Sitting of 19 December 1991

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

    KING'S CROSS RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)
    Order for consideration, as amended, read.
    To he considered on Monday 13 January at Seven o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Milk (Dioxin Levels)
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is now in a position to reveal the latest survey regarding dioxin levels in milk in the Bolsover area; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Gummer): I have already published all the results available to date. The results of the further survey—which involves complex and time-consuming testing—will be published as soon as possible.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that on 10 December the National Rivers Authority told me, by letter, that it had taken two samples from the river—above the Coalite plant and below—and that the sample from the river above the plant showed a low level of dioxin, the one below the plant showed considerably higher levels of dioxin and that it is now certain that the dioxin is corning from the Coalite plant? As the Minister has said that the polluter must pay, will he give a guarantee that the polluter, Coalite, will pay compensation to the farmers concerned? Will he also hold a public inquiry so that the matter can be sorted put?
    Mr. Gummer: My action in support of those farmers is well known to the hon. Gentleman. I am concerned that they should have all the help that they can get. The tests that we are carrying out are not yet complete. The tests done by the National Rivers Authority are different from those that we are doing. We shall provide all that information to the public so that decisions may be made. The decisions to which the hon. Gentleman refers are largely not for me.
    Mr. Colvin: Is my right hon. Friend happy that the monitoring systems in Bolsover are as good as those in my constituency? There are a number of petrochemical plants in my constituency, as well as the Rechem International plant, which disposes of toxic waste, where Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and the local district authority
    436
    carry out extensive monitoring. What additional monitoring does my right hon. Friend's Department carry out to ensure that toxic emissions cannot enter the food chain?
    Mr. Gummer: Our survey programmes have been extensive and we have found nothing of a type similar to that which has been found in Derbyshire. We continue to conduct dioxin surveys. My job is to ensure that dioxin does not enter the food chain and we have a full programme of surveys to ensure that that does not happen. It was as a result of those surveys that we pinpointed two and, later, three farms and that is where the detailed tests are being carried out. In fact, we discovered the problem and acted immediately so that there would be no danger to public health. That is the role of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
    Mr. William Ross: As it appears from the information published to date by the Minister that it is almost impossible to determine the exact source of the dioxin that is causing the problem, what comfort does that provide to farmers? If the source cannot be discovered, how can the polluter be forced to pay? Given that these are insidious and dangerous chemicals that have wide-ranging and far-reaching implications for the food industry, is not it time that the Government thought again about compensation in such circumstances?
    Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman should not overstate the position. We have carried out and are carrying out extensive tests throughout the United Kingdom and have found that only three farms are affected. We are conducting detailed trials on those farms. As soon as we have the results of the trials we shall publish them. That is a perfectly reasonable statement of the position. I do not believe that it is helpful to suggest that the problem is widespread or in any way worrying, either for the consumer or for the farming industry as a whole. What I am concerned about is the specific effect on these three farms, which is extremely serious.

    Hens
    Mr. Hinchliffe:: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to improve the welfare of laying hens.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Maclean): We will seek the adoption of the highest standards practicable for all laying hens when the existing Community legislation is reviewed next year.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: Will the Minister give an assurance that the Government will implement in full the recommendations of the recent Farm Animal Welfare Council report on the welfare of laying hens in colony systems? Bearing in mind the fact that the report laid out only minimum welfare standards, will the Government take note of and act on the recommendations of the minority report issued at the same time?
    Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman has not grasped the fact that any progress that we make on improving animal welfare in Europe has to be on a Europeanwide basis. I am conscious that we want to improve drastically the standards of laying hens, not just in battery cages but in colony and other systems. If we are to be successful, we

    437
    must have Europeanwide agreement. If we acted unilaterally, we should end up putting out of business our own egg producers just to be flooded with eggs produced under the very system that we had banned.
    Mr. Ron Davies: Should not consumers who are concerned about the welfare implications of intensive laying systems be able to shop accordingly? In the light of the Minister's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), will he guarantee that at European level he will press for a system of mandatory labelling so that eggs are labelled "battery", "barn eggs", "free range" or whatever? Is not that the most effective way of harnessing consumer choice in the cause of improving welfare standards?
    Mr. Maclean: Of course. In all areas of food policy we believe in the principle that the consumer should choose and have sufficient information to do so. We are consulting others on systems to ensure that consumers have a proper choice when buying eggs and other foodstuffs. This is an area where extensive work needs to be done to ensure that the consumer is not misled because of the plethora of terms that are applied. I do not want to go on a dictionary-chasing exercise, laying down one word only to find that the marketing men have circumvented it by finding another word.

    Beef Exports
    Mr. Hague:: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his latest estimate of the value of beef exports.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): In the first nine months of this year total United Kingdom beef exports amounted to just over 84,000 tonnes worth about £167 million. For the same period last year exports were 78,000 tonnes worth just over £170 million.
    Mr. Hague: Does my hon. Friend agree that the continued success of beef exports is not only good news for the industry but is a powerful reminder, after all the scare stories last year, that British beef is among the best in the world? Does he agree that the use of greater marketing expertise could open up still further opportunities for British exporters? Can he tell us whether and how he will be using the new marketing initiative of his Ministry to assist exports in the industry?
    Mr. Curry: I agree with my hon. Friend that in the past the weakness when farmers have got together has been the quality of marketing and management that they bring to a project. The aim of the marketing grants is to address any marketing deficiencies and to provide good management, which we are willing to support. We also have an undertaking from the supermarkets and some of the food industry that they will assist in providing managers. That is an essential part of the campaign to ensure that our beef, which is the world's best, finds its way on to tables across the world.
    Sir Hector Monro: Does my hon. Friend agree that some of the best beef exported from Britain comes from the less-favoured areas and hill land? Does he agree that
    438
    hill farmers had a substantial drop in income in recent years? When will he announce an enhanced hill livestock compensatory allowance?
    Mr. Curry: I agree with my hon. Friend that beef production is particularly important in the less-favoured areas. He will know that the Scottish Beef Club has had great success in the export market and that the idea of Scottish beef has been extremely successful. We are pursuing discussions on the future of the HLCAs following the autumn review and we shall announce the results as soon as we can.
    Dr. David Clark: In view of the excellence of British beef, why is it that major British restaurant chains, which, incidentally make generous donations to the Conservative party, are unable, on the grounds of quantity, quality and consistency, to use a single ounce of British beef in their restaurants, when at the same time 1 million tonnes is rotting in intervention?
    Mr. Curry: The reason is that under the general agreement on tariffs and trade beef from other countries, notably Australia, comes into the European Community. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman supports the liberalisation of trade under GATT and that he would not wish to defy the GATT rules. In many cases those imports are available at a cheaper price than within the Community. The answer is to unwind some of the absurdities of the intervention system which mean that far too much money is devoted to financing the depreciation of beef rather than to putting it on the table. We must also try to direct support much more to the specialist producers of high-quality British beef.

    Schools Liaison Programmes
    Mr. Ian Taylor:: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what schools liaison programmes his Department promotes which enhance young peoples awareness of agricultural issues.
    Mr. Curry: Young people's awareness of agricultural issues is promoted through publicity material, information packs and planned visits to farms.
    Mr. Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that information on agricultural issues for school children is important? Will he provide encouragement so that those schemes teach young people, particularly from inner-city areas, that the beauty of rural areas such as parts of my constituency is not necessarily just given by the good Lord, but often is created by man, because of the traditional and excellent pursuits of hunting and shooting?
    Mr. Curry: It is important that children are able to find out what happens in the countryside. Three points are important. First, everyone should realise that the countryside is a workplace and not just a recreation place. Secondly, recreation and sport and conservation are allied activities. Thirdly, there is a great heritage in the countryside and we have sought to enhance that, in particular through our environmentally sensitive areas scheme. I have no doubt that that will be an extremely good place for school children to begin. I know that the farmers of Esher would particularly welcome school visits.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that young people show a keen awareness of animal

    439
    welfare? They will be greatly perturbed by the way in which his Department is undermining the provisions of my Badgers Act 1991 by issuing licences to more than 600 fox hunts to enable them to dig up badger setts and unleash terriers into them. Will the hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance this afternoon that that practice will stop immediately?
    Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman has got hold of the wrong end of the stick. The dreadful things that he forecasts will not happen. I suggest that he waits for the consultation paper and I think that he will then be reassured.
    There is no doubt that it would be to the advantage of school children if they could find out what happens in the countryside. Perhaps they should recognise that the countryside is not just a theme park where everything is nice, woolly and furry, but that real combat occurs between animals.
    Mr. Sayeed: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is worth pointing out to young children that in 1950 it took a man on average industrial wages a week to earn enough to buy his Christmas turkey and that it now takes a person in a similar position just 90 minutes to do so? Is not that a tribute to the massive increase in the productivity of the farming community and to the massive increase in the earning power of the British worker?
    Mr. Curry: I am sure that that is absolutely true. I am sure also that, in the light of our education reforms, most children will eventually be able to do that calculation.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Minister also accept that, in considering agriculture, it is crucial to bear in mind the responsibility of all involved in the food chain, from production to consumption, to ensure that at all times consumers get good, healthy, pure products at the best possible price?
    Mr. Curry: That is a self-evident truth. When children go into the countryside and visit farms, they will see that the conditions are completely different from those that their fathers may have seen when they worked on farms during their holidays—that was one of the great traditions of United Kingdom cities. Our aim is to ensure that food is wholesome, of high quality and produced as economically as possible and to ensure that, not only in the United Kingdom but in the export market, people have the benefits of an outstanding product.

    MacSharry Proposals
    Mr. Moss:: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate has been made of the effect on the EC budget of implementation of the MacSharry proposals.
    Mr. Gummer: The Commission admits that its proposals would increase the cost of the common agricultural policy to the Community budget.
    Mr. Moss: Will my right hon. Friend clarify a puzzle which arose during yesterday's European Community debate? On two separate occasions, when questioned about the cost of implementing some proposals under the Maastricht treaty, the Leader of the Opposition said that the money could be found from the reform of the common agricultural policy. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question must relate to Government policy. The hon. Gentleman knows the rules.
    Mr. Moss: If the money can be saved from the reform of the common agricultural policy, would not that mean a reduction in income for farmers in my constituency, unemployment and a reduction in the rural economy?
    Mr. Gummer: There is no doubt that reform of the common agricultural policy must be carried out in a way which ensures that there is no discrimination against farmers in the United Kingdom. The proposal of the Leader of the Opposition to spend the money that is now spent on British farmers on farmers in southern Europe is something about which every farmer should know—unless the Opposition spokesman will advise him differently and tell the House when he has so advised him.
    Mr. Hume: Does the Minister agree that those mainly affected by the MacSharry proposals are the 3 per cent. of farmers across Europe who are large farmers and that small farmers—those with less than 125 acres of cereals, fewer than 90 beef cows or fewer than 40 milk cows—are not affected? When that is added to the fact that rural development is now a major part of the Maastricht treaty and of the MacSharry proposals, is not that a very good thing for rural society?
    Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong and his views are opposed by the farmers unions of every part of the United Kingdom, including such "big" farmers as the crofters in Scotland. All of them say that the MacSharry plans would be devastating for farmers in every part of the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman's views can give comfort only to the farmers outside the United Kingdom on whom the Leader of the Opposition wishes to spend our money.
    Mr. Marlow: Would not my right hon. Friend be insulting British farmers if he were to suggest that he should decimate the financial support available to them so that it could be given to M. Delors for use as a slush fund for so-called cohesion—a bribe to the countries of southern Europe? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that if anyone does make such a daft suggestion, that person's name is put loudly and clearly in front of the British farming community?
    Mr. Gummer: So far, the only person who has made that suggestion is the Leader of the Opposition. Therefore, I am quite happy to put his name—at least in this context—in front of the general public. The proposals suggested yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition were clearly to ensure that British farmers reduced their already low incomes and that the money be used for development—rural and urban—in the southern parts of the European Community.
    Dr. David Clark: Will the Minister explain to the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss) that the common agricultural policy which he seeks to defend is a grossly inefficient system? As my right hon. Friend pointed out from the Dispatch Box yesterday, only £1 in £3 of agricultural support goes to farmers, which we do not think makes much sense. As the Minister and I agree that the fatal weakness of the MacSharry proposals is that they will increase the cost of the common agricultural policy, thus breaching the budgetary limit, will the Minister give the House a guarantee today that the

    441
    Government will use their right of veto on any proposals to breach the budgetary limit? He has those powers; will he use them?
    Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman quoted his right hon. Friend, but he should examine the words again. The right hon. Gentleman said yesterday that
    "it must be the major source of the re-orientated finance for the development of cohesion in the Community."—[Official Report, 18 December 1991; Vol. 201, c. 290.]
    That can mean only that the common agricultural policy is to be reformed in such a way as to take money from the United Kingdom and give it for cohesion to countries outside. The Leader of the Opposition would have signed the treaty without the debate at Maastricht—he would have accepted anything that M. Delors put in front of him. He would have lain down and been rolled over and that is why he must never be Prime Minister.
    Mr. Marland: Far from taking money away from British farmers, will my right hon. Friend bear it in mind during his negotiations with Mr. MacSharry the inequity in national aids? Food from Britain has only six representatives trying to sell British food in Spain, whereas Food from France—its French equivalent—has 60 representatives trying to sell French food in Spain. Will my right hon. Friend find out what can be done to even up the balance? Far from reducing the amount of money available for selling British produce, will he try to increase it?
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend has highlighted the fundamental difference. The Government are determined to get rid of arrangements that differentiate against the United Kingdom, whereas the Labour party wishes to increase such differentiation and to pay farmers and others in the southern European states money that will come from the very low incomes of British farmers. That is the difference—the Conservatives support this country.

    Veal Crates
    Mr. Mullin:: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with the EC regarding the use of veal crates; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Maclean: A Community directive setting minimum standards for the welfare of veal calves was agreed by majority vote at the October Agriculture Council. In our view this directive does not properly tackle the cruelty of the veal crate and we voted against it. British standards for veal production will not, however, be reduced and consumers can be sure that if they buy British veal it will have been humanely produced.
    Mr. Mullin: I welcome the fact that we voted against it, but this is one area in which a stand against the EC would enjoy the support of people of all political persuasions in this country. A ban on the import of veal from countries that produce it by a method banned here would constitute such a stand. Failing that, should we put the grand EC official who is in charge of such policies—Mr. Legras—in a veal crate for a few weeks and see whether he changes his mind after that?
    Mr. Maclean: We have made a stand on veal. We held out strongly in the EC to have our standards implemented widely throughout the Community and when it was clear
    442
    that other nations were not of a similar mind, we voted against the directive. As the hon. Gentleman knows, our mutual friend Mr. Legras does not seem to take kindly to the breaking of Community law or the treaty. We cannot unilaterally break the law in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests, but we can mobilise consumer opinion. No inhumanely produced veal need be eaten in this country if consumers say that they do not want to touch the filthy stuff.
    Dame Janet Fookes: I welcome my hon. Friend's robust attitude, but is it correct that it is still possible to export calves which end up in crates that would be illegal in this country?
    Mr. Maclean: Yes, that is true. That was the subject of the correspondence from Mr. Legras when the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) tried to introduce his ten-minute Bill. The EC has made it clear that live animal exports and imports are a fundamental tenet of the treaty and that it is not up to any nation unilaterally to seek to restrict that trade.
    That is why we shall insist on the toughest possible standards in the Community directive on the transport of animals, so that animals are moved across frontiers or within any country as safely and humanely as possible.
    Mr. Morley: The Minister said that British consumers would not want to buy inhumanely produced veal if they had the choice. How do consumers know whether their veal was produced inhumanely abroad or humanely in this country? When will the Minister introduce proposals for proper labelling, so that consumers can choose food products that have been humanely produced? I assure him of our full support for action to stop the hypocrisy of exporting calves for veal production in other countries.
    Mr. Maclean: If we are talking about hypocrisy, let me say that it would be hypocrisy to suggest that we have the powers unilaterally to introduce a labelling directive to discriminate against foreign veal. The hon. Gentleman is making the same point that his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) made. All these matters have to be dealt with on a Europeanwide basis if we are to have a directive. Alternatively, it can be done by individual companies and by retailers. The British Government cannot order people to label inhumanely produced veal, but consumers can demand it, supermarkets can provide the labelling and the restaurant trade can do the same if it is so minded. It is consumer pressure that will bring about a change.

    Bloodstock Breeding
    Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next expects to meet representatives of the bloodstock breeding industry to discuss the state of this sector.
    Mr. Curry: I have no plans to meet the horse bloodstock industry, but my noble Friend Lady Trumpington is to attend the annual luncheon of the Thoroughbred Breeders Association on 9 January 1992.
    Mr. Bellingham: Is the Minister aware that a number of stud farms in my constituency, including two owned by Her Majesty the Queen, and also stud farms in general make a tremendous contribution to the rural economy?

    443
    That is valuable at a time when farming is in difficulties. Is he also aware that bloodstock is subject to a far higher rate of VAT than in this country in France or in Ireland? That is an extremely serious problem which is leading to a number of stud owners moving their horses abroad. Will he tell the House what he is doing about that and what discussions he is having with the Treasury?
    Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend will know that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Treasury, has taken the lead in the discussions. The Irish rate of VAT is safe because it was in place before the cut-off date in the Community. The French rate of VAT may be challenged and may have to rise. We cannot lower the rate of VAT under Community rules, but we can try to find a way to assist the industry. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Treasury, is conducting discussions with the industry on the basis of a proposal for a flat rate agricultural tax which would replace the 17·5 per cent. VAT. The discussions are close to a conclusion and I understand that my hon. Friend will shortly be writing to the industry to clear up some of the remaining points, which will isolate the relatively few issues to be settled.
    Sir Patrick Duffy: Is the Minister aware that feeling within the industry and the related sales industry is that if the VAT gap between this country and Ireland and between this country and France is not narrowed significantly we could lose a considerable part of our breeding industry and our entire sales industry, which are the most prestigious in the world? Although the recent approaches to the Treasury and the manner of their reception have been much appreciated, there is a feeling that little may yet be done to prevent the most serious disruption of breeding and horse sales in this country.
    Mr. Curry: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern. He knows that we cannot reduce the VAT rate as a solution, but he also knows that we can take measures that would have a similar effect in helping the industry. A meeting a week ago today between officials and the industry got to grips with some of the remaining problems. As a result of that, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Treasury, will write to the industry shortly. That should clear the way for what may be the final round of discussions which, I hope, can reach an agreement to achieve a measure that is equivalent to a reduction in VAT, within the Community rules which permit it.

    Beef
    10. Mr. Knox: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he is next due to meet the president of the National Farmers Union to discuss the beef sector.
    Mr. Curry: My right hon. Friend the Minister and I are in frequent contact with the president of the National Farmers Union about all aspects of the agriculture industry, including the beef sector.
    Mr. Knox: What plans does my hon. Friend have to take up the 20 ecu supplement to the suckler cow premium agreed by the Council of Ministers on 11 December?
    Mr. Curry: We are discussing our response to that decision. We voted against it on the ground that it seemed absurd to respond to a crisis in the beef sector simply by
    444
    throwing yet more money into a system which has not been reformed. As the intervention system remains entirely in place, and as the Community has not decided to try to make savings by reforming the system to make it less attractive, it seemed to us to be the wrong way to tackle the problem. There are structural difficulties and the Council of Ministers has come up with a typical measure—just finding a few extra bob to see whether it will solve the problem. We are discussing the result of that Council with a view to taking our own decision.
    Mr. Edwards: Many beef farmers in my constituency of Monmouth are deeply anxious about the impact of the MacSharry proposals. Their farms are generally too large to get the benefits of the MacSharry proposals, but they do not get the benefit of the less-favoured area payments. May I invite the Minister to come to Monmouth to discuss those problems with the farmers there, which will give him the opportunity to assure them that he is seeking to protect their interests?
    Mr. Curry: My right hon. Friend has made that point personally to farmers of Monmouth. The hon. Gentleman knows that our doors are always open to members of the farming or fishing communities who have problems and that we are active around the countryside. The hon. Gentleman can be absolutely certain that we agree that the measures proposed by Mr. MacSharry are to the detriment of his farmers and farmers in every corner of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Knapman: Does my hon. Friend accept that the intervention scheme is a uniquely silly way of buying a first-class article, storing it for months on end, and then dumping it back on the market as a third-class article? Will he please reconsider the scheme as soon as possible?
    Mr. Curry: As my hon. Friend knows, our fundamental position on reform is that the intervention system must he made a great deal less attractive. It was designed as a safety net, but in many respects it has now become a high wire for farmers. We should move to a system under which the specialist producer can be rewarded for producing an increasingly better carcase and an increasingly improved quality of meat, which will find a world market. If intervention remains, it should be reduced to the original concept of a safety net for use in extreme emergencies.

    Food and Drink (Trade Deficit)
    11. Mr. Harry Barnes: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the United Kingdom trade deficit in 1991 as it applies to food and drink.
    Mr. Gummer: Net imports of food, feed and drink into the United Kingdom were £4·7 billion for the period January to October 1991. This compared with £5·2 billion for the same period in 1990.
    Mr. Barnes: Is the Minister aware that since he was first appointed to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in 1985 there has been a £28 billion food deficit, which amounts to £15 million per year or £1,200 per household? Is that not a pretty inept performance?
    Mr. Gummer: Very much the same situation has obtained under Ministers of both Governments for the past 20 years—[Interruption.] That happens to be a fact,

    445
    and it was this Government who set out to do something about it. The hon. Gentleman may like to ask some of his right hon. and hon. Friends what they did about it. They did not even approach the matter. We are dealing with it as well as we can in the circumstances and are beginning to have some real effect. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will ask his constituents to remember that if they want to do something about that matter there is one answer—to buy the best food that there is, and that is British produced.
    Mr. Sims: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the drinks industry enjoys a surplus mainly because the value of exports of Scotch whisky far exceeds the value of imports of wine? He will be aware that there are Commission proposals on harmonisation with a zero rate for wine but a substantially higher rate for spirits, which is bound to have an adverse effect on our trade balance. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he will press for harmonisation based on alcoholic strength, or at least some mechanism for capping the rate on spirits?
    Mr. Gummer: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I can assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will not allow the European Community to roll over him—as would be the case if the Leader of the Opposition were in charge of the affairs of this country—but will be fighting hard for Britain's interests, and especially for the interests of the Scotch whisky industry.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Why does this country import more champagne per head than any other country? Could it be that the people of this country are storing up champagne to celebrate the wondrous event of the Tories' being smashed at the next election?
    Mr. Gummer: That is an entirely new version of the phrase, "champagne socialist". The hon. Gentleman does not set an example to others in the consumption of champagne, as I do not believe that he seeks such a tipple—
    Mr. Banks: The Minister is wrong there.
    Mr. Gummer: In that case, the hon. Gentleman sets an example and shows that in a free society people can decide what they want to drink. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman wants a society in which people are prevented from drinking what they want.

    Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance
    Sir Michael Shaw: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to include environmental protection features to the hill livestock compensatory allowance scheme.
    Mr. Gummer: My right hon. Friends and I are currently seeking the views of interested parties on a package of measures designed to enhance environmental aspects of our support for hill farming. We will study the views put to us carefully before drawing final conclusions.
    Sir Michael Shaw: Why are the North York moors not included in the 12 proposed environmentally sensitive areas?
    Mr. Gummer: Because our statutory advisers did not recommend that they be included. Statutory advisers from
    446
    the conservation bodies all gave us a list of the areas that they wanted included and, for the most part, we followed those lists in so far as they agreed with one another. The area to which my hon. Friend refers was not considered such a high priority as others. As a result of our decisions, we will now spend five times as much on the environmentally sensitive areas and they will cover three times more of the United Kingdom than previously—more than 12 per cent. of the land area of England. That is a remarkable achievement and I hope that we can build on it in the future.

    MacSharry Proposals
    Mr. Allen McKay: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the National Farmers Union to discuss the MacSharry proposals for the reform of the common agricultural policy.
    Mr. Gummer: I meet representatives of the National Farmers Union regularly to discuss a range of agricultural issues.
    Mr. McKay: Does the Minister appreciate that his tenure of office as Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is regarded by farmers as disastrous? Does he agree with his Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), who said:
    "Never have I known a time when farmers were more fearful of the future, and never has that fear been more justified"?
    Mr. Gummer: In referring to the MacSharry proposals, my hon. Friend said what was true. I am happy to say that the farmers of the United Kingdom believe in this ministerial team and in the Government, who are fighting for them against the proposals of the European Community. They know that the Labour party, led by the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), would lie down and be run over by anything that the Community proposed.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the hill farmers and raspberry farmers in Tayside look on him and his team as the best champions of their interests? They regard the problems as being a result of the structure of the common agricultural policy. How wise we were not to allow the Europeans to extend their competence to other areas. Not only our farmers but everyone else would suffer if we followed the views expressed yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition.
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right. The European Community's future is best served by those who believe in Europe and in putting forward strongly the position of their countrymen, farmers and those who have interests in the United Kingdom. We must ensure that that balance exists. It was upheld by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at Maastricht, but it would have been undermined if the Leader of the Opposition had had anything to do with governing the country.

    Intervention Stocks
    Mr. Eadie: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the current level of intervention stocks in the United Kingdom and the EC.
    Mr. Curry: Tables showing the current level of intervention stocks in the United Kingdom and the EC are placed in the Library of the House each month.
    Mr. Eadie: The Minister must be aware that under the 1988 reform package we were assured that intervention stocks would disappear, but they are now at record levels, whether for skimmed milk, butter, beef or cereals. Does the Minister agree that that reform package was merely a cosmetic exercise? Does he further agree that we must now have a fundamental review of the 1988 package, as advocated by the Labour party?
    Mr. Curry: We must have reform of the CAP and it must be continuous, because the world situation keeps changing, but we must ensure that it is the right reform. It would be dead easy to reform the CAP at our farmers' expense and simply shovel the money across to other farmers, which appears to be the Labour party's proposal, but we do not share that view; we must ensure that it is a balanced proposal and that in the United Kingdom, where we have efficient agriculture, the efficient farmer has a long-term future.

    Environmentally Sensitive Areas
    Mr. Harris: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of the English countryside is covered by environmentally sensitive areas.
    Mr. Gummer: Environmentally sensitive areas currently cover 3·7 per cent. of the agricultural land in England. Proposals I announced last month to create 12 new environmentally sensitive areas will more than treble the area covered.
    Mr. Harris: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that the fact that so many parts of the country are queueing up for ESA status is a tribute to him and to the usefulness of such areas? When will he announce the extension of existing areas? Will he consider sympathetically inclusion of the Penwith moors in that list?
    Mr. Gummer: I hope to announce the extensions soon after we resume after Christmas. I thank my hon. Friend for his compliments. The House should note that the system of environmentally sensitive areas, invented in this country by this Government, is now being copied by almost every other country in the European Community. We are leading in the European Community, rather than allowing others to lead us.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. McAllion: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 19 December.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. McAllion: Today Scottish trade unions are lobbying the Scottish Office to support full employment policies. Is the Prime Minister aware that in the year since he took office Scottish dole queues have lengthened by a
    448
    further 28,000, leaving almost 250,000 Scots without work and leaving him with an even worse record than his predecessor, the former first lady of mass unemployment? Does he agree that the price being paid by 2·5 million unemployed this Christmas is too high, and that if a price has to be paid for the economic mess that our country is in, it should be paid in full by himself and his ragbag of right hon. Friends?
    The Prime Minister: In the period of this Parliament, unemployment in the hon. Gentleman's constituency has fallen by 39 per cent. But I appreciate that every job lost is a personal tragedy for the person involved. The latest figures show that the increase in unemployment is continuing to slow down. Vacancies at November are now at their highest level for some time. The hon. Gentleman must bear in mind what is happening elsewhere: unemployment has risen in all the Community countries except the Netherlands, in every country of the European Free Trade Association, and in every G7 country except Japan. That is a reflection of the fact that the world economy is slowing down. The hon. Gentleman would address the problem more accurately were he to acknowledge that fact.
    Mr. Alton: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Alton: Now that it is clear that pre-Christmas Sunday trading has simply been a stalking horse for all-year Sunday trading, will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating stores such as House of Fraser, C and A, and Marks and Spencer which have upheld Sunday trading laws and refused to break them? Will he condemn those who have flouted the law simply for commercial gain?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows from previous exchanges in the House, following the appeal to the European Court the present law is unclear and no one is entirely certain what the correct law is at present. As the Attorney-General explained to the House some time ago, the law is not suspended and local authorities, who have the primary duty of enforcing the law, should decide their own course of action. I believe that, under existing provisions, that is the only way to handle the matter.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. As I inadvertently called two hon. Members from the Opposition Benches, I shall call Sir Peter Tapsell.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that today's raising of German interest rates, at a time when the German economy is in a different stage of its economic cycle from that of France, Britain and the United States, illustrates the great difficulties of a single European currency? Is it not extraordinary that the Leader of the Opposition is incapable of understanding that we might frequently find that monetary and interest rate policies were wholly inappropriate to the requirements of this country if we join a single European currency?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and one which is especially relevant when

    449
    the divergence in the performance of the economies of Europe is still so great. If and when there is convergence on a whole range of issues, circumstances may change, but we are certainly many years away from that.
    Mr. Thorne: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Thorne: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the news that mortgage lenders are introducing a package to assist people who are in difficulty with their mortgages will be commended throughout the country? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this is not something that has arisen in the past few days, but has been carefully negotiated by the Government over many weeks?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right about that. We have been pursuing proposals for some time. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has had a number of discussions with the Council of Mortgage Lenders and others, and he will be announcing a package of measures later this afternoon.
    Mr. Kinnock: Is it not clear from today's awful rise in unemployment to more than 2·5 million that the recession is continuing? Since the Government obviously have no idea what to do about it, will the Prime Minister give me an undertaking that he will call a general election very early in the new year?
    The Prime Minister: I will give the right hon. Gentleman no such undertaking; nor did he expect me to. What is clear is that the rate of increase in unemployment is beginning to slow, and that is very welcome. The figures are quite clear about that. Also, job vacancies are rising, unit wage costs are falling and productivity is continuing to improve. That is what will make us more competitive and what will create more jobs. It is not a short-term problem; it is a matter that we have to get right to ensure the long-term prosperity of this country.
    Mr. Kinnock: I am sorry that the Prime Minister is continuing to run away from the electorate. Since the right hon. Gentleman became Prime Minister, 800,000 jobs have been lost, 80,000 homes have been repossessed, and 45,000 businesses have failed. That is the record of a completely discredited Government—a Government who must go, and quickly.
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has no policies whatever to deal with employment. His jobs tax would cost 50,000 jobs; his strikes charter would cost jobs and lose orders; the sweatshop mentality on the Opposition Front Bench would risk losing the 450,000 jobs that have come in; their minimum wage policy would cost hundreds of thousands of jobs; and the abolition, one way or another, of the trade union legislation that we have produced would reintroduce the difficulties that we faced in the 1960s and 1970s. The right hon. Gentleman's policies would reintroduce the levels of unemployment that we saw in the 1930s.
    Mr. Kinnock: When the Government came into power unemployment was 1·25 million. At the time of the last general election, unemployment was going down. The right hon. Gentleman has spent the past two years as Chancellor of the Exchequer and Prime Minister. In that
    450
    time he has put unemployment up by nearly 1 million, so he can offer us no lectures on the subject of unemployment.
    The Prime Minister: I can certainly inform the right hon. Gentleman about matters that he does not seem to understand. Unemployment has risen in virtually every western country in the past decade. Many of the major industrial countries have seen unemployment increase—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a terrible noise to make.
    The Prime Minister: It is clear that the Opposition Whips have been active. Unemployment has been rising in the United States, Italy, France and Canada, and in every country of the European Community. Only the right hon. Gentleman believes that we can be insulated from what is happening throughout the world.
    Sir Robert Rhodes James: As the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr. Perez de Cuellar, is retiring at the end of the month, would it not be appropriate on behalf of the House and of all parties for my right hon. Friend to record our gratitude and appreciation for a fine international servant?
    The Prime Minister: I am happy to join my hon. Friend in that tribute, which I think is the united view of the House. Mr. Perez de Cuellar has had a lengthy and distinguished record as Secretary-General and the House would wish to record its appreciation of his activities and those of his personal representative in securing the release of so many hostages.
    Mr. David Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 19 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Marshall: The Prime Minister approves of the obscene pay rises and profits made by the privatised monopolies. Does he also approve of the scandalous racketeering by the gas, electricity and British Telecom undertakings in imposing huge standing charges, which often amount to more than 50 per cent. of the bill for the most vulnerable people in our society and are causing millions of pensioners and poor people to face a cold and miserable Christmas? Does he have any compassion at all? Will he take steps to abolish standing charges or is he the Scrooge of the 1990s?
    The Prime Minister: I see that the Christmas spirit has descended upon the hon. Gentleman a little early. Standing charges have often been discussed in the House. The difficulty is that their abolition would have a direct relationship to an increase in unit costs, which would bear most heavily on many of the people who are most in need. Therefore, it is not a way to help people who are particularly in need. Many would suffer from that change.
    Mr. Hill: Does my right hon. Friend accept that practically everyone in the House welcomes his initiative on repossessions, no matter what political claptrap we may hear later? The main problem is the dead hand of local authorities, which keep tens of thousands of properties empty. Is it not time for an initiative to make local

    451
    authorities hand over their property to housing associations, and could regional ombudsman be set up for that purpose?
    The Prime Minister: In a few moments my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will set out our detailed proposals to deal with the problem of repossessions. If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I shall not trail that in advance. My hon. Friend's point about local authorities in terms of voids and, often, delays in letting is a genuine problem. Performance is patchy in different parts of the country. In many inner-city areas, typically though not exclusively run by Labour councils, the policies followed mean that many properties are left empty unnecessarily when many people could safely live in them.
    Mr. Michael: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 19 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Michael: On the day when the Prime Minister's unemployment figures have gone over 2·5 million, will he consider the training and employment needs of adults with learning difficulties, and people over 19 with mental handicaps whom he and his Government have abandoned? Will he consider in particular the training workshop recycling products in my constituency, Track 2000 in Splott, whose income was ended as a result of his cuts in employment training, where the trainers, who are on the dole, and the trainees, who do not get a training allowance, are coming in voluntarily? People are still being referred to the centre by social services because there is nowhere else for them to go. What does the Prime Minister propose to do about that?
    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman were genuinely concerned about employment and training, he would be prepared to condemn the Trades Union Congress boycott of employment action, youth training, and training and enterprise councils, but neither he nor his party has done so. In the coming year, about 1 million people will be helped through employment and training programmes to get back to work. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are spending on training and enterprise two and a half times as much in real terms as the last Labour Government. When they left office, they were training 6,000 people a year. This year, we shall be training 260,000.
    Mr. Hayward: Has my right hon. Friend had time to notice this week substantial orders from abroad for British Aerospace, Rolls-Royce and Govan Shipbuilders? Is it not churlish that Labour Members have not welcomed any of those orders?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I welcome the substantial orders that have been received and I was pleased to see that in the past few days a number of them have come here. The special order for Govan will be particularly welcome. It is a shame that Opposition Members utterly neglect to welcome the successes of this country and take every opportunity to run them down as well as the prospects of the country.
    Mr. Patchett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 19 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Patchett: What single word would the Prime Minister use to describe his Chancellor of the Exchequer?
    The Prime Minister: He is a very good Chancellor.

Housing Repossessions
3.31 pm
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Norman Lamont): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
Over the past few weeks my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for the Environment, the Secretary of State for Social Security, the Minister for Housing and Planning, the Minister of State for Social Security and I have had a series of meetings with representatives of the Council of Mortgage Lenders to discuss the problem of mortgage arrears and repossessions. I wish to pay tribute to the lenders and insurers for the helpful and constructive approach that they have adopted throughout these discussions. We all recognise the hardship that repossessions can lead to for individuals and families, but mortgage lenders have assured us that some of the figures that have been suggested, particularly in recent days, for the level of mortgage repossessions this year and next are greatly exaggerated.
The lending institutions have already agreed to participate in the scheme announced in November by the Minister for Housing and Planning to make empty properties which have already been possessed available to housing associations to house the homeless. We wanted in addition to take action to keep in their homes borrowers who are facing difficulties in keeping up their mortgage payments. Therefore, I am able to announce to the House a number of measures designed to reduce substantially the level of repossessions over the next year.
The first duty of lenders is, of course, to their investors, but they are also concerned about the position of borrowers, especially those in difficulties. In our discussions this week, lenders have confirmed to me that they do not seek to take possession where borrowers have suffered a significant reduction in income but are making a reasonable regular payment. Borrowers will, of course, remain responsible for their debts.
A substantial proportion of repossessions do not result from legal action by the lender. Lenders have assured me that they wish to encourage borrowers to stay in their own homes and that they will continue to increase the counselling and advice that they offer to borrowers in difficulties.
The Government already make generous provision—over £600 million this year—for mortgage interest payments for people on income support. The lenders have argued that in many cases this money is being diverted for other purposes, resulting in unnecessary repossessions. The Department of Social Security is already introducing new arrangements to identify arrears cases and to make payments direct to the lender. The Government have now agreed to introduce legislation after the recess to make direct payment to lenders the norm. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security will be making a further statement on that subject later today. In response, lenders have confirmed that they will not take possession in cases where mortgage interest payments are covered by income support.
There will, however, be cases where occupiers are not on income support but nevertheless face serious problems. Following our discussions this week, the largest lenders
454
have confirmed that they are prepared in case of need to provide funding on concessional terms to help such borrowers as far as possible to remain in their homes.
In such cases, the homes would either be sold to housing associations or taken into ownership by the lender. The borrower would remain in occupation as a tenant, or as part-owner, part-tenant. Individual lenders have undertaken to announce details of such schemes where they have not already done so and insurers have expressed their support. More than £¾ billion has already been committed for that purpose during the next year by lenders responsible for 60 per cent. of total mortgage lending. The lenders' expectation is that the total figure could be around £1 billion, if the need is there.
The Government and the lenders will introduce those new measures as quickly as possible. In the meantime, lenders will continue to avoid repossessions wherever possible.
The mortgage lenders believe that the new measures announced today, together with the actions that they have already taken, will lead to a reducing trend in repossessions during 1992. All lenders are looking for an early and substantial reduction in repossessions. They have estimated that the measures that I have described should prevent about 40,000 repossessions next year.
But I recognise that there is a wider concern about the depressed state of the housing market, which has consequences for home owners in general and for the wider economy. I therefore have one further announcement to make.
In his 1990 Budget, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced that stamp duty on securities would be abolished late in 1991–92 to coincide with the introduction in the stock exchange of the system of paperless trading known as TAURUS—the transfer and automated registration of uncertified stock.
The stock exchange announced recently that TAURUS will not now be ready before April 1993. The abolition of stamp duty on securities will consequently also be delayed at least until then. That will result in a public sector borrowing requirement saving of £1 billion compared with the position shown in this year's medium-term financial strategy.
I have decided to use a portion of that additional revenue to help encourage and facilitate transactions in the housing market. I am therefore lifting the burden of stamp duty from the great bulk of house purchases for a period of eight months from midnight tonight.
Stamp duty is currently charged at 1 per cent. on the full price of land and buildings costing more than £30,000. I intend to raise that threshold to £250,000 for documents executed from tomorrow, until 19 August 1992—after which it will revert to £30,000. Stamp duty at the current rate of 1 per cent. will still be charged on purchases of more than £250,000.
For the next eight months, that will mean that no stamp duty will be payable on 90 per cent. of private home purchases. The consequent saving on an average-priced house will be a little over £600. The cost to the Exchequer will be about £110 million in this financial year and about £310 million in 1992–93.
A short Bill will be introduced early in the new year to give effect to that measure. Until the passing of the necessary resolution, people who need to get their documents stamped will be charged duty on the basis of the present £30,000 threshold. But legislation will provide

455
that the Inland Revenue will refund any duty paid in excess of what will be due under the proposed £250,000 threshold. Further details will be set out in an Inland Revenue press release to he issued today.
The measures that I have announced today and the schemes that the lending institutions are putting together will contribute to a decisive fall in the level of mortgage repossessions. They will also help to stimulate activity in the housing market more generally, benefiting home buyers and home owners throughout the country. I hope that they will be warmly welcome by the House.
Mrs. Margaret Beckett: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that the Government's handling of the matter has been typically irresponsible, shifty and dishonest? Does he recall that when, as long ago as 1986, the present Prime Minister showed his true colours by cutting mortgage interest support paid to those who lose their jobs, bodies such as the National Consumer Council, the Government's own Social Security Advisory Committee, and many right hon. and hon. Members warned of the dire consequences for those on the lowest incomes, who would be forced deeper and deeper into debt? Consequently, the Prime Minister, in his caring way, described those forebodings as "overcooked".
When, two days ago, the Chancellor heard the Prime Minister tell my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that the Building Societies Association had been consulted about the changes, did he remember that, when consulted, the BSA said that it totally opposed them?
Does the Chancellor recall that, as the present recession deepened, the Prime Minister—then Chancellor of the Exchequer—was pressed during Treasury questions to take action to stem the flood of repossessions, which by then was affecting a far wider swathe of the community, with hundreds of thousands in arrears? The right hon. Gentleman dismissed such action by saying that
"only a relatively small number of borrowers are in difficulty."—[Official Report, 15 March 1990; Vol. 169, c.655.]
The Chancellor of the Exchequer continued to pay so little heed that as late as June this year he told David Frost that the "vague stirrings" of recovery that he detected would "begin in certain sectors—probably in the housing market." Even when the president of the House Builders Federation wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer saying that there was no foundation for that assertion, the right hon. Gentleman continued to repeat it.
Will the Chancellor say whether the Government, whose policies on benefits and interest rates—which were defended so felicitously by the Prime Minister with the words,
"If it isn't hurting, it isn't working"
led to the present crisis, take any of the blame?
From the Chancellor's statement, it seems almost that the Government's only contribution is to find a scapegoat for the problem and to seek credit for the solution. Does the Chancellor acknowledge that our spokespeople have been holding discussions with building societies and the Council of Mortgage Lenders—not just in recent weeks, but for months—and submitted a package that contained some elements of the proposals that the Chancellor outlined today? If the Government had paid heed, it would have saved the homes of thousands and thousands of families for whom it is now too late.
Is it not the case that, although the stamp duty measures will, as the Chancellor said, ease the housing
456
market, they will do absolutely nothing to assist those people already in danger of losing their homes? Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Government have made no net contribution to that scheme—bearing in mind the savings that the Government will make on mortgage interest; bed-and-breakfast costs for the homeless, which I understand are currently running at £1 billion; and, as the Chancellor said, because the postponement of TAURUS will only in a certain proportion be committed to the scheme? How many more families could have been helped if the Government had been prepared to commit even all the savings from TAURUS?
If we contrast the Government's coyness in slipping out a press statement three days ago which revealed cuts in real terms in the provision of public sector house-building next year with the Chancellor's willingness to come to the House to make a statement on a scheme to which the Government are contributing so little the day before the House adjourns for Christmas, the concern that the Chancellor claims to feel can be described in one word—humbug.
Mr. Lamont: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) did not feel able to welcome the substantial measures that I announced. Her only question is, "What are you contributing?" She is not interested in whether the measures work. I should have thought that a contribution of more than £400 million would be regarded as substantial by anyone with a responsible attitude to finance—if not by the Labour party.
The measures that I announced stand to reduce the number of repossessions by 40,000. They are currently running at an annual rate of 80,000. That is a substantial reduction and the hon. Lady should have had the grace and the good manners to welcome it. [Interruption.] I hear the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) mentioning the figure of 200,000. Let me tell him that the Council of Mortgage Lenders has told me specifically how disturbed it is by the alarmist talk that the Opposition are putting about in regard to the number of mortgage repossessions. The council specifically distanced itself from the figures quoted by the hon. Member for Dagenham.
I might add that the council also told me that it did not believe that the income support measures taken in 1986 had caused the repossessions. The council said that, provided that people were having half their interest paid by income support, they would not have their houses repossessed on that account. The hon. Lady's allegation is entirely unfounded.
The hon. Lady seems to think that the Government should simply contribute more money. What about Beckett's law? I thought that Labour had only two public spending commitments. That is what the hon. Lady is always telling us, yet, over the past week, we have been told repeatedly in radio broadcasts that Labour want to put in more money. The truth is that it would have done so ineffectively and would not have produced the results that our package will produce.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must bear in mind the fact that we have another statement after this one and then a business statement; moreover, more than 60 right hon. and hon. Members wish to participate in the important debate

457
that follows. I shall allow questions to the Chancellor to continue until 4 o'clock, but then we shall proceed to the next statement.
Sir Anthony Grant: My right hon. Friend's announcement constitutes one of the most cheering pieces of news that home owners have heard for a long time. Has he ever seen such a miserable, sour lot of sick parrots as those on the Opposition Front Bench?
Mr. Lamont: As always, my hon. Friend is quite right. The Opposition thrive on bad news: they wish for nothing but bad news. As ever, they will be disappointed.
Mr. A. J. Beith: We welcome the package, which contains many suggestions made by my right hon. and hon. Friends. It will cost lenders relatively little net and will cost the taxpayer hardly anything net.
Will the Chancellor examine the stamp duty proposal? For an amount that will not have a very decisive impact on the housing market—which may still be in a rather sluggish condition when stamp duty is reimposed next August—he could have extended housing benefit to mortgage payers on very low incomes and given additional help to people who are now in a very difficult position.
Mr. Lamont: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving the measures a broad welcome, but I am somewhat puzzled about the fact that he feels aggrieved on the ground that—as he put it—the measures cost both lenders and the Government very little. The fact that we were able to reach such an arrangement, which will substantially reduce the number of repossessions, strikes me as a tribute to the package.
Of course, I understand what the hon. Gentleman said about housing benefit, but the measure that he suggests would involve substantial public expenditure and I do not feel that we could accommodate it in the present fiscal circumstances. Moreover, such a measure would have to be permanent: the money could not be clawed back following the recovery of the housing market.
Mr. Tim Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that today's carefully targeted statement will have a double benefit? First, it will achieve the common-sense solution of keeping borrowers in their own homes; secondly, because of the close relationship between the state of the housing market and consumer confidence, it will have a beneficial effect on the economy.
Mr. Lamont: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right to say that this is a sensible, well-targeted measure. As I stressed, it has been made possible by the deferral of TAURUS. It is being achieved without prejudicing the fiscal position and should help to increase turnover and get the housing market moving again. Many people in the industry have asked for a reduction in stamp duty. They believe that it will have an effect.
Mr. David Trimble: The very awkward position that arises as a result of repossessions has been caused primarily by the recession, which has increased unemployment, reduced incomes in some cases, and reduced the value of the property. The Government have energetically tried to help one element of the population hit by the recession. Why have they selected this element
458
for assistance? Many other people have been hit by the recession. What do the Government intend to do for people the value of whose investments has gone down? House owners should know, as other investors know, that investments can go down in value as well as up. Is it not strange that the Government should give special assistance to house owners? Has not that been primarily because the people worst affected live in the south-east of England?
Mr. Lamont: I believe that the measures that have been announced—to try to bring forward transactions in the housing market and to stimulate the housing market—are in everybody's interest. They are in the interests of those who are in danger of their homes being repossessed. They are also in the interests of the housing market and the wider economy. I think that they will be welcomed by borrowers, lenders and everybody in the country.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Can the Chancellor assure me that the people of Northern Ireland will benefit from these measures at the very same time as people in the rest of the United Kingdom?
Mr. Lamont: The answer to that question is yes.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: Is the Chancellor aware that the stamp duty measure is a surprising Finance Bill measure which will do perhaps a little to sell a few houses, but will not do much for those whose homes are being repossessed? That is the problem that the Chancellor has to face over this Finance Bill measure. Is he also aware that a number of building societies have insurance policies that come into force only when a property is sold? If they come into force only when properties are sold, they have an incentive to sell the property to recover the value. What does he have to say about that?
Mr. Lamont: This is a two-part package. It contains, first, the measures that we have been able to agree with the lending institutions, which both they and I believe will have a dramatic impact. Secondly, there is the income support element which in itself, by means of the legislation that we are implementing, the lending institutions believe will lead to a substantial reduction in repossessions. I have already explained that, because of what has happened, the stamp duty measure has been made possible without endangering the fiscal position and makes it possible to postpone the abolition of stamp duty on securities. None the less, the measure will help to stimulate the housing market and to bring forward transactions. For that reason, it should be welcomed by the right hon. Gentleman.
Sir William Clark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is absolutely disgraceful for Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen to talk about 200,000 repossessions next year? Does he also agree that it is churlish of the Opposition not to recognise that the measures that he has introduced will halve repossessions next year from 80,000 to 40,000? Is not that something that the Opposition should welcome, instead of being party-minded about it?
Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is right, but he should not underestimate the irresponsibility of the Labour party. Apart from having talked about 200,000 repossessions, on other occasions the Labour party has talked about 300,000 repossessions. Both figures bear no relationship to reality.

459
The Labour party has also put forward an absolutely cloud-cuckoo-land solution to the problem. It says that there should be a six-month moratorium on repossessions—something which is totally impossible to negotiate and totally irresponsible and which has rightly been described by one authority as a pure Enid Blyton story.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that, compared with last year's figure, there has been a 25 per cent. increase in repossession warrants during the first nine months of this year in Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney? Is he also aware that, according to discussions that I have held locally, it does not appear that building societies often force the pace when it comes to repossessions; it is forced by many of those who have offered second mortgages on properties. Will the Chancellor's statement and the deal that he arranged do anything to prevent those who are forcing the pace on second mortgages from causing many of the repossessions?
Mr. Lamont: I note what the hon. Gentleman said. Since he has such a great problem in his constituency, I am sure that what I have announced will be welcomed there, even if its Member of Parliament does not have the grace to do so. The hon. Gentleman asked whether it will help in cases of second mortgages. The answer is yes. Some of the schemes of individual societies will help in cases of a second mortgage that may have affected a business or a family. I must stress that the building societies and other lending institutions have put forward not just one scheme but many schemes, tailored to the problems facing their borrowers. Some of the schemes will enable people to become tenants and later to revert to being owner-occupiers again. That is a welcome characteristic of some of the schemes.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Will my right hon. Friend accept the grateful thanks of those of us who have in our constituencies one or two of the 2 per cent. of people who find themselves in difficulties? Of course, 98 per cent. of those buying their homes do not have a problem. Will my right hon. Friend take an interest in the activities of fringe banks, many of which have lent unreasonable sums? In my constituency, someone with a bungalow worth £150,000 was lent almost half a million pounds by a fringe bank. That is thoroughly irresponsible and the cost should not be picked up by the taxpayer. Will my right hon. Friend discuss with the building societies the possibility of spreading mortgages over longer periods? I understand that in Japan it is commonplace for mortgages to be spread over 60 years or more. Could that not be adopted here?
Mr. Lamont: I note what my hon. Friend said. She is right to put the problem in perspective, as the building society chiefs have been anxious to do when they talk to us. As my hon. Friend said, only 0·5 per cent. of all properties are repossessed and only 2 per cent. of mortgages are in serious arrears. The problem must be kept firmly in perspective.
My hon. Friend talked of the problem in her constituency where she said that there has been lending by institutions which she regards as irresponsible and excessive. The prudential requirements on building societies for riskier loans have been tightened up and they
460
are obliged to make greater provision for such loans in future. Therefore, some measures have been taken to deal with the problem worrying my hon. Friend.
Mr. Jim Sillars: Is not this an unfortunate day for the Government, since the Scottish Office has issued its tenants charter, which says:
"Owning your home means that you have full control over your own housing."?
That is manifestly untrue when the Government make such a mess of the economy and render people unemployed. Nevertheless, we welcome any package that produces a solution to the problem facing 40,000 families. However, the other 40,000 families are not covered. What will the Chancellor do about them—see them thrown in the street?
Mr. Lamont: I am moderately grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his half-welcome. It is the Government's policy to encourage ownership and I stressed in answer to another hon. Member that many of the schemes that will take homes into tenancy for the time being will allow people to revert to being owner-occupiers. Many of those whose homes are repossessed face losing all ownership of the property, but such schemes will enable some people to continue to own part of the same property or another property. So there is some flexibility built into the schemes. We would expect that following these measures the level of repossessions will decline. I hope that the remaining 40,000 will be affected as the economy recovers next year.
Mr. Andy Stewart: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, but does he agree that one reason for the depressed state of the property market is the way in which we buy and sell properties in England and Wales? "Subject to contract" is meaningless. It allows gazumping and "gazundering". The system is discredited. Is not it time that we adopted the Scottish system of property transactions and allowed our people to honour the obligations that they enter into?
Mr. Lamont: Personally, I have always admired the Scottish system—but then I tend to admire everything Scottish. I fear that this is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor rather than me, but I am sure that he will note my hon. Friend's remarks.
Ms. Dawn Primarolo: The right hon. Gentleman said in his opening remarks that borrowers would be able to become either part-tenants or full tenants of their houses. Will they be entitled to claim housing benefit during the period when they are part or full tenants? If the answer is yes, will the right hon. Gentleman announce how much that will cost and whether that money will be refunded to local authorities so that they are not expected to meet the cost out of current funds?
Mr. Lamont: Those who become tenants will qualify for housing benefit although, as the hon. lady knows, housing benefit is an income-related benefit. We expect the cost of the increase to be about £50 million a year.
Mr. Speaker: Further statement—Mr. Secretary Newton.
Mr. Joseph Ashton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I shall take points of order later.
Mr. Ashton: This is a genuine point of order about the Chancellor.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not take points of order in the middle of statements.
Mr. Ashton: I want an answer from the Chancellor and he is leaving the Chamber now.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has been here a long time. He knows that points of order are not taken until after statements.

Mortgages (Income Support Payments)
4 pm
The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): With permission, I wish to make a statement about the proposed revision in the arrangements for paying income support in respect of mortgage interest. This will take place in two stages.
First, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People announced on 5 November, we have already initiated action to make more effective the existing provisions which enable direct payments to the lender to be made in cases where an adjudication officer judges it to be in the borrowers' best interests, which is generally interpreted as covering cases where there are arrears of at least a month. The carrying through of that action, which begins next month, will now be accelerated with the aim of identifying by April all existing arrears cases on income support, with a view to adjudication officers taking appropriate decisions on implementing direct payment in those cases.
Secondly, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his statment just now, we intend to bring before Parliament when it reassembles after the forthcoming recess a Bill to provide for direct payment to become the norm for income support mortgage interest payments to qualifying lenders should the lenders wish. That will apply whether or not there are arrears, from the time at which income support payments meet the full eligible interest—after the claim has continued for 16 weeks. "Qualifying lenders" will be defined for this purpose to cover building societies, banks, or local authorities, but not private individuals who may have lent money for home purchase. It is hoped, subject to the passage of the Bill, to implement this new system from April 1992.
The administrative cost of introducing these arrangements, including the accelerated identification of arrears cases over the next three months, is estimated to be some £20 million over the next year, of which the Council of Mortgage Lenders expects to meet about £10 million. The Bill will include appropriate provision for that.
Those proposals form an important ingredient in the range of measures described in my right hon. Friend's wider statement earlier and, I believe, will correspondingly be welcomed by borrowers and lenders alike.
Mr. Michael Meacher: The Secretary of State has announced that Department of Social Security mortgage interest payments will be paid direct to building societies. We support that—we have always done so—and we will not oppose the Bill.
Is the Secretary of State aware that the person who originally blocked payments, and who is thus responsible for thousands of repossessions which would otherwise have been averted, is the Prime Minister? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, when the Prime Minister was the Minister for Social Security and the Disabled, he said in the House on 16 December 1986:
"claimants could face the prospect of having their payments made direct … That would be a tighter regime than we want since we believe that claimants should generally be responsible themselves for their dealings with their lenders and for their mortgage interest repayments."—[Official Report, 16 December 1986; Vol. 107, c. 1131.]

463
That is what the Prime Minister said, so when will he have the grace to apologise to the 100,000 families who have been repossessed this year and to say that he was wrong to introduce the 16-week disqualification rule in the first place, that he was wrong to rule out direct payments since 1986 and that he was wrong to dismiss Opposition predictions at the time that it would lead to widespread evictions and homelessness?
Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the only reason why so many families have failed to pass on their mortgage interest payments to the mortgage lenders is that they cannot get by on income support, which, for a single person over 25, is only £39·65 a week? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that, if he were unemployed and had no other resources, he could live on that for months and years on end? If he doubts it, why is he today forcing hundreds of thousands of others to do so'?
If the right hon. Gentleman is now going to require direct payments, will he also increase the pitifully low levels of income support to realistic levels on which people can manage, especially as the Government will be saving tens of millions of pounds from this deal? Why, if the right hon. Gentleman is serious about stopping further repossessions, has he still not announced that he is abolishing the 16-week disqualification rule which still penalises more than a third of all those receiving mortgage interest payments?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, contrary to what the Prime Minister said at the Dispatch Box two days ago, and contrary to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said a few minutes ago, the building societies opposed the 16-week disqualification rule from the outset? Is he aware that the Building Societies Association issued a statement in 1986 which said:
"Building societies regret that the government has decided to limit assistance which unemployed owner-occupiers receive through supplementary benefit."
If the building societies opposed it then and oppose it now, why will he not repeal it?
Finally, what is the total saving to the Government from today's deal? Is it not shameless of the Government that their contribution to a repossession crisis that they and especially the Prime Minister have created is to offer no new money and, indeed, to make substantial savings out of other people's misery? Why is the right hon. Gentleman offering no new aid from those savings to the 100,000 families who have already been evicted this year?
Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that today's deal is far too little, far too late? It is far too late because the Government were fully warned five years ago, and it is far too little because, whether it assists 7,000 families or, as the Government more dubiously claim, 40,000 families, it is still far less than the likely 150,000 to 200,000 repossession victims of this Government next year.
Mr. Newton: I am grateful for what the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) said at the outset of his questions about his willingness to support the proposed legislation. Beyond that, there is not very much agreement between us.
There is no question of direct payments having been blocked. The arrangements for direct payments in arrears cases have existed for many years. They are being strengthened at the moment. What we have thought it right to do in the context of the willingness of the building societies and banks to negotiate the very favourable package of measures announced today is to move towards
464
automatic direct payments as part of an overall deal which is in the interests of borrowers, lenders and taxpayers as a whole.
As for income support rates, it is barely two months since I announced a huge uprating of benefits which will increase them all by 7 per cent. next April, and after a number of years in which they have been persistently increased for many groups of claimants, including not least the families with children to whom the hon. Gentleman referred.
On the 16-week rule, the hon. Gentleman quoted very selectively from the Building Societies Association's 1986 statement. Of course it did not welcome the proposal—
Mr. Meacher: Ah.
Mr. Newton: There has never been any dispute about that.
Its statement went on to say:
"Societies will do all they can to help people where benefit is restricted and there is no reason to expect that people will lose their homes as a result."
That was the case then and has been so ever since. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer assured the House a few moments ago, we have been told by the Council of Mortgage Lenders that it remains the case now.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Again, I will allow 15 minutes of questions from Back-Bench Members on the statement. At 4.25 pm, we shall move on to the business statement.
Mrs. Edwina Currie: Does my right hon. Friend agree that not only first mortgages but second, third and fourth mortgages, hire purchase catalogue debts and other loans and debts, too, cause the problem? Many of those do not qualify for assistance through social security, and some are granted after the claimant goes on to social security. Is it not time that we insisted that all secondary lenders take into account the overall commitments of the borrower, and that they should say no rather more frequently?
Mr. Newton: Many lenders may well have drawn that conclusion from the experience that we have all shared in recent months. I have no doubt that they will take note of my hon. Friend's words.
Mr. James Lamond: Is not this proposal rather inadequate and late? Should not the Government shoulder the financial responsibility for rescuing people who are being dispossessed, and spread that burden of costs throughout society, by means of the tax system? Surely it cannot be right to ask investors in building societies—who received a passing mention from the Chancellor—to carry the burden of the cost of this rescue attempt. Many of them are pensioners with small savings. Are not those the very people whom we are constantly being asked to remember in the battle against inflation? We are told that their savings have been eroded. Why should we erode their savings further by making such people shoulder a burden which is really the responsibility of the whole community and of the Government?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman makes two points. The whole package—the understanding outlined by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and myself—exemplifies a good co-operative arrangement between the Government and the private sector institutions involved to

465
tackle the problem. One of the reasons for it is that investors in buidling societies stand to gain considerably from the arrangements. The building societies and other lenders recognise that the measures will have beneficial effects on the housing market—for example, on the volume of property that might otherwise have been repossessed.
Mr. Steve Norris: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that it is a dreadful slap in the face for most people on income support to suggest that the gap between the amount of mortgage relief allowed and the amount received by lenders is a reflection of a dreadful inability to pay—especially as the vast majority of people on income support do manage on their benefit? Does my hon. Friend agree that the measures announced in his statement will prevent up to 40,000 repossessions next year by making sure that funds go directly to the lenders, and will ensure that income support funds are properly spent on those who are truly in need?
Mr. Newton: Yes, there is much force in everything that my hon. Friend has said.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Does the Secretary of State accept that, as has been said, we give the package an unreserved welcome? None the less, will he give us an undertaking to consider the impact of the change on the level of income support, as there are now several direct debit benefits—six or seven, I believe? The long-term effects should be considered. It is not clear exactly who is eligible for the package. Does anyone having trouble with mortgage costs have the right to opt into the package?
Mr. Newton: Not quite in the way that the hon. Gentleman puts it. Under the proposed Bill, qualifying lenders will be able to opt for direct payment where income support is in place. The arrangements that we shall implement over the next few months involve a requirement for people on income support paying mortgage interest to give the Department—the Benefits Agency—verification of the interest being paid. Their consent will be sought to inform the building society so that direct payment arrangements can be put into effect. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman's point.
On the first point, about direct debit, most building society arrangements operate by standing order rather than by direct debit, which is not quite the hon. Gentleman's point.
Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Although it is clear that unemployment has its part to play in the number of repossessions, is it not true that a substantial proportion of repossessions stem from the break-up of marriages and from other domestic problems? Will my right hon. Friend assure me that his package today will be of considerable assistance to families in which the principal wage earner has walked out?
Mr. Newton: Yes, I think I can. The range of circumstances that lead to people being in difficulty is wide. One of the encouraging features of our talks with the building societies over the past few weeks is that, apart from their specific undertakings in relation to cases in which income support is being paid, it is clear that they
466
really mean their words about improving counselling services and generally trying to find new ways in which to help those in difficulty, whether they are on income support or not.
Mr. Dave Nellist: How many items can now be taken out of somebody's benefit before he gets some money to live on? Given that 255,000 families—the equivalent of a city the size of Coventry—are more than six months in arrears with their mortgage interest payments, should we not have heard from the Secretary of State today an announcement of the restoration of full mortgage payments immediately, and not after four months, to somebody who is on benefit, and an amnesty, or halt, on repossessions, instead of Elastoplast politics which are timed so nakedly for the election schedule?
Mr. Newton: The last part of the hon. Gentleman's question, as I have said several times, bears no relation to reality. Building societies simply do not take action to repossess people who have been paying half the mortgage interest for four months unless there are other relevant circumstances, such as the fact that they were already in large arrears before they went on to income support.
On the other point, I had the uneasy feeling that I had missed something that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) had asked me about direct debits—direct deductions. It was his use of the phrase "direct debits" that put me off course. Those are in a different category from the deductions to which the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) referred, which are for fuel debts, rent debts and the like, and which arise as deductions from regular weekly payments of benefit. My statement concerns a specific additional payment directed to a specific purpose—the payment of mortgage interest. Different considerations therefore apply.
Mr. David Madel: My right hon. Friend will know that the problem is far more serious in certain parts of the country. Will he ask the Benefits Agency to show greater flexibility on the opening hours of offices, and to consider the temporary redeployment of staff'? Many people will need face-to-face interviews rather than telephone calls on the new arrangements.
Mr. Newton: Yes. I will certainly draw the attention of the chief executive of the Benefits Agency to my hon. Friend's remarks. The chief executive's remit very much includes developing Benefits Agency services to be more flexible in responding to the needs of local communities.
Mr. Joseph Ashton: Is it not a fact that, in the housing boom of the mid-1980s, many young couples were encouraged to take out endowment mortgages from insurance companies, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not mention this afternoon? What happens if the lender does not volunteer to come into the scheme? How many couples are likely to be affected by that?
Mr. Newton: The Council of Mortgage Lenders speaks for the vast majority of the lenders whom the hon. Gentleman has in mind. I have the list, but I will not attempt to read it out. Nobody can speak for everyone who may under any circumstances lend money that may he associated with house purchase. The spirit of our discussions and the approach that has been adopted by the very large lenders, who account for a huge majority of

467
those in the housing market, suggests that our proposals will have a considerable effect on people with mortgages of any kind.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignhridge): Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although the proposals are welcome, they can never remove the borrower's responsibility to realise, when taking out a mortgage, that his circumstances may change and that interest rates may go up as well as down? Bearing in mind the fact that, to my certain knowledge, there have been many cases of building societies positively encouraging people to take on commitments when any expert would know that they could not possibly maintain them, is it not highly appropriate that building societies should play their part in helping to clear up some of the mess that such irresponsibility causes?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend has made a not dissimilar point from that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire. South (Mrs. Currie). I have no doubt that the results of what has been happening in recent months will be borne in mind by all lenders when considering applications for both first and second mortgages.
Mr. Clifford Forsythe: I welcome the Secretary of State's proposals that will enable those people who wish to remain in their own homes to do so. I support the view that income support that is intended for mortgage payments should be made directly to the mortgage lender, but will the right hon. Gentleman remember that other people, who are not on income support, may also be in difficulties and may be unable to keep up their payments because, for example, of the cost of repairs? Such people may put their home on the market but then face difficulties in getting housed because, for example, of the cuts in the housing budget in Northern Ireland.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the scheme extends to Northern Ireland, given the statement by a building society spokesman to the effect that most of the money would go to the south-east of England and is not required for Northern Ireland?
Mr. Newton: On the latter point, it is obviously for the building societies and banks to determine the precise coverage of their arrangements, because those arrangements will differ from one institution to another depending on their circumstances and on the situation in different parts of the country. However, I shall ensure that the building societies' attention is drawn to the hon. Gentleman's point.
In answer to the hon. Gentleman's first point, of course it is true that, despite the best efforts of some Opposition Members to suggest otherwise, the effects of the difficulties that have occurred are not by any means confined to those in receipt of income support. That is precisely why, from
468
the building societies' point of view, much the biggest element of the package is the measures that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer outlined, which will be worth perhaps up to £1 billion, most of which will be directed to those who are not on income support.
Mr. Hugo Summerson: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that measures have been taken to counter possible abuse by unscrupulous lenders who may take the opportunity to try to raise repayments by those who they know are having their mortgages paid directly?
Mr. Newton: We are always looking for ways of preventing abuse in the social security system, but my primary purpose this afternoon is to put in place arrangements that will effectively help with the problem of repossessions.
Mr. Harry Ewing: Given that the Secretary of State obviously accepts that the vast bulk of the problem is caused by unemployment and by people losing their jobs, may I, against that background and in all seriousness, make a helpful suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman? He must be aware that, at the time of the next election, when every current occupant of the Treasury Bench will lose his or her ministerial job, their ministerial salaries will nevertheless continue to be paid for a further three months to allow them to adjust to a lower level of income. Might it not be a good idea to extend that principle to every other person in the country who loses his or her job?
Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who is concerned with those arrangements, will no doubt have noted the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. For the moment, I must sensibly concentrate on ensuring that our arrangements for income support are directed towards those whom we are trying to help.
Mr. John Watts: I welcome unreservedly my right hon. Friend's proposals for direct payments in respect of mortgage interest. Will he consider extending that principle to rent in respect of income support claimants? Landlords in my constituency are increasingly unwilling to let their properties to potential tenants who draw income support because of had experiences of income support not being paid to them and large debts being accrued.
Mr. Newton: I have not adverted to housing benefit in that sense because local authorities already have wider powers to make direct payments of rent if they wish. The sensible course may be for my hon. Friend to take up the matter with his local authority. If he thinks that I could help, for example by contacting the local authority, he should give me details and I shall see what I can do.

