department is currently making towards agricultural research.

  Mr. Curry
  My Department continues to make a substantial contribution towards research of relevance to agriculture, horticulture and protection of the rural environment. This year (1990–91) alone we plan to spend some £80 million, out of a total R and D budget of some £121 million. Details of my Department's activities, including a full list of MAFF-funded research projects in agriculture and food, were made available at the MAFF conference, "Effective R and D: a partnership for the 1990s", on 4 June. I am placing copies of these publications in the Library of the House.

  In addition, my Department maintains close links with the other agricultural Departments, research councils and associations and other bodies on the development of research programmes in this country.

  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on recent developments in the structure of horticultural research.

  Mr. Curry
  I am delighted at the recent launch of the British Society for Horticultural Research. We now have a single, unified organisation capable of taking horticultural R and D well into the next century.

  Advisory Services
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which advisory and other services provided to farmers and fishermen are charged for in England.

  Mr. Curry
  My Department provides the following chargeable services to farmers and fishermen:

  Advisory work undertaken by the Agricultural Development Advisory Service (with the exception of advice on animal welfare, conservation and rural diversification which continues to be free of charge).

  Milk and dairies inspections.

  Licensing premises for the keeping of mink for fur-bearing purposes.

  Testing, registration and approval of laboratories under the Poultry Flocks, Hatcheries and Protein Processing (Fees) Order 1990.

  336

  Testing cattle for foot and mouth disease prior to export to the United States of America.

  Export inspection of poultry and hatching eggs.

  Artificial insemination licences and approvals.

  Waste food licensing.

  Pig health scheme.

  Poultry health scheme.

  Sheep and goat health scheme.

  Cattle health scheme.

  Deer health scheme.

  Approval of markets, assembly plants, pre-export private quarantine and isolation premises.

  Export of birds, poultry and hatching eggs—inspection by whole-time veterinary officers.

  Seed potatoes classification scheme. Plant health propagation scheme.

  Plant health export certification and export nursery approval scheme.

  Plant health import licences. Certain statistical data on the fishing industry. Shellfish export certificates.

  Analytical, consultancy, training and R and D services provided by the fish technology laboratory.

  Food (Consumer Spending)
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he intends to commission research into the factors which influence consumer spending on food.

  Mr. Maclean
  My Department monitors consumer (household) expenditure on food through the national food survey. The results are published in the reports of the National Food Survey Committee and analyses are made into the variation in expenditure by type and size and income of household, by age of housewife, housing tenure and by region. The coverage and scale of the survey is being expanded.

  Set-aside Scheme
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the future of the set-aside scheme.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague).

  Consumers and Farmers (Meetings)
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many times since 1 January he has met(a) farmers' representatives and (b) consumers' representatives.

  Mr. Gummer
  Since 1 January 1990, I have met representatives of farming unions seven times and representatives of consumers three times. The three meetings with consumers' representatives included one, at my request, at which 15 consumer organisations were represented. My hon. Friends the Parliamentary Secretaries have met with representatives of consumer and farming organisations on a further 15 occasions.

  Policy Decisions
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to ensure that policy decisions are based on sound scientific knowledge and advice.
  337
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the new arrangements for research funded by his Department.

  Mr. Gummer
  New procedures for the commissioning and assessment of research and development by the Ministry were formally introduced with effect from 1 April 1990. These will ensure that policy requirements are brought to bear more directly on the research that MAFF funds and, equally, that the research funded by MAFF has a direct impact on policy formation, as well as securing the best value for money in terms of both scientific quality and relevance to the Ministry's aims.

  Cereals
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the largest green pound discrepancy for cereals in the periods 1974 to 1979 and 1980 to 1989; and what was the largest devaluation achieved.

  Mr. Curry
  The largest green pound discrepancies for the cereals sector in the periods referred to by my hon. Friend, as measured by the percentage monetary compensatory amount (MCA), were 45·0 per cent. in November 1976 and 32·8 per cent. in February 1987.

  The largest devaluation of the green pound for cereals was 9·75 per cent. in August 1979.

  Agricultural Subsidies
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the cost per head of the subsidies given to British farmers as against the prices which would prevail in a free market in world agricultural produce.

  Mr. Maclean
  The estimate requested would be possible only by making a large number of assumptions about the extent of support policy adjustment worldwide, the impact of this on production, consumption and exchange rates and the extent to which these factors would influence world prices. No such estimates are available for the United Kingdom. The Government fully support the agreed long-term objectives of the GATT Uruguay round negotiation, namely substantial, progressive reductions in agricultural support and protection: this would reduce the cost of agricultural support borne by consumers and taxpayers.

  Live Exports
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to ensure that after 1992 calves exported live will not be housed subsequently in veal crates.

  Mr. Maclean
  Discussions are continuing in the European Community on Commission proposals for welfare standards for calves. I am pressing for the Community to adopt the present United Kingdom requirement for veal calf pen widths and for the EC legislation to be implemened at the earliest possible date.

  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what procedures he is proposing to ensure that current minimum standards in the care of live animals for export will be maintained after 1992.
  338
  Mr. Maclean
  We will be pressing for measures which fully safeguard animal welfare in negotiations on the Commission proposals for a Council regulation on the protection of animals during transport.

  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what procedures he is proposing to ensure that live animals, exported after 1992, are killed in slaughterhouses which match current United Kingdom standards.

  Mr. Maclean
  The EC Commission is preparing proposals for new rules on the welfare of animals at the time of slaughter. I shall be seeking to ensure that the standards which we consider to be necessary are applied thoughout the Community.

  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what efforts he is making to establish protection for live animals after 1992.

  Mr. Maclean
  Negotiations have been proceeding on Commission proposals for the protection of pigs and calves and at the Agriculture Council on 25 and 26 June If pressed for the earliest possible introduction of this legislation. I am also pressing for further comprehensive welfare safeguards to be introduced on a Community basis.

  Caseous Lymphadentitis
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for South Shields of 21 June,Official Report, column 652, whether the goats imported from Germany that were found to have caseous lymphadentitis were inspected by veterinarians for diseases other than foot and mouth, during their period of post-import quarantine; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Animals in post-import quarantine are examined by official veterinarians on a number of occasions, including within 72 hours of the end of the quarantine period, for signs of notifiable disease. If, during the course of quarantine signs of other diseases are noted, a report must be made to the state veterinary service, and the owner of the quarantine premises can arrange for veterinary treatment as appropriate.

  Animal Feed (Ingredients)
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to introduce regulations under the Agriculture Act 1970 to require the declaration of the ingredients of animal feedstuffs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The United Kingdom is in fact a prime mover in the work that is going forward to produce regulations for the whole of the EC on ingredient listing. I have very recently pressed the Agriculture Commissioner for rapid progress on this.

  Zoo Animals
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for South Shields of 25 June,Official Report, column 28, how many animals in zoos have died of

  339
  spongiform encephalopathies; if he will list the species involved, the zoos concerned and the date detected in each case; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Spongiform encephalopathies have been confirmed in five antelope in British zoos:

  — a nyala, died June 1986

  — a gemsbok, died June 1987

  — an Arabian oryx, died March 1989

  — a greater kudu, died August 1989

  — an eland, died December 1989

  A scientific paper published in 1980 reported the occurrence between 1974 and 1979 of chronic wasting disease, a transmissible spongiform encephalopathy, in 63 mule deer, one black-tailed deer and one mule deer crossed white-tailed deer in two wildlife parks in the United States of America. A paper published in 1982 reported the occurrence of the disease in six Rocky mountain elk in the same two wildlife parks.

  A spongiform encephalopathy was confirmed in four white tigers which died or were killed in Bristol zoo between 1970 and 1977. Experimental inoculations of brain material from the tigers gave no indication that the disease is transmissible.

  Surplus Food
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the invitation to organisations to participate in the 1990 surplus food scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  I announced to the House on 19 March that the surplus food scheme would be continued for a further year. Following that announcement, the press coverage that attended it and the individual invitations issued by my Department, we have been able to designate 420 organisations to distribute approximately 3,800 tonnes of butter and 3,000 tonnes of beef to the most needy citizens of the United Kingdom.

  I have deliberately designated more organisations than in previous years in order to meet the criticism that there was "patchiness" in the availability of food across the country. But as the quantities are limited, it must be understood that the assistance must, necessarily, be spread more thinly as a result.

  The charitable and voluntary organisations wishing to participate asked for far more than is available under the scheme. I have therefore had to share the butter and beef as fairly as possible between them, by allocating to each organisation an amount proportional to the number of needy people it will reach. I have given special priority in allocating this food to organisations providing prepared meals and to those serving the homeless and destitute.

  I am placing a list of all the organisations I have designated to participate in this year's scheme in the Library of the House and my officials will now be writing to all organisations that applied.

  Fisheries Council
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the Fisheries Council held in Luxembourg on 27 June.

  Mr. Curry
  I represented the United Kingdom at the Council of Fisheries Ministers in Luxembourg on 27 June 1990 together with my noble Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office.
  340
  There was a substantial discussion of the EC technical conservation arrangements. The Council agreed on the urgent need for action in the North sea. I stressed particularly the need to improve the selectivity of gear so that catches of immature North sea haddock and cod are reduced. As agreed at last December's Council, the Commission is to make proposals by the end of July; and the Council agreed to take decisions on these at the earliest possible opportunity.

  We also secured some valuable new fishing opportunities. The EC has gained increased west Greenland cod; and the Council agreed that this should be allocated according to the principle of relative stability, bringing our fleet 1,410 tonnes. In addition, in the light of scientific evidence, the Council agreed to increase the Irish sea sole TAC, bringing us an extra 170 tonnes, including a swap with the Netherlands.

  In response to strong Irish concerns, the Council agreed to adjust the staging of the EC catch of western horse mackerel. We safeguarded the position of our fishermen by ensuring that the tonnage put aside for the last four months of the year is more than the catch in the same period last year.

EMPLOYMENT

  Health and Safety Commission
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the Health and Safety Commission's financial bid for the financial year 1990–91; and how much it received.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Government met the Health and Safety Commission's bid for 1990–91 in full and the financial provision is set out in the supply estimates published in March 1990.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the grant in aid given to the Health and Safety Executive for each financial year since 1979.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Grant in aid provided for the Health and Safety Commission is as follows:

  Financial year

  Grant in aid £000s

  1979–80

  55,757

  1980–81

  70,970

  1981–82

  80,816

  1982–83

  81,335

  1983–84

  87,993

  1984–85

  90,298

  1985–86

  93,283

  1986–87

  94,334

  1987–88

  94,235

  1988–89

  97,390

  1989–90

  102,974

  1990–91

  116,557

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the dates of his last three meetings with the members of the Health and Safety Commission; and what was the purpose of each meeting.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. and learned Friend has had two meetings with members of the Health and Safety Commission since becoming Secretary of State. He met the
  341
  chairman of the commission on 31 January for a wide-ranging discussion on the work of the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive. He also met the chairman with five members of the commission on 31 May when they discussed the commission's plan of work for 1990–91 and beyond.

  Training
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) for each standard region and for Great Britain as a whole, how much expenditure, excluding administration costs, at cash and constant prices, was spent in each year since 1979 on(a) employment training, and the earlier programmes it replaced, (b) the youth training scheme, earlier youth opportunities programme, and (c) the enterprise allowance scheme;

  (2) for each Training Agency, formerly MSC, area and for Great Britain as a whole, how much expenditure, excluding administration costs, at cash and constant

  £ million

  Employment training

  Youth training scheme

  Enterprise allowance scheme

  Cash

  Constant

  Cash

  Constant

  Cash

  Constant

  1983–84

  618·2

  850·6

  720·6

  991·5

  23·2

  31·9

  1984–85

  749·1

  981·3

  796·5

  1,043·4

  76·8

  100·6

  1985–86

  867·2

  1,077·7

  818·2

  1,016·8

  103·9

  129·1

  1986–87

  1,255·1

  1,510·4

  875·1

  1,053·1

  143·4

  172·6

  1987–88

  1,328·0

  1,517·5

  1,007·3

  1,151·0

  195·9

  223·9

  1988–89

  1,290·0

  1,373·5

  993·2

  1,057·8

  196·7

  209·5

  1989–90

  1,120·8

  1,120·8

  976·0

  976·0

  170·9

  170·9

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give for each region, and for Great Britain, for each month since July 1989, the number of employment training special group starts, separately for skill shortage recruits, labour market returners and single parents; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Safety Procedures (Departmental Guidance)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what guidance is offered by his Department to industrial companies wishing to implement safety procedures set out in the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Health and Safety Executive has committed substantial resources to ensuring industry's awareness and understanding of the requirements of the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) Regulations. Over 4½ million free information leaflets have been distributed and detailed national guidance has been published including six approved codes of practice, a guide to assessment for employers and an open learning course.

  In addition, HSE inspectors have contributed to discussions, lectures, seminars and conferences on the regulations and offered guidance during the course of their visits to employers' premises. HSE has been working closely with industry organisations and employers to develop guidance for their members. There has also been a national publicity campaign and extensive use of local TV, radio and the press.
  342
  prices, was spent in each year since 1979 on (a) employment training, and the earlier programmes it replaced, (b) the youth training scheme, earlier youth opportunities programme, and (c) the enterprise allowance scheme.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The following table shows expenditure for Great Britain at cash and constant 1989–90 prices, excluding administration costs, in each year since 1983–84, on(a) employment training, (b) youth training scheme and (c) enterprise allowance scheme.

  It is not possible separately to identify administration costs in earlier years. A breakdown at levels lower than Great Britain is not available. Constant prices were calculated by use of the GDP deflator index from the Chancellor's "Financial Statement and Budget Report" published March 1990.

  New Businesses
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many new businesses have registered for value added tax in(a) Derbyshire and (b) the east midlands in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The latest available information is for 1988 and is given in the table. Early indications for 1989 from data collected by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise are that in the United Kingdom as a whole, there was a net increase of 1,500 a week on average, compared with 1,200 a week in 1988.

  Derbyshire

  East Midlands

  Registrations

  3,100

  15,200

  Deregistrations

  2,400

  11,100

  Net Change (per cent.)

  3·3

  4·0

  Wages Councils
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which classes of retail employers are covered by wages councils.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Employers engaged in the retail sale of items listed in schedule 2 to the Retail Trades Wages Council (Non-Food) (Abolition and Establishment) Order 1979 (Statutory Instrument No. 863 1979) and the Retail Trades Wages Council (Food and Allied Trades) (Abolition and Establishment) Order 1979 (Statutory Instrument No. 862 1979) are covered by the retail non-food and retail food wages councils respectively. Copies of the statutory instruments have been placed in the Library.

  Disablement Advisory Service
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to modify or alter the services offered by the Disablement Advisory Service within the next two years.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The service offered by the Disablement Advisory Service has been considered in the review of services for people with disabilities which my Department has just undertaken. We shall be publishing the consultative document giving the results of the review in the next few days.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list for each of the disablement advisory offices covering the district of West Yorkshire(a) the current action case load, (b) the case load for the preceding two years and (c) the current annual budget.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Employment Service became an executive agency on 2 April 1990. Mr. Mike Fogden, the Employment Service Agency's chief executive, will be replying in writing to the hon. Lady.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Bus Privatisation
  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has any plans to privatise Ulster Bus and City Bus.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  No.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give an estimate of the current number of homeless in Northern Ireland; and, of those, how many suffer from(a) alcoholism or drug dependency, (b) AIDS and (c) mental illness.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: No.

  Cerebral Palsy
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the long-term plans for dealing with educational, medical and social needs of children who suffer from cerebral palsy.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 26 June 1990]: The Government will continue to provide a wide range of services and facilities for children with cerebral palsy and other motor disorders. In addition, the United Kingdom is negotiating access to a planned new international institute for conductive education in Hungary and the role of that technique in complementing existing services in Northern Ireland will be considered when those negotiations are concluded.

  Anaesthetist, Downpatrick
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when a decision will be taken about the appointment of a third anaesthetist to the Down group of hospitals in Downpatrick.
  344
  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 26 June 1990]: The Eastern health and social services board has yet to decide whether the third anaesthetist post at the Down group of hospitals should be filled on a permanent basis. The matter will be considered by the board's policy and care review committee on 5 July 1990.

  Summer School, Dungannon
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will meet the officers of the Buddy Bear committee to discuss requirements for the summer school to be held in Dungannon.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 26 June 1990]: The Buddy Bear Trust has already provided me with details of its proposed summer school but, given the Government's overall policy on the introduction of conductive education into this country and the continuing need for evaluation of the technique, I have concluded that it would not be appropriate to provide financial assistance for this from public funds.

  I understand that the trust is also developing detailed proposals for a permanent institute for conductive education in Northern Ireland and I will carefully consider those proposals when they are made available.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures have been taken or are planned with the introduction of a capitation scheme within the Government dental services to take account of the particular dental care needs of children in Northern Ireland with regard to levels of dental disease, deprivation factors and age profile of population.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 27 June 1990]: It is not intended to introduce any specific measures particular to Northern Ireland. Additional payments to dentists, in the form of a one-off entry payment and an increase in the capitation fee, are made for children with excessive dental decay.

  Energy Consumption
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give for each year from 1978 the energy consumption, broken down by fuel, of the buildings occupied by his Department, expressing the figures in(a) cash terms, (b) 1978–79 money terms and (c) units of consumption for electricity in kilowatt hours, gas in therms, liquid fuel in litres and solid fuel in tonnes.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: The information requested for the years prior to 1983–84 is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. From 1983–84 onwards the energy consumption and costs for the Northern Ireland Government Office estate, broken down by fuel, are as follows:

  Electricity

  Oil

  Gas

  1983–84

  Consumption

  25·5m KWh

  4·25m L

  72K th

  Cash prices

  £1,140,000

  £680,000

  £58,000

  1978–79 prices

  £619,691

  £286,181

  £26,342

  1984–85

  Consumption

  27·2m KWh

  4·65m L

  79K th

  345

  Electricity

  Oil

  Gas

  Cash prices

  £1,065,000

  £684,000

  £58,000

  1978–79 prices

  £567,279

  £267,630

  £25,784

  1985–86

  Consumption

  29·2m KWh

  4·8m L

  53K th

  Cash prices

  £1,423,000

  £861,000

  £44,000

  1978–79 prices

  £728,940

  £339,070

  £18,996

  1986–87

  Consumption

  34·1m KWh

  5·19 L

  27K th

  Cash prices

  £1,496,000

  £532,000

  £27,000

  1978–79 prices

  £766,335

  £261,884

  £11,541

  1987–88

  Consumption

  33·3m KWh

  5·14m L

  37K th

  Cash prices

  £1,540,000

  £437,000

  £26,000

  1978–79 prices

  £788,874

  £231,000

  £11,637

  1988–89

  Consumption

  33·3m KWh

  5·11m L

  —

  Cash prices

  £1,594,000

  £359,000

  —

  1978–79 prices

  £751,875

  £185,413

  —

  1989–90

  Consumption

  32·75m KWh

  4·98m L

  —

  Cash prices

  £1,601,000

  £449,000

  —

  1978–79 prices

  £708,835

  £202,660

  —

  Note: Cash prices have been converted to 1978–79 prices by reference to the rates of the elements of the retail prices index applicable to the respective fuels.

DEFENCE

  Astra (Ammunition Supplies)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the dates when, and persons with whom, his Department was in communication concerning the possible granting of contracts for the supply of ammunition to Her Majesty's forces by the Astra company; and what representations he has received since then from Astra concerning assurances allegedly given at that time.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  As part of their normal duties, many persons employed in my Department have been involved on numerous occasions in discussion with Astra regarding the supply of ammunition. My Department has no record of representations about alleged assurances.

  Security
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has had any discussions with his American counterpart concerning the development of the security posture called "special operations and low-intensity conflict" for western Europe and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's northern flank.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No.

  Research
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total identifiable expenditure on research by his Department in each year since 1979; what proportion 346
  was awarded on a customer-contractor basis; and what proportion of his total departmental budget was expended on research for each year.

  Mr. Neubert
  Research expenditure by the Ministry of Defence, net and inclusive of VAT, was as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  Percentage of defence budget

  1982–83

  305

  2·2

  1983–84

  358

  2·2

  1984–85

  393

  2·3

  1985–86

  399

  2·2

  1986–87

  408

  2·2

  1987–88

  396

  2·1

  1988–89

  386

  2·0

  Comparable figures are not available for years before 1982–83. Customer/supplier arrangements apply throughout MOD-funded research.

  Christmas Island
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn),Official Report, 13 June, column 243, he will set out the total financial compensation paid to the United Kingdom by the United States of America for the clean-up of the Christmas Island test site following the 1962 Operation Dominic tests to which he refers.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Operation Dominic tests were all high air bursts off Christmas Island, and did not result in significant contamination of the island; no special clean-up operations by the United Kingdom were, therefore, necessary as a result of these tests.

  RAF Stanmore Park (Explosion)
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make an urgent statement on the explosion which occurred at RAF Stanmore Park on Thursday 21 June at 9.35 am.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  At approximately 8.15 am on 21 June a sports holdall was found by a civilian worker on the ground inside the perimeter fence at RAF Stanmore Park adjacent to a civilian workshop. The area was immediately cordoned off and evacuated.

  A bomb disposal team had begun clearance operations with the civil police when the holdall exploded at approximately 9.30 am. There were no injuries, but a nearby workshop was damaged.

  The police investigation is continuing.

  Airbus
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if any unsolicited proposal has been received from Airbus Industrie, or either of its partners, for adaptation of airbus civil aircraft for maritime reconnaissance or other weapons-carrying role.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  No.

  Boeing AWACS
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department intends to purchase Boeing 707 aircraft to provide on-going training for aircrew of Royal Air Force Boeing AWACS aircraft.
  347
  Mr. Alan Clark
  No.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the ratio of low-altitude military flights as part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation exercises in the United Kingdom to those in the Federal Republic of Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Canada, the United States of America, Belgium and Turkey in 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988.

  Mr. Neubert
  I regret that the information requested is not available.

  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to limit the speed of aircraft involved in low-flying military exercises to 420 knots maximum.

  Mr. Neubert
  No.

  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to ban low-altitude military flights over nuclear plants, hospitals, schools, places of worship, public buildings or factories.

  Mr. Neubert
  Standing instructions already prohibit military aircraft from overflying nuclear installations at low level. Other cases where protection is sought from overflights by military aircraft at low level are considered on their individual merits and there are no plans to change this position.

  International Military Services
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether International Military Services has an office in Iran.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement on 12 January 1988 at column 199. The position remains the same.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether International Military Services has had any communication with the Libyan Government at any time in the last 10 years.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I am assured by the company that it has not communicated with the Libyan Government at any time in the last 10 years.

  Options for Change
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his reply of 25 June, if he will state the exact number of staff within the Ministry of Defence who have been involved at various times in certain aspects of the options for change work in addition to their normal duties.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The number has varied considerably as more staff have been drawn into the work and consulted on particular aspects of it and as the level of activity has fluctuated. It is not, therefore, possible to give a precise figure.

  Iran
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether Rolls-Royce has sold Olympus and Proteus engines to the Iranian navy at any time in the last 10 years;
  348
  (2) whether spare parts for Chieftain tanks have been supplied to the Iranian Government at any time in the last 10 years;

  (3) whether Plessey has sold the Iranian Government air defence radars at any time in the past 10 years.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  It has been the policy of successive Administrations not to give details of defence equipment sales to specific countries. In respect of Iran, however, the guidelines on defence exports to that country announced by my right hon. and learned Friend, the then Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary on 29 October 1985,Official Report, column 450, have been rigorously applied since the date of their promulgation in December 1984.

  Libya
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions in the last 10 years contracts have been agreed for the supply of non-lethal military equipment to Libya.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  It has been the policy of successive Administrations not to give details of defence equipment exports to specific countries. The United Kingdom has, however, had an embargo on all new defence sales to Libya since May 1984.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any Libyan military officers have received any training in this country, at any time in the last 10 years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A number of Libyan junior naval officers attended basic training courses between 1980 and 1984 but all such training ceased after diplomatic relations were broken off in 1984.

  Soviet Union
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current assessment of the nature of the military threat from the Soviet Union; and what assessment of the potential military threat from that country has taken place as a result of the study of options for change.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We welcome the major political changes in the Soviet Union and the shift in emphasis of Soviet military doctrine to defensive objectives. None-the-less, even after the implementation of a CFE agreement, the Soviet Union will remain the largest single military power in Europe. The changing circumstances in Europe are, of course, central to our examinations of options for change.

  Radar
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the cost of the independent environmental impact assessment being undertaken by W. S. Atkins in connection with the proposed radar installation on St. David's airfield, Pembrokeshire.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The cost of the independent environmental impact assessment for St. David's airfield is commercial-in-confidence. It is not the policy of my Department to disclose such information.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Retirement Pension
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in the light of the recent decision by the House of Lords in the case of James v. Eastleigh borough council, what changes he intends to propose in existing legislation to ensure equality of treatment between men and women in respect of the state retirement pension.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The James case was concerned with concessions to people by reference to their age. It has no effect on the law on social security, and therefore there is no need to amend that law in the light of this judgment.

  Computer Facilities
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what initiatives his Department is taking to develop its computer facilities in the north-west.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Department continues to develop and improve its computer facilities in the north-west to ensure the effective and efficient implementation of our major programme for the computerisation of the social security benefits system. This includes an initiative to develop computer facilities for the new benefits for disabled people which are described in "The Way Ahead" (Cm 917).

  Disabled People
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to improve the benefit structure for disabled people with costs other than those relating to mobility and attendance.

  Mr. Scott
  The existing benefits structure already recognises that disabled people have extra costs. The OPCS surveys found that attendance allowance and mobility allowance are well directed towards the most common of the more costly disabilities. Equally important, these benefits provide help to people with other disabilities which are frequently combined with locomotion or self-care disabilities. The new disability allowance will build on that framework by offering a relatively simple and readily understood benefit to both severely and moderately disabled people.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to improve the structure of benefits for disabled people and their carers.

  Mr. Scott
  Our proposals to improve the balance and structure of social security benefits for disabled people and their carers are set out in "The Way Ahead: Benefits for Disabled People" (Cm 917), laid before the House on 10 January. In 1993–94 the changes will add some £300 million to the £8·3 billion we are already spending on benefits for long-term sick and disabled people and their carers.