Business of the House
4.25 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the business for the week following the Christmas adjournment.

MONDAY 13 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Bill [Lords]

Motion on Tourism (Northern Ireland) Order.

The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at Seven o'clock.

TUESDAY 14 JANUARY—Debate on nuclear defence on a Government motion.

Motion on Ports Act 1991 (Levy on Disposal of land etc.) Order.

WEDNESDAY 15 JANUARY—Remaining stages of the Coal Industry Bill.

THURSDAY 16 JANUARY—Remaining stages of the Competition and Service (Utilities) Bill.

FRIDAY 17 JANUARY—Private Members' Bills.

Dr. John Cunningham: What has happened to Opposition Supply days? Almost a month has elapsed since the Government last gave the Opposition an opportunity to pick a subject for debate. I understand the Government's embarrassment about facing up to challenges on their mismanagement of the economy, but is it not long overdue for the Leader of the House to provide some Opposition Supply time? Under Standing Orders of the House, the official Opposition and Opposition parties generally are entitled to choose subjects for debate. Will the Leader of the House assure us that some time will be allocated when the House resumes?
Has the Leader of the House seen the report of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee? When shall we have an opportunity to debate the autumn statement on public expenditure, another important aspect of Government policy which the Government seem reluctant to face up to in the House? Earlier this year there was a long delay between the autumn statement and the opportunity to debate it. I would welcome an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that we shall have a debate before too long.
As we have just heard some attempts to smear me and my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench in relation to housing repossessions, may we have a debate on Government housing policy? We can then refute the claims that all those who are in difficulty are in that position because of their own errors or those of the building societies. The Government left hundreds of thousands of families no option but to take on mortgages because they stopped local authorities building houses at rents that people could afford.
To set the record straight on repossessions—the Chancellor of the Exchequer accused us of exaggeration—The Observer of 8 December referred to 300,000 repossessions next year, and analysts at Lehman Brothers referred to 250,000 repossessions next year, so our figure of 200,000 can hardly be called exaggeration.
Mr. MacGregor: On the first point, I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are in a roughly similar position to that of this time last year. and there is no question of our trying to delay Opposition Supply days. I am sure that the hon.
470
Gentleman will understand that we have rightly had to accommodate four days debate on Europe and the outcome of the Maastricht summit. Clearly, four days before Christmas were used to debate an important matter that was in the interests of the House. We also have an important legislative programme to get through, and business the first week hack clearly shows that I have had to give priority to that.
Another important point that I am sure the House will recognise is that we shall also have to fit in at the earliest appropriate time the necessary action to fulfil the undertaking on stamp duty given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his statement this afternoon. I shall seek to give hon. Members notice of how we shall do that as soon as I can. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall use my best endeavours to see whether we can fit in a Supply day in the week following the first week back.
As for the hon. Gentleman's request for a debate on the economy generally and on the autumn statement in particular, he will recognise that there was a considerable delay last year due to specific factors of which he is well aware—not least the amount of time that we had to spend discussing the Gulf. I assure him that I note what he said and, as I have said before, I am keen to have a debate on the economy generally, public expenditure and taxation matters. I hope that I shall be able to accommodate him on that matter fairly soon after we return.
On the hon. Gentleman's final point, the fact that he picks up figures from newspaper statements does not exonerate the Opposition from attempting to be accurate and not trying to scare people.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am always reluctant to curtail business questions, but we have a busy day today. I shall allow business questions until 4.50 pm, then we must move on. I urge hon. Members to ask about business for the week we return, not general matters.
Mr. Bob Dunn: Now that the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) has been sent to Coventry so to speak, may we have a debate on the left wing and the Labour party as, despite the best endeavours of Opposition Members, the left-wing element is still there? Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in a by-election in St. Martin's ward in the London borough of Lambeth last Thursday, the Conservatives gained the seat from the Labour party on a swing of 20 per cent.? May we therefore have a debate when we return after the Christmas recess to prove that when people see socialism in practice they reject it?
Mr. MacGregor: Comments on one aspect of the left-wing influence on the Labour party could be made during the debate on nuclear defence scheduled for the Tuesday we return.
Mr. James Wallace: Will there be a statement tomorrow on the Fisheries Council which took place earlier this week? Will the Leader of the House arrange for a more general debate on fisheries early in the new year, given the 1992 review of fishing? I am not asking for a debate like that last week which related to specific proposals for the Council.
Mr. MacGregor: I well understand the hon. Gentleman's point. The outcome of the Fisheries Council was good for Britain. I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman raised the subject because it enables me to say that we hope to have a statement on it tomorrow. As for a debate early next year, as the hon. Gentleman recognises, we have already had one debate on fisheries. Although it was not quite on the matter that he raised, as a result of that and of other pressures on business, I cannot promise an early further debate on fisheries in Government time.
Mr. Bill Walker: When my right hon. Friend considers the business of the week we return, will he hear in mind that some of us will probably not be called in the European debate today and were also not called yesterday? I cannot honourably continue as vice-chairman of the Conservative party in Scotland while unable to support the Government today, and it seems that I shall not have an opportunity to let the House know the reasons for and the logic behind my position.
Mr. MacGregor: I am very sorry to hear what my hon. Friend has to say, hut I am certain that if he cannot speak he will be in a small minority this evening. I do not know why the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) is laughing as it is noticeable that the Labour party has failed to table an amendment to today's Government motion, for the simple reason that it did not want a vote on its own amendment and thus reveal the big differences within the Labour party.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: As the Government intend to find time for the Bills relating to the statements today, will the money resolutions he broad enough in both cases to allow for an increase in interest rates?
Mr. MacGregor: As I have said, I shall endeavour to ensure that we make the terms of the money resolution known to hon. Members as soon as we can.
Mr. John Browne: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the tremendous problem for public houses being caused by the Government's enactment of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the brewery trade—especially in the country, where there is a danger that pubs will be replaced by continental-style bars? Does he not think that if we wait until 1993 for that to be reviewed in the House it will he far too late? Please may we have a debate now or in the near future?
Mr. MacGregor: I cannot promise my hon. Friend a debate on that now or in the near future. As he rightly said, in 1993 there will be a review of the action taken earlier on the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report, but it will be for each pub to decide what provisions it wants to make in the countryside.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: On the possible statement tomorrow about the Fisheries Council, will the Leader of the House consider asking the relevant Department to provide full written details of what was agreed at the Fisheries Council in advance of the oral statement so that interested Members can examine the fine detail of the agreement?
Mr. MacGregor: The details will certainly be contained in the statement tomorrow. I will see what can be done
472
before that, but the normal practice is for Ministers to give details in the statements that they make on their return from a Council meeting.
Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the GATT Uruguay round should conclude this weekend. He will also be well aware of my interest in that matter, and especially in how the decisions will affect the textile industry. When we conic back to the House, will he find time for a statement and possibly a debate on that important subject?
Mr. MacGregor: I am very much aware of my hon. Friend's interest in the GATT Uruguay round, especially in relation to the textile industry. Tomorrow Mr. Dunkel is due to put his resolution to the GATT Uruguay round and there will have to be a final decision on that. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is an extremely important matter. When the Uruguay round reaches a conclusion, as we must all sincerely hope will be the case, I shall see what I can do to enable the House to debate it.
Mr. Peter Hardy: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the latest crime figures are extremely serious? As the Government gave that matter great prominence and priority in 1979, and as the largest increase in crime in British history has followed, does not that severe problem justify a change in the business of the House so that we can have an urgent debate on it?
Mr. MacGregor: We have debated those matters on many occasions and no doubt will continue to do so. The fact of the matter is that crime in certain areas is rising, as is reported crime in other areas, especially in relation to rape cases. There has been a large rise in crimes involving motor cars. That is why a number of the steps that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department has been taking are appropriately directed to motor cars. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government have taken many measures on the whole law and order front during our period in office.
Mr. Richard Page: My right hon. Friend will be aware that many pensioners feel a sense of injustice over the concessionary television licence scheme. Would it be possible to have a debate in the new year to discuss the anomalies, especially the fact that old age pensioners living in identically constructed old age pensioners' dwellings pay two different levels of licence, depending merely on whether there is a warden in attendance?
Mr. MacGregor: I cannot promise any Government time for that in the first week back. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be able to find other ways of raising the matter, not necessarily in the House.
Mr. Terry Lewis: Will the Lord President arrange for an early ministerial statement, possibly in the first week back, on a matter to which I have already drawn his attention—the dumping of toxic waste and the secrecy surrounding it, both in my constituency and generally?
Mr. MacGregor: As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is a matter for the new waste disposal authorities, which will have the powers to act on these matters. I cannot promise a debate, but I am sure that he will wish to direct his concerns in the first instance to the waste disposal authority.
Sir Patrick Duffy: Did the Leader of the House notice earlier in the week the announcement by the senior steward of the Jockey Club of a bold, imaginative and widely welcomed proposal for a British horse racing board which will eventually assume responsibility for the industry's future direction? In view of the report of the Home Affairs Select Committee in the spring and the subsequent response of the Home Office, many hon. Members from all parts of the House who were members of the all-party racing and bloodstock industries group, of which I am an officer, are anxious that the Leader of the House should bear those matters in mind and try to fit in a debate early in the new year.
Mr. MacGregor: I have only just seen the report of the speech to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would wish to have time to give it due consideration. I cannot promise an early debate, but I have noted what the hon. Gentleman said.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am afraid that I was deflected and called two Members from one side. [HON. MEMBERS: "Carry on."] I shall call two Members from the other side.
Sir Dudley Smith: I wish to raise a matter that I raised a few weeks ago. Will my right hon. Friend consider a debate on the world recession and on our commitment to Europe and the Commonwealth? Is he aware that the United States, Australia and France, to name but three countries, have recessions rather worse than our own and that it would be useful to make some comparisons?
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend makes the realistic point that there is a world recession. I have already told my hon. Friend that I hope to be able to arrange a debate on economic matters early in the new year. I hope that he will be able to elaborate his point at that time.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: When the House returns, will my right hon. Friend try to arrange a debate on the lamentable practice of other hon. Members intervening in one's constituency? Is he aware that the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) wrote to the chairman of my health authority demanding information about how it was implementing health and safety regulations—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady should ask for a statement when we get back or something like that.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend please try to arrange matters so that the hon. Member for Stretford does not intrude in my constituency again?
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend makes her point forcefully and I am sure that it will be noted. That makes it unnecessary for me to arrange a debate in the first week back.
Mr. Ken Maginnis: It is more than unfortunate that the Leader of the House has failed to ensure that a moratorium on public sector capital spending in Northern Ireland, which deals with almost one third of the financial year's business, has not been dealt with according to the procedures of the House but has been announced in a press statement. In view of the serious
474
repercussions on every aspect of life in Northern Ireland, and bearing in mind that money which is badly needed there is being paid to people who have been questioned at the Castlereagh holding centre—including 58 clients of one firm of solicitors, Madden and Finucane—will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that that aspect of public spending in Northern Ireland is debated in the House at the earliest possible moment?
Mr. MacGregor: The general point about public expenditure in Northern Ireland was raised last week, but I have had to take into account the fact that, as the House knows, there have been heavy pressures on this week's business. The hon. Gentleman raises a specific point which I shall draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
Mr. John Carlisle: Does my right hon. Friend recall that last month we had a debate in Opposition time on sport which, regrettably, was dominated by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) who spoke for more than a third of the time allocated? Today the Government announced their new sports review, with excellent initiatives for sport in schools, fund raising and sponsorship and other new policies. May we have a full day's debate in Government time so that these matters can be raised and the empty rhetoric of the Opposition exposed?
Mr. MacGregor: I am glad that my hon. Friend has been able to draw attention to the excellent statement by my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport. I cannot promise a debate early in the new year, but I shall bear in mind the pertinent points that he has made.
Mr. Ron Brown: If "there ain't no sanity clause" at least one thing is clear—Robert Maxwell was a crook living off the stock exchange as well as pension funds, which was utterly disgraceful. He also told lies about Scargill and Heathfield and about many other people. With that in mind, will the Leader of the House ensure an early debate to discuss the power of press barons past and present?
Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that other opportunities to elaborate his points are available in the House.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: If my right hon. Friend gives way to the Opposition request for a debate on housing in the first week of our return, will he ensure that it includes the concept of Wendy houses which are being declared sexist by socialist Kirklees council on the ground that boys are frightened to play for fear of being labelled pansies? That would be fairly precocious at that age. The council has suggested that they should be called pretend corners. Will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate to remind the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) that since he became Leader of the Opposition his dwelling has been and always will be a pretend corner?
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. and learned Friend tempts me as I am sure that the whole House would wish to hear more along the lines of what he has said.
Mr. Harry Barnes: My first Consolidated Fund debate was on north-east Derbyshire's environment. There are now serious problems in the area,

475
such as dioxin in the Bolsover region and effluent in the Grassmoor lagoons associated with Avenue coke works. As there are many other problems in the area, it would be a good idea to have a debate involving at least my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover and I, so that we could discuss serious environmental issues in that area and argue for an environmental audit.
Mr. MacGregor: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the dioxin case has been raised several times recently in the House. I think that there was a question about it earlier and a written answer yesterday. The issue has thus already had a considerable airing in the House. We must now await the review of the matter. There are opportunities for the hon. Gentleman to raise the wider issues in the same way as the dioxin issue has been raised.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: May we have a statement as early as possible on the Government's response to the intention of some large commercial firms to break the Sunday trading laws in 1992? Is my right hon. Friend aware that, contrary to the impression given by the Prime Minister this afternoon, an appeal against the law does not change the law? Until the law is changed, it must be enforced—and that applies especially to the Government. If the Government condone breaches of the law, which is happening despite the silly excuses given by Front-Bench spokesmen on the subject, law and order in areas more important than Sunday trading will also be affected.
Mr. MacGregor: My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has already clarified his position about any prosecutions that he might undertake. As my hon. Friend knows, it is for local authorities to consider the position in their areas.
Mr. David Alton: I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 79 which has been signed by more than 60 hon. Members and concerns the disposal of the bodies of aborted babies by macerators into public sewers and drains.
[The this House unreservedly condemns the practice of some private clinics of disposing of the bodies of aborted unborn babies by pulping them through a macerator and discharging them into the public sewers and drains; welcomes the undertaking given by the Minister of State for Health that an inquiry will be held; reasserts the view of the Polk inghorne Committee that the human remains of the unborn child should be treated with respect; and calls on the Department of the Environment and the Department of Health to prosecute those responsible for these degrading practices.]
That motion calls for the prosecution of those responsible and it surely requires a reply. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement in the first week of our return?
Mr. MacGregor: That early-day motion has been drawn to my attention and the Department is aware of the
476
limited use of maceration as a form of disposal of foetal tissue. Although this does not present any public health hazard, we believe that it is not appropriate and steps are being taken to phase it out.
Mr. Anthony Coombs: There are a number of foreign relations issues which, although not encompassed by east-west relations, nuclear disarmament, or Europe, are nevertheless important and in some cases urgent. The parliamentary human rights group has recently looked at a number of them, including East Timor, Iran and Burma. Could time be given for a debate on such important human rights issues?
Mr. MacGregor: I well understand my hon. Friend's concern. He will understand that I am under pressure for a large number of general debates. I am endeavouring to find time for as many as possible, but I cannot give him a promise on that one for the near future.
Mr. David Winnick: Obviously, one hopes that this will not occur, but will the Leader of the House give an assurance that if interest rates go up in the next few days there will be a statement or debate on the matter in the week we come back? Is that not extremely important, bearing in mind the further immense hardship that will undoubtedly be caused if interest rates rise again?
Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman raises an entirely hypothetical question, but perhaps I may go much wider. I have already said that I hope that we shall be able to have a debate on economic matters before long in the new year because I am aware that many in the House would like to have one, just as many would like to compare the respective economic policies of the Government and the official Opposition.

BILL PRESENTED
  LICENSING (AMENDMENT) (SCOTLAND)
  Mr. Bill Walker, supported by Dr. Norman A. Godman, Mr. Menzies Campbell, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, and Sir Hector Monro, presented a Bill to amend the provisions of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 relating to the transfer of licences; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 17 January 1992 and to be printed. [Bill 47].

  Royal Assent
  >Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

  1. Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Act 1991

  2. Welsh Development Agency Act 1991

  3. City of Edinburgh District Council Order Confirmation Act 1991

  4. Strathclyde Regional Council Order Confirmation Act 1991

  5. Torquay Market Act 1991

  6. Commercial and Private Bank Act 1991

  7. London Docklands Railway Act 1991

Orders of the Day

  Maastricht
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on amendment to Question 18 December]:
  That this House congratulates the Prime Minister on achieving all the negotiating objectives set out in the motion that was supported by the House on 21st November; and warmly endorses the agreement secured by the Government at Maastricht.—[The Prime Minister.]
  Which amendment was: to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "whilst welcoming the fact that the United Kingdom became a signatory at Maastricht to an agreement which represents an historic step towards a federal Europe, regrets that the Prime Minister, by insisting on opt-out arrangements for the United Kingdom on Economic and Monetary Union and the Social Chapter, rather than negotiating improvements, has left Britain semi-detached from Europe, obliged every citizen to pay a price for the divisions within the Conservative Party and damaged the prospects for Britain's long-term economic and political success."—[Mr. Ashdown.]
  Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
  Mr. Speaker: Before we proceed to the debate, I should say to the House that there are over 60 right hon. and hon. Members seeking to participate, 11 of whom sat throughout yesterday's debate until 2 am. I hope that the House will feel it fair if I give precedence to those hon. Members in the debate today.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe(Mid-Kent): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is about questions.
  Mr. Speaker: Well, we have moved on.
  Mr. Rowe: But you asked us to sit here until after the statements.
  Mr. Speaker: Well, I will take it, but it takes time from the speeches of other hon. Members.
  Mr. Rowe: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It appeared to me today in Question Time that there was a change in your practice and I wonder whether you would explain it.
  Mr. Speaker: I would not be prepared to do that anyway, so we may deal with that in another location.
  I should announce to the House that, sadly, I shall have to put a limit of 10 minutes on speeches between 7 and 9 o'clock. I urge hon. Members who are called before that time to bear that limit in mind, as happened last night. I am not in favour of an imposed 10-minute limit, as I think the whole House knows. I much prefer a voluntary discretion, and I hope that the limit will be observed throughout today.
  4.53 pm
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): Perhaps I am not entirely alone in feeling that the House has been debating Europe more or less continuously for 15 months. The discussion will go on, but I hope that tonight the House will come to a conclusion on the motion before it, as that will match in importance the conclusions, which some of us remember, that were reached in 1971 and 1972. I shall deal briefly with the three parts of the new treaty on which yesterday's debate concentrated—the single currency and the bank,
  478
  the social chapter, and the common foreign and security policy. The House may like to know the Government's view on these before tonight's vote.
  I shall first say a word about the vote tonight, and about a point on which my right hon. Friend the Lord President has already touched—the mystery of the missing amendment. I always thought that one of the main aims of the Labour party was to prevent the Liberal Democrats from being portrayed as the Opposition. However, tonight we shall be voting first on an amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). Where, on the Order Paper, there was a place for the views of the official Opposition, there is a blank.
  I am sure that they tried. I can imagine the scene around the shadow Cabinet table. It is not as if there is any shortage of policies for them to choose from—indeed, there is an embarrassment of riches. There would have been papers scattered all over the table and they would have been asking themselves, "Is it Gaitskell 1961 anti? Which of Lord Wilson's three policies should we choose—the pro, the anti or the pro? Shall we choose the anti policy of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot)? Which of the policies of the present Leader of the Opposition shall we choose, the anti or the pro?"
  If their filing system were any good. they would have found powerful speeches in favour of all these policies, all written by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). They reached the conclusion they did because today none of those policies would have attracted more than a fraction of the parliamentary Labour party. Therefore, any attempt to define what the Labour party stood for on the European question was doomed to failure.
  In the past few weeks, we have seen our party come together. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Did nobody listen to the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) and for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor)? They show what I mean. However, as we came together, the official Opposition split apart. Only one thing could unite them tonight, and that is what they have—a summons to a completely empty, expressionless, negative vote advocated yesterday, as it no doubt will be today, with the maximum amount of noise.
  The Leader of the Opposition learned yesterday from what we shall kindly call his disaster in the debate immediately before Maastricht. In that debate, as we clearly remember all too well, he was repeatedly torpedoed as he tried to analyse the negotiations. Yesterday, he reminded me of one of those warships in classical times that never ventured out of sight of land. He never ventured on to the substance of the negotiations, except once, when he was immediately mauled on the social chapter by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. He scuttled back into the shallows after that, loudly applauded, as he is today, by his supporters, who are divided on every aspect of the European question except the need to applaud their leader and his noisy generalities.
  I shall pick up the point that the Leader of the Opposition made yesterday about economic and monetary union. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor will deal with that issue tonight, but the Leader of the Opposition made an important point on it towards the end of his speech. In his peroration. talking about economic and monetary union and the social chapter, he said:

  479
  "British influence over both has now diminished; the gap has widened. After the passage of stage, Britain will he faced with a structure that others have fashioned. That cannot be in British interests."—[Official Report, 18 December 1991; Vol. 201, c. 297.]
  That shows that the right hon. Gentleman still does not understand one of the crucial points, perhaps the crucial point, of the negotiations and of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's achievement. We do, and we shall, take a full part in the preparation of stage 3 as well as stage 2. The ability to play a full part in the shaping of the future while preserving fully the freedom of the House to decide whether to join in stage 3 is one of the most significant achievements at Maastricht.
  The Leader of the Opposition challenged my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to come to the House after convergence had been achieved and in any circumstances argue that Britain should stay out of the single bank and the single currency. He showed a touching faith in my right hon. Friend's length of tenure in his present office, which I am sure will be justified.
  But the challenge makes no sense. It is not a bad rule of politics to take decisions at the right time if one can—when they have to be taken and when the facts are clear. It is better to take decisions then rather than six, seven or eight years earlier, when all that is known is that, in six, seven or eight years's time, the economic and political arguments will be different from those of today.
  That was the point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) in the "Walden" interview, about which the Leader of the Opposition was so extraordinarily defensive yesterday. That is the point that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made repeatedly, and that is the point which British business has made. So far from criticising the Maastricht agreement on the grounds that the Leader of the Opposition criticised it, British business and the City have welcomed it. It is a remarkable negotiating achievement on the part of my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor—I can say this because I had no part in the negotiations—to have secured a full part for Britain in the shaping of the future of economic and monetary union and at the same time full freedom for the Government and the House in 1996, or whenever the right moment comes, to decide whether to take part.
  Another theme that ran through yesterday's debate was that of the social chapter. I shall summarise, but I do not think that I shall in any way distort, the Leader of the Opposition's argument, in which he was followed considerably during the debate by those on the Benches behind him. He thought that the draft treaty, as it was before us at the beginning of last week, on the social chapter and the declaration which he read out, offered sufficient safeguards against the dangers which the Government and the leader of the Liberal Democrats feared, and which led us in the end to decide that we would not accept that chapter.
  However, the right hon. Gentleman did not notice that the declaration that he was quoting covered only one of the methods of legislation provided. When that ace of trumps turned out to be a two of clubs, he simply charged on. But it is a crucial point.
  The issue here is philosophical and practical. [ Interruption] I am trying to get to the heart of the disagreement between the two parties on the social chapter.
  Mr. Frank Cook: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hurd: I shall deal with the social chapter, then I shall give way.
  Mr. Cook: On that point.
  Mr. Hurd: In that case, the hon. Gentleman can wait until I have made my point; then I shall give way to him, and he can make his.
  We were. faced in those paragraphs with a concept which we find unacceptable—that there should be a special status of some kind for discussions and agreements reached in a corporatist way between organised labour and organised management but purporting to cover the whole area of employment. It is said that we are in some way behind the times because we do not find that acceptable. Our difficulty is that the British people have visited and lived with that philosophy in the recent past—25, 20. 15 years ago. It may suit others—we are not saying that it does not—but it does not work here, and we do not like it.
  The practical point flows from the philosophical point. The agreement of the 11. which the Leader of the Opposition praised, would cover a wide range of categories—working conditions and the consultation of workers. But when one sees what use or misuse the Commission makes of its present competence on health and safety matters, heaven knows what it would make of a wider competence on those matters if it got hold of them.
  Having carefully studied yesterday's Hansard, I want to underline the point that my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Employment made. There is no provision or procedure for the proposed discussions between organised labour and management in what we declined to accept. There is certainly no requirement that conclusions should be unanimous.
  Therefore, it is true, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, that either British management or British workers, or British management and British workers, could be outvoted in the Community discussions, and the resulting measure under the proposal which the Leader of the Opposition would accept could be waved through the Council by qualified majority voting against the wishes of the British Government. Qualified majority voting could therefore result in measures within the area described, which could have been opposed by British management and trade unions and the Government, being imposed on Britain.
  To summarise the argument, it follows that if, on Tuesday afternoon last week, we had swallowed paragraph 118 of the treaty before us, we would have threatened to undermine the responsibilities of British management and trade unions and the British Government, and therefore the House. The case made against that by the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues does not stand up against our experiences and the text with which we were confronted. In view of the history of the matter and the Government's sustained and successful policies, the decision that we took, although reluctantly, was inevitable.
  Mr. Frank Cook: Would the Foreign Secretary care to tell the House and the nation this afternoon in words that the nation will understand why the much-vaunted level playing field which is to be so advantageous and beneficial

  481
  to the captains of British industry should be denied to the other important members of the team, the British working man and woman?
  Mr. Hurd: That simply illustrates the difference between the two parties. We do not believe that the interests of our constituents, the interests of British working people, are best served by giving organised management and labour a privileged position and asking them to take provisions to make suggestions across the whole area of employment. We believe in a more flexible system. Britain has more part-time workers, and we are moving towards more localised bargaining. That, we have learnt during the past 12 years, is the right way for Britain.
  Successive Governments, Conservative and Labour, experimented in good faith with the kind of approach which was before us last Tuesday. Efforts in good faith were repeatedly made, but they repeatedly failed. The progress that we made over the past 12 years is undoubted, and we do not intend to put it at risk in the way that the right hon. Gentleman asks us to do.
  Mr. Norman Tebbit rose—
  Mr. Tony Marlow rose—
  Mr. Henry Bellingham rose—
  Mr. Hurd: I want to make a little progress, and then I will give way.—[Interruption.] I will give way to my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Tebbit: I agree with every word that my right hon. Friend has just said, but he is relying on arguments of experience and points of view. Would he not be wise to rely also on the argument so brilliantly made by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)—that it is not a matter of whether one would secure better maternity leave or creches from Madame Thatcher or from Madame Papandreou, but of whether one could sack Madame Thatcher or Madame Papandreou if one disagreed with their policies?
  Mr. Hurd: I intended to give way to my right hon. Friend later, on foreign policy—but now I shall not be able to do that. I entirely agree with his point. Such matters do not need to be settled on a European or Community basis, but can—compatible with the level playing field—be settled on a national basis, in line with national traditions and experiences.
  Mr. Bellingham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if employees in this country are to benefit, we should encourage inward investment? Will he remind the House of Jacques Delors's remark that the package resulted from the negotiations with the British Government?
  Mr. Hurd: I do not know how far our 11 partners will go, in reaching agreements under the protocol that they agreed, in putting at risk their competitiveness with Japan and the United States. They are aware of that danger. I have just read a speech by the Spanish Prime Minister to the Cortes in which, in rebuking or calling into question the policy of Spanish trade unions, he referred rather enviously to the evident success of British policies in that regard.
  482
  I naturally took a particularly close interest in those speeches made yesterday that related to foreign policy. The treaty that we agreed provides, as now, for co-operation in foreign policy between Governments. It provides also, but still on the basis of work between Governments, for binding joint action where all Governments agree.
  There is no restriction on the action of national Governments unless they agree to such a restriction by accepting joint action in a particular sphere. The decisions under that heading are unanimous, except in any cases where everybody agrees by unanimity that particular points could be settled by qualified majority voting.
  That is a satisfactory outcome for the United Kingdom. We resisted strong pressures to bring the whole subject under Community competence and to have more general acceptance of qualified majority voting. Some speakers in yesterday's debate, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), are sceptical and suspicious of that process. The case argued by my right hon. Friend, and also by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), is, in a way, the most difficult from my point of view, because Monday's discussion was very difficult. However, I will cite Yugloslavia in order to illustrate my general point.
  As to the recognition of Yugoslav republics, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford was not correct. There is no reason why he should follow my statements and utterances on Yugoslavia, but if he had done so, he would know that there is no clash of principle. The argument was about timing. I said that in The Times on 3 December. and added that recognition of Croatia and Slovenia might not be far off. I dealt with the arguments of substance during Question Time yesterday, and I will not repeat them all.
  From Monday's long and difficult discussion emerged a compromise based on conditional recognition of republics that apply for recognition and follow the conditions that we laid down, with an implementation date of 15 January 1992. There is no legal obligation involved, and certainly no majority voting. The alternative to that compromise among the Foreign Ministers of the Twelve was clear to all who sat around that table—the unconditional recognition of at least two republics by Germany, Belgium, Denmark, Italy, and a number of countries outside the Community.
  There was criticism of that compromise in yesterday's debate by right hon. and hon. Members who thought that recognition was being made too slowly, and by others who thought that it was coming too fast. Leaving aside the merits of timing, I ask the House to contemplate the alternative. The alternative would have been a step back to the old system, under which each European power of any size had in the east of our continent its rival clients in Governments, in the streets, and eventually on the battlefields of the Balkans. That system led to the most awful war in Europe's history.
  Under the new system, we thrash out our differences around a table and agree, where we can reach agreement, to act jointly—and to hold to that action. I readily concede that it is not at all easy to operate, but it becomes easier as we learn from experience and accept the discipline of working together. I am certain that it is right to adopt and to strengthen that new system, and to do our utmost to make it work. That I so intend.
  The next test is upon us immediately. It arises from the Soviet Union's daily disintegration.
  Mr. William Cash: Bearing in mind the Community's hopeless record in respect of the Gulf war and the comments made yesterday by my hon. Friend the Minister of State about the United Nations Security Council, how does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State reconcile the provisions of article 4e of the union treaty—which require Britain as a matter of duty to defend the position and interests of the union where a joint decision is adopted—with those of article 27 of the United Nations charter. which preserves to us absolute discretion, and in certain cases a duty. in exercising a veto?
  Does not my right hon. Friend anticipate that confusion could arise, with the prospect of endangering world peace and stability? In similar circumstances, such confusion could have led to Saddam Hussein continuing to occupy Kuwait.
  Mr. Hurd: I do not sec that happening at all. The French and ourselves worked carefully and thoroughly on that point. Article 4e makes a specific reference to the fact that the arrangements described therein must be compatible with our duties as permanent members of the Security Council. I do not see any difficulty about that.
  As at present with the case of Yugoslavia, there are three EC members of the Security Council—two permanent and one elected. The line that we take in New York of course reflects the discussions and conclusions reached by the Twelve around the table. However, the statutory position of the British and French regarding the United Nations charter has been fully safeguarded. I do not see that there will he any difficulty in practice in that regard.
  I refer again to the massive problems of the Soviet Union. The last days of that institution are clearly at hand. Since arriving at the House this afternoon, I have received reports that President Yeltsin has taken control of the Kremlin and has dissolved the Foreign Ministry of the Soviet Union. We are consulting our allies and partners. Because of the daily disintegration of the Soviet Union, NATO Ministers are meeting in Brussels today. I shall be going there tonight, and talking to the United States Secretary of State tomorrow.
  The way in which things are moving suggests that we should proceed to the early recognition—as indepenent countries—of those Soviet republics that sort out their relations with each other. There is an important meeting in Kazakhstan this weekend to extend that process.
  At their summit meeting in Rome last month, NATO's Heads of Government agreed that it was for the peoples of the Soviet Union to decide their future relationships, through peaceful and democratic means. The NATO leaders also underlined the importance of the international commitments of the Soviet Union and its republics over nuclear weapons and conventional forces, as well as human rights for the individual and for minority groups. We have received important assurances on those points, and we shall be looking for more.
  As for the case of Russia, and the important issue—related to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash)—of the permanent seat on the Security Council, one possibility is for the seat to remain occupied by the representative from Moscow, on the basis that Russia is the continuation of the Soviet Union. That may he the most orderly solution—I stress
  484
  the word "may". There is a precedent in the India of 1947: a country reduced in size, but, it was said, maintaining its international attributes.
  The House will recognise that a huge set of problems is involved. This is not the occasion on which to debate them in detail. Today and tomorrow, we shall be acting together with our allies and our partners in the European Community. Clearly it is important that, as far as possible, solid and concerted action is taken, so that we can do what we can, first, to safeguard our own national, western and European interests, and, secondly, to exercise any influence that we can to pull the republics back from the abyss into which they will fall unless the new discussions and arrangements that are in hand mature and succeed.
  Mr. Denis Healey: May I make a point about the issue of the seat on the United Nations Security Council? The Foreign Secretary will be aware of the widespread suspicion in the non-Russian republics—from Kazakhstan to Ukraine—that Mr. Yeltsin is simply trying to substitute a Russian imperialism for the old Soviet imperialism. That is one reason that the republics have given for wishing to retain control of their nuclear weapons, at least for the time being, rather than sending them back to Russia or submitting them to sole control by that country.
  Does not the Foreign Secretary agree that it would be absolutely disastrous for western Governments—without consulting the other members of the Commonwealth of Independent States—to recognise Russia as the inheritor of the Soviet seat, thereby nullifying the discussions that they have all said should take place on how the question should be resolved? Surely it is primarily a question for the member states in the CIS.
  Mr. Hurd: Of course there will need to be consultation and discussion, but the right hon. Gentleman has not taken into account the importance of finding a solution. There are other possibilities: there is, for example, the possibility that the commonwealth of only three republics that was envisaged at the Minsk meeting could achieve some legal entity and, by itself, take over the seat on the Security Council. But, if the report that I have just given the House is true, there will be no Ministry of Foreign Affairs to back that up. The Soviet Ministry at the centre, which could have sustained that Security Council representative, will have evaporated.
  Of course, the right hon. Member for Leeds, East is right. Consultation and discussion are needed inside the republics of the Soviet Union, and that is taking place. Ukraine is already a member of the United Nations, and our political director, Mr. Appleyard, has received reasonably promising assurances in the republics that he has visited in the past week; but, as I have said, much more discussion is needed before firm decisions can be reached.
  Mr. Rowe: My right hon. Friend will know that the parliamentary assembly of the Western European Union is considerably frustrated by its anxiety to resolve the growing tensions between minorities throughout eastern Europe and its capacity to act. The assembly greatly welcomes the fact that European Community Ministers and others have got together.
  Will my right hon. Friend explain his attitude to the real difficulty concerning boundaries? Many minorities would vote for independence within those minorities, but that

  485
  would set at naught the policy of recognising existing boundaries. It is a difficult conflict. Would my right hon. Friend be kind enough to comment on it?
  Mr. Hurd: It is indeed. That question runs through much of the argument about Yugoslavia—and not only Yugoslavia. I am sure that the right answer—the one to which we have all subscribed—is that we cannot accept the alteration of boundaries by force. Within the existing boundaries, clearer and stronger definitions of the rights of minority groups are needed. I believe that that combination of working within existing boundaries and guaranteeing the rights of minority groups offers a better hope than encouraging minorities to bring about boundary alterations by means of force. A great deal of bloodshed and anarchy lies down that second road.
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: Is my right hon. Friend saying that there is no British foreign policy on Yugoslavia independent of Europe, or that our policy is so close to that of other Community members that we have decided to sublimate it?
  Mr. Hurd: I am saying that, if we wish to influence for the better what happens in Yugoslavia, the Government have concluded that it is best to do so by seeking and then implementing agreements among the Twelve. There is no sensible prospect of British influence for good in Yugoslavia if that influence is in rivalry or contradiction with the influence of other European powers. That is a national conclusion. We were not bound to reach it by any treaty, let alone by any majority vote; it is simply a view, which I am sure is correct.
  If we wish to do what we can to help forward peace in Yugoslavia and a lasting solution between its peoples, our best hope of doing so is to work with our Community partners. That is the view of the United States and the United Nations, and of others who are concentrating on the issue.
  As the House recognises, the discussions and negotiations that took place at Maastricht represent the end of a long process—a long haul. I think that it is fair to say that we gained what we set out to gain. Hon. Members on both sides of the House see clearly, and accept without quibble, the need for Europeans to work together: that last exchange provides just one example. Europeans need to work together more intensively, across a growing range of subjects. We committed ourselves to that at Maastricht.
  Through the treaty of Maastricht, we have established that that working together does not have to be within the institutions of the Community, with the Commission having the monopoly of initiative and with the results under the jurisdiction of the European Court. Now, we must prove the architecture of pillars—as it has often been described—that we have secured: in other words, we must prove to ourselves, our partners and the world that co-operation between Governments can be just as effective and just as European as action within the Community's institutions.
  I have always believed, and have sometimes said in recent years, that there is a good majority for that policy in our party, in the House and in the country. What was uncertain was whether we could pull it off and bring that policy to a successful conclusion. Some hon. Members, including some of my hon. Friends, feared that we would
  486
  be sucked into making immediate concessions or into postponed commitments to a centralised system. Others feared that, if we stuck to what we had said, we would not get an agreement. Certainly there were doubtful moments. I was not at all sure until late last Tuesday evening, on the second day of the Maastricht conference, that we would get an agreement.
  I paid tribute in his absence to the negotiating skills of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but our success at Maastricht was due principally to the patient and courteous strength of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his dealings with the House and our partners in Europe. We have to make the agreement work; we have the will to make it work; we have the wherewithal to make it work. British interests lie in the success of Europe. We want it to be enlarged, as the Prime Minister set out yesterday. Our commitment is to the success of Europe. It is as strong as the commitment of anyone else in the Community. I hope that the House will sustain and reinforce the Government in that commitment. I commend the motion to the House.
  5.30 pm
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman: The Foreign Secretary referred to the situation in the Soviet Union. I put it to him that in the discussions as to who should take over the seat of the declining and departing Soviet Union in the Security Council, the Government. together with the other Governments who are permanent members of the Security Council, should be extremely cautious and not precipitate in coming to a conclusion. The right hon. Gentleman drew an analogy with the position in India in 1947, but it was not an exact analogy because India is not a permanent member of the Security Council. We are dealing with the question of accepting into the Security Council a permanent member with the right to veto. Again I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that hasty and precipitate action will not favour peace in the world and that we should take our time and consult our allies and partners.
  The Foreign Secretary seemed to be a great deal more comfortable when dealing with the broader theme of the situation in the Soviet Union than he was when dealing with the precise subject of Maastricht. We always enjoy it when the Foreign Secretary makes one of his rare ventures into party politics. as he did at the beginning of his speech. However, having taken into account the nature, quality and substance of what he said. I would recommend him to return to the soporific tone that has made the House so fond of him.
  The Foreign Secretary began by saying that the aim of the Labour party is to prevent the Liberal party from being portrayed as the real Opposition. However, the Labour party's intention is that within a matter of months the Opposition shall be the Conservative party.
  Mr. Robert Adley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Kaufman: In a little while. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my theme. Then I shall give way to him.
  The Foreign Secretary dealt with narrow points in those parts of his speech which he devoted to Maastricht, to which I shall return, but he did not deal with how we test the Government's success, or otherwise, at Maastricht.

  487
  There are two tests by which to judge whether the outcome at Maastricht was a success. First, was the Maastricht agreement good for the European Community and, secondly, was the Maastricht agreement good for the United Kingdom? One could go further and say that the Maastricht agreement is good for Britain only if it is also good for Europe.
  The United Kingdom is a country with many strengths, resources and talents. During the nearly 19 years that we have been a member of the European Community, our future has become indissolubly linked with that a the Community. We, the United Kingdom, cannot be strong if the Community is weak. We cannot claim to have achieved strength if our actions have weakened the Community or made the Community weaker than it might otherwise be.
  There may have been many worthwhile achievements at Maastricht, but the summit cannot be counted an unqualified success for the Community. Agreements were made, often by compromise, as is the custom of the Community, but on some issues the Community did not reach what I would regard as completely desirable agreements—for example, on the Commission. It is a pity that full accountability of the Commission was neither proposed nor agreed at Maastricht. On two issues, one of the most important countries—the United Kingdom—opted out of the Maastricht outcome.
  The Prime Minister came back claiming that he had won everything that he went to Maastricht to get. In his speech yesterday he said that he had achieved his goals in every respect. Game, set and match was his claim. In his speech today the Foreign Secretary said of what took place at Maastricht that
  "we gained what we set out to gain."
  If one examines the Government's negotiating objectives, it is clear that, on issue after issue, the Government did not achieve what they went to Maastricht to achieve. Ministers—including the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary—have been incautious enough to set out criteria, conditions and even ultimata about what they wanted from Maastricht, yet on issue after issue what they wanted they did not get and what they got they did not want.
  Mr. Marlow: The right hon. Gentleman criticises the Government for what he calls opting out of two areas of policy. The right hon. Gentleman is aware of the fact that under the health and safety competence we are going to be foisted with a 48-hour week, which has got nothing to do with health and safety. On that basis, the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the social charter could make a snack of our industrial relations legislation. Is he naive, or does he want to see Arthur Scargill's tanks in Parliament square again?
  Mr. Kaufman: I shall deal with those matters in the precise order that I believe it to be sensible to take them.
  In our debate on the Community on 26 June this year, the Foreign Secretary expressed his opposition to new Community competencies. He said that he was against them, yet last week both he and the Prime Minister agreed to a treaty that includes numerous new competencies for the Community. They include education, public health, culture and something that the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) referred to yesterday as trans-European networks. That was a violation of what the Foreign Secretary told the House that he wanted in June.
  488
  The Prime Minister expressed his distaste for another item. In the debate on 20 November he said that immigration matters should be decided on an intergovernmental basis and should be outside the treaty, yet at Maastricht the Prime Minister agreed to a treaty article which includes conditions about visa qualifications and requirements. What is more, he agreed that some of those items should be decided by qualified majority voting. Game, set and match?
  In that same speech the Prime Minister said that any blocking power for the European Parliamen
  "must cover a far narrower range than that set out in the present Presidency text."—[Official Report, 20 November 1991; Vol. 199, c. 279.]
  Yet at Maastricht the Prime Minister signed a treaty article which was word for word the text that the Prime Minister had rejected only three weeks before. Game, set and match?
  Ministers have a long record of rejecting extensions to qualified majority voting. In November last year the Foreign Secretary, speaking to the Confederation of British Industry, said that the Government were opposed to what he called
  "significantly extended qualified majority voting."
  The Minister of State, the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), who was bobbing up and down like a yo-yo yesterday but is absent today, repeated that objection when he told the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs on 19 November that the Government opposed qualified majority voting on the environment.
  On 3 December this year the Prime Minister told my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) that he had "great difficulty" with co-operation being replaced by majority voting. Yet the Government have not only accepted majority voting on visa matters, but in the Maastricht agreement they accepted a treaty which includes qualified majority voting on the environment, to which the Minister of State said that the Government were opposed. They also accepted qualified majority voting on all the new competencies included in the treaty—those which the Prime Minister said that he did not want in the treaty. Game, set and match?
  On no issue have the Government been firmer in rejecting qualified majority voting than on foreign policy. In the debate on 26 June the Foreign Secretary rejected what he called
  "mechanical or forced agreement through the use of majority voting in foreign policy."—[Official Report, 26 June 1991; Vol. 193, c. 1016.]
  In the debate on the Loyal Address the Foreign Secretary said:
  "My clear instinct is that a weakening of co-operation would result from qualified majority voting on substantive foreign policy decisions, however qualified the voting may be."—[Official Report, 1 November 1991; Vol. 198, c. 124]
  On 21 November the Chancellor of the Exchequer repeated that foreign policy
  "cannot be subject to mechanistic voting procedures".—[Official Report, 21 November 1991; Vol. 199 c. 512.]
  Yet at Maastricht the Government signed a treaty which includes specific provisions for qualified majority voting on foreign and security matters.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: The right hon. Gentleman has enumerated various so-called concessions by the Government. Has it ever occurred to him that, when one is conducting international negotiations and one wants some concessions from the

  489
  other side, it is a good idea to play hard ball on some matters on which one is happy to give ground in order to gain the real concessions that one wants? If it had not occurred to the right hon. Gentleman that that is how one conducts international negotiations, he would not be a suitable person to conduct them.
  Mr. Kaufman: Apart from the last comment, which I reject for personal reasons, I accept what the hon. Gentleman said. However, he did not explain why the Prime Minister said that he had achieved his goals in every respect and why the Foreign Secretary, a few minutes ago, said that the Government had gained what they set out to gain. It is one thing to be flexible in negotiations, but it is another, having given way on issue after issue, to claim that the Government have gained everything that they wanted to gain.
  In our debate last month the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher)—I am sorry that she is not in her place today—devoted special attention to majority voting on foreign policy. She expressed her fears that the Foreign Secretary might be "going a bit wobbly" on the subject. Now, the Foreign Secretary has done a definite wobble. He has agreed to what the right hon. Lady feared that he might agree to, but was beginning to hope that he might not. Is the right hon. Lady still concerned? For a time it seemed that she was not. When the Prime Minister returned from Maastricht last week the right hon. Lady said that she was "absolutely thrilled" with the agreement—majority voting on foreign policy and all. I did not know that the right hon. Lady thrilled so easily. I thought that she was made of sterner stuff. I am sure that by now the right hon. Lady has become unthrilled again. When the right hon. Member for Chingford was speaking about foreign policy in yesterday's debate she was nodding her head like one of those dogs that people put on the ledge in the back of their car.
  Mr. Hurd: My right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) might have studied the provisions of the treaty more carefully than the right hon. Gentleman, who has just given a misleading account of the matter to the House. He will know, and if he had listened to my speech he would have heard again, that qualified majority voting on foreign policy would be permitted only if all member states agreed by unanimity in advance. That is a double lock that is entirely consistent with what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have told the House.
  Mr. Kaufman: I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman studies a little more carefully the treaty to which he has put the country's name. I am referring to article c of
  "Provisions on a common foreign and security policy",
  particularly to the declaration on page 106, which says:
  "Member states will, with regard to Council decisions requiring unanimity, to the extent possible avoid to prevent a unanimous decision where a qualified majority exists in favour of that decision."
  That is what the right hon. Gentleman has put his name to.
  If the right hon. Member for Finchley was concerned about Community competence on foreign policy, she was perhaps even more concerned about defence. On that subject she had the right to hope that the Government would not disappoint her. After all, in June the Foreign Secretary said:
  490
  "Defence should not be embraced by the European Community…any European defence identity must he distinct from the Community".—[Official Report, 26 June 1991; Vol. 193. c. 1011.]
  One of his ministerial colleagues told the House:
  "We do not believe that the common foreign and security policy…should be expanded to include defence."—[Official Report, 19 March 1991; Vol. 188, c. 94.]
  Nothing could have been clearer. Yet, article d of the Maastricht treaty says:
  "The common foreign and security policy shall include all questions related to the security of the European union. including the eventual framing of a common defence policy which might in time lead to a common defence."
  That is what the right hon. Gentleman signed after having told the House that
  "Defence should not be embraced by the European Community."
  Game, set and match? That is what the Prime Minister signed and it is one of the objectives that he said he had achieved in every respect.
  On one of the subjects on which the Government opted out, or, in the Chancellor's new phraseology, did not opt in or have not opted in so far, the Prime Minister caved in. Last month the Government made it clear that on the single currency they wanted at Maastricht a general opt-out clause for all 12 Community countries. No. 10 Downing street announced on 2 November:
  "We think it is much more sensible to have a general opt out."
  That is what the Prime Minister wanted from Maastricht, and what he did not get.
  Yesterday, the Prime Minister described that defeat in a peculiar way. He said that Britain had won a "unique right" not to join the single currency. The problem was that the right hon. Gentleman had set out for Maastricht determined not to have a "unique right" to opt out of the single currency. It is as though, at the declaration of the poll, the Tory candidate in Langbaurgh had said that his objective had been a "unique right" to come second. I do not know how much success of this kind any man can stand!
  Mr. Roger Knapman: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Kaufman: No.
  On Wednesday last week, after the conclusion of the Maastricht summit, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry declared:
  "The Foreign Secretary's job this week has been to sell his grandmother—for the best possible price."
  It is true that the Foregin Secretary set out to sell, if not his grandmother, then another lady—much younger, of course. He sold her, but the price was not very good.
  Yesterday, the Prime Minister boasted that he did not change his position. He said that we did
  "not change our position at the very end of the negotiations."—[Official Report, 18 December 1991; Vol. 201, c. 276.]
  I cannot fault that—the Prime Minister changed his position time after time in the middle of the negotiations.
  On all these issues, the Community survived the negative attitudes of the Government. It has emerged stronger from Maastricht. On economic and monetary union, it is Britain that has emerged vulnerable. On the social chapter, the Government have damaged the Community because, although the other 11 will proceed without us, a single market of 12 is inevitably flawed if only 11 agree to the protections for employed people that are required in all 12 countries. Those protections are certainly

  491
  needed. A European Community report published this week shows that Britain has the highest proportion of low-paid workers in the whole Community. Although low pay itself may not be part of the social chapter, low standards are inevitable companions of low pay.
  Sheer dogma drove the Prime Minister to opt out of the social chapter. Already, the Government have had to begin paying the price for that opt-out. The Prime Minister got the opt-out because of the grace and favour of Chancellor Kohl. On Monday this week, the German Government began cashing the cheques that the British Government owed them for that favour. That is why the Foreign Secretary—against his will and against his wiser instincts—was dragged along behind the German Government in agreeing a date for recognition of the Yugoslav republics.
  Mr. Knapman: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Kaufman: No.
  In doing so, the right hon. Gentleman defied not only his own wiser instincts but the advice of the United Nations. As he reminded us today, we hold a permanent place on the Security Council.
  In the run-up to Maastricht, the Foreign Secretary said that he was against qualified majority voting on foreign policy, although he has now accepted qualified majority voting on foreign policy. On Yugoslavia, there was no vote—qualified majority or otherwise. On Yugoslavia, the Foreign Secretary gave in to a minority view—the German view—in the ministerial council. That was his unwise pay-out in foreign policy for an unjustified opt-out on social policy.
  The Foreign Secretary and his colleagues were aware that they could suffer serious political damage from their refusal to extend the protections of the social chapter to employed people. That is why the Government, including the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, have resorted to imaginative fiction in their efforts to avert political damage. First, they claimed that Britain's adherence to the social chapter would place jobs at risk. It is touching to find the Chancellor worried about losing jobs in Britain. He was the man who said that
  "unemployment was a price well worth paying."
  Yesterday, the Prime Minister said:
  "The Government will not support proposals that would destroy jobs".—[Offficial Report, 18 December 1991; Vol. 201, c. 280.]
  That is the man who, we learn today, has destroyed 806,900 jobs during his period of office at No. 10 Downing street. On unemployment, the tears shed by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer make a crocodile seem sincere.
  Then, last week, came the next excuse. Yesterday, under pressure, the Prime Minister admitted that the right to strike was excluded from the provisions of the social chapter. That of course is true. It was equally true last week. Why, then, did the Prime Minister last week quote the number of days lost in strikes in 1979 and compare that figure with the number lost last year—a recession year, a John Major recession year—and why did he go on to say after Maastricht:
  "I was not prepared to see that record"—
  the record on strikes—
  "put in jeopardy"?—[Official Report, 11 December 1991; Vol. 200; c. 861.]
  If, as the Prime Minister admits, the right to strike is excluded from the social chapter, how could acceptance of
  492
  the social chapter increase the number of strikes? Even by the Prime Minister's standards, the argument is totally illogical.
  That is why the Government have been retreating on this issue, abandoning their claim that the social chapter would affect trade union legislation here while trying to leave an impression that it would. The latest form of words was provided in an address to Tory candidates last week by the Foreign Secretary—a master of obfuscation if ever there was one. The right hon. Gentleman told the Tory candidates:
  "The trouble about the social chapter is not that it tells us to repeal our industrial relations legislation but that it once again edges industrial relations into that field."
  It's the way he tells 'em, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Adley: I do not know whether just Conservative Members have been wondering vainly whether the right hon. Gentleman will say something about his party's policy, or whether he will continue doing that at which he is best—waspish criticism of everything that the Government do.
  A few days ago, I contemplated asking the right hon. Gentleman to give me a photograph of him to include in my election address, on the basis that it might help me. Having listened to his speech, I am sure that it would. Will the right hon. Gentleman be so kind as to let me have a photograph so that I can put it in my election address and so that the people of my constituency can see that the choice that they have to make at the next election is between the right hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary?
  Mr. Kaufman: I have been in the House of Commons with the hon. Gentleman since we were elected on the same day and I must resist making the right response to what he said.
  It is on flimsy derisory arguments such as that made by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary that the Government try to justify what, last Thursday, Sir Fred Catherwood, a Tory MEP and Vice-President of the European Parliament, called "Britain's empty chair" on social policy. It is on the sheerest prejudice that the Prime Minister is jeopardising his party's chances of ending Tory MEPs' isolation in the European Parliament.
  The Tories want to join up with the Euro Christian Democrat group—the European People's party—but Karl Von Wogau, the economic spokesman for that party, said of social policy this week:
  "We believe very strongly in a model that leads to consensus. A social consensus is economically advantageous, as well."
  The Foreign Secretary said today that the social charter may suit others, but not this Government. The others whom the social charter suits include those Tories in Europe with whom the Government's MEPs are vainly trying to join.
  The Government have lost all hope of running a competitive economy on the base of good working conditions and good pay. They do not seem to understand that the most successful industrial economies—Germany and Japan—thrive precisely because they provide their workers with good conditions and good pay, but Britain's economic success and prosperity are the last considerations in the Government's mind. The Government are ready to sacrifice the country's best interests inside the Community to buy off a few right-wing Tory Back Benchers.