  Departmental Research (Expenditure)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total identifiable expenditure on research by his Department in each year since 1979; what proportion was awarded on a customer-contractor basis; and what proportion of his total departmental budget was expended on research for each year.
  350
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Social Security became a separate Department in 1988. Research and development by DSS, all of which is managed on the customer-contractor principle, is financed through the social security research budget. For 1989–90, the total expenditure on research and development was £937,000. Information on the overall DSS budget for 1989–90 is not yet available. For 1988–89, the total research and development expenditure was £636,000, forming 0·0013 per cent. of the overall DSS budget.

  Information for earlier years has been published in the "Annual Review of Government Funded Research and Development", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Income Support
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the extra cost at 1990–91 benefit rates of increasing the personal allowance for couples dependent on income support to twice the rate for a single person over the age of 25.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The estimated cost for all income-related benefits would be £1,200 million.

  Source: Modelled using data drawn from the 1985–86–87 Family Expenditure Surveys and the 1988 Annual Statistical Enquiry of Income Support recipients.

  Nuclear Test Veterans
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to the reply,Official Report, 13 June, column 215, to the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, if he will categorise the 248 claims for war pensions made by nuclear test veterans or their widows according to the medical condition which caused death or disablement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I regret that the information is not immediately available, but it is being obtained. I will write to the right hon. Member in due course.

  Personal Pension Plans
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether bodies representing consumers' interests have been included in the interested bodies which have been asked for their views on the existing regulations on the disclosure of information to members of occupational and pension schemes referred to in his reply to the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling on 14 June,Official Report, column 331; and if he will list the interested bodies that have been asked for their views.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The bodies, including those representing consumers' interests, which have been asked for their views on the current regulations on disclosure of information are:

  Occupational Pensions Board

  Association of Consulting Actuaries

  Institute of Actuaries

  Faculty of Actuaries

  Nationalised Industries Pension Group

  Society of Pension Consultants

  Confederation of British Industry

  Trades Union Congress

  Association of British Insurers

  National Association of Pension Funds

  Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales

  Institute of Chartered Accountants in Scotland

  Occupational Pensions Advisory Service

  Association of Pension Lawyers

  Fraud
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Ward) of 21 June, column 709, if he will send the hon. Member for Oldham, West a copy of the report "Working Together."

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Pursuant to the reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Ward) on 21 June, a copy of the report "Working Together" was placed in the Library on that date. I am sending a copy to the hon. Member separately.

  Local Office, Cumbernauld
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the current number of staff vacancies, identifying the number in each grade, at the DSS office in Cumbernauld.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Planning for future resource requirements is progressive and at 26 June 1990 there was only 0.5 local officer 1 vacancy to be filled. Arrangements have been made to fill this on 1 August 1990.

  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the current staff establishment, identifying the number in each grade, at the DSS office in Cumbernauld.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  On 26 June 1990, the staff in post at Cumbernauld integrated local office was:

  Number

  Senior executive officer

  1

  Higher executive officer

  6

  Local officer 1

  30

  Local officer 2

  53

  Administrative assistant

  16

  Telephonist

  1

  Typist

  3

  Messenger

  1

  Total

  111

  In addition, eight casual administrative assistants are in post.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many persons who have received loans from the social fund are making repayments at(a) above 15 per cent., (b) 15 per cent., (c) above 10 per cent. but less than 15 per cent., (d) 10 per cent., (e) above 5 per cent. but less than 10 per cent., (f) 5 per cent. and (g) less than 5 per cent. of the income support applicable amount.

  Mr. Scott
  At 30 April 1990, the latest date for which data are available, 103,055 social fund loans were being recovered. A detailed breakdown of the percentage rates at which loans are being refunded by individual applicants is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Community Charge
  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what will be the effect of a community charge levied at(a) £350 and (b) £450 on the replacement ratios,
  352
  expressed as out-of-work spending power divided by in-work spending power, of unemployed people under 25 years, living with their parents, and offered jobs at (a) £80 a week, (b) £100 a week and (c) £120 a week, assuming work expenses averaging £10 a week.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 5 June 1990]: The information is listed in the table. It should be noted that the results in the table remain arbitrary. They cannot reflect, except by chance, the actual circumstances of particular people and cannot claim to be representative of the population at large.

  Replacement ratios

  Gross earnings per week £

  Community charge £350 per cent.

  Community charge £450 per cent.

  80

  43

  43

  100

  36

  36

  120

  30

  31

  Notes:—

  1. The methods and assumptions are those used in the published Tax/Benefit Model Tables but in this example it has been assumed that no rent is payable.

  2. Rounded to the nearest per cent.

  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what will be the effect of a community charge levied at(a) £350 and (b) £450 on the replacement ratios expressed as out-of-work spending power divided by in-work spending power, of a teenage, single mother with one child under five years, living with her parents, and offered a job at (a) £60 a week, (b) £80 a week, and (c) £100 a week, assuming fares to work and child-care costs totalling £50 a week.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 5 June 1990]: The information is listed in the table. It should be noted that the results in the table remain arbitrary. They cannot reflect, except by chance, the actual circumstances of particular people and cannot claim to be representative of the population at large.

  Replacement ratios

  Gross earnings per week £

  Community charge £350 per cent.

  Community charge £450 per cent.

  60

  56

  56

  80

  54

  54

  100

  51

  52

  Notes:

  1. The methods and assumptions are those used in the published Tax/Benefit Model Tables but in this example it has been assumed that no rent is payable.

  2. Rounded to the nearest per cent.

  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what will be the effect of a community charge levied at(a) £350 and (b) £450 on the replacement ratios, expressed as out-of-work spending power divided by in-work spending power, of an unemployed man with non-earning wife and two children under five years, a mortgage of £40,000 and work expenses averaging £10 a week, assuming offer wages of £120, £140, £160, £180, £200, £220, £240, £260, £280 and £300 a week.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 5 June 1990]: The information is listed in the table. It should be noted that the results in the table remain arbitrary. They cannot

  353
  reflect, except by chance, the actual circumstances of particular people and cannot claim to be representative of the population at large.

  Replacement ratios

  Gross earnings per week £

  Community charge £350 per cent.

  Community charge £450 per cent.

  120

  264

  268

  140

  240

  243

  160

  221

  223

  180

  177

  178

  200

  144

  145

  220

  119

  123

  240

  102

  105

  260

  89

  91

  280

  78

  80

  300

  70

  72

  Notes:

  1. The methods and assumptions are those used in the published Tax/Benefit Model Tables but in this example mortgage interest payments were calculated assuming payment over 25 years and an interest rate of 15·4 per cent.

  2. Rounded to the nearest per cent.

  Pensions and Benefits
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what were the November 1979 and April 1990 rates of benefit in cash, giving couple and single rates separately where appropriate, and showing the percentage change in real terms, using the RPI and Rossi indexes for(a) November 1979 to April 1990 and (b) November 1979 to September 1989 for (i) retirement pension, (ii) non-contributory retirement pension, (iii) unemployment benefit, (iv) sickness benefit, (v) maternity allowance, (vi) child benefit, (vii) one-parent benefit, (viii) industrial disablement benefit, (ix) industrial death benefit, (x) war disablement pension, (xi) war widow's pension, (xii) attendance allowance, higher and lower rate, (xiii) invalid care allowance, (xiv) severe disablement allowance, (xv) mobility allowance and (xvi) supplementary benefit and income support personal allowance for (1) those aged 16 and 17 years, (2) those aged 18 to 24 years and (3) persons aged over 25 years;

  (2) if he will publish in the Official Report the (a) November 1979 and (b) April 1990 rates of benefit in cash, giving couple and single rates separately where appropriate, and showing (1) the percentage change in real terms, using the retail prices index and Rossi indexes as

  Table: Comparison of benefit rates

  November 1978 rates in cash

  November 1979 rates in cash

  November 1978 rates in April 1990 prices

  November 1979 rates in April 1990 prices

  April 1990 rates in cash

  Ratio of3 benefit to gross earnings November 1978 (per cent.)

  Ratio of benefit to gross earnings November 1979 (per cent.)

  Ratio of benefit to gross earnings April 1989 (per cent.)

  Percentage change November 1978 to April 1990

  Percentage change November 1979 to April 1990

  Percentage4 change between uprating periods November 1978–79 to April 1989–90

  Retirement pension

  Single person

  19·50

  23·30

  47·52

  48·38

  46·90

  26·9

  27·0

  20·5

  -1·3

  -3·1

  5·4

  Married couple

  31·20

  37·30

  76·04

  77·44

  75·10

  43·1

  43·3

  32·7

  -1·2

  -3·0

  5·4

  Unemployment benefit

  Single person

  15·75

  18·50

  38·38

  38·41

  37·35

  21·8

  21·5

  16·3

  -2·7

  -2·8

  3·8

  Married couple

  25·50

  29·95

  62·15

  62·18

  60·40

  35·2

  34·7

  26·3

  -2·8

  -2·9

  3·7

  Sickness benefit

  Single person

  15·75

  18·50

  38·38

  38·41

  37·70

  21·8

  21·5

  15·6

  -7·0

  -7·1

  -0·7

  Married couple

  25·50

  29·95

  62·15

  62·18

  57·80

  35·2

  34·7

  25·2

  -7·0

  -7·0

  -0·7

  Industrial disablement benefit

  31·90

  38·00

  77·74

  78·90

  76·60

  44·1

  44·1

  33·4

  -1·5

  -2·9

  5·2

  Industrial death benefit

  20·05

  23·85

  48·86

  49·52

  46·90

  27·7

  27·7

  20·5

  -4·0

  -5·3

  2·5

  354
  appropriate for the period November 1979 to September 1989, (2) the percentage change in real terms, using the retail prices index and Rossi indexes as appropriate for the period November 1979 to April 1990, (3) the percentage change in relation to the increase in male average earnings in the period November 1979 to September 1989, and (4) the percentage change in relation to the increase in male average earnings in the period November 1979 to April 1990 for (i) retirement pension, (ii) non-contributory retirement pension, (iii) unemployment benefit, (iv) sickness benefit, (v) maternity allowance, (vi) child benefit, (vii) one-parent benefit, (viii) industrial disablement benefit, (ix) industrial death benefit, (x) war disablement pension, (xi) war widow's pension, (xii) attendance allowance, higher and lower rate, (xiii) invalid care allowance, (xiv) severe disablement allowance, (xv) mobility allowance and (xvi) supplementary benefit/ income support personal allowance for (a) 16 to 17 years old, (b) 18 to 24 years old and (c) persons aged 25 years plus.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 15 June 1990]: I regret that it is not possible, on the basis of the information contained in the question, to provide the information requested in relation to the supplementary benefit and income support schemes. Nor, since September 1989 was not an uprating date, would it be appropriate to provide an analysis related to that date of the change in the value of the benefits listed.

  The table therefore provides figures on the same basis as in the answer to a comparable question from the hon. Member which I gave on 20 December 1989, updated to April 1990. As I pointed out at that time, comparisons over the period in question are complicated by the change in 1983 from uprating partly based on forecasts of future inflation to upratings based on known movements in the retail prices index to the latest available date. Moreover, in November 1979 long-term benefit rates were increased by 2 per cent. more than forecast inflation to make up for the fact that the forecast underlying the 1978 uprating had proved 2 per cent. lower than the actual growth in earnings of 13·3 per cent. between November 1977 and November 1978. The table gives the figures requested in relation to both 1978 and 1979. The retail prices index has been used as this is the appropriate index for those benefits listed in the table. It also shows the change in the average real value of benefit between the uprating years November 1978 to November 1979, and April 1989 to April 1990.
  355

  November 1978 rates in cash

  November 1979 rates in cash

  November 1978 rates in April 1990 prices

  November 1979 rates in April 1990 prices

  April 1990 rates in cash

  Ratio of3 benefit to gross earnings November 1978 (per cent.)

  Ratio of benefit to gross earnings November 1979 (per cent.)

  Ratio of benefit to gross earnings April 1989 (per cent.)

  Percentage change November 1978 to April 1990

  Percentage change November 1979 to April 1990

  Percentage4 change between uprating periods November 1978–79 to April 1989–90

  Maternity allowance

  Single person

  15·75

  18·50

  38·38

  38·41

  35·70

  21·8

  21·5

  15·6

  -7·0

  -7·1

  -0·7

  Married couple

  25·50

  29·95

  62·15

  62·18

  57·80

  35·2

  34·7

  25·2

  -7·0

  -7·0

  -0·7

  Non-contributory retirement pension

  Single person

  11·70

  14·00

  28·51

  29·07

  28·20

  16·2

  16·2

  12·3

  -1·1

  -3·0

  5·5

  Married couple

  18·75

  22·40

  45·70

  46·51

  45·05

  25·9

  26·0

  19·6

  -1·4

  -3·1

  5·2

  War disablement pension

  31·90

  38·00

  77·74

  78·90

  76·60

  44·1

  44·1

  33·4

  -1·5

  -2·9

  5·2

  War widows pension

  25·55

  30·45

  62·67

  63·22

  60·95

  35·3

  35·3

  26·7

  -2·7

  -3·6

  5·5

  Attendance allowance

  Higher rate

  15·60

  18·60

  38·02

  38·62

  37·55

  21·5

  21·6

  16·4

  -1·2

  -2·8

  5·4

  Lower rate

  10·40

  12·40

  25·35

  25·75

  25·05

  14·4

  14·4

  10·9

  -1·2

  -2·7

  5·6

  Invalid care allowance

  Single person

  11·70

  14·00

  28·51

  29·07

  28·20

  16·2

  16·2

  12·3

  -1·1

  -3·0

  5·5

  Married person

  18·75

  22·40

  45·70

  46·51

  45·05

  25·9

  26·0

  19·6

  -1·4

  -3·1

  5·2

  Severe disablement allowance

  Single person

  11·70

  14·00

  28·51

  29·07

  28·20

  16·20

  16·2

  12·3

  -1·1

  -3·0

  5·5

  Married couple

  18·75

  22·40

  45·70

  46·51

  45·05

  25·90

  26·0

  19·6

  -1·4

  -3·1

  5·2

  Mobility allowance1

  10·00

  12·00

  24·91

  24·91

  26·25

  13·8

  13·9

  11·4

  5·4

  5·4

  12·3

  Child benefit2

  3·00

  4·00

  7·31

  8·30

  7·25

  4·1

  4·6

  3·4

  -0·8

  -12·7

  -4·1

  One parent benefit

  2·00

  2·50

  4·87

  5·19

  5·60

  2·8

  2·9

  2·4

  15·0

  7·9

  22·3

  1 For mobility allowance, the initial uprating period is July 1979 to November 1979.

  2 For child benefit, the initial uprating period is April 1979 to November 1979.

  3 Average gross weekly earnings, all full-time workers on adult rates (Source: New Earnings Survey 1989—the latest available information). Interpolated by the seasonally adjusted monthly index of average earnings, all employees in industries and services (published by DE).

  4 The percentage change between uprating periods is calculated as the percentage change in the average real value of benefits during the uprating period April 1989 to April 1990, as compared to the period November 1978 to November 1979.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to provide a substantive reply to the question regarding the value of benefits in 1979 and 1990 tabled for answer on 15 June.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I have replied to the hon. Member's question today.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many Department of Social Security employees are in receipt of family credit.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: The number of employees in receipt of family credit is 570, including those cases where the family credit is received by the partner of an employee.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Guildford.

EC Consumer Affairs Council, 13th June
Baroness Burton of Coventry Baroness Burton of Coventry asked Her Majesty's Government:
What items were discussed at the European Community Consumer Affairs Council on 13th June and what progress was made.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the Council on 13th June adopted the package travel directive. It considered and agreed to extend the system for the rapid exchange of information on consumer products; the matter being remitted to COREPER to consider further detailed procedures. It agreed in principle to extend the European home and leisure accident surveillance system. There was also discussion of the proposed general product safety directive and the Commission presented its three-year plan for consumer policy in the EC.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, as regards product safety, does the Minister recall that a year ago at the Council meeting held on 1st June the Commission's proposal on product safety was discussed and referred back? Am I not correct in thinking that at the meeting on 13th June the same procedure was adopted; namely, that the directive was again discussed and again referred back to the same committee? Has the Minister read the excellent report of our own Select Committee on product safety which states:
"There is clear evidence that a lack of harmonised safety rules disrupts trade across borders"?
What do the Government feel about this delay, and can the Minister say what they propose to do to hasten matters?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am aware of the Select Committee's report to which the noble Baroness referred. As regards the draft directive, as the noble Baroness will be aware we believe that it still contains a number of shortcomings. That is why we believe that further work needs to be done on it before it can be taken forward.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, that does not get us very far. Does the Minister not agree that 12 months has been enough time to look at the report? Can he give us any hope that, when it is considered again, it will not be referred back again? Can he also say when the next meeting of the Council will be?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the question of whether progress can be carried forward on this matter
1722
depends on whether improvements can be made on this issue. We are not in favour of the draft directive as it at present exists.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, can the Minister give me the date of the next Council meeting?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not have that information in front of me. I shall ascertain the date and let the noble Baroness know.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I wish to raise another matter—
Noble Lords: No!
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I wish to ask the Minister about consumer integration. On 29th June 1989 the Government told the House that they fully approved and supported consumer interests being taken fully into account in other Community policies. Can the Minister tell me what specific proposals were put forward on 13th June?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I recited at some length the topics that were considered at the Council meeting to which the noble Baroness referred. If she is now referring to the Commission's three-year plan on consumer policy, I can best describe that as being something like the curate's egg.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, if the House will allow me—
Noble Lords: No!
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I agree with his description of the three-year plan? I was not muddling the two. Consumer integration was discussed on 13th June. Can the Minister say whether any specific proposals were put forward?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not sure that I can elaborate further on the lengthy original Answer that I gave on this matter. If there is any further information on the topic that the noble Baroness raised I shall write to her.

European Social Charter: Policy
3.11 p.m.
Lord Richard Lord Richard asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy towards the European social charter.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, the Government made clear from the outset their view that the practical effects of the social charter would be to regulate the labour market in a way which would put jobs at risk by raising costs, reducing flexibility and making our firms less competitive in world markets. The Government are therefore unable to support the social charter.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that somewhat predictable reply. I am sure he is aware that the Government have consistently emphasised their commitment to the social dimension. If they are against the social charter, can the Minister tell us what initiatives in the social sphere they are prepared to make and support?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we very much want to see progress in the social area. We fully support the idea of a social dimension to the single market. We believe that that is best achieved by completion of the single market, stimulating economic growth and reducing unemployment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the social charter is a singularly well-designed instrument for increasing both unemployment and inflation?
Lord Strathclyde: Yes, my Lords, and now the whole House will also be aware.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, are the Government aware that the social charter's preamble makes clear and stresses that employment direction and creation must be given absolute priority? It also states that the Community must respond to the competitive challenges of the future. That is part of the charter's preamble. Is the Minister aware that a Select Committee of this House examined the principles of the charter and made a recommendation to the Government that they should cease their total opposition to it? In addition, the committee said that if the Government wanted to make improvements they should do so by negotiation rather than by outright opposition.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the Government feel that the social charter is inconsistent with the agreement reached by all heads of state and governments at the Madrid meeting of the European Council in June 1989. The agreement was that job creation and development should have top priority in the achievement of the single market. The Government also say that, despite the difficulties we have with the social charter, we shall play a full part in the negotiations on the individual proposals in the European Commission's action programme of measures to implement the charter.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is much in the social charter which is perfectly acceptable to this country? Does he further agree that it would have been much better if we had taken an active part in its preparation and put our difficulties forward instead of more or less standing on the sidelines and then grumbling at what eventually appeared?
Lord Strathclyde: No, my Lords, not really. We feel that there are some aspects of the action programme arising out of the social charter which we shall be able to accept. There is no point in signing up to 100 per cent. of an agreement which involves a programme that we simply could not accept.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the social charter condemns the closed shop and yet the Opposition have been very much in favour of retaining an element of the closed shop in this country? How can they support the charter in one factor and yet disagree with it in another?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I understand that it was the Labour Party's approval of the social charter which has now caused it so much confusion about where it stands on the issue of the closed shop.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, will the noble Lord acknowledge that the key sentence in the social charter relating to employee involvement states:
"Information, consultation and participation of workers must be developed along appropriate lines and in such a way as to take account of the laws, contractual agreements and practices in the member states"?>
Is that not an admirable expression of the Government's own view? Should they not, therefore, warmly welcome it?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that is why, as individual proposals come out of the Commission's action programme, we shall definitely be playing a full part in negotiations.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I and many other people are not prepared to allow major issues which affect the lives and working conditions of the British working people to be decided in Brussels? Is he also aware that many of the issues and many of the policies which are likely to be imposed by Brussels will be complete anathema to many in the Labour Party and, indeed, to most people in the trade unions?
Lord Ennals: Not so!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I do not know how my noble friend on the Front Bench knows about that. He has very little contact with the trade unions and, therefore, he really would not know.
Further can the noble Lord say, bearing in mind the fact that Mrs. Papandreou is behind this attempt to impose the social charter throughout the EC, whether Greece, which was a signatory to the 1960 social charter of the Council of Europe, has accepted and fully implemented that charter?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very valid point. One of the steps we have taken is to ensure that implementation is fully recorded by the European Commission and that it reports regularly to the Council of Ministers to advise member states on exactly how implementation is progressing.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the TUC General Council, of which I was until recently a member, has given unanimous support to the principles of the social charter? Is he also aware that our party on this side of the House has also supported those principles?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am glad to hear the noble Baroness state that point. It confirms what my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing said; namely, that the Labour Party has now rejected the principle of the closed shop.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the Minister has already said that the Government accept some aspects of the social charter. Therefore, to enable us to understand what their policy is, can he tell the House which aspects they support and which they do not?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we understand that there will be some proposals on health and safety at work which we shall be quite willing to discuss in the most positive way. However, there are other proposals on part-time work which we feel would be detrimental to the employment prospects of people working in this country.
Earl Russell: My Lords, can the Minister say what legal advice the Government have received on the possibility of the charter becoming European law by majority vote? Further, can he say, in the event of it becoming law, whether they will reconsider some of their comments on the issue?
Lord Strathclyde: No, my Lords. The charter itself if not legally enforceable; it is simply a political declaration. It is from the social charter that the Commission has set up its action programmes. Their legal base will be decided on individual merits.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I am one of those who support the closed shop principle, but that fact is not to be confused with the views of the Labour Party?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House has heard the noble Lord's view.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there have always been elements in the Conservative Party who have objected to any restrictions on employment ever since they regretted the stopping of the practice of little boys jumping up chimneys?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that simply shows that we are a party which is committed to freedom of discussion.
Lord Rea: My Lords, with regard to the supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, in which he suggested that the charter was a prescription for higher inflation and unemployment, can the Minister say what the inflation and unemployment rates are in those countries which have accepted the principles of the charter?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, this country has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the European Community. Our youth unemployment is below half the average in the European Community. Those statistics speak for themselves.

Construction Industry Training Scheme
3.20 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the position of the construction industry training scheme in the light of reports that substantial cuts in funding are contemplated.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the Construction Industry Training Board and my department are still conducting negotiations on the volumes and funding of youth training undertaken by the board. These negotiations are not yet complete and I am therefore not able to comment on them at this stage.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer and am glad to learn that the discussions are still proceeding. Is there a possibility that the youth training scheme could be abandoned altogether unless the funding is provided? Would that not be a great pity? The building industry is still suffering from a chronic shortage of skilled workers and there has been a decline in the number of school-leavers.
Lord Strathclyde: No, my Lords, I do not think that there is any prospect of youth training ceasing to be a programme of the CITB.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is it not on record that the Government have said that the Construction Industry Training Board scheme is the finest in Britain and an example to be followed? Does it not flow from that that cuts should not be directed at what the Government consider is one of the finest training schemes?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we have already shown our commitment to the CITB by leaving it in its statutory format, while other industry training organisations have been privatised. By the same token, however, we feel that employers themselves should play a greater part in contributing towards the training of their future employees.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, even though there is a downturn at present in the building industry, there is still a severe shortage of skilled operatives? Come the time when the Government may be able to lower interest rates and the building industry starts to increase its activity again, will it not further exacerbate the problem if there is a growing shortage of skilled operatives? In its own interests the nation will need a larger pool of skilled young people going into the trade. Can the Minister take that on board in his general considerations?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is precisely because of what the noble Lord said that we feel that employers should contribute more to the training of their future employees.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, on a related question, is it the case that training and enterprise councils have complained of inadequate funding and asked for greater freedom of operation and more control over their budgets? Do the Government agree that these councils should have more autonomy in such matters?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Lord, that is another Question.

CAP Reforms: GATT Uruguay Round
3.22 p.m.
Lord Jay Lord Jay asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking in the GATT Uruguay Round negotiations to ensure that major reforms of the common agricultural policy are accepted by the EC so that an agreement beneficial to world trade may be achieved.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, all parties to the GATT Round negotiations have agreed the long-term objective. It is to provide:
"substantial progressive reductions in agricultural support and protection sustained over an agreed period of time, resulting in correcting and preventing restrictions and distortions in world agricultural markets".
The UK is working hard with our EC partners to develop the Community's aggregate measure approach. Intensive negotiations are taking place in Geneva to agree a framework to meet the long-term objectives.
Lord Jay: My Lords, since major reforms of the protectionist common agricultural policy are fully as much in the interests of this country as of the food exporting nations and the GATT negotiations generally, why does our Minister of Agriculture appear to support the EC in declining to make serious concessions?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I say to the noble Lord "Watch my lips". I would remind him that the UK is a member of the EC. We have strongly supported—indeed we have initiated—the present EC policy and proposals.
Lord Stoddard of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that most of us would prefer to watch her actions and the actions of the Government rather than watching her lips? It is absolutely certain that by supporting the EC policy on agriculture—which is protectionist—the Government are not only harming other world producers, particularly those in underdeveloped countries, but also harming our own farming communities. Is the noble Baroness aware that over the past 20 years, 25 per cent. of British farmers have gone out of business and another 25 per cent. are likely to do so in the next 20 years unless something is done about the CAP?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I dispute the remarks about our farmers going out of business on
1728
account of the CAP. Regarding benefits for less developed countries, it is recognised that special treatment of developing countries is an integral element of the negotiations. Reform of agricultural policies worldwide will, however, lead to more stable trading conditions. This will encourage the development of agriculture in less developed countries.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the Community's proposals for a re-balancing in the GATT negotiations whereby the Community would reduce its protection for grains in return for increases in protection for oilseeds and non-grain feedstuffs would reduce the level of agricultural disparities as well as reducing the Community's budget costs? Is she further aware that these proposals could also lead to greater stability in world grain prices?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, re-balancing would mean an increase in protection against certain imports—for instance, as the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, said, oilseeds and cereal substitutes—offset by a reduction in protection elsewhere, for example, on cereals. The United Kingdom's doubts as to whether an acceptable package can be negotiated are well known and it is too soon to say what might emerge.
Lord Jay: My Lords, I am delighted to watch the noble Baroness's lips—at arm's length. Does she agree that it would be most unfortunate if obstinacy on this issue were to wreck the GATT negotiations altogether?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I agree that it is not obstinacy that is needed but a general agreement on the art of the possible in the future.