  493
  At Maastricht the Prime Minister's preoccupation was not European unity but Tory party disunity. In our last debate before Maastricht the Foreign Secretary perorated about our constituents—"Our constituents want this" and "Our constituents want that". It is time that the Government enabled our constituents to say for themselves what they want in Europe and enabled them to vote in a general election for a Labour Government so that Britain can go forward in Europe and can get a new start.
  6.2 pm
  Sir Peter Blaker: The kindest thing that I can say about the speech that the House has just heard from the spokesman for the official Opposition on an occasion of such importance is that it filled me with disgust. At the beginning of his speech the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) referred to a rare venture by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary into party politics. I had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman was going to venture out of party politics, but, once more, we found that that is the only subject on which he can speak.
  It was perfectly clear to the House that the right hon. Gentleman had never gone through serious international negotiations. The way in which the Government have conducted the negotiations is as successful as any international negotiations that I have seen in nearly 40 years of experience of international affairs. I shall refer in particular to three British initiatives, which have not been much discussed by the House, but which were all successful—and they are just three of a number of successful British initiatives.
  I have supported closer European unity for most of my life, but I wish to say something critical about the Commission. I believe that its actions over the years have been responsible, perhaps more than anything else, for the suspicions in the minds of many of our compatriots about the European Community. I believe that one of the Government's achievements has been to get an agreement which holds out the prospect of reducing the power of the Commission. The Commission has demonstrated an insatiable appetite for expanding its power. I will give the House some examples.
  Why should the Commission think it right to legislate as to when British farmers may shoot pigeons which might ravage their crops? The Commission would allow them to shoot pigeons for only two months in the year—and the wrong two months. Why should the Commission wish to legislate to limit the amount of water in our lavatory cisterns? Why should it wish to legislate on the flavour of the potato crisps that we produce? Why should it wish to legislate about which side of one of our country towns a bypass should go—north or south?
  Such matters have absolutely no relevance for other countries in the European Community. That is not federalism, but something much worse—it is centralism. In the United States, those matters would be subjects not for Washington, but for Wisconsin, Massachusetts or California. Here, however, in a Europe of 12 separate countries, the Commission is trying to legislate in a centralised fashion. If it were a question of migratory birds
  494
  which visit many countries in Europe, or acid rain spreading from one country to another, that would be a proper case for Commission action.
  The Government are to be congratulated on the successful insertion into the agreement of the reference to decisions being taken as close as possible to the citizen, and on the inclusion of article 3B which spells out the principle of subsidiarity.
  I also congratulate the Government on establishing the concept of the three pillars in relation to action on foreign policy: crime, immigration and home affairs. I hate to think what would be the prospect if we had Community action on those subjects. There was at one time a proposal that that should be the case, but the Government succeeded in having it removed. In general, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary explained to the House, unanimity will be required in relation to foreign policy. The right hon. Member for Gorton clearly misunderstood the arrangements that have been made.
  I believe that the agreement is better than the former proposal under which, in foreign affairs, decisions on policy would require unanimity but implementation would be subject to a qualified majority vote. I believe that that arrangement would have led to complete confusion. I draw the analogy with the understanding that has existed between my wife and me during 37 years of marriage as to who takes the decisions. I take the big decisions and she takes the little decisions, but we have still not decided after 37 years how we decide which are the big decisions and which are the little decisions. We are still working on that. On foreign policy we would have faced a similar situation under the original proposals in the earlier Dutch draft.
  I believe that we have a satisfactory arrangement as a result of the Government's initiative. It is likely to be more effective in practice because in matters of foreign policy the major European countries would not have accepted foreign policy decided by majority voting if they had been in a minority. In addition, the agreement is more suitable if we wish in future years to see the accession of European Free Trade Association countries and the countries of eastern Europe.
  The Government's third success deals with another factor which causes annoyance to an increasing number of our citizens, as they realise that while we obey the rules laid down by the European Community other member countries do not. It is significant that, at the end of 1989, only one out of 80 cases before the European Court of Justice affected this country. I refer to the agreement reached, on a British initiative, that in future the European Court will be able to levy fines on countries which fail to carry out their obligations.
  Her Majesty's Government have been right on monetary union and the social chapter. They also deserve credit for the three achievements that I have mentioned—limiting the power of the Commission, the arrangements for foreign policy and Home Office affairs, and the European Court's ability to levy fines on errant member states. Those were all British initiatives, and I congratulate the Government on them.
  6.11 pm
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: The right hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) gave us a touching example of partnership in his account of his relationship with his wife, but he may not have realized

  495
  that in so doing he touched on one of the fundamentals of another matter that he mentioned—the question of subsidiarity.
  I was privileged to be present at the congress—the
  so-called assize—in Rome a year ago and I related a well-known story about the very effective partnership between Mr. and Mrs Webb. A friend asked them, "How is it that you get on so well? What happens if you disagree?" Sidney Webb replied, "Very rarely do we disagree. If we do, we have a good rule: I decide on matters of principle and my wife decides on matters of execution." "Well," said the friend, "suppose you disagree about which is which? How do you decide then?" "Ah," replied Sidney, "That is a matter of principle."
  The right hon. Member for Blackpool, South rightly raised the subject of subsidiarity. My charge is that the Prime Minister and the Government have, either advertently or inadvertently, misled themselves or misled the nation on the nature of article 3b of the treaty that we are being asked to approve. I raised the matter yesterday with the Prime Minister, because in his carefully prepared speech he referred to
  "an article that specifically enshrines the crucial concept that the Community should undertake only those measures that could not be achieved at a national level".
  Then, in response to my intervention, he said:
  "If it can better be done at national level, it ought not to he done at Community level."—[Official Report, 18 December 1991; Vol. 201, c. 278.]
  Few people would disagree with that.
  I believe that the CBI and others interpret the whole concept of subsidiarity in the nutshell of the phrase that the Prime Minister used. Indeed, there has been a successful campaign—I shall not say a sales campaign, although it has been something of the—sort all round the world. It has gone so far that the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) said last night:
  "The ready and instinctive way in which our constituents reach out for rulings from the European Court illustrates the way in which the man in the street benefits from the principle of the separation of powers, of which the Community treaties are a manifestation."
  The right hon. Gentleman declined to give way to me at that point—understandably, in view of the 10-minute limit on speeches—and continued:
  "The principle of the separation of powers, which is enshrined in what we are currently negotiating, gives real scope for not less but greater freedom."—[Official Report, 18 December 1991; Vol. 201, c. 341.]
  In other words, the right hon. Gentleman claimed that there was a principle of the separation of powers. I think that he was wrong, but many people outside the House hold the same view.
  I shall quote from Mr. Baker—not the right hon. Member for Mole Valley, but the United States Secretary of State—as he was quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) last month:
  "Thus, the architects of a united Europe have adopted the principle of `subsidiarity'—something like American 'federalism'—that is, the devolution of responsibility to the lowest level of government capable of performing it effectively."—[Official Report, 20 November 1991; Vol. 199, c. 380.]
  I put it to the House—and to anyone else who wishes to
  challenge me on the point—that that is not correct. Even the United States Secretary of State has either been misinformed or has not read the treaty.
  There is no separation of powers in the treaty of Rome, in the Single European Act or in the treaty before us. There
  496
  are, of course, provisions which permit powers and vires to be exercised, but there is no topic, "separation of powers", as there would be in a true federation.
  Through some process which I cannot define, describe or analyse, many Conservative Members—several of whom have spoken in the debate—and the United States Secretary of State believe that a principle exists in the treaty, although that principle is not there.
  I quoted from the treaty yesterday, but I shall do it again because this is such a crucial matter. In the words of article 3b, subsidiarity, such as it is, will apply only to
  "areas which do not fall within its"—
  that is, the Community's—
  "exclusive jurisdiction".
  When I asked the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), last night if he could define or find out where the exclusive jurisdiction lay, he was unable to do so and quoted a broad part of the article. As the House will hear, he gave an ineffective reply. He quoted this passage:
  "Any action by the Community shall not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives of this Treaty."
  There lies the clue.
  Article after article of the treaty says what should be decided centrally and that regulations relating to such topics which bypass Parliament entirely should be applied throughout the Community, including this country.
  I am glad that the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) is with us tonight. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) is not here. When those two were advocating our entry into the Community, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup said that the Queen would not be affected. However, every central power and every regulation issued from Brussels bypasses Parliament. It does not go with the advice and consent of the Commons and the Lords Temporal; it does not go to the Crown for an initial. It is as though this place did not exist.
  In 1973, the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East and I spent hours arguing in the House about section 2(1), which contained the words, "without further enactment". We heard yesterday from the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice), who had been involved with the common agricultural policy. I wonder whether he realised that from the moment the treaty came into effect on 1 January 1973 there was no longer a British agricultural policy. The drab uniformity and detailed regulations which he rightly criticised in his interesting speech last night applied from that moment on to the United Kingdom in the realm of agriculture—to the way in which man relates to the soil. That could hardly he more fundamental to our basic existence. It was as if a rural byway had been constructed round the House which was not noticed. Nor was it noticed that the control had gone, because after that qualified majority voting applied to all agricultural matters. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food did not come back and say, "I am sorry, I was outvoted", but we are getting to that stage now. That is what happened in agriculture and fisheries negotiations from 1973 onwards.
  The Single European Act continued the trend because the scope of central decision making was widened still further. In the debate on 21 November 1991, I charged the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) with

  497
  misunderstanding the Act. I said that she may have misunderstood it, or she may have been misinformed, or she understood it and did not tell the House about it.
  Perhaps we shall have some enlightenment from the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East, who was the Foreign Secretary at the time. He introduced the Single European Act at the Dispatch Box and spoke about streamlining and getting things through quicker. He knows that the criterion for the single market was the elimination of frontiers. If frontiers are eliminated in relation to any commercial matter, to any matter of specification or to any matter concerning markets, adjudication and the source of law are transferred from 12 centres to one.
  I think that the right hon. Member for Finchley did not understand the importance and power of articles 8A and 100A. I must confess that, despite being a member of the Select Committee on European Legislation which studied the Act, I did not spot the explosive mixture of article 8A and article 100A. I charge the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East—I am glad that he is here tonight—first, with supporting the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup in saying that the Queen was not affected when in fact the Queen in Parliament was eliminated, and, secondly, with coming before the House with the Single European Act without either fully explaining it to us or, if he did, not knowing the effect of it.
  We now come to the third instalment in the dismemberment of the United Kingdom Parliament and the power of its people—the so-called "treaty of union". The treaty of union may be called the Maastricht treaty, but, as the House may know, it should really be called the treaty of Rome-Maastricht because in the two green volumes containing the treaty of union and the treaty on economic and monetary union, almost all the articles relate to amendments to the treaty of Rome. We shall have one small treaty of Maastricht and one much enlarged, beefed-up and fundamental treaty of Rome which will really be a union treaty. It will be the treaty of the constitution of the European union which is why it refers to European union.
  I come back to my earlier point about Sidney Webb. The treaty will have almost entire power over almost everything that we can think of which has been so far the ultimate responsibility of the House. One day we shall ask the Attorney-General where the scope of the treaty does not run. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) efficiently gave us the list of areas affected which included culture, education and health. One can have reports on health and desirable standards, but how far does that go when it comes to voting money? In the Select Committee, we have seen what happens. We receive a report about the topic, then we get a programme of research, then a programme of co-operation and then legislation.
  We see the assumption of powers to an unprecedented and unforeseen degree. Just as I believe that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup misled us about the powers of the Crown and the constitution, and just as I think that the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East—I leave him to comment on this—may not have described fully and in a legal way the impact of the Single
  498
  European Act, so I believe that the Prime Minister, either voluntarily or involuntarily, through bad briefing or through tactics, is trying to tell us that the magic word "subsidiarity" will save us from the final and absolute power which we shall now transfer to the European institutions.
  When people come to us in our surgeries to ask about prospective legislation about which they have read in the newspapers, they will say, "What can you do about it?" We shall say, "We will go to the Scrutiny Committee and to European Standing Committees A and B. We will tell the Minister what we want, but there is qualified majority voting." They will say, "How can you stop it?" We shall say, "I am sorry. We cannot stop it." They will ask what they can do and some hon. Members will have to tell them to go to their MEP because in the new treaty there is a long-stop in co-decision. How many people will come to us when they have heard that? We all know that people will go where decisions are made.
  We have here a treaty whose consequences I have tried to paint in a fair and objective way. However, just as in the past we have had two versions and the results have been unexpected, even by those who promoted the treaties, so it will be with this treaty, if it is endorsed. The House will lose its powers and so will the voters who sent us here.
  6.26 pm
  Mr. Quentin Davies: It is always a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) in a European debate. As a member of European Standing Committee B, the material for which is supplied by the Select Committee on European Legislation of which he is Chairman, I take the opportunity to pay tribute to his tremendous work for us and for the House as a whole in that context.
  I add my most sincere and warmest congratulations to the Prime Minister and to the Government on the extraordinary and remarkable treaty which they brought home from Maastricht. I cannot recall any major international negotiation on which one party came away with 100 per cent. of his desiderata. That appears to have happened on this occasion—
  Mr. Giles Radice: Come on!
  Mr. Davies: I will demonstrate the truth of what I am saying if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me.
  That great achievement is clearly the result of two factors. The first is the remarkable negotiating skill of the Prime Minister and of my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The second, which is no less important, is the willingness of our European partners to go a long way to accommodate us. That in itself is a reflection of the tremendous success of the personal diplomacy in which the Prime Minister has been engaged in Europe since he took office a year ago.
  As a result of those two factors, we have not only a treaty which allows us the two major derogations that have played such a major part in our debate so far, but a treaty whose architecture and contents have British fingerprints all over them. The architecture is the intergovernmental structure on which I know that the Government set so much store.
  Let me take three important elements from the contents. The first is the convergence criteria for economic and monetary union, which is an extremely well worked

  499
  out British proposal which has been accepted by our partners. The second is the proposal that, for the first time, non-compliers with Community directives should be fined for their non-compliance. That has also been accepted. That, incidentally, gives the lie to the suggestion that British proposals are always of a centrifugal nature when they are not deliberately obstructive. This is a very integrationist proposal, but one which, I am glad to say, is also characteristically pragmatic and sensible. The third is the concept of subsidiarity which we, as the whole world knows, were instrumental, together with the Germans, in bringing into the treaty.
  I should like to highlight four aspects of the treaty, of which the first is subsidiarity. The subsidiarity clause establishes a new and promising basis for the evolution of the Community. One thing that will flow from that is that the institutions of the Community will he able to concentrate on their own extremely important jobs instead of feeling that they have to justify their existence by continuing to extend indefinitely the periphery of their activities and interfering in the competence of individual member states. I hope that we shall shortly see an end to the kind of nonsense with which European Standing Committee B had to cope yesterday morning when we were discussing draft resolutions and recommendations on sexual harassment. I cannot think of a less justifiable waste of the Commission's bureaucratic resources than that, or of a more inappropriate interference in the area of proper competence of nation states.
  I hope that from now on we shall begin to get from the European Court of Justice what I call "negative jurisprudence" and that the court will feel able, on the basis of the subsidiarity clause, to throw out initiatives which are inappropriate to and inconsistent with subsidiarity. I hope that we shall then not only have the existing positive jurisprudence, but negative jurisprudence also, with clear guidelines to remove the possibilities for mutual suspicion and disagreement between the member states and the European Community and its institutions, from which we have already suffered too much.
  In that context, I hope also that subsidiarity will begin to reduce the suspicion that some hon. Members of all parties continue to have about everything that comes out of Brussels. I hope especially that that will help people to see that there is no fundamental conflict between our role and our constitutional importance and those of the European Parliament.
  Under subsidiarity, it is clear that we, the individual member states, decide what functions should be devolved to the Community and what functions should be properly exercised by it because they can be exercised more effectively at Community level. Once the essential decision on giving a certain function to the Community has been made, the question of the weightings between the different institutions of the Community in the way in which they take decisions and carry out responsibilities within their area of competence is not a matter involving any further loss of competence or sovereignty of this House. We and the European Parliament exist on separate planes. We each have our own roles. It is fundamental nonsense to believe that there is some kind of zero sum game between ourselves and the European Parliament and that an increase in its powers is made necessarily at the expense of ours, and vice versa. I hope that we shall be able to discard that illusion.
  500
  The second aspect that I should like to highlight is foreign policy. That must be the pre-eminent area in which we can be most effective as a Community. As an individual country, our scope for bringing our influence to bear and affecting the future course of events in different parts of the world is minimal and, in many cases, non-existent. However, as a Community we are enormously powerful. We are potentially one of the world's superpowers. If anybody came to this globe from Mars to study human affairs, especially in the political area, he would be enormously struck by the contrast between the economic Community which has been an economic superpower for some time, and the fact that, as a political power, the Community remains a minnow. That can and must change.
  In the next century, I should like to see the European Community or the European Union—as we may come to call it—become one of the world's superpowers. Along with the United States and Japan, it should form one of the three essential poles of stability, prosperity and civilisation on this earth. To me, that is a noble and worthwhile goal, but we can achieve it only by developing effective mechanisms for a common foreign policy.
  I do not pretend that I am totally satisfied with what is in the treaty on that subject or that I regard it as the last word. I am not totally confident that the Presidency acting alone will, in all cases, be able to provide either the resources or the continuity to enable us to develop that effective and coherent foreign policy. Although the Commission is not totally excluded from that area of the treaty, its restricted role introduces an element of artificiality. In foreign policy, it is unnatural to distinguish between the political and the diplomatic on the one hand and the economic on the other. Given that the Commission has responsibility for economic and trade policy and, if need be, for trade sanctions, it cannot be sensible to keep it out of the formulation of a common foreign policy. However, one must be grateful for the substantial step forward that has been taken, and I am.
  I hope that we can celebrate the introduction of limited qualified majority voting by overriding the unacceptable Danish veto which, at present, is preventing the European Community from lifting its sanctions on South Africa.
  Through my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, who is now on the Treasury Bench, I should like to express to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary my hope that we can inaugurate a common foreign policy by bringing our influence to bear on the events in Yugoslavia rather more effectively than we have up to now. Serbian aggression against Croatia has, up to now, been unrestrained and unsanctioned. Tens of thousands of people have already been killed. If it continues, the figure may be hundreds of thousands before long. The cities of Croatia have been destroyed, including Split and Dubrovnik, which are among the most historic in Europe.
  The third aspect that I wish to highlight is the social chapter. I believe that the 11 have scored an own goal and that we have scored a remarkable coup—[Laughter.] I have great regard for the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice); he laughs, but I hope that he will listen to what I am about to say, with which I believe that he will find it difficult to take issue. I shall outline three simple propositions and should like to know with which one, in practice, he or any of his right hon. and hon. Friends wish to take issue. The first proposition is that one cannot regulate oneself into prosperity. The second is that

  501
  if one starts to regulate the conditions and the maximum hours of work, one starts to affect the cost of labour, the demand for labour and how competitive one's businesses are. By definition, if one reduces working hours, one also reduces productivity, output, the demand for labour and, therefore, the country's level of employment. Those are simple propositions.
  My third proposition is that if the Community as a whole decides to reduce its average productivity it will be less competitive than not only the other industrialised countries, such as Japan and North America, but the newly industrialised countries, and investment, whether from foreign or Community investors, will tend to go to other places. We shall thus undermine the basis of our future jobs and prosperity.
  Sir Russell Johnston: Could one not argue that Germany regulated itself into prosperity? By making generous social provisions, Germany created the industrial climate that has enabled it to be highly competitive.
  Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. Germany achieved, through free market policies—policies which this country began to implement only in the 1980s—the highest productivity levels in Europe in the 1950s and 1960s. It then decided to appropriate some of those productivity gains by means of social legislation. I accept that Germany has the least to fear from the introduction of the social chapter. The Germans, Dutch and other northern European countries are imposing on the rest of the Community the industrial costs which they have already accepted and which they can withstand because of their high productivity.
  Anyone who seriously wants the Community to move forward to monetary union and a single currency must think seriously about the consequences of the social chapter on the potential viability of a single currency regime. Once a country denies itself the weapon of devaluation to compensate for lower average productivity, it is particularly important that economies within the Community with lower average productivity should be able to compensate by using their natural advantages. If those advantages are in the form of cheaper or more flexible labour, they should be allowed to utilise them. An effective integrated economy cannot exist without more flexible prices, markets and labour markets. History will pay great tribute to the judgment and resolution of the Government in fighting the nonsense of the social chapter which, in retrospect, will be considered a mistake.
  I shall not list the potential advantages of a single currency because I spoke in the House three years ago about the advantages for trade and business and, therefore, output and wealth creation, and the advantages in terms of beating inflation. Those are now generally accepted. I had some difficulty following the Government when they said that there were political disadvantages. I see no threat to the sovereignty of the House through having a single currency or common monetary institution—far from it. After all, the fight for the sovereignty of the House in the 17th century was about this place being able to determine not monetary policy, but fiscal policy, which I shall continue to defend. Monetary policy was always a matter for the King and the responsibility of the executive
  502
  branch. I pay tribute to the executive branch in this country because it has already given up the devaluation weapon and said that it is a self-defeating way of compensating for failure in the economy. Therefore, we lose nothing by enshrining that policy.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: My hon. Friend is quite wrong on this. The Government may have decided that membership of the exchange rate mechanism should be managed in such a way that we do not devalue, but if we wish to devalue, we can. My hon. Friend's remarks about a single currency alarm me greatly because I much admire his intellect, not to mention the fluency of his speech. But I urge him to accept that a single currency, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) made clear the other day, means a massive transfer of political and economic power to the centre.
  Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend and I share many ideas, including, I believe, those on monetary policy. Although the gold standard is no longer practical, it was not a bad thing. It was not a destructive episode in the monetary history of humanity. When we adhered to the gold standard, the House had no say in monetary policy because the money supply was dictated arbitrarily and objectively by the volume of gold discovered in the world. I doubt whether our predecessors in this place before 1914 thought that the powers of the House were compromised or undermined as a result.
  If we are to adopt a single currency, we must achieve the theoretical advantages which are there to be grasped. If we are to achieve those in practice, we must first prepare the ground carefully. I pay tribute to the convergence criteria, which were largely a British proposal. Secondly, we should consider carefully the statutes of the monetary institution. The document before us goes a long way towards providing for the independence of the monetary institution, which will be a crucial element in the success of a single currency. However, I should like to go further and suggest that the minimum term of appointment of the governors of the institution should be eight rather than five years, to ensure that it goes way beyond the electoral cycle of any member state. I should prefer that the appointments are not given to the governors of the banks of individual member states. It would be undesirable if governors from the central banks of member states felt that they had, in some way, to be the advocates of the interests of their own member states. If the project is to be successful, it is vital that, as with the Swiss national bank, when the board of that monetary institution meets, it has only one consideration in mind—how to reconcile the requirements of price stability and liquidity in the Community as a whole.
  Having achieved this excellent treaty of Maastricht and secured the derogation on monetary policy, by which the Government have set so much store, may I make a plea to them? In the morrow of great victory, will they show some equanimity and, above all, not give business in this country or abroad the impression that in practice we are any less committed to a single currency than any of the Twelve or that we are any less likely to be a part of it? If that impression were unfortunately given—I am sure that it will not be—investment from both British and international investors, would be deflected from this country and it would go to the continent to other areas likely to adopt the single currency. Moreover, in that

  503
  event, it might become difficult to manage our parity in the years leading up to 1996–97. Those currencies which currently belong to the exchange rate mechanism and are not perceived by the markets as likely to join at least the first echelon of a single currency may come under pressure in the market. People will be reluctant to hold them, and that would have unfortunate consequences in the form of higher interest rates.
  It is also important for the City to ensure that the central bank and monetary institution come here. I totally accept the assurances that I have received that the derogation negotiated at Maastricht does not reduce our chances of having the central bank in the City of London. I take great comfort from that assurance.
  I look forward to this country being in the vanguard of the single currency because of the advantages that it will bring us and the Community. We shall be there thanks to the excellent monetary and economic management that we have enjoyed in the 1980s and will continue to enjoy for the rest of the 1990s under a Conservative Government.
  6.48 pm
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I shall mention some of the issues to which the hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) referred, although there seemed to be a lack of logic in his remarks because he cheered the Government on while encouraging them to be careful.
  Unlike the Labour party, my party was at least prepared to table an amendment to the motion, so I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. People sometimes think of Northern Ireland Members as isolationists, but we have always played a role within the United Kingdom. Although the United Kingdom is on the continental shelf, it has played a positive part in Europe's history. Our people have regularly rallied to save Europe from military and political dictatorships.
  Religiously, to go to the other extreme, we were partners in giving Europe a living Christian faith. Northern Ireland, as part of the United Kingdom, shared in that significantly as the old Celtic Christian church sent missionaries throughout the continent, and there were Ulstermen in the Napoleonic war and both world wars. We are not isolationist, but we question whether incipient integration is actually the way forward.
  Reference has been made to economic and monetary union, which have played a role in the discussions. Closet federal Europeans earlier maintained that the EC was merely a gigantic free trade area; now they boldly affirm that political and monetary union were always at the heart of the treaty of Rome. The Prime Minister has returned from Maastricht and claimed that federalism and the opening of the door to a delayed decision on monetary union is the successful result of his able negotiations. What is the reality? Although the countries of the European Free Trade Association had worked out trade arrangements with the Community, recent decisions of the European Court ruled them to be incompatible with the treaty of Rome.
  I shall take up some of the comments of the hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding on a single currency. I do not believe that it will necessarily enhance trade opportunities; I think that those who have argued that have done so superficially. Japan has not found the fluctuations of the yen against the dollar and European currencies a serious barrier to its ability to increase
  504
  exports. The United Kingdom sharply increased its volume of exports to the United States in the 1980s, when the dollar gyrated wildly.
  Let us compare that with our experience in the EC. I am glad that two Treasury Ministers are present. Perhaps the Chancellor, when he winds up, will he confirm that we have maintained a huge, if diminishing, trade deficit with the EC, amounting to a total loss since 1978—if my figures are correct—of £54,270 million, as against a profit in trade with the rest of the world of £75,186 million. Therefore, is it surprising that the Ulster Unionist party pleads for a wider vision and a clear protection of our interests and those of the old Commonwealth countries in any new European arrangements?
  During those 23 years, what one might term our membership fees in Europe have shown net outflow of at least £15,036 million according to the 1991 HMSO Pink Book. The Government regularly claim that they want value for money. Are we obtaining that in Europe? The Confederation of British Industry has stated that the agreement is good for business. British business and industry must sell itself better, certainly in Europe, and maintain its markets with the rest of the world, which may turn away from us as we turn more towards Europe.
  Some might well say, "Ask not what Europe can do for the United Kingdom, but what the United Kingdom can do for Europe." However, it might be more salutary to ask: what part of Europe? Perhaps we can be of greater help by standing further apart from the new colossus, bridging the world with our American, African and Asian connections, as well as greater European contacts.
  We should bear in mind one narrower aspect: the principle of subsidiarity, through which democratic processes should be devolved to Northern Ireland—and I also echo the cries from Scotland and Wales. The European grants, correctly assigned to Northern Ireland due to its isolation within the market and its relative poverty, should not be gobbled up by parsimonious Treasury Ministers as they hide behind the concept of additionality.
  I have for a long time been suspicious of the doctrine of gradualism in politics and the foibles of the Foreign Office, which uses the double-speak of diplomacy, as I saw in the Anglo-Irish diktat and now smell in Maastricht. We have been assured that major European policy decisions, especially on foreign affairs, will have to be unanimous. However, as has already been mentioned, Germany quickly broke ranks with the rest of the EC and the world over Croatia, which led, in the words of our Foreign Secretary, to "an acceptable compromise".
  Perhaps we can find some hidden logic if we compare Chancellor Kohl's statement of 28 November when he said:
  "European economic and political union is irreversible." His headlong flight to recognise Croatian independence also helped lead to the fragmentation of Yugoslavia—a part of Europe. Will other "acceptable compromises" be imposed?
  What is the Government's view within the European family on those countries that have accepted and signed the treaty of Rome and the Helsinki agreement? Those treaties accept the territorial boundaries of member states, yet the countries that sign them blithely ignore their undertakings. Gibraltar is one such glaring example and, nearer home, the false claim of the Irish Republic is another. It broke the international agreement of 1925 and,

  505
  in its 1937 constitution, made de jure claim over Northern Ireland. For years, that was shrugged off merely as an aspiration or dismissed as Unionist propaganda, not to be taken literally or seriously. Now the Belfast newspaper, the Irish News, argues for the retention of such a claim in articles 2 and 3, while the Dublin Supreme Court described the matter as a "constitutional imperative".
  We have referred to promises and understandings given in the European context. Promises were given at Sunningdale in 1973 that articles 2 and 3 were to be withdrawn and were repeated before Hillsborough in 1985. The improper claim remains as a spur to terrorists, proxy bombers for those who see the claim as a "constitutional imperative".
  What is the position in Europe, where we recognise each other as partners? I believe that the Irish Republic should join the democratic countries in the new Europe and renounce such a claim, as Germany did over Alsace and Lorraine. The reunited east and west Germany had to endorse the Oder-Neisse line before it was recognised. The Ulster Unionist position on that is clear from our amendment. We maintain the integrity of our nation as we promote better relations between neighbours. At this season of the year we should remind ourselves of the parable that neighbours are not simply the people who live next door, rich friends, or even merely those with whom we agree. In that context, I trust that we as a nation will continue to maintain our integrity and influence.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): It is now almost 7 o'clock and the Standing Order limiting speeches to 10 minutes must be applied.
  6.58 pm
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: It is an honour to follow the remarks addressed to the House by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth). Like him, I am a member of a union. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is formed by people with one language, with sentiments in common and by their feeling and will to make it work. That is the union that I understand.
  Today we are considering a union of Europe, and I do not know how to relate to it. I listened with interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies), who almost conveyed the impression that he had been parachuted in to an Amazonian jungle in which democratic accountability plays no role, and that we needed the benefit of a judgment on arbitrage and merger policy from New York city. Ours is a democratic country, in which democratic accountability lies at the heart of the relationship between the citizen and the state.
  The House will have noticed how assiduous the Leader of the Opposition was yesterday in not speaking one word about democracy and how the peoples of this land hold their Governments to account. Nor did he raise one word about the history of his own great movement, about the fact that the working people of this country were urged to organise and to use their vote, through which they could change the policies under which they lived. In our democratic age, that is essential to the concept of our rule of law. We expect the law to be enforced, we expect it to be held because every citizen who lives under that law may change it.
  506
  In the treaty of union, where is the mechanism by which we may change the law? Where is the mechanism whereby we may hold Ministers accountable? We have witnessed the reduction of a great Department of State—the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—to a branch office in Whitehall. Our farmers, seeking retribution or justice, and our consumers, who are equally seeking those concepts, now have to go to Brussels, for there is no way in which we may satisfy their aspirations. We have handed over that power.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), the former Foreign Secretary, advanced some curious concepts of constitutional independence. If constitutional independence is what sovereignty is, I do not know how one can reduce it by pooling it. That is a contradiction in terms. Sovereignty says nothing about the state one lives in, whether it is a democracy or an autocracy, but it means constitutional independence. That is what has been at issue since the Single European Act—I was not here before that—and today with the treaty of union.
  I cannot give over any of the powers that I, as a Member of Parliament, elected by the citizens of Aldridge-Brownhills—and each of us elected by our respective constituents—was given when I came to this Parliament. Yet every leading member of the Government and the Opposition talks as if we were merely bankers. Our country, as a nation, has a spirit and will—it is much bigger than merely the mechanisms of markets. We are humbled and brought low by them, but the spirit of man—and I now have to say woman—and the freedoms that we enjoy lie within our grasp as long as we hold this House.
  That is what we have lost, in the sense that the people scorn us because of the way we march to tunes through the Lobby. We can no longer represent their wills or their expression. Of course we scorn that. We came here knowing that, if injustice existed, we could set it right.
  The Leader of the Labour party—of all parties—yesterday stood there and talked about passing away the power to redress the grievances of our citizens. The speed limit on our motorways was reduced the other day, and I give a cheer for that. For years, I have wanted the Government to reduce the speeds of lorries and buses going down the M 1 and the M6, but Europe did it. It imposed it on our system of government, and now we cannot change it, whether it was right or wrong.
  Since John Locke and the formation of our constitution through the late 18th and the 19th centuries, the question has been, where does authority lie? We do not have sovereignty in this House; it is a shorthand for the sovereignty of the people. That is who we represent, and those are the arguments that we have to judge.
  Is it not shaming that the leaders of great parties cannot tell us that they are asking us to set aside our ability to live under laws that we set? Hitherto, when they asked us to obey those laws, we have known that we could change them, but hereafter a combination of people with different languages, understandings and cultures can set, and are by combination setting, upon us standards, rules and laws which may be suitable for Greece, central or northern Europe, France or Spain but which are not right for us. We have a choice.
  So many hon. Members have poured scorn, but what makes a political society work? The greatest level of polity—political organisation—is democratic self-government. There is no higher form of government. One can expand

  507
  the boundaries, and because it is the sentiment of the people that one should expand the boundaries, it has manifestly worked for nearly two centuries in the United Kingdom. We break that trust by handing over power to unelected people without any mechanism for changing their decisions. How can people have faith in us if vie hold our job to redress the grievances of those who set us here as unimportant?
  I urge those on both Front Benches to reflect on how they can make up for that democratic lack. The great Labour party—which brought together militants, because it thought that they knew what they could do for the working people of this country—is scornfully setting democracy aside. I watched its bemused leader struggling with economic concepts which he can barely grasp. I say this with scorn, because the leader of the Labour party can no longer hold out to his people the prospect that they may change the law through this place.
  Were the Labour party to have the trust of its people, it could legislate for every item in the social chapter tomorrow. It could make that the central point of its election manifesto if it is so profoundly excited by it. Then it could justify to the people the costs and benefits associated with it.
  Why does the Labour party want others to introduce those measures? Is it because the Labour party does not believe that it could convince the people, on its own terms, that those are meritorious things to do? We must ask the question, why? Is it because the Labour party feels that it could not convince the people but could achieve its objectives through a centralist bureaucracy in Europe—rather than through argument and persuading its own people?
  Mr. Quentin Davies rose—
  Mr. Shepherd: No, I shall not give way.
  How do we control that process? No one is tackling that. Ministers are saying, "We good fellows will talk together, and we'll come up with a decision." What will happen? Let us assume that 100 per cent. of the people in this country dislike or profoundly object to a law. What do they do?
  Let us think back to the proposition of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who reminded us of our history. We changed law by riot. That is not the way. That is not the sort of society that I would wish to belong to. The tensions of racism and fascism are rising in Europe—all the things which we resolutely moved armies to defeat in the past. By holding on to that possession, the people of this country would be able to hold on to the banners of freedom.
  We have watched eastern Europe grapple for freedom and the liberty that we enjoy, yet I have heard the House of Commons talk solemnly as if this were merely a question of a pile of money at one end of a table or the issuing of financial intruments. It is not—it is about the spirit and life of a nation. I cannot let this go down—sinking—without leastways an exclamation mark and a cry, "It is wrong."
  7.7 pm
  Mr. Bruce George: It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who is a near neighbour. I hope that the
  508
  Hansard writers will be able to capture the spirit in which his speech was given. It struck me as being very 19th century in its oratory, and I compliment him.
  In many ways the hon. Gentleman's speech was 20 years too late, because the horse has bolted. The arguments about whether to join the European Community were won or lost two decades ago. I campaigned against continuing British membership in 1975, and we lost. I am not an enthusiastic European, but we cannot turn back.
  We must try to meet many of the objections made by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills. Clearly the Community is not a democratic institution. However, the cry for a return to an era of independence and economic autonomy for Britain is not an available option, so we must make the best deals possible in the circumstances in which we find ourselves.
  It was an interesting debate even before the speech by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills. The introduction by the Foreign Secretary—the thinking man's Jeremy Beadle—was exceptional. Once he got over the task of being his own warm-up man, he settled down to a logical and persuasive speech. He commented on the Opposition's silence in terms of tabling an amendment, but there has been a far greater and more dramatic silence from the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher).
  I am delighted to participate in the debate, which is not part of the ratification process. There will be no treaty to sign for a couple of months, and I hope that the Government do not assume that, having won this debate, the task of getting Parliament to ratify is over, because we have not even begun the process. There is much life left in people who wish to argue further. This legislature does little to impress its views on the process of declaring war or peace or ratifying treaties. We probably have the least effective role of any western legislature. We shall have a greater role to play in the Community, but that role is not being exercised now.
  This year has been epoch-making for the European Community at Maastricht, NATO at the Rome summit, and we are now witnessing the collapse of the Soviet Union. We were told that Maastricht was a victory for everyone and that for Britain it was game, set and match. A Conservative Member pleaded for magnanimity by the Government. Having won so brilliantly, perhaps we should throw a few crumbs to those whom we crushed yet again—the French and the Germans who need the solace of being able to tell their electorates that perhaps they got a little from the treaty.
  Listening to the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, and reading the deferential sycophantic press after Maastricht, I was reminded of an imaginary conversation between Napoleon and Stalin about who had the better newspapers. Stalin said that Pravda was better. Napoleon concurred, saying that if he had had Pravda he might have been able to convince Europe that he had won at Waterloo. The Prime Minister had more than Pravda at his disposal to convince the British public—I am not sure how successfully—that he had won the debate.
  Maastricht was a benchmark because after 12 years of Conservative government—the Conservatives have been in power for 50 of the past 65 years—we have finally been confirmed as a minor power. At one time we failed to cut a dash in the international arena, which caused a senior American politician to say that we had lost an empire and not yet found a role. We still do not cut a dash in

  509
  international relations, and we are lucky if we can now cut a dash in European relations. That is probably the result of a failing economy.
  The Prime Minister dug out Eisenhower to support his negotiating style. I looked at Stephen Ambrose's biography of Eisenhower and the Eisenhower diaries, and I urge the Prime Minister to read what Eisenhower thought of the British negotiating style in 1956. I suspect that these versions are rather less charitable than the one that the Prime Minister expressed yesterday. I applaud the Prime Minister for his success in maintaining the Atlanticist tradition of Europe. As the Foreign Secretary said, it was a damned near-run thing.
  Two models were on offer at Maastricht. One was the Atlanticist model, in which NATO is the prime security organ for western Europe and north America. That is not a cold war NATO but a reformed, rebalanced NATO with new defence and arms control strategies involving the cutting of our forces and a reaching out to eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.
  The alternative model, proposed by France with the connivance of Germany, involved a gradual move towards the European Community being the security organ for Europe. Thankfully, in Maastricht the Europeanists took second place and the Atlanticists won. However, it was not game, set and match because the French achieved many of their objectives. The issue will arise again in a few years when the Western European treaty is renegotiated. Having sustained NATO as the primary security organ, we must not allow those who are unsuccessful this time to win by stealth. We must not allow salami slicing of NATO powers gradually to transfer them to the Western European Union so that the WEU does not function, as we hope, as a bridge between NATO and the European Community. We must prevent the WEU from becoming the executive and military arm of the Community until such time as may emerge in future when we require Europe to be responsible for its own security. That time is not yet.
  The French are basically wrong in seeking to embroil Europe in preventing Germany from reasserting its economic and military power. That strategy is bound to fail because it flies in the face of logic and history. History has shown that Germany has been constrained not by Europe, but by external powers—notably the United States. I am not making an anti-German speech—merely pointing to the lessons of history. For military and political reasons, it is vital not to push the Americans out of Europe by over-accentuating the Europeanness of defence. We must keep north America involved in European security because we are kith and kin and belong to the same political traditions as Canada and the United States. It is pivotal to western security and interests that the United States should maintain its commitment to the security of the European continent. Eastern Europeans and the Soviets, or whatever we call them now, see far more clearly than many Frenchmen or Germans the great importance of NATO surviving for the foreseeable future. It is important not to allow what might be a temporary victory at Maastricht to be lost to those who do not want to attack NATO frontally but want to attack it by the back door. Such people have not necessarily lost.
  NATO was satisfied with what happened at Maastricht, but the game is not over. NATO must formulate a proper
  510
  relationship with the WEU. There was a meeting of Foreign Ministers today at which our Foreign Secretary was present. I hope that he was not in the frivolous mood with which he made his speech in this debate. As a result of that meeting, NATO has greater flexibility. It can attend meetings of the CSCE and has an advanced role in humanitarian assistance and emergency aid. I welcome that, because NATO has great relevance to the future. Tomorrow there will be a meeting of the North Atlantic Co-operation Council. It is a NATO meeting not of the 16, but of the 25. The power in security must lie with NATO and not with the European Community.
  7.18 pm
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) on the quality of his speech, which was filled with passion. We all have a great deal of respect for my hon. Friend. Whatever our views on the matter, we are speaking for our people, for those whom we represent, and in that spirit I congratulate my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary on their achievement at the Maastricht summit. They obtained a result which was in the best interests of all the people of the nation, those in Aldridge-Brownhills as everywhere else. The result was also in the best interests of Europe as a whole. One is essential to the other and the Maastricht outcome is the fruit of the well-balanced and committed approach to Europe which is the hallmark of the Conservative Government.
  While the principal virtues of Maastricht continue, apparently, to cause alarm in some parts of the country—Bethnal Green, Chingford and now AldridgeBrownhills—they happily command support, as they should, much more widely. The first achievement is the establishment of a stronger framework for a common European foreign and security policy, on the basis that unanimity rather than majority voting should be the norm. The second—the point made by the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George)—is the strengthening of a European defence identity. For the very reasons that he gave, we need to anchor a stronger Germany in a stronger Europe, with the Western European Union as an integral part of the defence component of the new European union, acting in conformity with the position adopted by the Atlantic alliance. I agree with him that we have secured the result that we need there.
  Maastricht also strikes the right balance in increasing the democratic legitimacy of the European Community by expanding the legislative and non-legislative powers of the European Parliament because, rather than being in competition with those of this House, they are supplementary to them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) said, the House can take pleasure in the success of my right hon. Friend in securing a place for a number of important British ideas. They include the European ombudsman, the enhanced role of the Community Court of Auditors, the greater powers of the European Court of Justice to compel obedience to Community law, and a worthwhile subsidiarity clause. I agree with the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) about the importance of that at the beginning of the new treaty.
  Connoisseurs of these debates will relish the way in which these last two changes represent two different

  511
  strands of British wisdom over the misleadingly simple and sometimes foolishly simplified concept of federalism. In the first place, the scope of potential federal activity has been limited, exactly as European enthusiasts would wish, by a tighter definition of subsidiarity. On the other hand, the power of the centre, the authority of Community law—probably the most federal feature of the unique Community constitution—has been substantially and rightly increased, exactly as insisted upon by the Euro-sceptics.
  I come next to what is by far the most important component of the Maastricht agreement—the acceptance that Europe, with or without this country, will have moved to a single currency by, at the latest, 1999. I say "will" although I agree with the hon. Members who say that nobody can be sure of that. I also agree with what was said by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), which was endorsed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit)—that if things go well, a single currency embracing at least Germany, France, Benelux, Denmark and the EFTA countries is very likely by the earlier date of 1997. To establish a legally binding process leading to full EMU, backed by a clear end date, is a truly historic development and if it comes about, it will do more to build Europe as a concrete reality in people's lives than any other policy or initiative since 1958.
  The truth is that, for all our rhetoric on either side of the House, Britain's destiny is crucially linked to the success or failure of the new monetary order that has been emerging since the mid-1980s in continental Europe. With every year that passes, those monetary arrangements have become more solid and, with that, Britain has become ever-more dependent on an economic system that lies beyond our immediate control. It is that which should have dictated our early entry into the exchange rate mechanism. Five years too late, we joined.
  I am glad to say that, over the past 12 months, we have been more and more effectively engaged in the vital EMU negotiations. My right hon. Friends have been shrewd, pragmatic and effective in their pursuit of an EMU deal that would be acceptable not just to 11 but to 12 members. The form of EMU that has emerged from Maastricht bears the important imprint of United Kingdom priorities in a number of key respects. Making common cause, as we have, with Bonn and Frankfurt and thus forging a powerful alliance, we have ensured that full EMU will be open only to countries that meet strict convergence criteria, that monetary policy will be transferred only in stage 3, that price stability will be the overriding objective of the system, that the European central bank will be politically independent of all outside control, that there will be no EC-wide macro policy administered by what the French called a European economic government.
  On all those points, EMU is clearly a project of Anglo-German design. It is difficult to believe that, in due time, an EMU that is good enough to attract a share of German sovereignty, as I believe it will, will not be good enough to attract a share of British sovereignty as well.
  Central to our position over several years has been the insistence that Britain should not be obliged to commit itself at too early a stage to take part in the final move to a single currency. The Prime Minister's success in retaining in the treaty an emergency exit arrangement of that sort—the right to take, at the appropriate moment, a
  512
  separate decision on that point—has been and remains an important reassurance for opinion both inside and outside the House.
  However, we must not delude ourselves into thinking that making use of that exit, by deciding not to opt in as it is more comfortably put, would be a cost-free option. Far from it—realistically, opting out may not be an option at all. Economic reality and employment opportunities have long established powerful counter-pressures in the other direction. As 23 prominent business and financial leaders, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), wrote in The Times last week:
  "We recognise that there are those, including some in Parliament, who have doubts as to the economic and monetary union agreed at Maastricht. We are in no doubt that it is crucial for Britain's economic prosperity that it be approved."
  I agree. Outside an EMU of the core deutschmark bloc countries, the British economy would be vulnerable indeed. With no EMS left to provide a coherent framework of monetary discipline, the pound would have two options—either to attach itself, as a kind of non-playing member, to the ECU-zone, or else to drift aimlessly on the high seas. Either way, United Kingdom interest rates would need to be higher, as a risk premium would attach to holding sterling.
  Our prospects of success against inflation, and of economic growth, would be prejudiced. Our factories and firms would suffer the double disadvantage of having to trade in a different currency from that of our partners and of finding that the United Kingdom was no longer an attractive site for inward investment. Whatever employment benefits might accrue from opting out of the social chapter would be more than offset, many times over, by opting out of EMU.
  The last date for EMU is 1999, at which point it will now happen automatically. The first key date is December 1996, when the initial votes by qualified majority in the European Council occur. Theoretically, that vote could he taken as early as 1994. Under the treaty, Britain must decide, before the crucial vote takes place, whether it wishes to opt in or to opt out. We are dealing with what may be a compressed time scale. Therefore, it is by no means too early to address directly the central question of whether we want to be part of what is very likely to become the world's largest currency.
  We have to make an important choice. Let me pose it again. On the assumption that the conditions for EMU that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has done so much to hammer out are fulfilled, do we help to create an ecu that will probably be the currency of the world's largest trading bloc, the most conservatively managed of the major currencies, and likely to displace the dollar as the denominator of world trade, or do we want to plough a lonely furrow, on the outside looking in, losing our practical influence, in the name of a sovereignty that no longer exists, locked on to a conveyor belt, not to federalism, but to economic outer space? The choice that will face us is an important one. I have no doubt what decisions should be taken in the interests of this country.
  I am reasonably confident that the Prime Minister knows the answer as well. As he told my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen):
  "If and when the decision is made to move forward, it would be desirable for as many members of the Community as possible to move collectively."—[Official Report, 11 December 1991; Vol. 200, c. 866.]

  513
  I agree whole-heartedly with that. The Maastricht agreement is the first proof of the Prime Minister's determination in that direction, and the decision that will follow will be the next logical step.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I would appreciate it if hon. Members would assist the Chair by upholding the Standing Order which has been agreed.
  7.29 pm
  Sir Russell Johnston: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), the former Foreign Secretary, who, as always, made a constructive, wise speech. His quiet approach and manner rather belied what he was saying, which was basically that one could not opt out of the single currency and economic and monetary union and that one should not opt out of the social charter.
  However, I shall not follow the right hon. and learned Gentleman because I wish to direct a couple of words to the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who has just left the Chamber but who, I think all will agree, made an exceptionally powerful and passionate speech. But he is not the only person who is entitled to passion on these questions.
  I am a Scotsman. Despite the fact that Her Majesty's Government are but poorly represented in Scotland, Scotland had the poll tax imposed upon it and we could do nothing about it. Secondly, I am a Liberal, and I do not accept that the form of electoral representation that we have in Britain is right for all time or the fairest. I have seen the time when we in the Liberal party had 20 per cent. of votes but no representation in the European Parliament. That is not being particularly democratic. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills was splendid in his rhetoric, but there is another argument that can be put in another way.
  Apart from the arguments in favour of the amendment in the name of the Liberal Democrats, on which we shall shortly vote, the amendment also has the intrinsic merit of presenting the House in the clearest terms with the basic choice that Britain faces about the sort of European Community that we want. Across the House and across the parties we are already agreed that there is a range of matters, financial, economic, environmental and social—we need not go over them all—on which it is not just advantageous but necessary for Britain to act in conjunction with its partners in the EC if the people are to retain some say in how the issues are influenced, decided and regulated. They do not have all that much say now in many of those areas.
  Liberal Democrats take the view that that is best done by creating institutions of a federal nature which derive their authority directly from all the peoples of the Community, across borders, supranationally. That is a concept of open decision making. It is also a concept which, in accepting the diversity of our peoples, about which I have no agrument, looks beyond the borders of existing nation states to the ancient regions of Europe, such as Wales, Catalonia, Yorkshire, Scotland and Bavaria, and wishes to work for a decentralised structure
  514
  which is the characteristic of federal structures and entrenches their rights to their cultural identities and the maximum control over their own lives.
  "Europe des regions" will not happen quickly, but that is our goal and the decision at Maastricht to establish a council of the regions is a start which we applaud. As against that approach, there is the intergovernmental approach favoured by the Government, the Prime Minister and, I take it, by the Minister for Overseas Development, who is sitting on the Government Front Bench, which wishes to reserve the decisions that the Community makes to intergovernmental negotiation through the Council of Ministers and continues, even in the face of fundamental changes in scale—which they seem simultaneously to accept and reject—to cling to notions of national sovereignty which we contend are now simply unreal.
  That was brought out rather well in a short exchange when an hon. Member asked the Foreign Secretary for clarification but did not get terribly much. The hon. Member asked whether our policy on what was Yugoslavia is our policy because it is our policy or because we have agreed with others that we will accept their view. The Foreign Secretary said that it is our policy to agree with other people what our view is. It was all quite interesting. The Minister may shake her head, but we shall go through such a hoop many times in the future. The idea that we must never decide foreign affairs matters by a majority vote is simply not the case.
  The Government are seeking to retain the exclusive power of Governments, backed by national bureaucracies, to make decisions in secret, which is what they do now. An advertisement placed in The Times last month by the European Movement sums that up succinctly and well. It said:
  "There is at present no genuine parliamentary control over Community legislation, either by the European Parliament or by member states' parliaments. Democratic accountability requires that Community laws be approved by the European Parliament as well as the Council of Ministers and that the Commission be clearly responsible to the Parliament. The procedures for unanimous voting and the use of the veto in Council must be reduced to a minimum … The traditional concept of national sovereignty can no longer serve the interests of the people of Britain or of other member states. The British Government should promote a sharing of sovereignty through democratic Community institutions in those policy areas which require a common approach while retaining responsibility for matters best handled nationally."
  That was signed by a broad cross-section of British society and public opinion, including hon. Members from both sides of the House.
  Many hon. Members agree with the Liberal Democrat amendment but feel that they cannot step outside the confines of party, especially since the Front-Bench spokesmen, as we heard yesterday and today, perceive these debates more as demonstrations of unity and occasions for inter-party criticism—leavened, one hopes, by a few good jokes—than as opportunities to examine issues openly and frankly. The Foreign Secretary found how dangerous it was to fall for a moment into frankness when he began to muse on the future of what was the Soviet Union because he was immediately pounced on. But we should be able to do that in a mature democracy.
  Sadly, Maastricht widened rather than reduced the democratic deficit, but, paradoxically, at the same time, by the nature of the decisions made and by the depth of common purpose evident among the other 11, it clearly

  515
  represented an historic commitment to ever-closer union which, if it is to function with democratic acceptance, will in the end be federal.
  Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), the leader of the Liberal Democrats, set out plainly and unequivocally why we are so profoundly unhappy about the opt-out arrangements for EMU and the social chapter, arguments underlined by the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East. I shall not go over those arguments again. We have gained nothing and on the way have lost, for example, effective involvement in the central bank. We do not accept that investment is best bought by clinging to lower social standards.
  I am sure that I speak for many when I say that I did not like seeing my country isolated at Maastricht. It need not have been. Nor, as far as I can see, did it achieve any particular advantages. On the contrary, it produced unnecessary uncertainties and roused old sleeping nationalist attitudes—beware the Germans, watch the French, perfidious Albion.
  With great respect to the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, the solution to our problems lies not in nationalism or mystic notions of sovereignty, but in constructive bridge building between our similar-sized powers in Europe. Maastricht took that forward, but more despite us than because of us.
  7.39 pm
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) will be glad to hear that I do not intend to follow him. I will comment only that I find some divergence between his claim that he is worried about his country, and his advocacy of totally surrendering its sovereignty to Europe.
  Yesterday, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), the leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party, gave the House a potted history of the bad deeds of England and the United Kingdom in the history of Ireland. Speaking to the hon. Gentleman outside the House, I told him that I regretted that he had not started at the beginning.
  The beginning of England's interference in Ireland, if one may call it that, began at the invitation of Pope Adrian, who gave Ireland to the English monarch Henry II at the price of Peter's pence, telling the King to bring the church of St. Patrick into line with the Church of Rome. I regret that the hon. Member for Foyle, who is not in his place, did not start at the beginning. As an Ulster Protestant and planter, I have no apology to make for the presence of the Protestant people in the island of Ireland, or for Britain within Ireland. The most peaceful years in Ireland were those lived under the authority of the United Kingdom Parliament.
  Right hon. and hon. Members should take a look at the European Parliament and European Committees, and ask whether they would like to commit their future to that Parliament. I invite them to read the resolutions that were tabled and debated in the European Parliament during the Gulf crisis, and to note the outcome. Resolution after resolution was carried but then thrown out on a consequential vote, yet we are asked to give away our future to the institutions of Europe.
  Everyone has something to say about Maastricht, but Jacques Delors has the most to say about it. He claims that the blueprint drawn up by his ad hoc group and tabled at
  516
  the start of the discussions has taken a great step forward. One Labour Member said that we ought to be careful that gradualism was not pushed by Jacques Delors and his friends in such a way as to release the pressure on any of the brakes that were applied at Maastricht. From the documents before us, it appears that the basis of that gradualism has already been written into the treaty.
  The House had a great debate on the social chapter. The rights of the working classes should be defended, and the House ought to legislate in their defence. This is where such legislation should be enacted. We should not hand over that responsibility to some European institution, and let it legislate for better conditions for the working classes of this country.
  The House has a record second to none compared with Europe in respect of the battles that it has fought and won in deciding the best way forward for working class people. Powers are given in the treaty to our 11 European partners to use the institutions, procedures, and mechanisms of the treaty to carry forward their own social policies. We were told at the time that they had a treaty outside the Maastricht treaty. When one reads the small print, one discovers the concealed powers that lie beneath its surface.
  We are all concerned about national security, but the treaty makes it clear in article D that the common foreign and security policy
  "shall include all questions related to the security of the European Union, including the eventual framing of a common defence policy, which might in time lead to a common defence."
  The platform has been built for further developments along those lines. That article also states:
  "The Union requests the Western European Union, which is an integral part of the development of the European Union, to elaborate and implement decisions and actions of the Union which have defence implications."
  That gradual process and vision of a federal Europe is clearly set out.
  I was struck by Chancellor Kohl's remarks that the people of Europe must decide whether they want a European Germany or a German Europe. That kind of language should set alarm bells ringing in the ears of the whole of Europe. Yesterday, Chancellor Kohl returned home to celebrate the fact that he had led the Council of Ministers by the nose, in gaining recognition for Croatia. The platform for implementing Jacques Delors' directive is to be found already in the treaty.
  As to foreign affairs, I am sure that we all feel concern about the majority voting system. If we had asked for a firm decision from Europe during the Gulf crisis, we would not have received one. I have for years been a member of the European Parliament's political committee, and when I attended one of its weekly meetings during the Gulf crisis, I witnessed nothing but confusion and attacks on those who were fighting to give freedom to the disputed territories. There was nothing but criticism of the allied forces' actions, yet today we are asked at least to say that the treaty is all right.
  I admire the Prime Minister's achievements, but he was fighting a losing battle because the Single European Act had already been passed—and thus it leaves no room for any Prime Minister to get something good out of Europe. Perhaps now that the brakes have been put on and warning voices have been raised Europe will proceed a little more slowly. However, if any right hon. or hon.

  517
  Members believe that Europe has changed course, they have another think coming. They will soon see by Europe's actions what it intends to do in future.
  I appreciate the spirit and passion displayed by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). As he said, we are being asked today to kill the spirit of our nation, and to say to its people, "Your nationalism, sovereignty, and status as a nation have ended: we will give you a new future which does not take into consideration your glorious past."
  7.48 pm
  Mr. Gavin Strang: The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) will understand if I do not follow him on the part played by Pope Adrian in Irish history.
  I do not accept that the European Community's development means suffocating Britain as a nation—if it is a nation. My nation is Scotland. We have been part of the Westminster Parliament for a long time, but that does not alter the reality of Scottish history and culture, and of our nationhood. I doubt that the development of European institutions will threaten England's nationhood, undermine the logic of maintaining the United Kingdom, or of this Parliament taking important decisions—at least for the rest of our lifetimes.
  Much of the debate—especially yesterday's opening speeches by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition—focused, understandably, on the development of a single currency and the question of the social chapter and the social charter. I shall not say much about those issues, but this evening's speech by a former Foreign Secretary—the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe)—struck me as a powerful demonstration of the extent to which the Government's efforts and their negotiating strength have been wasted in the argument about securing an opportunity to opt out.
  The Chancellor's refusal to respond to the challenge issued by the Leader of the Opposition, who asked him whether he could envisage joining a common currency if Germany, France, Italy and other countries went ahead with it—and this morning's television interview—made it clear that he is not prepared to say that, in such circumstances, Britain would not join. Each of us knows in his heart of hearts that Britain would have to participate. It will damage our economy enormously if, in the run-up to the development of a common currency, many years go by in which it is thought that we will not be in there from the beginning.
  The hon. Member for Antrim, North spoke of the development of a common foreign, security and defence policy. The draft treaty is an historic document, which lays down important ways in which the European institutions will develop in the years—probably decades—that lie ahead. It covers a wide range of important issues in addition to the social charter and the single currency.
  I was glad to hear the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George). I do not regard NATO as the holy grail; for years, Labour's policy has been the mutual dissolution of NATO and the Warsaw pact. Now, however, we are faced with the dissolution of the Warsaw pact, along with the elevation of NATO to an important role in the Europe of the future.
  518
  No one is suggesting that NATO should be wound up or disbanded in the short run, but we must recognise that events have moved on. There is a logic in developing the Western European Union. Only three members of the European Community are not WEU members. One is Greece, which the Maastricht summit decided will join; that leaves only the Danes—who may well join—and Ireland. According to Prime Minister Haughey, Ireland too will eventually join.
  The Western European Union is, in effect, a collective defence treaty. It constitutes a clear agreement that, if one member country is attacked, the others are obliged to help it to resist that attack. Surely it makes sense for us to face up to the logic of current developments. The WEU will develop and grow. Defence policy exists to defend our peoples from attack, but it is also the servant of foreign policy: it is unrealistic to believe that common foreign and security policies can be developed in the Community without implications for European defence policy. We should participate in the relevant discussions, and recognise that the WEU has an increasing role to play.
  The Community budget was not discussed at Maastricht, but its distribution is surely important to the Community's future. If, post-Maastricht, the Government do nothing else, they must put reform of the common agricultural policy at the heart of the negotiations in Europe. The matter will not be settled by the Agriculture Ministers; it will have to be settled by the European Council.
  Last year, the CAP cost the Community £23,000 million. That is nonsense: 60 per cent. of the Community budget went on agriculture. The CAP has failed the producers, who are in dire straits—particularly in this country. It has raised the price of food above its necessary level, in this country and others; it has caused real damage to the developing countries, and to world trade; it is hugely costly. All in all, it is a disaster, and it should be resolved before anything else is discussed in Europe.
  Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition said that it would be possible to find the money for increased convergence from the reform of the CAP. Does the hon. Gentleman share that view?
  Mr. Strang: Yes. I believe that we must shift the budget, and spend more on regional policy. In 1991, our expenditure on the social fund constituted 7·3 per cent. of the total social fund budget. Four per cent. was spent on development aid, and only I I per cent. was devoted to the regional fund. As I have said, 60 per cent. was spent on an agricultural policy that has been a complete disaster.
  The common agricultural policy—originally developed by the Six as a vehicle for European integration—has become the Community's albatross. It must be radically transformed.
  Mr. Budgen: How?
  Mr. Strang: By collective decision-making; by the European Council. The CAP is not even serving producers in Europe, let alone those in this country.
  Now is the time for us to stand back and look at the development of the European Community. We are part of that Community: we shall not withdraw from it. Our future lies in working with other Community member states. We must consider, then, what attributes we want

  519
  the Community to develop. In my view, the most desirable quality is a fundamental respect for human rights and democracy: we must enshrine that quality in the Community for the long-term future.
  The Maastricht treaty makes a start along that road. According to its preamble,
  "The Union shall respect fundamental rights as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States as general principles of Community law … The Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies."
  The European Convention on Human Rights is, of course, a Council of Europe declaration; it has its own Commission, Council of Ministers and court. However, it has not the authority to enforce its decisions. The Community needs to develop an institution that will make it impossible for a member state to remain a member if it departs from the conventions governing human rights and our democratic traditions.
  It is no accident that it was Spain that advanced the idea of European citizenship—the right of free movement and, above all, the right to defend those human rights and democratic traditions. Turkey must not be allowed into the European Community: countries cannot be accepted as member states unless they respect fundamental human rights, and operate the democratic system enjoyed by this and other European countries.
  That is especially important in a long-term context, in regard to the possible accession of eastern European countries. The history of such countries as Romania shows us that, above all, we must ensure that any country that joins the Community and then abandons its democratic tradition must be excluded from the Community and its political institutions. Such a ruling would constitute a firm sanction, and would prevent that from happening.
  7.58 pm
  Mr. John Butcher: Earlier I gave an undertaking not to detain the House for more than three minutes. If my language is a little attenuated as a result, I apologise.
  I wish to make three points. Maastricht, with its mechanistic considerations, did not address the two most serious questions now facing Europe with sufficient gravity and in sufficient detail. What it did address in considerable detail was the movement towards European monetary union; but that may, in due course, become an irrelevance.
  First, let me deal with the two questions that were not dealt with in sufficient detail at Maastricht, although they were mentioned in peripheral communiqués. I refer, in the first instance, to the recession that is now worldwide. A growing number of commentators now say that it may become a world depression. We know what is going on in north America; we can all see what is happening in Japan. Moreover, there is the repatriation of capital in the middle east. In addition, there are terrible problems in western Europe and the awesome tragedy that is now unfolding in eastern Europe. Faced with such world pressures, we should be committing an act of supreme folly if the Group of Seven did not take measures to eliminate the possibility of the recession becoming a depression.
  On Black Monday, the Group of Seven decided to reduce interest rates at a time when, as we now know, it was important to reduce interest rates. Although the western European, northern European and Pacific basin
  520
  economies are screaming for a co-ordinated reduction in interest rates, we are, apparently, doing nothing. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has a good track record in identifying key international issues and getting people together to deal with them. I hope that in the very near future he will convene a Group of Seven meeting in London to tackle that question. He is well equipped to do so and London is the place to begin that process.
  In addition, we still underestimate the speed with which the tragedy in Russia, Byelorussia and the Ukraine is unfolding. In 1946 the Marshall plan was put together—an act of supreme generosity on the part of the people of north America to help the people of western Europe to put their war-ravaged economies back on their feet. The problems that face us, in putting together an aid programme for eastern Europe, are much more complex than ones of mere generosity. The people of eastern Europe are proud and talented, but they have never had the opportunity to develop the enterprise culture. They have neither the banking systems nor the infrastructure to deal with aid programmes on the scale that is required now.
  Western Europe has surplus manpower and woman-power. Compared with eastern Europe, we have immense resources, skills and all the talents that are required to help our brethren in eastern Europe, yet we are more or less silent. Now is the time, while there is still time, to put together a sophisticated programme, on the scale of the Marshall plan, so that we can help to reduce the awful social problems in other parts of Europe.
  Let me give the House an example of just how clever we shall need to be. There is no point in sending large food convoys to Russia unless we ensure that the food is distributed in the hamlets, not in the cities. We must keep the farmers on the land. If we put the food into the big cities, the farmers will be pulled off the land. We shall destroy their capability to feed themselves in the months and years to come. If we are to solve that problem, a tremendous management effort will be required. Now is the time to begin it.
  My last point is that economic and monetary union will not happen. It cannot happen. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) referred to the scandal of the common agricultural policy. If we are to achieve economic and industrial cohesion between northern and southern Europe, we shall need scores of billions of ecu to pay the poor economies of southern Europe not to do the things that they could do without economic and monetary union. The concept is flawed at its very heart. We shall see evidence of that in the next few months.
  It may be that the pressures on the exchange rate mechanism, starting right now with today's 0·5 per cent. hike in German interest rates at a time of world recession, will pull apart the mechanism which, in effect, is the first stage of the whole movement towards economic and monetary union. The exchange rate mechanism is nonsense. Jacques Delors says that floating exchange rates are the grit in the oil. Floating exchange rates are the oil. They take the strain. It is like the differential gear on the back axle of a car: it allows the vehicle to manoeuvre without tearing itself apart on the back axle.
  Within the three minutes that you have allowed me tonight, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the one issue upon which a great deal of time was spent at Maastricht may prove to be

  521
  an irrelevance, while insufficient consideration was given to the two issues upon which a great deal of time should have been spent.
  8.4 pm
  Mr. Giles Radice: Harold Wilson once said that a week is a long time in politics. Last week the Prime Minister returned from Maastricht in a blaze of media hype. If we believed what we read in Conservative newspapers, particularly the popular press, we would have thought that it was the greatest British victory since Waterloo. The Prime Minister referred to the result of the Maastricht negotiations as game, set and match for Britain. It was a completely inappropriate metaphor. Many might wonder why the Prime Minister chose to use that metaphor, since the British are notoriously bad tennis players. It was, moreover, an inappropriate metaphor as it conjured up the inappropriate image of Britain as a doughty defender besieged by marauding continentals.
  It was the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) who reminded the Commons in his resignation statement—it was good to hear him again today—that Europe is not a zero sum game in which we can only win or lose and that a good European settlement is one in which the interests of all European Community members are taken into account. Above all, it was foolish to use the language of triumphalism when it is so obviously at variance with the facts.
  The reality is that the United Kingdom's negotiating strategy at Maastricht was against the best interests of the nation. To opt out once can be put down to misfortune; to opt out twice is not merely carelessness—it is a major disaster for the British people. The first opt-out is the right to opt out of the third stage of economic and monetary union, an achievement of which the Government say that they are proud. It is abundantly clear that the right to opt out of EMU is a device to unite the Conservative party. That is clear not just to the Opposition but, according to the opinion polls, to the British people.
  If one talks to most Government Ministers one finds that, whatever they say in public, they accept privately that if the single currency goes ahead Britain will have to join, but that the opt-out protocol was needed to secure the support of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) and her friends in the Lobby.
  The weakness of having the right to opt out as one's major bargaining objective is that one cannot influence other, more crucial decisions. In particular, the British Government's negotiators were unable to affect the crucial decision on the timing of the third stage. The one real surprise of the EMU treaty, and the great achievement of the French negotiators, was to secure that the final date for the start of the third stage is 1 January 1999. The Chancellor had always said that he was against a fixed final date, but because the whole of Britain's credit had been used up in securing the right to opt out, the Government were unable to influence that decision.
  In private briefings, Ministers tell journalists that the fact that the opt-out clause has been secured does not prevent us from joining the single currency at some time in the future. The problem with that argument, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) pointed out yesterday in a notable speech, is that it creates
  522
  very considerable uncertainty—uncertainty about the intentions of foreign investors and inward investment, uncertainty about domestic investment in this country and uncertainty in the City about whether it will retain its predominant position. I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East that it would have been far better for this country if the Government had accepted the objective of a single currency. Such a decision by the British at Maastricht would have lent credibility to our anti-inflation policies, it would have provided the economic and monetary framework within which it would have become possible to promote economic change and convergence and, above all, it would have shown that we were serious about economic and monetary union.
  The second opt-out decision was to opt out of the social arrangements. There are two things wrong with that decision. First, it appears to say that Britain, alone of the 12 members of the EC, could not afford the minimum social and labour market arrangements that the other 11 say that they can afford. It also appears to say that British employees, alone among European employees, should not have a stake in the single market. That is an extraordinary thing for the Government to say. Also, the idea that Britain, of all nations, can survive and prosper as the sweatshop of Europe is absurd.
  Secondly, that decision is wrong because it goes some way towards creating a two-tier Europe, with the United Kingdom in the second division. Jean Monnet, architect of the European Community, warned against giving the British a special position in the Community. He said:
  "Their national character inclines them to seek a special position which will save them from having to change."
  It would have been better for Britain if the Government had not, for party reasons, sought opt-outs at Maastricht. In words which seem increasingly hollow today, the Prime Minister once said that he wanted us to be where we belong—at the heart of Europe. He went on to say that we should be working with our partners to build a future. Instead of working with our partners at Maastricht, the Government opted out. At Maastricht, as so often in the past, the British were the reluctant Europeans. We need a new Government—a Labour Government—who are genuinely and without ambiguity ready to participate constructively in the building of the European Community.
  8.12 pm
  Sir Geoffrey Pattie: In the past 18 months I have been privileged to be the vice-chairman (Europe) of the Conservative party. In that capacity I have had dealings with our Members of the European Parliament. I have watched the negotiations that are proceeding to join the European People's party. I have had dealings with centre-right parties in the EFTA countries—in Finland, Norway, Sweden and Austria. It has been particularly interesting to develop our relations with centre-right parties in central and eastern Europe and in the former Soviet Union.
  During all those discussions and contacts, various things have become clear. First, the so-called debate that is supposed to go on about whether the Community should be broadened or deepened is a sham. Both processes must happen simultaneously. As many people have pointed out in the debate, the European Community was designed for six countries and now has 12. Manifestly,