Business
3.26 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that at a convenient moment after 4.30 this afternoon, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lord Trefgarne will repeat a Statement to be made in another place on British Aerospace.

Government Trading Bill
3.27 p.m.
The Paymaster General (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, since the Report stage at which matters relating to accounts were raised, we have received an undertaking from the noble Earl in a letter of 21st June relating to the satisfactory results of certain matters. We are quite happy to accept the undertaking which has already

1729
been placed in the Library of both Houses. We welcome the improvement of the Bill during the various stages in your Lordships' House, and in these circumstances we support the Motion.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I wish to take the opportunity to thank the Minister for having written to me on the matters that I raised at the previous stage of the Bill.
On Question, Bill read a third time.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Access to Health Records Bill
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Baroness Ewart-Biggs.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

National Health Service and Community Care Bill
3.30 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments and reasons be considered forthwith pursuant to Standing Order 39.4.
Moved, That the Commons amendments and reasons be considered forthwith pursuant to Standing Order 39.4.—(Baroness Hooper.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, before we engage in the debate, bearing in mind that yesterday we were discussing in a similar setting another Bill and I was told that I was out of order because I dared to challenge something that the Government had said, I should be grateful if we could know precisely from the Clerks at the outset of this debate what the position is. Is it the case that when the Government have spoken no one must come back and either ask a question or make a comment? I should like to have confirmation on that point because I believe there has been a change since the time when the Labour Party was in government. It is important that we should know what our powers are and the limits of those powers.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I think I am right in saying to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, that the rules on the consideration of
1730
Commons' amendments are exactly the same as the rules on Third Reading. The essence of the rules is that after the government reply there should not be further debate.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS IN LIEU OF ONE OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS, COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS, AND A COMMONS AMENDMENT TO ONE OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill 51 as first printed by the Lords. The Commons Amendments and Reasons are printed in italics]

LORDS AMENDMENT
1 Before Clause 40, insert the following new clause:
("Funding of community care
—(1) The Secretary of State shall, with the approval of the Treasury, make grants out of money provided by Parliament towards the expenses of local authorities incurred in connection with the exercise of their community care functions.
(2) Grants made in accordance with subsection (1) above shall be used by local authorities solely for the provision of community care for purposes described in plans drawn up in accordance with section 44 below.
(3) The Secretary of State shall not later than 30th November in the year preceding any financial year lay before Parliament his estimate of the total amount of grant likely to be disbursed under this section in respect of that financial year, together with a statement of the sums requested by local authorities and the formula for distribution between such authorities, and shall at that time publish forecasts for the following two financial years.").
The Commons disagreed to the above amendment but proposed the following amendments in lieu thereof—
2 Page 53, line 18, after ("incurred") insert ("(a)")
3 Page 53, line 20, at end insert ("or
(b) in making payments, in accordance with directions given by the Secretary of State to voluntary organisations which provide care and services for persons who are, have been, or are likely to become dependent upon alcohol or drugs.")
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 but propose in lieu thereof Amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
I am sure that your Lordships will warmly welcome Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 which address the issues so eloquently expressed during our debates. The amendments enable local authorities to assist preventive work being undertaken by voluntary organisations and the services they provide for those dependent upon drugs or alcohol. Taken with the Government's undertaking to direct local authorities to cover drug and alcohol misuse in their community care plans, and with the specific references in draft guidance, I hope your Lordships will agree that any doubt about the importance we attach to these client groups is removed. The amendments certainly offer a mechanism for continued funding for those organisations which can best and most effectively provide the services judged necessary. I acknowledge the contribution of those noble Lords who have argued the case for such an approach. Perhaps I might be permitted to mention the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and my noble friend Lord Mancroft.

1731
Amendment No. 1—the so-called ring fencing amendment—would empower the Secretary of State to make grants to local authorities in connection with the exercise of their community care functions. I explained in our earlier debates that the Government do not believe that total ring fencing of funds is the right way forward in our community care policies. That remains the Government's view and it was endorsed last night by another place. What we must do in giving a role to local government is allow it the freedom and flexibility to meet local needs and provide local accountability. Ring fencing of funds does not permit this; it may have positively the reverse effect.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has repeatedly made clear that resources for community care will be adequate for the enhanced responsibilities of local authorities. It is strange to hear that local authorities, which have argued for years against large specific grants, should now suddenly find that they are unable to make sensible decisions on priorities and resources. It is even stranger to hear that they want central government to make local decisions for them.
It seems to me that the Government and another place have respected the role of this House in prompting second thoughts and that the new proposal for a specific grant for drug and alcohol misuse services is a helpful and welcome one. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 in lieu thereof.—(Baroness Hooper.]
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, as the mover of the original Amendment No. 1 I should make a few comments on the decision to reject that amendment while extending the provision in the Bill earmarking money for the mentally ill to cover those with drug and alcohol problems. It would be churlish to refuse this small extension of the original provision in the Bill, especially following the strenuous efforts made by the Front Bench here throughout all stages of the Bill to avoid arousing any expectation of such a concession. I would have found the concession even more attractive if it had extended to the mentally handicapped. I was sorry to find, reading that part of yesterday's Commons proceedings that has appeared in Hansard, that the Secretary of State did not answer a question specifically put to him about the mentally handicapped. However, I shall not pursue the point.
However, I shall pursue the fact that this concession goes nowhere towards meeting the original concept behind the amendment here which, as the noble Baroness has explained, would have applied to all the grant paid for community care. It is as though we had hoped for a whole loaf but have been offered instead one small slice of bread, however acceptable that may be to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland.
I wish to say quite simply that I regret the decision to reject our amendment. I am being careful to speak
1732
in moderate terms. I shall not even comment in detail on the extraordinary timetable whereby a Bill leaves this place on Tuesday morning and is back again on Thursday afternoon along with the decisions of another place. The opportunity for mature deliberation of these important issues by Members of both Houses might conceivably have been longer. It is not as though we are just at the end of a Session or approaching a recess.
The crucial Commons vote on my amendment was taken at midnight—only a few hours ago. We do not have the Commons Hansard for discussions after 10.30 p.m. and no particulars of the vote. Be that as it may, it is a source of some satisfaction that the amendment, when it was moved here, received support from a majority of those voting and from all sides of the House. There is evidently support for it in quite a substantial section of the Conservative Party in another place. It reflected the views of Sir Roy Griffiths on whose report much of this part of the Bill is based. There is also considerable support for it in local government and not just among directors of social services. I cannot forget those thousands of infirm, disabled and elderly who will not be covered by the Government's amendments and who have so small a voice in our acquisitive society.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 underline the fact that the Government have not the slightest objection in principle to ring fencing and telling local authorities how to spend their money. Nevertheless they seem to be basing much of their case, according to what the Secretary of State said yesterday evening and what the noble Baroness has said briefly today, on the doctrine of public accountability and the argument that local authorities should be left to allocate their resources and discharge their responsibilities in the way that seems to them best. I am not a politician but I find it just a bit rich for that line to be taken by a government who dictate from the centre, through capping, what a local authority can raise through its poll tax whatever the local electorate may think.
Without our Amendment No. 1 not only is there less likelihood of enough money being clearly allocated to community care but, perhaps even more important, there will be no guarantee that what is allocated for community care will in the event be devoted to that purpose. I hope that I am proved to be wrong, but there is certainly now nothing in the legislation which would prevent the most vulnerable members of the community being the first victims of the new system of local finance.
I do not underrate the value of the concession which is on offer, but it leaves out so much and so many people that I wonder whether it really can be reconciled with the great humanitarian and compassionate traditions of the party to which noble Lords opposite belong. I think that they will come to regret their decisions. We shall certainly watch with concern how it all turns out.
All the same, I do not believe that we can stand in the way of the decision of the elected Chamber. I for one shall feel obliged to accept, albeit with sadness, the recommendation made to us by the Minister.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, is a master of understatement and also of profound judgment.
I want to express very deep dissatisfaction with the way in which the Government have handled Lords amendments to the Bill. It is a Bill of profound significance to the people of this country. Good health is our greatest possession and ill health is our greatest burden. The National Health Service is part of our social scene and one of the greatest pieces of social engineering since the Second World War. This Bill is not only about the future of the National Health Service but also about its local partner, community care. It has profound implications for every man, woman and child in the country, even those who use private services because in times of crisis it is the NHS to which they turn.
Parliament has worked long and hard to compensate for the failure of government to consult before publishing the Bill. In another place 109 hours were devoted to the Bill in Committee, followed by some 30 hours at Report stage. In your Lordships' House over 100 hours were spent on the Bill in Committee, at Report stage and at Third Reading. Some concessions were made in debate and we are grateful for small mercies.
My main protest concerns what has happened this week. Through the usual channels my noble friend Lord Graham protested to the government business managers about the way in which the Bill was being handled. The Bill was passed to another place in the early hours of Tuesday morning, as the noble Lord, Lord Allen, said. It was debated in another place yesterday and during the early hours of this morning, on a timetable Motion. As a consequence, four out of five of the amendments passed by your Lordships' House were not even considered. The arguments were not put for the amendments; the arguments were not put against. There were simply five votes—at 00.01 hours, 00.17, 00.30, 00.42 and 00.54. Not a moment of consideration was given to the long debates that we had here on an all-party Motion, when we passed this amendment.
I was able to obtain the resolutions at 11 o'clock this morning, coming from a hospital appointment. However, none of us has any idea of what was said in another place after 10.30 p.m. That is not meant as a criticism of Hansard. Why was it necessary for the Bill to come before us today when it was only considered today in another place? I believe that that is a monstrous and unacceptable way to treat your Lordships and the detailed consideration which we gave to the Bill. This treatment of your Lordships' House by the Government is outrageous. The decision of the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Social Services and the Cabinet to impose a timetable Motion on consideration of amendments considered and passed is a calculated insult. My charge is not against Ministers who dealt with the Bill from the Front Bench in this House but against the Government.
I say directly to the noble Lord the Leader of the House that we are entitled to an explanation as to why it was decided that your Lordships' business
1734
should be conducted in this way. He is a Member of the Cabinet. He represents us in the Cabinet. I want to know whether he is satisfied that the Government have behaved properly towards this revising Chamber. Will he take the opportunity to tell us why there was this unseemly rush? Why did it have to be today, and not Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday? There must be some reason why the Bill must be pushed through without consideration. We are a revising Chamber and we have a great wealth of expertise on all sides of the House which has been used unstintingly during the course of the debate. It includes doctors and nurses, leaders of the universities and of our great voluntary organisations. I believe that this House is entitled to some explanation.
In the time available I have read in the press part of the debate during the early part of the deliberations in another place. I believe that the Secretary of State behaved like a bully-boy in his handling of the arguments which we put forward with great seriousness in your Lordships' House without allowing an opportunity for deliberation and consideration of what we said. The business managers must explain why that was done.
I turn now to what happened in another place. Like the noble Lord, Lord Allen, I profoundly regret that the amendment was not passed as we had carried it. It had been welcomed throughout the country, by directors of social services, elected councillors, voluntary organisations and all those involved in the caring services. It is in line with Sir Roy Griffith's recommendations. As Sir George Young said yesterday, without this amendment grants made by the Government for community care for the elderly and disabled can now be spent for quite different purposes. The Conservative Member for Lancashire, West said that certain councils would use the money to repair holes in the road. The Conservative MP for Macclesfield said that vulnerable groups such as the elderly and the handicapped could not speak up for themselves and could be gravely disadvantaged as the money might be allocated to more desirable and romantic sectors of local government expenditure.
I welcome the ring fencing of payments to voluntary organisations. The noble Lord, Lord Allen, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, who did so much to further this cause, and I are involved in organisations providing care and services for persons who are or are likely to become dependent upon alcohol and drugs. When the Minister spoke a few moments ago she referred only to preventative measures. I presume that that is not really the case, but the amendment is intended, as it states, to,
"provide care and services for persons who are, have been, or are likely to become dependent upon alcohol or drugs".
That is very good news. It will receive a warm welcome from voluntary organisations which have given evidence of the number of services likely to suffer or to end without such protection. The voluntary organisations will be delighted with that good news, which has been achieved by pressure here. As late as Monday this week Ministers on the Front Bench opposite were setting out reasons why it could not and should not be done. I am glad that

1735
they have been converted. However, I must say that I have my suspicions.
Why was it done? I believe that it was done by the business managers in another place to prevent a much larger revolt. It was an attempt to buy off those who otherwise had warned that they would vote for the Lords' amendment. I hope that someone will explain why resources to support drug addicts and alcholics should be protected but that there should be no protection for very elderly people, including those suffering from the consequences of senile dementia. As a patron of the Alzheimer's Disease Society I have a right to know. Why is there to be no protection for funds made available or denied to bodies such as MENCAP and the Spastics Society? As the president of the East Anglian region of MENCAP I have a right to know.
I am always suspicious of last minute partial conversions. I guess that the Whips in another place, as I said, acted very quickly and managed to turn away a big protest. I believe that the Government's handling of the whole Bill, not just these amendments and the efforts of this House, is despicable. As I said when we first debated the White Paper on which the Bill is based, I believe that their handling of health and community care will be the issue which more than any other will bring them down.
In my view it would quite wrong for us now to go through the Division Lobbies to vote for or against this amendment. Apart from the question of the propriety of this unelected Chamber voting a second time against the views of an elected Chamber, the Government have made a farce of this debate and this amendment as well as all the others concerned. I want to express my deepest anger at the way in which your Lordships have been treated in the handling of these amendments.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, from these Benches I want to say how greatly we disapprove of the way in which your Lordships' House has been treated in this matter. Either there is a second Chamber which can do a proper revising job or there is not. For my part I would rather not have a second Chamber than one which is treated with the contempt that we have been treated with throughout this debate and in the way that we are now treated by the Commons.
It is not my amendment so I cannot say from these Benches that we should return it to the Commons. As the House is constituted I should not be afraid, as apparently the Labour Party is afraid, to use our constitutional rights to do so. But the noble Lord, Lord Allen, has decided not to proceed in that way. It is not for us to alter that. However, for my part I think that that is what we should have done. Either it is reasonable to ask noble Lords to sit in the Chamber night after night amending the totally inadequate, ill prepared and ill thought-out legislation that the Government bring before us or it is not. Either we have the right to work on and amend such legislation and insist that it is properly considered or we do not.
But there is a second reason why I believe that this is the most abominable way to treat the Lords'
1736
amendments. The Government's whole approach to community care is beneath contempt. I tried to believe them when they said that they cared about community care. But the way in which they treated the Griffiths Report indicated that they did not care. They kept us waiting two years for a response to the Griffiths Report.
Now they have refused to ring-fence money for the most needy people in this country. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, spoke about the organisations which he represents. I speak for, among other organisations, the Carer's National Association. There is now no protection whatsoever in this Bill for carers and indeed very little for the people for whom they care. This is a totally uncaring government, as they have now proved. We shall remind them on every possible occasion between now and the general election and beyond of what they have done to the most needy members of our community.
Baroness Young: My Lords, it will not surprise noble Lords to know that I take a somewhat different view from that in the speeches that we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. I think that this debate raises two matters of principle. The first is the issue of ring-fencing. I listened to the arguments that were put when this issue was debated earlier and again this afternoon to the effect that it is in the interests of those who, as the noble Lord, Lord Allen, said, are the most vulnerable members of society that the money that the Government will give for community care should be ring-fenced so that it will find its way to the authorities responsible for caring for those members of society. I can understand the argument which the noble Lord, Lord Allen, put very clearly, if I may say so.
On the other hand, the counter argument, which is one worth considering, is that if duties and responsibilities are given to local government (as Parliament has done) and the Government give money for the carrying out of those duties and responsibilities, it must surely be right that those who are responsible should carry the responsibility. Although I accept that, as quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, a large number of Members of Parliament have obviously been very critical of their local authorities and said, "They will not spend this money on the old but spend it on repairing a road", at the end of the day if one gives responsibility to people one has to accept what they do with that responsibility.
Once one goes down the path of giving specific grants one opens up the whole question of, for example, giving a specific grant for education, for which one could similarly make out very good arguments, or indeed for any other major service of local government. I am even less clear as to why local councillors should be in favour of the specific grant. It is their responsibility in social service committees to ensure that the money which the Government have given is spent on those specific purposes. They must argue their case because they are responsible for the community care itself.
Therefore, in principle the line that the Government have taken on this matter has, I believe,

1737
been the right one. What is important is that extra money should go to local government. I hope that those who are responsible for using it will listen.
Secondly, there is every case for saying that once that responsibility is given, local authorities and in particular the social services departments may end up by getting more money because they will be focusing public attention on their new duties and responsiblities, whereas if the funding is ring-fenced a good many people will say, "That's it. You have got your money and the rest is going on something else". So, far from having more, social services departments could well end up with less. It is very much a double edged weapon. What is important is that the extra money should be there.
With regard to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, which I am glad that she did not press, that she herself would have been willing to send the amendment back to another place, I think that we should be in difficulty in doing that. This matter directly concerns the spending of public money. The other place could have dismissed it out of hand had they chosen to do so. What they have done is to bring back an amendment, which I accept does not go so far as those who would have liked ring-fencing would wish but which is, it seems to me, quite specifically designed to meet the concerns expressed in your Lordships' House and in another place. Therefore we have not received back the original amendment as it stood. We have it with an amendment which I should have thought takes account of some of the concerns that have been expressed.
Therefore the amendment should be seen positively in that light as a way of indicating once again that the concerns of your Lordships' House have been taken on board by another place, have been considered and at any rate in this amendment have been positively and partially met.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down would she confirm that she agreed with ring-fencing alcohol and drug projects? If I understood her aright, does that not undermine the whole of her argument against ring-fencing?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I do not think that it undermines the whole of my argument although we could debate that issue at length. The point which I was making was that the other place, having looked at the decision taken in this House and considered the views expressed in another place, has come back with another amendment to meet those views. I should have thought that that shows the value of your Lordships' House.
4 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, perhaps I may speak briefly and reluctantly. I warmly welcome the concessions which provide some protection for certain vulnerable members of our community and for the Voluntary organisations which provide such immensely valuable services. However, like other Members of your Lordships' House who have already spoken, I am deeply disappointed that other groups—who are equally if not even more
1738
vulnerable—are not to be given comparably protected funding. I refer to the mentally handicapped, the disabled and the elderly in particular. We know that in the coming years not only will the numbers of the elderly increase but they will increase in terms of both physical infirmity and/or mental confusion. For example, the numbers expected to suffer from Alzheimer's disease over the next decade will increase dramatically and disturbingly.
Those people are least able to assert their rights or to articulate their needs. Very often such people are being cared for by friends and relatives who are themselves elderly and often in need of support. That point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. The carers of these people as well as those directly in need, will often suffer as a result of this failure to achieve protected funding. I therefore believe that adequate resources need to be assured for those vulnerable groups and their carers, especially given the unfortunate record of some local authorities which in the past have not spent money in ways for which funding had been specifically intended.
I believe in the principle of accountability and the importance of flexibility. But I do not believe that it is right to adopt policies that are likely in some cases to jeopardise the welfare of those most in need of help and support. I therefore deeply regret that I cannot support the Government's policy on this issue. Had the matter gone to a vote I should have had to abstain.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, the noble Baroness was kind enough to mention me by name together with other noble Lords who spoke during the course of the Bill on amendments relating to alcohol and drugs. Without wishing to detract in any way from the sentiments that have been expressed by my noble friend Lady Seear and other noble Lords, I wish to confine my remarks to the concession that the Government have made. It is extremely welcome.
I receive many hundreds of letters from voluntary organisations on the difficulties faced because of the prospect of a hiatus of funding if not a complete lack of it. Although I understand exactly the view of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, I like to think that the Government took on board the representations that we made. I know that the noble Baroness received personal representations with great courtesy and sympathy; and we appreciate that enormously.
The voluntary agencies have heaved a sigh of relief and are most grateful for this concession. I hope that useful work will continue to be done in this appalling and, I am afraid, growing problem of drug and alcohol abuse.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I am also sad that the other place has not agreed to the Lords amendment on ring fencing. However, perhaps I may concentrate on some practical issues. I do so for the sake of social services departments throughout the country so that they clearly understand the position.
If there is not to be ring fencing, and if the local authorities' social services departments have to carry

1739
out their present statutory duties, I am not sure of the financial position. My noble friend Lady Hooper said that resources will be enhanced. I believe that my noble friend Lady Young also said that there would be money available. How will this money come to the social services departments? How are the resources to be enhanced? Local authorities must know that.
Perhaps I may say as one who has administered community care that it is an expensive alternative if it is to be done well. However, the most expensive area is that rehabilitating mental patients from mental hospitals. If there is not to be ring fencing for community care, can we have an assurance from the Minister that the mental hospitals now open will not close until the money is available? It is very important that that should be known to social services departments because there is already difficulty with regard to mental patients in the community. If we close more mental hospitals without further money for community care there will be even more trouble.
The present statutory duties of the social services departments are very heavy. There are not adequate resources to carry out their present statutory duties. A number of children on protection registers, for instance, are not being visited because there are not the social workers to do so. Without extra resources, how will the community care bill be administered?
The Children Act 1989 recently passed through this House. Perhaps I may compliment Her Majesty's Government. The way that Act was handled was quite outstanding. There was great consultation for two or three years before the Bill was debated. It was handled in this House very well and slowly by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. If well carried out, the provisions of the Act will be expensive. Unless there are the resources, how will that be done? In fairness to my colleagues in the social work field, it is right that we should know these factors. It is widely acknowledged throughout the country that extra money has been given for the training of social workers; but it is not enough. The training of social workers is inadequate at the moment. Where will that money come from? It has to come from the local authorities.
The Cleveland inquiry report recommended that representatives of social workers, health visitors, education and the law should meet together at conferences. I have been to several conferences lately. The one sector of people missing was the social workers because their local authorities could not afford to send them. Therefore they are not mixing as has been recommended in the Cleveland inquiry report.
I am sad at the decision of another place. We are a revising Chamber. By and large we tend to take a professional view of legislation. The other place tends to take a political view, with a few exceptions. But the other place is the elected Chamber. At this stage of the Bill I would not vote against this matter but abstain.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I am sure that the criterion for the decision of all noble Lords
1740
on the issue of ring fencing was to ask which was the most sensitive, attractive and cost-effective way of supporting vulnerable people in the community. Since I came to your Lordships' House I have never heard the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, speak so emotionally, and I am sure sincerely, as she has done now. She cares very much about this issue. The noble Lord, Lord Allen, too cares very much. He has played a great part. He felt that ring fencing was the best way to get resources to vulnerable people.
My view is already on record. I shall not reiterate it. I believe that the only person who has spoken in the debate so far who has experience of being an elected member in local authority is my noble friend Lady Young. My experience in a local authority is that there is no problem about getting the funds to vulnerable people. Occasionally there may be a problem about the funding of voluntary organisations because of a certain amount of jealousy within a local authority about their functions. Sometimes there is an argument for earmarking funding for voluntary organisations, as has now happened. Ring fencing has been deleted from the Bill and as it now stands it will enable councillors to carry out the job of helping vulnerable people.
It ill behoves your Lordships' House to underestimate local government as it has on this issue. Many of those people who support local government in other ways were the keenest to take away its decision-making. At the end of the day the right things happen in most councils; and the right things will happen in respect of vulnerable people. It is difficult to argue for roads as against social services when one is allocating budgets in council. There are far more votes for people than there are for roads and I believe that noble Lords who have been involved in local government will agree.
The community care function of local government will represent a large proportion of its duties and responsibilities. It is important that the central government funding of local government should allow for what it must do. It has been given a huge responsibility and the amount allocated to it will be difficult to fix at first. However, it would have been even more difficult to fix a ring-fenced budget. If the community care budget had been ring-fenced the discussion about the activities of local government would merely have been to the effect that it had not been given enough money. Now the discussion will be about the way in which local government is allocating its resources and taking on its new duties.
I hope that as a result of our discussion those who are worried about vulnerable people will not be blinded by the political nature of the discussion. I hope that they will appreciate that local councillors will now have a chance to do their job properly. Although they did not wish to be given a free rein they are having their duties imposed upon them. I believe that that can do nothing but good for the vulnerable people of this country.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, the noble Baroness has put her philosophy most clearly. However, can she reconcile it with the decision to ring-fence provisions for those who suffer from mental illness and drug and alcohol abuse?
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, mental illness is one of the difficult areas in local government—
A noble Lord: They all are.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: There is an argument for ring-fencing. I would not have ring-fenced anything, but I take the point that when their budgets are stretched it is difficult for councils to decide adequately to fund voluntary organisations. Therefore, I can see the point of doing so. I am bound to admit that I would have given the job to local councillors, who I believe would have done it properly.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, at every stage of the Bill's passage through your Lordships' House I spoke on a subject about which I know a little—the treatment of drug and alcohol sufferers. I decided, therefore, to risk boring your Lordships by saying a few words this afternoon. I am not in the slightest bit interested in any of the party political debates, important though they may be. Neither am I interested in any disagreements that there may be between your Lordships' House and another place, interesting though they may be. I am interested in people who suffer from alcohol and drug addiction.
I do not know a great deal about local government finance. I do not know whether budgets should be ring-fenced or earmarked or whether money for them should be dropped like confetti from Heaven. I listened carefully to the debates in your Lordships' House as they moved from one side to the other, from those who were for ring-fencing to those who were against it. I am in favour of money reaching the right place, and for drug and alcohol sufferers that is the voluntary organisations.
Noble Lords opposite, the noble Lord, Lord Allen, in particular, have been worried about the fact that the Government do not appear to be keen on ring-fencing but are prepared to ring-fence budgets for drug and alcohol sufferers. We all know that there ate exceptions to every rule in the world and possibly this is the exception to that rule. I believe that the reason is simple. Every area of community care is most important and could use more money and resources. We all know and accept that.
I do not not know a great deal about the area of mental health but as regards drug and alcohol sufferers I know that hardly any money has ever reached them. That was not because the money was not available but because local authorities did not have the necessary expertise or knowledge and were unwilling to send the money. Let us admit that one possible reason is that drug and alcohol sufferers are tiresome clients.
I do not mind whether the money is ring-fenced or dropped like confetti. However, I mind about what we asked the Government to do in a variety of ways at the beginning of our debates. We asked them to provide for drug and alcohol sufferers somewhere on the face of the Bill. We said, "Hey, local authorities, here is a special group. At the moment it is not a large group but it is growing and we don't
1742
want that. We want you to concentrate on them". Those are my words, which could not be put on the face of the Bill, but that was what we asked of the Government. I do not mind in whichever way and in whichever clause the provision is included. Obviously your Lordships mind, but what is important is that the provision has been included.
I do not see that as being a complete U-turn. Noble Lords will remember that early in the proceedings my noble friend Lady Hooper brought forward an amendment in respect of an emergency assessment for that group. The Government thought about the matter after noble Lords on all sides of the House forcefully made their opinions known. They listened but possibly not at the beginning as hard as we should have liked. However, during the course of the Bill's progress through this House they listened a little harder.
By the end of the Report stage the only amendment which received all-party support and which was forcefully put and debated for the longest time related to drug and alcohol sufferers. It appeared to me to be obvious, therefore, that a caring, interested, listening government would go away and make changes to that part of the Bill. The Government did so. I can report to the House even more positively than the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. Late last night and early this morning I received several phone calls indicating that those in the voluntary organisations are dancing and leaping in the streets because they are delighted with the provision. It is what they want and need and it is what they have got. For that I thank my noble friend.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I arrived at the House this afternoon after 2 p.m. and read these amendments. I also read that the other place had accepted no fewer than 177 amendments to the Bill. Now we are debating a fairly narrow point. Having preceded the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, first as chairman and then as president of MENCAP, naturally I took on board what he said about the omission of provisions for the mentally handicapped in the Commons amendments to our amendments. I remind your Lordships that mentally handicapped people are now much better cared for. With the help of government funding in some cases, the voluntary organisations are providing a great deal of community care. MENCAP has a record of which it can be proud.
Bearing in mind the vast amount of legislation and the help that has already been given by central government, local authorities and voluntary organisations to the mentally handicapped, the question is: should we now have a conflict with the House of Commons on the issue raised by the noble Lord? He was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, with all his eloquence, who brought in the fact that this matter has been handled—and I agree with him—in rather a rush.
From my point of view the main question is that in trying to help the mentally handicapped is it vital that we should raise a conflict with the House of Commons on this narrow funding point, or should we say, "Thank goodness the Government have

1743
already done so much to help in this Bill and in other ways"? Speaking for myself, I am not prepared to vote against the Government on this.
Lord Carter: My Lords, as my name was attached to the original amendment and, indeed, I spoke to it when it was agreed by your Lordships' Committee, perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words. The concession on grants to voluntary organisations dealing with drugs and alcohol is very welcome as far as it goes. But we have already heard from those active in the field that it does not go very far.
I was interested in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, about the way in which the Government have been convinced by your Lordships. He overlooks the fact that at about midnight on Monday evening the Government voted down an amendment to give grants to voluntary organisations dealing with drugs and alcohol. Their conversion since Monday evening makes St. Paul on the road to Damascus look like a beginner.
Your Lordships should be aware of the crucial point of the ring-fencing or earmarking argument. If the ring-fencing amendment agreed by this House had been accepted by the Government, it would not have resulted in one extra pound of government expenditure over and above what they would have allocated without the amendment. We all know that the Government have to make calculations for the standard spending assessment of the amount which each local authority will need for community care and other statutory obligations contained in, for example, the Children Act and the Education Reform Act.
With the exception of the specific earmarked grants about which we have heard, the amount so calculated is the basis of the global revenue support grant. We have been told endlessly in the course of debates in this House and another place—and indeed we have heard it this afternoon from the Minister—that the Government will ensure that adequate resources will be available for community care. They will know if those resources are adequate only if they have done their sums correctly and they know the amount.
The amendment agreed by this House merely asked the Government to state specifically the amount which they had calculated would be required to implement community care. The local authorities would still be free to spend more than that sum if they wished but obviously not less. In rejecting the amendment, the Government's argument is that local authorities must be free to decide how much they spend on community care; in other words, they can spend more or less than the Government have allowed for in the revenue support grant. As has been expressed most graphically, that money could be spent on repairing holes in the road.
However, if the authorities wish to spend more, where is the money to come from? It can only come from raiding the budgets for other local authority services or by an increase in the poll tax. However, the Government have taken powers, and look like increasing them, to charge cap those authorities
1744
which in their view have a poll tax which is too high. As has been pointed out on a number of occasions in the course of the debates on the community care aspects of the Bill, the chances of a generous revenue support grant this year to meet the costs of community care are virtually nil. Any generosity in the support grant will be devoted to keeping down the level of the poll tax next year.
As a result of the Government rejecting the original amendment on ring-fencing, local authorities will now have an impossible equation to solve if they are to meet the present substantial level of unmet need for community care, which was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and all the new responsibilities which they must face next year. The reason for that is quite clear and we all know what that is. The Government are fully aware of the situation which I have described and are absolutely determined that all the failings in community care next year that will undoubtedly occur will be blamed on the local authorities and not on the Government whose responsibility it will most surely be.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, we have been speaking for some time on this so I shall be as brief as possible. The various groups of disabled people who are not included in the other place's ring-fenced amendment are in many ways those who are least able to make their voices heard locally because of their disabilities. It will be said that their carers will do that for them, but that is quite wrong. For the most part the carers will be far too exhausted to try to do anything. They will be suffering under their burden.
I believe that with the Government's wish to bring care into the community, the care for those people is a national and not just a local responsibility, even if it is carried out by the local authorities as agents or trustees for the central authority. What worries me is that the quality of care, possibly even its quantity, will be extremely variable from one part of the country to another. Are we to have disabled people being moved by their friends and relatives from A to B in order to get the kind of care which they need and thus swamping that authority? I am very worried.
I could continue for a long time but I shall not do that because others have spoken far more eloquently than I can. However, I make one point. The amendments which have been returned to us from the other place are, very interestingly, all on the community care part of the Bill. We know that various timetable Motions were carried in the other place. When replying, can my noble friend on the Front Bench tell the House how many of the community care amendments were discussed at any stage in the other place because due to the timetable Motions I believe that certain parts of this Bill were not discussed at all? Therefore, it is very important that we who do not have timetable Motions should go through every Bill with a fine-tooth comb in order to give the other place the opportunity to discuss our amendments.
I gather—although I have not yet had time to study the Commons Hansard—that there were timetable Motions on the amendments we sent to them. I

1745
wonder how many of the community care amendments which we sent to them were discussed. I believe that this amendment was discussed because I think that I heard something about it on the radio. However, I should be interested to know what proportion of our amendments on community care were discussed and what proportion of the Bill as a whole was properly discussed in another place.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, before the noble Baroness speaks, perhaps I may be allowed to return briefly to the first part of the powerful opening speech of my noble friend Lord Ennals. He justifiably criticised the Government for insisting that this business should be tabled today before noble Lords are in possession of the debates in another place on the Commons amendments. That is a point which the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, made in his speech just now and he was quite right to do so.
It is quite wrong that noble Lords on all sides should be expected to conduct a debate on what is probably the most important Bill of the Session without having adequate time to read the debates in another place. I must make my protest once again.
Noble Lords opposite and the noble Lord the Leader of the House, who is always helpful and courteous in these matters, was aware at the beginning of the week that we were very anxious about this matter. Representations were made through the usual channels that time should be allowed between the debates in another place and this debate. Those representations were rejected by the Government. That is not the way to treat this House; nor is it the proper way to conduct business here. I shall not go into the substance of the debate. I have been impressed by the speeches I have heard. But I must ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House whether he proposes to respond to the case made so well by my noble friend.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition and the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, are concerned about the timetabling of the business for today. At this stage of the Session in order to obtain agreement it is by no means unusual for the two Houses to take the final stages of a Bill on successive days. Notice of this was given a week ago through the usual channels. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, that the Opposition were not happy about that.
I should like to make one final point. Throughout the passage of the Bill the Government tried to accommodate your Lordships' House, especially the Opposition, on the timetabling of the business. I can only express regret that with regard to this last day that has not met the approval of noble Lords opposite.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he recall any previous occasion when your Lordships have debated the Commons' handling of debates in your Lordships' House when we have not been able to have the relevant Hansard before us at the time when the votes were taken?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, he has been a Member of this House for some time, but perhaps not quite long enough to know that this has happened on a number of occasions. It was a matter which was looked at quite specifically by the committee set up by my noble friend Lord Whitelaw when he was Leader of the House. That committee came to the conclusion that whenever possible notice should be given; meaning that there should be a longish period, but only whenever possible.
In this case notice was given, but the noble Lord is saying that not enough notice was given. We have tried to accommodate the Opposition over the timetabling of the Bill as it has gone through. I can only express regret that on this final occasion noble Lords do not approve.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, if I may say so, it is not simply a question of timetabling. The tools of the trade are not available to the Opposition. Parliament is being treated very badly. It is not merely the matter of timetabling which causes concern but the fact that the Bill was guillotined; admittedly there was some discussion on this specific amendment last night, but there were subsequent amendments, to which we shall come shortly, on which there was no discussion, as has been said. They have simply been flung back in the face of your Lordships' House. It is unfortunate that the noble Lord the Leader of the House is apparently unimpressed by this argument.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I can speak only as the Leader of the House, and I think that it should be for the last time. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, that this is precisely the reason that Commons Reasons are given. At this stage of the Bill it is Commons Reasons which need to be studied in order to see what line noble Lords should take. On this occasion, although one might be forgiven for forgetting it, those show that two quite valuable concessions have been made.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the House said that the committee which looked at these matters advised that notice should be given "whenever possible". Can he say why it was not possible on this occasion?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, as the Leader of the House I shall answer that question. Noble Lords will notice from the Marshalled List that one of the reasons for disagreement is that the Bill should not be unreasonably delayed. That is the view of another place. It is that view which the Government put to your Lordships today.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as my noble friend the Leader of the House has dealt more than adequately with the procedural matters, I am left with just a few responses to make to issues raised in the course of the debate.
Like my noble friend Lord Renton, I cannot agree that the Government have spurned the amendments made in this House as 177 out of 182 amendments were accepted, many being as has been

1747
acknowledged, concessions made in this House. Of the rejected amendments, a change has been offered in lieu of one—the amendment before us now—and, as I hope I shall be able to explain later, substantial progress has been made on the issue of criminal records.
Regarding the question raised by my noble friend Lord Swinfen, the discussion yesterday in the other place was in the area of community care. At Committee stage in another place no guillotine was exercised and therefore there was full and adequate opportunity for as much discussion on the community care aspects of the Bill as there was on the health aspects.
I was slightly accused of having spoken rather briefly today on this matter. I and my noble friends on the Front Bench previously addressed the issues at considerable length. In response to the Question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 cover both services and preventive measures in the drug and alcohol abuse areas. I am sorry if anything I said led the noble Lord to think otherwise.
The reason for our proposals for specific grants being in the area of mental illness services and services for drug and alcohol dependants, is that local authority services for these groups need considerable development from a low starting point, unlike the services for the mentally handicapped and elderly people, which are an established and longstanding part of local authority provision. My noble friend Lord Renton also reminded us that local authority expenditure on residential care homes and adult training centres for mentally handicapped people in England in real terms increased by 69 per cent. between 1979–80 and 1987–88; in the latter year expenditure was £314 million.
We have had lengthy discussion on this issue and indeed on the Bill as a whole in the course of our deliberations in this House. Nobody can or should accuse the House of skimping. On the question of resources, which was raised, among others, by my noble friend Lady Faithfull, we have always said that the policy will be properly resourced and the details dealt with in the public expenditure survey in respect of revenue support grant in the usual way. That will include the consultation process with the local authority associations. It will then be for local authorities to decide how to allocate resources between departments.
As I said on previous occasions, all the evidence suggests that social services departments fight their corner in these battles and are usually strikingly successful. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, there is no evidence to support the holes in the road theory that he put forward on the basis of experience.
Lord Carter: My Lords, on a point of information, it was a point made by a Conservative Member of the other place. I was merely repeating it.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, that should prove to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that he should choose the people he quotes with great care.
1748
I conclude by saying that safeguards are in place. Not only the electorate, but certainly the Department of Health and, as we have been assured this afternoon, your Lordships' House will be vigilantly watching the way in which local authorities use their new responsibilities and resources.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
4 Insert the following new clause:
("Timetable for implementation
(1) This Part, other than this section and section 44 below, shall have effect subject to the making of an Order or Orders by the Secretary of State after consultation with such organisations representative of local authorities, users and carers as appear to him to be concerned.
(2) Section 44 below shall have effect from the date of Royal Assent.
(3) No Order shall be made in respect of any other provision of this Part under section 63(2) below except where the Secretary of State is satisfied that the resources available to local authorities are adequate to secure the proper carrying out of their duties in a manner conducive to the interest and welfare of any person for whom community care services may be provided or arranged.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3) above, no Order shall be made unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that resources sufficient to the requirements of subsection (3) above are available in respect of the implementation by authorities of the functions subject to the Order in the first financial year in which they apply and that such resources are likely to be sufficient in the succeeding four financial years based on his estimate of the likely cost of those functions over those years.").
The Commons disagreed to the above amendment for the following reason—
4A because it would unreasonably delay the commencement of Part III of the Act.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 4 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 4A. The reasons for disagreement with the amendment centred on the fact that the amendment would put off virtually indefinitely the implementation of community care policy. I do not think that your Lordships intended to render it virtually impossible to take forward a policy the principles of which are widely supported, but as I argued during our earlier deliberations that is what we were in danger of doing.
The amendment would mean waiting until all local authorities produced full plans, undertaking a full scrutiny of those plans, making judgments about costs, consulting yet again, assessing the validity of response to every individual in need of care and then looking at resources over a five-year period. This is a recipe for second-guessing, enormous central bureaucracy and utter frustration for those waiting to know how their authority would deliver its services. That is why I argued against the amendment at an earlier stage, and that is the reason another place has disagreed with your Lordships' conclusions. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 4 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 4A.—(Baroness Hooper.)
Lord Carter: My Lords, as I moved the original amendment in Committee and secured the agreement of noble Lords, I am very disappointed by the response of another place. I find the reason very curious—that it would unreasonably delay the commencement of Part III of the Bill. The press has recently been full of a briefing and a counter-briefing on the point that the Government intended to slow down the implementation of community care, and we generally felt that a clause of this nature would help the Government out of their difficulties. After all, to quote the amendment, any responsible Secretary of State would surely want to satisfy himself that the resources available to local authorities are adequate.
The Minister has been saying throughout the course of the debate that the Government will ensure that is so. So we are not asking the Government to do something that they did not already intend to do. It seemed to us that the new clause repeated a number of phrases, all of which have been used recently by Ministers in this House and in another place—that there will be evolution and not revolution; that there will be a measured pace of reform; that nothing will happen overnight and that adequate resources will be available. All those phrases have been used by Ministers in the past few weeks.
The original amendment was intended to assist the Government in ensuring that those worthy objectives were achieved, and it is very disappointing indeed that the Government have rejected it.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, since the amendment said only that the Bill shall not come into force until there are sufficient resources, are we to assume that the Government will bring it in when there are not sufficient resources: Otherwise, I do not see why they have not accepted the amendment. It must mean that the Government will bring it in without sufficient resources. It seems odd.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
5 Insert the following new clause:
("Start-up costs
.—(1) The Secretary of State may, for up to five years from the date of any Order under this section, in relation to the functions covered by that Order and with the approval of the Treasury make grants out of money provided by Parliament towards any expenses incurred by local authorities in connection with the establishing of functions and activities arising under this Part, and in making any determination as to the adequacy or otherwise of resources under subsection (4) above the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of making grants under this subsection.
(2) A grant made under subsection (5) above may be for capital or revenue expenditure,").
The Commons disagreed to the above amendment for the following reason—
5A because it alters the financial arrangements made by the Commons; and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 5 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason
1750
numbered 5A. The intention behind the amendment is to empower the Secretary of State to make grants for up to five years towards expenses incurred by local authorities in establishing their functions and activities relating to community care. I should point out that the Speaker in another place ruled this to be a privilege amendment. Nevertheless, as I have previously argued, the point here is that those who supported the amendment are again seeking to ring fence funds and remove local accountability and flexibility. We believe that that is a negation of our whole policy in relation to having responsiible local government. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 5 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 5A.—(Baroness Hooper.)
Lord Carter: My Lords, this too is an amendment that I moved in Committee and to which I secured the agreement of your Lordships. It is indeed, as the Minister said, linked to the previous amendment on ring fencing. I remind the House of the functions which local authorities will now have to undertake without any extra help from the Government in terms of funding. They have to produce and publish a community care plan and to revise it regularly; they have to publish criteria for undertaking individual assessments; they have to carry out individual assessments; there is the assessment and collection of individual contributions towards the cost of services; they must create the monitoring and inspection units; they have to set up complaints procedures; and they must create the purchasing and budgeting systems and set up systems for case management. For all those functions no additional funding is proposed.
To explain to your Lordships the sort of problems that could arise, only this week I was discussing community care with a member of a district health authority; and it is a particularly efficient district health authority. The gentleman concerned is the managing director of a major multinational company and he has considerable experience in business matters. Referring to just one aspect of start-up costs—that is, computer systems—I shall quote him exactly. He said:
"What we have is clapped-out hardware, inadequate or non-existent software and I really don't know how we are supposed to deal with all these new responsibilities without extra financial help from the Government."
Just how are local authorities supposed to fund all the extra functions to which I have referred? If they try to do it out of the poll tax, they run the risk of being charge capped; if they try to do it out of their non-ring fenced general budget, it can be only be at the expense of consumers of community care. As the Minister knows, there are many precedents for the Government providing either some pump-priming or some start-up funds when a whole new policy is introduced. The question is: why is community care excluded from the possibility of extra funds to help with these very substantial start-up costs, which have been estimated to be as much as £200 million?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, briefly in reply to that point, discussions on financial implications are continuing with local authority representatives.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENT
6 Clause 40, page 46, line 48, at end insert—
("(1D) Before arrangements are made by virtue of this section with any person, that person shall disclose to the local authority making the arrangements any relevant criminal convictions.
(1E) On request by a local authority, a police officer shall disclose to the authority any relevant criminal convictions of any person with whom it is proposed to make arrangements by virtue of this section.
(1F) Relevant criminal convictions for the purposes of subsections (1D) and (1E) above shall be specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(1G) Any person in respect of whom a disclosure is made under subsection (1E) above shall be informed of the disclosure.").
The Commons disagreed to the above amendment for the following reason—
6A because it is not necessary as administrative arrangements are being made with the Association of Chief Police Officers for the disclosure of relevant convictions.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 6 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 6A. That reason is that the position has changed since we debated this amendment and your Lordships decided to put it into the Bill. At that time, concern was expressed in all parts of the House that negotiations with the Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers about an administrative arrangement were getting nowhere. I am happy to be able to say to your Lordships that there has now been a breakthrough.
The Association of Chief Police Officers has now agreed to participate in administrative arrangements which would meet the request made some time ago by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health to help safeguard residents of homes. Together with my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, it has now been agreed that work should start at once on detailed preparation for a scheme that will cover applicants for registration under the Registered Homes Act 1984; that is, managers and owners of residential care and nursing homes and managers of local authority-run residential care homes.
It is not intended that people who are already registered should be subject to retrospective checks, but checks will be made on all new managers in established care homes. That will apply to changes of management as well as to the setting up of new homes. The arrangements will be put in place as soon as possible. Our firm intention is that they should be up and running by 1st April 1991.
I am sure that noble Lords will wish me to express our gratitude to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and to the Association of Chief Police Officers for its co-operation in this matter which marks an important step forward in safeguarding vulnerable people who live in residential care or nursing homes.
1752
Members of another place have quite rightly concluded that the amendment of noble Lords does not now need to be incorporated in the Bill. No doubt it will be recognised that it has already achieved the desired effect. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 6 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 6A.—(Baroness Hooper.)
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, as the mover of that amendment, perhaps I may thank the noble Baroness and say that a word of congratulation is also due to this House as the proposal was supported from all sides. It is gratifying that the Association of Chief Police Officers has been brought to see sense—I hope, in part at any rate—as a result of the amendment that we passed.
It was puzzling to be told that the association felt that the measure would impose a great burden on the police. When asked how many cases were involved, it did not know. It is not clear how the association assessed the gravity of the burden. Speaking for myself, I do not very much mind how the purpose of the amendment is achieved. The arrangements proposed seem to meet entirely the proposition that I had in mind. I am glad to welcome the announcement that the noble Baroness has just made.
Lord Renton: My Lords, those noble Lords who originally voted for the amendment deserve congratulation. The reason that we were given—I say this with respect to my noble friend on the Front Bench—as to why its purpose could not be achieved was that agreement could not be reached between the Home Office, the Department of Health and the chief officers of police. That seemed to me a poor excuse for not getting the thing right.
We have now got the matter right; but I have just one doubt. Can my noble friend assure us that there will be legal power to require previous convictions to be disclosed and to require the police to produce evidence of them? Unless that legal power exists, the arrangement with the chief officers of police, satisfactory though it sounds, might have no legal effect.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has taken the words out of my mouth. He has, however, set out the situation much better than I could have done. I agree that the reason given on 14th June that the Association of Chief Police Officers did not agree simply did not stand up. It was not good enough. We cannot be told by the police how we should legislate. The police do not determine the law; they have to seek to assist in applying it.
I was delighted that the Association of Chief Police Officers changed its mind as quickly as the government changed theirs in respect of voluntary organisations caring for drug abusers and alcoholics. However, in view of the fact that what we said has now been accepted, it would have been far better if the amendment had been accepted for the very reason that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, gave;

1753
namely, that there will be nothing on the statute book that says that. It will depend. Next week the Association of Chief Police Officers may perhaps discover another three. That is rather too many.
This matter should be determined on the statute book, but I shall not press the issue. I have not seen a word said in another place, although I shall do so tomorrow morning. We shall all be lucky. We shall be able to read tomorrow morning whether anything was said in another place. It would be a farce to vote for the reasons that I gave earlier.
Baroness Faithfull: When my noble friend the Minister replies, will she tell the House whether the provision applies to children's homes and hostels?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords—
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, having been told what is contained in Standing Orders, we have to watch that the Minister does not get up too quickly.
Like other noble Lords, I am delighted. For once, perhaps, the Lords can have a pat on the back. There seems to be a reluctance to do that. I am interested that there should be worries over conflict with the Commons on the first amendment. A Bill was recently rejected at Second Reading; I should have thought it that you could not do much worse than that.
The provision is very vague. The Commons' reason states that the administrative arrangements "are being made". How quickly will they be made? Terrible cases continue to come up. I should have liked something much more definite. I am sure that people concerned with such matters share that view. Like my noble friend, I cannot see any objection to the provision being on the face of the Bill, if it is to be implemented. For heaven's sake, can the Minister tell us what is happening now? When will there be some legislation or arrangements—call it what you will—under which those disclosures can be made?
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, we are told that the reasons we were given in good faith for not carrying this amendment on 14th June are now invalid and that there are therefore no reasons for our not having carried the amendment on that day. If the reasons against it have now been removed, why do we not carry it? Why do we not give the other place an opportunity to carry it? The noble Lord, Lord Renton, made an extremely important point. There is nothing on the statute book to protect the police against accusations of having falsely or illegally disclosed information. Surely the provision should be on the statute book. There is no reason why it should not be. The noble Baroness told us that. So why do we not send the amendment back to the other place for it to be put on the statute book?
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, as we have often been told that guidance will be given on various aspects of the Bill, will the noble Baroness tell us whether, if the provision is not to be embodied in the Bill, there will be any guidance that covers the point?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am advised that no power is necessary for the scheme and that regulations relating to spent convictions are already
1754
in place which would cover that situation. A separate scheme already applies to children. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, it is intended that the arrangements will be in place by 1st April 1991 which coincides with the other arrangements in the Bill. We are considering whether to issue guidance. However, the main point that has been raised is: why not accept the amendment?
Perhaps I should have said in my opening remarks that, unlike the amendment accepted by noble Lords, the administrative arrangements that have now been agreed will cover all residential care and nursing homes, not just those with which local authorities make arrangements, as the amendment of noble Lords set out. They will therefore cover a wider group of people. In other words, the amendment of noble Lords was narrower.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, will she confirm that it is still the intention to make regulations under the Registered Homes Act requiring applicants to disclose criminal convictions? That was promised at one stage.
Baroness Hooper: Yes, my Lords. I can confirm that.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENT
7 Clause 44, page 50, line 12, at end insert—
("( ) The plan for the provision of community care services referred to in subsection (1) above shall, in the case of those local authorities which are housing authorities, include details on how those authorities propose to meet the housing needs of the persons in their areas who are in need of community care services.").
The Commons disagreed to the above amendment for the following reason—
7A because it is detective and unacceptable as it requires a local authority which is a housing authority to consult itself
5 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 7 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 7A.
We had substantial discussion on this matter at Committee stage. The amendment seeks to impose on local authorities which are both social services and housing authorities—that is, London boroughs and metropolitan district councils—an obligation to include details of their plans for housing in their community care plans.
I am sure that no one in any part of your Lordships' House, and not least on these Benches, would dispute the importance of housing to the successful delivery of community care services. For this reason the Bill already requires local authorities to consult a wide range of interests, including statutory and voluntary housing agencies, in drawing up their community care plans. Our guidance makes plain the type of information that we expect to see in plans following such consultation. Further, we have also introduced amendments to the Bill requiring local authorities,