  523
  it does not work as efficiently as it might. Therefore, deepening in the sense of improving the process is essential.
  As the process moves forward, the greatest need is to inject the necessary accountability. On that I have a great deal of sympathy with the remarks made in the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). We must not just drive forward without improving the degree of accountability to the public. The Commission must be constrained and accountable to the European Parliament, at the very least in budgetary matters. As an instrument of accountability, the Council of Ministers has been shown to be increasingly insufficient. Therefore, deepening in that sense is essential.
  During the debate we have heard a great deal about opt out. As was pointed out by Sir John Killick in a letter to The Times a few days ago, we do not need any lessons on that from France. France has managed to opt out of NATO in a semi-detached way for the past 25 years. We should bear that in mind.
  On broadening, I come to the one overriding problem that I have in the entire debate. While we in the European Community continue to argue, debate and refine, our new friends in central and eastern Europe become progressively disillusioned and, with that, comes a threat to their democracies. In the past year I have been privileged to visit almost all the capital cities of central and eastern Europe and many of those in the former Soviet Union. We must remind ourselves, particularly in western Europe, that, with the exception of Czechoslovakia, in central and eastern Europe there is hardly any democratic tradition and there is none in the Soviet Union. Even in this House we must remember that democracy is not an entirely natural state, however much we might like to think that it is.
  On 2 January, the Russian Government plan to release controls on prices. It will mean that prices will rise by about 200 per cent. I understand that, at the same time, they will increase state wages and benefits by about 100 per cent. I have been told from similar sources in Moscow that that could mean that by the spring virtually everybody in Russia will be living below the poverty line.
  In the recent elections in Poland there was a turnout of 40 per cent., with a proliferation of small parties and no outcome. A 40 per cent. turnout in the first genuinely free election in Poland for 45 years must raise serious questions for us in the west about whether we are doing the job that we should be doing, as my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher) reminded us.
  The revolutions in Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria are under threat from a rather potent combination of disillusion and a feeling of hopelessness. Many people in those countries still look to the EC as a possible saviour or, at least, an organisation to be associated with and, in due course, to join. Security considerations are important. All those countries were former members of the Warsaw pact and they feel naked and bereft now that they have no collective security arrangements. I hope that the NATO co-operation council will assist in that process.
  We can welcome the association agreements announced the other day for three of the countries to which I referred. However, the Government have been a long time in arriving at those agreements. They have been rather grudging and we should accept that, in all those cases, trade is better than aid, even though it will be politically
  524
  uncomfortable for us. It will mean less expensive products coming into our markets. If we cannot cope with that, given the degree of political maturity that we have in the west, I shall be disappointed. We are not getting this right and it is posing a major political problem in central and eastern Europe.
  Our new friends in that region can see that, behind the vision and the rhetoric that is so involved with the European Community, there is horse-trading and deals are being done. They are becoming increasingly cynical. That will be a problem.
  If the European Community stands for anything, it is a wider outreach to all those peoples throughout Europe who look to it as the best hope of safeguarding their democracies and improving their economies. If we fail them, we shall be held to account by history and our failure will be very serious.
  8.19 pm
  Mr. Edward O'Hara: I wish to address my remarks to the Prime Minister's failures of vision and duty in the negotiations at Maastricht—the hat trick of failures in economic policy, social policy and foreign policy.
  The Prime Minister boasts of his achievement in winning the opt-out concession in respect of economic and monetary union. I see it rather as the opportunity for us to press our noses to the window, from the outside looking in, while the other 11 forge ahead without us.
  The Prime Minister was in fact telling the other 11 and the rest of the world that he did not have the confidence in the future of the British economy to commit himself. If that is so, he can kiss goodbye to any prospect of London becoming the financial centre of the unified European Community under EMU. What concept, what factor is more important than confidence in determining the location of that financial centre? We shall be seen as an offshore island, semi-detached from the mainstream of European development. That is the only message that the Prime Minister is sending to our partners in the European Community.
  I make no apology for personalising these matters. The Conservative party and its partners in the press were happy to build a platform for what they were determined to present as the Prime Minister's eventual victory at Maastricht. In fact, they were predetermined to report it as such—as can be seen from the way in which they wrote up the conference in the days and weeks before.
  I understand why. The Prime Minister is the only asset that the Government and the Tory party have, in an Administration that is collapsing around their ears. The Prime Minister, although intimately implicated in the policies that have proved so disastrous, must be distanced from any failure and coated with the teflon of gesture after gesture. This week, we have had the definitive example in respect of mortgage repossessions. I have my theory of why the Prime Minister's image is said to be growing greyer by the day—he is now covered from head to toe in teflon.
  I was talking about the message that the Prime Minister sends to our European Community partners. He also sends a message to potential inward investors, such as the United States and Japan. During the past week, there has been much accusation and counter-accusation about sweatshop investment. Looking to the future, where will

  525
  the quality investment, the high-tech investment, be—high-tech or coolie-powered operations? Will they be inside or outside the EMU bloc? The answer is obvious: inside the EMU bloc, which will not include us.
  The Prime Minister boasts about the restructuring of the British economy. Well, they tried it in the early 1980s, and in my part of the country—in the north-west and in Merseyside in particular—they created an industrial wasteland. I am reminded of Tacitus who, referring to the Roman empire, put the following words into the mouth of a Briton: "Solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant"—"They make a wilderness and call it peace". Throughout the 1980s, the Conservative Government have twice created an industrial desert and called it industrial restructuring.
  Certainly, the Government are set on restructuring our industrial economy for the 21st century so that it has the status of a developing world economy. Fortunately, that will not happen, because a Labour Government will set us on the right road of participation in developing the economy of the European Community in its world context.
  The "will we, won't we" stance of the Government on Europe is like that of a man debating with himself—no dialogue with the other 11, of course—whether to get off a ship in mid-Atlantic; or like a balloon debate with different rules, the object being to get the chance to bail out of the balloon.
  The Government have always been out of step with Europe. They have never begun to understand, for example, the concept of regionalism. The big deception of the 1980s has been the accusation that the European Community is centralist—when, during that period, ours has become the most centralised administration, while the European Community does not just pay lip service to regionalism but offers structural funds to develop or regenerate economically depressed regions.
  It is impressive to see the results of that policy. I have seen it in, for example, Lille in the Nord-Pas de Calais—grasping that assistance with a philosophy of "go, go, go". I mention Nord-Pas de Calais because it is at the other end of the channel tunnel. There are ambitious infrastructure developments designed, for example, to take full advantage of Lille's position at the end of the route from the tunnel and on the transport routes to be developed between Copenhagen and Barcelona. What a contrast with the philosophy and practice on this side of the channel tunnel. If the train grand vitesse came through the tunnel, it would fall off the rails, because they could not cope with it. That is the two-speed Europe.
  What about the structural funds, which are put at risk by the Government's refusal to apply the rules of additionality, to which they signed up? I refer particularly to the withholding of the RECHAR funding, in which my region has an interest. My region suffers as a consequence. What answer did we get the last time that that matter was mentioned in my presence in the House? We were told, "It is our money, and we want it back"—a beggar-my-neighbour policy. That shows that the Government has no commitment to the development of the regions of Europe.
  The neighbours being beggared are not in Portugal, Greece or even in Ireland; they are the north-west, the north-east, the north, Scotland and my region of Merseyside. They are the beggars, and they are being
  526
  beggared by a region in this country—the colonial region of the south-east. We Scouses are used to our city being called the capital of Ireland as a benevolent joke. Believe me, in the light of the Government's attitude to regional policy, in a national and a European context we are a Celtic fringe in the twilight of decline and neglect.
  I wish to address myself to social policy, referring first to another great deception—a wilful perversion of the intentions and extension of the social chapter in respect of union rights. The social chapter specifically refers to individual rights, not collective rights, and, indeed, there is the safeguard of the veto in respect of them.
  There is another wilful perversion—a deliberate confusion of the failed and discredited democratic centralism of the eastern bloc with the great European tradition of democratic socialism, with which I am proud to associate myself and which underlies the social chapter. The Prime Minister referred to the critical question whether our social policies are made here or in Brussels. The people I represent would be far better off if they were protected from the social implications of unbridled capitalism.
  Topically, this week we have seen the casualisation of labour, the destabilisation of an economy based on credit, the effects of that on the housing market—that was an important factor in the great repossession crisis—the fact that the typical mortgage is no longer based on a regular income, and the wider effects throughout the economy.
  Who are the first victims? They are the economically vulnerable, who include many of those whom I represent. They lose their jobs, homes, services and welfare benefits. When one is in a hole such as the one in which they find themselves, one looks for another place. There is a better one available, in Europe, with its social dimension to the single market, outside of which we have no future. I refer not just to the people of my region but to people nationally, to the young whose future in the 21st century is our responsibility now. They are in no doubt which is the better place to which to go.
  On foreign policy, I agree with the Government—as my party agrees—that we must avoid immediate dislocating effects in terms of NATO in the short and, perhaps, the medium term. God knows there have been enough dislocating developments outside NATO, the EC and the Western European Union. Surely we must look to the longer term, to the converging economic interests of the European Community combined with the megalithic—one might even say megatonic—scale of the EC economic bloc, especially when it is enlarged.
  That will bring with it needs and responsibilities commensurate with the influence and power that it will have on a worldwide scale, dwarfing our national significance. We do no good to our people if we ignore that. The vaunting cries of victory over the other 11 in respect of foreign policy at Maastricht did not outlast the week, as Chancellor Kohl demonstrated with his determination over the recognition of the states in Yugoslavia.
  There is a new edifice of foreign policy for the 21st century which needs to be set in place. It demands 20/20 vision—a clear vision of the future and not a myopia which can see no further than the narrow electoral advantage of the Tory party in an election campaign which can last no more than four and a half months.
  In reverse order, I see the outcome of Maastricht as purblindness to the realpolitik of the 21st century; in social

  527
  policy, a betrayal of the rights to a decent quality of working life for our people—unless the Government deny that right—and in economic policy, an admission that the net result of 12 years of Conservative government is abject failure. For all the hurt, it has not worked.
  8.29 pm
  Mr. Patrick Ground: This debate seems to have a quite different character from the debate that we had before the Maastricht conference. In that debate many hon. Members who are not standing for re-election expressed strong doubts and reservations about the countries of the European Community moving more closely together. In this debate, the majority of hon. Members who have been called to speak and who are standing for re-election—the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) is no exception—appear to have far fewer reservations and far less serious doubts about the process of closer union.
  I certainly count myself among those who welcome steps towards closer unity in Europe, not because I believe that there is no hope for this country outside the European Community, but because I believe that by becoming part of a partnership in Europe we lose some of our independence but gain greatly in influence over a wider area. I believe that the deal is in this country's interest.
  In party political terms, I am not sorry that the agreement that has been reached is one which largely unites the Conservative party and divides the Opposition so much that they could not even agree on an amendment to the Government motion but left it to the Liberal Democrats to table one.
  I welcome the fact that the agreement that has been reached will prove acceptable to the overwhelming majority of hon. Members. I shall make three brief points about the terms of the agreement. First, I especially welcome the fact that the terms of the agreement with regard to foreign affairs leave this country free when necessary to take its own initiatives, but also serve to encourage the development of a common European Community policy when that is possible.
  Secondly, I welcome the fact that a framework has been found which will retain American involvement in the defence of Europe and, thirdly, I greatly welcome the further powers that are being given to the European Parliament. A sensible use of the powers of this House is to ensure that more useful powers are given to the European Parliament so that it can exercise functions different from those of the House but which will serve to keep the Commission more democratically accountable.
  One of the principal criticisms that I have heard from the Opposition about the terms of the agreement relates to the monetary union provisions. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling)—and the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) when he wound up for the Opposition last night—implied that this country was likely to be left out of monetary matters as a result of our right not to move to a single currency. That is not so. All the obligations relating to monetary policy and economic convergence up to stage 3 will apply to us just as much as to other members and there is no reason to suppose that we are any less likely than other members to be ready to go ahead with a single currency in 1997. It requires a decision of the United Kingdom Government and of the
  528
  United Kingdom Parliament if it is intended to move to stage 3 and notification of the decision to the Council places us in the same position as all the other members.
  The hon. Member for Hamilton said that a decision was required by this Parliament after the Maastricht treaty was drawn up next year and that that should serve as sufficient ratification by the House of the monetary union arrangements. I believe that Parliament is likely to make a much better-informed decision in 1996, if it is in a position to discuss the matter, than it is in 1992. That is a thoroughly sensible and justifiable way for a mature democracy to proceed.
  The other main criticism advanced by the Opposition relates to the social chapter. The legislation extending over 150 years which has been passed by the House has shown our concern for all matters listed in article 118—the improvement of the working environment to protect workers' health and safety, better working conditions, equal opportunities for men and women and so on. This Parliament has shown as great a concern as any Parliament in Europe about such matters.
  On the difficulties of the social chapter, article 117 recognises the need to maintain the competitiveness of the economy and to take account of the diverse forms of national practices. Article 118 recognises that directives should avoid imposing administrative, financial and legal constraints in a way that would hold back the creation and development of small and medium-sized undertakings. Therefore, many of the Government's objections are in some way recognised in the drafting of the articles, but I believe that the Government's position was carefully considered and based on this country's bitter experience in the late 1960s and 1970s.
  I do not believe that a British Government with the experience of trade union activities which we had in the 1960s and 1970s could be expected to sign an agreement consigning the task of agreeing such matters to an arrangement at European level between management and labour. I regret that the Commission failed to grasp the depth and strength of the Government's objections to such provisions.
  It is difficult to believe that other countries would wish to be involved in the troubles that we had in the 1960s and 1970s. It is difficult to believe that Communitywide discussions between management and labour should be the only way to resolve such matters for the purposes of the social chapter. It is clear that small businesses would be left out and that the competitiveness of individual countries could never be assessed if such agreements were the basis for future action. I believe that the 11 countries which have decided to go in a separate direction would not necessarily wish to proceed separately in such matters and I should like the Government to make a further attempt to repeat the argument to the 11 to explain their deep objections to those provisions and try to reach a formula for agreement about the social chapter. Such an agreement should not be impossible given the considerable achievements and negotiations that have succeeded on the rest of the treaty.
  I believe that the agreement as a whole marks a new step towards closer European union and that it represents acceptable and sustainable progress towards closer union of the countries of the European Community. I am pleased to note from the debate that the cause of closer union appears to be shared by most Members of the House.
  8.39 pm
  Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: I begin by disagreeing with the description by the hon. and learned Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Ground) of the Opposition's two major objections. My hon. Friends the Members for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) were not talking about the discussions on the opt-outs, but were saying that we would not be able to participate in the same way as the other 11 countries, because of the position that the Government have adopted.
  Mr. Ground rose—
  Ms. Mowlam: No, I shall not give way, because I have only 10 minutes.
  On the social chapter, it is no use the hon. and learned Gentleman saying that the Government can introduce the changes. We have waited 12 years. To take one simple example, working women in this country do not have the maternity benefits that women working in other European countries consider a basic right. We have waited 12 years —[interruption.] You don't get pregnant, sweetheart. We have waited 12 years for that change, and it has not come. What the Prime Minister said in the Chamber yesterday was inaccurate—we are arguing not about the length of maternity leave, but about maternity benefits. As female Conservative hon. Members know, about 50 per cent. of women who apply for maternity benefit do not get it, because of the stringent qualifications. The social chapter could achieve such basic rights for women. That is why we are pushing for it, and that is why the other 11 countries are in a different position from this country.
  Similarly, on the 48-hour limit on working hours, the Secretary of State for Employment has again misled the House with inaccurate statements. The argument is not that everybody should work for 48 hours. There are clear exemptions—for contracts, emergency services and so on. It simply says that people cannot be forced.
  Early-day motion 426, which several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Dr. Kumar), have signed, describes how a butcher in my constituency was sacked because he did not want to work more than 12 hours' overtime a week—he wanted to spend more time with his family. That would not happen if the directive were in place. That, and not anything else, is the meaning of such directives.
  I shall concentrate on the impact of the decisions made at Maastricht on the financial services industry of this country. Hon. Members on both sides of the House know that financial services are a crucial part of our economy—17·5 per cent. of the invisible earnings in our GDP result from financial services, and 2·5 million people are employed in the industry. That is the highest number in any country in Europe, and it means that 11·5 per cent. of people work in financial services in this country.
  I am not talking about the square mile alone, but about Manchester, Birmingham, Edinburgh, Glasgow, north Yorkshire and elsewhere. Financial services are a major part of our economy—a part which has managed to keep some vibrancy during the two recessions that the Government have created.
  The Government's decision not to opt into the EMU has put a question mark over confidence in the future of London as the leading financial centre. I assure the House that we want to keep the City of London as the lead
  530
  financial centre. By opting out of the EMU the Government have imposed a backward-looking perspective. They have made the British economy more vulnerable and the future role of the City of London more questionable—not only this year, but for the next decade.
  The Opposition still want to fight to bring the European central bank to the United Kingdom, but the Government have played this very badly. They took the European bank for reconstruction and development—that was bad chess playing by any definition. We have that, with a French president, which makes it more difficult for us to argue that we should have the European central bank—but we must do it.
  A Conservative Member and several of my hon. Friends argued earlier that a shift is taking place as the EFTA countries come into the Community, locating the centre further away from the east and back towards the north. We hope that that will help to keep the focus on London as a central player within Europe. The Government will have to push for that, but their record on financial services, both at and before Maastricht, is appalling. I will give two or three examples. There is the investment services directive and the capital adequacy directive. The United Kingdom asked for that directive. We tried again on Monday, but Department of Trade and Industry Ministers again failed to secure agreement. Having asked for it, they failed to deliver it. That ruins our credibility and any standing that we have in such negotiations. Such a history makes it difficult for us to argue our corner in Europe.
  The insurance industry is another good example. The Government's ideological blinkers for the free market are worn at the expense of that industry. They talk about a level playing field, but our industry has to fight uphill in both halves, so it has its back against the wall, and will have for the next five years.
  Takeover policy is another example. The Government care about the free market, at the expense of our industry. We should consider the poison pill in France, the structural relationship of banking to the financial sector and to industry, and the interplay in Europe. That leaves our industry unfairly exposed.
  That is what the Government's negotiations in Europe have done, against a backdrop of decisions that have tied the hands of our financial services industry. The example of TAURUS—the transfer and automated registration of uncertificated stock—illustrates the point. It has taken the Government nearly 10 years and they still move the goal posts on TAURUS every three months. France dematerialised in a number of years. The DTI blames the stock exchange; the stock exchange blames the DTI. The outcome is that our stock exchange is working at a disadvantage compared with those in the rest of Europe.
  Regulation does not protect the consumer; it is costly to the industry. The record of regulation in this country is appalling. We have regulations, but we do not use them. The Government could have acted on many of the frauds that have taken place, but they have sat back and let those frauds continue. What do we see in the Financial Times today? We see Maxwell, Levitt, Polly Peck and Blue Arrow—they are all still up and running. We have regulations, such as the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, but the Government have not used them.
  When other people in Europe look at London, they see a host of regulations and a Government who are not

  531
  prepared to implement them—a cost without any consumer protection. Who would want to use London? This week there was the London futures and options case. There were six people involved, four of them on the board, and they were fined only £60,000 because, as it said in one of the papers, if they had been charged any more the financial hardship would have been too much for them. With that kind of performance, how can we hope that our futures and options can compete against the Deutsche TerminbÖrse and other markets in Europe?
  If we are serious about our financial services, we have to introduce some changes. The Department of Trade and Industry—with the set of Ministers that it has had year in and year out—has not had the leadership or implemented the infrastructure that our financial services industry needs.
  As the next Government, we shall introduce a consumer protection directive during our European presidency in the second half of the year. We shall implement and use the regulations already on the statute book. As we have said elsewhere, we shall make certain auditing and accounting changes. But above all, we shall fight in Europe for our financial services industry, as the French do for Paris and the Germans for Frankfurt. The Government have left our industry exposed in a way that has lost 400,000 jobs in the past two years and will lose more jobs and more of the focus of the industry if it is left to the post-Maastricht attitude that the Government have manifested.
  8.48 pm
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Substantial achievements have come out of the Maastricht agreement which are the result of the considerable skills deployed by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Foreign Secretary. The first is the exclusion of the social chapter, in which the hand of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment was so evident. That is undoubtedly a great fillip for British industry, as has been widely recognised throughout Europe. Far more importantly, the agreement has established the valuable precedent that, when some member states want to increase Community power, they do not need to dragoon other, unwilling member states to join them but can form an agreement outwith the treaty of Rome and beyond the reach of the European Court.
  Secondly, establishing the right of the United Kingdom to decide whether it wants to join the single currency was the result of the stern resolve of my right hon. Friends, especially the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not to be browbeaten or to give in on the issue and risk the accusations of isolation and all the other nonsense.
  Before my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister went to Maastricht, he said that he would only bring back to the House a deal that he could recommend and that he would not sign otherwise. Yesterday, quoting Eisenhower, he acknowledged that we in Britain study the fine print before signing. As he and I worked at Standard Chartered Bank and I was involved in international lending, he will readily recall that we did not sign loan agreements until they had been meticulously examined. In the same spirit, I know that he would consider it right and proper—indeed, the bounden duty of every hon. Member—to study the treaties that he has brought back.
  532
  That duty is even greater, given that the British public are denied access to the documentation. My secretary has been told today by the Foreign Office—I am pleased to see that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is here—that only one copy is available, and that the only way our constituents can obtain copies is by writing to the printer in Brussels. The House is more fortunate, as my right hon. Friends have ensured that a copy is available in the Library. It is most unsatisfactory that the general public are not clear about the precise technical details that we are called on to study, and the onus on us is great.
  I have always been concerned about what my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) described so accurately as the "conveyor belt" to federalism. I have opposed almost every Euro-measure before the House since I was elected in 1983, including the Single European Act. Some may, therefore, describe me as a Euro-sceptic.
  I have read the treaties and I have a number of profound reservations. I told my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Ground) that I will stand again at the next election and that I do have reservations. Although I applaud the determination of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to keep options open to allow latitude to a future Parliament to decide whether to join a single currency, I have difficulty in sharing his view that we shall not be compelled by economic pressure to join when the time comes. Our membership of the exchange rate mechanism was partly occasioned by that same relentless pressure. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) made it clear that he would be part of that relentless pressure. I regard our management of membership of the ERM as having prolonged the recession quite unnecessarily.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) made clear last month, a single currency would be the quickest way to a federal Europe, requiring the most massive transfer of political and economic power from Westminster to Brussels. My right hon. Friends may be gambling on convergence not taking place and/or the German people waking up and refusing to act as the principal European paymasters. That is a dangerous policy and I wish that my right hon. Friends would spell out that they oppose the principle of a single currency.
  The cohesion fund to be established under article 130d by the end of 1993 is intended to help out our Spanish friends. However, that same article permits the Council to define the
  "tasks, priority, objectives and the organisation of the structural funds"
  and could become another vehicle for providing United Kingdom taxpayers' money to assist our Spanish friends in taking business away from the United Kingdom.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) referred yesterday to the powers to be vested in the presidency. Under article E of the common foreign and security policy:
  "The Presidency shall be responsible for the implementation of common measures; in that capacity it shall in principle express the position of the Union in international organisations and international conferences."
  Furthermore, there will be an obligation on member states that are members of the United Nations Security Council—ourselves and France—to
  "ensure the defence of the positions and the interests of the Union"

  533
  while accepting the responsibilities of ourselves and France under the provisions of the United Nations charter. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) pointed out in an intervention in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, there is at least a recipe for confusion there. The article seems to require the United Kingdom and France to act as agents for other European countries, and in the long run it can only lead to pressure for the removal of France and ourselves from the Security Council, to be replaced by whichever nation happens to hold the six months' presidency of the union.
  Above all, there are two other issues about which I feel profoundly unhappy. The treaty on European union provides for the introduction of "citizenship of the Union". I thought that all Conservative Members were against anything other than voluntary membership of unions. Whatever my right hon. Friends say, that seems to mark a clear intention to establish a federal Europe. I am not a citizen of the union, and I do not wish to become a citizen of the union. I shall remain a citizen of the United Kingdom, a status which, I suspect, the vast majority of my fellow countrymen wish to maintain.
  Ms. Mowlam: It is not a union.
  Mr. Howarth: It is indeed a union. I will explain how a union works, and why I am opposed to federalism. I will quote Professor A. V. Dicey. He said that two conditions were required for federalism to work. He said that there must first exist
  "a body of countries … so closely connected by locality, by history, by race, or the like, as to be capable of bearing, in the eyes of their inhabitants, an impress of common nationality."
  That seems as true today as it was in the 1880s.
  Another important issue is subsidiarity. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary says that there has been a sea change in Europe. Would that he were right. It is common ground that in this country we want to limit the power of the Eurpoean Commission severely, but given that the definition of subsidiarity will most probably be tested in the European Court, which has a record of seeking to extend Community competence, what assurances can my right hon. Friend give us about the advice that he has received as to how the European Court would be likely to construe what is at best a very vague clause?
  My right hon. Friends have done well to remove the word "federal" from the text of the treaty, but we should delude ourselves if we believed that we had stopped federalism in its tracks. Many of our continental partners have made it clear that their federal ambitions remain undiminished, and they will simply come back at the next opportunity to gain some of the territory that they failed to take at Maastricht.
  Most people in this country are happy to go along with a Common Market in which the United Kingdom has led the way. However, seeing the break-up of the Soviet Union, and seeing what is happening in Yugoslavia, they ask themselves what on earth is the merit in the nations of Europe trying to put themselves into a similar straitjacket, which could lead to all the difficulties to which Conservative and Opposition Members have drawn attention.
  The people of Britain will not accept a United States of Europe. My fear is that we are still on the European conveyor belt and that each attempt to deepen the
  534
  Community will frustrate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's admirable determination to widen it. My own view has consistently been, "thus far and no further". We have nothing to gain from the new treaties and we should, in my humble opinion, have been better off rejecting them totally. In so far as we have not been able to do that, I much regret that I shall not be able to support the Government in the Lobby tonight, but in recognition of my right hon. Friends' undoubted efforts I shall not vote with the Labour party, whose intellectual dishonesty is apparent in its repeated U-turns on Europe and in its fawning subservience to every socialist measure emanating from Brussels.
  The House and the country will be most interested to see that there is no amendment on the Order Paper tabled by the Leader of the Opposition. The Labour party cannot get its own people united in the Lobby, so it has not had the guts to table an amendment. The people of Britain should be warned: the Labour party is so supine and devoid of policy that, if elected to office in this place, it would probably hand over the rights of this Parliament without a whimper.
  8.58 pm
  Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: In the two minutes that have been allotted to me before the Front-Bench spokesmen reply to the debate, I should like to make a few points. I hope that I shall not work over the same territory as other hon. Members have explored.
  Despite all the party politics, many hon. Members of all parties are deeply concerned about some elements relating to the concept behind this debate. Although many hon. Members have touched on the fear of a deficit of democracy, I have not heard any hon. Member refer to how Britain will try to do something in the new Europe to correct that deficit. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) will say something about their ideas for correcting that deficit of democracy.
  There is perhaps a common purpose in the House in that we all feel that minority groups in the new Europe of institutions may face danger. I speak about minority groups because I represent a Birmingham constituency, as does the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, who will reply on behalf of the Opposition. Minority groups in this country might have something to fear, because I do not get the impression that the new Europe is becoming more tolerant. In fact, I get the reverse impression—that as a result of proportional representation, racially intolerant parties are now emerging in Germany, France, Denmark and Belgium. Although we all need to guard against that intolerance, that result leads me to take issue with Liberal Democrat Members on the subject of proportional representation.
  I turn now to the concept of the two models of Europe, to what has been referred to as the "Atlanticist Europe" on the defence side and to the concept of "Fortress Europe". I am glad that we have adopted the Atlanticist approach because, despite the impression that one gets from Paris, all attempts to convert us into Fortress Europe will lead to disaster.
  The Commission has distorted some of the better aims of the European Community. Its gradualist and centralist approach has converted the idea of a federation into

  535
  something with which many of my hon. Friends take grave issue. However, as some hon. Members recognise, other parts of Europe have a totally different understanding of the word "federal".
  Turning to the concept of subsidiarity, I should like to outline the benefits of the pillared structure or approach. That is a safety valve for the impetus to centralism. If individual Governments feel that pressure points are building up, the pillared structure enables them to do something concrete about it within a framework that is co-operative rather than compulsory or based on coercion. Many of my hon. Friends are worried about much of what we are being "persuaded"—on the basis of coercion—to adopt in Europe. The pillared structure would lead to greater co-operation, not coercion. In that respect also, subsidiarity acts as a safety valve for those who seriously doubt—
  Mr. Derek Enright: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hargreaves: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman because I have only a little time and wish to conclude on this point.
  Subsidiarity acts as a safety valve for matters about which many of us have serious doubts. Despite those doubts, I feel that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has achieved a masterly stroke at Maastricht by providing us with those structures.
  9.3 pm
  Mr. Roy Hattersley: Until my act of brief but uncharacteristic generosity to my neighbour, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves), I had hoped to speak immediately after the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) because I wanted to make two comments about his speech. First, I was touched by his faith in the communication of the media when he said that every person in the country would be speculating tonight why the Labour party had not tabled an amendment. They are worried about inflation, unemployment, the collapse of the manufacturing industry, bankruptcies and mortgage foreclosures and the hon. Gentleman thinks that they will be worried about why the Labour party has not tabled an amendment. Secondly and more importantly, I wanted to reminisce with the hon. Gentleman a little. He concluded by saying that it would have been better if the Prime Minister had not put his signature to the treaty. When I acted as a PPS—admittedly some years ago—I always considered it my duty to reflect the views of the senior Minister on whose behalf I ran the errands. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman was doing exactly the same.
  May I apologise first on behalf of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), who should have wound up the debate but who, regrettably, must attend a family funeral. My second apology is more personal—it is for my influenza, which makes me sound almost as much like my "Spitting Image" puppet as the Home Secretary behaves and looks like his. I may fail to convert Ministers this evening, but I shall almost certainly infect a few.
  The Prime Minister went to Maastricht with a single ambition—to paper over the cracks in the Tory party. In the pursuit of that aim, the national interest was neglected, the real chance to be at the heart of Europe was thrown
  536
  away and the right to influence the inevitable progress towards monetary union was sacrificed. All that mattered was preserving the illusion of Conservative party unity. The Prime Minister has failed to achieve even that sad little objective. That is not surprising, for any sensible person would have realised that the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) would glory in biting the pathetic hand that tried to feed him. Anyone who watched him gesticulating when the Home Secretary spoke about the unity now sweeping through the Conservative party would have realised that, for reasons of psychology rather than ideology, he was bound to do what he will do this evening. Yet to obtain a few extra votes, the opportunities were missed and Britain was voluntarily relegated to Europe's second division.
  The Prime Minister went to extraordinary lengths to accommodate the ungenerous little Englanders in the Conservative party. His most disreputable tactic was to attempt to make their flesh creep with the pretence that to join their partners in Europe in endorsing the social chapter would promote disputes over pay and encourage strikes. That was his clear message to the country on at least two occasions. It was his clear message to the House on 12 December, recorded at column 982 of Hansard,and when he was tackled on it by my right hon. Friends he wrote back saying that he did not mean strikes or disputes, but objected to other aspects of the social chapter—mainly the increase in costs that it would impose on British industry.
  A week ago the Prime Minister spoke in the House about strikes and implied that they would be promoted by the social chapter, so he must have known that article 118(6) of the protocol makes that impossible. I shall read it to the House in case the Prime Minister has another lapse of memory, as he does when they suit his political convenience. It says:
  "The provisions of this Article shall not apply to pay, the right of association, the right to strike or the right to impose lock-outs."
  Had the Prime Minister had the courtesy to attend the winding-up of the debate, he would no doubt have tried to justify why, only a week ago, he intentionally pretended something quite different.
  No doubt when the Chancellor of the Exchequer winds up he will summon up all the sincerity of which he is capable—[ Laughter.] I make no comment on how much that is. No doubt the Chancellor will say that what was done last week was all for Britain. If he wants to convince us of the Government's integrity, he had better begin by answering the question which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked him yesterday and which he so shamelessly refused to answer. The Chancellor has had 26 hours to think of a reply that should take only a few seconds, for all that he has to say is yes or no.
  I shall repeat the question in exactly the form that it was put to him yesterday and ask whether there are
  "circumstances in which, despite the achievements of convergence, despite the establishment of monetary union by our neighbours, he would come to the House and recommend that we still stayed out?"—[Official Report, 18 December 1991; Vol. 201, c. 291.]
  Earlier today, in the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Foreign Secretary essayed an excuse and said that it was only sensible to decide at the time and that we should make up our mind when the time comes. If that is the Chancellor's position, we should be told what the test will be when we get to 1995, 1997 or 1999. The

  537
  Chancellor should explain the criteria against which he would personally measure the question: do we go in or stay out?
  We already know the four criteria of convergence. What are the additional ones that the Chancellor has in mind and that lead him to believe that he should make up his mind then rather than now? If his answer is that, yes, there are circumstances that might lead him to say that Britain should remain outside despite the union being created and the single currency being in place, I hope that he will explain those circumstances.
  The Chancellor might oppose our entry in principle—an honourable and plausible position. I do not hold it myself, but if the Chancellor were to say that we must stay out whatever the price and whatever the cost to Britain's prosperity, as a matter of principle, we could at least applaud his frankness. He might even be suggesting that, at the end of the decade, even if convergence had been achieved, the economy would be so weak that we dare not join the monetary union. I understand why the Chancellor might take that view.
  One of the measures of convergence, article 1, is the requirement of price stability. The Government are pursuing that objective by collapsing the real economy. Unemployment has increased massively according to today's figures. Manufacturing output is 5·3 per cent. down, and manufacturing investment 12 per cent. down, on last year. There have been 110,000 company liquidations this year—more than ever before and more than the number of new companies created. I understand that that decline has been confirmed in a report of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development published at 6 o'clock this evening. If the Chancellor is really saying that he needs time to worry and wonder about membership as, after 12 years of Conservatism, the economy cannot stand it, he had better tell that to the country and the House here and now.
  I suspect that the Chancellor's honest answer to the question of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition is no. I suspect that there are no circumstances in which, despite the achievement of convergence and despite the establishment of monetary union by our neighbours, he would come to the House and recommend that we still stayed out. However, to admit that would not only alienate some Conservative Back-Bench Members, but expose the Maastricht negotiations as a pathetic sham.
  The Chancellor must know—of course he knows; he admitted it yesterday—that there is no question of our going in before convergence has been attained. If we would or should go in when convergence has been attained, the opt-out becomes wholly meaningless and the pretence of negotiating success cobbled together to impress the gullible 1922 Committee has no meaning. Selected newspapers declared it a triumph, but none of us should be surprised by that. It struck me as I read some of those newspapers that some hon. Members might like to play a word game with their families during the coming Christmas recess: describe the circumstances which could make the Daily Mail and the Daily Express turn against the Prime Minister. Those who fear that the answer is too horrible to contemplate may accept my answer—he could revoke the editors' knighthoods.
  Sir Peter Tapsell: Would the right hon. Gentleman care to describe the circumstances in which the Daily Mirror might turn against the Labour party?
  Mr. Hattersley: No, 1 cannot. I cannot recall the circumstances in which genuinely independent editors of any political persuasion have thought it right to accept knighthoods from Governments, because it means that they no longer occupy that position.
  I am pleased to welcome the Prime Minister to the debate with the news, which I was about to give to the House in his absence, that when the election comes, as long as he can still blink the Daily Express and the Daily Mail will be on his side.
  The way in which the newspapers behaved after Maastricht demonstrates how shoddy the whole operation was. I take my example from the Daily Mail simply because I welcome any excuse to quote its headline of 9 June last year—the day after the Prime Minister made his daytrip to Saudi Arabia, an event heralded in the Daily Mail with the headline, "The grey fox of the desert". The Prime Minister is many things, but Lawrence of Arabia he is not. Last week the Daily Mail told us, "Major wins a knockout." That reminded me of an earlier Daily Mail recording of an international triumph on 9 April, "Major's plan saves Kurds." I hope that that headline is a comfort to the refugees who are now dying of cold, disease and hunger.
  The reason why the Prime Minister triumphed in those achievements is that he lives for the moment. He has no vision of the Britain or the Europe that he wants to build. When he used the word "vision" at the end of his speech yesterday, it had no credibility and carried no conviction. He talks about being at the heart of Europe, not because the idea inspires him, but because his advisers have told him that it is a profitable thing to say.
  Yet one day the United Kingdom will join the single currency: I have no doubt about that. Tory dissident after Tory dissident has warned of it. In the past two days Government supporters have predicted that Britain will join. Now that the Eleven have signed the treaty, progress towards a single currency is inevitable and I rejoice in that. The tragedy is that, as the others make progress, we shall not go with them but shall be dragged along behind.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Can my right hon. Friend envisage no situation in which a Labour Government might have reservations about a single currency and a central bank and about economic decisions being taken which might be inimical to their interests?
  Mr. Hattersley: I made my position clear and I am happy to repeat it. I rejoice in the progress towards a single currency and in a few moments I shall talk about the sort of system that I want and that will benefit the country.
  Earlier the Foeign Secretary said that it was wrong to suggest that by opting out of the single currency we would not continue to influence policy. Is he suggesting that the Eleven, committed to making progress, will even contemplate the bank or the institution coming to Britain? As my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) said in a notable speech, we have already lost the chance to determine the date on which stage 3 will be implemented and we are losing influence all the time.
  By committing ourselves to the objective that I have described, we will not reduce or lose our sovereignty. I do

  539
  not want to add to the Chancellor's problems, which seem to come not singly but in battalions, and with that in mind I ask him whether he was totally unmoved by today's announcement of an increase in the German base rate, or did he feel that somehow that increase might be of concern to us, might influence us or might have a determining effect on some of our economic policy? I have no doubt that, formally or informally, we are now locked into the European economic system. That is why we should be part of the process that brings about the single currency. We should have chosen to influence the inevitable union in a way that benefits Britain, but instead of that we have abdicated.
  The cliché is that we missed the bus, but that is only part of the problem. The real tragedy is that we are destined to run along behind it and one day scramble on board even if it is then deviating from the route that we would have chosen. We should have learnt the mistake of that posture from the common agricultural policy. Now that the tyrannies of eastern Europe have collapsed, the CAP is perhaps the world's worst example of the centrally managed market. This year it will cost Britain £1·225 billion net. If we had joined the EC earlier and had been signatories to the treaty of Rome, when the CAP proposal came along I have no doubt that we would have been able to moderate the absurdities which cost this country so much money and which so discredit the whole operation of the Community. We are making the same mistake again by letting others take the decisions and then following on later.
  The Prime Minister should have gone to Maastricht with a positive message for his European colleagues. The message should not have been that we would sign up for a single currency at any price. He should have made it clear that Britain would join when the Community co-operated in creating the conditions that made the single currency an unqualified benefit for this country. In a phrase, that means the ability of all member states to sustain adequate rates of growth and employment without incurring unsustainable current account deficits.
  Among other things, that requires the Community to develop and adopt a more positive regional policy. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday, it should do that in part by financing it from the funds that now subsidise incompetent and inefficient agriculture. But there are other funds available in Europe, some of which we understand the Government are refusing to accept. If the Secretary of State for the Environment is to be believed—and who in the world ever doubts a word that he says—the Government have rejected £100 million of regional aid in what the Secretary of State for the Environment calls a monumental own goal. The Government have rejected that money for wholly doctrinaire reasons. I understand that other EC grants are likely to be withheld until the Government respect the rules that they agreed in 1988—until they stop treating Community money like Government income to be set against rather than added to additional expenditure.
  Will the Chancellor tell us when this silly squabble among Ministers will be over? When will the Government accept the rules that they signed and when will the Chancellor be able to accept the grants which the Community wants to pay to the hard-hit regions but which, for reasons of pathetic dogma, the Government refuse to accept?
  540
  The Prime Minister should have gone to Maastricht arguing for a positive union policy. Unfortunately, he went to Maastricht arguing for nothing. He had a clear idea of what he was against, but no idea of what he was for. For reasons which combined a lack of faith in British industry with party political prejudice, he was against the social charter.
  No honest person now pretends that the social chapter would supersede domestic industrial relations legislation. However, it would promote a wide range of social benefits, many of them vital to part-time workers and women workers. How does the Prime Minister defend himself against the charge that he has missed an opportunity? He says that the costs of the social chapter are too great for British companies to bear. We are entitled to ask, and the country is entitled to know, why, after 13 years of Tory Government, and constant claims of a recurring economic miracle, we cannot afford for our workers what Germany, France and Belgium can afford for theirs.
  The truth is that the Government regard the provisions in the social chapter—improved maternity benefits, which have been referred to, and the extension of redundancy payments, which are equally important—as, in the words of the previous Prime Minister, "socialism by the back door". It happens to be the sort of socialism which appeals to Helmut Kohl and every European Conservative leader with the exception of the Prime Minister. That is why the Prime Minister was excluded from the meeting of European Conservatives which preceded Maastricht. He was allowed to tag along at the end. The tragedy is that tagging along at the end has become the Prime Minister's habit and his preferred position.
  By opting out of the social chapter and offering as an excuse for this that it is too expensive, the Prime Minister has designated this country as a low-cost economy which tries to attract investment by promising minimum labour costs. Fortunately, Britain cannot succeed in that role. If we try to attract investment by talking about low labour costs, other countries will do it better than we will do, will undercut us and beat us at that game.
  Mr. Michael Colvin: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hattersley: No, I have only two minutes left and I must go on.
  Our pitch should be not for low costs, but for high skills of labour. Fifteen years ago, when the Ford motor company established a new plant in south Wales, Henry Ford told Ministers in the Labour Government who had helped in those negotiations that what he was looking for was not low wages but high skills and highly skilled workers who expect, for instance, decent redundancy rates. They even expect decent maternity leave because, whether Conservative Members know it or not, some highly skilled workers happen to be women.
  The other thing about the social chapter that the Prime Minister does not understand, which means that he may never speak for Europe in the way that we need someone to speak for Europe, is that the social chapter has given the Community some meaning, some importance, some relevance for the typical family and the average citizen. It has meant that the Community is no longer simply the bankers' and brokers' Europe; it is not simply a Community of unrestrained free enterprise which does not care for living standards and employment opportunities. It

  541
  has given it a meaning and to sacrifice that importance is to do the Community untold damage in the eyes of the typical British family and worker.
  We have heard a great deal, this evening and yesterday, about the importance of widening the Community rather than deepening it. Let me make my position clear. I want to see the EFTA countries as members. I want to see the new democracies, as they emerge in eastern Europe, pass through association status into full membership, but if that is going to happen, and if the Community of 12 is to become a community of 18, there has to be a deepening and strengthening of institutions or the Community will disappear under the weight of numbers.
  Some Conservative Members may want to recreate Europe in terms of a free trade area. I believe that Europe is something more creative, more positive and more dynamic than that. If it is to be more than a free trade area with Austria, Sweden, Switzerland and Hungary in it, the institutions have to be strengthened. That is why every European leader with the exception of the Prime Minister believes that strengthening the institutions and accepting new members are two related processes which must go on at the same time.
  We have heard a great deal this evening about democracy. I dare say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will tell us that he cannot commit himself now to even the principles of monetary union in the third stage because of the democratic necessity to obey and respect the House of Commons. Because of changes in the world and the way in which the world has evolved, Britain has, during the past 25 years, whether we like it or not, lost a great deal of its independent sovereignty. By joining a democratic Europe we can regain a great deal of our influence and that is what I want to see.
  The idea that a man, an honourable Gentleman, who has been a Minister for the past 12 years should tell the House that the Government cannot tell it what they want to about Europe because of their respect for parliamentary institutions and the votes of the House of Commons is ludicrous. Britain has seen 12 years of what Lord Hailsham called an elective dictatorship before he joined one by becoming Lord Chancellor to the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher). The idea that the Government should hide behind that excuse shows their pathetic inability to mount a credible case for what happened last week. It may have impressed the Daily Express and the Daily Mail, but the more people think about it the more shoddy it seems, and the price will be paid in April, May or June.
  9.31 pm
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Norman Lamont): I listened carefully and with interest to the first part of the speech of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). After having heard half of it, I was going to say that, although I disagreed with it, the right hon. Gentleman had at least set out a clear position; a clear difference between the Labour party and the Conservative party.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that he was prepared to commit the Labour party to move to a single currency provided that convergence was achieved, that he would
  542
  give that commitment irrevocably now and that he did not understand why we would not. The difference was crystal clear—black and white.
  Then the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) intervened to ask whether there were any circumstances in which the Opposition would not move to a single currency. Those of my hon. Friends who were present will know that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was completely unable to give a straight answer. The right hon. Gentleman started off pretending that he was clear about the single currency, but then he could not answer his hon. Friend. He then went on to attach many more conditions which he thought should be included in the treaty amendments, making his attitude to a single currency even less clear.
  Four weeks ago, the Government came to the House and set out their objectives in the negotiations. We were clear about what we would propose, what we would agree to and what we would reject. Now we are able to return to the House with an agreed set of treaty amendments that accords exactly with the objectives that we set out.
  The agreements reached by the 12 member states of the Community at Maastricht are widely recognised as an historic step forward. They point the way for the future of the Community. But, as the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged, the development of the Community must not stop at Maastricht. More and more over the past few months, people have come to realise that Europe is not just the Twelve. The challenge for the Community over the years to come is to extend prosperity and the benefits of Community membership across Europe.
  That is why we have strongly supported the creation of the European economic area, but we have made it clear that in years to come the Community must embrace not just the well-off countries which may be able to join and whose entry will pose few problems for the Community, but the countries of eastern Europe.
  I am glad that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook confirmed that he supports Community membership for eastern European countries, but he did not mention that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was the first leader of a Community country publicly to say that he wanted that to happen.
  I agree with the right hon. Gentleman at least that the association agreements with Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia are just the first step. The countries of eastern Europe made it clear that they see full Community membership as their ultimate objective, and we must all work for that.
  In last month's debate, I pointed out that the individual countries of the Community and their foreign policies have different interests—and that, for that reason, we had to retain the freedom to act alone. The agreement that my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs reached on defence and foreign policy does just that. At the same time, it provides the right framework for European foreign and security policy in the 1990s.
  I certainly want to respond to some of the points raised by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, and I will answer more frankly and directly than he did when responding to the question posed by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich.
  I will focus my remarks on economic and monetary union and on the agreement reached at Maastricht. In the last debate, I set out our four key objectives in the

  543
  negotiations. First, Britain should not be committed to move to a single currency without a decision at the appropriate time by the United Kingdom Government and Parliament.
  Secondly, in the next stage of monetary union, responsibility for monetary and fiscal policy in the second stage should remain firmly with member states—something that was pressed on me by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, but not of course by members of Labour's Front Bench.
  Thirdly, any future monetary union should be soundly based and should rest firmly on durable economic convergence.
  Fourthly, even within any monetary union—even when a single currency was established—member states should have the maximum possible freedom to make their own economic policies, including fiscal policy. That point is important to this side of the House and to some Opposition Back Benchers, but apparently it is not in any way important to members of Labour's Front Bench.
  I am glad to tell the House that, after the negotiations at Maastricht—difficult and intensive though they were—the agreement reached met all the objectives laid down in our last debate. First and foremost, Britain is not committed to move to a single monetary policy or to a single currency. That is clearly spelt out by the United Kingdom protocol, which is an integral part of the treaty. It was drafted by the United Kingdom to meet our specific concerns, and was agreed by the 11 other member states.
  Not just the United Kingdom but all 12 member states clearly stated:
  "the United Kingdom shall not be obliged or committed to move to the third stage of economic and monetary union without a separate decision to do so by its government and Parliament."
  That was our objective, and we achieved it.
  Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Personally, I cannot envisage any circumstances in which, were a single currency to be formed, Britain would not want to be part of it. However, the Chancellor's case is that only the opt-out clause provides that option. Surely it is the case that nothing in the treaty compels Britain to join economic and monetary union. Assume the case in which it went ahead on one or other of the prescriptive dates, and in which Britain fulfilled the convergence conditions. Surely there is nothing in the treaty that compels us to join at that moment—is there?
  Mr. Lamont: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman misses the point. As a result of the changes made between the last text presented to the House and the final text, it is now agreed that people are committed—provided that they meet the convergence conditions—to move, irrevocably and without a separate choice, to a single currency. That is there. The right hon. Gentleman, who takes a close interest in those matters, ought to look more closely at what was agreed.
  For us, the main point was that this country should be given a choice. The House will recall that, earlier in the negotiations, the Dutch presidency circulated a text that would have permitted every member state to enjoy the same right—a general exemption clause. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) attempted to make out that that represented some great
  544
  reversal for the Government; the important point, however, is having that choice, not the form in which the text exists.
  While the general exemption clause was acceptable to us, other member states made it clear that they had difficulties with it. I must say that I am sometimes puzzled by the fact that other countries do not want to consult their Parliaments. It is not for me to speculate about the reason—it is a matter for them—but, in our opinion, that is not an acceptable route for the present Government to take, even if it is acceptable to the Opposition. We feel that this is a profound and important decision which should be made by the House of Commons.
  Mr. Hattersley: I am distressed to find myself suspecting that the Chancellor imagines that he has answered the question that he was asked yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. We all believe that this is a profound and important decision, and one that the House must make. The question is this: if convergence had been achieved by this country, and if the other countries had moved to stage 3 and the single currency, can the Chancellor imagine himself recommending that we stay out of it? I cannot imagine myself doing so.
  Mr. Lamont: I believe that there are certain conditions—[Interruption.] Let me make two points. First, I believe that we are discussing a matter of principle which ought to be decided by the House. Secondly, let us suppose that only three member states met the convergence conditions. In fact, only three Community countries meet them at present. Suppose that three small countries were irrevocably committed to a single currency, as they have to be under the treaty.
  Germany does not meet the convergence conditions at present. Suppose that we had a proposed monetary union of three small countries—or of three countries, excluding Germany. Does the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook think that we should have signed a treaty committing ourselves now, irrevocably, to becoming a party to monetary union? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook asked me a direct question. I have given him an answer; why does he not answer my question?
  Mr. Hattersley: I am glad to see that the Chancellor has learnt at least one thing from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
  The answer is that the right hon. Gentleman's question is too stupid to need an answer. He knows perfectly well that to hypothesise that monetary union could be built around Ireland, Belgium and Luxembourg is simply ridiculous. The fact that he used that example shows how defensive the right hon. Gentleman is about his failures yesterday.
  Mr. Lamont: The right hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] Of course I will answer: I am rather better at answering questions than the right hon. Gentleman seems to be.
  The right hon. Gentleman invited me to hypothesise, and then refused to answer a question, saying that he would not hypothesise. What he apparently does not

  545
  realise is that, as I have said to him, as of this moment only three countries qualify for the four convergence criteria that are laid down. They are Denmark—
  Mr. Kaufman: Nineteen ninety-seven.
  Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman clearly does not understand the treaty. He says that a mass of seven countries is required. The whole point is—[interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman said that, and the whole House heard him say it. The point is that, under the amendments to the treaty, we do not need to have a minimum of seven countries.
  Mr. Kaufman: Will the Chancellor give way?
  Mr. Lamont: I will give way in a minute.
  It is perfectly possible that the monetary union of only three countries could take place in 1999. Only three countries meet the conditions now. Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that we should irrevocably commit ourselves to joining a currency union, however many countries there are in it and regardless of the conditions? The right hon. Gentleman will not answer that question, but I shall answer it for him. He wants to say yes. That is his policy. He wants to commit this country irrevocably to joining monetary union. Our position is clear: that we wish this House of Commons, this Parliament, to have the say at that time. I believe that that is right.
  Mr. Kaufman: No doubt because of the noise in the House, the right hon. Gentleman misheard what I said, so I shall now tell him what I said and ask him to answer my question. I said nothing about seven countries. What I spoke about was the year 1997. Has the Chancellor, together with the Prime Minister, signed up to transition to the third stage of economic and monetary union, which they accept is irreversible and irrevocable, by the end of 1997, the date of the beginning of the third stage? That is what we want to know. Of course convergence has not been reached in 1991, but what about 1997? What would his answer be then?
  Mr. Lamont: The right hon. Gentleman has totally missed the point: that if the European Council cannot set the date for stage 3 in 1997, it happens automatically in 1999. As a result of the clause that we have negotiated. to which the Opposition are opposed, we have a choice. We and Denmark are the only two countries in Europe that will not move automatically to a single currency. I am afraid that the Opposition do not understand that.
  Mr. Kaufman: It is the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister who do not understand what it is that they have signed. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor have signed a protocol on the transition to the third stage of economic and monetary union in which they, not just the other 11, declare the irreversible character of the Community's movement to a single currency. They agreed that the Community shall enter the third stage irrevocably. That is what the British Government have signed up for.
  Mr. Lamont: The right hon. Gentleman should know—[HON. MEMBERS: "Tebbit knows."] I know that the right hon. Gentleman does not want to hear the answer, because he has got it all wrong and his party is in an impossible
  546
  position, but the answer is that our protocol takes precedence over the language in the main treaty amendment. [Interruption.] Of course that is absolutely right. That is why this country has the option to opt out. That is why, as a result of our negotiations, we have the choice—rightly, I believe—to decide whether to move to a single currency.
  The Leader of the Opposition made a very forceful and good speech yesterday. [Interruption.] Yes, it was a very good speech indeed, but I think that he was a little bit inebriated with his own enthusiasm. In his brilliant speech yesterday, he seemed to forget what he had said four weeks ago. On 20 November, he said:
  "there is no possibility of any Government … certainly no British Government and certainly no Labour Government, not referring to their Parliament for a mandate before taking a step into entering monetary union".—[Official Report, 20 November 1991: Vol. 199, c. 284.]
  Yesterday, the right hon. Gentleman was so carried away that he reneged on that. He made it crystal clear—the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook has made it clear again today—that, if the United Kingdom met the four convergence conditions set out in the treaty, that would be the end of the matter.
  The Leader of the Opposition should explain why, had he been Prime Minister, he would have given one undertaking on 20 November and gone back on it three weeks later. Will he explain why he is prepared to see a single currency automatically imposed on this country regardless of the wishes of the House? That is an abdication of responsibility that Conservative Members are not prepared to make.
  The Labour party wants to put the future of Britain's currency on auto-pilot. It wants to sacrifice for no gain Parliament's right to take the final decision about a single currency. That is also what the Labour party would like to do on the social chapter, as the debate has demonstrated all too well. Nothing separates our attitude to this treaty more clearly from that of the Labour party than its willingness to sacrifice the rights of the House.
  As the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) so rightly said last month, that is the real issue. It is not whether their social policies or our social policies are right. It is more profound than that. The issue is whether the Community should have the right to impose social policy measures on this country or whether the way we work should remain primarily a matter for the House. It is whether measures opposed by the Government and the House can be imposed on this country by qualified majority voting.
  The Labour party's attitude is an illustration of its lack of confidence in its ability to persuade the British people at the polls. Why does it have so little confidence in its ability to win the argument or to win an election that it wants to chuck the power away and give it to Brussels?
  If the Community is to have a social dimension, the top priority must be job creation—[interruption.]Our policies in the 1980s gave us a job creation record as good as any in Europe. Between 1983 and 1989, the United Kingdom created more jobs than any other member state. The OECD has recently noted that, between 1984 and 1990, the United Kingdom—[interruption.]We all heard the Labour party's ritual demonstration about today's unemployment figures. It does not seem to know by how much unemployment is rising in France.

  547
  The social chapter proposed at Maastricht had nothing to do with job creation. We know from experience that an inch of Community competence means a mile of red tape. We know that our attitude is supported by British business. We know that British business men know that what we are doing is right for Britain. Six leading business men said in a letter to The Times that Britain must
  "strive to prevent the excesses of regulation"
  in Europe.
  The Association of British Chambers of Commerce said:
  "The Government was quite right to stick out for an exclusion on the Social Chapter. All 800 Chambers of Commerce in Europe have rejected the Commission's plans to legislate in areas such as hours of work. There will be many continental businesses today envying their UK competitors for the comparative flexibility in labour costs".
  Because we have a more flexible labour market and because of the reforms of the 1980s, this country has attracted inward investment in Europe far more than France and Germany.
  What was depressing about the debate was the emptiness of the speech of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). He did not make a single constructive suggestion. He did not give the faintest outline of the Labour party's policy—30 minutes and no suggestion whatsoever of the way in which the Labour party believed that it would have handled the negotiations.
  The revealing feature of today's debate is the Order Paper, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) said. Where is the Labour party's amendment spelling out its attitude to the negotiations? We have a Liberal Democrat amendment, a Welsh nationalist amendment, a Scottish nationalist amendment and even an amendment from my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne), the longest amendment of them all. But we do not have an amendment from the Labour party.
  Labour's policy is a blank sheet of paper. Labour Members are not usually at a loss for words. Perhaps they lost their amendment; perhaps they were at a Christmas party; perhaps even at this late stage they will table a manuscript amendment; or did the Labour party just calculate that, after its failure in the last debate to get its members in the Lobby, it was best not to spell out any policy? A blank sheet of paper is the only way to unite the Labour party. There is no doubt that the federalist views of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook are not shared by Labour Back Benchers. He felt that the only way that he could unite his party was by not tabling an amendment.
  We returned from Maastricht having met all the objectives which we set ourselves. We said that we would secure defence arrangements compatible with NATO, and we did. We said that we would preserve the freedom to act alone in foreign policy, and we did. We said that we would retain the right to decide whether, as well as when, to move to a single currency. We did, and we believe that we were right to maintain that condition.
  We said that we would persuade our partners that monetary and fiscal policy in stage 2 should remain with member states, and we did. We said that we would create a treaty which, even in the event of monetary union, left each country with the maximum freedom to conduct its own economic policy, and we did just that. We said that we would require improved enforcement of the implementation of Community agreements, and we obtained it. We
  548
  made it clear that this country could not accept the so-called "social chapter" in the treaty, and we secured its removal.
  The Government have done exactly what they said they would do. The result is a treaty that strikes the right balance between European co-operation and national independence. It is a treaty that allows the Community to progress while opening the door to the expansion of its membership. It is a treaty that this country has played the fullest role in shaping.
  The key difference between the two sides of the House in this debate is that we are absolutely determined to retain for the House the right to decide whether to move to a currency union. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, speaking for the Labour Front Bench but not supported by his Back Benchers, seems prepared to commit his party irrevocably to moving to a single currency regardless of the circumstances. We reject that approach.
  Our success has been the reward for pursuing practical proposals and consistent objectives. That approach is in the sharpest possible contrast to an Opposition—and especially the right hon. Member for Gorton—whose attitude to Europe has been inconsistent, impractical and dictated first by blanket hostility to the Community and then by fanatical adherence to every proposal which comes from it.
  We have protected the rights of this Parliament, which the Opposition would have signed away. We have secured the best possible agreement for Britain, whereas they would not have bothered to try. That is why it is this Prime Minister and this Government who enjoy the confidence of the country and who should have the confidence and support of the House in the Lobbies.
  9.59 pm
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: When the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary returned from Maastricht, they—
  Mr. Tim Boswell rose in his place, and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the amendment he made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 18,Noes 364.

  Division No. 32]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Alton, David

  Kennedy, Charles

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Livsey, Richard

  Beith, A. J.

  Maclennan, Robert

  Bellotti, David

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Stephen, Nicol

  Carr, Michael

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro

  Fearn, Ronald

  Howells, Geraint

  Tellers for tbe Ayes:

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Mr. James Wallace and

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Mr. Archy Kirkwood.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Arbuthnot, James

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Alexander, Richard

  Arnold, Sir Thomas

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Ashby, David

  Allason, Rupert

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Atkins, Robert

  Amess, David

  Atkinson, David

  Amos, Alan

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  549

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Favell, Tony

  Baldry, Tony

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Batiste, Spencer

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Beggs, Roy

  Forman, Nigel

  Bellingham, Henry

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Forth, Eric

  Benyon, W.

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Franks, Cecil

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Freeman, Roger

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  French, Douglas

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Fry, Peter

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Gale, Roger

  Boswell, Tim

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Bottomley, Peter

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Gill, Christopher

  Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Bowis, John

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Brazier, Julian

  Gorst, John

  Bright, Graham

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Greenway, Harry (Eating N)

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Gregory, Conal

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Grist, Ian

  Burns, Simon

  Ground, Patrick

  Burt, Alistair

  Grylls, Michael

  Butcher, John

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Butler, Chris

  Hague, William

  Butterfill, John

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hannam,John

  Cash, William

  Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Harris, David

  Chapman, Sydney

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Chope, Christopher

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Churchill, Mr

  Hayes, Jerry

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hayward, Robert

  Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Colvin, Michael

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hill, James

  Couchman, James

  Hind, Kenneth

  Cran, James

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Curry, David

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

  Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Day, Stephen

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Devlin, Tim

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Dicks, Terry

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Hunt, Rt Hon David

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Dover, Den

  Hunter, Andrew

  Dunn, Bob

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Irvine, Michael

  Dykes, Hugh

  Irving, Sir Charles

  Eggar, Tim

  Jack, Michael

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Janman, Tim

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Jessel, Toby

  Evennett, David

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Fallon, Michael

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Farr, Sir John

  Jones, Robert B ( Herts W)

  550

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Page, Richard

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Paice, James

  Key, Robert

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Kilfedder, James

  Patnick, Irvine

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Knapman, Roger

  Pawsey, James

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Knowles, Michael

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Knox, David

  Portillo, Michael

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Price, Sir David

  Latham, Michael

  Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Rathbone, Tim

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Redwood, John

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Rhodes James, Sir Robert

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Riddick, Graham

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Lord, Michael

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Rost, Peter

  McCrindle, Sir Robert

  Rowe, Andrew

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Maclean, David

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Madel, David

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Maginnis, Ken

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Shelton, Sir William

  Malins, Humfrey

  Shephard, Mrs G, (Norfolk SW)

  Mans, Keith

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Maples, John

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Marland, Paul

  Shersby, Michael

  Marlow, Tony

  Sims, Roger

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Mates, Michael

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Speed, Keith

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Speller, Tony

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Squire, Robin

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Mills, Iain

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Steen, Anthony

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Stern, Michael

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Stevens, Lewis

  Moate, Roger

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Stokes, Sir John

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Sumberg, David

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Summerson, Hugo

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Neale, Sir Gerrard

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Needham, Richard

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Thorne, Neil

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Thurnham, Peter

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Norris, Steve

  Tracey, Richard

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Tredinnick, David

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Trimble, David

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Trippier, David

  551

  Trotter, Neville

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Whitney, Ray

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Viggers, Peter

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Wilkinson, John

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Wilshire, David

  Walden, George

  Wolfson, Mark

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Wood, Timothy

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Waller, Gary

  Yeo, Tim

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Ward, John

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Watts, John

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Wells, Bowen

  Mr. John M. Taylor.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 339,Noes 253.