1755
when carrying out the community care assessments, to refer individuals with apparent housing needs to housing authorities.
There are three main reasons why the amendment is unnecessary: first, because it would apply only to some authorities—the London borough and metropolitan district councils; secondly, because it would impose a requirement on parts of the authority whose main duty—that of meeting general housing needs—lies outside the scope of the Bill; and, thirdly, because the principle it seeks to establish has already been adequately addressed in the Bill and the draft planning guidance. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 7 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 7A.—(Baroness Hooper.)
Lord Seebohm: My Lords, I was not only the mover but also the inspirer of this amendment. After more than 40 years in the housing field I realise that housing is the basic infrastructure for welfare. I talked this over with the AMA, which combines both the social services departments and housing authorities. It was enthusiastic about the proposal. The AMA wants it. It seems rather strange that it should not be allowed to have it if it is the body concerned with this matter.
I was also puzzled by the noble Baroness's remark that the provision would require a local authority which is a housing authority to consult itself. That is an extraordinary reason. I do not understand what that means. In the amendment we are asking that the plans should definitely include arrangements for appropriate housing. Without appropriate housing, great parts of the community care arrangements cannot possibly be implemented. That is the reason for the amendment. In spite of what the noble Baroness said, I cannot see why it should not be part of the Bill.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, the reasons given by another place for disagreeing with the amendment are meaningless in relation to the clause. The subsection quite clearly states that the plan referred to earlier in the clause shall contain certain provisions relating to housing. It has nothing to do with the housing authority having to consult itself. This was not debated in another place last night so one cannot blame the Members of another place. They simply voted it out without any consideration. It would have been better if the person who wrote the reasons for the other place disagreeing had, first, put them in English, and, secondly, made some connection between those reasons and the amendment that was passed in your Lordships' House. We deserve a better explanation.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am advised that the amendment is unworkable in legal terms because the effect would be that the authority would have to consult and collaborate within itself. It would be extraordinary to require on the face of the Bill different departments of the same authority to
1756
consult each other. We must assume that they do that in any event. I am advised that to empower an authority to do so in this way would be unworkable.
Lord Seebohm: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, there is nothing in my amendment about consulting. My amendment requires that such provision should be part of a plan. There are a number of draft guidelines about what plans should contain. This is one extra element that plans must have.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is the Minister really saying that she does not think that the housing part of a local authority and the community care part of a local authority should consult?
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENT
8 Clause 49, page 54, line 7, at end insert—
("(ba) such voluntary organisations as appear to the authority to represent the interests of persons who use or are likely to use any community care services within the area of the authority or the interests of private carers who, within that area, provide a substantial amount of care on a regular basis to persons for whom, in the exercise of their functions under this Act or any of the enactments mentioned in section 2(2) of this Act, the local authority have a power or a duty to provide, or to secure the provision of, a service.").
The Commons agreed to the above amendment with the following amendment—
8A Line 6, leave out ("a substantial amount of care on a regular basis") and insert ("care").
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8A to Amendment No. 8. In another place the Government were pleased to accept an amendment tabled by the honourable Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye and moved on his behalf by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health at the Scottish Office. The amendment parallels one which was made to the provisions for England and Wales, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, at Third Reading in your Lordships' House, and it makes good sense to bring the Scottish provisions into line. It was thought that the words:
"a substantial amount of care on a regular basis",
were unnecessarily restrictive. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8A to Lords Amendment No. 8.—(Lord Sanderson of Bowden.)
Baroness Seear: My Lords, as this amendment parallels one which I moved, I suppose that I must rather grudgingly say that it is some little gain.
Lord Carter: My Lords, my name is also on the amendment. I am glad to add my ungrudging thanks to the Government.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I accept the grudging thanks of the noble Baroness and I thank her very much indeed for bringing this point to the notice of your Lordships' House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BAe-Rover: EC Decision
5.7 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I wish to repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on the decision reached yesterday by the European Commission following its review of the arrangements reached with British Aerospace regarding the sale of the government shareholding in Rover Group. The Statement is as follows:
"The Government believe, in the circumstances at the time, the additional concessions granted to British Aerospace were a necessary part of our agreement so that the privatisation of Rover Group could proceed. That deal brought considerable benefits. It freed the taxpayer from the contingent liability of the Varley Marshall Joseph assurances. That liability then amounted to £1.6 billion and was set to rise substantially over the corporate plan period. It ensured that Rover Group's needs would not in future require special government aid, which had amounted to £3.5 billion while under public ownership. It safeguarded over 190,000 jobs, mostly in the West Midlands. It made a desirable contribution towards restructuring within the European motor industry. Under BAe's ownership the corporate plan is being fully implemented. Rover has already committed more than £500 million of new capital investment. The new model range is highly successful and the company has returned to profitability.
"The Commission's principal decisions are as follows: that (I quote) '£150 million represented a reasonable purchase price for the company';
that the Government should provide an undertaking that any arrangement between BAe and the Inland Revenue will not allow Rover Group to use more than the £500 million of trading tax losses specified in the sale agreement with BAe, and that these losses will remain within Rover Group. I am of course very happy to give an undertaking that the terms of the sale contract will be adhered to;
that BAe should automatically be required to pay financial penalties if there is any change in control of Rover Group or its principal subsidiaries before July 1993. We shall be exploring precisely what this means with the Commission;
that the grant of £1·5 million towards Rover Group's costs incurred in the acquisition, and the £9·5 million contribution towards BAe's costs in buying out the minority shareholders, should be repaid;
that the benefit to British Aerospace of deferring payment of the £150 million consideration for Rover Group should similarly be repaid.
"In relation to this deferment, the Commission has concluded that BAe should be required to pay an amount of £33·4 million calculated as the estimated gross interest saving to the company. Fairness suggests that any such benefit, and
1758
therefore any repayment, should be assessed net of tax, thus reflecting the true value of the deferment to the company. We estimate that the equivalent post-tax benefit would be some £22 million, a difference of £11·4 million.
"If the Commission's decision is on the basis of the gross interest saving, then the net cost to BAe will depend on whether tax relief is available in respect of the repayment under normal UK tax law. The availability of tax relief on the £33·4 million will need to be settled in due course between British Aerospace and the appropriate tax authorities and perhaps ultimately in the courts.
"The Commission also notes that expenditure of aid agreed in 1987 for the restructuring of the Leyland-Daf commercial vehicle operation has been slower than anticipated. It suggests the possibility that up to £40 million of this may eventually need to be repaid. The Commission acknowledges however that this figure is speculative and that the final out-turn of expenditure will not be known until next year.
"As the Commission's efforts to bring all state aids within the Community under control are beneficial for the development of the single market, the Government believe it is important to support them. We have thus always acknowledged its ultimate right to reach its own judgment on the status of these additional arrangements in the context of the 1988 decision. We also accept that any benefit received by a company which the Commission properly decides is a state aid incompatible with the treaty should be repaid.
"Equity suggests that the repayment should represent the net value of the benefit received by the company and not contain any unintended element of penalty. We are therefore concerned that the Commission has decided on £33·4 million in respect of the interest when the estimated benefit to British Aerospace is some £22 million, handing down a decision in gross terms without regard to whether or not the repayment will be allowable against tax under normal UK law.
"We shall accordingly wish to give careful consideration to this aspect of the decision and to any representations by BAe. Subject however to that, the Government, having carefully studied the arguments and in order to demonstrate our support for Community policy on state aids, have decided to accept the Commission's decision on repayment. We shall be discussing with the Commission and British Aerospace other detailed matters raised on the Commission decision. I am advised that British Aerospace will consider its position in the light of this Statement and after studying the Commission's decision in detail".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5.13 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made by the Secretary of State in another place. We can begin to say that the truth is coming out as the truth will always do in these matters.

1759
I wish to be clear about the Government's view. From the Statement it is not entirely clear to me exactly how the Government regard the legal position. Now that they have said that they will not challenge the European Commission's verdict, will the noble Lord confirm that his Government, according to the noble Lord's own estimate, wrongly gave away more than £22 million of taxpayers' money by postponing the payment of the purchase price and that Parliament was not properly told?
Will the Minister further confirm that in addition £9·;5 million of British Aerospace costs in buying out Rover minority shareholders were wrongly paid by the Government and that Parliament was equally kept in the dark? Will he further confirm that a grant of £1·5 million towards the cost of the Rover acquisition was wrongly paid by the Government to British Aerospace? Does he agree that for reasons of their own the Government decided not to report that agreement either to the Commission or to Parliament?
Will the Minister also confirm that at the last minute certain tax concessions were offered, perhaps the result of a number of meetings which are now on the record between the Inland Revenue, the DTI and British Aerospace? Will he confirm that these concessions were never reported to the Commission and that, as I understand it, a full report has now been demanded by the Commission? Will he now tell us the full extent of these special tax concessions that were given?
I ask the Minister to confirm also that while British Aerospace has a perfect right to go to the European Court, the Government, with their responsibility for the management of public funds, now accept without equivocation that the money was wrongly paid and should be repaid?
I hope that the noble Lord will confirm all those matters because they are a logical consequence of the Statement that he has repeated. Will the Minister tell us why there has been no apology, no admission of responsibility and no statement about who is to accept the blame? The noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, made a Statement in this House on 14th July 1988 which said:
"the Commission has approved the final terms of the acquisition". [Official Report, 14/7/88; col. 981.]
Can the Minister say how that statement can be reconciled with the events that are now revealed? How can it be reconciled with the Commission's decision of 13th July that the purchase price would be paid immediately? In addition, how can that state of affairs be reconciled with the letter written by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, to the chairman of British Aerospace, dated 12th July, stating:
"On deferment of the £150 million consideration, I can offer three possibilities in ascending order of risk that the deferment will be picked up by the European Commission in which case they might require repayment of the notional interest saved"?
We now know that the deferment was picked up by the Commission which has demanded repayment. Can the Minister say how it is possible to justify the statement that the Commission had approved the
1760
final terms? It could not have done because it had never been told them.
The truth of the matter is that from the start this deal has been as crooked as a corkscrew. Ministers have twisted and turned and engaged in deceit. It is now there for everybody to see. It is a sad and shabby story. In the end the party opposite will pay the ultimate penalty.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I too wish to thank the Minister for repeating the Statement on an issue which raises major problems of industrial policy and ethics. However desirable the objective may have been to transfer the Rover Group into a wider industrial group and give it greater opportunities for growth, nonetheless it is very clear that the methods adopted for that purpose were, to say the least, questionable.
A matter of concern to the House right from the start was the closed nature of the transaction. It was a closed bid even though it was known that there were other bidders. What appears to have made the matter worse was that in addition to it being a closed bid there were, as has now become apparent, secret protocols of a financial nature which were only revealed at a later stage.
Therefore, my first question to the Government is very much in line with what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked. Are these methods regarded by the Government as a proper way of proceeding in such cases? Can we assume that these events will not be regarded as a precedent if there should be any similar situation? There is the specific issue of the tax relating to the saving on the deferment of the payment of the purchase price. As I understand it, the Commission has specifically insisted that the sum of £33·4 million, which is the gross value, should be repaid in that form. The Government have stated that they wish to take up the issue. However, can we assume that that will not be a sticking point and that if the Commission insists on full repayment it will be met?
Finally, there is the question of the Government stating that they fully support the Commission's policy on state aids. This particular transaction makes that statement of adherence to that policy somewhat questionable. Are we to assume that for the future the Government will be extremely careful in this area and avoid falling into such traps? If we continue to claim, as they do, that we have a good record of compliance with Community legislation—indeed it has often been said that it is better than that of any other member state—surely that assertion has been somewhat dented and weakened by recent events.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I wonder whether your Lordships—and I refer to both noble Lords—fully recall the circumstances which surrounded this transaction. To put it bluntly, the Rover Group was on its uppers. It had spent thousands of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money and was set to spend thousands more. I believe that the Government were right, and that my noble friend Lord Young was right, to seek to return the Rover Group to the private sector and hence to put the financial responsibility where it rightfully belonged.

1761
The fact is that large industrial enterprises of that nature hardly ever prosper under public ownership. Here was a classic example of the shackles of nationalisation ruining the commercial prospects of an otherwise viable venture.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I really must—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord has had his chance to speak. He may speak further later on. I am attempting to explain the background to this matter. It appears to me that that had not occurred to the noble Lord when he made his intervention.
As I said, the Rover Group was in a very serious situation. The results of that situation and the enormous financial burdens which would have followed would have fallen on the taxpayer. The sum of £1·6 billion was already on the slate so far as concerned the Varley Marshall assurances and thousands more millions of pounds were already in prospect. When the noble Lord talks about the stewardship of public money, let him please ponder on the figures to which I referred.
In regard to the issue of concealing matters from Parliament, this matter and everything concerned with it was properly reported to Parliament at the appropriate time. I can draw the noble Lord's attention to the relevant Estimates which were laid recording this expenditure, if he would like me to do so. Contrary to the allegations which have been made from time to time by noble Lords opposite and others, there were no special tax concessions made to British Aerospace or to the Rover Group in this matter.
I turn now to deal with the relationship with the Commission. We have always acknowledged the Commission's right to reach its own judgment on the matter. It has now reached its conclusions and, as I said, we shall abide by them, although the position of British Aerospace is a matter for that company to decide.
Perhaps I may add at this point that these figures, representing £33 million or £34 million—depending on one's point of view—pale into insignificance beside the figures in some other recent cases of which the noble Lord may be aware. I refer, for example, to that Of the Renault company, where I believe that the Commission called for £900 million of public money to be returned to the unfortunate French taxpayers.
5.24 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I too should like to thank the Minister for repeating this Statement, if only because it is in such direct contrast to the statements he has made to me and to the House in Answers to recent Questions on the subject. The last time I asked him a Question on the matter, he said that the allegations of bribery and deceit were only to be found in my mind. In that case, my mind must have spread very widely through the newspapers of this country and those of the world today.
1762
Will the Minister now accept, first, that the report made by his colleague, who is a Privy Counsellor and a member of the Government of which he is a member, exposes the fact that the British Government used taxpayers' money to bribe a commercial enterprise in order to maximise its profits—which the company has done since the deal was made; and secondly, that in so doing Parliament and the Commission were deceived by the Secretary of State, as was outlined but not yet answered, by my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord has made that allegation on more than one occasion. I have rejected before, and I do so again today, the allegation that Parliament was in some way deceived. As I have already said—and I do not mind repeating it—the Rover Group was on its uppers. Only one firm was seriously interested in taking it over. The Commission has confirmed that fact, and that answers the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. There was only one credible bidder. I think that British Aerospace did the British taxpayer a great favour by taking over the company. I am greatly obliged to BAe for so doing.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I have rarely heard a more irrelevent bombardment than that with which he sought to divert attention from the detailed questions put to him by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel? Is he further aware that across that broad segment most concerned with business and industry, the transactions of the Government are assuming an increasing habit of sleaziness? Will he also reflect upon the likelihood that this may be an inevitable consequence of the elevation of the pursuit of mammon into a supreme god and its achievement as a state of grace?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am afraid that that is the sort of high philosophy which generally excapes me on these occasions. However, I respect the noble Lord's point of view. He was, of course, a distinguished president of the Commission not so very long ago. Therefore, he will understand that the Commission and the governments of member states often form different views on the same subject. This was one such occasion.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that most people who have not been entirely bewildered by the adverse press presentation of this affair in respect to the enormous liability of the Rover Group—which my noble friend rightly told us had already cost the taxpayer thousands of millions of pounds and was likely to cost even more because there was no possibility of it becoming sound—will feel a sense of immense relief that further money will not be lost to the taxpayer? Is he also aware, in regard to the other major point he made about the jobs of 190,000 men and women being at stake, that it will be seen that by getting the Rover Group transferred to a strong and viable company such as British Aerospace the prospect of the continuing employment of such people is now secure? At the same time, it will also be seen that

1763
the taxpayer has been relieved of further enormous liabilities.
As regards the technicalities of this deal made with British Aerospace, there were certainly other points to be considered. Indeed, my noble friend was very nearly beaten up by noble Lords opposite when he stated how various further concessions had to be made so as to get British Aerospace finally to accept this hot potato. Of course, the company finally accepted the deal, doubting the possibility that it would lose hefty sums of money in the process. However, BAe accepted the deal, took over the company and, thank goodness, is now making a success of the venture. Regarding the broad interests, the repayment of £44 million in order to conform with the Commission's principle of maintenance of competition—which is perfectly reasonable—does not seem to be serious and it is an enormous relief to the taxpayer.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am greatly obliged to my noble friend; I entirely agree. What would noble Lords opposite have had us do? Would they have had us allow the company to go bankrupt?
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, we would not have bribed them.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I should be obliged if the noble Lord would keep quiet when in a sedentary position. If he wishes to intervene, I will give way. Would they have had us allow the company to go bankrupt with the cost to the taxpayer of perhaps £2,000 or £3,000 million? About 200,000 people would have been put out of work in the West Midlands. If that is what noble Lords opposite seek, then let them say so loud and clear.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his attack on the Rover Group, before it was handed over to British Aerospace, is quite unjustified? Had the Rover Group not been taken into public ownership in 1976, the British car industry would not have existed. The noble Lord's party voted against taking British Leyland into public ownership at that time.
The fact that the industry was under public control over a long period meant the continuation of the British car industry. That it needed thousands of millions of pounds for its restructuring and for capital investment was due to the failure of its previous owners to provide that capital when it should have been provided over the years. The noble Lord's attack is therefore completely unjustified.
Nevertheless, the Government made a decision that they would sell the industry or virtually give it away without any competitive venture, without any tendering or similar activity. The problem that the Government have with the British people is that the people believe that the Government, on a doctrinal basis, were ready to get rid of the Rover Group at virtually any price because they did not want it under public control.
The lack of transparency in the dealings in this matter—and there has been a lack of
1764
transparency—has made the public suspicious of the Government's whole approach to the privatisation programme, not only in respect of Rover but of other industries as well. The noble Lord must bear in mind that the British people believe that the whole truth has not yet been told in this instance.
Finally, if the noble Lord believes that the Government were correct in all their dealings, why do they accept the Commission's ruling on the matter? If they really believed in what they had done, they would not accept the ruling. They would reject it out of hand and advise the Rover Group to repay nothing at all because everything that has been done has been completely above board and legitimate.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me for saying so, I believe that he lives in a world of his own. Companies in the public sector have almost without exception failed to prosper. The Rover Group was no exception. The fact truthfully is that Ministers and officials are very bad at running industrial enterprises. That applies just as much to Conservatives as to noble Lords and others opposite. The best people to run commercial and industrial enterprises are commercial and industrial experts, not Ministers and officials. That is, I fear, the basic reason why all these nationalised enterprises have done so badly over the years. British Leyland, or the Rover Group as it became, were no exception to that rule. We were right to return the business to the private sector. There was only one conceivable purchaser and that was British Aerospace. There were no other serious bidders. The Commission has accepted that point. British Aerospace was prepared to pay £150 million for the business and that was a good deal for the British taxpayer.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, are we to understand from the noble Lord's replies that in his view the Secretary of State kept Parliament properly and fully informed about this transaction?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I have said on more than one occasion today that the appropriate procedures for reporting these matters to Parliament were complied with.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this matter is only just beginning? It is not an issue about privatisation or nationalisation, or the squandering of funds by the publicly owned Rover Company. If the noble Lord were to read every newspaper in the country, including today's edition of the great London newspaper, the Evening Standard, he would discover the issues. He does not seem to be aware of it. It is the grave suspicion of appalling corruption and the interpretation of the word "sweeteners". Everybody knows what "sweeteners" means. The issue is not what he referred to—the failure of Rover. It is the manner in which the negotiation was conducted in the name of Parliament. If the noble Lord reads any newspaper he will discover that all are ashamed of what has happened. We, on these Benches, are too. The greatest shame of all is that the noble Lord opposite does not seem to have the slightest concern about the manner in which the whole transaction was conducted.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord opposite and his noble, right honourable and honourable colleagues are keen to draw our attention to circumstances where they think more money could be paid or money should not be saved. This transaction saved the British taxpayer thousands of millions of pounds and I am proud that it did so.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that those listening to these questions are shacked and horrified at the attempt by certain noble Lords opposite who happen to disagree with the transaction to make wild charges of corruption for which they have not a scintilla of evidence? It is utterly contrary to the principles and practice of this House to make them.
Is my noble friend further aware that those of us who have followed this matter know well that the Ministers concerned did what they believed to be right and in the interests of the British taxpayer with the highest motives and intentions? It is surely right that we should discuss the matter—if we do—on that basis and not try to confuse it with wild charges of corruption for which there is not the slightest basis in evidence and for which no evidence has been offered today.
Perhaps I may add, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, is about to rise a second time, that I was a little amused at his reference to the pursuit of mammon. If, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, he had pursued mammon more effectively, the finances of this country would have benefited a great deal.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I cannot resist saying that as I was the only Chancellor of the Exchequer to achieve a surplus in 40 years, that remark is a little ill-directed.
However, leaving aside any wild charges—if they be that—of corruption, I should like the noble Lord to tell us, independent of the merits of the deal (which may or may not exist) why the Government and government spokesmen could not tell the truth before it was forced out of them?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I believe that the discussions that we had with the Commission on this matter—about which I dare say the noble Lord will have heard, although he had left the Commission by that time—were entirely right and proper. Of course we have had a disagreement with the Commission on the matter. I do not for a moment deny that. However, there is nothing disreputable about having a disagreement.

Education (Student Loans) Regulations 1990
5.39 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 25th June be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, these regulations establish the student loans scheme. They are framed in accordance with the Education (Student Loans) Act which we debated earlier this year.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, before my noble friend proceeds, will she indicate to your Lordships where an accurate and proper copy of these regulations is to be found? The copy I have, which I obtained this morning, is full of amendments of every kind, corrections simply inked in like a schoolboy's notebook. Coupled with that are several pages of typed riders.
Is the noble Baroness asking your Lordships' House to come to a decision on legislation, albeit secondary legislation, of great importance without having before it a proper copy of what it is being asked to approve? Perhaps she would comment on that or say why, if a proper copy is still not available, she feels it necessary to proceed this evening at all.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, if my noble friend will bear with me, I should say that I believe that the copy he has is an accurate record although it has manuscript annotations. If he will bear with my initial presentation of the regulations, I shall make reference to the point he raised.
Baroness White: My Lords, from this side of the House I strongly support what the noble Lord said. During my long experience in both Houses I have never received at this stage a document put before the House which is difficult to read. There has been no opportunity to obtain a properly printed copy. I obtained my copy on Tuesday afternoon and I went back today with the firm conviction that by now a properly printed copy would be available. However, that is not the case.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I hope my noble friend Lady Blatch will take this matter seriously. We are being asked to legislate. When one is asked to legislate one is asked to approve of some document, be it a Bill or a regulation, in the clear form in which it is to pass into the law of the land. Can my noble friend really say that this dirty bit of paper with inked-in corrections, deletions and amendments all over it and with two typed-in so-called riders is the form in which your Lordships' House should be asked to approve legislation? If a Minister cannot provide us with a proper copy of a proper document would it not be the responsible line to defer discussion until a proper copy is available, as I am sure it will be in due course?
Lord Peston: My Lords, it may be useful if we all make our complaints at one go so that the noble Baroness can deal with them. There is at least one part of the document which makes no sense whatsoever. At the top of page 2 a Part V appears, but it is as if that part is left over from another document. It does not appear to belong to this document. I was going to make the same point that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, made, but he was right to raise this matter ab initio before we get involved in debating a document when that may be a complete waste of time.
Baroness Young: My Lords, perhaps I can help my noble friend, who has been put in an extremely difficult position. Like my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I picked up a set of these documents