  Division No.33]

  [10.14 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Chapman, Sydney

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Chope, Christopher

  Alexander, Richard

  Churchill, Mr

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

  Allason, Rupert

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

  Amess, David

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Amos, Alan

  Colvin, Michael

  Arbuthnot, James

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Ashby, David

  Cormack, Patrick

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Couchman, James

  Atkins, Robert

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Atkinson, David

  Curry, David

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Baldry, Tony

  Day, Stephen

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Devlin, Tim

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Batiste, Spencer

  Dicks, Terry

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bellingham, Henry

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Bendall, Vivian

  Dover, Den

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Dunn, Bob

  Benyon, W.

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Dykes, Hugh

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Eggar, Tim

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfd)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Evennett, David

  Boswell, Tim

  Fallon, Michael

  Bottomley, Peter

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Bowis, John

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Forman, Nigel

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Forth, Eric

  Brazier, Julian

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Bright, Graham

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Franks, Cecil

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

  Freeman, Roger

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  French, Douglas

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Fry, Peter

  Burns, Simon

  Gale, Roger

  Burt, Alistair

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Butcher, John

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Butterfill, John

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Carrington, Matthew

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Carttiss, Michael

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Cartwright, John

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Gorst, John

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  552

  Greenway, Harry (Eating N)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Gregory, Conal

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Madel, David

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Grist, Ian

  Malins, Humfrey

  Ground, Patrick

  Mans, Keith

  Grylls, Michael

  Maples, John

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Marland, Paul

  Hague, William

  Marlow, Tony

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Hannam, John

  Mates, Michael

  Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Harris, David

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Hayes, Jerry

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Hayward, Robert

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Moate, Roger

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Hill, James

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Moss, Malcolm

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)

  Neale, Sir Gerrard

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Needham, Richard

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hunt, Rt Hon David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Norris, Steve

  Irvine, Michael

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Irving, Sir Charles

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Jack, Michael

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Page, Richard

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Paice, James

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Key, Robert

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Kilfedder, James

  Pawsey, James

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Knapman, Roger

  Portillo, Michael

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Price, Sir David

  Knowles, Michael

  Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Knox, David

  Rathbone, Tim

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Redwood, John

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Latham, Michael

  Rhodes James, Sir Robert

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Riddick, Graham

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Rost, Peter

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

  Lord, Michael

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  McCrindle, Sir Robert

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Maclean, David

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  553

  Shelton, Sir William

  Tracey, Richard

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Tredinnick, David

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Trippier, David

  Shersby, Michael

  Trotter, Neville

  Sims, Roger

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Viggers, Peter

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Speed, Keith

  Walden, George

  Speller, Tony

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Waller, Gary

  Squire, Robin

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Ward, John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Steen, Anthony

  Warren, Kenneth

  Stern, Michael

  Watts, John

  Stevens, Lewis

  Wells, Bowen

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Whitney, Ray

  Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Stokes, Sir John

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Sumberg, David

  Wilkinson, John

  Summerson, Hugo

  Wilshire, David

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Wolfson, Mark

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Wood, Timothy

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Yeo, Tim

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Thorne, Neil

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Thurnham, Peter

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Mr. John M. Taylor.

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

  Clay, Bob

  Allen, Graham

  Clelland, David

  Alton, David

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Anderson, Donald

  Cohen, Harry

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Corbett, Robin

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Ashton, Joe

  Cousins, Jim

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Cox, Tom

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Crowther, Stan

  Barron, Kevin

  Cryer, Bob

  Battle, John

  Cummings, John

  Beckett, Margaret

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Beggs, Roy

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Beith, A. J.

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Bell, Stuart

  Darling, Alistair

  Bellotti, David

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)

  Benton, Joseph

  Dewar, Donald

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dixon, Don

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Dobson, Frank

  Blair, Tony

  Doran, Frank

  Blunkett, David

  Douglas, Dick

  Boateng, Paul

  Duffy, Sir A. E. P.

  Boyes, Roland

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Eadie, Alexander

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Edwards, Huw

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Enright, Derek

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Caborn, Richard

  Fatchett, Derek

  Callaghan, Jim

  Faulds, Andrew

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Favell, Tony

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Fearn, Ronald

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Fisher, Mark

  Carr, Michael

  Flannery, Martin

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Flynn, Paul

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  554

  Foster, Derek

  Martlew, Eric

  Foulkes, George

  Maxton, John

  Fraser, John

  Meacher, Michael

  Fyfe, Maria

  Meale, Alan

  Galbraith, Sam

  Michael, Alun

  Galloway, George

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  George, Bruce

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Morley, Elliot

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Gould, Bryan

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Graham, Thomas

  Mullin, Chris

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Murphy, Paul

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Nellist, Dave

  Grocott, Bruce

  O'Brien, William

  Hardy, Peter

  O'Hara, Edward

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Parry, Robert

  Henderson, Doug

  Patchett, Terry

  Hinchliffe, David

  Pendry, Tom

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Home Robertson, John

  Prescott, John

  Hood, Jimmy

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Radice, Giles

  Howells, Geraint

  Randall, Stuart

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Redmond, Martin

  Hoyle, Doug

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Reid, Dr John

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Robertson, George

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Rogers, Allan

  Hume, John

  Rooker, Jeff

  Illsley, Eric

  Rooney, Terence

  Ingram, Adam

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Janner, Greville

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Rowlands, Ted

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Salmond, Alex

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Kennedy, Charles

  Sheerman, Barry

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Short, Clare

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Sillars, Jim

  Lambie, David

  Skinner, Dennis

  Lamond, James

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Leighton, Ron

  Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Lewis, Terry

  Snape, Peter

  Litherland, Robert

  Soley, Clive

  Livingstone, Ken

  Spearing, Nigel

  Livsey, Richard

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Stephen, Nicol

  Loyden, Eddie

  Stott, Roger

  McAllion, John

  Strang, Gavin

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Straw, Jack

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  McGrady, Eddie

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  McKelvey, William

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  McLeish, Henry

  Trimble, David

  Maclennan, Robert

  Turner, Dennis

  McMaster, Gordon

  Vaz, Keith

  McNamara, Kevin

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  McWilliam, John

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Maginnis, Ken

  Wallace, James

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Walley, Joan

  Mallon, Seamus

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Marek, Dr John

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  555

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Wilson, Brian

  Winnick, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Mr. Frank Haynes and

  Worthington, Tony

  Mr. Ken Eastham.

  Wray, Jimmy

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House congratulates the Prime Minister on achieving all the negotiating objectives set out in the motion that was supported by the House on 21st November; and warmly endorses the agreement secured by the Government at Maastricht.

  Maastricht
    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.)
    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

      RATING
      That the draft Non-Domestic Rating (Appropriate Fraction and Rateable Values) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 27th November, be approved.—[Mr. Chapman.]
      Question agreed to.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

      REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE
      That the draft European Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) (Miscellaneous Changes) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 25th July, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
      That the draft European Parliamentary Constituencies (England) (Miscellaneous Changes) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 4th December, be approved.—[ Mr. Chapman.]
      Question agreed to.

    EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (Standing Committees on European Community documents).
    EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

      MEN AND WOMEN AT WORK
      That this House takes note of the proposals described in the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Employment on 25th November 1991, relating to the protection of the dignity of women and men at work; believes that policies to combat sexual harassment at work are for development and implementation of Member States acting individually; agrees that the Recommendation and Code of Practice provide a basis for such policy developments; welcomes the Government's support for the need to spread awareness; and approves of the Government's support for the Declaration.—[Mr. Chapman.]
      Question agreed to.

    CARDIFF BAY BARRAGE BILL
    Ordered,
    That Mr. Keith Mans, Mr. Robert Hayward, Mr. Stuart Bell and Mr. James Callaghan be members of the Select Committee on the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill.—[ Mr. Chapman.]

    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS (JOINT COMMITTEE)
    Ordered,
    That Mrs. Rosie Barnes be discharged from the Select Committee appointed to join with a Committee of the Lords as the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and Mr. William Ross be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Chapman.]

  PETITIONS

    Overseas Adoptions
    10.28 pm
    Mr. Peter Thurnham: I beg leave to present a petition on the adoption of children from overseas, organised by the Campaign for Inter Country Adoption. The petition has been signed by 6,500 people from over the length and breadth of the country. Those people have themselves adopted, wish to adopt or support those people who are prepared, for humanitarian reasons, to adopt a child whose future might otherwise be bleak in the extreme.
    The petition reads:
    To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled. The Humble Petition of supporters of the Campaign for Inter Country Adoption sheweth that the welfare of children for whom inter-country adoption is in their paramount interests, as the only way that they can be brought up in a family, requires greater facilitation.
    Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House will call on Her Majesty's Government to take measures to provide adoptive parents with all necessary information and advice, counselling and guidance; and ensure full co-operation from local authorities, voluntary adoption agencies, social workers specialising in inter-country adoption, U.K. embassies abroad, the Foreign Office, the Department of Health, the Home Office and Immigration Officers, in accordance with the 1989 U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child.
    To lie upon the Table.

    Human Rights (Kashmir)
    10.30 pm
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: I beg leave to hand in a petition signed by about 1,950 people, mainly from Burnley, Iancashire and the north-west, regarding Kashmir—a situation that must be worrying to many people. While people may not agree 100 per cent. with what is contained in the petition, I am sure that everyone is anxious for a peaceful solution to that problem.
    The petition reads as follows:
    To the honourable, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled. The Humble Petition of former Kashmiris and friends of Kashmir, sheweth
    That whereas the United Nations Security Council passed Resolutions declaring that the final disposition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will be made in accordance with the will of the people expressed through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations; and whereas the Indian security forces now occupying Kashmir have perpetrated gross and persistent violations of human rights of the people of Kashmir.
    Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will condemn the systematic mass murders, torture, arson and rape by Indian forces of occupation in Kashmir; promote international efforts to help refugees fleeing Kashmir and to relieve the hardship and suffering of the people who remain in the territory; demand that India permit Amnesty International and other independent human rights agencies to enter Kashmir, with a view to investigating and reporting on human rights violations; and calls for the withdrawal of India's armed forces and security forces from the state of
    558
    Jammu and Kashmir and their replacement by an interim United Nations Administration, with the task of restoring law and order, and as soon as practicable, conducting the said plebiscite.
    And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray etc.
    To lie upon the Table.

    Education, Lewisham
    10.32 pm
    Ms. Joan Ruddock: I beg leave to present a petition concerning the resourcing of education in Lewisham. The petition carries the signatures of more than 1,000 people who are residents of the London borough of Lewisham and of parents with children in Lewisham schools who live in adjoining boroughs.
    The petition sheweth that:
    Her Majesty's Government broke up the Inner London education authority without a mandate from the electorate. and against the explicit wishes of a large majority of inner London parents, expressed in a properly conducted ballot.
    The inadequate time scale and funding of the transition from the Inner London education authority to London Boroughs has caused serious difficulties in every London Borough.
    These difficulties have been compounded by the community charge and by Government cuts in spending.
    Lewisham has been unfairly treated by an underassessment of the social needs of the borough, and by the deliberate discriminatory policy of the Government, for example, to fund Haberdashers' City technology colleges far more generously than LEA schools.
    Wherefore your Petitioners pray that the Honourable House do agree that Her Majesty's Government should increase the funding to education in Lewisham, by restoring transitional funding to 1990–91 levels and by increased standard spending assessments for the borough's services.
    And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray etc.
    To lie upon the Table.

  Abortion
  10.34 pm
  Mr. Michael Carr: I beg leave to present a petition from the Roman Catholic parish churches of St. Anthony's, Fulwood; Our Lady and St. Edward's, Fulwood; St. Claire's, Fulwood; Our Lady and St. Michael's church; St. Peter's Stoneyhurst college and other Lancashire parishes. The petition contains some 1,600 signatures.
  The petition deals with the abortifacient mifegyne, known as RU486, which causes the death of unborn human beings. It reads:
  The humble petition sheweth That we the undersigned wish to note with regret that the Abortion Pill Mifegyne (known as "RU486") has been granted a product licence. We believe that drugs and medicines should be used only to save life. We deplore the fact that this drug causes the death of unborn human beings, and we express our grave concern that it will damage women physically and psychologically.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your House, which is committed to upholding respect for human life and protection of the weak and vulnerable, will do everything possible to prevent the distribution and use of Mifegyne (known as "RU486") and any other drugs which, like it, are produced with the deliberate intention of destroying innocent human life. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Adoption and Fostering
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]
  10.35 pm
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: It is opportune that I should have the Adjournment debate today because my daughter, Sophie, returned last night after working in an orphanage in Romania with the most harrowing account of the problems in that crisis-struck country. She had been working at Ionaseni orphanage for irrecuperables and also at the adult psychiatric hospital at Podriga 40 miles away in Moldavia near the Russian border.
  Children who are born to the inmates of Podriga are removed at birth and taken to the baby orphanage in nearby Botaseni. Untouched and unloved, there is nothing wrong with them, but they are left in cots until they are three years old, at which time they go to the Ionaseni orphanage as irrecuperables. If they survive to the age of 16 they are transferred to an adult institution such as Podriga and the whole cycle is repeated. The way to break that cycle is for the children to be adopted, but little attempt seems to be made by the Romanian authorities to have those children adopted and the new Rornanian adoption committee appears to be just another barrier to prevent these children from having the chance of a family life either in Romania or abroad.
  Romania is only one of many countries where problems have overwhelmed the capacity to cope, so that orphan children are cruelly abandoned, if not to die, to live a bleak and loveless life in an institution or even on the streets, in many cases to die of AIDS which could have been prevented.
  The Minister will remember that I raised the issue of inter-country adoption in an Adjournment debate on 29 October last year when I called for a proper helpline in the form of an independent but officially recognised and supported advice and information centre for couples wishing to adopt a child from abroad. More than a year later would-be parents are still having to organise their own informal ad hoc helplines. Deborah Fowler, author of "The Story of Michael", is privately helping nearly 100 couples who are on the mailing list for her fact sheets. I do not know whether the Minister has had a chance to read "The Story of Michael", but I have a copy of this excellent book to give her. In the epilogue to the book, Deborah Fowler says:
  "Around the world there are many thousands of couples who would make wonderful parents and who are only stopped from being so because, for whatever reason, they are not able to make a child. Similarly, across the globe, millions of children eke out their miserable lives without love, care or proper food, and with no hope for today and little hope for tomorrow. Surely the sensible, practical humanitarian answer to this problem is to put the two together.
  If you have room in your heart, in your home, for a child, then think seriously about the plight of the Romanian children and, if you decide you have something to offer such a child, then fight and kick and scream against the red tape, against the system, as we had to do. And go to Romania, find your special child and give him or her the love that he or she would never have had but for you."
  The Fowlers are going to Romania for an interview with the Romanian adoption committee on 9 January. They have written to the Minister and I hope that she will give them all possible assistance in their quest for a second child to adopt. On 6 December, they wrote:
  560
  "What I am asking is that you use us as a test case—we have DOH clearance in a form which was acceptable to the Romanians, and we have an appointment made with the Committee at the highest level. Please could you try and find a formula to enable the DOH to present our case to the Committee for that date. This request is not just for us—we are lucky enough to have five happy, healthy children—it is also for all the other prospective parents waiting desperately for the `all-clear'."
  I hope that my hon. Friend will ensure that the Government help the Fowlers in their meeting with the Romanian adoption committee on 9 January.
  Many other countries have specialist agencies to advise and assist couples wishing to adopt from abroad. It is agreed by all concerned that what is needed here is a proper advice service for parents, so that they find out the right way to go about adopting from abroad. I hope that my hon. Friend can tell me tonight of her progress in helping to ensure that there will be a proper helpline for would-be parents.
  The local authority social services departments would also benefit from such an expert source of advice and assistance. Many local authorities have been helpful and sympathetic to would-be adopters, but I regret to say that a few local authorities have been the opposite. I suggest that my hon. Friend places a statutory duty on local authorities to provide this help if she does not wish to go so far as to set up a separate overseas adoption agency, as is done in many other countries.
  Local authorities should have a duty to complete home studies in, at the very most, six months, and they should not charge more than £1,000. This duty should be part of the Prime Minister's citizens charter, since the United Nations charter of human rights refers to the right to found a family, as well as the rights of the child to have the best possible life.
  I have three points to put to my hon. Friend. I have already mentioned the first—the need for an independent helpline. The second is that there should be a statutory duty on local authorities to carry out home studies, and the third point follows. The would-be parents must have an adequate means of appealing against the absolute power of these local authorities. Surely the parents should be able to appeal to the Secretary of State rather than have to go through the cumbersome and expensive procedure of a judicial review in the courts of law.
  Because there is no proper helpline, let alone a comprehensive system for inter-country adoption, abuses can develop, and then attempts are made to stop inter-country adoptions. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that, rather than stopping couples giving a loving home to such children, we should help them to adopt in a proper fashion.
  My hon. Friend is rightly opposed to a two-tier adoption system, with inferior standards for overseas adoptions, but I would raise two questions. First, since it is not possible to foster a child from abroad as the first step towards adoption, is there not an inherent difference between adoption here in the United Kingdom and adoption from overseas? Secondly, should not all children adopted from overseas really be regarded as special needs children, as so many of them have suffered severe deprivation in their earliest life? Parents need special counselling and advice for children adopted from overseas, and because fostering is not possible, more and not less care is needed in ensuring that the adoption process is

  561
  successful. For these reasons, for children overseas not to be discriminated against, couples wishing to adopt them need extra help, not less, as is the case only too often.
  In this country, the leading source of advice and information on adoption is the British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering. It was through BAAF that my wife and I adopted Stephen, who had been featured for 18 months in the "Be My Parent" book. BAAF has traditionally focused on the needs of British children, but I hope that it will widen its horizons, because it has been regarded as unhelpful and ill informed by many would-be parents who have contacted it for advice on overseas adoptions. Romanian orphans coming to Britain do not reduce the chance of British children being adopted, they stimulate the whole process, so that more families come forward wishing to adopt special needs children. Inter-country adoption is here to stay, and trying to stop inter-country adoption will not help the British children who need to be adopted. Furthermore, it should stimulate the Romanians and others to adopt their own children in the first place.
  Some people have resisted inter-country adoption on racial grounds, but my hon. Friend may be interested to see the reports in the papers today about Professor Tizard's findings, announced yesterday, that
  "it is wrong to think that colour should be the central consideration when placing children with foster parents."
  A successful independent helpline should be a co-ordinated and effective service able to respond to the needs of children in crisis-ridden countries such as Romania and to the needs of parent-led groups such as Stork, the Association for Romanian Children, Families International and the various family associations for El Salvador, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Chile and so on, not to mention informal ad hoc groups led by parents such as the Fowlers and the Marriotts.
  The organisation should be independent with background and experience in children's families and adoption and fostering work, not a Government Department in which the key workers are career civil servants who do not necessarily have parent-child client contact or professional experience.
  The staff themselves must be positive and enthusiastic, but not under the influence of Labour-controlled authorities such as Camden, Lambeth and Haringey where there has been such misguided resistance to inter-country adoption.
  The Children Act 1989 introduced by the Government sets high standards for children. We cannot just take the Labour party's line of throwing money at children in crises overseas and then turning our backs.
  BAAF has a good record of helping children with special needs in Britain. It should now play its part in helping children with special needs overseas. We should have a worldwide "Be My Parent" book for children who cannot be adopted in their own countries.
  Many thousands of couples in Britain and abroad could be encouraged to adopt a child with special needs if given the right advice and support. That is the challenge which faces us all and one which I know that my hon. Friend will do her utmost to resolve so that families can be found for children whose needs are so great.
  I should like my hon. Friend the Minister first to set up a positive and properly funded helpline to assist would-be
  562
  parents with advice and information; secondly, to impose a statutory duty on local authorities to provide home studies within, at most, six months at a cost of no more than £1,000; thirdly, to establish an appeal procedure for people aggrieved by local authority decisions; and, fourthly, to regard overseas adoptions as special needs cases where the parents need encouragement, not discouragement, when they are acting out of the best humanitarian instincts.
  10.46 pm
  The Minister for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): The House is once again indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) for raising a subject of great importance and significance. He speaks with great authority on questions concerning children, particularly the adoption of children. I pay tribute to his campaign to ensure that there is proper recognition of the significant part played by inter-country adoption.
  In my constituency, I have been involved in helping to establish the inter-country adoption of a child from Romania for two families. Since those adoptions were completed, I have met the families and have been impressed by the dedicated care of the parents, the warmth of their home and the welcome for the children, both of whom have had considerable problems in settling after difficult experiences.
  Britain has a proud tradition of adoption; a record which has led the way in many respects. My hon. Friend mentioned British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering, with which he and his family have had contact over the years. There is no doubt that its work in establishing homes for hard-to-place children is remarkable. There are many children in Britain who in other parts of the world would be condemned to a childhood in an institution but who BAAF, by its remorseless and determined approach, has succeeded in placing in families who have adopted them and given them long-term security and care.
  But as the number of babies available for adoption in Britain has diminished—perhaps only 1,000 babies a year now under the age of one are placed for adoption compared with about 7,000 a year 20 years ago—and with the increasing concern about crises in other parts of the world of which television has made us increasingly aware, there has arisen a desire among those parents unable to adopt a child at home to fulfil a humanitarian need and provide a home for a child from overseas while meeting their need for a family at home.
  However, it is important not to let that understandable desire to provide a home for a child override concerns that proper safeguards are in place in inter-country adoption. It would be wrong for lower standards to apply for children from overseas. There have already been tragic cases where children have been brought to this country for adoptions that have not been successful. As my hon. Friend said, fostering is not an appropriate first step in such cases—so it is all the more important that proper safeguards should be applied. It is a matter of judgment whether a safeguard is seen as a form of bureaucracy and red tape.
  It must be right that a child is free for adoption and has not been secured as a result of bribery or trafficking. Also, the parents must be suitable, with the necessary stability and maturity to adopt that important responsibility.

  563
  As my hon. Friend knows, since his Adjournment debate on the subject a year ago, my Department has been actively involved, and I am happy to report a considerable improvement between local authorities, adoption agencies, and would-be adoptive parents. The chief inspector of social services issued firm guidance making it clear that home study reports must be completed—and it should be the norm that they are completed in advance—in making special arrangements for children who are the subject of inter-country as opposed to domestic adoption.
  Any cases that have come to my Department's attention where there has been resistance from local authorities have been the subject of urgent discussion between it and the particular agency concerned. I am impressed by the speed with which many authorities changed their practices and policies to provide precisely the service that my hon. Friend requires.
  My hon. Friend will appreciate that there are always difficult cases in which, for one reason or another, would-be adoptive parents have not been thought suitable for inter-country or domestic adoption. It is not possible to go into detail, because such cases are confidential. However, it could never be right that any family wishing to be involved in an inter-country adoption should have their application automatically rubber-stamped.
  My hon. Friend made particular mention of the establishment of a helpline, and I consider that to be a high priority. Parents who have an understandable desire to adopt a child from overseas should have a source of independent advice, encouragement, information and counselling.
  At this stage, it is not my view that we should pursue the option of an agency devoted exclusively to the assessment of suitable families for inter-country adoption. Such assessments should be part of mainstream adoption work. After all, in those sad cases where something goes wrong, it is likely that the local authority will have to pick up the pieces, and secure and safeguard the child's welfare.
  The other argument for a helpline is that it could offer advice to local authorities and adoption agencies. In cases where information is sought about adopting a child from Thailand, Pakistan, Paraguay, or Romania, not all local authorities—despite their many skills—have up-to-date information about the circumstances in those particular countries. Recently there have been developments in, for example, Romania, with the establishment of the Romanian adoption committee. Local authorities would benefit from a helpline to which they could refer for the latest advice on the state of play in particular countries.
  This debate comes at a particularly opportune time, because this week the United Kingdom ratified the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, which is a landmark for children. It enshrines the principles of the Children Act 1989, and shares its underlying ethos that children should be seen and heard, and have their interests properly respected. The convention embodies important aspects of relevance to inter-country adoption.
  Article 21 endorses the principles of the 1986 United Nations declaration on social and legal principles relating to the protection and welfare of children. Essentially, it requires the signatories to recognise that inter-country adoption may be considered as an alternative means of child care—if the child cannot be placed in a foster home or an adoptive family, or cannot in any way be cared for in a suitable manner in its country of origin; to ensure that the child affected by inter-country adoption enjoys
  564
  standards and safeguards equivalent to those existing in the case of national adoption; and to take all appropriate measures to ensure that the placement does not result in improper financial gain for those involved in it.
  I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that those principles underlying the United Nations convention are exactly the principles that I have sought to illustrate. There are, however, further international developments, which will, I think, reassure and encourage parents who believe that there is a proper role for inter-country adoption, but recognise increasingly that it must be properly regulated and controlled. I refer, of course, to the Hague conference.
  The United Kingdom is playing a full part in the special commission set up in 1990 by the Hague conference on private international law. The commission is working on the development of an international convention in international adoption, which will incorporate the principles set out in the convention. Between 3 and 17 February, senior officials from the Department will be in the Hague, where they are playing a leading part in the discussions.
  I can also report to my hon. Friend that the United Kingdom is undertaking a review of adoption law. Much of our adoption law dates back to 1976. Since then, traditions, expectations and patterns of adoption have changed—not least the development of inter-country adoption, which ran at some 50 cases a year until December 1989, and is now running at over 300 cases a year. We should, I think, expect the rate to grow.
  The fourth paper in the series of reviews of the law concerning the adoption of children is on inter-country adoption. We hope to produce that consultation document early in the new year. It is important for my hon. Friend, with his specialist knowledge—together, of course, with the Campaign for Inter-Country Adoption, and many of the other organisations that he mentioned—to scrutinise the document, and to give considered responses.
  My hon. Friend's second point took the form of a request for a statutory duty to undertake a home study; such issues could certainly be considered in that context. According to our latest information, local authorities and agencies have been prepared to undertake home study reports. Parents have not always received the reports for which they hoped, but, in our experience, there is no resistance to the undertaking of such reports—although I am well aware that there has been in the past.
  I know that my hon. Friend will agree that—although in some cases families have beaten the rules and evaded the regulations, and in some instances the children concerned have settled happily—that cannot be a proper, effective or right way for us to pursue what is an understandable and, in many respects, laudable aim and aspiration. I am certain that the time has come for us to find ways—both through our domestic rules and regulations, and internationally—to streamline the process of giving people greater recognition and understanding, while also safeguarding children's needs.
  My hon. Friend has spoken of children having special needs. I appreciate his point: many of the children involved have particular difficulties. Those who have spent many years in an institution may well have emotional, developmental and, in many cases, medical difficulties. That is why our advice recommends that a child has a medical assessment before an inter-country adoption proceeds. Once again, my hon. Friend will be aware, from

  565
  the experience of his daughters, not least, of the difficulties involved, in all too many cases, in securing a medical report.
  My hon. Friend has more up-to-date information than I about the position in Romania, but there is movement there. Senior Department of Health officials have made a second visit to Romania. They are trying to help the Romanian Government to develop their control and regulation of inter-country adoption. Once it is appreciated in most countries that a significant number of children are leaving, it is understandable that there should be a domestic reaction and that pressure should be put on the Government to ensure proper safeguards and regulation. The Romanian adoption committee has made it clear that it does not anticipate that it will be able to agree to inter-country adoptions before March of next year.
  My hon. Friend referred to the Fowler family. They have written to me and I have responded to their letters. I regret that I can add nothing to what I said in my latest letter at the end of November. The Romanian Government are committed to ensuring that proper arrangements are in place before they are prepared to
  566
  embark on any further inter-country adoptions. I shall continue to look carefully at the case to see whether there is any further advice that I feel able to offer.
  I believe that very considerable progress is being made in an area of great sensitivity and growing significance. We live in a world where increasingly it is becoming the concern of us all that children throughout the world should be offered a safe, stable and happy home. None of us accepts that children should grow up in institutions, particularly those of the nature that my hon. Friend described. Where inter-country adoption is appropriate, it must be effectively regulated, with proper safeguards.
  Parents cannot be said to be entitled to a child. Nobody has the right to a child. However, wherever possible, children have the right to a safe and happy home. I hope that we can continue to work closely with my hon. Friend, and those organisations which in many cases he has established and certainly befriended so effectively, in order to ensure that the high standards of child care and adoption practice to which we are accustomed in this country are developed and modified properly to incorporate the growing work of inter-country adoption.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Eleven o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Divorce
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Attorney-General what response he has made to the Law Society memorandum on maintenance and capital provision on divorce.

  The Attorney-General
  The Government have in hand a staged review of the family justice system, and will ensure that the Law Society's recommendations are taken into account as the review considers the areas of law concerned. The society's recommendations include proposals in relation to a formula for calculating child maintenance, which were considered during the passage of the Child Support Bill. Also included are proposals for a system of pension-splitting on divorce, which raise matters of pension law, which is a subject currently under review by the Department of Social Security.

  Magistrates, Newcastle
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will name the members of the Newcastle magistrates advisory committee on appointments to the Newcastle upon Tyne bench.

  The Attorney-General
  The names of the members of the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee for Newcastle upon Tyne are—

  Miss E. D. Barraclough

  Mr. J. Burn

  Mr. J. L. Curry

  Miss A. F. Irwin

  Mrs. L. M. Kennedy

  Mrs. F. F. Southern

  Miss J. R. Straker

  Mr. D. I. Williams

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Attorney-General what priority he gives to ensuring an even representation of all geographic areas in Newcastle upon Tyne upon the magistrates bench.

  The Attorney-General
  The Lord Chancellor expects all his advisory committees to put forward candidates who are suitable for appointment. Subject to this, he requires them to seek to achieve a bench which is broadly representative of the community it serves. To this end, he expects them to take into account geographical and other factors.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Adult Education
  Dame Elaine Kellet-Bowman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the names and locations of each adult education centre, other than colleges of further education, funded by local education authorities.

  Mr. Eggar
  It is not possible to give names and locations of adult education centres. Much further education for adults is not run within a specific centre. It may be provided as an adult education service run in a variety of locations and using a combination of premises, such as purpose-built centres, school premises, church halls and FE college premises.

  Dame Elaine Kellet-Bowman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the local education authorities which are currently funding colleges of adult education.

  Mr. Eggar
  Local education authorities may provide further education for adults by way of separate centres or as integral provision within further education colleges. The most recently available expenditure information submitted by LEAs indicates that the following authorities provided further education for adults in separate adult centres or in adult education centres conducted separately on the premises of further education colleges:

  ILEA

  Barking

  Bexley

  Brent

  Bromley

  Croydon

  Ealing

  Enfield

  Havering

  Hillingdon

  Kingston Upon Thames

  Merton

  Redbridge

  Richmond Upon Thames

  Sutton

  Waltham Forest

  Birmingham

  Coventry

  Dudley

  Sandwell

  Solihull

  Walsall

  Wolverhampton

  Knowsley

  Liverpool

  Sefton

  Bury

  Oldham

  Rochdale

  Salford

  Stockport

  Wigan

  Barnsley

  Doncaster

  Calderdale

  Kirklees

  Leeds

  Newcastle Upon Tyne

  South Tyneside

  Sunderland

  Isles of Scilly

  Avon

  Bedfordshire

  Berkshire

  207

  Buckinghamshire

  Cambridgeshire

  Cheshire

  Cleveland

  Cornwall

  Cumbria

  Derbyshire

  Devon

  Dorset

  Durham

  East Sussex

  Essex

  Gloucestershire

  Hampshire

  Hereford and Worcester

  Humberside

  Isle of Wight

  Kent

  Lancashire

  Lincolnshire

  Norfolk

  North Yorkshire

  Northamptonshire

  Northumberland

  Nottinghamshire

  Oxfordshire

  Shropshire

  Somerset

  Staffordshire

  Suffolk

  Surrey

  Warwickshire

  West Sussex

  Wiltshire

  EC Directives
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list all directives from the European Community issued since May 1979 which are(a) now active in the field of education and (b) under consideration.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  There are two current EC directives of significance to the field of education agreed since May 1979: the Council directive of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration; and the Council directive of 28 June 1990 on the right of residence for students which falls to be implemented by 30 June 1992. A proposal for a Council directive on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training which would complement directive 89/48/EC is currently under negotiation.

  Unemployed People
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what guidance his Department gives to schools regarding offers of voluntary assistance from unemployed people with relevant skills, as a means of helping them to find employment.

  Mr. Eggar
  None. The use of voluntary help in schools is a matter for local management.

  Grammar Schools
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Blackburn,Official Report, 13 December, column 560–61, he will give the names of the 106 grammar schools which have ceased to exist since 1979.
  208
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The situation is much more complicated than suggested in the question. It is not true that 106 schools have closed. Some schools will have merged to form other schools; others will have become independent and moved out of the maintained sector; others will have changed their status and become comprehensives and some comprehensives will have become grammar schools. Without painstaking investigation we cannot know how many schools fall into each category. It is likely that we would need to list considerably more than 106 schools in order to provide a clear picture.

  This information can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science on what dates he received applications by certain Ealing schools for grant-maintained status and by the borough of Ealing for its schools reorganisation programme; when he expects to announce his decisions on those applications; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Eight Ealing schools applied for grant-maintained status on dates ranging from 27 February to 3 July 1991. Ealing local education authority and the governors of the voluntary aided schools published proposals on 3 May 1991 to reorganise all primary and secondary schools in the borough.

  Where there are conflicting proposals, my right hon. and learned Friend is obliged to consider one set of proposals against the other and then decide on the grant-maintained proposals first, followed by the proposals from the local education authority and the governors of the voluntary-aided schools. There are more than 100 schools involved and the issues are complex and require detailed examination. He expects to announce his decision in January.

  Standard Assessment Tests
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will now publish the aggregate results for the standard assessment tests for key stage one, by local education authority.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend has today, published the national results of this summer's tests on seven-year-olds, together with the results of LEAs in England. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  County Schools (Funding)
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on capital allocations for county schools for 1992–93.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Local education authorities have today been informed of their annual capital guidelines—ACGs—and supplementary credit approvals—SCAs—for education for 1992–93. These figures again amount to a substantial increase in local education authorities' borrowing power for education capital expenditure. They build further on the increases in the last two years.

  Allocations for education capital—in the form of ACGs and SCAs—will total £590 million compared with £538 million in 1991–92, a rise of over 9·5 per cent.
  209
  A total of £524 million is available for schools—an increase of 11 per cent.—and £66 million for further education.

  Within the schools sector I have again given priority to:

  Second and third-year expenditure on work covered by ACGs in earlier years.

  Projects to provide new school places in area s of population growth.

  New projects to implement approved proposals to remove surplus places.

  Making a bigger contribution towards getting rid of deficiencies in existing school buildings and for work needed for the effective delivery of the national curriculum. A total of £148 million is available for such improvements in 1992–93, an increase of 36 per cent. on the equivalent figure for 1991–92.

  A total of £15 million of this latter sum, as my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar) announced on 4 December, is to be allocated in the form of SCAs to LEAs bidding for their schools to become technology schools as part of the technology schools initiative. The remainder has been distributed to LEAs by formula passed on numbers of pupils and substandard places in schools.

  Because of the proposals in the Further and Higher Education Bill currently before Parliament to transfer all sixth-form colleges to the new further education sector, I am also issuing SCAs to LEAs in respect of their capital expenditure at sixth form colleges. This will enable LEAs' expenditure to be separately identified so that they can be recompensed by the proposed funding council for any outstanding debt.

  Within the further education sector, my programme includes allocations of £43 million to meet commitments arising from 54 major buildings projects with a total completion value of £150 million. In addition, I have awarded allocations of £14 million for minor works and equipment. This will help colleges to prepare for the reforms proposed in the Further and Higher Education Bill now in Parliament. A further £9 million will be allocated during 1992–93. All allocations for further education will be by SCAs, hypothecated for particular purposes.

  My programme and the SCAs announced today do not represent the full total of funds available to LEAs for capital expenditure. Authorities are also able to spend additional sums from capital receipts and from their revenue budgets if they so choose.

  The 9·5 per cent. increase in ACGs is well ahead of the rate of inflation and purchasing power is further boosted at a time of lower building tender prices. The figures for 1992–93 represent a 22 per cent. increase over two years and a 93 per cent. increase since 1987–88. For schools alone the figure has doubled since 1987–88. This underlines the Government's continuing commitment to secure improvements to our school buidings.

  Lists of ACGs and SCAs allocated to individual local authorities are as follows:

  Capital expenditure 1992–93: Annual capital guidelines and supplementary credit approvals

  Schools and sixth form colleges 1992–93

  Total ACGs and SCAs 1992–93 (£ 000's)

  Barking

  844

  844

  Barnet

  1,059

  1,059

  Bexley

  1,436

  1,477

  Brent

  1,336

  1,472

  Bromley

  2,272

  2,337

  Croydon

  2,220

  2,351

  210

  Schools and sixth form colleges 1992–93

  Total ACGs and SCAs 1992–93 (£000's)

  Ealing

  2,246

  2,626

  Enfield

  1,994

  2,137

  Haringey

  1,433

  1,506

  Harrow

  2,953

  3,057

  Havering

  908

  970

  Hillingdon

  1,071

  1,071

  Hounslow

  3,128

  3,167

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  289

  340

  Merton

  1,675

  1,675

  Newham

  5,828

  5,936

  Redbridge

  1,167

  1,193

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  452

  529

  Sutton

  2,056

  2,108

  Waltham Forest

  3,694

  3,751

  City

  0

  0

  Camden

  965

  1,006

  Westminster

  158

  158

  Greenwich

  1,011

  1,054

  Hackney

  1,830

  1,910

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  2,882

  2,934

  Islington

  964

  1,078

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1,259

  1,264

  Lambeth

  1,290

  1,290

  Lewisham

  1,959

  2,071

  Southwark

  1,877

  2,276

  Wandsworth

  2,161

  2,306

  Tower Hamlets

  10,135

  10,576

  Brimingham

  10,931

  11,456

  Coventry

  2,276

  2,389

  Dudley

  4,831

  9,324

  Sandwell

  1,444

  1,558

  Solihull

  649

  864

  Walsall

  834

  898

  Wolverhampton

  2,482

  2,544

  Knowsley

  2,077

  2,124

  Liverpool

  5,576

  5,831

  St. Helens

  1,049

  1,151

  Sefton

  3,152

  3,179

  Wirral

  2,213

  2,300

  Bolton

  1,337

  1,432

  Bury

  1,051

  1,051

  Manchester

  8,333

  8,810

  Oldham

  3,136

  3,194

  Rochdale

  3,326

  3,326

  Salford

  2,333

  2,391

  Stockport

  1,396

  1,503

  Tameside

  3,051

  3,051

  Trafford

  1,224

  1,490

  Wigan

  4,224

  4,372

  Barnsley

  1,493

  1,594

  Doncaster

  735

  815

  Rotherham

  2,748

  2,855

  Sheffield

  4,754

  4,973

  Bradford

  8,435

  10,208

  Calderdale

  1,541

  1,580

  Kirklees

  4,071

  4,858

  Leeds

  23,186

  23,445

  Wakefield

  5,755

  5,841

  Gateshead

  1,514

  1,567

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  2,430

  2,574

  North Tyneside

  1,686

  1,726

  South Tyneside

  1,522

  2,209

  Sunderland

  3,612

  4,267

  Isles of Scilly

  116

  116

  Avon

  4,269

  4,576

  Bedfordshrie

  3,928

  4,041

  Berkshire

  5,238

  5,461

  Buckinghamshire

  5,289

  7,639

  Cambridgeshire

  7,205

  13,957

  Cheshire

  8,698

  8,878

  Cleveland

  3,801

  3,968

  Cornwall

  5,943

  7,910

  Cumbria

  10,377

  10,579

  Derbyshire

  16,065

  16,818

  Devon

  9,959

  11,023

  Dorset

  4,735

  4,929

  211

  Schools and sixth form colleges 1992–93

  Total ACGs and SCAs 1992–93 (£000's)

  Durham

  7,017

  7,364

  East Sussex

  17,724

  17,919

  Essex

  18,394

  20,771

  Gloucestershire

  6,980

  7,294

  Hampshire

  13,018

  14,462

  Hereford and Worcester

  3,488

  4,437

  Hertfordshire

  5,677

  7,016

  Humberside

  9,253

  9,437

  Isle of Wight

  1,584

  1,636

  Kent

  20,229

  24,437

  Lancashire

  20,465

  25,518

  Leicestershire

  8,376

  8,930

  Lincolnshire

  12,263

  12,421

  Norfolk

  2,811

  3,163

  North Yorkshire

  6,222

  6,400

  Northamptonshire

  4,107

  4,319

  Northumberland

  2,516

  2,568

  Nottinghamshire

  5,737

  9,156

  Oxfordshire

  5,681

  5,849

  Shropshire

  4,110

  4,203

  Somerset

  5,134

  5,638

  Staffordshire

  7,805

  9,190

  Suffolk

  9,169

  11,332

  Surrey

  6,031

  6,296

  Warwickshire

  1,988

  2,035

  West Sussex

  3,693

  3,855

  Wiltshire

  4,137

  5,402

  Sport
  Mr. John Carlisle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish the Government's statement on sports policy and its response to the Education Science and Arts Committee's Fourth Report of Session 1990–91, -Sport in Schools"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when the Government's review of sports policy was initiated; and if he will make a statement on progress towards its completion.

  Mr. Atkins
  I am happy to announce today that we are publishing a statement which sets out clearly and comprehensively our policies and priorities for sport and active recreation. It focuses largely on England and Wales, although where appropriate it covers United Kingdom issues. We are also publishing today the Government's response to the Education, Science and Arts Committee's report, "Sport in Schools".

  Very substantial sums are now available to sport from the private sector, including funds from the Foundation for Sport and the Arts and the Football Trust, assisted by recent reductions in the rate of pool betting duty. We now propose to establish a business sponsorship incentive scheme for sport similar to that run for the arts and targeted at the grassroots level. Its initial funding for 1992–93 will be in excess of £3 million and it will cover England, Scotland and Wales.

  The statement reaffirms our belief that sport should be free from Government intervention, but that the principle of channelling assistance for sport through independent but accountable bodies remains sound. The present structure, however, is in need of reform and in the statement we announce proposals for replacing the present Great Britain Sports Council with a United Kingdom Sports Commission and a Sports Council for England. These proposals are broadly in line with those which the
  212
  Great Britain Sports Council itself made in the course of the review which would require the surrender of its royal charter.

  The statement, and our response to the Committee, set out a number of ways for improving opportunities for young people to take part in sport particularly by promoting partnerships between schools and other organisations in the local community. We intend to publish guidance on good practice in promoting such partnerships next year. Guidance is also to be issued to schools on the information they should make regularly available to parents on sports facilities and sporting achievements.

  These proposals build on existing decisions:—

  to make PE a compulsory subject in the national curriculum until the age of 16;

  to require all school children to be taught to swim by the time they leave primary school;

  to institute a champion coaching pilot scheme for the extra-curricular coaching of school children;

  to support legislation which will allow school governors to enter into dual use agreements for the joint management of school premises out of school hours;

  to provide financial resources to promote the greater integration of disabled sport and able-bodied sport;

  to encourage the establishment of the Foundation for Sport and the Arts providing some £40 million per annum extra finance for sport;

  to introduce proposals to create a new criminal offence of providing anabolic steroids to minors, and further research to ascertain the extent of the steroid problem;

  to encourage sporting contact with South Africa on a sport by sport basis for racially integrated sports; and

  to provide up to £2 million for feasibility studies which will assist Government in reaching a decision on whether to offer support for the Manchester Olympic bid.

  This statement represents a comprehensive summary of the Government's initiatives and proposals to take sport and active recreation towards the next century.

  LINC Project
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last had discussions with Nottingham university concerning the progress of the language in the national curriculum project.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend has had no such discussions, but officials have maintained contact with the project's director.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions he has had with the National Association for the Teaching of English and with the National Association of Advisers in English with reference to the language in the national curriculum project.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend has had no such discussions.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from the university of Bath concerning its recent findings on the efficacy of the language in the national curriculum programme for teachers.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received no such representations from the university of Bath.

  ILEA Art Collection
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science where the former Inner London education authority art collection is now kept; and what are the arrangements for the distribution or sale of the collection.

  Mr. Eggar
  This is a matter for the London residuary body.

  Number of pupils under 5 in Maintained schools shown as a percentage of the estimated 3 and 4 year old population within each LEA in England, as at January 19912 3

  Nursery schools

  Primary nursery classes

  Schools infant classes

  Total of all pupils under 5 in school

  Rank order

  City

  0·0

  30·8

  16·9

  47·7

  69

  Camden

  3·7

  22·2

  13·2

  39·1

  80

  Greenwich

  10·4

  36·4

  15·3

  62·1

  33

  Hackney

  3·0

  34·6

  12·6

  50·1

  61

  Hammersmith

  14·7

  22·6

  12·3

  49·7

  62

  Islington

  6·0

  33·9

  14·3

  54·2

  54

  Kensington and Chelsea

  8·3

  18·2

  10·3

  36·8

  88

  Lambeth

  6·3

  26·5

  13·7

  46·5

  72

  Lewisham

  3·3

  31·1

  13·4

  47·8

  68

  Southwark

  7·7

  35·0

  15·2

  57·9

  42

  Tower Hamlets

  12·8

  33·9

  14·9

  61·7

  34

  Wandsworth

  2·8

  28·0

  11·6

  42·4

  76

  Westminster

  4·5

  22·2

  11·8

  38·4

  83

  Barking

  0·0

  33·8

  30·9

  64·7

  26

  Barnet

  6·3

  23·5

  26·0

  55·8

  51

  Bexley

  3·2

  14·2

  15·7

  33·1

  93

  Brent

  3·3

  28·2

  25·7

  57·2

  45

  Bromley

  0·0

  2·1

  15·5

  17·7

  107

  Croydon

  5·0

  5·1

  28·8

  38·9

  81

  Ealing

  6·6

  29·6

  25·0

  61·2

  37

  Enfield

  0·0

  20·5

  28·9

  49·5

  64

  Haringey

  4·3

  37·6

  30·0

  71·9

  13

  Harrow

  0·0

  17·8

  28·6

  46·4

  73

  Havering

  0·0

  4·6

  34·2

  38·8

  82

  Hillingdon

  1·9

  48·4

  1·9

  52·3

  55

  Hounslow

  0·0

  73·7

  0·2

  73·9

  11

  Kingston upon Thames

  6·6

  27·1

  28·9

  62·6

  32

  Merton

  0·0

  52·4

  23·2

  75·6

  10

  Newham

  12·9

  33·5

  10·0

  56·4

  49

  Red bridge

  0·0

  14·8

  14·0

  28·7

  97

  Richmond upon Thames

  1·6

  16·8

  27·2

  45·6

  74

  Sutton

  5·6

  29·0

  1·1

  35·7

  89

  Waltham Forest

  4·8

  32·9

  12·4

  50·2

  59

  Birmingham

  7·6

  25·0

  31·3

  63·9

  29

  Coventry

  4·3

  21·6

  32·3

  58·1

  41

  Dudley

  3·8

  30·8

  15·5

  50·1

  60

  Sandwell

  3·0

  49·2

  32·6

  84·8

  7

  Solihull

  0·0

  34·5

  36·3

  70·8

  17

  Walsall

  10·6

  47·7

  33·0

  91·3

  3

  Wolverhampton

  11·9

  44·3

  15·4

  71·7

  14

  Knowsley

  0·0

  46·0

  32·0

  78·0

  8

  Liverpool

  4·8

  46·9

  36·4

  88·1

  6

  St. Helens

  1·5

  31·7

  31·9

  65·0

  24

  Sefton

  4·3

  28·4

  32·3

  65·0

  25

  Wirral

  3·4

  20·7

  31·7

  55·8

  50

  Bolton

  6·5

  32·3

  30·6

  69·4

  20

  Bury

  3·0

  27·3

  32·4

  62·7

  31

  Manchester

  4·3

  5·10

  16·2

  71·5

  15

  Oldham

  0·0

  34·9

  33·5

  68·4

  21

  Rochdale

  14·5

  17·2

  29·8

  61·5

  36

  Salford

  15·1

  39·4

  33·7

  88·2

  5

  Stockport

  11·3

  8·1

  30·1

  49·5

  63

  Tameside

  5·6

  34·9

  32·8

  73·3

  12

  Trafford

  0·0

  26·2

  28·3

  54·5

  53

  Wigan

  2·2

  21·9

  33·2

  57·3

  44

  Barnsley

  3·1

  47·3

  17·2

  67"5

  23

  Doncaster

  0·0

  41·7

  34·5

  76·1

  9

  Rotherham

  5·5

  35·6

  15·5

  56·6

  47

  Sheffield

  6·3

  38·4

  19·5

  64·1

  28

  Under-fives
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give the figures for 1991 for the percentage of under-fives in(a) nursery schools, (b) nursery classes, (c) infant classes and (d) in total, by local education authority in England, in rank order.

  Mr. Eggar
  Provisional information on the percentage of under-fives, in each of the categories requested, within each local education authority in England in January 1991, and the rank order of each local education authority, is given in the table.
  215

  Nursery schools

  Primary nursery classes

  Schools infant classes

  Total of all pupils under 5 in school

  Rank order

  Bradford

  3·3

  34·1

  19·3

  56·7

  46

  Calderdale

  0·0

  31·1

  30·5

  61·5

  35

  Kirklees

  4·9

  33·4

  19·0

  57·4

  43

  Leeds

  1·6

  39·2

  20·1

  60·9

  38

  Wakefield

  5·4

  42·9

  21·2

  69·5

  19

  Gateshead

  1·3

  31·2

  32·2

  64·6

  27

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  9·9

  30·7

  30·8

  71·4

  16

  North Tyneside

  6·4

  51·9

  33·8

  92·1

  2

  South Tyneside

  20·2

  38·3

  39·8

  98·4

  1

  Sunderland

  11·6

  25·0

  31·1

  67·7

  22

  Avon

  6·5

  11·8

  30·7

  49·0

  65

  Bedfordshire

  8·4

  22·8

  11·0

  42·1

  78

  Berkshire

  9·8

  15·8

  1·7

  27·3

  100

  Buckinghamshire

  2·8

  9·5

  15·5

  27·8

  99

  Cambridgeshire

  3·7

  7·5

  31·2

  42·4

  75

  Cheshire

  3·2

  17·7

  31·3

  52·2

  56

  Cleveland

  0·9

  53·4

  34·1

  88·4

  4

  Cornwall1

  1·0

  12·6

  28·7

  42·3

  77

  Cumbria

  7·1

  16·6

  30·8

  54·5

  52

  Derbyshire

  6·2

  30·2

  22·0

  58·4

  40

  Devon

  1·3

  10·2

  16·6

  28·1

  98

  Dorset

  0·0

  5·6

  32·2

  37·8

  86

  Durham

  16·6

  23·3

  30·1

  69·9

  18

  East Sussex

  1·9

  7·0

  29·3

  38·2

  85

  Essex

  0·6

  5·4

  15·5

  21·5

  102

  Gloucestershire

  0·0

  0·1

  30·1

  30·2

  96

  Hampshire

  0·8

  3·9

  15·1

  19·8

  105

  Hereford and Worcester

  0·0

  7·7

  13·2

  20·8

  103

  Hertfordshire

  6·3

  24·3

  16·4

  47·0

  71

  Humberside

  5·0

  32·5

  22·8

  60·3

  39

  Isle of Wight

  0·0

  6·9

  35·1

  42·0

  79

  Kent

  0·2

  4·6

  27·1

  31·9

  94

  Lancashire

  8·6

  9·0

  30·7

  48·3

  67

  Leicestershire

  0·2

  22·1

  16·1

  38·4

  84

  Lincolnshire

  2·1

  6·3

  29·2

  37·6

  87

  Norfolk

  2·4

  2·8

  28·9

  34·0

  90

  North Yorkshire

  2·2

  18·3

  26·9

  47·5

  70

  Northamptonshire

  3·9

  14·7

  33·4

  52·0

  57

  Northumberland

  1·8

  29·5

  31·8

  63·0

  30

  Nottinghamshire

  2·1

  46·7

  7·7

  56·5

  48

  Oxfordshire

  6·8

  9·1

  4·5

  20·5

  104

  Shropshire

  1·6

  11·8

  20·1

  33·5

  91

  Somerset

  0·0

  0·8

  32·7

  33·4

  92

  Staffordshire

  7·1

  15·1

  28·8

  51·1

  58

  Suffolk

  0·6

  16·1

  14·5

  31·2

  95

  Surrey

  1·7

  9·5

  13·3

  24·5

  101

  Warwickshire

  6·2

  10·6

  31·6

  48·4

  66

  West Sussex

  3·3

  0·8

  12·4

  16·5

  108

  Wiltshire

  0·0

  3·0

  14·5

  17·9

  106

  England

  4·1

  21·1

  22·7

  47·9

  1 Isles of Scilly have been included with Cornwall.

  2 Excludes pupils who became 5 years of age by 1st January 1991.

  3 The percentage of pupils has been derived by comparing the number of pupils in school with the estimated population aged 3 and 4 years.

  School Playing Fields
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action he intends to take to safeguard school playing fields from re-development; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Local Education Authorities arc responsible for taking decisions on whether or not to dispose of school playing fields. It is the Government's policy to encourage authorities to dispose of land and buildings which have become surplus to requirements through the rationalisation of school provision. However, in view of public concern over the continuing loss of school playing 216
  fields to redevelopment, I have to-day written to the local authority associations seeking their comments on a letter I propose to issue to all local education authorities. The letter will ask LEAs not to dispose of school playing fields unless they have first investigated and established that they will not be needed in the long term for school or community use. It will also say that in future when considering proposals involving school closures my right hon. and learned Friend will take account of authorities' plans for the retention of playing fields that may be needed to remedy any deficiencies in playing field provision at neighbouring schools.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Arms Control
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many departmental officials, at what grade, and with what responsibilities, attended the round table briefing meeting on arms control and disarmament hosted by his Department for non-governmental organisations on 26 November; and what was the cost to his Department of the meeting.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The meeting was chaired by Mr. David Summerhayes, disarmament adviser and those attending included the heads of the arms control and disarmament, security policy and non-proliferation and defence departments of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and the head of the disarmament and arms control unit of the Ministry of Defence. The cost of the meeting has not been calculated.

  Visas
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what responsibility the European Community will have for visa lists following the Maastricht meeting of Heads of Government; and what effect this will have on Commonwealth citizens applying for visas to enter the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Once the revised treaty of Rome has entered into force, the Council of Ministers will be responsible for drawing up the list of countries, which may include Commonwealth ones, whose nationals must have a visa when crossing member states' external frontiers.

  Fiji
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to persuade Fiji to adopt a revised constitution.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  None. Fiji's new constitution is essentially an internal matter which is for the peoples of Fiji to decide.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he plans to send observers to the next Fijian elections.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  No, but the British embassy in Suva will be reporting on the elections in the normal way.

  Mr. Muhummad al Fasi
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the Saudi Arabian Government regarding Mr. Muhummad al Fasi.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  None.

  Euratom
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what competence Euratom will have over United Kingdom military nuclear activities following the agreements made at the Maastricht meeting of the intergovernmental conference on European political and economic union.
  218
  Mr. Garel-Jones
  None. The Maastricht European Council made no substantial amendments to the Euratom treaty, although some consequential amendments will be necessary to reflect EC institutional changes.

  Geneva Convention
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will be in a position to ratify the additional protocols to the 1949 Geneva convention.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We hope to be in a position to make a decision on ratification of the additional protocols to the 1949 Geneva conventions very soon.

  CSCE
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the Governments of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia respectively signed the charter of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe; and what discussions he or departmental officials have had with counterparts in the Baltic states over their accession to the treaty on conventional forces in Europe.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Presidents of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania signed the charter of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe on 6 December.

  Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence officials visited Estonia on 13 and 15 October to discuss a range of issues, including the treaty on conventional armed forces in Europe, the CFE treaty. We have had discussions at ambassadorial level with the Governments of the other Baltic states in their capitals and in Vienna. We expect to follow up these contacts with further visits in the new year. It is for the Baltic states themselves to decide whether to accede to the CFE treaty.

  Maastricht
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish details of the redefinition or extension of Community competence in relation to(a) education, (b) training, (c) cohesion, (d) research and development, (e) environment, (f) trans-European networks, (g) industry, (h) health, (i) culture, (j) consumer protection and (k) development co-operation, resulting from the Maastricht agreement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The redefinition or extension of competence in all these areas is clearly set out in the relevant provisions of the treaty on union agreed at Maastricht, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Korea
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's response to the recent agreements between the Governments of North and South Korea on the de-nuclearisation of the Korean peninsula under international verification.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We warmly welcome the outcome of the recent north-south prime ministerial talks in Seoul, including the wish to replace the armistice by a peace agreement and to strengthen bilateral links and exchanges. There remains much to be done but we see these as positive steps forward.
  219
  We also welcome the south's offer of simultaneous inspection of sites to further help resolve the issue of nuclear safeguards. We hope the north will reciprocate.

THE ARTS

  Northern Arts
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will list the amount of grant given to Northern Arts for each year since 1980.

  Mr. Renton
  The information requested is as follows

  ACGB grant to Northern Arts

  Years

  £

  1980–81

  1,306,630

  1981–82

  1,456,051

  1982–83

  1,733,236

  1983–84

  1,819,020

  1984–85

  1,938,659

  1985–86

  2,086,802

  1986–87

  3,424,500

  1987–88

  3,510,500

  1988–89

  3,526,910

  1989–90

  3,626,775

  1990–91

  3,951,000

  1991–92

  4,426,914

  Following the excellent 13·9 per cent. increase for the Arts Council which I announced last November, I am delighted that the Arts Council has decided to pass on to every regional arts board at least the same level of increase for next year. For 1992–93 Northern Arts will receive £5,043,000.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Central Statistical Office
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what assessment he has made of the quality and output of the Central Statistical Office; and what steps he is taking to improve them;

  (2) what recent changes have been made to the structure and functioning of the Central Statistical Office.

  Mr. Maples
  I refer my hon. Friend to the replies the Chancellor gave to my hon. Friends for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) and for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) on 19 November, at columns 139–41.

  Taxpayers
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate for 1992–93 the number of taxpayers in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, giving numbers separately for employees and self-employed.

  Mr. Maude
  The number of taxpaying individuals, classified by main source of income in 1992–93, is estimated to be as follows with the illustrative assumption of 4 per cent. indexation of allowances from the autumn statement 1991:

  Million

  Employees

  19·3

  Self-employed

  2·8

  Other1

  2·9

  220
  1 Includes pensioners and those with no earned income.

  Separate figures for Great Britain and Northern Ireland are not available.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate for(a) 1991–92 and (b) 1992–93 the number of taxpayers in Great Britain and Northern Ireland who have taxable income less than (a) £500, (b) £1,000, (c) £1,500 and (d) £2,000.

  Mr. Maude
  Information for the United Kingdom is given in the table. Estimates for 1992–93 are approximate and are based on the illustrative 4 per cent. indexation of allowances from the autumn statement 1991.

  Estimated number of taxpayers (millions)

  Taxable income1 £ per year

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Less than 500

  1·1

  1

  Less than 1,000

  2·3

  2¼

  Less than 1,500

  3·4

  3¼

  Less than 2,000

  4·3

  4¼

  1 Income for income tax purposes less allowances and reliefs.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate for(a) 1991–92 and (b) 1992–93 the number of taxpayers in Great Britain and Northern Ireland who have gross income (i) less than £10,000, (ii) between £10,000 and £20,000, (iii) between £20,000 and £30,000 and (iv) between £30,000 and £40,000.

  Mr. Maude
  Information for the United Kingdom is given in the table. The estimates for 1992–93 are approximate and are based on the 4 per cent. illustrative indexation of allowances from the autumn statement 1991

  Estimated numbers of taxpayers (millions)

  Gross income £ per year

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Less than 10,000

  10·2

  9½

  10,000 to 20,000

  10·5

  10½

  20,000 to 30,000

  2·9

  3¼

  30,000 to 40,000

  0·8

  1

  Over 40,000

  0·7

  ¾

  Total

  25·1

  25

  I regret that it is not possible to provide separate estimates for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the most recent estimates for 1991–92 of(a) how many taxpayers get additional personal allowance and widows' bereavement allowance, (b) how many of these also get one parent benefit and widowed mothers' allowance and (c) how many of these are also receiving means-tested benefits in Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Maude
  The information is as follows:

  (a) About 500,000 taxpayers benefit from the additional pesonal allowance, and 100,000 from the widows' bereavement allowance.

  (b) The estimated average numbers in Great Britain receiving one parent benefit and widowed mothers' allowance in 1991–92 are 785,000 and 65,000 respectively. However, the benefits system cannot distinguish between taxpayers and non-taxpayers or identify those who benefit from a specific tax allowance.

  221

  (c) Estimates are not available of the numbers at (b) who are also receiving income-related benefits.

  Medical Insurance
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his forecast for the cost to the Exchequer in a full year in(a) 1991–92 and (b) 1992–93 of tax relief for private medical insurance premiums for persons aged over 60 years.

  Mr. Maude
  The estimated cost of the relief in respect of 1991–92 is expected to be about £60 million. The cost in respect of 1992–93 will depend on the level of premiums paid.

  Tax Allowances
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the effect on Treasury revenues in a full year in (i) 1991–92 and (ii) 1992–93 of introducing an upper limit on all income tax allowances and reliefs of(a) £10,000, (b) £15,000 and (c) £20,000 a year with (i) the current tax allowances and reliefs and (ii) limiting all income tax allowances and reliefs except the single person's allowance to the basic rate, giving the revenue from each relief separately, the total revenue and the numbers of people affected, for Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Maude
  It is estimated that at 1991–92 levels of income the introduction of the upper limits specified would yield the following:

  £ million

  Upper limit for total allowances and reliefs

  Yield in a full year under the current lax regime

  Yield following restriction of all reliefs and specified allowances to the basic rate

  £10,000

  590

  390

  £15,000

  240

  150

  £20,000

  140

  90

  The estimated yield from restricting all allowances, except the basic personal allowance, to the basic irate is about £300 million. The estimated yield from restricting all reliefs to the basic rate is £600 million. Of this figure, about £250 million results from restricting relief on employee contributions to occupational pensions and about £150 million results from restricting relief on personal pension contributions.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the revenue yield in(a) the first year and (b) a full year, assuming this is introduced at the beginning of 1991–92, of extending national insurance contributions to all employee taxable benefits in kind, for employees in Great Britain and Northern Ireland who earn over £8,500, distinguishing between employee and employer contributions, listing the revenue from each benefit and assuming the abolition of the national insurance upper earnings limit.

  Mr. Maude
  The additional revenue for the United Kingdom in a full year at 1991–92 levels is shown in the 222
  table which gives the available analysis by type of benefit. The estimates are based on an employee contribution rate of 9 per cent. and an employer contribution rate of 10·4 per cent. The estimates are calculated using the taxable value of the benefits. The yield in the first year would depend upon the administrative arrangements made to collect the new charge.

  Revenue yield1

  Type of benefit

  From employees

  £ million from employers

  Car

  400

  20

  Car fuel

  40

  20

  Private medical insurance

  40

  40

  Home telephone

  10

  10

  Beneficial loans

  20

  20

  Other benefits

  200

  230

  Total

  710

  300

  1 For a full year at 1991–92 levels of income and benefit.

  2 These items are already subject to employer contributions.

  ECOFIN
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the outcome of the latest meeting of the European Community's Council of Economic and Finance Ministers.

  Mr. Maples
  The Economic and Finance Council of the European Community met in Brussels on 16 December. I represented the United Kingdom with the Minister for Corporate Affairs.

  The Council discussed the Portuguese Government's programme for economic convergence, and welcomed their ambitious targets for reducing inflation to a ceiling of 4 per cent. by the end of 1995, the general Government deficit to no more than 3 per cent. of GDP by 1995 and lowering the debt ratio. But the Council stressed that the achievement of these targets is highly dependent on the budget for 1992, the growth rate that is realised and the appropriate mix of policy instruments. The Council invited the Commission and the monetary committee to monitor the implementation of the programme and to report back to the Council before the end of 1992.

  The Council confirmed the agreement in principle reached at the Foreign Affairs Council that morning on a new package of emergency food aid to the value of 200 mecu for Moscow and St. Petersburg, and, if appropriate, other cities. Of this aid, 100 mecu can be released immediately and a further 100 mecu following consultation of the European Parliament in mid January. The earlier proposals for a loan totalling 1·25 becu for three years was also formally adopted and it was agreed that the first tranche, of 500 mecu should now be released as soon as possible.

  The Council discussed the ideas for a carbon/energy tax contained in the Commission's communication and took note of reports from the fiscal aspects group and the conclusions of the joint Energy and Environment Council held on 13 December. It was agreed that the fiscal aspects working group should undertake work on the basis of additional analysis of the issues by the Commission and that the Council would re-examine the question before May in preparation for the UNCED Council in Rio.
  223
  The Council discussed several matters relating to the abolition of fiscal frontiers, and formally adopted the directive on the VAT transitional arrangements to apply after 1992.

  Political agreement was reached on the draft directive on the arrangements for the holding, movement and control of goods subject to excise duty. This agreement includes satisfactory provision for minimum indicative levels to distinguish between commercial and private transactions in tobacco products and alcoholic drinks, since commercial transactions are taxed in the country of destination while private transactions are taxed in the country of origin. The minimum indicative levels agreed were as follows:

  Item

  Amount

  Cigarettes

  800

  Cigarillos

  400

  Cigars

  200

  Smoking tobacco

  1kg

  Spirits

  10 litres

  Intermediate products

  20 litres

  Wine

  190 litres

  Beer

  110 litres

  1 Including a maximum of 60 litres of sparkling wines.

  Above these levels, the transaction may be taken to be of a commercial character unless the person concerned can establish to the satisfation of the fiscal authorities that it is not.

  For limited period, Ireland will be able to apply minimum indicative levels for wines and beer at 50 per cent. of the levels generally agreed. Special arrangements were also agreed to allow Denmark to continue to apply its current travellers' allowances on spirits and tobacco after 1992.

  Subject to parliamentary scrutiny, agreement was also reached on extended and modified derogations for Ireland and Denmark from the directive on travellers' allowances, to apply during 1992.

  Denmark will continue to apply its current levels of travellers' allowances, while for Ireland, the agreement provides for the following revised allowances:

  Current allowance

  Allowance to apply in 1992

  Cigarettes (number)

  150

  300

  Smoking tobacco (grams)

  400

  400

  Spirits (litres)

  0·75

  1·5

  or

  Intermediate products and sparkling wine (litres)

  1·5

  3

  Still wine (litres)

  2·5

  5

  Beer (litres)

  112and25

  115 and 30

  Other products (ecu)

  2110

  3175

  1 for travellers out of the Republic for less and more than 24 hours respectively

  2 subject to a single item limit of 95 ecu

  3 subject to a single item limit of 150 ecu for travellers out of the Republic for more than 24 hours, 110 ecu for less than 24 hours.

  The Council also took note of a progress report by the Dutch presidency on the last six months and the work to be done before 1 January 1993.

  The Community's acceptance of the "Helsinki package" of reforms to the OECD consensus on export credits was confirmed. This agreement incorporates a welcome reduction in trade distorting export credit
  224
  subsidy to the benefit of taxpayers and a tightening of the rules on the provision of tied aid subsidies so that these are better targeted on aid-worthy projects in aid-worthy countries.

  The Council took note of a report from the Commission on a proposal for a directive on withholding taxes on interest and royalty payments and remitted the proposal to a working group for further work.

  The Council also took note of a joint report from the Commission and the European investment bank on lending by the European investment bank outside the Community.

  The conclusions of that morning's meeting of the Transport Council on road transport taxation were remitted to an ad hoc working group for further discussion.

  The investment services directive was also discussed in a group of personal representatives at which the Minister for Corporate Affairs represented the United Kingdom. No decisions were reached.

  Uncollected Tax
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, pursuant to his answer of 2 December,Official Report, columns 37–38, he will publish a table showing the levels of uncollected tax at the end of the financial year 1989–90 and 1990–91 for (a) value added tax, (b) income tax, including schedule D and (c) corporation tax, excise duties and capital gains tax, expressed both as a sum figure and as a percentage of total tax due for each category.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 12 December 1991]: Information on average daily arrears of value added tax, on the basis of financial years, and on income tax, corporation tax, and capital gains tax arrears at years ending 31 October can be found in "Volume 12: Classes XVIII to XIX" of the 1990–91 appropriation accounts, pages vii and xiii respectively. A copy is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Arrears of excise duty on drink, tobacco and road fuel are not collated centrally. However, these duties are either paid in cash on clearance to home consumption or by duty deferment backed up by a financial guarantee. In either case the possibility for arrears is minimal. Arrears of car tax, and betting and gaming duty can however arise and were as follows:

  Arrears £ million

  As percentage of receipts

  31 March 1990

  48·9

  2·0

  31 March 1990

  6·9

  0·3

  In general, the bulk of the sums of tax in arrears are collectable and remain outstanding only for short periods, possibly days. Sums outstanding for longer periods risk incurring penalties or interest charges. Ultimately the Revenue Departments write off only those sums indicated in the reply of 2 December 1991, Official Report, columns 37–38. Write-offs occur mainly through insolvencies or from traders becoming untraceable.

  Corporation Tax
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what percentage corporation tax would have to be increased to raise an amount equivalent to the amount raised by the uniform business rate in 1989–90 and 1990–91.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 16 December 1991]: Assuming no changes in company behaviour, the corporation tax rate, applied to profits from 1 April 1988 onwards, would need to have been more than 20 percentage points higher to yield a sum over these two years equivalent to the amount raised from non-domestic property by way of rates.

  In the absence of rates, the required increase would have been significantly less because rates are allowed as a deduction in computing profits for corporation tax. Information required to quantify the level is not available.

  Rates raise revenue to pay for services provided by local authorities by taxing the occupation of non-domestic property. As such, they are levied on unincorporated businesses, partnerships and the self employed who are liable to income tax, as well as the corporate sector which is liable to corporation tax.

  Self-employed and Partnerships
  Sir David Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the effect on the Exchequer's revenue of applying corporation rather than income tax to the self-employed and partnerships.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 18 December 1991]: 'There would be an effect on the timing of tax payments. Partnerships and the self-employed pay tax for income tax years in two instalments, three months before and three months after the end of the tax year. Corporation tax is paid in one instalment nine months after the end of the accounting period. There would also be an effect on the amount of tax paid, but the extent would depend on how the rules for taxing companies were adapted to tax the self-employed and partnerships.

  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will be the tax consequences of the privatisation of Northern Ireland Electricity.

  Mr. Maude
  The Electricity (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 provides for the transfer of the business assets and liabilities of Northern Ireland Electricity (NIE) to a number of successor companies into private ownership. Under normal tax rules a number of tax consequences would arise solely as a result of the pre-privatisation reorganisation of NIE into the successor companies. We intend to introduce legislation in 1992 designed to treat the reorganisation on a tax-neutral basis in accordance with the Government's general policy on privatisation.

ENVIRONMENT

  London Docklands Development Corporation
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much public funding has been given since the establishment of the London Dock lands development corporation to the London Arena development; and if he will make a statement.
  226
  Mr. Key
  The total public sector contribution to the capital cost of the London Arena is £3·425 million.

  Caravan Site, Basingstoke
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the cost of establishing under the Caravan Sites Act 1968 the site at Peak Copse, Dummer, Basingstoke, including all the preliminaries, the cost of the public inquiry and the cost of actual construction.

  Mr. Yeo
  The cost of the preliminary work on the planning application concerning the site and of the public local inquiry which was held in January 1989, fell principally on Hampshire county council. The costs of the inquiry inspector, which were borne by the Secretary of State, are not separately identifiable.

  The actual cost of constructing the site will not be known before completion of the scheme in mid 1992, but the tender accepted by the Hampshire county council in the sum of £616,738 is within the approved estimate for gipsy site grant.

  Cycling (Royal Parks)
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the provision of cycling facilities will be considered by the independent review group on royal parks; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  The royal parks review group is considering the provision of cycling facilities in Hyde park and Kensington gardens and will report its conclusions on this and other matters early next year.

  Private Tenancies
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what representations he has received about the practice of certain private landlords of requiring a tenancy to be terminated when a baby is born to the tenant; what information he has as to how widespread this practice is; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) whether he has any plans to prohibit private landlords from terminating tenancies when a child is born to the tenant; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  My right hon. Friend has received no such representations. Landlords may obtain possession from an assured tenant to whom a child has been born only if a term of the tenancy agreement has thereby been breached, or if the landlord is otherwise entitled to possession. In either case a court order is necessary and the landlord must satisfy the court that it is reasonable to grant him possession for a breach of the terms of the tenancy. A tenant will therefore be aware of the likelihood that he will not be able to remain after a child is born at the point where he accepts the tenancy. We have no plans to change the law in this respect.

  West Kent Housing Association
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much grant was given by his Department to West Kent housing association in respect of the proposed voluntary transfer of housing stock.

  Sir George Young
  My Department has not given any grant to the West Kent housing association in respect of
  227
  the proposed transfer of the new town housing stock at Basildon; nor are there any powers so to do. However, in accordance with the provisions of the New Towns (Transfer of Housing Stock) Regulations 1990, as amended, the Commission for the New Towns will pay the reasonable costs incurred by both the West Kent housing association and Basildon district council in connection with a ballot of tenants.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Carmarthen by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy, the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) on. 2 December at column 42, on energy efficiency investment, if he will break down the figure of £900 million into its component parts.

  Mr. Yeo
  A breakdown of the figure of £900 million for the financial year 1990–91 is not available. However, the 1986 English house condition survey indicated that of all major expenditure on the public sector stock, directed at the improvement of heating and insulation, some 73 per cent. was for installing or repairing central heating and nearly 9 per cent for other heating. Around 17 per cent was spent on wall insulation and some 1 per cent on loft and roof insulation.

  Planning Zones
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he proposes to take in order to encourage local planning authorities to make simplified planning zones on appropriate cases; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Planning and Compensation Act 1991 provides for substantial simplification and streamlining of the procedure for making simplified planning zones—SPZs. Regulations for the detailed implementation of this will be laid before the House in due course.

  I have today issued a consultation paper setting out our proposals for such regulations, and for the revision and inclusion in a single document of the Department's guidance to authorities on the making of SPZs.

  Authorities have a duty under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to keep under review the desirability of making SPZs for parts of their area.

  National Wildlife Parks (Military Use)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on whether military use is permitted of national and wildlife parks in each of the other European Community countries.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 18 December 1991]: Military use is permitted in protected areas in other European Community countries, but information for each member country is not readily available.

  Windscale Inquiry
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans there are to publish the study by Lyons (CB) Ltd. of press reporting of the Windscale public inquiry.
  228
  Mr. Forth
  I have been asked to reply.

  This report was commissioned for the Health and Safety Executive's internal use and there are no plans to publish it.

  New Parliamentary Building
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made on the design of the next phase of the new parliamentary building; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The consultant architect appointed by my Department, Michael Hopkins and Partners, completed their preliminary sketch plan stage proposals in October. These were presented to the New Building Sub Committee which endorsed the way the scheme is developing. A text of the letter I received from the Chairman, the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) and of my reply along with copies of Hopkins' report are being placed in the Library.

  Design work, and discussions with London Underground Ltd. on the integration of the scheme and the proposed new Westminster station are continuing. It is planned to publish the final sketch plan proposals early next year.

  The letter from the hon. Member for Ogmore and my reply to him are as follows.

  SELECT COMMITTEE ON HOUSE OF COMMONS (SERVICES): NEW BUILDING SUB-COMMITTEE
  22nd October 1991
  Dear Michael
  Bridge Street Phase 2
  At its meeting last Tuesday the New Building Sub-Committee received a presentation from Mr. Michael Hopkins on his Preliminary Sketch Plan Report for Phase 2 of the new parliamentary building project. As the Sub-Committee will shortly cease to exist, and as there may be a lengthy interval before the new Accommodation Committee is set up, I thought it would be helpful if I wrote to inform you of the Sub-Committee's present views in regard to Phase 2.
  In general the Sub-Committee is very pleased with the way the designs are shaping up. Last week we were shown elevations of the proposed building for the first time, and I think I speak for all my colleagues who were present in saying that these were very encouraging. We appreciate, of course, that Mr. Hopkins is still actively developing his views about the appearance of the building, and that it will not be until next Spring that the plans are finalised.
  We approved the proposals for Members' offices contained in the PSP Report. In particular we are content with the proposal that about 104 "sets" should contain ensuite accommodation for Members' staff, while in a further 92 "sets" space will be shared with other Members' staff.
  Mr. Hopkins's proposals for the internal layout of the building, especially on the. ground and first floors, are still being developed. We regard the proposals to roof in either the inner courtyard (at second floor level), or the outer space formed between Phase 2 and Norman Shaw South, as interesting, and we certainly think Mr. Hopkins should further investigate each possibility in order to establish its pros and cons. We are sure that he will bear in mind the importance of ensuring, if at all possible, that the minimum allocations of space for specific functions as set out in the Services Committee's Initial Brief are adhered to in whatever emerges as his favoured layout.
  We approved Mr. Hopkin's new proposals to carry the load of the building on its perimeter walls and on six columns extending downward to the base of the station, rather than on a horizontal concrete "raft". We think it essential, however, that whatever means are chosen to separate the parliamentary building from the London underground station below it, the

  229
  highest priority must be given to ensuring that noise and vibration from the trains do not disturb Members and staff in their offices.
  Mr. Hopkins reported to us on the difficulties which have arisen in relation to the siting of ventilation shafts. This is a matter which will clearly have to be looked at in detail by our successors, but we wish to put on record our concern at the proposed introduction of such shafts within the parliamentary estate. The aesthetic and other disadvantages that might arise from such a proposal will need to be carefully evaluated.
  Finally, we note that a number of issues remain to be resolved in discussions with London Underground. Our successors will need to satisfy themselves that suitable arrangements have been made with regard to the location of the temporary ticket hall, achieving an early start to the construction of the parliamentary building, shared use of the site during the construction period, future ownership of the land, and provisions to insulate the parliamentary building from noise and vibration. It will also be important to receive confirmation from London Underground that the construction timetable they have previously outlined in evidence to the Service Committee is still operative.
  We understand that London Underground propose shortly to introduce a further private bill dealing with the Jubilee Line. Our successors may well wish to enquire into any proposals in this bill which directly impinge on the parliamentary estate, and to report to the House on them before the bill is given a second reading. This would be a similar procedure to that which the Services Committee adopted with regard to the original Jubilee line bill in Session 1989–90.
  Subject to progress in resolving these issues, and to the satisfactory passage of the London Underground Bill through Parliament, we see no reason why the target of Spring 1992 for the commencement of work on site should not be achieved. We wish to put on record our thanks to Mr. Hopkins, and to his junior colleague Mr. John Pringle, for all the work they have done and for the constructive and creative way in which they have sought to interpret their necessarily complex brief.
  15 December 1991
  Dear Ray,
  NEW PARLIAMENTARY BUILDING
  Thank you for your letter of 22 October recording the outcome of the New Building Sub Committee's consideration of Michael Hopkins and Partners proposals for the next phase of the New Parliamentary Building. Before dealing with the issues you raise may I congratulate you first on becoming Chairman of the new Accommodation and Works Committee. I am sure it is very important to the development of the proposals for the new building that there should be this continuity with the depth of knowledge it brings to the scheme.
  I had the opportunity last week to visit Hopkins' office to see their proposals. He has done considerable work since the presentation to the Sub Committee and it is quite clear that there are the makings of a fine scheme. The massing, scale and silhouette of the building are now becoming much clearer and will, I think, contribute greatly to the important views across the River Thames as well as the more oblique views from Parliament Square. The choice of materials is of great importance. There is a very difficult balance to be struck between the red brick of the Norman Shaw buildings and the lighter brown stone used on the Palace. I know from our discussions that Michael Hopkins is very conscious of this point.
  It is, I believe, essentially a matter for the House to determine the priorities for the use of the accommodation which can be provided in the building. I note that your Sub Committee was content with the proposals for Members' offices and I think you will find that the most recent work to develop the proposals for the ground and first floors will not only result in an exciting space but will assist considerably in increasing the amount of accommodation available without in any way overdeveloping the site.
  It is quite clear, both from your letter and the reports I have received, that there is still a considerable amount of work to be done to integrate successfully the proposed extension to the Jubilee Line with the new building. I consider it very important therefore that the discussions involving my
  230
  officials, London Underground and the House should be pursued rigorously to try to achieve the timetable you set out so that all the necessary information is made available to enable the House to take an early view on the impact of the proposed Extension and to reach agreement on the way ahead without delaying unnecessarily the new building.
  I shall be keeping in touch as the design continues to develop and look forward to seeing a fully worked up scheme early in the New Year.
  Yours faithfully,
  MICHAEL HESELTINE

  Bottled Water
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what regulations exist to control bottled(a) mineral water and (b) spring water; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Natural Mineral Water Regulations 1985 control the exploitation and marketing of natural mineral waters in Great Britain. Similar controls apply in Northern Ireland. Regulations laying down specific controls for other bottled waters are currently being drafted.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  EC (Visits)
  Mr. Forman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list (i) the number of visits made by officials in his Department during the past month to destinations outside the United Kingdom but within the European Community on official business related to the European Community, (ii) the number of visits made by officials in his Department to Brussels within the past month on official business related to the European Community and (iii) the number of nights spent by officials in his Department over the past month away from the United Kingdom on official European Community business.

  Mr. Lilley
  This information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Export Licences
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will name the destinations for which export licence applications are subject to special consideration for strategic and proliferation reasons.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Government have decided to publish a list of destinations for which export licence applications are subject to special consideration to serve as a guide to industry. The list, which is subject to regular review, is based on strategic and proliferation concerns and other criteria, including the risk of diversion and the lack of effective export controls. The destinations are as follows:

  Afghanistan

  Albania

  Algeria

  Angola

  Argentina

  Brazil

  Bulgaria

  Burma

  China

  Cuba

  231

  Czechoslovakia

  Egypt

  Estonia

  Hungary

  India

  Iran

  Iraq

  Israel

  Latvia

  Libya

  Lithuania

  Mongolia

  North Korea

  Pakistan

  Poland

  Romania

  Somalia

  South Africa

  South Korea

  Soviet Union

  Syria

  Taiwan

  Vietnam

  Export licence applications will continue to be considered on a case by case basis in accordance with stringent criteria. The inclusion of a destination on the list does not in itself preclude the granting of an export licence. Normal licensing procedures continue to apply in respect of exports to other destinations.

  Executive Directors
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make it his policy to amend company law so that a non-executive director who has been chairman of the remunerations sub-committee of the board of directors of a public company cannot himself or herself be subsequently appointed to executive director posts whose remunerations were determined by that sub-committee.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 17 December 1991]: Detailed internal arrangements of companies and their boards are a matter for companies, operating in the case of listed companies under stock exchange rules.

  The Secretary of State has no plans to amend company law, which provides for proper disclosure of remuneration of directors and chairmen and gives shareholders an adequate measure of control over the appointment and remuneration of directors.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Vietnam
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on progress made in allocating the £1 million set aside in May 1990 for a special joint funding scheme in Vietnam.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The £1 million set aside under this scheme has been fully committed to 18 projects in those areas of north Vietnam from which boat people have predominantly come. The British non-governmental organizations—NGOs—with whom we are co-operating are Action Aid, Safe the Children Fund, Care and Marie Stopes International. Projects cover a wide range of community development activities, including water supply and irrigation, income generation schemes in afforestation, aquaculture and smallholder farming, mother and child health and family planning.
  232
  In addition, under ODA's regular joint funding scheme, we have made further substantial commitments to NGO projects in other areas of Vietnam. These now total just over £850,000.

  Renewable Natural Resources
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what activities have been funded by the ODA under the strategy for research on renewable natural resources.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I have today placed in the Library a copy of the annual report 1990–91 on the strategy for research on renewable natural resources. The report gives an overview of the objectives and achievements of work undertaken in 1990–91 and outlines the direction of future work.

  Iraq
  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he plans to provide further humanitarian assistance to civilians in Iraq.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Yes. Since April we have spent over £44 million in aid for the people of Iraq. This figure continues to rise. We are supporting the work of British and British-based Iraqi relief organisations, and United Nations agencies, and are in constant touch with them about how we can help further.

PRIME MINISTER

  Ministers
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will bring forward legislation to provide that Secretaries of State must be members of the Cabinet;

  (2) if he will bring forward legislation to amend the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 to allow the Lord Chancellor to be a Member of the House of Commons;

  (3) if he will bring forward legislation to abolish the post of Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chancellor's Department, and to establish in their place a Secretary of State for Law and a Department of Law;

  (4) if he will bring forward legislation to replace the title of Secretary of State by the title of Cabinet Minister;

  (5) if he will bring forward legislation to provide that the Attorney-General must be a member of either the Commons or the Lords.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Soviet Republics
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to make available to the Governments of the Republics of the former Soviet Union, United Kingdom expertise in(a) civil and military nuclear technology, (b) environmental pollution abatement and (c) food distribution.

  The Prime Minister
  United Kingdom expertise in civil uses of nuclear power and food distribution can be made available to the republics of the former Soviet Union under the auspices of our know-how fund. A separate fund
  233
  for tackling environmental problems will come into operation next year. We are studying how we might help the republics reduce the risks of the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

  Maastricht
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list in the Official Report those topics on which the institutions of the European Community will not possess a basis of views for any opinion, recommendations, legislation, expenditure or adjudication, consequent to the adoption of the draft treaties agreed at Maastricht.

  The Prime Minister
  The provisions of the treaty on European union agreed at Maastricht, a copy of which is in the Library of the House, make clear the conditions under which the institutions of the European Community may act.

  Lord Chancellor
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will Fist the legal qualifications necessary for appointment as(a) Lord Chancellor and (b) Attorney-General.

  The Prime Minister
  The Lord Chancellor must be a person able to discharge duties as the president of the supreme court of judicature—that is, the Court of Appeal, the High Court and the Crown court—and also as the presiding chairman of the House of Lords in its judicial capacity. In order that he or she may represent the Crown in each of the Queen's courts in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the Attorney-General is a member of the Bar of England and Wales.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 19 December.

  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.

TRANSPORT

  Transport Supplementary Grant
  Mr. Aitken
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will announce the allocation of the transport supplementary grant and credit approvals for capital expenditure on local roads in England for 1992–93.

  Mr. Rifkind
  A total of £370 million transport supplementary grant—TSG—plus £510 million in annual capital guideline—ACG—and supplementary credit approval—SCA—are to he allocated to local highway authorities in England for capital expenditure on their roads in 1992–93. With the help of capital reserves and developer contributions, I therefore expect authorities to be able to spend well over £1,000 million in total.

  Table 1 sets out the national totals for different types of expenditure. Table 2 shows the total amounts of TSG, credit approval and gross approved expenditure for each of the 108 local highway authorities. They are being notified today of their allocations by the Department's regional offices.
  234
  Leaving aside the grant newly allocated for structural maintenance in 1991–92 and 1992–93, there is to be about the same amount of TSG as for 1991–92, but it is 18 per cent. more than for 1990–91.

  Authorities will be able to make a start on the 37 new major schemes listed in table 3, which are to be newly accepted for TSG. Authorities will also be able to make progress with certain other major schemes using only credit approvals.

  These new major schemes will, like the 274 others which continue to receive TSG support, relieve communities of the noise and danger of heavy through traffic, aid inner city regeneration and help to open up new opportunities for development and growth.

  There is to be a 17 per cent. increase in minor works expenditure and, within that, a 38 per cent. increase in expenditure ear-marked for local safety schemes.

  I am pleased with the start that local authorities have made in using the money we allocated for local safety schemes for 1991–92. Even if they spend no more than the grant and credit approvals that we have given them, over 1991–92 and 1992–93 they will have had the potential to carry out around 7,700 local safety schemes which could save 170 lives and prevent 2,200 serious injuries and 9,000 other casualties in any 12-month period.

  The £110 million accepted expenditure for bridge maintenance, which is 22 per cent. more than for 1991–92, will enable authorities to maintain the momentum of this important programme of work and the £95 million allocated for maintenance of the roads which form part of the primary route network will help ensure that these important transport links are properly maintained.

  Table 1

  £ million

  Existing commitments

  493·791

  New starts

  60·028

  Minor works

  88·656

  Bridges

  110·965

  PRN maintenance

  95·280

  Grant adjustments

  -54·360

  Non grant aided expenditure

  88·199

  Total

  882·559

  Table 2

  Local authority capital expenditure on roads 1992–93

  (£ million)

  Government grant (TSG)

  Total borrowing approval

  Gross approved spending

  Counties

  Avon

  6·295

  14·385

  27·130

  Bedfordshire

  2·233

  2·517

  4·750

  Berkshire

  4·617

  7·470

  12·087

  Buckinghamshire

  1·886

  3·283

  5·169

  Cambridgeshire

  2·792

  3·571

  6·363

  Cheshire

  11·099

  12·513

  23·612

  Cleveland

  3·623

  5·611

  10·684

  Cornwall

  4·848

  6·160

  11·583

  Cumbria

  2·283

  2·775

  5·058

  Derbyshire

  1·908

  3·186

  5·944

  Devon

  4·412

  5·230

  9·642

  Dorset

  3·466

  4·321

  7·787

  Durham

  4·307

  5·359

  10·191

  East Sussex

  3·151

  5·182

  9·633

  Essex

  6·275

  7·500

  13·775

  Gloucestershire

  4·377

  4·850

  9·227

  Hampshire

  10·512

  18·004

  30·316

  Hereford and Worcester

  2·494

  4·480

  8·299

  Hertfordshire

  5·823

  7·261

  13·659

  235

  Government grant (TSG)

  Total borrowing approval

  Gross approved spending

  Humberside

  8·225

  9·202

  17·427

  Isle of Wight

  0·902

  1·070

  1·972

  Kent

  33·149

  39·852

  73·176

  Lancashire

  11·630

  15·783

  29·713

  Leicestershire

  5·728

  8·799

  16·577

  Lincolnshire

  3·402

  4·317

  7·894

  Norfolk

  6·541

  8·452

  15·743

  Northamptonshire

  4·464

  6·189

  11·728

  Northumberland

  2·757

  3·604

  6·811

  North Yorkshire

  6·452

  8·607

  16·384

  Nottinghamshire

  4·277

  5·533

  10·210

  Oxfordshire

  5·087

  6·248

  11·735

  Shropshire

  2·481

  4·490

  8·246

  Somerset

  2·975

  4·544

  8·619

  Staffordshire

  3·820

  4·847

  8·667

  Suffolk

  5·688

  6·789

  12·477

  Surrey

  8·139

  14·437

  24·076

  Warwickshire

  1·797

  2·106

  3·903

  West Sussex

  3·478

  4·541

  8·569

  Wiltshire

  1·493

  3·196

  5·989

  Metropolitan Districts

  Bolton

  1·711

  1·935

  3·646

  Bury

  0·565

  0·699

  1·264

  Manchester

  8·672

  10·160

  19·207

  Oldham

  5·544

  6·794

  12·813

  Rochdale

  0·760

  0·863

  1·623

  Salford

  1·686

  2·491

  4·177

  Stockport

  1·792

  1·996

  3·788

  Tameside

  1·232

  1·650

  2·882

  Trafford

  2·196

  2·866

  5·287

  Wigan

  0·835

  2·334

  4·344

  Knowsley

  6·496

  7·362

  14·083

  Liverpool

  0·000

  1·387

  2·582

  St. Helens

  6·973

  7·574

  14·547

  Sefton

  0·620

  0·825

  1·495

  Wirral

  1·677

  2·095

  3·872

  Barnsley

  4·024

  4·447

  8·471

  Doncaster

  3·533

  4·035

  7·568

  Rotherham

  1·942

  2·258

  4·200

  Sheffield

  7·475

  11·367

  20·992

  Gateshead

  2·888

  3·261

  6·149

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  1·078

  2·510

  4·488

  North Tyneside

  0·425

  0·506

  0·931

  South Tyneside

  0·176

  0·724

  1·300

  Sunderland

  1·956

  3·361

  6·317

  Birmingham

  12·263

  14·859

  27·822

  Coventry

  4·641

  5·591

  10·507

  Dudley

  3·564

  4·052

  7·616

  Sandwell

  2·398

  3·031

  5·429

  Solihull

  0·982

  1·357

  2·539

  Walsall

  8·635

  10·390

  19·900

  Wolverhampton

  3·033

  5·360

  9·668

  Bradford

  2·159

  2·901

  5·435

  Calderdale

  0·458

  0·654

  1·112

  Kirklees

  2·295

  2·717

  5·012

  Leeds

  4·083

  6·176

  10·259

  Wakefield

  1·414

  1·871

  3·285

  London Boroughs

  City of London

  1·621

  1·831

  3·452

  Barking and Dagenham

  0·592

  0·899

  1·491

  Barnet

  0·487

  0·616

  1·103

  Bexley

  1·694

  1·915

  3·634

  Brent

  0·758

  2·597

  3·405

  Bromley

  2·794

  3·091

  5·885

  Camden

  2·301

  2·590

  4·891

  Croydon

  0·535

  1·084

  1·969

  Ealing

  1·027

  2·436

  4·488

  Enfield

  5·851

  6·407

  12·258

  Greenwich

  0·000

  0·580

  1·065

  Hackney

  1·406

  1·718

  3·124

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1·005

  1·239

  2·244

  Haringey

  1·813

  2·081

  3·894

  Harrow

  2·513

  5·933

  11·271

  236

  Government grant (TSG)

  Total borrowing approval

  Gross approved spending

  Havering

  0·388

  0·474

  0·862

  Hillingdon

  8·636

  9·784

  18·595

  Hounslow

  0·401

  0·753

  1·154

  Islington

  0·984

  1·516

  2·500

  Kensington and Chelsea

  0·317

  0·936

  1·778

  Kingston upon Thames

  0·965

  1·483

  2·673

  Lambeth

  0·374

  0·450

  0·824

  Lewisham

  3·352

  6·406

  12·258

  Merton

  0·000

  1·200

  2·155

  Newham

  1·563

  3·865

  7·203

  Redbridge

  0·485

  0·624

  1·109

  Richmond upon Thames

  0·441

  0·507

  0·948

  Southwark

  1·416

  2·123

  4·014

  Sutton

  0·288

  0·900

  1·588

  Tower Hamlets

  1·252

  1·708

  2·960

  Waltham Forest

  0·865

  1·121

  2·111

  Wandsworth

  2·283

  3·079

  5·762

  Westminster

  2·526

  3·451

  6·377

  Note: Gross approved expenditure exceeds the sum of grant and borrowing approval if an authority holds unused grant from previous years.

  Table 3

  Authority

  Scheme name

  East Sussex

  A26 Malling Hill relief road, Lewes

  Hampshire

  A31 Bentley bypass

  Kent

  A257 Ash bypass

  Kent

  Medway tunnel

  Oxfordshire

  A4130 Wallingford bypass

  West Sussex

  A259 Chichester-Bognor Regis improvement, phase 1

  Avon

  A4 Avonmouth link

  Cornwall

  A389 Egloshayle bypass

  Devon

  A386 Tavistock Road dualling, Plymouth, Stage 1

  Dorset

  A37 Improvements (A356—Somerset boundary)

  Gloucestershire

  A48 Lydney bypass

  Somerset

  A39 Glastonbury western relief road

  Wiltshire

  Meads roundabout, Swindon—grade separation

  Birmingham

  Thimble Mill Lane, phase 2

  Dudley

  A491 High Street, Amblecote

  Solihull

  West Midlands renaissance area

  Wirral

  A41 New Chester Road improvement

  Cheshire

  Upton (Chester) Park and Ride

  Lancashire

  A6 Chorley Town Centre bypass, phase 3

  Gateshead

  A1114 Western Riverside Route stage 1, phase 2 and stage 2

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  A695 Scotswood Road improvement—west of Paradise

  Sunderland

  A690 Doxford Park access road, stage 2

  Cleveland

  A171 Guisborough bypass

  Durham

  A689 Newton Cap diversion

  Barnsley

  A6195 Dearne Towns link road

  Sheffield

  A57 Sheffield Parkway/Park Square junction improvement

  Kirklees

  A62 Huddersfield ring road improvement, Phase 2

  Humberside

  A164 Beverley North East bypass

  North Yorkshire

  A59 Bolton Bridge bypass

  Leicestershire

  A563 Soar Valley Way

  Lincolnshire

  A46 Swallow bypass and route improvement

  Northamptonshire

  A422 Deanshanger bypass

  Buckinghamshire

  A421 Bletchley Road diversion, Buckingham

  Cambridgeshire

  A141 Spittals link, Huntingdon

  Essex

  A414 Aukingford Gardens-Talbot roundabout, Stages 1 and 2

  Norfolk

  B1332 Kirstead bypass

  Hackney

  A104 Lea Bridge reconstruction

  Waltham Forest

  A104 Lea Bridge reconstruction

  Marchioness
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he plans any further inquiry following the report by the Marine Accident Investigation Branch on the Bowbelle and Marchioness disaster.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The marine accident investigation branch carried out a thorough inspector's inquiry into this accident; the report included 27 safety recommendations. Action on 20 of them is complete and the remainder are being implemented. In addition, the MAIB report included criticism of some aspects of my Department's and the maritime industry's approach to river safety in earlier years. Although the MAIB considered that there have been recent improvements in this respect, I have concluded that it would be desirable to set up an independent investigation into these matters.

  I am pleased to be able to announce that Mr. John Hayes, Secretary General of the Law Society has agreed to carry out an investigation with the following terms of reference:
  "In the light of the BOWBELLE/MARCHIONESS disaster, to examine the handling since 1980 by the Department of Transport of its responsibility for the safety of vessels on rivers and inland waters and to report on the effectiveness of the present approach. The investigation should take account of developments in the field of marine safety at the international level."

  Mr. Hayes will be assisted by an expert adviser. He will start work as soon as possible in the new year. Mr. Hayes will be inviting all those who may wish to do so to put their views to him. His report will be published.

  Plymouth City Airport
  Mr. Prescott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what attempts were made by his Department to consult about levels of public safety with the Civil Aviation Authority and Plymouth city council before the approval in 1987 of the extension and reorientation of Plymouth city airport main runway; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Aerodrome licensing and aircraft safety are the statutory responsibility of the Civil Aviation Authority. The extension and realignment of Plymouth airport's main runway required planning permission and had to meet the authority's licensing criteria. I understand that there were extensive consultations between the authority and Plymouth city council prior to the extension and realignment of the runway.

  Airline Baggage
  Mr. Prescott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) whether international passenger airline operators using United Kingdom airports are required to prevent unaccompanied baggage being carried unless indentified and subject to security control before it is carried; what are the International Civil Aviation Organisation requirements on this matter; whether they are enforced in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what interpretation has been given to the British Government by the Joint International Air Transport Association—Air Transport Association baggage security group on ICAO standard 5.1.4.; and if he will make a statement;
  238
  (3) what directives or regulations were in force to ensure that no unaccompanied baggage was carried on international flights at the time of the Lockerbie bombing; and what new requirements have been enforced since in regard to unaccompanied baggage;

  (4) what steps have been taken since the Lockerbie bombing to ensure that there is a positive reconciliation of passenger with baggage; and how he ensures that the airlines carry out his policy.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The ICAO standard, both as it stood at the time of the Lockerbie disaster and as revised subsequently, requires that baggage belonging to passengers who are booked to joint a flight but fail to do so should be identified, and the baggage should not be carried unless it is first subject to security controls. The United Kingdom was one of the first countries to make this a mandatory requirement. It did so in 1985, by means of a direction to aircraft operators under the Aviation Security Act 1982.

  Both the ICAO standard and the United Kingdom requirement apply only to bags belonging to "no show" passengers. At present it is not possible to identify other unaccompanied bags, such as ones which have been misrouted, mishandled or misconnected and which are being returned to their owners, except by what are essentially manual methods. These are slow and cumbersome, and all leading aviation countries accept that it is not practicable to require their use at major airports because it would seriously reduce the capacity of the international air transport system.

  It is recognised internationally that this problem can he overcome only by the development of sophisticated systems capable of identifying unaccompanied bags automatically. With this in mind, and building on proposal put forward by the joint IATA/ATA baggage security group, the European civil aviation conference has drawn up and published guidelines setting out the criteria that such systems will need to meet.

  Several manufacturers are currently developing systems designed to meet these criteria. The results of initial trials are encouraging, although at present there are still a number of problems which need to be overcome. We in the United Kingdom have brought the manufacturers of the systems and the airlines together in an attempt to ensure that the problems are resolved as quickly as possible; and we have made it clear that, once they are resolved, we shall announce a date by which airlines will be required to identify all unaccompanied baggage loaded or transferred at our airports. No other country has yet made such a firm declaration of intent.

  Tees and Hartlepool Trust Port
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will undertake a full investigation of the circumstances of the sale of the Tees and Hartlepool trust port; if he will make public his discussions with those representing the Tees and Hartlepool trust port management buy-out at the meeting planned for 17 December 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My. right hon. and learned Friend is satisfied that the board of the Tees and Hartlepool port authority has conducted the sale of its undertaking with all due propriety, and in accordance with the provisions of the Ports Act 1991. There is no need for any investigation.
  239
  I met the Earl of Stockton and representatives of the senior management of the Tees and Hartlepool port authority on 18 December at their request. I regard our discussions as having been conducted in confidence.

  Sealink Stenna
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give details of any discussions he or his Department have had with Sealink Stenna concerning the future of its ferry operations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  We are keeping ourselves informed about developments within the Sealink Stenna cross-channel ferry operation. Decisions relating to the future of the services concerned are however a commercial matter for the company's management alone.

  British Rail (Compensation)
  Sir David Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the financial compensation for commuters who suffer from BR services which do not reach the Government's performance standards announced in respect of Kent coastal services will be extended to users of the Greatly, Andover, Whitchurch and Overton services of British Rail.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether his setting of new performance standards for the Kent coastal services from 1 January 1992 will apply to(a) London to Dover services via Tonbridge, (b) London to Hastings services via Tonbridge and (c) London to East Kent services via Maidstone East.

  Mr. Freeman
  The BR passengers charter will set individual objectives for all fifteen of the Network SouthEast route groups. BR will compensate season ticket holders if the service delivered falls significantly short of the published standards.

  Trust Ports
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for each trust port those parties which have expressed an interest in purchasing the respective trust port.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  No. That is a matter of commercial confidence between the trust port authority, as vendor of the port undertaking, and the parties concerned.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give an update of those trust ports which have lodged a scheme with his Department as required by the Ports Act 1991.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The situation remains as stated in the answer which I gave the hon. Member on 12 November 1991, at column 431.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give full details of those bids which the trust port authority is recommending the Secretary of State to accept.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The only trust port authority which has as yet recommended a bid for my right hon. Friend's240
  consent is the Tees and Hartlepool port authority, in respect of a bid from Teeside Holdings Limited. Details of that bid were set out by my right hon. and learned Friend in his answer of 18 December to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin).

  Citizens Charter (Airlines)
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to include British airlines within the provisions of the citizens charter; and if he will make a statement on passenger compensation for delayed or cancelled flights.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The citizens charter is a programme to improve public services. I have no plans to extend its scope to cover British airlines, which all operate in the private sector.

  Passenger compensation for delayed or cancelled flights is a matter for the commercial judgment of the airlines concerned.

  Bus Companies
  Mr. Fry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what encouragement he is giving to bus companies to purchase environmentally friendly new vehicles to help ease current congestion and pollution.

  Mr. Freeman
  We are taking a number of steps to ease congestion and pollution by encouraging both greater use of the bus and more environmentally friendly buses. I announced a package of measures on 16 December, including the provision of at least £10 million over the next two years to fund demonstration projects to promote bus use; publication of the Department's "Keeping Buses Moving"—a guide for local authorities on the provision of bus priority measures; much tighter controls of the amount of pollutants which can be emitted from new heavy diesel vehicles from 1993 onwards; and the introduction in 1992 of an instrumented smoke emissions test for in-service vehicles, together with tough roadside enforcement.

  Ashford Station
  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when his Department first gave consideration to an alternative cheaper international station at Ashford.

  Mr. Freeman
  I visited Ashford station in the company of British Rail officials on 30 May to see for myself what potential there might be for an alternative cheaper option for the international passenger station, and asked British Rail to examine the feasibility of my own ideas. This study proved abortive, but a proposal subsequently advanced by Eurotunnel has been a catalyst for plans for a cheaper station to be examined further.

  Inland Waterways
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the successful bids for section 8 freight facilities grant schemes in respect of inland waterways.

  Mr. Freeman
  There have been seven successful applications for Inland Waterway freight facilities grant under section 36 of the Transport Act 1981. The awards have been as follows:
  241

  £

  Millgate Investments Ltd., Gainsborough, Lincolnshire

  369,340

  Varma Services Ltd., Deptford, London SE

  859,200

  Sheffield Haulage and Storage Ltd., Rotherham

  61,375

  West Country Fuels Ltd., Gloucester

  26,950

  Colwick Petroleum Ltd., Nottingham

  63,494

  Sand and Gravel (Leeds) Ltd.

  20,640

  Wimpey Hobbs Ltd., Greenwich, London, SE

  402,832

  East Coast Line
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures are being taken to combat the recent episodes of vandalism to equipment on the east coast line; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I understand that BR has been suffering very serious problems of vandalism on the east coast main line in recent weeks, particularly involving cutting and removal of signal cables at various points over a 100-mile stretch of the route in north-east England. The British Transport police, in co-operation with British Rail, have been undertaking a large-scale operation to contain and reduce the vandalism, and I understand that there have been some 50 arrests. British Rail is also speeding up the removal of redundant cabling and is taking measures to improve the security of key installations.

EMPLOYMENT

  EC Earnings
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will set out the information he has of the level of national average earnings in each EC country at the present time, or the latest period for which information is available, both in that country's currency and in the sterling equivalent.

  Mr. Forth
  The information sought is set out in "Rapid Reports—Population and Social Condition, 1991/5; Earnings in Industry and Services", published by Eurostat, a copy of which is currently available in the Library. Data are given in national currencies, ecu, and purchasing power standards. At present there are 0·7 ecu to the pound.

  Mr. Lewis Drake
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the actions taken by the Health and Safety Executive in connection with the fatal accident to Mr. Lewis Drake on 7 November at A. H. Markes Ltd., Low Moor, Bradford.

  Mr. Forth
  The Health and Safety Executive investigation into the fatal accident to Mr. Lewis Drake at A. H. Marks and Co. Ltd., Bradford, began on 8 November 1991 and is continuing. The circumstances leading to the accident and the working procedures being followed, are under investigation by the HSE which has also examined the plant involved and given advice about its reinstatement.

  Travel-to-Interview Scheme
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) whether he has any plans to review the travel-to-interview scheme;
  242
  (2) if he will make it his policy to relate the money offered to interviewees under the travel-to-interview scheme to the benefits the interviewee is receiving rather than the salary of the job offered; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  The effectiveness of all the Departments programmes are continually monitored. As a result it was recognised that the salary limit applied to the travel-to-interview scheme was out of date. The limit will therefore be increased from £16,500 to £25,000 a year from 2 January 1992. We expect this will have significantly, increased the number of people helped.

  The new salary covers 90 per cent. of all wage earners and will avoid the administrative complexities of a benefits based scheme. A link with benefits could in fact lead to more restricted eligibility than currently exists.

  EC Social Action
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what arrangements he proposes for his presence and participation in the European Community Social Affairs Council of Ministers meetings, when the other member states' Ministers are discussing matters arising under the social protocol agreed at the Maastricht summit meeting.

  Mr. Forth
  The treaty on European union agreed at the Maastricht European Council confirms that the social chapter within the present treaty—articles 117–122—will be retained without change and the United Kingdom will continue to participate fully in all relevant discussions about the development of the Community's social dimension.

  A protocol to the treaty on European union notes that the 11 other member states wish to continue along the path laid down in the social charter, which they signed in 1989, and have adopted among themselves an agreement to that end. The conduct of business under that agreement is a matter for the 11 Governments concerned. The United Kingdom shall not take part in their deliberations, and any decisions taken by them shall not be applicable to the United Kingdom.

  HM Dockyard, Portsmouth
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what he plans to open for inspection to the public, all or in part, the file on the approval of ventilation arrangements at HM dockyard, Portsmouth, October 1933 to October 1968, ref. LAB 14478, file no. SHW 4207 1960.

  Mr. Forth
  In accordance with the terms of the Public Records Acts, this file will be opened to the public after 30 years in January 1999.

ENERGY

  European Energy Charter
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will publish a report on his participation in the European energy charter signing ceremony on 16 and 17 December; what are the United Kingdom's primary objectives in signing the charter; if he will place a copy of the charter and the text of supporting in documents in the Library; and if he will make a statement.
  243
  Mr. Wakeham
  I attended the international conference on the European energy charter in the Hague on 16 and 17 December 1991. In addition to signing the charter on behalf of the United Kingdom, I made a short statement welcoming agreement of the charter as a political declaration and looking forward to negotiation of legally binding agreements and protocols to implement the principles and objectives of the charter.

  I am pleased that the charter was signed on behalf of 31 European countries, the European Community, nine Soviet republics and the inter-state economic committee of the Soviet Union, and four non-European countries.

  The United Kingdom's primary objective throughout the charter process has been to promote more open, non-discriminatory energy markets across Europe and throughout the world, and to assist in the achievement of economic efficiency and environmental benefits, particularly in the countries of eastern Europe and in the Soviet republics.

  I will place a copy of the charter and the concluding document of the conference in the Library of the House.

  Flue Gas Desulphurisation
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what percentage of fossil-fuelled power stations have been fitted with flue gas desulphurisation equipment in each EC member state in 1989, 1990 and 1991.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My Department does not have this information.

  Research and Development
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proposals he has to strengthen his Department's research and development programme in the energy efficiency field after the current financial year.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We will continue to develop the best practice programme which started in 1989. Expenditure on research, development, demonstration and dissemination of energy efficiency technology is planned to increase by some 14 per cent. in the coming financial year, and by further amounts in each of the succeeding two years.

  The continuation of the development of best practice is in line with our commitments under the Environment White Paper "This Common Inheritance" and with the recent recommendations by the Advisory Council on Research and Development and the Advisory Council on Science and Technology.

  Gas Purification
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what evaluation he has made of the Haldor Topsoe SNOX flue gas purification plant; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My Department is aware of a large number of flue gas purification processes. It is the responsibility of plant operators to choose the most cost-effective means of meeting statutory limits on gaseous and other emissions.

  Kozlodny Power Station
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the forms of assistance being provided by the British nuclear electricity industry via the World 244
  Association of Nuclear Operators for safety improvements, repairs and training at the Kozlodny nuclear power station in Bulgaria; how this aid is co-ordinated with the technical and financial assistance being arranged for Bulgaria by the G-24 group of nations; and when and under what conditions he expects Kozlodny to meet WANO safety standards.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  In response to recommendations from the G7 London summit in July 1991, the G24 group of countries has recently agreed procedures for co-ordinating the programmes of nuclear safety assistance which are being provided to central and eastern Europe by individual member countries and international organisations. The overall objective of the G24 assistance is to help the countries of central and eastern Europe to exercise their responsibilities in nuclear safety in an informed and effective manner in conformity with best international practice. The EC emergency assistance programme for Bulgaria will now fit within this co-ordination framework.

  The World Association of Nuclear Operators is managing two aspects of the emergency programme of nuclear safety assistance to Bulgaria financed under the European Community's regional PHARE programme for 1991. These comprise urgent "housekeeping" measures to improve the physical condition of the older VVER 230 units at Kozloduy nuclear power plant and ensure the effective operation of safety systems, and a twinning programme under which western operators are providing guidance on operational safety improvements. In addition WANO is overseeing a six-month programme of generic design safety studies on the VVER 230.

  An engineer from Scottish Nuclear is a member of the "housekeeping" team. Nuclear Electric has provided a quality assurance expert to assist in the implementation of the six-month programme and expects to send two more experts to Kozloduy in the new year. The United Kingdom nuclear industry is bidding for contracts under the six-month programme. The United Kingdom Government have also provided two experts to assist the European Commission with overall supervision of its programme of assistance.

  Under the same emergency programme a consortium of EC safety authorities is undertaking safety analysis of the Kozloduy reactors and providing assistance to the Bulgarian regulatory authority. The UKAEA and the nuclear installations inspectorate are members of this consortium.

  Decisions on further action to be taken to improve the safety of the reactors are the responsibility of the Bulgarian Government.

  Wood Fuel
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, what progress has been made since the "Wood: Fuel for Thought" conference in Bristol in October to exploit short-term arable coppice as a wood fuel.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I can today announce the setting up of the farm wood fuel and energy project in which five farms will grow short-rotation arable coppice as a commercial enterprise to produce wood fuel. The farmers who have agreed to participate are:

  John Willmer Esq. of Clanfield, Oxford

  Brian Maggs Esq. of Compton Dando, Bristol

  245

  Robert Goodwin Esq. of Kelvedon, Colchester

  Christopher Barnes Esq. of Morebath, Tiverton and

  Lord Falmouth of Tregothnan, Truro

  R. H. and R. W. Clutton, chartered surveyors and land agents, will be assisting these farmers to establish this energy crop and in due course will identify energy markets for the wood fuel.

  The Agricultural Development and Advisory Service will independently monitor the commercial viability of these enterprises in order to inform other farmers interested in arable coppice. Environmental Research Limited will be carrying out an assessment of the environmental impact of the crop. I expect this project to be the first step in the realisation of the very significant potential for energy crops in the United Kingdom.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Security Service
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the newly appointed head of the Security Service will meet hon. Members of Parliament formally to discuss her job.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The Security Service Act 1989 placed on a statutory footing the previous convention, under which the Director General of the Security Service was regarded as responsible to Ministers for the work of the service, and Ministers were in turn accountable to Parliament. There are no plans for any change in this framework.

  Safer Cities Campaign
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration was given by his Department to(a) Swansea and (b) Cardiff in regard to involving those cities in his safer cities campaign.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Home Office safer cities programme does not extend to Wales and consequently Cardiff and Swansea were not eligible for consideration. Separate arrangements for providing support for local crime prevention activity apply in Wales.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list all the cities in the United Kingdom which were eligible under the criteria for the safer cities campaign and the figure granted to date 10 each of these cities.

  Mr. John Patten
  The following is a list of the 20 local authority areas in England selected for inclusion in the Home Office safer cities programme showing the amount of grant approved up to 17 December 1991 in support of local crime prevention activity:

  Area

  Grant approved

  Birmingham

  916,000

  Bradford

  966,000

  Bristol

  984,000

  Coventry

  939,000

  Derby

  1nil

  Hartlepool

  696,000

  Hull

  602,000

  Leicester

  2nil

  Middlesbrough

  1nil

  Nottingham

  793,000

  246

  Area

  Grant approved

  Rochdale

  655,000

  Salford

  697,000

  Sunderland

  586,000

  Wirral

  762,000

  Wolverhampton

  792,000

  London Boroughs

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  3nil

  Islington

  853,000

  Lewisham

  1,031,000

  Tower Hamlets

  539,000

  Wandsworth

  531,000

  1 Project established October 1991.

  2 Project established September 1991.

  3 Project established December 1991.

  The safer cities programme in Scotland and the safer towns initiative in Northern Ireland are the responsibility of the Scottish Office and Northern Ireland Office respectively.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any towns which were not formally in possession of city status were(a) considered and (b) offered involvement in the safer cities campaign.

  Mr. John Patten
  The term "safer cities" is a working title intended to denote the programme's concentration on inner-city and similar urban areas. All 57 district, metropolitan district and London borough council areas in England covered by the urban programme were considered for possible inclusion in the safer cities programme: a number of those invited to join, and in which safer cities projects have subsequently been established, do not have city status.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much has been(a) budgeted, (b) allocated and (c) paid out in respect of the safer cities campaign in the present financial year.

  Mr. John Patten
  In 1991–92 the estimate of the costs of the 20 local projects in the Home Office safer cities programme is £7·1 million. Of this £5·1 million is for grants to support local crime prevention activity all of which has been allocated to project areas. As at 9 December, £3·8 million of this grant money had been paid out or firmly committed to local crime prevention schemes.

  City Centre Monitoring
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he has given to the use of closed-circuit television as a means of monitoring city centre activity with a view to targeting the deployment of police resources.

  Mr. John Patten
  The use of surveillance systems is an operational matter for chief officers. The Home Office crime prevention centre conducted a survey last year of more than 100 CCTV schemes in England, Wales and Scotland, and the results have been circulated to police forces.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many young offenders were transferred from Hewell Grange to the young offender institution at Hatfield during September 1991.
  247
  Mrs. Rumbold
  Twenty one.

  Closed-circuit Television
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research has been undertaken by or for his Department on the use of closed-circuit television in regard to criminal activity.

  Mr. John Patten
  Research is being undertaken by the Home Office on the effect of closed-circuit television on public order and the level of crime committed on the streets in Birmingham city centre.

  Refugees
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the criteria for the issue of a travel document to a refugee residing in the United Kingdom who has the status of exceptional leave to remain.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Home Office certificates of identity are issued at the discretion of the Secretary of State and on payment of a fee of £15 to overseas nationals who have exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom where it can be shown that normal passport facilities have been refused by the authorities of their country of nationality or where it would be unreasonable to expect them to apply for national passports. A certificate of identity can be used as a travel document if recognised by the country of destination. People recognised as refugees under the terms of the United Nations refugees convention would normally be issued on request with a United Nations travel document.

  Private Security Industry
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements are being made for the regulation of the private security industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The Government believe that access to criminal records would be an essential ingredient of any statutory scheme for the regulation of the private security industry. They have, however, accepted the recommendation of the recent report on the scrutiny of criminal records that there should be no further extension of the arrangements for access to these records in advance of their computerisation. This is not expected to be completed until the mid-1990s. It is the Government's intention to publish a consultation paper towards the end of next year outlining our proposals for new disclosure arrangements.

  For this reason alone, therefore, it is not appropriate at this time to consider statutory regulation of the private security industry. Other factors, however, also support the case against statutory regulation. The present level of offending by private security personnel does not justify the introduction of an inevitably expensive and bureaucratic licensing system. And although the Government recognise concerns about the quality of service provided by some private security firms, it believes that issues such as quality, training and wages are fundamentally matters for the industry and its customers. The Government therefore believe that the most appropriate position is for the industry to strengthen the existing self-regulation mechanisms.
  248
  The industry has already made considerable progress in self-regulation. Recent important developments include: the merging of the National Supervisory Council for Intruder Alarms and the security systems inspectorate of the British Security Industry Association to form the National Approved Council for Security Systems; the formation by the International Professional Security Association of the British Security Registration Board; and the involvement of the International Professional Security Association in plans to reconstitute the manned services inspectorate of the British Security Industry Association to make it independent of its parent body, thereby allowing it to offer its inspection services to non-members of the British Security Industry Association, as well as to members.

  The adoption of standards, and the invocation of sanctions against those who fail to meet them, are an important part of the the industry's work in this area.

  The Government commend the industry's efforts to develop self-regulation, and in particular the projected enhancement of the manned services inspectorate. The extent to which the new arrangements achieve their objectives will, however, be monitored and the position will be reviewed when computerisation of the criminal records has been achieved.

  The Government reserve the option of requiring the industry to pay for any statutory regulation from its own resources should self-regulation prove ineffective.

  The Government's position is set out more fully in a background paper which has been placed in the Library and which is being sent to all interested parties in the industry and to the Association of Chief Police Officers.

  Terrorist Firebomb Attacks
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a table showing the number of terrorist firebomb attacks there have been in each year since 1973 in(a) London and (b) Great Britain; what was the amount of damage caused, the number of persons arrested, charged and convicted, in respect of the attacks; and if he will give the rate of conviction in each year.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The number of terrorist incendiary attacks in each year since 1973 is given in the tables.

  London

  Great Britain

  1973

  14

  14

  1974

  18

  31

  1975

  1

  —

  1976

  1

  —

  1977

  6

  4

  1978

  —

  —

  1979

  —

  —

  1980

  1

  —

  1981

  —

  —

  1982

  —

  —

  1983

  —

  —

  1984

  1

  1

  1985

  —

  1

  1986

  —

  —

  1987

  —

  —

  1988

  —

  —

  1989

  —

  —

  1990

  —

  —

  11991

  13

  35

  1 To 18 December 1991.

  249
  This information relates to Irish and international terrorism; it does not include domestic extremist attacks. The figures given are for the number of locations attacked and not the number of incendiary devices used.

  The information requested regarding the amount of damage caused and the convictions of those responsible for carrying out the attacks could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Dr. M. Khan
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the refusal of an extension visa for Dr. M. Khan, Ref. No. TH/23660/91; and whether he will now allow a visa until the Royal College of Surgeons examinations in February.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Dr. Khan came to the United Kingdom on 11 May 1990 as a visitor and was admitted for six months, which is the maximum period under the immigration rules allowed to visitors. He then applied to remain here to resit examinations for the Royal College of Surgeons of England which he had previously failed. That request was granted exceptionally outside the immigration rules. He subsequently asked for further leave to remain to sit examinations—to take place in September 1991—for the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons in Glasgow. That application was refused. His subsequent appeal to the independent adjudicator was dismissed and leave to appeal to the immigration appeal tribunal refused. I do not believe I would be justified in affording further exceptional treatment to Dr. Khan, and he should now make arrangements to leave the United Kingdom.

  Animals (Scientific Experiments)
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set up an inquiry into the scientific validity of animal experiments in assessing the effects of pesticides upon human health.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is not one of the Ministers responsible for the national and international regulations under which the safety testing of pesticides is required. His responsibility is for controlling the conduct of scientific procedures on living animals. Where validated alternatives to the use of living animals in scientific research for whatever purpose are available, authority under the terms of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 to use living animals in research will not be granted.

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are his proposals for the future organisation of the magistrates courts in the light of the Le Vay review.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The Government have now completed their review of the organisation of the magistrates courts service in England and Wales. In addition, because that review made it timely to do so, they have also considered how responsibility for the service should be allocated within government.

  As to organisation, the Government have concluded that, in the light of extensive consultations following the scrutiny of the magistrates courts service and of a study of
  250
  costs undertaken by independent consultants, it would not be right to bring forward legislative proposals to reconstitute the service as an executive agency. However, there has been a widespread acceptance of the need to modernise the management structure of the service with a view to improving its performance and strengthening lines of accountability while at the same time maintaining the independence of the judicial process and the valuable contribution of local magistrates in the local management of the service.

  Some useful first steps have already been taken since the scrutiny. But in order to achieve these aims and to take forward the application to this service of the principles of the citizens charter we propose to work with the service to introduce a range of improvements, upon some of which an early start can be made while others will require legislation. They include progress towards the establishment of an inspectorate, to provide an effective management audit and to promote the spread of best practice; a strengthening and clarification of the management role of magistrates courts committees; the introduction of systematic performance review and planning throughout the service; and a more coherent geographical structure, taking account as necessary of the review of the structure of local government as a whole which has now begun. On the other hand, no immediate change is envisaged in the balance between central and local financing of the service.

  It will be important to ensure that the new arrangements are strong and flexible, enabling the service to adapt to changing circumstances while at the same time guaranteeing a satisfactory career structure for court staff, high standards of performance, and effective working relations with other parts of the criminal justice system throughout England and Wales.

  As to responsibility, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has concluded that, in the light of the proposals outlined in this answer, it will be appropriate for the responsibilities in relation to the finance, organisation and management of the magistrates courts which are now assigned to the Home Secretary under the Justices of the Peace Act 1979 and related legislation to be exercised from 1 April 1992 by the Lord Chancellor in the same way as he holds those responsibilities for the Crown court. This brings to an end the divided responsibility for the magistracy. My right hon. Friend has also decided that, in these circumstances, it would be appropriate for him to appoint a junior Minister in the Commons in the Lord Chancellor's Department. The appointment will be announced in due course.

  The necessary instruments will be brought before Parliament as soon as possible. I shall continue to answer to Parliament for the criminal and procedural law of the magistrates courts in the same way as for the Crown courts. The Government intend to set out these proposals in more detail in a White Paper and to continue to consult interested bodies as necessary.

  Metropolitan Police (Early Retirement)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Metropolitan police officers, and of what rank, have taken early retirement, for medical or for other reasons, while under investigation into possible disciplinary offences within the last two years.
  251
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  This is a matter for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. However, information is given in his annual reports about the number of officers who resigned before disciplinary charges could be preferred against them, the number of these officers who were medically discharged and the number of officers who resigned while under investigation for disciplinary matters.

  Stop and Search (Ethnic Origins)
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in respect of the provisions of section 95 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, whether he intends to make public information on the ethnic origin of those stopped and searched by police officers in the Metropolitan district.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Details of the information that will be published in respect of the provisions of section 95 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 are under consideration.

  Irish Citizens
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what record is kept of the citizens of the Irish Republic who come to live in the United Kingdom, but have little or no means of support.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  We are not aware of any such record.

  Terrorism and Crime Guide
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to ban the sale in the United Kingdom of the guide to terrorism and crime computer disk version three and the soon to be released updated version four; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  It is for the police, in the first instance, and the Crown prosecution service to consider whether to bring proceedings against a particular publication contravening the criminal law.

  Royal Pardons
  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many royal pardons have been granted in each of the past five years.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  Number of free pardons granted

  1986

  28

  1987

  41

  1988

  39

  1989

  50

  1990

  47

  11991

  37

  1 To 18 December.

  These figures are in respect of summary convictions. No free pardons have been granted in the past five years to persons convicted after a trial on indictment.

HEALTH

  Dental Treatment
  Mr. Terry Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether he will publish the latest information in the possession of his Department as to the coverage of dental treatment on the national health service; and whether he will make a statement;

  (2) how many dentists, since the inception of the new dental contract, in each regional health authority have ceased to offer treatment on the national health services, are still offering normal treatment on the national health service and have reduced the range of treatment they offer on the national health service.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Information is not available to make a direct comparison between the NHS services dentists were offering before the introduction of the new dental contract and those they are offering now. However, the table shows the numbers of dentists practising now.