1767
yesterday and found them annotated. However, this morning I was sent a copy from the Department of Education and Science which appears to be perfectly printed. I am afraid I did not look further in the Printed Paper Office. I raise that matter only because I think my noble friend is in a difficult position. Properly printed copies must be available and perhaps they could be made available to your Lordships now.
Baroness White: My Lords, I have been to the Printed Paper Office within the last hour and they are not available there.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I wish to extend the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, to the 21st report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. In my opinion that is an extremely helpful document and has resulted in improvements in these regulations which I welcome. However, if I had been teaching this morning, as I might well have been, I would have known nothing of that report until I arrived at the House almost ready to speak. In future can the reports of the Joint Committee be made available a little sooner before we have to debate them?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, at this moment I do not know why the noble Lord does not have today's copy of a completely perfectly printed copy of the regulations.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I collected it this morning from the Printed Paper Office.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am told it was available this morning. I have two copies here. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments which met two weeks ago to discuss these regulations was not quorate on the day it discussed them. That lost the committee one week. As a result of some modifications which we knew were to be discussed on that day—I shall refer to that in my presentation—these draft regulations were relaid in their correct form. I shall refer to the corrections in some detail. The typed-up notes that noble Lords have are the result of this week's meeting of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. They relate in detail to the difference between the original regulations that were laid and the ones that are before your Lordships today.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I must interrupt the noble Baroness because I am now rather annoyed. Although I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, in the end I tend to shrug and consider that we must soldier on as best we can, even though the document is absolutely scandalous. However, if a correct printed copy exists which the noble Baroness possesses while I, as the principal spokesman for the Opposition do not have one, I do not see why I should continue with this charade. This is an insult to the Opposition. I have been in your Lordships' House all day and every day this week, and I am certainly not willing to debate a matter where I want to discuss the considerable
1768
details of these regulations on the basis of not having a proper printed copy as the department did not even have the courtesy to provide me with one. I certainly will not accept one now. This is an appalling state of affairs.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, before the noble Baroness replies to that I must ask her again why, if there is a correct and tidy copy available—apparently one was made available to the noble Baroness, Lady Young,—it has not been made available not only to noble Lords on the Opposition Front Bench but also to other noble Lords who are interested in this matter. In a sense the fact that a proper copy exists but is not available makes the position worse. The noble Baroness should think further before asking your Lordships' House to consider an important matter in such a handicapped way.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept that I have been in the Printed Paper Office within the last half hour, but the only thing I could acquire was the extremely defective and imperfect version of the regulations that was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Peston? If we were to approve this draft we should approve on page 2—the noble Lord, Lord Peston, pointed this out—something which is entirely out of place. Part V appears to come before Part I. It is impossible to proceed on this basis.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, would it not be helpful, in order to resolve this matter as amicably as possible, for the House to adjourn for a period of, say, 30 minutes? I know that would delay this evening's business, but if we continue as things stand at present there will be a great deal of animosity. If we adjourn for 30 minutes now, it may save us a great deal of time in total. I make that as a suggestion.
Baroness Young: My Lords, while this matter is being considered perhaps I may intervene once again. The reason I have my properly printed copy is that, having read the regulations yesterday, I telephoned the DES about one or two matters. My copy arrived this morning unsolicited. I certainly did not ask for it. I was sent it as the up-to-date copy. I am afraid it never occurred to me that it was not available in the Printed Paper Office. As I had obtained my own copy, I naturally did not seek to find a second one which I did not require. However, the proper copies must be available. I should have thought it would be possible to proceed with the business. I studied yesterday the copy which appears to be available. Anyone else who has done so will know what the content is and what the principles are as set out.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, appears to have been taken by surprise. However, as the Government Chief Whip was in the Chamber a moment ago, I think it only fair to say that earlier this afternoon I warned him about this point.
Baroness White: My Lords, might we not adjourn during displeasure?
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, perhaps I may be able to help on this matter as I see that the House is concerned about it. There is nothing more infuriating than feeling that one does not have the correct papers. As I understand the position, the papers that are in the hands of noble Lords, albeit with some manuscript amendments, are the correct papers. The proper papers were printed overnight and there is a limited number available in the department. I cannot tell your Lordships why they are not in the Printed Paper Office However, that is obviously a matter of great concern and we shall have to discover the reason for it. As I understand it, the papers before your Lordships are the correct papers although they contain manuscript amendments. I suggest that those papers should be the basis for the debate. I shall take it upon myself to discover precisely why the proper papers are not available to your Lordships this afternoon.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Earl is helpful, as ever. However, he does not appear to appreciate, as he would if he were to look at the document, that, although it may be alleged to be accurate, it is extremely difficult to understand or to follow. It is difficult to be sure what each inked-in amendment means and what it relates to. The noble Earl must appreciate that it is difficult to debate an important order without a properly completed document for us to consider. If copies are available within the department there is a great deal to be said for sending for them.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, the noble Earl the Deputy Leader of the House has told us that it is only a question of manuscript amendments. What about page 2? At the top of the page is Part V and the heading "Higher Education Institutions: Duties". Beneath that is subsection 11 dealing with duties of governing bodies in relation to loans. Then there is a schedule. All of those come before Part I and the general proposition of the regulations. Is that also correct?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the printed version which most noble Lords have in their hands today has been available in the Printed Paper Office since Monday. Since then some modifications have been made following discussion between the department and the Statutory Instruments Committee. Noble Lords have a detailed memorandum on that document, complete with manuscript amendments. Since then the document has been reprinted and that is the document which was not available to all noble Lords.
I believe that all noble Lords have in their possession sufficient information for the regulations to be discussed today. In addition to having a two-page explanatory memorandum, in my speech I shall refer in detail to the difference between the regulations as originally laid and the regulations as amended as a result of the Statutory Instruments Committee's meeting on Tuesday.
1770
I am in the hands of the House as to whether the regulations should be received today. My very strong recommendation is that there is sufficient information in your Lordships' hands to do so.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, I thought that the noble Baroness had risen to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, by saying that, as the Department of Education and Science is on the other side of Westminster Bridge, a taxi was already speeding across the bridge with printed copies and that we should adjourn for 20 minutes to enable them to arrive so that we could proceed. Why does she not say that?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall propose to the House that I accept the suggestion from the acting Chief Whip on the Opposition Benches that the House should adjourn for 30 minutes while the matter is discussed.
Lord Blease: My Lords, although the regulations deal with England, Wales and Scotland, there are strong implications for Northern Ireland. I have received documentation from the Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals. I have also received a briefing from Northern Ireland. I want to put on the record that that suggestion does not suit me and I shall not be able to present my case when the House resumes.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships that I was not in the House when this exchange began. I should also like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Blease, that he has an important point which ought to arise in the substantive debate.
Perhaps I may pick up the suggestion of the Opposition acting Chief Whip and the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, and, as my noble friend Lady Blatch proposed, suggest to your Lordships that the House should adjourn during pleasure, unless any of your Lordships feel that that is wrong. I therefore beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure for 30 minutes.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 5.53 to 6.23 p.m.]
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, noble Lords will now have in their hands a clear copy of the regulations. In content the printed copy is identical to the version laid in the Printed Paper Office on Monday and considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments on Tuesday. I hope that this copy is easier for noble Lords to use.
These regulations establish the student loans scheme. They are framed in accordance with the Education (Student Loans) Act, which we debated earlier this year. I shall describe in a moment what the regulations contain; but it may be helpful if I also make it clear what they do not contain. They do not affect the availability of social security benefits for students. They relate only to loans. They have no implications for benefits one way or the other.
We have recently debated the issue of social security benefits for students in the context of the

1771
Social Security Bill. That Bill has yet to complete all its stages and it will be debated further in this House. In the light of Parliament's final decisions, the exclusion of students from benefits, if it is to go ahead, will then have to be implemented by making regulations under the Social Security Acts of 1975 and 1986. I repeat an undertaking I gave earlier in the context of another Bill; namely, that those regulations will not be laid until the passage of the Social Security Bill has been completed.
Those regulations, if made, will of course be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. And it may reassure your Lordships to know that our intention is that regulations excluding students from benefits should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
For those of us who took part in the debates on the student loans Bill, the draft regulations now before us will contain few surprises. They implement policy already announced by the Government in the 1988 White Paper and in the debates that followed.
As we said from these Benches when we debated the Bill, it will be more important to be able to refine the scheme in later years. But the general approach is established in this first set of regulations. We agreed earlier that they should accordingly be subject to affirmative resolution. I welcome the opportunity to lay them open to your Lordships' scrutiny now.
The draft regulations set out the detailed eligibility criteria for the loans scheme. These are parallel to the criteria for the mandatory award, but are deliberately drawn rather wider. The regulations also set out the amount and terms of the loan. They specify that the amount outstanding will be indexed to inflation, so that interest in real terms is not charged. They set out the repayment period: five years, or seven years for those who follow the longest courses. They determine the deferment and cancellation arrangements that will protect graduates whose income is not high. Finally, they specify the task of the higher education institutions in confirming that their students are eligible for the loan.
Your Lordships may have noticed that the draft before us today differs in some ways from the draft first laid for approval on 13th June. We have added separate protection for disabled borrowers and clarified both the position of minors receiving this form of student support and the role of higher education institutions. Let me explain those changes in more detail.
The regulations include the provision that we announced earlier for disability-related benefits to be disregarded when income is computed for deferment purposes. This means that disabled graduates in receipt of these benefits will be able to claim deferment on higher incomes than their able-bodied peers.
In framing the regulations, we have concluded that we should provide the option in Regulation 8 for the Student Loans Company to allow disabled people a longer grace period before they start repaying, or a longer period over which to complete repayments. The circumstances of disabled borrowers will no
1772
doubt vary greatly and we have yet to decide how that discretion will be used. Repayments will not begin until April 1991; these decisions can be taken in good time for that. But it is important that the option should be inserted now.
Secondly, we have made a technical amendment which clarifies the position where a loan is taken out by a student under 18. Under contracts governed by Scottish law a minor should obtain the consent of his curator—in most cases his parent or guardian—before entering into a contract. Only if he obtains such consent, or was already independent of his family when he entered into the contract, may he validly ratify that contract on reaching his majority. The new Regulation 3(3) acknowledges that position.
The Government have consistently taken the view that students under 18 on higher education courses should be eligible for loans. The regulations allow for that. We shall expect such students to repay after their courses on the same basis as other borrowers. To facilitate this, the general intention is that such students, once they reach 18, should ratify their previous loan contract before being entitled to a futher loan. This is important to protect the interests of the taxpayer.
The third change affects the role of higher education institutions. In assessing their students' eligibility for a loan, the institutions will need to determine whether they meet the residence requirement, which is the same as currently applies for the mandatory award. The regulations now make it clear that the institution is required to inquire into the student's residence history only so far as is reasonably practicable. That will ensure that eligible students have access to the loan without requiring the higher education institutions to go into the matter exhaustively where the residence history is not straightforward.
The amendment has a consequence for the requirements placed on higher education institutions in certifying their students' eligibility. In the previous draft there was an unqualified requirement to certify the accuracy of the information. The requirement is now to certify its accuracy to the best of the institution's knowledge and belief.
These amendments to the requirements placed on higher education institutions follow a series of meetings and seminars around the country, to which all institutions providing eligible courses have been invited. There have proved invaluable in allowing the Student Loans Company and the department to refine their procedures. They augur well for the smooth introduction of the scheme in the autumn. I am glad to pay tribute to the co-operative spirit of the administrators in the higher education institutions, who are professionally discharging their rôle of ensuring that their students have access to this new source of support.
We believe that the loan scheme is a necessary precondition for the further expansion of higher education that we all desire. With zero real interest and deferment and cancellation if income is low, our scheme offers students more money on very favourable terms. The regulations before your

1773
Lordships are entirely consistent with primary legislation and with the details as set out in the course of our debate on the Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 25th June be approved. [21st Report from the Joint Committee]—(Baroness Blatch.)
6.30 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her statement. I shall be obliged to speak on these matters at some length. That is inevitable with such legislation. The Education (Students Loans) Act is an enabling Act for which the regulations are of the essence. In addition, I am allowed to speak only once. I intend to concentrate my remarks on the regulations. I shall not go into other extraneous matters.
In my opinion the regulations in so far as they correspond to the Act as it was passed into law, do so in as limited a way as possible. Many of the concessions that noble Lords asked for on the face of the Bill, which were rejected by the Government, could have been introduced by regulations, but have not been. There has been no extension of the scheme to some or all postgraduates. There has been no modification of the payment obligation to graduates who enter work of national importance. There has been no help to women graduates who stay at home with their families. The concessions to the disabled, although welcome, are about as grudging as they could be. They relate to deferment of repayment, but no more. The list of what the Government could have done by regulations but have not done, is endless.
As was predicted, what has been let loose is an administrative nightmare. I saw today the basic pack of material that has been sent to the universities. Apart from what I believe is technically called the multipart form which has to be filled in, it includes an eligibility questionnaire about which I believe we were not warned when we debated these matters—if we were, I missed that—and which certainly adds to bureaucratic cost.
Apart from the primitive nature of these forms, which are not easily amenable to electronic processing, we must also note the time involved. It is worth emphasising that the institutions will be responsible for handing out those forms. As I understand it, the forms are being treated as a matter of security, probably for very good reasons, but that certainly does not lower the cost. The institutions are responsible for ensuring that they are filled out correctly. They are responsible for certifying eligibility. In that regard the noble Baroness answered one question that I had in mind. However, she may wish to state it more clearly when she replies. The question is: what is the legal liability of institutions in this regard? Do I now understand that, so long as the institution states that it has done the best it can in the circumstances, it has no further legal liability whatever, either to the Government, or—and this is very important—to the students?
On the question of costs, having seen the forms this morning, my view is that at best the average time per student to fill out a form will be a quarter
1774
of an hour. Therefore a university or college such as mine with 4,000 students will be confronted with a minimum of 1,000 person hours or 25 person weeks of direct labour input plus a good deal of additional input and of course overheads. To pay £3·50 per student in my view is not to meet the cost. Thus, the Government appear to be going back on their pledge that, while they did not wish to sign an open-ended cheque, they would pay a fair and proper price. Perhaps I may quote the exact words of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, when under considerable pressure from several noble Lords who are present tonight. He said at col. 1013 of Hansard on 29th March:
"Your Lordships have a commitment from me that the Government will pay the money".
At col. 1014 he stated:
"What the Government are willing to do is obviously to meet the reasonable costs of this scheme".
On another occasion he stated in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Renton:
"It is a question of getting the matter right. I put it to your Lordships that the best way of getting it right is to have a commitment from the Government that they will meet the costs".
I have to say—and this is in no sense an accusation of bad faith against the noble Earl, Lord Caithness; I speak now of the Government—that in my view those pledges have simply not been met.
Instead what appears to have happened is, as many of us feared, that the department has used its bargaining power to squeeze our higher education institutions. Resources that ought to have been deployed on the proper functioning of those institutions—I remind noble Lords that that is not to administer loan schemes but to teach students to engage in scholarship and research—will clearly be diverted to administering the loan schemes.
I must raise another point on that connection. I understand that universities and colleges have been told that they must not act as agents in promoting the loans. In administering these regulations, it appears that they must not even offer advice to students or answer such questions as, "Should I take out this loan?" As I understand it, if a tutor or an administrator involved is asked that question, legally the student is to be told, "I cannot advise you on that matter because of the legal consequences." As I understand the situation, it is not even clear whether putting up such notices as, "Remember to go to room such-and-such for your eligibility questionnaire or loan form", is legitimate.
I shall refer to only a few detailed points because other noble Lords wish to speak and it would be quite wrong of me to hog all the detailed criticisms. However, although not covering them all, it does not mean that I am unaware of them. Perhaps I may draw the attention of noble Lords to some matters that they may find disturbing. For example, a student who does not have a bank account or building society account, simply on that basis, will not be allowed to have a loan. The form states clearly that he has to give such an account number. I believe that the regulations state the same. I am all in favour of students having bank accounts. But the idea that they must have bank accounts, even if they do not want them as a matter of principle, seems to be going a little far.

1775
The point goes further and I must draw your Lordships' attention to paragraph 7(4) of the regulations. It states:
"Repayments shall be made by direct debit from the borrower's bank or building society account unless the loans administrator agrees otherwise."
Again, that appears to be pushing it a little bit. Most people ask at least: "Do you wish to have direct debit?". To be told, "That is what you are going to have unless I agree that you should not", is going too far. In order to arrange for a direct debit, one must have a bank account. The relevant account may be a joint account and it is not obvious that the joint holder will accept the arrangement.
I shall come to a more serious matter in a moment, but I have one other point to make about the detail. Paragraph 7(5) states:
"Nothing … shall be taken to prevent a borrower from reducing or discharging his liability in respect of his loan with the agreement of the loans administrator … where a borrower wishes so to reduce or discharge his liability … shall be determined by the loans administrator".
That requirement is also a little tough. A student who has taken out a loan and says simply that he wishes to repay it should not need to have any agreement about that. In any event, I believe that on grounds of economic policy the Government should welcome it and the matter should be straightforward.
Those are one or two points of detail. I have many more which I hope other noble Lords will raise. In the light of what happened an hour ago, it is with a certain amount of trepidation that I turn to the central question that worries me. It is whether the regulations are faulty. Noble Lords will recall that in my opening remarks about the regulations I used the words "in so far as they correspond to the Act". The question is: do they correspond to the Act? I then said that with so much written in longhand, they show every sign of being done in a hurry and at the last minute. The fact that I now have a copy that is not in longhand is irrelevant because I am as yet unable to make use of the copy.
Schedule 2 paragraph 1(4)(b) on page 5 of the Act states:
"the rates shall be such as appear to the Secretary of State to be requisite for maintaining the value of that amount in real terms".
Noble Lords will recall that we debated the issue at great length on more than one occasion. What is meant by the phrase "maintaining that amount in real terms"? In other words, what is meant by a zero real rate of interest? It means that during the period of the loan the principal is repaid in real terms. (I wish I could now use a blackboard, but I shall try to do my best without one). If over three years the inflation rate is X per cent. for every £100 borrowed at the beginning, the correct repayment is (1 + X) cubed times £100 at the end of the three years. That is what is meant by maintaining the amount in real terms.
The regulations are different because they use the retrospective inflation rate. For example, they state that the inflation rate, which becomes the interest rate as it were, for the first period of the loan, will be the inflation rate up to June 1990. Therefore, for
1776
the first 100 borrowed now, the repayment will be one plus the inflation rate up to June 1990, times one plus the inflation rate up to June 1991, plus one plus the inflation rate up to June 1992. Any economist will say that that is perfectly all right provided the inflation rate is constant. It then amounts to exactly the same formula that I have given. However, if the inflation rate is falling, given this scheme, then one will be repaying at a positive rate of interest. In other words, if the inflation rate is falling, one will be infringing the provisions of the Act as set out.
We all hope that the inflation rate will fall. Therefore, the position is even worse; not only are the regulations faulty, but they will turn out to be incorrect in practice. My view is that that is a matter of the utmost seriousness. However, I have a second problem. As regards repayment, paragraph 7(3) of the regulations states:
"On the date mentioned in paragraph (6) in each year the amount of the monthly repayment shall be calculated by dividing the aggregate amount of the loan outstanding at that date (including interest added during the preceding twelve months) and of interest which will accrue during the remaining period of payment",
and this is the key phrase,
"(on the assumption that the rate of interest will not change during that period)".
That is what the regulations provide. The key phrase is:
"(on the assumption that the rate of interest will not change during that period)".
However, in this context the rate of interest is the inflation rate. Another way of reading the provision is:
"on the assumption that the inflation rate will not change during that period".
One thing that we know about the inflation rate in this country is that it fluctuates. At present, we are all hoping that it will fall; but anything may happen. If the monthly rate of repayment is based on constancy, that formula, given the inflation rate changes, will mean that the student will repay too much or too little. It means that an adjustment will be necessary. But, unfortunately, there is not a word in the regulations about adjustments. Therefore, for the second time the regulations are flawed.
I have taken legal advice about the matter. I have been assured that regulations must correspond to the provisions of the Act of Parliament that they seek to bring into practice. I have described two parts of the regulations which demonstrably show beyond any peradventure that they do not stand up and are flawed. Indeed there is no doubt about the zero real rate of interest as mentioned in the Act.
I now look straight at the noble Lord the Leader of the House because—and this is where my difficulty arises—I believe that in the circumstances the Government should stop at this very minute, go away and bring back correct regulations that correspond to the Act of Parliament concerned.
6.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal for the consideration and courtesy with which they dealt

1777
with an awkward situation. However, I was slightly strengthened in my growing suspicion that the initials DES stand for "Department of Ethelred the Second". Some of your Lordships may remember that he was commonly known as the Unready.
I welcome the changes. It is better to have them late rather than never. They improve the regulations, although in some respects not as much as we might have hoped. I wish to express my gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for her efforts to obtain the affirmative procedure. It is of great value.
On this occasion it would be entirely improper to open up the principle of any of the provisions in the Bill. It would be entirely improper to open up any of the issues upon which we divided during the progress of the Bill and which, therefore, are res judicata. It is a fact that we have student loans and therefore we are concerned only to make the scheme as good as possible.
There is one major question which we are now able to address for the first time in the appropriate place; that is, whether a sufficient amount of money will be provided. We are in some difficulty in addressing that question because, as the noble Baroness reminded us, we do not yet know what will happen to our amendments on the Social Security Bill.
However, having read the interview given last week by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, which I was amused to notice in my college's student newspaper, I am not very optimistic as regards those amendments. Therefore, we should discuss this matter on the hypothesis that this is all the money which is available. I do not believe that it is anywhere near enough.
In discussing this matter, I shall rely on London evidence because I wish to speak of matters which are within my knowledge. On that basis I wish to ask one specific question about Regulation 5(1) concerning the area eligible for the London extra rate of loan. The regulation states that the student must be attending a course within the Metropolitan Police district or at the University of London. Am I right in construing the disjunctive effect of that as making Royal Holloway and Bedford New College, which is part of the University of London and functions as such, eligible for the London rate of loan? That point is of considerable importance inside the university.
In using London evidence, I do not intend to imply that this is only a London problem. I listened to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Addington, the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, and others, on regional housing costs outside London. I am ready to believe that the problem which I am delineating covers the whole of the South East and other areas where housing is expensive; for example, at the University of Edinburgh. In speaking of what I know, I do not wish to imply that the problem does not exist elsewhere. I believe it does.
As regards the available figures, the Government have relied quite heavily on the survey of students' income and expenditure carried out by Research Services Limited. There is one major flaw in that
1778
survey; namely, that it under-rates considerably the amount which students have been drawing in social security benefits. I shall not go into that now because I imagine that there will be a future occasion on which to do so.
The other flaws in the survey are that the field work on which it depends is out of date. It was carried out between February and June 1989 and the Government are relying on information gathered at that time. The rate of inflation since that time has been a great deal larger than the rate of grant increase—9.7 per cent. against 5 per cent.
Secondly, the field work took place before the rise in rents as a result of the Housing Act 1988. Among my pupils it is in the region of 20 per cent. A further effect of the Act is that a good many landlords are now demanding rent for nine months of the year. Otherwise, they make a loss. The Government may say that that should not happen but they have vigorously supported a free market in housing. That is one of the consequences. In a free market one cannot expect landlords to function as a social service. If they can obtain more money by letting property for the whole of the year, then they will do that. Therefore, there has been about a 20 per cent. increase in rents since the survey and a demand for rent for a longer period.
We have also the current London Transport fare increases. When my noble friend Lord Tordoff asked whether those increases were inflationary the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, replied, "Yes and no". I now understand what the noble Viscount meant. The increases are inflationary for the students but not for the Department of Education and Science.
Another problem spotted by Research Services Limited in the survey is declining parental contributions because of the ceasing of deeds of covenant. That should have been expected. Finally, except in Scotland, the survey was carried out before undergraduates had to pay the community charge. For all those reasons the Government's information is inaccurate.
Let us look at some figures. I take mine from undergraduates whom I am teaching. For London the grant is£2,650 and next year the loan will be£460. I trust that I shall be forgiven for taking this year's rate of grant because I am taking this year's expenses. It is wildly improbable that next year's grant will increase faster than expenses.
Taking a budget of 40 weeks, a typical undergraduate pays £2,000 rent. That is £50 per week—the sum that most students pay. To travel in from fare zone 2 on four days a week costs £240 per year or from fare zone 3—about 25 per cent. of students living out travel in from that zone—£408 per year. I am told that most students manage on £10 to £15 per week for food which is not very much. If one takes a figure of £12.50, that comes to £375. Travel home three times per year is very difficult to average, but I have made an estimate of £100. The poll tax in London is usally about £100. That comes to a total of £2,815 out of a total sum available of £3,110, leaving £295 per year for all other expenses. If that is calculated over 30 weeks, one arrives at a total of £9.83 per week. That allows nothing for

1779
books or for travel home one weekend during term. That is at least £400 short. I expect others to have comparable figures.
We have to consider the problem of the vacations. When we were debating the Social Security Bill, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said that students should be construed as having withdrawn from the labour market. There is a strong academic case for that. I wish they had. However, on those figures, students cannot afford to withdraw from the labour market. It is not financially viable. If one divides that figure of £295 by 52 weeks, it comes to £5·67 per week. That is probably less than many students received as pocket money when they were 12 year-olds.
That brings me to the problem of undergraduates working during term time. A very casual and off-hand allusion to that appears in paragraph 3.25 of the White Paper. My noble kinsman Lord Henley, in his letter to me dated 15th June, which is deposited in the Library together with my reply to it, said that many students find work during the vacation and some during term time. I should like to ask the noble Baroness whether she can tell me that it is not government policy that students should work during term time.
In this country we have three-year courses. We get through about as much work in three years as an undergraduate at Yale gets through in four years. However, that is only possible because hitherto undergraduates have been able to concentrate full time on academic work. Should that cease to be the case, we must either demand a fourth year which will be extremely expensive for the Government or we must devalue the standard of the British degree which, of course, competes in an international market. If we were to have a situation where those who want the best degree for their children have to send them to Harvard or Yale at a cost of 80,000 dollars over four years, I should not envy the Secretary of State the job of explaining that situation to the Conservative Party conference.
The noble Baroness will doubtless say that public money is limited. Of course it is; but I do not believe it is quite as limited as she thinks. I am certainly not suggesting that it is possible to have overall increases of public spending at the percentage levels that would be needed to bring the allowance up to a living subsistence. However, the Government being short of money does not make it any cheaper to be a student. The Government must cut their coat according to their cloth. It is a wasteful way of handling public money to give it out in a form which is insufficient for everybody, so that people cannot stick to their work, have to earn money and cannot do the job properly. That is not frugality; it is Micawberism—hoping that something will turn up.
The Government must decide how much money they can spend and enrol no more students than that amount of money will support. In our system of allocating public spending we do not cut our coat according to our cloth. We have a series of competing bits, all of which get scaled down and none of which therefore gets done properly. I was delighted to see
1780
my right honourable friend Mr. Ashdown writing in The Times Educational Supplement last week that this matter needs urgent attention.
I shall not detain the House for long on the other points I wish to raise. The question of compound interest concerns me because I have always worried about the effect on married women who choose to stay at home with children, as they have a right to do, and wish to return to work around the age of 45. They may have worked for five years without reaching the level which made them eligible to repay their loan. I remind your Lordships that the starting salary for a university lecturer is now low enough to be eligible for deferment of a student loan.
If one wants to return to work at 45 and has a large debt, it may be thought to be in one's interest to defer returning to work until the age of 50 so that one does not have to repay that debt. As the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, knows very well, there is age discrimation in employment and therefore it is not always as easy to go back to work at 50 as one would like. That provision may therefore have the effect of excluding some highly qualified people from the labour market.
On the subject of four-year courses, we voted on an amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Addington that there should be no repayment for the fourth year. That is not what I am proposing. I am asking that the deferred repayment terms for five-year courses be extended to courses of four years. The last we heard on this point was when the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said that he would think about it. I am sure that he did. I shall be interested to know the results of those thoughts.
I shall touch on two points which are not in the regulations but which cause me considerable anxiety. One is the question of how promptly the loans will be paid. That is vital to undergraduates. They have no safety margins. For example, if they deal with the kind of regime there has been in the London boroughs of Brent and Ealing—I am delighted it is no longer in place—they may find that they are borrowing large sums of money because the loan comes to them late. We have not yet had an adequate answer to the fears expressed by my honourable friend Mr. Hughes in another place that the Student Loans Company does not have enough staff to pay quickly enough.
I have not heard anything adequate regarding the scheme for recovery of the money. The scheme will save public money only if the money is recovered. My father-in-law used to say that one's importance is known by how long it takes for one's mistakes to become apparent. This mistake may take 15 years to become apparent. By that reasoning the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State is a very important man indeed!
Baroness Young: My Lords, before my noble friend responds to the speeches that we have heard I should like to say how grateful I am that the amendment we had to the original Bill, allowing the regulations to be taken by affirmative resolution, was agreed to by the Government because it is valuable to have this further discussion. I should again like to place on record my appreciation for that.