  The number of dentists at 30 September 1990 compared with the number of dentists at 30 September 1991 for each Regional Health Authority is as follows:

  Regional health authority

  Number of dentists at 30 September

  Difference

  1990

  1991

  Northern

  869

  881

  12

  Yorkshire

  1,094

  1,092

  -2

  Trent

  1,218

  1,257

  39

  East Anglia

  605

  604

  -1

  North West Thames

  1,512

  1,436

  -76

  North East Thames

  1,226

  1,222

  -4

  South East Thames

  1,341

  1,334

  -7

  South West Thames

  1,240

  1,242

  2

  Wessex

  949

  939

  -10

  Oxford

  826

  828

  2

  South Western

  1,209

  1,217

  8

  West Midlands

  1,395

  1,396

  1

  Mersey

  764

  765

  1

  North Western

  1,232

  1,238

  6

  Total

  15,480

  15,451

  -29

  Hospitals (Crown Immunity)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if NHS trust hospitals are covered by Crown immunity; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Crown immunity, with the exception of a small number of limited immunities, has been removed from health service bodies, including NHS trusts. Details are contained in a health notice, HN(90)27, "The NHS and Community Care Act 1990 Removal of Crown Immunities", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Children's Homes
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce legislation to ensure that local authorities employ mature women who have brought up a family, or have direct experience thereof, to supervise children's homes.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We are sure that many mature women could play a more substantial role in the management of children's homes.
  253
  It is for authorities to decide the qualifications and experience that are appropriate for posts carrying different responsibilities within a home's staff establishment and to organise recruitment and/or training accordingly.

  Training opportunities have been enhanced by a number of initiatives taken by the Department, including acceptance of the recommendations in Sir William Utting's report "Children in the public care" that all heads of residential children's homes should be professionally qualified.

  NHS Expenditure
  Mr. Ashby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was spent on the NHS in absolute and in real terms in 1979; spent on the NHS in 1991.

  Mr. Dorrell
  In 1978–79 gross NHS expenditure in England was £6·5 billion—£17·7 billion in today's prices,

  (1)

  (2)

  (3)

  Region

  Regional health authority main allocation

  First wave trust capital

  Capital investment in region

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  Northern

  92·5

  4·2

  96·8

  Yorkshire

  85·7

  35·0

  120·7

  Trent

  131·6

  17·0

  148·5

  East Anglian

  53·6

  7·1

  60·7

  North West Thames

  89·4

  12·3

  101·7

  North East Thames

  93·4

  21·0

  114·4

  South East Thames

  96·0

  14·3

  110·3

  South West Thames

  76·4

  20·2

  96·7

  Wessex

  82·4

  6·7

  89·1

  Oxford

  68·2

  0·4

  68·6

  South Western

  68·3

  39·1

  107·4

  West Midlands

  145·1

  16·6

  161·6

  Mersey

  45·4

  31·4

  76·8

  North Western

  106·7

  17·9

  124·6

  ALL REGIONS

  1,234·8

  243·2

  1,478·0

  The external financing limits for individual national health service trusts are being announced separately.

  St. Stephen's Hospitals
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current position with the building and equipping programme of St. Stephen's hospital, London, and the expected changes in the scale of operation of other London hospitals whose patients will be treated at the new hospital.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The construction of the new Westminster and Chelsea hospital on the site of the former St. Stephen's hospital is proceeding on schedule. The building should be completed in November 1992 and be fully operational by April 1993. It will replace facilities currently provided by the Westminster hospital and the Westminster children's hospital. Sir Bernard Tomlinson is currently heading a study group, commissioned by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, which is looking into the future provision of health care across London.
  254
  1991–92. This year gross expenditure on the NHS is expected to be £26·6 billion, a real-terms increase over the period of over 50 per cent.

  National Health Service Expenditure
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the projected capital spending in the national health service in the next three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [pursuant to his reply, 5 November 1991, c. 313–14]: The amounts in column 1 of the table will be allocated to the English regional health authorities for capital spending in 1992–93. Their residents will also benefit from the capital investment which first wave national health service trusts are authorised to undertake—column 2. The regional provision for capital spending taking the main allocations for regional health authorities and national health service trusts together is shown in column 3.

  Census Information
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many prosecutions have been brought under the provisions of the Census (Confidentiality) Act 1991 or any other enactment for the unlawful disclosure of census information.

  Mr. Dorrell
  No prosecutions have so far been brought with respect to unlawful disclosure of 1991 census information. One enumerator was prosecuted following the 1971 census.

  Sellafield (Childhood Cancer)
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment to report on its review of the incidence of childhood cancer in the vicinity of Sellafield.

  Mr. Dorrell
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman) announced on 10 January 1990 at column 662, and 3 May 1991 at column 369, since 1989 the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment—COMARE—has been reviewing epidemiological and dosimetric data which have become available since the publication of the Black advisory

  255
  group's report to Government in 19841, and of COMARE's first report in 19862. Copies of both reports are in the Library. Much of this information has become available as a result of studies commissioned by the Government. In addition, some documents relating to radioactive discharges from Sellafield in the early 1950s have been drawn to the attention of COMARE. A preliminary review of all this information has caused COMARE to ask the National Radiological Protection Board to produce a comprehensive reassessment of dose and risk estimates in respect of the local population. I am advised that this reassessment will substantially delay COMARE's review and the completion of a final report to Government.

  1 Investigation of the Possible Increased Incidence of Cancer in West Cumbria. Report of the Independent Advisory Group. Chairman: Sir Douglas Black. HMSO (1984).

  2Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) First Report. The implications of the new data on the releases from Sellafield in the 1950s for the conclusions of the Report on the Investigation of the possible Increased Incidence of Cancer in West Cumbria. Chairman: Professor M. Bobrow. HMSO (1986).

  Pharmaceutical Price Regulation
  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the amount of money in pounds sterling repaid to his Department under the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme and the number of companies which have made these payments.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The current pharmaceutical price regulation scheme was introduced from 1 October 1986. Since that date, there has been a total of 102 repayments, from 38 companies. The total amount repaid is £61,379,286.

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the gross profit, expressed in pence per prescription, paid to pharmacist contractors in England and Wales for each of the last 10 years at actual and constant prices.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The amounts due for profit which include interest on capital employed are shown in the table. The Pharmacists' Review Panel report on profit recommended that the pure profit percentage should be reduced from 2 to 1 per cent. This was implemented in 1988–89. Details are as follows:

  Year

  Interest

  Pure Profit

  Actual Prices

  Constant Prices2

  Actual Prices

  Constant Prices2

  1981

  8·61

  15·43

  6·81

  12·20

  1982

  8·64

  14·45

  7·49

  12·53

  1983

  8·00

  12·79

  8·33

  13·32

  1984

  8·50

  12·94

  8·63

  13·14

  19851

  11·00

  16·75

  8·91

  13·57

  1985–86

  11·19

  16·14

  9·60

  13·85

  1986–87

  10·62

  14·84

  10·12

  14·37

  1987–88

  10·37

  13·74

  11·02

  14·60

  1988–89

  13·18

  16·29

  6·01

  7·43

  1 1 January 1985 to 31 March 1985

  2 Constant Prices calculated using 1991–92 prices as the base.

  256
  Following the new arrangements for remuneration of pharmacists from April 1989 onwards, estimates of the amounts due for profit are no longer calculated as separate items of remuneration.

  Insulin Injections
  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the comparative cost over two years of an insulin injection pen with appropriate needle and a disposable insulin syringe based upon two injections per day.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It is not possible to make a detailed cost comparison in the way requested because of variations in patients' dosages and injecting habits and the types and pack sizes of insulin and their costs. On the basis of information submitted by the manufacturers to the Department, assuming no reuse of needles and a pen system that lasts for less than two years, the cost of an injection pen system would exceed the current cost of disposable syringes.

  Community Care
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the extent to which consideration by a health authority of the establishment of a village community for mentally handicapped patients is consistent with his policy on community care.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Department has recently reviewed its policy on residential and other services for people with learning disabilities—mental handicap—in the light of the community care reforms and issued draft guidance for consultation. This envisages village communities as being an acceptable but not essential part of a range of community based residential settings. We are currently considering comments received as a result of this consultation.

  St. Charles Youth Treatment Centre
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what proposals he has to change the security status of the St. Charles youth treatment centre, Brentwood;

  (2) what is the purpose of his proposal to erect a 17 ft wire fence outside the 40 ft perimeter wall of St. Charles youth treatment centre; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Local management is considering the need for an open facility to support secure units on the Brentwood site, but the Department has yet to receive recommendations. We are having exploratory discussions with local managers about whether or not to build a fence and if so how extensive that should be. The local planning authority has been approached about an option to enclose the site entirely. Its views are awaited.

  North East Thames Regional Health Authority
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the level of funding of the North East Thames regional health authority broken down by region between 1978–79 and 1991–92; and the projected funding for 1992–93.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 11 December 1991]: Information derived from the annual accounts of the health authorities comprising the North East Thames region is shown in table 1.
  257
  Over a period expenditure figures will exceed fundings allocated because in meeting their expenditure health authorities have the use of additional resources such as local receipts. Basic revenue allocations for the region for 1991–92 and 1992–93 are currently £1,332·5 million and £1,448·2 million respectively. Allocations to district health authorities within the region are a matter for the North East Thames regional health authority.

  Table II shows analysis of the region's total expenditure figures to authority levels for the years since the establishment of district health authorities—1 April 1982.

  Table II

  North East Thames region

  Total revenue expenditure on hospital and community health services (HCHS)

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  Cash

  At 1990–91 prices

  Cash

  At 1991–92 prices

  Cash

  At 1991–92 prices

  £'000s

  £'000s

  £'000s

  £'000s

  £'000s

  £'000s

  North East Thames RHA

  22,442

  37,335

  23,393

  37,198

  26,531

  40,149

  Basildon and Thurrock DHA

  42,407

  70,549

  44,495

  70,754

  47,215

  71,449

  Mid Essex DHA

  35,555

  59,150

  38,426

  61,103

  40,099

  60,681

  North East Essex DHA

  48,242

  80,256

  51,301

  81,576

  56,123

  84,929

  West Essex DHA

  29,864

  49,682

  30,831

  49,026

  32,568

  49,284

  Southend DHA

  35,085

  58,368

  38,422

  61,097

  40,589

  61,422

  Barking, Havering and Brentwood DHA

  62,219

  103,508

  65,669

  104,424

  68,424

  103,544

  Hampstead DHA

  58,525

  97,363

  61,308

  97,489

  65,016

  98,387

  Bloomsbury DHA

  107,685

  179,146

  112,417

  178,760

  116,946

  176,971

  Islington DHA

  42,185

  70,179

  42,928

  68,262

  44,185

  66,864

  City and Hackney DHA

  70,791

  117,769

  75,294

  119,729

  78,683

  119,069

  Newham DHA

  30,613

  50,928

  32,282

  51,333

  34,180

  51,724

  Tower Hamlets DHA

  60,464

  100,589

  64,197

  102,083

  64,748

  97,981

  Enfield DHA

  30,392

  50,560

  32,088

  51,025

  33,473

  50,654

  Haringey DHA

  36,483

  60,693

  37,498

  59,627

  38,127

  57,696

  Redbridge DHA

  32,058

  53,332

  33,491

  53,256

  35,347

  53,490

  Waltham Forest DHA

  55,667

  92,608

  57,090

  90,782

  59,072

  89,392

  TOTAL

  800,677

  1,332,015

  841,130

  1,337,524

  881,326

  1,333,686

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Cash

  At 1991–92 prices

  Cash

  At 1991–92 prices

  Cash

  At 1991–92 prices

  £'000s

  £'000s

  £'000s

  £'000s

  £'000s

  £'000s

  North East Thames RHA

  28,508

  40,911

  30,859

  42,820

  17,678

  23,262

  Basildon and Thurrock DHA

  43,163

  61,941

  47,975

  66,571

  52,061

  68,507

  Mid Essex DHA

  42,665

  61,227

  53,145

  73,745

  57,589

  75,781

  North East Essex DHA

  55,571

  79,748

  54,641

  75,820

  61,447

  80,857

  West Essex DHA

  36,868

  52,908

  40,300

  55,921

  44,206

  58,170

  Southend DHA

  42,657

  61,215

  46,608

  64,674

  52,045

  68,485

  Barking, Havering and Brentwood DHA

  72,033

  103,372

  76,018

  105,483

  85,557

  112,584

  Hampstead DHA

  55,633

  79,837

  59,334

  82,332

  64,957

  85,476

  Bloomsbury DHA

  122,450

  175,723

  128,901

  178,864

  138,578

  182,353

  Islington DHA

  49,194

  70,596

  51,459

  71,405

  56,266

  74,040

  City and Hackney DHA

  81,517

  116,982

  87,558

  121,496

  92,785

  122,095

  Newham DHA

  41,765

  59,935

  42,995

  59,660

  46,803

  61,588

  Tower Hamlets DHA

  67,183

  96,412

  71,231

  98,841

  77,089

  101,441

  Enfield DHA

  38,144

  54,739

  39,918

  55,391

  43,485

  57,221

  Haringey DHA

  46,312

  66,460

  49,277

  68,377

  52,246

  68,750

  Redbridge DHA

  37,799

  54,244

  40,890

  56,739

  44,391

  58,414

  Waltham Forest DHA

  52,726

  75,665

  54,991

  76,306

  61,763

  81,273

  TOTAL

  914,188

  1,311,915

  976,100

  1,354,445

  1,048,946

  1,380,297

  258

  Table I

  North East Thames region total revenue expenditure on Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS)

  £ thousands (cash)

  £ thousands (at 1991–92 prices)

  1978–79

  413,284

  1,114,783

  1979–80

  488,198

  1,128,601

  1980–81

  636,251

  1,243,024

  1981–82

  700,172

  1,247,517

  1982–83

  800,677

  1,332,015

  1983–84

  841,130

  1,337,524

  1984–85

  881,326

  1,333,686

  1985–86

  914,188

  1,311,915

  1986–87

  976,100

  1,354,445

  1987–88

  1,048,946

  1,380,297

  1988–89

  1,178,457

  1,445,224

  1989–90

  1,276,820

  1,472,084

  1990–911

  1,373,232

  1,469,359

  1 Latest available year. Provisional figure (as yet subject to audit).

  259

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Cash

  At 1991–92 prices

  Cash

  At 1991–92 prices

  Cash

  At 1991–92 prices

  £'000s

  £'000s

  £'000s

  £'000s

  £'000s

  £'000s

  North East Thames RHA

  20,723

  25,414

  22,791

  26,276

  26,710

  28,580

  Basildon and Thurrock DHA

  59,287

  72,708

  65,015

  74,958

  69,265

  74,114

  Mid Essex DHA

  63,732

  78,159

  68,785

  79,304

  73,806

  78,972

  North East Essex DHA

  68,573

  84,096

  74,673

  86,093

  79,182

  84,725

  West Essex DHA

  50,079

  61,415

  55,172

  63,609

  59,231

  63,377

  Southend DHA

  58,464

  71,698

  64,492

  74,355

  71,078

  76,053

  Barking, Havering and Brentwood DHA

  93,995

  115,273

  98,707

  113,802

  106,172

  113,604

  Hampstead DHA

  74,566

  91,445

  80,152

  92,410

  89,477

  95,740

  Bloomsbury DHA1

  155,397

  190,574

  164,928

  190,150

  —

  —

  Islington DHA1

  62,884

  77,119

  69,701

  80,360

  246,389

  263,636

  City and Hackney DHA

  104,893

  128,638

  112,469

  129,669

  119,894

  128,287

  Newham DHA

  52,457

  64,332

  56,489

  65,128

  62,356

  66,721

  Tower Hamlets DHA

  87,743

  107,605

  96,389

  111,130

  102,350

  109,515

  Enfield DHA

  48,861

  59,922

  52,316

  60,317

  56,467

  60,420

  Haringey DHA

  56,426

  69,199

  64,093

  73,895

  70,016

  74,917

  Redbridge DHA

  50,488

  61,917

  54,559

  62,903

  57,580

  61,611

  Waltham Forest DHA

  69,889

  85,710

  76,089

  87,725

  83,259

  89,087

  TOTAL

  1,178,457

  1,445,224

  1,276,820

  1,472,084

  1,373,232

  1,469,359

  1 Bloomsbury and Islington DHA from 1990–91.

  Source:

  Annual accounts of the regional Health Authority and the district health authorities comprising the North East Thames region.

  Notes to the table:

  1. 1990–91 figures are provisional (as yet subject to audit).

  2. Figures have been expressed at 1991–92 prices by the use of Gross Domestic Product deflators.

  3. Expenditure on HCHS covers all services directly managed by the health authorities including hospital, patient transport (i.e. ambulance), blood transfusion and other services.

  4. The pattern of expenditure at district levels varies between 1984–85 and 1985–86 reflecting a change in the methodology for determining the fundings and the accounting arrangements for long-stay patients in the region.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on national health trust hospitals.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [pursuant to his reply, 3 December 1991, c. 111]: The external financing limits for 1992–93 for the 57 NHS trusts which have been operational since 1 April 1991 and 98 NHS trusts which are to become operational on 1 April 1992 are set out in the tables. The limits do not include provision for 1991–92 outturn adjustments, resource management funding, or supra-regional developments which will be added subsequently.

  Capital expenditure by NHS trusts forms part of the public expenditure provision in the health programme. The NHS and Community Care Act 1990 provides no power for the NHS management executive to fund NHS trusts directly or to give them cash limits. NHS trusts can obtain funding only from the income they receive from purchasers or from borrowing. An annual external financing limit—EFL—controls access by NHS trusts to external finance. The EFL is a net financing concept measured by the new loans taken out by the NHS trust less loans repaid plus or minus changes in deposits.

  First wave external financing limits 1992–93

  NHS Trust

  External financing limit £000

  Anglian Harbours

  5,235

  Norfolk Ambulances

  1,082

  Broadgreen Hospital

  -763

  Chester and Halton Community

  -54

  Crew Mid Cheshire Hospitals

  -68

  260

  NHS Trust

  External financing limit £000

  Cardio/Thor. Cen. Liverpool

  118

  Royal Liverpool Childrens

  -900

  Royal Liverpool University Hospital

  437

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  5,771

  Wirral Hospital

  2,961

  Royal London Hospital

  5,198

  North Middlesex Hospital

  -1,396

  Royal Free Hampstead

  -780

  Royal National Orthopaedic

  381

  Royal National Nose, Throat and Ear

  964

  Southend Hospital

  1,504

  Freeman Hospital

  -1,516

  Newcastle Mental Health

  -422

  Northumbria Ambulance

  809

  Central Manchester Hospital

  5,235

  Christie Hospital

  768

  Hillingdon Hospital

  495

  Mount Vernon Hospital

  4,270

  Central Middlesex Hospital

  -1,994

  North Herts Acute and Community

  60

  Nuffield Orthopaedic

  -600

  Guys and Lewisham

  35,937

  United Bristol Healthcare

  2,622

  Cornwall Community

  -333

  Cornwall Mental Health

  100

  East Gloucestershire

  3,166

  East Somerset

  -920

  South Devon Health Care

  4,563

  West Somerset Acute and Comm.

  6,259

  Weston Area

  2,087

  Northern Devon

  1,418

  Croydon Community

  873

  Croydon Mental Handicap

  362

  Kingston Hospital

  1,455

  Epsom Health Care

  -411

  Royal Surrey

  1,019

  261

  NHS Trust

  External financing limit £000

  Homewood

  1,042

  St. Helier

  2,268

  Doncaster Royal and Montagu

  1,129

  Lincolnshire Ambulance

  855

  Northern General Sheffield

  6,584

  Royal National Rheumatic

  479

  West Dorset Community

  895

  West Dorset General

  1,553

  West Dorset Mental Health

  1,831

  Mid Staffs (1st) Community

  1,557

  Mid Staffs Mental Health

  -4,116

  Rugby District

  9,655

  Walsall Hospital

  1,709

  Bradford Hospitals

  10,812

  Leeds General Infirmary

  -4,384

  St. James's University

  8,963

  Hinchingbrooke Hospital

  381

  Kings Lynn and Wisbech Hospitals

  -2,553

  East Suffolk Community (Allington)

  92

  Clatterbridge Centre for Oncology

  -758

  Liverpool Community and Priority

  414

  Mersey Ambulance

  -218

  Southport And Formby Hospital

  -1,168

  Aintree Hospitals (Walton and Fazakerly)

  243

  Liverpool Obstetrics and Gynaecology

  3,946

  St. Helens and Knowsley Community

  635

  The Walton Centre for Neurosciences

  -700

  Basildon and Thurrock Acute

  -3,347

  Forest Healthcare

  -1,954

  North Essex (Rivers) Healthcare

  -3,982

  Essex Ambulance

  -89

  Mid Essex Hospital

  -3,908

  Southend Community

  -705

  North East Essex Services for Learning Difficulties

  -264

  North East Essex Mental Health Severalls Hospital

  -1,341

  Cleveland Ambulance

  62

  North Tees Health

  -1,626

  Northgate Unit Morpeth

  209

  Royal Victoria Hospital, Newcastle

  1,597

  Gateshead Community

  -163

  South Tees Acute Hospitals

  -1,477

  Burnley Health Care

  -175

  Lancaster Priority

  -360

  Wrightington Health

  -351

  Lancaster Acute

  164

  Royal Oldham Hospital/Community

  -1,891

  Bedford Hospital

  -915

  Ealing Hospital

  -1,255

  Parkside Community

  -1,836

  Wellhouse Edgware and Barnet

  -1,796

  Ashford Hospital

  -998

  East Hertfordshire

  -1,793

  Harrow Community

  272

  Hillingdon Community

  -269

  Luton and Dunstable

  -1,773

  Barnet Community

  -3,946

  North West Herts Mental Health (Horizon)

  -2,987

  South Bedfordshire Comm and Mental Health

  -511

  North West Herts Priority Unit (Dacorum and St. Albans)

  -1,696

  Harefield Hospital

  -900

  Aylesbury Vale Priority

  127

  Heatherwood and Wexham Park

  528

  Milton Keynes General

  -819

  Milton Keynes Community

  -80

  East Berkshire Mental Health

  -297

  Eastbourne Acute

  -2,345

  Brighton Community and Mental Health

  -855

  Maidstone Priority

  -69

  Thameslink Dartford Priority

  -358

  West Lambeth Priority

  4,010

  Hastings and Rother Healthcare

  3,080

  Optimum Community Lewisham and Southwark

  -278

  Ravensbourne Priority

  247

  262

  NHS Trust

  External financing limit £000

  Avon Ambulance

  -52

  Exeter Community

  449

  Southmead Health

  8,271

  Frenchay Healthcare

  1,872

  Plymouth Community

  646

  Devon Ambulance

  316

  Royal Cornwall Hospital

  4,203

  Phoenix Trust

  204

  Gloucestershire Ambulance

  -111

  Frimley Park Hospital

  10,484

  St. Peters Hospital, Chertsey

  -691

  (Weybourne) North West Surrey Community

  2,809

  Mulberry Trust (South Lincolnshire Mental Health)

  -407

  Weston Park Hospital

  -442

  City Nottingham Hospital

  7,981

  Nottingham Community

  -361

  Children's Hospital, Sheffield

  -860

  Doncaster Priority

  -730

  Central Sheffield University Hospitals

  -1,254

  Bassetlaw Hospital and Community

  2,968

  Barnsley Community and Priority

  -833

  South Yorkshire Ambulance

  -332

  Wiltshire Healthcare

  956

  Poole Hospital

  649

  Royal United Hospital, Bath

  1,434

  Bath Mental Health

  3,145

  Bath and Wells Healthcare (Avon and Somerset)

  -301

  Bournemouth and Christchurch Acute

  -1,392

  East Dorset Community

  2,272

  Walsgrave Hospital, Coventry

  -2,273

  Staffordshire Ambulance

  -368

  East Birmingham Hospital

  4,207

  Herefordshire Community

  -917

  Premier South East Staffordshire Community and Mental Health

  -723

  South Warwickshire Community

  -679

  Harrogate Health

  2,542

  Airedale Health Services

  -898

  Northallerton Health

  -1,317

  Bradford Community

  89

  York Hospitals and Community

  -577

  Scarborough Healthcare

  -1,036

  Regional Health Authorities (Revenue Allocation)
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will announce regional health authorities' revenue allocations for 1992–93; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [pursuant to his reply, 5 December 1991, c. 199–200]: The cash-limited general medical services provision for 1992–93 will be £659 million. This covers direct reimbursement to GPs of their expenses on practice staff and premises improvements, the development of computerisation in general practice, and the management of practice funds. I am making today allocations to regional health authorities covering £628 million of that total. The allocations to regions are:

  GMS cash-limited allocations 1992–93

  Allocation

  Real growth

  1991–92

  1992–93

  £ million

  £ million

  per cent.

  Northern

  33·314

  36·414

  4·60

  Yorkshire

  44·458

  47·237

  1·68

  Trent

  55·520

  59·193

  2·02

  East Anglian

  32·366

  34·427

  1·79

  North West Thames

  44·999

  48·657

  3·47

  North East Thames

  44·549

  48·688

  4·58

  South East Thames

  47·454

  51·144

  3·14

  263

  Allocation

  Real growth

  1991–92

  1992–93

  £ million

  £ million

  per cent.

  South West Thames

  36·902

  39·865

  3·38

  Wessex

  38·773

  41·552

  2·55

  Oxford

  34·305

  36·627

  2·17

  South Western

  49·454

  52·886

  2·33

  West Midlands

  54·318

  59·060

  4·05

  Mersey

  28·246

  30·208

  2·34

  North Western

  39·381

  42·717

  3·80

  Total

  584·039

  628·675

  3·01

WALES

  GPs (Prescribing)
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has as to what variations are to be found in the prescribing patterns of general practitioners in Wales; what is the average inpatient and cash terms; what are the highest and lowest variations of any individual practice; and what variations can be found between similar practices with similar demographic compositions.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Information on GP prescribing is provided by the prescription pricing division of the Welsh Health Common Services Agency to family health services authorities, which, as part of their responsibilities, examine the cost of GP prescribing, including reasons for variations between GP practices with similar characteristics. However, the information is not collated in such a way as to provide the information my hon. Friend requires, except at disproportionate cost.

  I have put work in hand to refine the information system so that it will supplement the standard reports with a faster, more efficient and more detailed service for those who require information to he analysed according to their individual needs.

  Vacant Council Properties
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the latest available numbers of vacant council-owned properties for each district council in Wales.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The information my hon. Friend requires is given in the table:

  Local authority vacant dwellings, by district, 19911

  Total vacant dwellings

  Clwyd

  Alyn and Deeside

  31

  Colwyn

  34

  Delyn

  20

  Glyndwr

  47

  Rhuddlan

  17

  Wrexham Maelor

  204

  Dyfed

  Carmarthen

  14

  Ceredigion

  41

  Dinefwr

  14

  Llanelli

  104

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  63

  South Pembrokeshire

  15

  264

  Total vacant dwellings

  Gwent

  Blaenau Gwent

  56

  Islwyn

  150

  Monmouth

  92

  Newport

  81

  Torfaen

  147

  Gwynedd

  Aberconwy

  16

  Arfon

  60

  Dwyfor

  11

  Meirionnydd

  15

  Ynys Mon

  60

  Mid Glamorgan

  Cynon Valley

  122

  Merthyr Tydfil

  71

  Ogwr

  68

  Rhondda

  26

  Rhymney Valley

  85

  Taff Ely

  99

  Powys

  Brecknock

  —

  Montgomeryshire2

  42

  Radnorshire

  9

  South Glamorgan

  Cardiff

  190

  Vale of Glamorgan

  37

  West Glamorgan

  Lliw Valley

  42

  Neath

  72

  Port Talbot

  171

  Swansea

  104

  Wales

  2,430

  1 At 1 April.

  2 Excludes Newtown which is designated as a New Town.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the latest available numbers for those registered as homeless for each district council in Wales; and what information he has to show separately those who are sleeping rough.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  No information is available centrally as to the cause and location of any persons who may be sleeping rough. The number of cases accepted as homeless, within the terms of the Housing Act 1985 and the number of persons associated with these cases, is given in the table:

  Incidence of homelessness—quarter ending 30 September 1991

  Welsh districts

  Cases accepted

  Persons involved in cases accepted

  Aberconwy

  8

  21

  Alyn and Deeside

  42

  114

  Arfon

  9

  20

  Blaenau Gwent

  73

  176

  Brecknock

  37

  114

  Cardiff

  518

  1,180

  Carmarthen

  23

  56

  Ceredigion

  45

  106

  Colwyn

  18

  67

  Cynon Valley

  96

  261

  265

  Welsh districts

  Cases accepted

  Persons involved in cases accepted

  Delyn

  71

  169

  Dinefwr

  48

  107

  Dwyfor

  18

  48

  Glyndwr

  11

  19

  Islwyn

  51

  115

  Llanelli

  52

  149

  Lliw Valley

  27

  77

  Meirionnydd

  26

  72

  Merthyr Tydfil

  32

  84

  Monmouth

  32

  88

  Montgomeryshire

  32

  74

  Neath

  79

  140

  Newport

  237

  628

  Ogwr

  158

  428

  Port Talbot

  24

  69

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  29

  70

  Radnorshire

  6

  17

  Rhondda

  51

  134

  Rhuddlan

  14

  48

  Rhymney Valley

  28

  71

  South Pembrokeshire

  21

  45

  Swansea

  191

  429

  Taff-Ely

  57

  161

  Torfaen

  135

  276

  Vale of Glamorgan

  113

  323

  Wrexham Maelor

  94

  179

  Ynys Mon

  8

  21

  Wales total

  2,514

  6,156

  Plas Newydd (Grants)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the grants awarded by the Historic Buildings Council of Wales to(a) the Marquess of Anglesey and (b) the National Trust in respect of Plas Newydd during the last 10 years.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Department grant aids the costs of restoring eligible historic buildings on the advice of the Historic Buildings Council for Wales. The council itself does not make grants. In the last 10 years the following grants have been awarded:

  (a) Marquess of Anglesey—1987—£892 (repair of Nelson Monument).

  (b) National Trust (for Plas Newydd—1985—£102,100 (repair of roof, rainwater goods and chimney heads).

  Sunday Trading
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent representations he has received from Wales about Sunday trading; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Seven letters have been received by the Welsh Office on this subject.

  Chernobyl (Lambs)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what area of Gwynedd remains restricted as regards lamb sales to market as a consequence of the Chernobyl nuclear power station explosion in 1985; what the total cost in compensation has been since in each year since 1985; and what is the scientific prognosis for 1992 grass growth and saleable lamb meat production in Gwynedd.
  266
  Mr. David Hunt
  As the question refers to the post-Chernobyl situation in Wales, I am responding to the hon. Gentleman.

  The area of Gwynedd currently under restriction comprises approximately 75,483 hectares—about 186,519 acres. This compares to about 300,890 hectares—about 743,500 acres—when restrictions were first introduced in June 1986. A copy of a map illustrating the current restricted area which accompanied a recent press release was placed in the Library of the House on 16 December 1991.

  The total cost in compensation paid to farmers in the restricted area of North Wales, in each of the years since the introduction of restrictions is as follows:

  £

  1986–87

  2,638,691

  1987–88

  679,228

  1988–89

  578,868

  1989–90

  620,069

  1990–91

  613,548

  11991–92

  460,452

  Total

  5,590,856

  1 (to 29 November).

  Grass growth within the restricted area has not been affected to any significant degree by the Chernobyl deposition. However, the amount of radiocaesium in the root matt and surrounding soil which is taken up by vegetation can vary from year to year. This is due to the complex interactions of several factors such as weather, soil type, drainage and sheep grazing habits which are still the subject of research. It is not possible therefore to forecast the radiocaesium levels for 1992.

  The arrangements operated from the movement and marketing of sheep from the restricted area have proved to be a satisfactory way of enabling farmers to continue with normal husbandry and marketing practices whilst ensuring the safety of the food chain. This year fewer than 2 per cent. of sheep leaving the Gwynedd restricted area for movement and marketing have recorded above the safety level of 1,000 Bq/Kg.

  My Department will continue to study the results from the monitoring of sheep under the movement and marketing arrangements, and from regular monitoring of sheep at selected sites throughout the area. Assessment of these results has enabled suitable areas to be identified for intensive monitoring, which has made it possible to lift restrictions in two small areas this year. Work will continue to be carried out to achieve further derestriction as soon as it is safe to do so.

  Schools Inspectors
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the date of commissioning and terms of reference of the Adams report on the future of Her Majesty's inspectors of schools service in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The report was commissioned on 24 May with the following terms of reference:To review the role and organisation of HM Inspectorate in Wales in the light of the Government's policies for Education, and the particular character and needs of educational provision in Wales to secure that;

  (i) the public at large can be informed about the quality of the education provided by Schools and Colleges;

  (ii) funding agencies (including the Funding Councils and Local Education Authorities) can have access to

  267
  independent quality assurance advice on which they can rely, drawn from inspection of and reporting upon those institutions and forms of provision to which HMI statutorily have access;

  (iii) the management of Schools and, for the foreseeable future, Colleges in the Further Education sector, are supported by a system of quality assurance derived from inspecting and reporting on which they can draw in the exercise of their responsibilities;

  (iv) officials, both in the Welsh Office Education Department (WOED) and in other parts of the Welsh Office as necessary and Ministers continue to receive independent advice on education policy issues derived from the evidence of objective inspection.

  The review should take into account the existence and future development of other quality audit or assurance arrangements at departmental, local authority funding council—as envisaged in the White Papers—and institutional level and report on how HMI might relate to and interact with them. The review should also consider a widening of the role of HMI to include managerial and value-for-money issues in addition to educational and professional ones.
  To examine the feasibility and desirability of different organisational models which could deliver these objectives, assessing and comparing their advantages and disadvantages, considering in particular HMI:

  (i) being established wholly independent of Government;

  (ii) becoming a Next Steps Agency accountable to the Secretary of State;

  (iii) remaining part of the Welsh Office in the way it is now.

  As part of that examination to identify for each model:

  (i) the implications for staffing (including numbers and grading), for support services and for accommodation;

  (ii) its costs;

  (iii) the earliest date when it could be implemented and the steps and timetable which would need to be followed (including any changes in legislation which would be required) in order to achieve it.

  And in undertaking this review:

  (i) to take account of the separate review being undertaken in England;

  (ii) to consult WOED and HMI within the Welsh Office;

  (iii) to seek guidance as need arises from Ministers, the Permanent Secretary and Deputy Secretaries;

  (iv) to submit a preliminary report of progress to the Permanent Secretary within two months, for discussion with him and Deputy Secretaries;

  (v) to report to the Permanent Secretary with recommendations within three months.

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will extend the period for consultation on groundwater in relation to the Cardiff Bay barrage for a period equivalent to that during which the advertising campaign by the development corporation adjudicated to be misleading by the Advertising Standards Authority was on display.

  Mr. David Hunt
  No.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assurances he has given the Wales region of the National Rivers Authority regarding control of the Blackweir diversion and feeder canal during periods of drought; what discussions he has had with the Cardiff Bay development corporation and Associated British Ports regarding the necessary legal and financial arrangements flowing therefrom; when he anticipates the completion of these agreements; and if he will make a statement.
  268
  Mr. David Hunt
  The Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill requires the development corporation, before it commences construction of the barrage, to submit for the approval of the rivers authority details of the steps which it proposes to take to enable it to comply with the authority's water flow requirements. As I explained to the hon. Gentleman on 4 December detailed negotiations between Cardiff Bay development corporation and Associated British Ports are a commercial matter for the two parties.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales by what date he expects Cardiff Bay development corporation to have complied with the ruling of 6 December 1991 by the Advertising Standards Authority.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The ASA reported to CBDC's advertising agents on 6 December on complaints about a CBDC poster. The authority considered that using the word "creating" in the phrase "Cardiff Bay—creating a superb waterfront environment", had given the impression that construction of the Cardiff Bay barrage was assured when this was not the case. At the time the poster appeared the barrage had yet to be put forward to Parliament in the form of a Bill. The advertisers were requested to ensure that no implication that the barrage would certainly be built should be given until it had achieved the necessary parliamentary approval. The authority also criticised the breach of confidentiality by which some complainants made public the conclusion of the case before it had been ratified by the ASA council.

  The corporation has already complied with the ruling. Its advertising agency have proposed to the ASA an amendment to the copy of the magazine advertisement to read
  "The proposed construction of a barrage … would create a 500 acre freshwater lake".
  The advertising agency has reported to the corporation that the ASA are content for it to continue to use the words
  "Creating a superb waterfront environment".

  Safer Cities
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consideration he has given to the need for the safer cities campaign to be applied to cities in Wales.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The safer cities programme was launched by the Home Secretary in 1988 and reached its target of 20 projects this month. It is part of the "Action for Cities" initiative which is concerned with the regeneration of the inner cities in England. Wales did not participate in these programmes, preferring to pursue its own distinct regeneration strategies, such as the valleys programme, and to provide substantial assistance to Welsh communities for crime prevention measures under the urban programme.

  A key feature of the safer cities programme is the establishment of multi-agency steering committees in each approved project area to promote and consider crime prevenion measures. In Wales a similar partnership approach has been achieved by providing funds under the urban programme, which has enabled county crime prevention co-ordinators to be appointed in six of the eight counties of Wales. The Welsh Office has also made funds available to the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders to assist with the development of crime prevention initiatives at a local level in south-east

  269
  Wales. Crime prevention projects developed under these initiatives may themselves be eligible for funding under the urban programme.

  Factory and Office Closures
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give figures for regional development grants and regional selective assistance grants repaid because of factory or office closures within four years of the payment of the grant, separately for each of the past five years.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information requested would be available only at a disproportionate cost. However, the table gives details of regional selective assistance and regional development grant repayments over the last five years.

  £thousands

  1986–87

  2,335

  1987–88

  2,410

  1988–89

  1,982

  1989–90

  1,146

  1990–91

  370

  Usk Barrage Bill
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what account he is taking of the planned Cardiff bay barrage in determining his policy towards the Usk Barrage Bill; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Government's policy towards the Usk Barrage Bill will be determined according to its view of the merits of that Bill.

  Wentloog Lagoon
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what undertakings were given to the Countryside Council for Wales on 6 December regarding the relative timing for

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Total

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  District council

  Cynon Valley BC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  30,230

  32,057

  62,287

  Taff Ely BC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  27,500

  29,150

  56,650

  Vale of Glamorgan BC

  —

  32,500

  15,910

  17,540

  18,412

  17,787

  102,149

  Total

  —

  32,500

  15,910

  17,540

  76,142

  78,994

  221,086

  County council

  Dyfed

  —

  —

  26,400

  30,220

  36,062

  —

  92,682

  Gwent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  30,000

  30,000

  Gwynedd

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  20,000

  20,000

  Mid-Glamorgan

  —

  22,200

  31,592

  32,233

  34,361

  22,050

  142,436

  Powys

  —

  —

  15,829

  16,620

  25,925

  70,390

  128,764

  West Glamorgan

  —

  —

  26,600

  27,930

  31,615

  31,615

  117,760

  Total

  —

  22,200

  100,421

  107,003

  127,963

  174,055

  531,642

  South East Wales (Grant to NACRO)

  —

  —

  9,000

  62,629

  73,242

  50,000

  194,871

  All Wales total

  —

  54,700

  125,331

  187,172

  277,347

  303,049

  947,599

  Nebulisers
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the South Glamorgan health authority concerning the provisions of additional funding for the supply on loan of nebulisers as standard 270
  construction of the Wentloog lagoon and the Cardiff hay barrage; what trials regarding the use of the lagoon by wading birds are proposed; what policy considerations relating to the lagoon will govern the decision to effect final closure of the barrage; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The undertakings given to the Countryside Council for Wales were that the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill will be amended in the course of its passage to reinstate the requirement of the private Bill that if the barrage is built the lagoon must also be built; the lagoon will be constructed before impoundment behind the barrage.

  The Cardiff Bay development corporation will be discussing with the Countryside Council for Wales measures for ensuring the maximum effectiveness of the lagoon. The Countryside Council for Wales did not seek undertakings in respect of trials.

  Crime Prevention
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the cash granted by his Department this year and in each of the last five years to assist crime prevention initiatives(a) in respect of each district and (b) in respect of each county council in Wales.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The table sets out details of allocations to district and county councils under the urban programme for crime prevention initiatives and a grant to the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders under section 64 of the Health Service and Public Health Act 1968.

  I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to see the steady increase in support for crime prevention programmes which includes a nearly sixfold rise in funding in four years.

  national health service items on prescription by NHS consultants; what discussions he has had with other health authority chairmen; and what proposals he has for dissemination of information to those requiring nebulisers.
  271
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State discussed this matter with health authority chairmen at his meeting with them on 20 November. At our request, all district health authorities are reviewing their policies and practices on the provision of equipment, including nebulisers and investigating individual cases where patients have claimed that they were advised to purchase such equipment. When this exercise has been completed we will consider whether further action is needed.

  South Glamorgan TEC
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will be making a grant towards the costs of the new office for the South Glamorgan training and enterprise college's new headquarters.

  Mr. David Hunt
  No. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment gave on Tuesday 17 December, at columns 125–26.

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he will respond to the third report of the Welsh Affairs Committee, Session 1990–91, "Arrangements for Handling Serious Outbreaks of Food Poisoning in the light of the Salmonella Outbreak in July and August 1989 in North Wales" (HC Paper 328).

  Mr. David Hunt
  I am pleased to announce that the response has been published today as Command Paper 1789.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which units in Wales have been invited to prepare applications to become national health service trusts in April 1993.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have received proposals from almost half the units in Wales to establish national health service trusts. The "expressions of interest" cover ambulance, community and mental health services as well as acute care. I am inviting the following to prepare formal applications to become NHS trusts in April 1993.

  Clwyd Acute North Unit

  Clwyd Acute South Unit

  Clwyd Community and Mental Health Unit

  Gwent Community and Mental Health Unit

  South Gwent Health Unit

  Ogwr Health Unit

  Llanelli-Dinefwr Health Unit

  Ceredigion Health Unit

  Carmarthen-Dinefwr Health Unit

  Powys Health Unit

  Llandough Hospital Unit

  West Unit, West Glamorgan

  East Unit, West Glamorgan

  Gwent, Powys and South Glamorgan

  Ambulance Service

  Taken together, these units involve a total of 82 hospitals, 11,000 beds, and contractual income for 1991–92 of £592 million and point the way forward for the delivery of effective and patient responsive services in Wales.

  Applications are due to be submitted in the summer of 1992, but the decision to prepare application rests entirely with the units concerned. My decisions on the submissions will be taken following statutory consultation process.
  272
  I was not able to invite an application at this time from Llandudno general hospital. However, I have confidence that the hospital has the potential to become a successful trust and will benefit from having more time to further develop its proposls. I have also deferred decisions on the expressions received from the Cardiff royal group of hospitals and to establish a mental health NHS trust in South Glamorgan to take account of the conclusions which will emerge from the recently announced joint strategic review by South Glamorgan and Mid Glamorgan health authorities.

  Including the Pembrokeshire NHS trust with the units now invited to apply for NHS trust status some 65 per cent. of acute services in Wales could be trust based by April 1993.

  National Rivers Authority
  Mr. Gwylim Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress his Advisory Committee for Wales on National Rivers Authority functions has made since its establishment in 1990.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The committee's first annual report has been published today and I will arrange for copies to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Appointments
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will update his answer of 12 March 1991,Official Report, columns 448–58, to the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside listing the full-time and part-time public appointments for which he is responsible, together with the salary and the date when each appointment is due for renewal, including those posts which are not salaried.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [pursuant to his reply, 12 December 1991, c. 534–39]: I am now in a position to provide details of non-salaried appointments. These are shown in the table, together with a further list of salaried appointments.

  Salaried Appointments

  Salary £

  Regional Flood Defence Committee

  Mr. M. Mclaggan (Chairman)

  10,500

  31 March 1994

  Mr. J. Ap. Simon Jones

  3,480

  31 March 1994

  Mr. W. N. Waters

  3,480

  31 March 1994

  Mr. L. T. Chase

  3,480

  31 March 1994

  Mr. P. J. Perkins

  3,480

  31 March 1994

  Mr. J. W. Hughes

  3,480

  31 March 1994

  Mr. J. Llewellyn

  Nil

  31 March 1994

  National Rivers Authority

  Member

  Professor R. W. Edwards

  17,645

  30 June 1992

  Food From Britain

  Member

  Mr. A. Evans, OBE

  1,895

  22 September 1992

  British Wool Marketing Board

  Member

  Mr. C. Jones

  5,675

  25 September 1992

  Committees of Investigation for Great Britain and for England and Wales

  Member

  Mr. H. Humphreys Jones

  73 per day

  5 December 1994

  Home Grown Cereals Authority

  273

  Salary £

  Member

  Mr. D. F. R. George

  2,660

  2 June 1992

  Meat and Livestock Commission

  Member

  Mr. R. E. M. Rees, CBE

  5,385

  1 April 1992

  Milk Marketing Board

  Member

  Mr. J. M. Williams

  13,600

  31 August 1993

  Potato Marketing Board

  Member

  Mr. G. Hawkins

  3,453

  4 November 1994

  Non-salaried appointments and date current appointment ends:

  Committee on Agricultural Valuation (Wales)

  Chairperson:

  Mr. J. R. Mathias, BSC—28 February 1993

  Members:

  Mr. C. H. Arkell, ARICS—28 February 1993

  Mr. F. G. Grounds, DL, FSVA, FAAV—28 February 1993

  Mr. T. Hammett—28 February 1993

  Mr. J. G. Harris, MA, FRICS, CAAV—28 February 1993

  Mr. H. B. Knight—28 February 1993

  Mr. K. R. McDiormid, FRICS—28 February 1993

  Mr. J. A. Pallister, FRICS—28 February 1993

  Mr. T. W. Sale, FRICS—28 February 1993

  Mr. T. G. Shearman, FRICS, FAAV—28 February 1993

  Mr. R. V. Stone, FRICS, FAAV—28 February 1993

  Mr. R. Thomas, MA, FRICS, CAAV—28 February 1993

  Mr. G. A. Wadsworth—28 February 1993

  Agricultural Wages Committee and Agricultural Dwelling House Advisory Committees

  Clwyd

  Chairperson:

  Mr. T. Jones

  Members

  Mr. J. E. Ambrose, BA, M.Ed—31 December 1992

  Mr. I. G. Richards BSc, Eng.MICE—31 December

  Dyfed

  Chairperson:

  Mr. C. F. Hosking—Retiring 31 December 1991

  Members:

  Mrs. E. D. Williams—31 December 1991

  Mrs. E. Jenkins—31 December 1991

  Glamorgan

  Chairperson:

  Mr. D. R. I. Williams

  Members:

  Mr. P. T. Hart—31 December 1992

  Mrs. S. E. L. Reeve—31 December 1992

  Gwent

  Chairperson:

  Vacant

  Members:

  Mr. J. L. Evans—31 December 1992

  Mrs. A. L. Heynes, BA—31 December 1992

  Mrs. J. M. Williams—31 December 1991

  Gwynedd

  Chairperson:

  Mr. T. H. Morgan

  Members:

  Mr. R. R. Harris—31 December 1991

  Dr. E. Lloyd Evans—3l December 1992

  Powys

  Chairperson:
  274

  Mr. W. G. Davies

  Members:

  Ms. G. L. Thomas—31 December 1991

  Canon E. C. John, BA—31 December 1992

  Note: Chairpersons of AWC's are not appointed by the Secretary of State but by members of the Committee to itself, from one of the two independent members who are Secretary of State appointments.

  Forestry Commission Reference/Committee Panel (Wales)

  Members:

  Mr. P. L. Marriott—29 February 1992

  Mr. R. A. Smart, BSc, FICFOR—29 February 1992

  Lt. Col. J. D. Stephenson, OBE—29 February 1992

  Mr. W. B. Walker, FICFOR—29 February 1992

  Urban Investment Grant Appraisal Panel

  Chairman:

  Sir Melvyn Rosser—31 May 1993

  Members:

  Mr. P. Laing—31 May 1993

  Mr. R. Lacey—31 May 1993

  Mr. S. Lindsay—31 May 1993

  Mr. D. Schwarz—31 May 1993

  Mr. R. James—31 May 1992

  Mr. K. Doolan—31 May 1992

  Community Health Councils

  Clwyd South

  Mr. J. Wainright—30 June 1992

  Mrs. S. C. Cope—30 June 1992

  Mr. D. Northwood—30 June 1994

  Mrs. P. M. Wood—30 June 1994

  Clwyd North

  Mrs. B. A. Thompson—30 June 1992

  Mrs. J. B. Thomas—30 June 1992

  Mr. D. Elliott—30 June 1994

  Mr. H. S. Martin—30 June 1994

  Camarthen/Dinefwr

  Mr. D. G. Williams—30 June 1992

  Mrs. P. M. Carpenter—30 June 1992

  Mrs. Z. Jenkins—30 June 1994

  Mrs. M. Davies—30 June 1994

  Llanelli/Dinefwr

  Mr. D. T. James—30 June 1992

  Mrs. M. W. Hopkin-Thomas—30 June 1992

  Mrs. M. James—30 June 1994

  Mr. L. C. Murphy—30 June 1994

  Ceredigion

  Mr. R. Gardner—30 June 1992

  Mr. T. H. Lewis—30 June 1992

  Mrs. M. E. Jenkins—30 June 1994

  Mrs. I. M. Toney—30 June 1994

  Pembrokeshire

  Mr. W. R. Stocker—30 June 1992

  Miss M. J. Thomas—30 June 1992

  Miss N. I. Lewis—30 June 1994

  Mrs. C. A Howells—30 June 1994

  South Gwent

  Mrs. J. C. Phillips—30 June 1992

  Mrs. G. Thomas—30 June 1992

  Mrs. E. Dixon—30 June 1994

  Mr. R. O. Thomas—30 June 1994

  North Gwent

  Miss E. Tuckwell—30 June 1992

  Mr. B. R. Hood—30 June 1992

  Mrs. M. J. Smart—30 June 1994

  Mrs. J. E. Davies—30 June 1994

  275
  Aberconwy

  Mrs. J. A. D.Doll—30 June 1992

  Mr. J. Cockburn—30 June 1992

  Mr. L. M. Wyn-Roberts—30 June

  Arfon/Dwyfor

  Mr. E. T. Jones—30 June 1992

  Mr. E. Wright—30 June 1992

  Mrs. W. F. T.Watkin—30 June 1994

  Mrs. V. E. Roberts—30 June 1994

  Meirionydd

  Mrs. A. J. Noble—30 June 1992

  Mr. E. M. Davies—30 June 1994

  Ynys Mon

  Mr. M. J. Bonnie—30 June 1992

  Mr. R. A. Johnsosn—30 June 1994

  Mrs. E. E. Hughes—30 June 1994

  East Glamorgan

  Mrs. J. E. Evans—30 June 1992

  Mrs. O. J. Leebrook—30 June 1992

  Mr. M. W. Davies—30 June 1994

  Councillor F. L. Thomas—30 June 1994

  Merthyr/Cynon Valley

  Mr. C. T. Jones—30 June 1992

  Mr. P. E. Linton—30 June 1992

  Mrs. D. M. Griffiths—30 June 1994

  Mrs. B. Brown—30 June 1994

  Ogwr

  Captain M. Wilcox—30 June 1992

  Mrs. M. C. Evans—30 June 1994

  Mrs. Y. M. Griffiths—30 June 1994

  Rhymney Valley

  Mr. C. Fenton—30 June 1992

  Mrs. N. Rowlands—30 June 1992

  Mr. K. Perryman—30 June 1992

  Mrs. M. Roberts—30 June 1994

  Brecon/Radnor

  Mrs. D. M. James—30 June 1992

  Mr. W. G. Phillips—30 June 1992

  Mr. J. Davies—30 June 1994

  Mrs. M. V. Morgan—30 June 1994

  Montgomery

  Vacant—30 June 1992

  Mr. K. M. Roberts-Jones—30 June 1992

  Cardiff

  Mr. E. G. Owen—30 June 1992

  Mrs. A. Butlin—30 June 1992

  Mr. G. H. Miles—30 June 1994

  Mr. C. M. Williams—30 June 1994

  Vale of Glamorgan

  Mrs. S. L. Greensmith—30 June 1992

  Mr. W. Sweeney—30 June 1992

  Mrs. M. A. Campbell—30 June 1994

  Vacant—30 June 1994

  Neath/Port Talbot

  Mrs. J. H. Thomas—30 June 1992

  Mrs. B. I. Tyler—30 June 1992

  Mr. J. Warman—30 June 1994

  Mrs. B. E. Wheadon—30 June 1994

  Swansea/Lliw Valley

  Mrs. M. J. Thomas—30June 1992

  Miss J. E. Bassett—30 June 1992

  Mrs. P. R. Moore—30 June 1994

  276

  Dr. B. Shepperdson—30 June 1994

  Advisory committee on Borderline Substances

  Professor H. A. Lee—31 December 1992

  Advisory Council on Misuse of Drugs

  Dr. M. R. Keen—31 December 1992

  Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work

  Dr. T. Jones—31 August 1992

  Mr. A. Hazell—31 August 1994

  Committee on Dental and Surgical Materials

  Dr. J. R. Larke—31 December 1992

  Mr. T. D. Turner—31 December 1992

  Committee on Safety of Medicines

  Dr. W. A. Jerrett—31 December 1992

  Dental Auxilliaries Committee

  Mrs. J. M. Prior—31 August 1992

  Intermediate Treatment Fund Trust

  Mr. C. Weston-Evans—Indefinite period

  Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation

  Dr. D. G. Crompton—31 March 1993

  Medical Practices Committee

  Dr. S. McHugh—31 March 1994

  Medicines Commission

  Professor J. Rhodes—31 December 1993

  Professor P. Spencer—31 December 1995

  National Radiological Protection Board

  Professor G. M. Roberts—30 September 1993

  Public Health Laboratory Service Board

  Dr. G. Crompton—31 July 1994

  Rural Dispensing Committee

  Mrs. M. Tudor—31 March 1992

  Standing Dental Advisory Committee

  Professor N. E. Robertson—31 March 1992

  Standing Medical Advisory Committee

  Professor B. McKibbin—31 March 1992

  Professor A. Richens—31 March 1994

  Standing Nursing and Midwifery Advisory Committee

  Mr. M. J. Vince—31 March 1992

  Mr. D. M. Thomas—31 March 1994

  Standing Pharmaceutical Advisory Committee for England and Wales

  Professor P. Spencer—31 March 1994

  Welsh Committee for Postgraduate Pharmaceutical Education

  Dr. D. N. A. Armstrong—31 March 1992

  Mr. P. Hollyman—31 March 1992

  Miss C. Howells—31 March 1992

  Mr. H. A. O. Hughes—31 March 1992

  Professor I. W. Kellaway—31 March 1992

  Mr. M. Pollard—31 March 1992

  Miss G. E. Price—31 March 1992

  Mr. K. C. Rew—31 March 1992

  Mr. T. D. Turner—31 March 1992

  Curriculum Council for Wales Members:

  Mr. Alwyn Evans—31 July 1992

  Mr. John Love—31 July 1993

  Mrs. Gillian Jeffreys—31 December 1992

  Mr. Eddie Roberts—31 July 1992

  Mr. leuan Roberts—31 July 1993

  Dr. Peter Winterburn—31 July 1992

  Mr. John Walne—31 July 1992

  277

  Mrs. Kay Edwards—31 July 1994

  Mr. Dafydd Whittal—31 July 1994

  Mr. Stuart Hockey—31 July 1994

  Mrs. Penny Ryan—31 July 1994

  Mr. Ivor Evenden—31 July 1994

  National Museum of Wales

  Court and Council

  Rt. Hon. Lord Rees, QC—8 February 1994

  Mr. Roger Geraint Thomas—8 February 1994

  Mr. M. J. M. Clarke—8 February 1994

  Mr. A. Creunant Davies—8 February 1994

  Court Only

  Mr. J. M. Hugh Rees—8 February 1994

  Professor Eric Sunderland—8 February 1994

  National Library of Wales

  Court

  Mr. Jeffrey W. Morgan—19 April 1996

  Mr. Roy Luff—19 April 1996

  Mr. Ifan Moelwyn Hughes—19 April 1996

  Mr. John Watkin—19 April 1996

  Council

  Mr. Ifan Moelwyn Hughes—17 May 1994

  Mr. John Watkin—17 May 1994

  Mr. Jeffrey W. Morgan—18 July 1994

  Library and Information Services Council Wales

  Chairman:

  Mr. W. Gwyn Williams—30 September 1994

  Members:

  M. S. Tudfil—30 September 1993

  L. Adams—30 September 1993

  Mr. Keith Bray—30 September 1993

  Miss Mary Cooper—30 September 1992

  Mr. R. leuan Edwards—30 September 1993

  Dr. Ian Lovecy—31 December 1993

  Mr. Brynley F. Roberts—28 February 1994

  Mr. Hwyel E. Roberts—30 September 1992

  Mr. John Lancaster—30 September 1994

  Welsh Language Board

  Chairman:

  Mr. John Elfed Jones—31 July 1994

  Members:

  Mr. Rob Jones—31 July 1994

  Councillor Peter Law—31 July 1994

  Mr. Edward Rea OBE FBIM—31 July 1994

  Mr. Winston Roddick QC—31July 1994

  Mrs. E. Closs Stephens—31 July 1994

  Professor Eric Sunderland—31 July 1994

  Mr. Ewyn Ogwen Williams—31 July 1994

  Place Names Advisory Committee

  Chairman:

  Professor Gwynedd Pierce—Remuneration £350 (Honorarium)

  Member:

  Mr. Tomas Roberts—Remuneration £250 (Honorarium)

  Wales Youth Work Partnership

  Chairman:

  Dr. Howard Wiliamson—31 March 1992

  Wales Advisory Body for Local Authority Higher Education Standing Working Group

  Chairman

  Professor John A. Andrews—31 March 1992

  Members:

  Mrs. Gillian Armitage—31 March 1992

  Mr. Alan C. Aylesbury—31 March 1992

  Mr. Randall T. D. Davies—31 March 1992

  Mr. Richard W. Lewis—31 March 1992

  Mr. Eric Meats—31 March 1992

  Mr. Derek Morgan—31 March 1992

  Professor Michael Newby—31 March 1992

  Professor Georage H. Thompson—31 March 1992

  278
  Higher Education Corporations (initial appointments)

  Polytechnic of Wales

  Members:

  Mr. Roy Cull—31 March 1995

  Dr. Gareth Jones—31 March 1995

  Mr. Peter Kelly—31 March 1995

  Mr. Ruid Plaut—31 March 1995

  Mr. R. P. V. Rees—31 March 1995

  Professor Sir Williams Taylor CBE—31 March 1995

  Dr. Don B. Thomas—31 March 1995

  Mrs. Jane Evelyn Thomas—31 March 1995

  Dr. John Thynne—31 March 1995

  Mr. Roberts Watts—31 March 1995

  Swansea Institute of Higher Education

  Members:

  Mr. Colin Adlam—31 March 1995

  Professor Brian L. Clarkson—31 March 1995

  Mr. R. E. T. Davies—31 March 1995

  Mr. R. Davies-Evans—31 March 1995

  Mr. W. E. Edwards—31 March 1995

  Mr. Cyril Goldstone—31 March 1995

  Mr. Carl E. Hadley—31 March 1995

  Mr. Illtyd R. Lloyd—31 March 1995

  Ms. Val Veld—31 March 1995

  Cardiff Institute of Higher Education

  Members:

  Dr. Rita Austin—31 March 1995

  Mr. J. K. Brown MBE—31 March 1995

  Mr. A.B. Connolly—31 March 1995

  Mr. Gordon L. Harrhy—31 March 1995

  Mr. Robert Knight—31 March 1995

  Professor M. W. Roberts—31 March 1995

  Mr. Paul Sheldon—31 March 1995

  Welsh College of Music and Drama

  Members:

  Mr. Michael Boyce—31 March 1995

  Mr. Huw Davies—31 March 1995

  Mr. Geraint Stanley Jones—31 March 1995

  Mr. Frank Lincoln—31 March 1995

  Mr. Tom Owen—31 March 1995

  Ms. Sian Phillips—31 March 1995

  Mr. Chris Ryde—31 March 1995

  Mr. Adrian Trickey—31 March 1995

  Gwent College of Higher Education

  Members:

  Mr. Alan Burton—31 March 1995

  Mr. G. T. Canning—31 March 1995

  Mr. Elwyn Tudno Jones—3l March 1995

  Miss Susan Kent—31 March 1995

  Ms. Sally Medlyn—31 March 1995

  Mr. Roger Peachey—31 March 1995

  Professor P. S. J. Spencer—31 March 1995

  Mr. Nigel Williams—31 March 1995

  College Normal Bangor

  Members:

  Mr. T. Burman—31 March 1995

  Mr. R. Hefin Davies, MBE—31 March 1995

  Mr. R. Alun Evans—31 March 1995

  Mr. Gwilym E. Humphreys—31 March 1995

  Mr. Tom Jones—31 March 1995

  Mr. H. I. G. Roberts—31 March 1995

  Professor G. R. Sagar, CBE—31 March 1995

  Mrs. Eurwen Thomas—31 March 1995

  Court of the Governors of University College of Swansea

  Mr. P. H. J. Meyer—31 August 1994

  Dr. Gwyn Jones—31 August 1992

  Mr. Peter Scott—31 August 1993

  Court of the Governors of University College of North Wales

  Mr. Roy Bichain—31 July 1993

  Court of the Governors of University College of Aberystwyth

  Mr. J. M. James—31 August 1994

  279

  Dr. D. E. Evans—31 August 1994

  Mr. Meurig Rees—31 August 1994

  Mr. Geraint Stanley Jones—31 December 1992

  Court of the Governors of St. Davids University College

  Lampeter

  Mr. Robert Gee—30 April 1994

  Sports Council for Wales

  Members:

  Mr. G. C. Crimp—31 March 1993

  Mr. H. Davies—31 March 1993

  Mr. T. G. R. Davies—31 March 1993

  Mrs. J. Edwards—31 March 1993

  Mr. P. Gunn—31March 1993

  Professor D. Herbert—31 March 1993

  Councillor Mrs. D. M. J. James—31 March 1993

  Councillor Mr. K. F. Powell—31 March 1993

  Mr. H. M. Thomas—31 March 1993

  Mrs. W. Williams—31 March 1993

  Councillor W. J. Williams—31 March 1993

  Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales

  Chairman:

  Lady Crawshay—Not known

  Vice Chairman:

  Mr. R. H. Williams—Not known

  Member:

  Mr. R. Lacey-Not—known

  Training Enterprise and Education Advisory Group for Wales

  Members:

  Mr. Eric Crawford—31 March 1992

  Mr. Clifford Davies—31 March 1992

  Mr. David Davies—31 March 1992

  Mr. Jeremy Hallet—31 March 1992

  Councillor Fred Kingdom—31 March 1992

  Mr. Edwin Merrette—31 March 1992

  Mr. George Wright—31 March 1992

  Mrs. Gillian Armitage—31 March 1992

  Mr. Roy Luff—31 March 1992

  Mr. J. Kevein Lynden—31 March 1992

  Saundersfoot Harbour Commission

  Mr. E. A. Phillips—31 May 1994

  Mr. B. Waters—31 May 1994

  South Wales Sea Fisheries Committee

  Mr. D. J. O. Chant—30 June 1993

  Mr. P. G. Davies—30 June 1993

  Mr. H. G. Evans—30 June 1993

  Mr. W. R. Garner—30 June 1993

  Mr. G. M. Hughes—30 June 1993

  Mr. R. J. Packman—30 June 1993

  Dr. S. E. Shacklcy—30 June 1993

  Mr. R. S. Shaw—30 June 1993

  Mr. J. I. Stock—30 June 1993

  National Rivers Authority: Advisory Committee for Wales

  Chairman:

  Professor R. W. Edwards—appointed for as long as he is a member of the National Rivers Authority

  Members:

  Professor M. J. Briton—appointed for as long as they are Chairmen of various National Rivers Authority regional committees

  Lord Morgan KCMG—appointed for as long as they are Chairmen of various National Rivers Authority regional committees

  Mr. M. A. McLaggan JP—appointed for as long as they are Chairmen of various National Rivers Authority regional committees

  Dr. T. H. Y. Tebbutt—appointed for as long as they are Chairmen of various National Rivers Authority regional committees

  280

  Councillor J. D. A. Thompson JP—28 February 1993

  Mr. B. Riddleston—28 February 1993

  Dr. S. Tyler—28 February 1993

  Brecon Beacons National Park Committee

  Members:

  The Hon. Mrs. E. S. J. Legge-Bourke—31 March 1992

  Dr. C. S. Briggs—31 March 1992

  Dr. D. Jones—31 March 1992

  Mr. D. Harvey—31 March 1993

  Mrs. R. Harris—31 March 1993

  Mrs. J. Hosie—31 March 1993

  Dr. J. C. Venus—31 March 1994

  Ms. S. Price—31 March 1994

  Mr. A. Michael—31 March 1994

  Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Committee

  Members

  Mr. C. Parry—31 March 1992

  Mr. W. Evans—31 March 1992

  Mr. R. Pratt—31 March 1992

  Mr. P. Mould—31 March 1993

  Mrs. C. Burton—31 March 1994

  Mr. A. Rhys Davies—31 March 1994

  Snowdonia National Park Committee

  Members

  Mr. D. H. Roberts—31 March 1992

  Mr. J. Dale—31 March 1992

  Mr. E. C. Roberts—31 March 1993

  Dr. M. B. Alcock—31 March 1993

  Mrs. R. Callister—31 March 1993

  Mr. J. Lloyd-Jones—31 March 1994

  Mr. D. Tomos—31 March 1994

  Mrs. F. Lynch—31 March 1994

  Mr. A. Jones—31 March 1994

  Consumers Committees for Great Britain and for England and Wales

  Members

  Mrs. M. J. Roberts—7 September 1994

  Miss B. Brookes—14 September 1994

  Intervention Board Executive Agency

  Member

  Mr. O. Rees, CB—22 February 1992. No remuneration.