1781
I should also like to take the opportunity, as we had a slightly chequered start to this debate and as my noble friend Lady Blatch may not feel able to do so, to say that I am certain that no discourtesy was meant on her part to anybody in the House. I am certain that I can speak also for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and say that certainly no discourtesy was intended on his part.
As other noble Lords have said, I do not feel that it is right to go over all the arguments that we had on the Bill. They were very extensive and well rehearsed. What is encouraging is that student numbers in higher education in this coming academic year are expected to be around 1 million in one form or another. That compares with just over three-quarters of a million students in higher education in 1979. That is a fact which is to be welcomed because we all want to see a better educated population and recognise the importance of that. In a way it illustrates the problem which the student loans Bill is designed to meet. Clearly, with an increase in the numbers of students it is important to tap a new source of support.
Listening to my noble friend Lady Blatch in her opening remarks I was glad to welcome the amendments that she drew to our attention, which are in the regulations. They meet some of the anxieties that staff of universities and other places of higher education had regarding the administration of the scheme. However, there is one specific point that I should like to raise with her. The regulations refer consistently to universities, whereas some universities are collegiate universities. That is a point which needs to be clarified. When my noble friend responds to the debate I hope that she will be able to clarify that point.
We are entering a new world at the start of the academic year. I was glad to hear my noble friend say in her opening remarks that there have been a number of discussions and seminars with universities and institutes of higher education regarding how the Bill will work. From what has been said it is important that we have the smoothest possible running of the scheme. On the introduction of any new scheme there are invariably some teething troubles, but a lot of matters are best resolved not across the Floor of the House—we can do no more than lay down general principles—but in discussions where these points arise.
I should like to say to my noble friend and her colleagues that I hope there will be the closest possible co-operation both for the Student Loans Company and for the institutions of higher education over the administration of the scheme. I hope that the Government will not hesitate to amend further regulations in the light of how they are working so that we obtain a sensible solution to a number of the problems. That will be greatly welcomed and I am sure it is something the Government would like to see.
We are now at the end of a very long discussion on this matter. I support the principle of student loans. We already see in the regulations some amendments to make them work better. I hope that we shall see their smooth introduction in the new academic year.
7.10 p.m.
Baroness White: My Lords, I wish to reinforce some of the points made by my noble friend Lord Peston, but in particular to stress the gravity of the problems which face university administrative staffs. I consulted this week with officials of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. I have also made inquiries of the appropriate officers at the University of Wales at Cardiff with which I am familiar. They face a daunting prospect at Cardiff of trying to make the scheme work for upwards of 8,000 students this coming October.
We have been told that the Department of Education and Science did not trouble to consult the officials at the CVCP in advance about the details of the draft regulations before us. Had they done so they might have learned something more about the hard facts of university administration.
I was left with the suspicion that the officials at Elizabeth House who drafted these regulations have never actually seen a UCCA form which, as most of us know, is the application form for admission—at least, outside Oxbridge—for most university students. A good deal of the information which will be required for student loans is in fact to be found on the UCCA form, but this apparently has not been discussed at all by those who will be most concerned about administering the loan scheme.
It is perfectly true that the last minute amendments which we received, at first in manuscript and now decently printed, bring in the concept of what is reasonably practicable. That undoubtedly is a very helpful addition to the Bill, but it does not go very far. To expect hard-pressed officials to turn their minds now to working out both the loan scheme and the access fund administration—which is not before us in the regulations but which, nevertheless, is very much in the minds of university administrators—between July and October is quite absurdly impracticable and, to my mind, grossly unfair to those concerned.
The academic registry with which I am familiar is working at present at full strength at maximum capacity, and will be doing so between now and the autumn. It is the most strenuous period of the whole academic year. Examinations are only just concluding. The conferment of degrees for several thousand students have to be arranged in July. In August, the pressure of sorting out admissions builds up as school examination results become available. In September, the referred students have to be dealt with and various individual student admission problems have to be sorted out; and, come October, the new entrants are there on your doorstep.
No firm information has so far been available. No one knows for sure what extra staff will be needed, especially for this first year when returning students, as well as the new entry, will be eligible for loans for the first time. It is a far heavier operation this year than it is ever likely to be in the future. The prospect of simultaneously having to set up a mini-social service department for the access funds is regarded as an additional nightmare by the academic colleagues to whom I have been speaking this week.

1783
The CVCP has set up a working group to advise, under the chairmanship of Mr. Newcombe, registrar of Essex University, but so far this group have not felt themselves to be in a position to offer any detailed advice at all, nor have they worked out any scheme for assessing how far the proposed £3.50 per eligible student will cover the true additional expenditure which will fall upon university funds.
It seems to me that a compatible scheme to be adopted by all the universities is essential, if reliable estimates are to be made of the true administrative costs to the universities, as opposed to the administrative expenditure of the loans company itself, but no such scheme so far appears to be forthcoming. If it is not put in place for this coming autumn, there will be no evidence on which improvements in this scheme can be based in the ensuing year.
The access fund administrative costs, as I understand it, are to be subsumed in the Universities' Funding Commission awards, in the sums made available to the university. They will not be separately costed, so I am told. Who is to know whether they will really be met? No one whom I have consulted believes that the true costs of the access scheme will be covered for the university.
What I am really saying is that to press on with implementing by October the regulations which are in draft before us now will, on any informed judgment, result in pressures and errors which will inevitably sour relationships and cause much confusion and a good deal of unhappiness both to staff and to students.
I am not discussing the merits of the student loan scheme per se. We have gone through that process and we are not discussing that now. What I am discussing are the realities of trying to make the scheme work in the time which is now available. I suggest to your Lordships that this is a classic example of more haste less speed.
7.17 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, practically all the points have been made which need to be made, but the general point remains that the detailed administrative procedures set out in Part V are quite unnecessarily cumbersome. The noble Baroness, Lady White, has already referred to the existence of the UCCA form, on which a great deal of this information is to be found, so why a wholly different process of an eligibility questionnaire is necessary I do not understand.
On a point of detail which puzzles me, paragraph 4(e) states:
"in the case of any other person except a refugee, his passport (if he holds one), and a letter or other document issued by a responsible person which contains particulars of his date, place and country of birth and his names at birth."
Is it really necessary for university authorities to have to check both the passport and the supporting letter, when all this information would have had to be given to the passport authorities in the first place, in order to obtain a passport? That is one instance of the proliferation of unnecessary detail for which, as we
1784
have heard from a number of speakers, there does not appear to be adequate financial provision. Surely we can get rid of nonsense like that and streamline all the requirements in Part V. It is only a minor point, but if all these minor points were taken together they would add up to a very considerable workload. If we can eliminate them as unnecessary, that workload would be reduced.
I entirely agree that we are very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for the amendment which made it possible for us to debate these draft regulations under the affirmative procedure. But it will not be a great deal of good unless the Government seriously take on board what is being said, monitor all the points being made and make changes to get the whole procedure working better.
Lord Butterfield: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene briefly. I promise that I shall try not to keep the noble Baroness, Lady Young, too long from her evening meal.
When I first spoke on this issue, my son-in-law, who is a strong member of the Conservative Party, told me that he had heard in certain quarters that my speech had been regarded as singularly unhelpful. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will not feel the same about my remarks this evening. She mentioned that she might go to Edinburgh to see the administrator of the loans scheme. I should be grateful if she would ensure privately that he realises what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, indicated; namely, that quite a proportion of our students are very hard up and that the speed with which they obtain their loan money is an important factor. Their state of wealth is often judged by the clothes that they wear which come from Oxfam. Certainly, there are few reasonable dinner jackets visible on the streets of that former centre of elegance and privilege—Cambridge—in the summer. I am sorry that we have not found a system that provides a grant to all freshmen so that they can have a taste of university without feeling inhibited about trying it.
There are aspects of the regulations that are irritating. I am anxious that the income level for repayment should be adjusted according to inflation. That is the level at which people will have to start repaying. If, after a few years, £965 a month is down in purchasing value, we may find ourselves asking people who are pretty hard up to make repayments.
Equally I wonder whether there may be a case for allowing the maximum loans that students can raise to be corrected for inflation. As some of them are hard up, I do not want the additional loan of £330 a year if they reside at home or £240 if they reside elsewhere to be too little to make the kind of improvement in their living circumstances that we all want to provide.
I have one final—not completely light hearted—point to make. I offer it to the noble Baroness as a factor ameliorating some of the difficulties of university administrators. When I was master of my college, I was keen that the last cheque that an undergraduate paid should be photocopied by the bursar's office. If we had his or her bank account number and branch from the cheque, and

1785
at some time in the future we had to make an appeal, that information might be extremely helpful in tracing the person concerned. Colleges may be quite pleased to have an official reason for recording that information, although it is likely that the better off students will not provide us with it because they will not think of raising a loan.
Baroness David: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield. Many students are hard up, but I shall refrain from commenting on their dinner jackets.
I have two important points to make on behalf of my noble friend Lord Blease. First, the regulations relate to England, Wales and Scotland. My noble friend is anxious to know what will happen in Northern Ireland. He has received a letter from the vice-chancellor of Queen's University, Belfast, who is anxious, as are many other people, about the trouble that they will have in dealing with the administration. They want to know how the scheme will operate in the interests of economy and efficiency. My noble friend is sorry that he cannot be here. I undertook to make the points on his behalf.
I wish to mention also the lack of eligibility for loans of anyone who has attained the age of 50, as stated in paragraph (2) of Part II. Perhaps I may refer to a letter from a colleague who started a course after the age of 50, received a grant for a year and hoped to be able to continue the course. He then discovered that the grant was not to be increased and that he was not eligible for a loan. Surely, that is manifestly discriminatory and unjust, particularly to a student who, having completed a least one year of a degree course prior to the introduction of the scheme, had every expectation of receiving either a grant that kept pace with inflation should the Bill be thrown out or taking advantage of an unhappy loan system should it become law. It is hard that people who have started courses with certain expectations should be disappointed. My colleague says that he plans to seek a judicial review.
I thought that it was well to make the point so that the Government are aware of the very justifiable dissatisfaction of those who started courses in the expectation of a grant or loan and, with that expectation gone, are left with nothing to take their place.
7.26 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I rise briefly to follow through a couple of the points which were initially raised by my noble friend Lord Russell.
The question of the new structure of funding—the loan and the top-up grant—being not enough to live on is an issue on which I spoke at considerable length during our debates on the Bill. It was my experience that most people were totally dependent on social security payments of various kinds to make ends meet if they were on full grant and they lived in the south-east of the country or in certain more expensive parts of Scotland. Edinburgh was the worst example in some respects, but even Aberdeen rivalled it in terms of rent. The bigger the city, the higher the travelling expenses. That is why London
1786
is often so badly hit. Students here have high rents and spend a great deal on travel because they have to cover such great distances to get to their classes.
Furthermore, the new payments do not cover those people who are hardest hit by the loss of benefits. I presented some rough calculations during our debates. The payments do not compensate for people in the most extreme circumstances.
The regulations merely enforce what I suspected. It may become desirable to ask someone who wishes to go to university how he or she will be funded and say, "If you are dependent on the state support scheme, I recommend that you go to university in Sheffield, Newcastle or Manchester because everything is cheaper there". Shall we effectively drive people out of the universities of the south-east? Shall we say, "You can go to university in certain parts of the country only if your parents' income is over £x a year"? We have already taken steps in that direction by the erosion of the value of the system. Social security protected us from that great anomaly; but, as it has been removed, and taking house rents into account, there will effectively be an income bar on certain parts of the country. I hope that, as the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, pointed out many times, the situation will be kept under review. Indeed, the review is probably already well overdue.
I thank the Government for taking into account the terms of repayment of disabled students and the conditions for cancelling repayment by such students. However, why have the Government not expanded the definition of disabled to cover those people who are deaf or have the disability from which I suffer, dyslexia? Those people are counted as disabled when they are at school and when they leave as they will be entitled to disabled-for-work grants. Why are they not counted as disabled when they are students? Why are they not given beneficial repayment terms? They have higher costs of living. That point applies especially to deaf people who need other pieces of equipment. It applies also to dyslexics who may require secretarial help for day-to-day living. I know that I do. If one cannot write a letter, one may well have to sit down with someone and dictate simple letters about moving house, bills, changes of address, and so on. I ask the Government to bear these points in mind.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, despite its difficult start, this has been a useful debate because it will allow me to clarify some points that still need clarification. It may be helpful if I restate the principles of the scheme. The Government are budgeting for a substantial increase in student support. We have already announced that the grant will be uprated in the usual way this autumn. On top of that will come the loan. That will provide £178 million, or even more if take-up exceeds 80 per cent. The final sum will be determined by demand and is not cash limited. On top of that will come £25 million for the access funds, of which £14 million is for students in the ambit of the loans scheme. The saving from the removal of social security benefits, if it goes ahead, is expected to be £68 million in respect of students in the scope of the loans scheme. Therefore the net increase is of the order of £125 million.

1787
We expect this to make higher education more attractive. Our information to date shows that applications for the coming autumn term, made in the knowledge that we intend to introduce the loans scheme, are higher than applications made for the corresponding time last year.
Because repayments will accrue, the loans scheme will permit higher education to continue to expand without the burden of supporting students' living expenses falling on taxpayers and parents. A new source of support will be introduced to share the burden: anticipation by students of their own future incomes as graduates. Your Lordships will know that the deferment provisions set out in the regulations will provide protection to those who do not realise the graduate income advantage. The other terms of the loan are also generous, in particular the indexation to inflation.
It may be helpful if I now respond to some of the specific points that were raised. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, began by querying liability and asking where that falls. I am advised that if someone makes, for example, a false representation in obtaining a loan, any liability will lie with that individual. It will not lie with the institution. But we shall expect institutions to be properly prudent where public money is at stake. Their accuracy in certifying eligibility will be subject to audit.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene. It is my fault that the noble Baroness did not understand my question. My point was not that way round—at least it was only partly that way round. If a student claimed that he failed to get a loan because he was misled by the institution, would the institution be liable to be sued by the student? I do not necessarily need a reply now, but that is partly what I was asking about.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, if a college or university deliberately—
Lord Peston: Inadvertently!
Baroness Blatch: or even unwittingly misled a student, there would be an inquiry. One hopes that the matter would be put right. I am waiting for a specific answer to the noble Lord's question.
My noble friend Lady Young queried the distinction between universities and colleges. I am advised that in collegiate universities it will be the college not the university that is responsible for certifying its students' eligibility. This is clear from the way "university" is defined in the Act. The regulations impose duties on the governing bodies of institutions attended by eligible students. This is in accordance with Schedule 2 to the Act which contains the power to impose these duties. In Schedule 2 the power to impose a duty on governing bodies of institutions includes a definition of what is meant by the governing body of a university. The term "university" is itself defined in the Act—in Section 4(3)—as including a college and any other institutions in the nature of a college within a university. Therefore the power to impose duties on
1788
governing bodies applies to universities, understood in that sense, including colleges and other institutions within a university. The result is that in a collegiate university it will be the college not the university which is responsible for certifying its students' eligibility for a loan. The argument that it does not apply to a college overlooks the way in which "university" is defined in the Act.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, and other noble Lords, said that £3·50 per student is unreasonable and is not a realistic sum. The £3·50 per student is based on a reasonable estimate at this time of the work involved. I concede that only in the light of experience will we know whether that sum is adequate. It will be necessary to review this sum of money. What has to be said is that 90 per cent. or more students come into unviersity and higher education via the mandatory awards system. Therefore it will be relatively straightforward to I establish qualification for loan. Much of the information that is involved in applying to university through the mandatory award system will be the same kind of information that will apply for certification. I am told that something like 5 per cent. of students will present a problem for the universities in terms of their having to do a little more than taking a straightforward look at the information contained in the application for a mandatory award.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, was concerned about advice to students and the role of the tutor. I am advised that the Consumer Credit Act already regulates financial advice that is given to students or others. The introduction of the loan does not change the bearing of existing legislation on the giving of financial advice. I believe that the noble Lord was actually referring to informal advice where a student asks whether it would be advantageous for him to take a loan and asks to have the loan explained. The noble Lord was concerned about the thin line between explanation and pure information on whether to take a loan. I am informed that that kind of informal advice would not be precluded by anything in the regulations or anything in the Bill. But the advice must not overstep the line and become involved with the application. In other words, the tutor would not be expected to become involved in the processing of a loan. Once the advice had been given about how to accept a loan and what a loan would mean to a student, it would be very much up to the individual student to process his own application.
The noble Lord also asked about bank accounts. It is stated that payments must go into a bank account to ensure payment. I am again advised that the payment must go into a bank acccount to ensure that it does not go astray. There is no charge to a student for setting up a bank account. There is no requirement once payment has been received to leave the money in a bank. It can be paid into a bank and immediately withdrawn. The student would then have the use of it and it would be entirely his decision as to how to use it.
The issue of direct debit was also raised by the noble Lord. This is needed to simplify the arrangements for repayment. The facility is there for

1789
the borrower to vary that part of the regulation. In other words, if it is not suitable for the individual student, the student can negotiate a different way of repayment.
A number of noble Lords referred to measures to help disabled students. A rather cynical comment was made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. He said that we had done very little by disabled students. It is worth noting that a great deal has been done for disabled students. I am reminded that my noble friend the Paymaster General brought together a list of measures to help disabled students. We have increased the disabled students' allowances—the general level itself was raised to £1,000. There are special allowances of £3,000 for the course and in some cases £4,000 a year for non-medical helpers. There are concessions for disabled borrowers. Their income from disabled-related benefits will be disregarded when calculating income for purposes of deferment. The Student Loans Company will have discretion to allow disabled borrowers to start repayments later or to make repayments over a longer period if they judge it to be appropriate. I am not sure that I agree with the rather cynical comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps on a matter of fact I may interrupt the noble Baroness. I thought I heard the noble Lord, Lord Addington, imply that he was under the impression that the loan could be waived entirely for a disabled student. Will the noble Baroness confirm that that is not the case and that only deferment is possible?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, yes; only deferment is possible. The loan would not be waived entirely. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked a specific question about the definition of the Metropolitan Police district. I am assured that the London rate for loans is precisely the same as the London rate for grants. Students at the Royal Holloway and Bedford New College can receive the London rate of grant and they will also be able to borrow at the London rate of loan.
The noble Earl raised the question of employment during term time. As regards the amount of loan, I am glad to say that from what he said, the noble Earl appears to be reconciled to the principle of loans for students. I believe also that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, agrees with the principle of loans for students. He has said so a number of times during the course of the debate. However, he is now arguing that not only should students receive loans, but even greater loans. I hope the noble Earl will forgive me because it may sound as though I am jesting.
He has argued that students should not be free to take paid employment during term time or in the holidays. We do not share that view. The specific question was posed as to whether we have a policy either for students working or not working. We do not take a paternalistic view about students. Whether they work during term time or in the holidays must remain a matter for the individual student.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I ask the Minister for a little clarification on this matter. It is the policy of
1790
a number of academic institutions, including the one to which I belong, that undergraduates are not free to take paid employment during term time. Do Government policies conflict with ours in continuing to take that line?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as I have said, the Government are not involved as to whether students take paid work in term or holiday time. That must remain a matter for the individual student. I doubt whether any single college in this country can ban a student from taking paid work either inside or outside of term time.
Earl Russell: My Lords, we need a little clarification here. Is it government policy that students should be supported at a level that makes it financially possible for them to manage without paid employment during term time?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Government provide an adequate level of support for a student to be maintained without work during the course of study. However, it is the choice of many students who choose freely to work during term time and/or holiday time. That must continue to remain a matter for the individual student.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, referred to repayments and the instalment system. I am advised that the instalments for the remaining period of the loan will be recalculated annually. If the inflation rate changes, the instalments will vary to reflect that. Therefore, there will be no need for a further adjustment at the end. The noble Lord went into some detail concerning interest rates. It is not possible for the interest rate to follow exactly the inflation rate as that cannot be known in advance.
The noble Lord would be quick to complain if the interest rates were varied retrospectively. However, borrowers need to know in advance what rate will apply. I notice that the noble Lord did not point out that if the inflation rate rises, then the lagging system works very much to the benefit of the borrower. The regulations are not technically flawed on this matter. I am advised that the requirement is that the Secretary of State shall specify the interest rate that appears to him requisite for maintaining the loan's value. He has concluded that the use of the latest actual rate of inflation is the most appropriate way to meet these requirements.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness. This is a very serious matter. I must place on record that I am not wrong, but that I am right. If the Secretary of State is now following that argument, he is mistaken. I ask the noble Baroness to go back to her department and to speak to the appropriate people. I know what is meant by a real interest rate. These regulations are flawed. It cannot be said that the Secretary of State can do just what he likes under the Act and get away with it. The regulations are wrong. I am willing to delay this matter, but if noble Lords are prepared to agree a set of regulations that are wrong, then it is for noble Lords to say. I am not mistaken.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I simply repeat what I have just said. The requirement in the Act is for the Secretary of State to specify the interest rate that appears to him—I emphasise that—requisite for maintaining the loan's value. At the moment he has concluded that the use of the latest actual rate of inflation is the most appropriate way to meet that requirement.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, was interested in the speed of payment to students. I am assured that the company is successfully recruiting staff. It is very much on top of the work that it has to do in preparation for the loans' scheme. I am assured that the objective is that all students shall receive their loans within 20 days of application. That is the aim. We shall have to wait to see whether that objective can be met. If it can, I would consider that to be most reasonable. It will also depend on the accuracy of the application form that is presented for payment.
The noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, was concerned about the repayment threshold. That will be adjusted annually to equate to 85 per cent. of the average earnings at any given time. He was also anxious about the size of the loan. Again, that is something that will be reviewed annually. The noble Lord was also concerned about the confidentiality of bank details. I am assured that, for reasons of privacy, the forms are designed to leave no record whatever of the student's bank account number with the higher education institution.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, speaking on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Blease, asked about Northern Ireland. Before this debate I had discussions with the noble Lord on that subject. I am assured that there will be Orders in Council that will reflect both primary legislation and regulations. I know the noble Lord, Lord Blease, well and I know that there will be considerable and detailed discussions about the practicalities of the way in which the system will work. The scheme will very much shadow what will happen in England and Wales.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, referred to the case of a student over 50 years of age. My response will be of cold comfort to her. The decision has been taken that loans will not be available for students over 50 years of age. I must leave the matter there.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, raised issues about deaf students. He knows that deaf borrowers will not be eligible for repayment and deferment provisions for disabled people. At the moment consideration is being given to the proper definition of the severity of deafness. Eligibility is determined by the issue of whether or not the borrower receives one or more of the disability-related benefits listed in Regulation 9 paragraph 5. The provision is confined to disabled borrowers who are identified by the DSS as needing assistance through the benefit system. At present there is no benefit payable for people whose sole disability is deafness. Decisions on what kind of disability need support through the benefit system are matters for the Secretary of State for Social Security.
Deaf people will be eligible for the special deferment arrangements if they receive one of the
1792
benefits listed because of another disability. If in future any of the benefits listed are extended to people whose sole disability is deafness, they will come within the scope of these arrangements. If a new benefit is introduced specifically for deaf people, we shall no doubt want to take that into account in future loan regulations.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, before the noble Baroness enters upon her peroration, as she has dealt with most of the detailed points that were made, perhaps I may ask this. Will she take into account the point that I raised about the unnecessary complication of the particulars to be verified by the institutions of higher education, with particular reference to passports? If she cannot answer that question immediately, I ask that she writes to me.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the information that is involved in applications through the mandatory award system will suffice for the vast majority of students. We are talking about a very small number of students where it may be necessary to resort to other methods of identification. I now turn to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock and the noble Baroness, Lady White. They made heavy weather in references to the administration and access to access funds.
Universities and colleges throughout the country have taken a pastoral interest in their students in terms of their well-being and their financial circumstances. I believe that the availability of access funds will make their work very much easier in that not only will they be able to identify the needs of their students; they will now also have the financial wherewithal to do something about the situation. It is most important that loans reach the right people and that the identity of such people should be properly established.
These regulations offer an additional source of support to students on what I believe to be favourable terms. They will underpin the expansion of higher education which we all want to see. I commend them to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Business
Lord Reay: My Lords, I apologise to the right reverend Prelate for intervening at this point, but I think that it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I were to announce that as a result of the amount of business tabled on today's Order Paper, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, will not be asking her Unstarred Question this evening.

Care of Cathedrals Measure
7.50 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Chichester The Lord Bishop of Chichester rose to move, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, this Measure is the first major instalment in fulfilling the undertaking which the General Synod gave to the Government to improve and extend the control of repairs and alterations to our churches; that is, those which enjoy ecclesiastial exemption. This particular Measure fills a big gap; namely, the lack of control over cathedrals. In presenting this Motion, and the Measure to which it relates, I speak with the experience of having been dean of one of our great cathedrals for five years. I refer to Worcester Cathedral.
When a priest is appointed to such a post his first concern must be for the cathedral as a centre of worship and mission. A cathedral is the mother church of the diocese, it is a place where daily prayer is offered for the diocese, and it is a place where from time to time the bishop—from whose teaching and governing seat, the cathedral, derives its name—presides over ordinations and other diocesan gatherings; it is a spiritual powerhouse for the whole diocese.
The dean, or provost, and his colleagues in the chapter are deeply involved in these matters. However, they also find themselves custodians of a building which is of great historical and architectural importance. Very often tension exists between those two roles. It is a tension caused partly by the amount of time taken up in fund-raising in order to repair and maintain the building and partly by the need to decide to adapt it, as has constantly been done throughout the centuries, to the developing needs and changes in patterns and styles of worship. It is necessary to find the right reconciliation between competing interests.
Hitherto, the administrative body of each cathedral has been the final authority, which was able in the last resort to do what it thought right within the limits of the finance available. This Measure, when it becomes law, will make a fundamental change in that situation which has existed for hundreds of years. The Measure provides for each cathedral a fabric advisory committee as a statutory body of experts which must be consulted about all proposed changes of significance and its approval obtained.
The Measure further converts the present Cathedrals Advisory Commission, which over recent years has proved its worth as a non-statutory body, into a statutory Cathedrals Fabric Commission the consent of which must be obtained for all the more important changes. This body will also deal with appeals in case of dispute between a fabric advisory committee and its administrative body.
If noble Lords will look at Schedules 1 and 2 to the Measure, they will see that the composition of the commission and of the committee ensures that the views of those who are expert in the care and conservation of ancient buildings will be brought fully into the making of decisions about the restoration or alteration of the cathedral fabric.
The Measure also provides that if the administrative body of a cathedral, having gone through the various processes of application and consultation is, nevertheless, dissatisfied with a
1794
refusal by the Cathedrals Fabric Commission and wishes to proceed with its proposals, it may ask for a commission of review consisting of three persons. One person would be appointed by the two archbishops, one would be appointed by the Secretary of State for the Environment and the third person, who would be the chairman, would be the Dean of the Arches or a lawyer appointed by him.
Those of us who have been involved in the working out of this Measure believe that that last provision will be rarely, if ever, used. It will be rather like the Court of Ecclesiastical Causes Reserved which was provided in the 1963 Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure but which was not called into being for 25 years.
Such are the bare bones of the Measure. Your Lordships have before you more of the flesh in the Measure itself and in the detailed commentary of the report of the Legislative Committee of the General Synod which is attached to the commendation of the Measure by the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament. The report also provides more of the background to the making of this Measure than I thought it right to weary the House with this evening.
I should like to take the opportunity to say at this point how very grateful those of us who have been involved in the drafting of the Measure are to the present heritage Minister, to his predecessor and to officials of the Department of the Environment for their help and sympathetic understanding of the various problems which we faced in persuading 42 administrative bodies that they should sacrifice the sovereign independence which they have enjoyed from time immemorial. I believe that what is now before the House is a workable scheme and, given good will and understanding, one that can be worked happily for the reconciliation of the interests of conservationists and those who have responsibility for the worship and mission of cathedrals.
However, before I sit down, I must touch on one other matter; namely, enforcement. There are no enforcement provisions in this Measure. There are some in the Measure which concerns the care of parish churches which I hope will receive final approval from the General Synod next week. I hope that I shall be able to introduce that Measure to the House in a few months' time.
As I said, there are no enforcement provisions in this Measure and I think that I should explain why this is so. We had prepared a third Measure dealing solely with enforcement provisions for both the Cathedrals and the Care of Churches Measures, but it appeared to certain persons in high places so formidable that we were advised by the previous heritage Minister to withdraw it for further consideration and discussion. We felt bound to follow that advice, but in view of the importance of the Cathedrals Measure—which I hope the House understands—and the great weakness in the ecclesiastical exemption which it remedies, we were anxious not to delay implementation.
The further consultations which have taken place on the matter have shown a possible way forward. We were able earlier this year to put the appropriate provisions into the Care of Churches Measure. They have been accepted by the synod and I believe that

1795
they are also acceptable to the Department of the Environment. However, it was too late in the legislative process to alter the present Measure and, indeed, we have yet to get the provisions into a form appropriate to cathedrals. That is because we simply cannot take them from one Measure and apply them in exactly the same way in another.
I can, however, assure the House that we are committed to providing an adequate enforcement procedure and have began work on it. I have already had one meeting with our legal advisers, following a helpful interview with the Minister. We have roughed out a scheme which is to be considered by the drafting committee tomorrow morning. I am confident that we shall be able to produce a short Measure to the new synod which comes into being at the end of the year.
It is, however, vital that we have proper consultation with those who will be affected by such provisions and, so far as possible, obtain their good will. Perhaps I may add that we are well advanced with the drafting of the rules that have to be made under the Measure.
I hope that your Lordships will accept that in the Measure we have provision for the protection of these great historic buildings which equals and in some respects goes further than the secular controls of listed buildings which the House has looked at in recent months. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of Chichester.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, we on these Benches give the Measure a warm measure of support! I assure your Lordships that that was an accidental pun. The manner in which the basis of the Measure has been explained is certainly to the benefit of the House. I cannot believe that anyone inside or outside the House would not wish to speed this Measure into legislation.
The right reverend Prelate not only has more experience than I have but is closer to the action. Nevertheless, I have taken advice from English Heritage. As noble Lords know, that organisation takes a keen interest not merely in cathedrals and churches but in maintaining the fabric of our heritage. I like the opening words of its briefing to me:
"The 42 mainland cathedrals of the Church of England form the largest coherent and artistically splendid group of listed buildings in England, as well as being of enormous archaeological importance. They are also the home of some of England's greatest works of art from the post-Roman period onwards".
I thought that those words were splendid. They paint a picture and a scene that we all wish to preserve.
I noticed that the final words of the right reverend Prelate were that the Measure provides protection. The greatest protection that I know is money. I wondered to what extent there was provision for that. There is framework for a vast improvement in the public accountability of those people who could make a contribution to what we desire rather than
1796
what previously existed. One does not wish to be critical about a past situation because that gets one nowhere. From what I have read, I believe that many controversial decisions have been made without—to use a clumsy phrase—adequate consultation. Of course there is consultation, but sometimes people who might be helpful are sidelined or ignored—not out of malice—and that creates a rift.
One reads the schedule and sees the enormous care that has been taken to try to obtain the best, most representative group of people to serve on the committee to achieve what we wish. I am impressed. I imagine that few people, if any, who claim to have in interest in the Measure are not taken care of in one way or another, particularly under paragraphs 3(e) and (f) of Schedule 1 on page 13. One can go right through the Measure and see a great deal of care and attention. The more people who are invited to contribute to the ideas, the wider the base from which one can raise the necessary money. We on this side of the House are conscious that the Measure ought to be approved and speeded on its way.
I am also delighted to see that it will be a duty on English Heritage to advise the national Cathedrals Fabric Commission on any application referred to it. In other ways, the expertise of English Heritage will be available. I am grateful for this opportunity to say a few kind words and I wish the Measure well.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, I am very glad to be able to speak in this debate to give the Government's view of this important Measure. I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester for the hard work that he and the officers of the General Synod have done in bringing forward a system to operate efficiently and yet sympathetically to ensure the proper protection of these Church of England cathedrals.
Modern trends of secularisation cannot distort the fact that the Church has played a major part in the history of this country. The medieval cathedrals stand as a witness to this, from Durham which stands firmly on its rock as a symbol of the temporal as well as spiritual power of the medieval bishop, to the grace and beauty of Salisbury. English cathedrals stand also as symbols of Georgian elegance in the close and of the national spirit itself, emerging like St. Paul's in London like a phoenix from the flames both in the 17th and the 20th centuries. But more than all this, the cathedral is the house of God.
I would not wish the Church to give up all its freedom of action to be engulfed by secular rules and regulations. It has a task to perform, and that must be its first priority. But there must be systems to ensure that any body with such a precious inheritance will take proper care of it. So I am very glad that the Church of England has so conscientiously and with such determination brought forward a comprehensive system for looking after these marvellous buildings, balancing the duty of worship and mission with the needs of care and conservation in a way which sets an example to other denominations.

1797
However, I wish to leave one thought with the Church authorities. It is vital to consider the question of enforcement. Clearly, it must be for the Church to consider what provisions it wants to bring forward on this score. But I and my ministerial colleagues feel strongly that it is most important for the Church to ensure—and to be seen to ensure—that there are adequate and unambiguous provisions for controlling any breaches of this legislation.
In an ideal world, of course, no enforcement provisions would be necessary in secular or Church legislation. Everyone would honour the requirements upon them, without question. But perhaps in that happy situation we would need no legislation at all. Meanwhile, in a world where we are all sinners there must be clear provisions to ensure that the requirements of the legislation cannot be flouted without the risk of penalties. I urge the General Synod to consider that.
Members of your Lordships' House will also know that for some time now my department has been considering the way forward on the restriction of the ecclesiastical exemption listed building control, following discussions in 1986 and a further consultation paper last year. Tonight is not the right occasion on which to go into the details of our thinking on this issue, except to say that—as my comments will already have made clear—we wish to give due weight, on the one hand, to enabling worship to proceed without interference and, on the other, to ensuring that buildings of special architectural or historic interest enjoy appropriate protection. However, I hope to discuss it with your Lordships shortly to enable us to consider the way forward. Meanwhile, I again express my thanks to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester and support this Measure before your Lordships' House.
The Lord Bishop of Chichester: My Lords, perhaps I may express my thanks to the two noble Lords who have spoken. This is the end of a long process over cathedrals and it is gratifying to find the Measure so warmly welcomed.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Home Grown Cereals Authority Levy (Variation) Scheme (Approval) Order 1990
8.10 p.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 24th May be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, noble Lords may be aware that it was intended that the cereals order be debated with the oilseeds order last Thursday. However, as the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments was unable to report on the cereals order until this week, the debate on this order had to be deferred until today.
The instrument before us today introduces minor administrative amendments and clarifications to the existing levy on cereals, which is used to fund the activities of the Home-Grown Cereals Authority.
The 1987 Home-Grown Cereals Authority Levy Scheme provides for the raising of levies from cereals producers, dealers and processors in order to fund the authority's activities aimed at improving the production and marketing of home-grown cereals. These activities include the provision of market information, UK cereals export development, support for Food from Britain and research and development.
Parliament decided last year—in the Cereals Marketing Act (Application to Oilseeds) Order—to bring forward by a month the start of the authority's financial year so that it runs from July to June. This reflects the market year for cereals and oilseeds, which begins in July when the first barley, wheat and rapeseed is harvested, sold and therefore subject to the levy. The cereals order under discussion today amends the existing levy scheme to reflect this new financial year. The opportunity has also been taken to introduce a number of other minor administrative amendments in order to clarify the operation of the present scheme. These involve deletion of redundant provisions, simplification of definitions and clarification of the way in which the levy is collected. None of these proposed changes alters the main structure of the scheme and all have been the subject of consultations with the interested parties. I commend this statutory instrument.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 24th May be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committed—(The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne.)
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for explaining the order which we support. I have noted the views of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments on the order contained in its 21st report and the Minister's consequential memorandum on two provisions of the order.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, for his comments. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Licensing (Low Alcohol Drinks) Bill
8.12 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Montgomery of Alamein.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD HAYTER in the Chair.]
Clause I [Low alcohol liquor not to be intoxicating liquor for the purposes of the Licensing Act 1964]:
Lord Mancroft Lord Mancroft moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 11, leave out ("0·5") and insert ("0·9").
The noble Lord said: I had not originally intended to speak on the Bill—I did not speak on Second Reading—as I did not regard it as the most

1799
important piece of legislation. I see by the level of attendance in the Chamber that I was not alone in that thought. However, on reading the Bill carefully, I noticed one or two details that are worth examining closely. I have put down this amendment in the form of a testing amendment, as it were, so that we can consider those details.
The point that came to my attention when I read the debate that took place in another place concerned the percentages of alcohol content and where one drew the dividing line between high and low alcohol content for the purposes of the Bill. The great question is where that line should be drawn.
The part of the debate that interested me most was the discussion on the difference between 0·5 per cent. and ·05 per cent. of alcohol. That seems a narrow area until we consider it further. If one goes back, one realises that this is a compromise Bill. From the point of view of the Government it is a compromise between their desire to encourage people to drink less, or weaker, alcohol, and their need to raise revenue. From the point of view of the brewers it is a compromise between the healthy desire to show profit for their shareholders—I do not quarrel with that—and their desire to show their social conscience by promoting lower alcohol content beers. I am a little more cynical about the latter point. The difference that we must think about is the difference between the 9 per cent. strength that I have referred to in my amendment and the 5 per cent. that exists at the moment.
It does not take a mathematical genius—that is fortunate, because I am not such a genius—to work out that the difference between 9 per cent. and 5 per cent. is less than twice, whereas the difference between ·05 per cent. and 5 per cent. alcohol content is 10 times.
Viscount Ullswater: I should remind the noble Lord that he is talking about 0·5 per cent.
Lord Mancroft: That is quite correct, but I am talking about the difference between ·05 per cent. and 5 per cent.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: I regret to tell the noble Lord that he is wrong because his amendment seeks to change the strength in question from 0·;5 per cent. to 0·9 per cent.
Lord Mancroft: That is entirely correct, but if the Committee will allow me to finish I shall explain my point, which is quite simple although it has now become suddenly rather horrible. In my amendment the difference is between 0·5 and 0·9 per cent. which is a difference of less than twice. In the discussion in another place, the difference was one between ·05 and 0·5 per cent. As I have said, the difference betwen ·05 per cent. and 0·5 per cent. is 10 times. In another place and again here, it was decided that those two percentages could be quite happily lumped together in one block as low alcohol content. However, the reality is that ·05 per cent. constitutes a non-alcoholic content. A loaf of bread or a glass of apple juice contain ·05 per cent. alcohol but we do
1800
not suggest that those products should be licensed. However, at the moment it is suggested that 0·5 per cent. is too far away from 0·9 per cent. to be included in the same bracket.
The Committee may say, with justification, that I am splitting hairs and that this is all rather facetious. But there is a rather important point here. It is that many people come into the same bracket as myself. I am an alcoholic which means that I am allergic to alcohol. That is not really a big deal. I do not mind it too much. However, it means that I must not drink alcohol. If I drink alcohol it will start the whole process of my disease again and I shall go down the tubes, which is where I do not wish to go. However, if I stick off the alcohol life is pretty rosy. There are quite a few of us who fall into the category of wanting to keep our lives rosy.
On more than one occasion I have entered a restaurant and asked for non-alcoholic beer. The staff say they have a non-alcoholic beer, but they produce a low alcoholic beer. There is a world and a galaxy of difference between the two. However, there is no difference whatsoever between a low alcoholic beer with 0·5 per cent. of alcohol and a low alcoholic shandy with 0·9 per cent. of alcohol. One can taste the alcohol. One knows there is alcohol in there, and it has an effect. There is a brand of beer produced by Guinness which contains 0·5 per cent of alcohol. I should point out at this stage that I have no axe to grind for or against Guinness, although it appears that other brewers have such an axe to grind. If one consumes a beer with ·05 per cent. alcohol one is not consuming any alcohol at all. However, if one drinks a beer with 0·5 per cent. of alcohol, one is consuming an alcoholic drink. It seems to me, therefore, that it is unwise to lump those two categories together. If Members of the Committee and Members of another place think it is all right to lump the two categories together—I do not quarrel with that if that is what they want to do—there is no reason why those two or three brands of drink which contain 0·9 per cent. of alcohol should not also be lumped in with the other two categories.
The Government, the brewers, Alcohol Concern and others have got together and have produced a compromise which is good enough for all of those bodies and whoever else took part in the discussions. The only person it is not good for is the consumer. He has been fooled again. It is not a major point, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time. I beg to move.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: I have listened with considerable interest to my noble friend's speech. The first point that I want to make is that he must not confuse levels of attendance with levels of alcohol. There is very wide concern about the issue, and that is one of the reasons why the Bill has been brought before the House.
My noble friend made some very interesting comments, particularly at the beginning of this speech, which I thought argued cogently in favour of the Bill as it stands. As he pointed out, the Bill is a compromise measure. It has been subject to very wide consultation with a large number of organisations, including those concerned with the excessive consumption of alcohol.

1801
My noble friend explained his own position very sincerely. Therefore, I found it rather strange that he should be proposing an amendment which has the effect of doubling the proposed minimum level of alcohol. Be that as it may, the point at stake here is that the measure has received wide consultation. There is a great deal of support for the position as it stands. A very long timescale is allowed for its introduction in order that the labelling can be correct so that there should be no misunderstanding whatsoever about the strength of the beverages that people are consuming and related matters at all levels in the chain of consumption, whether at the retail, wholesale or consumer level.
For those and other reasons, I believe that my noble friend's amendment is wholly unnecessary and somewhat illogical. I urge the Committee to reject it. In view of the fact that this measure has received considerable support from all parties and from the Government both when it went through another place and in this House, I shall be interested to know whether the Government are of the same view on the matter. When the Minister comments I hope that we shall hear that the Government are of the same mind as they were last week.
Viscount Ullswater: When considering the question of how the definition of intoxicating liquor might be amended in the light of the development of low alcohol and non-alcoholic drinks, the Government have always been particularly concerned to get right the percentage of alcohol by volume it would be safe to permit in drinks which could, in future, be sold without a licence. That would mean, for example, that they could be sold freely from unlicensed premises such as sweet shops, groceries and corner stores. In licensed premises they could be sold to and consumed by young people under 18 years of age.
We have always recognised that this is a fairly complex question to which there is no simple answer. We have taken the view that what might be termed the medical considerations of the issue should be regarded as paramount. Accordingly we have relied on advice from the Department of Health. The department has based its advice on the premise that the most immediate concern, where young people are involved, is over the short-term intoxicating effect of consuming alcohol. The most important short-term physical effect of consuming any alcoholic drink is to produce a rise in blood alcohol level. The higher the blood alcohol level the greater the risk of harm ensuing to the individual concerned.
Very briefly, the advice we have been given is that consumption of as little as two pints of low alcohol beer of around 1 per cent. alcohol by volume in one hour without food would cause the blood alcohol level of a fairly typical young person to rise to 30 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. That is considerably above the maximum level of blood alcohol (20 mgs per 100 mls) which our advisers would regard as acceptable in such a young person. If, however, the same young person were to drink beer of 0·5 per cent. alcohol by volume, he or she could consume up to six pints in three hours
1802
without any food and still remain within the acceptable blood alcohol level.
On the basis of that advice, the Government consider that the threshold of 0.5 per cent. for which my noble friend's Bill makes provision is the right figure to choose in this context. It would, in our view, lead to too great a risk of young people becoming inebriated if the threshold were to be placed as high as my noble friend Lord Mancroft's amendment would have it. My noble friend Lord Ferrers made it quite clear in his Second Reading speech that the Government appreciate that it will be necessary to look at, and possibly make amendments to, food labelling laws to sort out any implications the passing of this Bill may have for the producers of canned and bottled shandies. As my noble friend said, the commencement provisions in the Bill are designed to allow adequate time for that process to take place and there are no grounds for accepting the amendment on that account. I therefore strongly advise the Committee against supporting this amendment.
Lord Mancroft: It has been a short and rather obscure debate. I thank my noble friend Lord Montgomery for taking the trouble to reply to the amendment so carefully, and also my noble friend Lord Ullswater. I am not overly impressed by the introduction of the long timescale. I do not see what that has to do with it. Nor am I overly impressed by the measures for relabelling. I am sure that it is very important, but apart from fine wines I do not believe that many people examine the labels of their drinks very carefully. If the labels are anything like existing labels one will need a magnifying glass to find out what is in the drinks.
I am also extremely unimpressed by the medical evidence. As someone who has been involved in the treatment of alcoholism for some years I know that the last place to go for accurate medical evidence is the Department of Health. Any evidence that comes from there carries very little weight on this Bench. I am afraid that the staff in the department will not be very pleased if they read Hansard; but if they take as much interest in this subject as noble Lords, they probably will not read it.
I was delighted to hear what my noble friend said about the relabelling of shandy. Having put down the amendment I have to confess that I am not a great shandy drinker, but it is interesting that the point was noted. However, as I said, it is not an important issue but I thought that it was worth raising it in order to place it in the Official Report. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Corresponding provision for Scotland]:
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

Consumer Guarantees Bill
8.30 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [The Consumer Guarantee]:
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 7, after ("guarantee") insert ("given in relation to a specified product,").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with the leave of the House and in view of the rather late hour, in moving this amendment, I should like to speak to the following amendments together: Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15 and 16. The reason I do this is because this group of amendments deals with the consumer guarantee which was inserted into the Bill at Committee stage.
I am indebted to the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, and to the noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord Mancroft, who originally tabled many of these amendments, as well as to their advisers. I hope that, bearing in mind the background and history of this Bill, these amendments will find favour with the Minister. They do not substantially alter what has already been agreed in Committee and indeed in another place. In fact they are necessary because unless they are accepted we shall send back to another place a Bill which contains a number of technical flaws.
Amendments Nos. 1, 4, 11, 12 and 15 slightly modify the immediate implications of that consumer guarantee. First, they provide that the consumer guarantee shall only apply to such products as the Secretary of State may specify in regulations. They delay the implementation of Part I of the Bill until the first such regulations come into force. Part II of the Bill will come into force two months after Royal Assent.
These amendments do not alter the detailed terms of the guarantee. However, they permit those terms to be varied by regulation both generally and for any particular product. I am sure that that is the correct approach at this stage. Indeed, the National Consumer Council made its recommendations after extensive consultation. The evidence that it received is available in the Library of another place. Its recommendations formed the basis of the provisions which have found favour in both Houses.
Noble Lords will be aware of the views of the Retail Consortium about some aspects of the guarantee and in particular the period of time during which a consumer has to claim for a defective product is felt to be too onerous. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone (who is not in the Chamber this evening) mentioned those concerns in Committee.
It must be said that this is a consumer guarantees Bill and not one to protect business. Its aim is to raise the quality of goods in our High Streets. The evidence made available by the National Consumer Council and the views of both Houses strongly suggest that the terms of the consumer guarantee as currently in the Bill strike the right balance for an optional guarantee. However, if the Minister is uncertain—after all, we have not had his views on this point—I would point out that these amendments allow the option to vary the terms of the guarantee.
The Government may well want to consult first and no doubt wish to get the correct balance. In my view, from all the evidence available, the Bill as currently drafted finds the right balance.
Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 5, 13 and 16 are drafting and technical amendments which do not alter anything that has been agreed at Committee. As such I commend them to the House.
Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 meet the worries of the Minister, expressed in Committee, that the Bill, as drafted, would require many products to come with a consumer guarantee. The effect of them is to make plain beyond any shadow of doubt that the consumer guarantee for which we are legislating is an optional one.
Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 introduce two new clauses which resolve two points that are not addressed in the Bill as drafted. Amendment No. 9 provides that, where both the producer and supplier offer a consumer guarantee, the consumer may only invoke one of them and, once he has made his choice, he cannot change it. Amendment No. 10 deals with the issue of title to the goods. It ensures that legal ownership in a product which is returned or replaced vests in the guarantor.
That is a very brief explanation of these amendments. I hope that they will find favour with the House. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, this Bill has had a chequered history. It has now reached Report stage in your Lordships' House and, not for the first time, a great many important new issues are proposed for debate. The rash of amendments that appear each time this Bill reaches a new stage is a poor indicator of its general state of health. The Government's anxieties are on record about the proposals on consumer guarantees. During the Committee stage in this House my noble friend Lord Ullswater made plain that the Government do not accept the policy behind this approach.
At the core of the Government's objection is the creation of long-term rights of rejection through refund and replacement remedies. This fails to strike a fair balance between the interests of the consumer and those of the producer or supplier. Some have said that there is no inequity in this approach because the regime is not a mandatory one. I remain sceptical that this is the case.
As my noble friend Lord Ullswater said, the consumer's central concern is that goods should be of satisfactory quality, and that if they are not he should be able to get satisfaction from someone. The provisions on consumer guarantees would create a statutory framework which offers the consumer different remedies in different circumstances against different defendants in the manufacturing and supply chain. I remain sceptical that this is the right approach. The Government consider the Sale of Goods Act to be the proper framework for these issues.
There is a real risk that the practical effect of these proposals on consumer guarantees would be to undermine existing protection under the Sale of Goods Act and to discourage rather than stimulate the provision of guarantees with consumer durables.

1805
My noble friend also indicated to the House that the Government considered these proposals seriously defective in technical terms. Indeed, I believe the sponsors of the amendments themselves acknowledge the technical difficulties inherent in addressing this issue in legislation. When he moved these amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked whether the Government would be prepared to take away the amendments and to redraft them as appropriate.
We have considered the provisions on consumer guarantees and come to the conclusion that they are irredeemably flawed. For example, the provisions fail to address adequately how rights under the guarantee regime would relate to other rights under the Sale of Goods Act and other statutory provisions. There is no consideration of the extra-territorial implications of this regime, and the obligations of foreign producers and rights of consumers in respect of goods taken outside the United Kingdom. The Bill is silent about how refund and replacement remedies would operate in the context of purchases made under finance agreements. The creation of long-term right of rejection in the context of consumer guarantees raises many difficult questions about the basis of calculation of allowances for use and misuse and where the burden of proof would lie in cases of dispute, but the Bill fails to address those questions. Those examples are illustrative of the fundamental yet unsolved problems which lie at the heart of this approach.
In addition to the more basic problems, the proposals also contain a number of other technical defects of a less fundamental nature.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, proposed and has spoken to a number of amendments which touch on some, but not all, of these issues. While the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness address some of these points, they do not provide a complete solution and would not result in a piece of legislation which was coherent and consistent. The difficulties inherent in these proposals are such as to render them unworkable without fundamental revision. We consider the whole approach to be fundamentally and irredeemably flawed.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, the Minister has spoken of the Bill's state of health. I agree that it has had a very rumbustious background. However, I remind him that it was not the fault of the promoters that it took five hours at Second Reading in another place and three days in Committee. It was because at that time the Government appeared to favour the Bill. It was only at the very last instance that it was talked out in another place and only the rump of the Bill remained.
1806
Since the Bill was still called the Consumer Guarantees Bill when it came to this House, we thought it right to reinstate a consumer guarantee in it. That is exactly what we have done during the different stages in your Lordships' House. The Minister still opposes the idea that consumer guarantee legislation must contain a consumer guarantee within it. That is all these amendments seek.
I remind the Minister that the guarantee that we suggest is optional for suppliers. It is not inherent for a supplier to have a consumer guarantee. We have made it optional in the Bill. The Minister stated that the Bill is defective in technical terms. I remind him that we still have Third Reading. If he finds that there are technical faults he will have an opportunity to put them right at that stage.
We have before us the Consumer Guarantees Bill. Unless it contains a consumer guarantee it will be a very contradictory Bill. I commend the amendment.
8.42 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 15; Not-Contents, 3.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Jeger, B.

David, B.

Listowel, E.

Dean of Beswick, L. [Teller]

Meston, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Russell, E.

[Teller]

Seear, B.

Grey, E.

Tordoff, L.

8.49 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Hayter): My Lords, as it appears that fewer than 30 Lords have voted, in accordance with Standing Order No. 55 I declare the Question not decided and that further proceedings on the Bill stand adjourned.
House adjourned at ten minutes before nine o'clock.

  IMF AND STERLING
  IMF AND STERLING
  LAND REGISTRY
  LAND REGISTRY
  WEST MIDLANDS RHA PLAN: CONSULTATIONS
  WEST MIDLANDS RHA PLAN: CONSULTATIONS
  BSE: DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION
  BSE: DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION
  BSE: SCREENING
  BSE: SCREENING
  DIMETHOATE PESTICIDE
  DIMETHOATE PESTICIDE
  PRISONERS: CLOTHING ARRANGEMENTS
  PRISONERS: CLOTHING ARRANGEMENTS