  Meat and Livestock Commission—Consumers Committee

  Member

  Mrs. S. Robert—1 October 1992

  Milk and Dairies Tribunal for Wales

  Member

  Mr. L. N. H. George—1 February 1993. Remuneration £66 per day.

  Hill Farming Advisory Committee for England, Wales and Northern Ireland

  Chairperson:

  The Baroness Trumpington—14 February 1992

  Deputy Chairman:

  Mr. Alun Evans OBE—14 February 1992

  Members:

  Mr. John Allen OBE—14 February 1992

  Mr. Charles Armstrong—14 February 1992

  Mr. Henry Bainbridge—14 February 1992

  Mr. John Dowson—14 February 1992

  Mr. Roberts Edwards—14 February 1992

  Mr. George Hodgon—14 February 1992

  Mr. Thomas Jones BA—14 February 1992

  Mr. Edmund Morphet—14 February 1992

  Mr. Thomas Roskilly BSc PhD—14 February 1992

  Mr. John Sayer—14 February 1992

  Mr. John Tamplin—14 February 1992

  Mr. Christopher Thomas-Everard FRICS—14 February 1992

  Mr. Campbell Tweed—14 February 1992

  281
  Sub Committee for Wales of the Hill Farming Advisory Committee for England, Wales and Northern Ireland

  Chairman:

  Mr. Alun Evans OBE—14 February 1992

  Members:

  Mr. Hywel Bound—14 February 1992

  Mr. David Davies—14 February 1992

  Mr. Robert Edwards—14 February 1992

  Mr. Richard Howells—14 February 1992

  Mr. Thomas Jones BA—14 February 1992

  Mr. William Lloyd—14 February 1992

  Mr. John Price—14 February 1992

  Mr. John Tamplin OBE—14 February 1992

  Mr. Christopher Thomas-Everard FRICS—14 February 1992

  Agricultural Advisory Council for Wales

  Chairman:

  r. R. E. M. Rees—31 October 1992

  Members:

  Mr. J. A. Parry—31 October 1992

  Mr. D. F. R. George—31 October 1992

  Mr. T. H. Jones—31 October 1994

  Mr. D. Williams—31 October 1992

  Mr. E. H. Perkins—31 October 1993

  Mr. R. C. Pratt—31 October 1993

  Mrs. T. Adams—31 October 1994

  Mrs. A. M. Rees—31 October 1992

  Mr. J. R. Gill—31 October 1993

  Mr. M. S. Pickering—31 October 1993

  Mrs. R. Rowlands—31 October 1994

  Mr. F. J. Morgan—31 October 1994

  Welsh Industrial Development Advisory Board

  Chairman:

  Sir Peter Phillips, OBE—31 December 1991

  Members:

  Dr. A. J. S. Folwell—31 December 1993

  Mr. K. Hodge—31 December 1994

  Mr. D. Jenkins—31 December 1993

  Mr. T. J. Jones, OBE—31 December 1992

  Mr. M. Wallace, OBE—31 December 1993

  There is one vacancy on the board at present.

  Ancient Monuments Board for Wales

  Chairman:

  Prof. Glanmor Williams—31 March 1992

  Rent Assessment Panel for Wales

  Salary

  Professional

  D. R. Davies, FRICS

  £158 per day

  31 December 1992

  L. J. Edwards

  £158 per day

  31 December 1992

  J. H. Firman, FRICS, FCLA

  £158 per day

  31 December 1992

  R. B. Griffiths, FRICS

  £158 per day

  31 December 1992

  W. H. Griffiths, MA, FRICS

  £158 per day

  31 December 1992

  G. H. Joy, FRICS

  £158 per day

  31 December 1992

  W. R. G. Jones, FRICS

  £158 per day

  31 December 1992

  V. A. Kenneally, BSc, FSVA, FRVA

  £158 per day

  31 December 1992

  J. Lewis, FRICS, FRVA

  £158 per day

  31 December 1992

  J. Lingard, ARICS

  £158 per day

  31 December 1992

  J. G. Lloyd, FRICS, FLAS

  £158 per day

  31 December 1992

  P. K. Lucas, ARICS

  £158 per day

  31 December 1992

  V. E. A. Morris

  £158 per day

  31 December 1992

  D. B. Phillips, FRICS, FRVA

  £158 per day

  31 December 1992

  Mrs. R. Pomfret, FRICS

  £158 per day

  31 December 1992

  J. A. W. Protheroe, BSc, FRICS, FCIA

  £158 per day

  31 December 1992

  R. L. Thompson, FRICS, FRVA

  £158 per day

  31 December 1992

  G. B. Travis, FRICS

  £158 per day

  31 December 1992

  H. M. Tudor

  £158 per day

  31 December 1992

  282

  Salary

  N. O. Tyler, FRICS

  £158 per day

  31 December 1992

  D. S. Williams, ARICS

  £158 per day

  31 December 1992

  Lay Member

  Mrs. J. Aitken

  £101 per day

  31 December 1992

  C. W. Bickley

  £101 per day

  31 December 1992

  D. J. I. Davies

  £101 per day

  31 December 1992

  Mrs. E. Elias

  £101 per day

  31 December 1992

  Miss M. Evans

  £101 per day

  31 December 1991

  County Councillor E. K. Griffiths

  £101 per day

  31 December 1992

  D. A. Jones

  £101 per day

  31 December 1992

  W. Jones

  £101 per day

  31 December 1992

  County Councillor C. Lewis, JP

  £101 per day

  31 December 1991

  Mrs. M. A. Mason, JP

  £101 per day

  31 December 1992

  C. J. Noott

  £101 per day

  31 December 1992

  J. R. Pritchard, JP

  £101 per day

  31 December 1992

  Mrs. K. M. Provis, JP, BSc

  £101 per day

  31 December 1992

  Mr. E. M. Richards

  £101 per day

  31 December 1992

  Mrs. D. E. H. Roberts

  £101 per day

  31 December 1991

  Mrs. I. C. Williams

  £101 per day

  31 December 1992

  H. H. Roberts

  £101 per day

  31 December 1992

DEFENCE

  Atomic Weapons Establishment (Contract Labour)
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the possession of a criminal record automatically bars an applicant for contract labour at Atomic Weapons Establishment Aldermaston.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  No

  Atomic Tests (Christmas Island)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what new medical evidence he has received regarding the connection between the atomic tests on Christmas Island and subsequent cancer and cancer-related disease.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Ministry of Defence will pay appropriate compensation whenever the Crown's legal liability is established. There is, however, no firm evidence to show that any ill-health suffered by those who attended the tests was caused by their participation. This is supported by the last report on the subject by the National Radiological Protection Board—which continues to accumulate data and will produce a further report.

  Pensions
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the difference in pension payments for the ranks of(a) major, (b) commander and (c) group captain between those who retired (i) just before the Prices and Incomes Act affected the calculations, (ii) those whose pension calculations were affected and (iii) those who retired after it had been repealed; and what would be the total cost of ending the anomaly.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Maximum rates of retired pay which can currently be received by officers who retired in particular months immediately before, during, and immediately after the period of pay restraint policy operative from 1976 to 1978 are as follows:
  283

  Retired pay (£)

  Major

  Commander

  Group Captain

  Month of retirement

  Original award

  Current rate

  Original award

  Current rate

  Original award

  Current rate

  March 1976

  2,957

  13,358

  3,617

  16,339

  4,380

  19,786

  April 1976

  3,108

  11,156

  3,768

  13,525

  4,380

  15,721

  April 1977

  3,210

  10,039

  3,870

  12,104

  4,481

  14,015

  April 1978

  4,220

  11,545

  5,091

  13,927

  6,062

  16,584

  Original awards were calculated, and have subsequently been increased, in accordance with the normal regulations of the scheme. There are no alternative rates of award from which the cost requested could be calculated.

  Trident
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the maximum number of nuclear warheads the United Kingdom's Trident missiles will be capable of carrying;

  (2) what potential exists for the number of warheads on the United Kingdom's Trident missiles to be increased during their operational lifespan.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The actual number of warheads which will be carried by the D5 missile in United Kingdom service, and the maximum number that could be, is classified information. The Government have, however, made it clear that each United Kingdom Trident submarine will carry no more than 128 warheads.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has on the maximum number of nuclear warheads that the United States Trident D5 missiles are capable of carrying.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Warhead numbers on the United States' Trident missiles are a matter for the United States Government. In their joint summit statement of December 1987, however, the United States and Soviet Governments confirmed the assumption that the United States Trident II (DS) missile would be deployed with eight warheads.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what payments have already been made by Her Majesty's Government to the United States Government towards the research and development costs of the warhead for the United Kingdom's Trident missiles; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how much the United Kingdom is paying the United States Government towards the research and development costs of the warhead for the United Kingdom's Trident missiles; if this is a fixed amount; and how the payments are made.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The United Kingdom has developed its own warhead for use with the Trident missile system. It is not in the national interest to reveal research and development costs of such projects.

  Polaris
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's assessment as to the effectiveness of the Polaris nuclear deterrent for the remainder of its operational life.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We remain satisfied with the continuing credibility and effectiveness of the Polaris strategic deterrent.

  Tactical Air-to-Surface Missiles
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the answer,Official Report, 13 November, column 615, what are the implications for the United Kingdom's decision on procuring a TASM of President Bush's decision to cancel the SRAM-T programme.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  We are continuing to consider a number of possible options for the replacement of our WE177 free-fall bombs. No decision has yet been taken.

  Short-range Attack Missiles
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultations took place between his Department and the United States Government concerning President Bush's decision to cancel the SRAM-T programme.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  This issue was covered in the consultation between our two Governments which preceded President Bush's nuclear initiative of 27 September.

  Anti-ballistic Missiles
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the answer,Official Report, 13 November, column 614, what is his policy towards the negotiated deployment of strategic defences within the terms of the ABM treaty; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have nothing to add to the answer I gave the hon. Gentleman on 13 November.

  Soviet Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration he has given to providing assistance to the International Atomic Energy Agency to assist in monitoring the destruction of Soviet tactical nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We are considering with our NATO allies a range of nuclear issues arising from political developments in the Soviet Union. There has been no initiative to provide assistance to the International Atomic Energy Agency, whose activities are, in any case, restricted to the field of civil nuclear energy.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to match the offer made by the United States Government to the leadership of the former states of the Soviet Union to purchase redundant nuclear warheads for safekeeping.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We are considering with our NATO allies a range of nuclear issues arising from political developments in the Soviet Union. No decisions have been reached.
  285
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what information and material assistance he has provided to his Soviet counterpart(a) to ensure the physical security of Soviet nuclear weapons and (b) to help them destroy nuclear weapons;

  (2) what discussions he has had with his Soviet counterpart regarding the physical security and command and control arrangements for Soviet tactical nuclear weapons;

  (3) what information he has received from the Ukraine, Byelorussia, and Kazakhstan regarding the physical security and command and control arrangements for nuclear weapons in these areas.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We and our allies have made clear on many occasions to the authorities in the Soviet Union and republics both our concern about these matters, and our willingness to provide assistance and advice where necessary and practicable.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is his assessment of the current physical security and command and control arrangements for(a) Soviet intercontinental ballistic missiles, (b) Soviet strategic bomber forces, and (c) Soviet sea-launched ballistic missiles;

  (2) what is his assessment of the security and control arrangements for Soviet nuclear weapons manufacturing technology.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We believe that effective procedures exist for central control of all strategic nuclear forces and nuclear weapons manufacturing facilities. and for their protection. Nevertheless we are conscious of potential problems which may be caused by the break-up of the Soviet Union.

  Transport Helicopters
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number and type of transport helicopters deployed with the RAF for each year since 1980.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  This information is not readily available in the form requested. The number and types of transport helicopter deployed by the RAF has not, however, changed significantly since the introduction of the Chinook into RAF service in the early 1980s and thus the numbers are broadly in line with those I gave in my answer on 12 December 1991,Official Report, column 546.

  Parachute Regiments
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his oral statement of 10 December,Official Report, columns 743–744, on the recruiting level of 15 Parachute Regiment, what are the recruiting levels of the other two parachute regiments.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I will write to the hon. Member. Housing

  Housing
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 12 December,Official Report, column 546, on housing, whether he will place in the Library a copy of the letter which the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces sent to Lady Anson; and if he will place in the Library copies of
  286
  all the letters he has received from the Association of District Councils, the Association of County Councils and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities on the subject of housing for ex-service personnel.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have arranged for a copy of my noble Friend's letter to be placed in the Library of the House, together with a copy of Lady Anson's letter of 16 August. No other correspondence has been received from the Association of District Councils, the Association of County Councils or the Association of Metropolitan Authorities.

  Vehicles (Review)
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what factors have been considered as part of his review of armoured personnel carrier and heavy armoured combat vehicle numbers.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  All relevant factors are being considered as part of the review of armoured personnel carrier and heavy armoured combat vehicle numbers.

  Regiments (Recruitment)
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will change his policy on the release of information on the recruiting levels of individual regiments.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Information on the recruiting levels of individual regiments is not available centrally and could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Nuclear Warheads
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what capability the Atomic Weapons Establishment has to dismantle nuclear warheads and nuclear delivery systems.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), on 21 October 1991,Official Report, column 453.

  Science and Peace Conference
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department was represented at the international congress of scientists and engineers on challenges of science and peace in a rapidly changing environment held in Berlin on 29 November to 1 December; and what is his policy towards the attendance at conferences of officials in his Department.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Ministers and officials attend conferences when they are relevant, and the timings and dates are convenient. No Defence Minister attended the conference in question; nor did any official attend on their behalf.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pension Age
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many women go on working one year, two years, three years, four years and five years after reaching pension age.
  287
  Miss Widdecombe
  Activity rates for women in the five years after pension age are set out in the table. These figures are based on sample estimates from the labour force survey and are subject to greater sampling variability than are estimates for broader age groupings.

  Great Britian—1990

  Age

  Per cent.

  60

  29

  61

  27

  62

  22

  63

  20

  64

  15

  Note: The figures represent numbers of women in employment or unemployed, on the internationally agreed ILO definition, expressed as percentage of the population of women of each age.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the cost of(a) reducing the pension age by one year to 64, (i) as gross cost, (ii) what the savings would be in terms of income support and community charge and housing benefit and (iii) net cost, (b) what the same figures would be for a reduction of two years to 63, (c) three years to 62, (d) four years to 61 and (e) five years to 60; and by what amount national insurance contribution would have to go up to meet in full such changes.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The discussion paper published yesterday includes the costs of a range of options for equalisation of state pension age.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will initiate a survey into whether skill shortages would be likely to occur if pension age for men was lowered by one year, two years, three years, four years or five years.

  Miss Widdecombe
  We have no plans to initiate such a survey.

  Pension Funds
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what action he proposes to take to prevent employers diverting their employees' pension fund moneys either to parent companies or to other corporate interests;

  (2) what plans he has to ensure that occupational fund assets are retained for the exclusive benefit of its members and pensioners.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Safeguards already exist in trust law to protect the interests of members of occupational pension schemes. Trustees have a duty to act, at all times, in the interests of all the beneficiaries of the scheme in accordance with the trust deed. Additional safeguards are in place for schemes that are used for contracting out of SERPS.

  This Government have already brought into force a provision which restricts an employer's ability to receive funds from a related pension scheme unless the scheme already increases pensions in payment at least in line with prices up to a maximum of 5 per cent.

  In addition we will bring forward, early next year, regulations to restrict to 5 per cent. the level of a schemes self investment in a sponsoring, associated or connected company.

  Pensions
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will increase the level of retirement pension to 33 per cent. of national average earnings for a single person and 50 per cent. of average earnings for married couples; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  We have no plans to do so. If the basic state pension had been increased this April in the way suggested by the hon. Member, the extra cost to the national insurance fund would be £25 billion this financial year which would imply an increase of £33 per week in the total contribution for a person on average male earnings and the employer.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards increases in the state retirement pension.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Government are committed to ensuring that state pensions are increased in line with prices thus ensuring a secure foundation in retirement. Further, we have created an economic environment in which pensioners' overall net incomes have increased by 34 per cent. in real terms between 1979 and 1988.

  Occupational Pensions
  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he proposes to bring into force regulations requiring employers to make good deficiencies upon the winding up of occupational pension schemes.

  Miss Widdecombe
  This provision in the Social Security Act 1990 was closely linked to the provision for limited price indexation on which we have delayed implementation in the light of the uncertainties arising from the Barber judgment. In the light of the Maastricht protocol on Barber, we are considering whether and when the necessary regulations should now be introduced.

  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he has taken to ascertain whether the Occupational Pension Board has fulfilled its duty to ensure that the resources in the pension funds of the companies of which the late Robert Maxwell was a director were and are sufficient to provide guaranteed minimum pensions for beneficiaries who had contracted out of SERPS.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Occupational Pension Board relies on certificates signed by actuaries to satisfy itself that the resources of an occupational pension scheme used for contracting out of SERPS are sufficient to meet the guaranteed minimum pension liability to its members. Certificates are submitted to the board every three and a half years.

  Additionally, in the case of self-administered schemes, an annual statement—signed by the scheme administrator, auditor or trustee—is required concerning the audit of scheme accounts, the receipt of contributions, and any self-investment or concentration of investment.

  I understand from the board that the documentation required in respect of the eleven pension schemes in the "Maxwell Group" was received and is in order. I also understand from the board that none of the certificates and statements gives any indication that there was anything wrong with the schemes at the relevant time.

  Damages for Injuries
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the 1990–91 income arising from the provisions of the Social Security Act 1989 for full recovery of state benefits from tort damages for injuries and the administrative costs involved; how many recipients were required to repay in full the state benefits they received; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of benefits is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Appeal Tribunals (Remuneration)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what remuneration will be paid to chairpersons and other members of social security and disability appeal tribunals from April 1992.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The fee payable to social security tribunal chairmen from April 1992 will be £115 per half-day session. Social security tribunal members are not paid a fee.

  The fee payable to disability appeal tribunal chairmen from April 1992 will be £115 per half-day session. There will be two rates payable to disability tribunal members: the lay members will be paid £53 per half-day session; the fee for the medical member—in practice a GP—will be in excess of this, but has not yet been fixed.

  Disability Working Allowance
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether, and in what circumstances, a person entitled to family credit will be allowed to claim disability working allowance instead; what benefits to which family credit is a passport will not be similarly available to persons receiving disability working allowance; and what will be the highest marginal tax rate, including loss of benefits, to which persons receiving disability working allowance will be exposed(a) in April 1992 and (b) after the introduction of council tax benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  A person is disqualified from claiming disability working allowance—DWA—if he, or any member of his household, has a current award of family credit. If he wishes to claim disability working allowance instead he will be able to make an advance claim during the period when he would normally be able to renew his family credit award so that there will be no break in payment.

  Family credit is a passport to free national health service prescriptions and to help with other NHS charges. People who get DWA will be able to apply for help with NHS charges through the NHS low income scheme.

  DWA, like family credit, will be assessed on the basis of net income so that people will gain something from each extra pound they earn. However, some people will be subject to marginal deduction rates of 96 per cent. from April 1992 and 97 per cent. after the introduction of council tax benefit.

  Vibration White Finger
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the rates of gratuity awards, in terms of gratuity per percentage disablement from 1 per cent. to 290
  15 per cent. for those awarded, in each of the past three years, in respect of a disablement allowance for vibration white finger.

  Mr. Scott
  I understand from Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, that the information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list those areas where the cold weather payments have been authorised currently, the number of areas where no such payments have been authorised; and the estimated percentage of pensioners in all who will be receiving the payments arising from the above.

  Mr. Scott
  By 18 December cold weather payments had been triggered by 26 of the 63 weather stations. Areas covered by 18 of the weather stations have already been authorised for payment. The remaining eight areas will he authorised for payment this weekend, 21 December 1991. The relevant weather stations are in the table. Information relating to the percentage of pensioners who will he receiving a payment in the areas which have triggered is not available.

  Cold weather payments

  Weather stations

  Period

  Bedford RAE

  5 December 1991 to 11 December 1991

  Birmingham AP

  5 December 1991 to 11 December 1991

  Boscombe Down

  6 December 1991 to 12 December 1991

  Brise Norton

  6 December 1991 to 12 December 1991

  Cilynydd

  8 December 1991 to 14 December 19911

  Coltishall

  7 December 1991 to 13 December 19911

  Coningsby

  6 December 1991 to 12 December 1991

  Cwmbargoed

  7 December 1991 to 13 December 19911

  Dumfries/Drungans

  5 December 1991 to 11 December 1991

  Easthampstead

  6 December 1991 to 12 December 1991

  Eskdalemuir

  3 December 1991 to 9 December 1991

  Finningley

  5 December 1991 to 11 December 1991

  Gatwick AP

  6 December 1991 to 12 December 1991

  Heathrow AP

  8 December 1991 to 14 December 19911

  Honington

  6 December 1991 to 12 December 1991

  Leeds WC

  7 December 1991 to 13 December 1991

  Leeming

  5 December 1991 to 11 December 1991

  Lyneham

  6 December 1991 to 12 December 1991

  Marham

  6 December 1991 to 12 December 1991

  Shawbury

  5 December 1991 to 11 December 1991

  Stansted

  6 December 1991 to 12 December 1991

  Waddington

  7 December 1991 to 13 December 19911

  Watnall

  6 December 1991 to 12 December 1991

  Wattisham

  8 December 1991 to 14 December 19911

  Wyton

  6 December 1991 to 12 December 1991

  Yeovilton

  8 December 1991 to 14 December 19911

  1 To be authorised weekend of 21 December 1991.

  Kidney Dialysis Patients
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any plans to introduce a dietary allowance for social security claimants who are kidney dialysis patients and have to have a special diet.

  Miss Widdecombe
  We have no plans to do so. I am advised that the dietary regime which kidney dialysis patients may be advised to follow need not result in any additional costs.

  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any plans to introduce an
  291
  additional heating allowance for social security claimants who undergo kidney dialysis at home and have to keep their houses at a constant temperature.

  Miss Widdecombe
  People who undergo kidney dialysis at home are able to qualify for attendance allowance under special rules. This is currently worth at least £27·80 a week. In addition, attendance allowance attracts the disability, or higher pensioner, premium in income support, housing benefit and community charge benefit and is normally disregarded in the calculation of those benefits. We have no plans to introduce any further allowances for this group.

  Concessionary Coal
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the circumstances under which payment in lieu of concessionary coal can be disregarded when claiming community charge benefit; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 18 December.

  Income Support (Mortgage Interest)
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any plans to make payments of income support in respect of mortgage interest payable direct to the lender.

  Mr. Newton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement I made to the House earlier today.

  Mr. R. Long
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he is able to inform Mr. R. Long of Buochli, 6373 Ennetburgen, Switzerland of his decision as to Mr. Long's national insurance liability during the period April 1986 to December 1987.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 18 November 1991]: We have concluded discussions on the interpretation of the regulations governing Mr. Long's case and have written to both Mr. Long and his former employer to inform them of the outcome. We are now awaiting their response. Provided that both Mr. Long and his former employer accept the interpretation and that agreement by the Swiss authorities is obtained, the Secretary of State will then be able to give his decision.

  Number of crimes and offences recorded by the police and percentage change 1979–90, Scotland

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  Total crimes and offences

  673,955

  724,671

  744,725

  762,483

  799,568

  809,451

  Total crimes

  346,680

  364,587

  408,204

  435,081

  448,260

  474,914

  Group 1 Non-sexual crimes of violence

  10,025

  11,090

  12,161

  12,085

  13,023

  13,700

  Group 2 Crimes of indecency

  4,673

  5,244

  4,794

  4,996

  5,474

  5,710

  Group 3 Crimes of dishonesty

  269,193

  279,793

  320,003

  340,070

  342,452

  359,196

  Group 4 Fireraising, vandalism etc

  56.138

  60.121

  61,725

  66,013

  73,060

  79,054

  Group 5 Other crimes

  6,651

  8,339

  9,521

  11,917

  14,251

  17,254

  Total offences

  327,275

  360,084

  336,521

  327,402

  351,308

  334,537

  Group 6 Miscellaneous offences

  123,319

  123,171

  118,214

  115,384

  114,807

  114,911

  Group 7 Motor vehicle offences

  203,956

  236,913

  218,307

  212,018

  236,501

  219,626

SCOTLAND

  Council Tax
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary fo State for Scotland what council tax bills would be in 1991–92 for each band in each district and island council area for(a) households of average size and (b) two-person households.

  Mr. Lang
  The average bills for households of a given size will depend on the number of adults in the households. Illustrative figures on bills for households of one, or two or more adults, under the proposed council tax were issued by the Government on 23 April.

  Police Numbers
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the latest establishment figures for uniformed police in each police authority; and if he will give actual staffing figures.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is set out in the table:

  Authorised police establishment and number of officers in post as at 30 September 1991

  Establishment

  1Number in post

  Central Scotland Police

  643

  624

  Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary

  384

  357

  Fife Constabulary

  780

  758

  Grampian Police

  1,178

  1,140

  Lothian and Borders Police

  2,487

  2,418

  Northern Constabulary

  654

  635

  Strathclyde Police

  6,954

  6,712

  Tayside Police

  1,057

  1,016

  1 The above figures exclude officers on secondment to other forces, central service, and so on.

  Crime
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide a table on a comparable basis to his answer in the Official Report, 9 December, columns 344–46, with information on crime rates in Scotland since 1979.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is given in the table.
  293

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Total crimes and offences

  800,380

  822,370

  858,228

  855,601

  902,031

  959,063

  Total crimes

  461,970

  463,837

  481,230

  469,986

  493,385

  535,864

  Group 1 Non-sexual crimes of violence

  15,090

  15,705

  18,350

  17,871

  18,374

  18,234

  Group 2 Crimes of indecency

  5,741

  5,354

  5,266

  5,057

  5,742

  6,034

  Group 3 Crimes of dishonesty

  342,349

  342,522

  356,527

  344,509

  355,525

  385,152

  Group 4 Fireraising, vandalism etc

  79,545

  78,891

  76,444

  73,518

  79,062

  86,457

  Group 5 Other crimes

  19,245

  21,365

  24,643

  29,031

  34,682

  39,987

  Total offences

  338,410

  358,533

  376,998

  385,615

  408,646

  423,199

  Group 6 Miscellaneous offences

  118,098

  120,446

  127,306

  124,878

  124,892

  126,960

  Group 7 Motor vehicle offences

  220,312

  238,087

  249,692

  260,737

  283,754

  296,239

  Pencentage change

  1979–90

  Total crimes and offences

  42

  Total crimes

  55

  Group 1 Non-sexual crimes of violence

  82

  Group 2 Crimes of indecency

  29

  Group 3 Crimes of dishonesty

  43

  Group 4 Fireraising, vandalism etc.

  54

  Group 5 Other crimes

  501

  Total offences

  29

  Group 6 Miscellaneous offences

  3

  Group 7 Motor vehicle offences

  45

  Notes:

  1. Data for 1979 have been regrouped on the basis of the current Scottish Office Home and Health Department classification of crimes and offences which was revised in 1980.

  2. Prior to 1980, the return included crimes and offences reported to the Procurator Fiscal by agencies other than the police in which a prosecution was taken. Since 1980, these cases have been excluded. In 1982, there were about 6,400 such cases in Scotland, of a total of 762,483 crimes and offences.

  3. Most of the increase in crimes in Group 5 is in recorded cases of re-offending while on bail which may in part be explained by changes in recording practice.

  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of(a) total crimes and (b) violent crimes in (i) each police force area and (ii) across all of Scotland in 1979 and 1990, and the percentage increase in each authority area.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is set out in the table. Figures for numbers of violent crimes recorded in 1979 provided on 27 March 1991,Official Report, columns 440–41, have been found to be in error, underestimating the amount of violent crime recorded in 1979. The following table contains revised figures for the number of violent crimes recorded in 1979.

  Number of crimes1, crimes and offences2 and violent crimes3 recorded in Scotland by police force area in 1979 and 1990 and the percentage change

  Police Force Area

  1979

  1990

  Percentage change 1979–90

  Central

  Crimes

  13,844

  22,957

  66

  Crimes and offences

  28,398

  46,078

  62

  Violent crimes

  1,5384

  3,277

  113

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Crimes

  4,835

  8,096

  67

  Crimes and offences

  17,934

  21,308

  19

  Violent crimes

  4744

  1,179

  149

  294

  Police Force Area

  1979

  1990

  Percentage change 1979–90

  Fife

  Crimes

  14,257

  30,706

  115

  Crimes and offences

  31,779

  55,142

  74

  Violent crimes

  l,8014

  3,063

  70

  Grampian

  Crimes

  22,821

  37,070

  62

  Crimes and offences

  50,604

  82,071

  62

  Violent crimes

  3,5724

  5,537

  55

  Lothian and Borders

  Crimes

  62,502

  87,548

  40

  Crimes and offences

  116,828

  152,445

  30

  Violent crimes

  5,8054

  8,765

  51

  Northern

  Crimes

  8,711

  13,132

  51

  Crimes and offences

  27,104

  35,467

  31

  Violent crimes

  1,4654

  2,042

  39

  Strathclyde

  Crimes

  195,485

  293,655

  50

  Crimes and offences

  351,269

  487,575

  39

  Violent crimes

  23,6334

  31,536

  33

  Tayside

  Crimes

  24,225

  42,700

  76

  Crimes and offences

  50,039

  78,977

  58

  Violent crimes

  2,4604

  3,923

  59

  Scotland

  Crimes

  346,680

  535,864

  55

  Crimes and offences

  673,955

  959,063

  42

  Violent crimes

  40,748

  59,322

  46

  Notes:

  1 Comprises groups 1–5 of the Scottish Office Home and Health Department (SOHHD) classification of crimes and offences.

  2 Comprises groups 1–7 of the SOHHD classification of crimes and offences, ie all crimes and offences.

  3 Comprises group 1 (non-sexual crimes of violence), the sexual assault category from group 2 (crimes of indecency) and the petty assault category from group 6 (miscellaneous offences) of the SOHHD classification of crimes and offences.

  4 Revised.

  Details of the SOHHD classification are given in the SOHHD statistical bulletin "Recorded crime in Scotland 1990", a copy of which is in the library.

  Degrees
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the criteria he will apply in granting degree awarding powers to Scottish higher education institutions beyond the present universities and polytechnics.
  295
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. Friend hopes to make an announcement shortly.

  Rents-to-Mortgages Scheme
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the way in which rents to mortgages was marketed to the initial group of eligible tenants and then to local authority tenants.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The pilot rents-tomortgages scheme became available to eligible tenants of Scottish Homes and the new town development corporations in Scotland on 30 October 1989. Scottish Homes produced an explanatory leaflet which was distributed to each of its eligible tenants. Supplies of the leaflet were also made available to new town development corporations.

  The pilot scheme was extended to local authority tenants in Scotland on 1 April 1991 and was publicised by a campaign on television, in the national and local press and on radio. This was necessary because of the difficulty of contacting local authority tenants directly. An explanatory leaflet was also produced, and around 20,000 inquiries were received. The television advertising campaign was repeated in October. All eligible tenants interested in the scheme are offered detailed counselling and advice about the scheme and about the consequences of becoming a home owner.

  Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to publish the results of research into consumer satisfaction with services following the introduction of compulsory competitive tendering.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  My right hon. Friend has today published the report on market research, conducted in nine Scottish local authorities by the MVA Consultancy, into consumer satisfaction with refuse collection and street cleaning services both before and after the introduction of competitive tendering for those services. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  The report shows little change in consumer satisfaction. Where change has occurred it has generally been for the better. The results of the research support the Government's view that competitive tendering can bring benefits without an unacceptable reduction in service standards. They provide no comfort to those who have claimed that saving from competitive tendering have been secured at the expense of quality of service.

  Farm Woodland Premium
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to prevent the postponement of planned tree planting on farms pending the introduction of the farm woodland premium scheme on 1 April 1992.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced on 19 November 1991 in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) (Official Report, columns 135–36) that a successor to the farm woodland scheme—to be called the farm woodland premium scheme—will be introduced on 1 April 1992. In
  296
  the meantime, applications to enter the existing scheme may be lodged for an extended period up to and including 31 March 1992.

  We are conscious that the proposals for the new scheme, which have recently been circulated for consultation, may encourage farmers to consider postponing their planting plans for the present season. In order to avoid a hiatus of this kind pending parliamentary agreement to a revised statutory instrument for the farm woodland premium scheme, we have decided that any planting approved under the current farm woodland scheme which is undertaken on or after 1 October 1991 will be eligible for the full planting grants under the Forestry Commission's woodland grant scheme, including payment of the better land supplement where appropriate. In all other respects the existing rules of the farm woodland scheme, including the rates of annual payments, will continue to apply.

  Any higher grants to be paid under these interim arrangements will be met by the Forestry Commission from existing resources.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the quality of service performance indicators adopted by each of his Department's executive agencies since their establishment; and separately identify those quality of service performance indicators already operative prior to agency status.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 17 December 1991]: The framework documents for my three agencies set out the following key performance measures:

  Registers of Scotland
  turn round times in respect of the Land and Sasine Registers
  unit costs for the primary products of the Land and Sasine Registers
  backlog arrears comparisons in the Land and Sasine Registers
  evidence of customer satisfaction, eg error rates attributable to the Agency and indemnity claims
  progress on extending the Land Register to the whole of Scotland
  income/expenditure comparisons.

  Historic Scotland
  number of ancient monuments newly scheduled
  number of completed units of the resurvey of listed buildings
  number of general Historic Building Repair grant cases in payment
  conservation backlog on monuments in care
  value for money savings in maintenance of monuments in care
  number of visitors to monuments in care where an admission charge is made
  total income
  surplus on commercial activities
  exchequer contribution to Historic Scotland's work.

  Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency
  aerial surveillance—per cent. of hours flown on task1 cost per aircraft sighting
  marine surveillance—number of boardings at sea marine surveillance-cost per boarding
  Sea Fisheries Inspectorate—cost per £1 million of fish landed
  prosecutions—proportion of cases reported for prosecution within required timescales
  number of cases where court proceedings are taken as percentage of offences report for prosecution.
  297
  Performance measures operative prior to agency status were: for the Registers of Scotland, turn round times, backlog arrears and indemnity claims; for Historic Scotland, increases in visitor numbers, income targets and numbers of historic buildings repair grants; and for the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency, numbers of boardings at sea.

  1"Time on task" is the time that the aircraft spends looking for fishing vessels. It excludes transit time between airports and fishing grounds and flights for crew training, aircraft testing, and so on.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those new facilities for staff, including nurseries and health care schemes, which have been introduced in each of his Department's executive agencies since their establishment.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 17 December 1991]None.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much was spent on events and publicity surrounding the launch of each of his Department's executive agencies; and whether the cost was born by the parent Department or the new agency.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 17 December 1991]: The information is as follows:

  Costs borne by

  Agency

  Parent Department

  £

  £

  Registers of Scotland

  8,000

  —

  Historic Scotland

  2,700

  300

  Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency

  300

  340

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the first degree obtained by the chief executive of each of his Department's executive agencies; and from which university or polytechnic it was awarded.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 17 December 1991]: The holding of a degree is not mandatory for the post of chief executive of any of the three agencies for which I am responsible. As the information requested is personal to the individual concerned, it is not appropriate to divulge it.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether a group bonus scheme is in operation in each of his Department's executive agencies.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 17 December 1991]: No.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many staff were in post on the date that each of his Department's executive agencies were established; and how many staff are in post now in each case.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 17 December 1991]: The information is as follows:

  Staff in post

  At Launch1

  1 December 1991

  Registers of Scotland

  997

  1,302

  Historic Scotland

  610·5

  627

  Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency

  196·5

  218·5

  1 The Registers of Scotland was launched as an agency on 1 April 1990.The two other agencies were launched on 1 April 1991.

  298
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the last annual report for each of his Department's executive agencies was published; and when the next one is due.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 17 December 1991]: The first annual report for the Registers of Scotland was published on 23 July 1991 and placed in the Library. Historic Scotland and the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency became agencies on 1 April 1991 and have not therefore published annual reports as yet. In the case of each of the agencies, the next annual report will be published as soon as possible after the end of the 1991–92 financial year.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the post, grade and maximum salary payable, including preformance-related elements, in each case where appointments from the private sector have been made to his Department's executive agencies at grade 7 or above, since their establishment.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 17 December 1991]: One such appointment has been made, at grade 7. The remuneration is within the relevant civil service pay scale for the grade. It would not be appropriate to identify the specific post.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the maximum salary payable to the chief executive of each of his Department's executive agencies, including performance-related element, and the length of time of the chief executive's contract in each case.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 17 December 1991]: The information is as follows:

  Registers of Scotland: as for a Grade 4 civil servant; 5 year contract from 6 June 1990;

  Historic Scotland: as for a Grade 3 civil servant; open contract; it is intended that the post will be filled by open competition in due course;

  Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency: as for a Grade 5 civil servant; appointment for 3 years from 1 April 1991.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the new forms of alternative working patterns introduced into each of his Department's executive agencies since their establishment; and provide a break down by grade of the numbers of staff taking up each new working pattern for each new agency.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 17 December 1991]: None.

  Foresterhill Hospital
  Mr. Stephen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) whether the Foresterhill hospital trust will purchase or lease land and property which is to be part of the trust but is currently owned by Aberdeen university;

  (2) whether compensation will be paid to Aberdeen university for land and property allocated to, or to be used by, the Foresterhill trust, but owned by the university.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 16 December 1991]: The greater part of the property to be transferred to the Foresterhill national health service trust is currently held in joint title in the names of the Secretary of State and the university of Aberdeen. It is intended that the Secretary of State's interest in such property would transfer to the trust. I see no reason why the present arrangements between the Foresterhill group of hospitals and Aberdeen university

  299
  over use of facilities on the site should change. It is not envisaged that a Foresterhill national health service trust would require property, the title to which was solely in the name of the university of Aberdeen. Consequently no issue of compensation appears to arise in relation to such property.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Moate
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next expects to meet his EC colleagues to discuss reform of the common agricultural policy.

  Mr. Gummer
  At the next meeting of the Agriculture Council on 27–28 January.

  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much the common agricultural policy has cost the British Exchequer during the past five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The information is as follows. In addition, however, the Exchequer supports CAP spending elsewhere in the Community through our net contribution to the EC budget.

  United Kingdom Public Expenditure under the CAP1

  £ million

  1987–88

  1,611

  1988–89

  1,363

  1989–90

  1,230

  1990–91

  1,848

  1991–92

  2,000

  1 United Kingdom expenditure under the CAP covers market support and structural aid schemes.

  Biscuit, Cake, Chocolate and Confectionery Alliance
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next expects to meet the president of the Biscuit, Cake, Chocolate and Confectionery Alliance to discuss problems concerning this sector of the food industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  I am always ready to meet the alliance on any current point of concern.

  MacSharry Proposals
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the National Farmers Union to discuss the MacSharry proposals for the reform of the common agricultural policy.

  Mr. Gummer
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay).

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will report on progress with the MacSharry common agricultural policy reform plans.

  Mr. Gummer
  I refer to the reply I gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmoreland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) on 13 December 1991, at column 595.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many representations he has received this year about animal welfare; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Department continues to receive a very large number of representations on animal welfare.

  The Government attach great importance to this issue and will continue to press for the high standards in this country to be adopted throughout the European Community.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to improve animal welfare throughout the EC.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government will continue to press for the Community to set the highest welfare standards, in line with the declaration which has been agreed at Maastricht, following a United Kingdom initiative, on the need for Community legislation to take full account of animal welfare.

  Food Labelling
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on food labelling.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Food Advisory Committee's report of its review of food labelling legislation and practices recommends a number of further improvements in important areas of food labelling to which the Government have already responded positively.

  I shall shortly be considering the results of extensive consultation with all interested parties on the Committee's recommendations, along with any further recommendations which the Committee may wish to make as a result of that consultation, before taking any further action.

  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many times he has met consumer representatives during 1991 to discuss food labelling.

  Mr. Maclean
  I meet the consumer panel and representatives of consumer organisations on a very regular basis to discuss matters of interest, including food labelling.

  I have taken the opportunity at these meetings to keep consumer organisations informed of progress on the Food Advisory Committee's review of food labelling, the report of which was published in April this year.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what fresh steps he is taking to make the information on the labels of food and food products(a) clearer, (b) simpler and (c) more relevant.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Food Advisory Committee's report of its review of food labelling legislation and practices, published in April this year, recommends a number of improvements in important areas of existing food labelling requirements, including the presentation of statutory labelling information, to which the Government has already responded positively.

  I shall shortly be considering the results of extensive consultation with all interested parties on the Committee's

  301
  recommendations, along with any further recomrnendations which the Committee may wish to make as a result of that consultation, before making any final decisions and taking further action.

  Agriculture Expenditure
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current level of public expenditure on agriculture; and what the comparable figure was for 1990.

  Mr. Curry
  Public expenditure under the common agricultural policy and on national grants and subsidies for the 1991–92 financial year is forecast at £2,086 million. The comparable figure for 1990–91 was £1,910 million.

  Farm Subsidies
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the progress towards reaching agreement on farm subsidies over the next five years.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Government aim to secure, through reform of the common agricultural policy and through

  1988

  Horse based activities1

  Golf Courses

  Game cover for commercial shoots

  Sports Ground

  Other recreational facilities

  Other uses under non agricultural use option

  Number of agreements

  Land area hectares

  Number of agreements

  Land area hectares

  Number of agreements

  Land area hectares

  Number of agreements

  Land area hectares

  Number of agreements

  Land area hectares

  Number of agreements

  Land area hectares

  Avon

  8

  73

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  6

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Bedfordshire

  5

  22

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Berkshire

  6

  146

  —

  —

  1

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  Buckinghamshire

  14

  157

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  112

  Cambridgeshire

  8

  117

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  16

  Cheshire

  7

  64

  1

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  29

  Cleveland

  1

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cornwall

  5

  53

  1

  9

  1

  11

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cumbria

  2

  10

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Derbyshire

  1

  10

  2

  56

  —

  —

  1

  16

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Devonshire

  4

  37

  —

  —

  1

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dorset

  1

  12

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  13

  1

  23

  Durham

  6

  99

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Essex

  16

  93

  2

  95

  —

  —

  1

  2

  —

  —

  2

  2

  Gloucestershire

  8

  51

  2

  15

  1

  10

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Greater London

  2

  39

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  6

  —

  —

  1

  10

  Greater Manchester

  3

  25

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hampshire

  6

  62

  —

  —

  1

  22

  1

  13

  —

  —

  1

  17

  Hereford/Worcestershire

  5

  23

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hertfordshire

  4

  24

  1

  53

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Humberside

  2

  19

  3

  49

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  45

  Kent

  14

  137

  1

  7

  2

  6

  1

  20

  —

  —

  1

  41

  Leicestershire

  6

  32

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lincolnshire

  2

  71

  1

  147

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Merseyside

  3

  19

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  —

  —

  1

  25

  Norfolk

  6

  30

  1

  53

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Northamptonshire

  4

  30

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Northumberland

  3

  12

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  2

  12

  1

  40

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  8

  Oxfordshire

  12

  80

  I

  44

  —

  —

  2

  4

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Shropshire

  3

  30

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  41

  Somerset

  7

  30

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3

  Staffordshire

  4

  35

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  20

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Suffolk

  13

  125

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  13

  —

  —

  1

  2—

  Surrey

  2

  5

  —

  —

  1

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3

  East Sussex

  2

  26

  —

  —

  2

  6

  —

  —

  1

  8

  —

  —

  West Sussex

  11

  157

  1

  14

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  12

  Warwickshire

  11

  78

  2

  73

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  9

  Wiltshire

  6

  59

  1

  12

  1

  3

  —

  —

  1

  12

  —

  —

  302
  agreement in the GATT Uruguay round negotiations, lower levels of agricultural support both within the European Community and worldwide.

  Set-aside Scheme
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations on set-aside arrangements he has received over the last month.

  Mr. Gummer
  I have received a number of representations on various aspects of set-aside over the last month.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farmers have received payment under the set-aside scheme, for each year since 1988, in each county in England for(a) horse based activities, (b) golf courses, (c) game cover for commercial shoots, (d) sports grounds, (e) other recreational facilities and (f) other; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 12 December 1991]: The following tables list all agreements under the nonagricultural use option of the set-aside scheme for 1988, 1989 and 1990, the three years for which payments have been made under the scheme.
  303

  Horse based activities1

  Golf Courses

  Game cover for commercial shoots

  Sports Ground

  Other recreational facilities

  Other uses under non agricultural use option

  Number of agreements

  Land area hectares

  Number of agreements

  Land area hectares

  Number of agreements

  Land area hectares

  Number of agreements

  Land area hectares

  Number of agreements

  Land area hectares

  Number of agreements

  Land area hectares

  North Yorkshire

  5

  62

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  27

  West Yorkshire

  2

  22

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total (1988)

  232

  2,193

  21

  671

  13

  72

  13

  107

  5

  35

  26

  424

  1 Livery stables, riding schools, stud farms, hay for horses, grazing for horses, horse rides.

  2 Less than 1 hectare.

  Note: Total may differ due to rounding

  1989

  Horse based activities1

  Golf Courses

  Game cover for commercial shoots

  Sports Ground

  Other recreational facilities

  Other uses under non agricultural use option

  Number of agreements

  Land area hectares

  Number of agreements

  Land area hectares

  Number of agreements

  Land area hectares

  Number of agreements

  Land area hectares

  Number of agreements

  Land area hectares

  Number of agreements

  Land area hectares

  Avon

  8

  77

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bedfordshire

  8

  86

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  —

  —

  Berkshire

  7

  244

  —

  —

  1

  4

  —

  —

  1

  16

  —

  —

  Buckinghamshire

  16

  164

  1

  65

  1

  4

  3

  31

  —

  —

  1

  4

  Cambridgeshire

  9

  165

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  6

  —

  —

  2

  19

  Cheshire

  7

  79

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cornwall

  4

  29

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  4

  —

  —

  Derbyshire

  6

  63

  —

  —

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Devonshire

  13

  74

  1

  48

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dorset

  6

  68

  1

  63

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Durham

  1

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Essex

  16

  83

  1

  54

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  12

  Gloucestershire

  14

  251

  —

  —

  1

  3

  1

  22

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Greater London

  1

  26

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Greater Manchester

  2

  32

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hampshire

  17

  163

  —

  —

  2

  28

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  6

  Hereford/Worcestershire

  7

  98

  2

  100

  1

  11

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  3

  Hertfordshire

  11

  95

  1

  46

  1

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  19

  Humberside

  2

  20

  2

  76

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  47

  Isle of Wight

  2

  19

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  4

  1

  4

  —

  —

  Kent

  14

  123

  1

  50

  3

  21

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lancashire

  —

  —

  1

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Leicestershire

  8

  144

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  2

  Lincolnshire

  4

  49

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Merseyside

  4

  56

  —

  —

  2

  7

  1

  3

  —

  —

  1

  4

  Norfolk

  8

  81

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  Northamptonshire

  5

  78

  2

  84

  —

  —

  1

  3

  —

  —

  2

  17

  Northumberland

  6

  105

  —

  —

  1

  43

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  8

  Nottinghamshire

  2

  28

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  8

  2

  5

  Oxfordshire

  18

  181

  2

  121

  1

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  15

  Shropshire

  5

  89

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  24

  Somerset

  4

  43

  2

  55

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  4

  —

  —

  Staffordshire

  5

  35

  1

  63

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  19

  Suffolk

  10

  165

  1

  32

  —

  —

  3

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Surrey

  9

  111

  1

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  East Sussex

  6

  46

  —

  —

  1

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  44

  West Sussex

  8

  83

  2

  61

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Tyne and Wear

  3

  48

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Warwickshire

  4

  37

  2

  55

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  34

  Wiltshire

  10

  87

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Yorkshire

  11

  135

  1

  36

  2

  15

  —

  —

  1

  2

  1

  6

  South Yorkshire

  1

  8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Yorkshire

  2

  18

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total (1989)

  304

  3,590

  25

  1,019

  19

  153

  11

  76

  10

  43

  28

  290

  1 (Livery stables, riding schools, stud farms, hay for horses, grazing for horses, horse rides)

  2—less than 1 hectare.

  Note: Total may differ due to rounding
  304 305

  1990

  Horse based activities1

  Golf Courses

  Game cover for commercial shoots

  Sports Ground

  Other recreational facilities

  Other uses under non agricultural use option

  Number of agreements

  Land area hectares

  Number of agreements

  Land area hectares

  Number of agreements

  Land area hectares

  Number of agreements

  Land area hectares

  Number of agreements

  Land area hectares

  Number of agreements

  Land area hectares

  Avon

  3

  17

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bedfordshire

  5

  37

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Berkshire

  6

  108

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Buckinghamshire

  6

  133

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  37

  Cambridgeshire

  7

  34

  5

  270

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Cheshire

  1

  19

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cleveland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cornwall

  5

  36

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cumbria

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  26

  Derbyshire

  3

  36

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Devonshire

  2

  77

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dorset

  2

  34

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Durham

  3

  86

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Essex

  13

  131

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  Gloucestershire

  8

  38

  —

  —

  1

  7

  2

  44

  —

  —

  1

  9

  Greater London

  3

  46

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  8

  Greater Manchester

  5

  26

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hampshire

  6

  60

  —

  —

  1

  8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  I

  64

  Hereford/Worcestershire

  5

  41

  1

  50

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  —

  —

  Hertfordshire

  1

  10

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Humberside

  2

  9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  94

  Kent

  16

  222

  3

  133

  I

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  136

  Lancashire

  I

  26

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Leicestershire

  8

  67

  1

  66

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lincolnshire

  6

  76

  2

  92

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2—

  Merseyside

  2

  53

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Norfolk

  3

  25

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Northamptonshire

  5

  85

  1

  96

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  4

  13

  2

  104

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Oxfordshire

  12

  144

  2

  127

  —

  —

  1

  29

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Shropshire

  2

  4

  1

  31

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Somerset

  7

  141

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  6

  Staffordshire

  6

  49

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Suffolk

  10

  85

  1

  23

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  44

  Surrey

  5

  71

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  East Sussex

  7

  70

  2

  94

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  17

  West Sussex

  5

  42

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  15

  Tyne and Wear

  2

  25

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Warwickshire

  7

  67

  2

  124

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wiltshire

  11

  194

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  13

  —

  —

  1

  1

  North Yorkshire

  7

  67

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  167

  West Yorkshire

  1

  24

  1

  50

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total (1990)

  213

  2,528

  24

  1,259

  8

  29

  5

  87

  2

  3

  24

  627

  1 (Livery stables, riding schools, stud farms, hay for horses, grazing for horses, horse rides)

  2—less than 1 hectare

  Note: Total may differ due to rounding

  Fishing Boats (Decommissioning)
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps have been taken to introduce a decommissioning scheme for fishermen; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  My right hon. Friend has already made it clear that he is prepared to consider proposals for a decommissioning scheme, but only as part of a wider package including effort control. We are currently debating these ideas with the industry.

  Sheep Producers
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimates he has made of the likely effect on United Kingdom sheep producers of the MacSharry proposals to reform the common agricultural policy.
  306
  Mr. Gummer
  The proposed reform of the sheepmeat regime seriously discriminates against United Kingdom producers, many of them in the most difficult areas of the country. Reducing ewe premium headage limits would exclude up to 15 per cent. of our animals from the premium whereas only about 3 per cent. of the rest of the EC's ewes would be excluded.

  Farmers
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of farmers in 1980 to 1991.

  Mr. Curry
  The number of farmers, partners and directors in England in the years 1980 to 1991 as at the annual June census, including estimates for minor holdings, are shown in the table.
  307

  Farmers, partners and directors, England (including minor holdings)

  Year

  Thousands

  1980

  196·4

  1981

  193·9

  1982

  192·1

  1983

  189·8

  1984

  190·1

  1985

  187·8

  1986

  187·4

  1987

  185·5

  1988

  183·5

  1989

  182·4

  1990

  181·9

  1991

  1179·5

  1 Provisional.

  Bottled Mineral Water
  Mr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the adequacy for consumers of current regulations for the labelling of bottled mineral water; and whether he has raised this issue with his consumer panel.

  Mr. Gummer
  The labelling and marketing of natural mineral waters is harmonised in the EC by the natural mineral waters directive (80/777) and implemented in the UK by the Natural Mineral Waters Regulations 1985. The EC Commission is currently reviewing the operation of the directive and some time ago we passed to it comments on improvements in labelling. We expect the Commission to propose amendments to the directive. When these are received we will consult UK interests, including consumer organisations. I will at that time assess the need to consult the consumer panel as well; in the meantime it is always open for a member of the panel to raise any relevant issues with me.

  Salmonella
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the percentage of poultry consumed in the United Kingdom which has been imported for the latest available date; how many tests for the presence of salmonella were carried out and with what results; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  In 1990, imports of poultrymeat represented 12·4 per cent. of domestic use and is forecast at 12 per cent. for 1991.

  Information on the results from the bacteriological testing of imported poultrymeat is not held centrally.

  Fallen Animals
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what information he has on the number of reports received by local authorities and water companies about carcases of farm animals left by the roadside or in water courses for each year since 1986;

  (2) if he will list the number of (a) initiated and (b) successful prosecutions against those who deliberately leave carcases unburied or dump them under the (i) Control of Pollution Act 1974, (ii) Environmental Protection Act 1990 and (iii) Dogs Act 1906 in 1990 and 1991, respectively.

  Mr. Maclean
  This information is not available centrally.

  Knackers and Renderers
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any proposals to monitor the range of prices that different renderers charge knackers across the country.

  Mr. Maclean
  Although some information is obtained regularly by the Ministry on the broad movement of collection charges by renderers, I have no intention of setting up a formal monitoring system in relation to the financial arrangements between knackers and renderers.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list, in tonnes, the amount of waste arising from knackers' yards in each year since 1986.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information in the form requested is not available. However, it is estimated that the animal waste arising from knackers' yards accounts for between 5 per cent. and 10 per cent. of the material processed by the rendering industry. The rendering industry currently processes up to 1·75 million tonnes of animal waste a year.

  Illegal Catches
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many United Kingdom trawler captains have been successfully prosecuted during the last 12 months for landing illegal catches of fish at United Kingdom ports and harbours;

  (2) how many United Kingdom trawler captains have cases awaiting to be dealt with by the courts for landing illegal catches of fish at United Kingdom ports and harbours.

  Mr. Curry
  Ninety-one United Kingdom fishing skippers have been successfully prosecuted during 1991 for offences against fisheries legislation; 153 cases are waiting to be dealt with by the courts. Information on how many of these convictions and pending cases result from the landing of illegal catches is not readily available.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what precautions he is taking to prevent United Kingdom trawler fishermen from landing illegal catches at United Kingdom ports and harbours.

  Mr. Curry
  Enforcement of national and community fisheries legislation is carried out by the sea fisheries inspectorates of the Fisheries Departments in co-operation with patrol ships of the Royal Navy and the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency and surveillance aircraft. The United Kingdom control and inspection procedures are acknowledged to be among the best in the Community.

  Badgers
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to ensure that local badger groups and wildlife protection groups are notified in advance of any section 43 licences it may be proposed to issue within their area; if he will allow a period for representations to be made prior to such licences taking effect; and if he has yet finalised details of his licensing scheme.

  Mr. Maclean
  In considering an application for a licence to permit interference with a badger sett the licensing authorities will consult local interests as they consider appropriate.

  Horses
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to review the status of the horse as an agricultural animal; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have no current plans to do so.

  Fallen Animals
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the numbers and proportion of fallen stock disposed of by(a) knackering/rendering, (b) hunt kennels and (c) on farm burial for the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Maclean
  It is estimated that knackers and hunt kennels dispose of well in excess of 700,000 fallen animals each year. Figures for other means of disposal, such as burial on farm, licensed landfill sites or incineration are not known.

  Dioxins and Furans
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to publish his food surveillance report on dioxins and furans.

  Mr. Gummer
  I hope to be able to publish this report by the end of January.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Pensioners (Welfare)
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps are being considered to look after the welfare of pensioners during the winter months, particularly regarding financial support for adequate heating in their homes.

  Mr. Hanley
  Basic pensions, together with any income support which may be payable, are intended to cover pensioner's day-to-day living costs, including heating throughout the year. Income support includes special premiums, ranging from £13·75 to £26·20, to help with pensioners' extra needs. From April 1992 there will be, over and above the normal uprating provision, a special increase of £1 a week in premiums for single pensioners and £1·50 for pensioner couples who are disabled or over 80. The cold weather payments scheme has also been considerably improved. Payments of £6 will be paid automatically to eligible people as soon as a seven-day period of exceptionally cold weather is forecast by the Meteorological Office or actually occurs. The capital rule has also been abolished, making more people eligible.

  In addition to cash benefits, the Department of Health and Social Services seeks to provide elderly people with practical advice and information as part of its annual "Keep Warm, Keep Well" campaign. This aims to alert elderly people and their carers to the dangers of winter weather; encourage them to take simple steps to keep well; and provide them with information on services, such as insulation and draught-proofing schemes, and the availability of social security benefits.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will bring forward proposals to abolish the non-dependant deduction in relation to housing benefit cases.

  Mr. Hanley
  There are no plans to do so.

  Education Authorities (Duties)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which sections of legislation covering education in Northern Ireland contain provisions comparable to section 70 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Provisions comparable to section 70 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 are contained in article 101 of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, as substituted by article 158 of the Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989.

  Northern Ireland Block
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) further to his answer to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) of 9 December,Official Report, column 324, if he will now publish details of the programmes of expenditure which have been running ahead of plans in this financial year, and of those which have been behind forecast expenditures, showing in each case the subheadings and the sums involved; if he will show details of the capital works postponed and the maintenance works deferred until next year; and what is his estimate of the consequences for employment in the current and the next financial year;

  (2) further to his answer to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) on 9 December, Official Report, column 324, when the above target expenditures which have led him to postpone expenditure on maintenance works and capital works in Northern Ireland first became known to him.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Expenditure requirements are monitored by Departments from the start of the financial year. It was the balance between new demands and savings emerging in the third quarter which led to the decision to postpone some expenditure. The situation continues to evolve and final decisions on the adjustments required will be taken in the context of spring supplementary estimates. The details will be available in the revised estimates, which cover most areas of public expenditure. These will show the main changes proposed and will be laid before the House in February. The debate on the appropriation order will provide the opportunity for discussion.

  Information on individual projects affected is not centrally available but the delay in releasing new projects will be short-lived. The overall employment effects are also expected to be minimal—at most only a temporary change in the balance of activity between sectors—as the total volume of public expenditure is not being reduced.

  Criminal Injury and Damage
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what provision was made for(a) criminal injury, and (b) criminal damage in each financial

  311
  year since 1987–88; how much was actually expended in those years; and what projections he has made for the current financial year and the next two financial years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested is shown in the table:

  Criminal injuries

  Criminal damage

  £k

  £k

  1987–88

  Provision

  12,100

  17,855

  Expenditure

  12,925

  19,004

  1988–89

  Provision

  14,500

  19,600

  Expenditure

  14,968

  20,606

  1989–90

  Provision

  17,063

  21,592

  Expenditure

  16,450

  22,124

  1990–91

  Provision

  19,000

  23,396

  Expenditure

  19,548

  22,711

  1991–92

  Projection

  25,000

  33,500

  1992–93

  Projection

  25,235

  27,884

  1993–94

  Projection

  23,477

  22,406

  Note: Provision includes supplementary provision.

  Salmon
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information he has as to the incidence of farmed salmon escapees entering salmon rivers in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Hanley
  Northern Ireland salmon rivers are not regularly monitored for farmed salmon escapees. All the information available in shown in the table.

  River

  Number of Escapees

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Bush

  4

  0

  1

  2

  3

  Glenarm

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1159

  0

  Other Co. Antrim Rivers

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  10

  n/a

  Notes

  n/a—No monitoring undertaken.

  1 As a result of a special exercise undertaken following a known escape from a salmon farm.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what sums he has expended on research into the effect of farmed salmon escapes on the native stocks of salmon in Northern Ireland rivers in each of the last three financial years and the current year.

  Mr. Hanley
  The sums expended were as follows:

  £

  1988–89

  Nil

  1989–90

  Nil

  1990–91

  2,560

  1991–92

  14,844

  1 Up to 30 November 1991.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. McCrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will co-ordinate the activities of the Social Security Agency and the Housing Executive in order that they use their computerised systems to synchronise all transactions relating to housing benefit changes, benefit deductions, payment of rent from such deductions, and rent statements to tenants.

  Mr. Hanley
  Social security operational matters are the responsibility of Mr. Alex Wylie, chief executive of the Social Security Agency. He will write to the hon. Gentleman and copies of his reply will be placed in the Library and Public Information Office.

  Magharafelt Primary School
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) when he expects the perimeter fence at Magharafelt controlled primary school to be repaired;

  (2) how many mobile classrooms there are at Magharafelt controlled primary school; and when he expects them to be replaced by permanent buildings.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Any necessary repairs will be carried out by the north eastern education and library board as soon as possible. The school has two mobile classrooms. The north eastern education and library board has no immediate plans to replace them.

  Hospital (Coleraine)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in the last six months on the provision of the new hospital at Coleraine; what sums have been expended on that programme to date; and when he expects work to begin.

  Mr. Hanley
  I announced approval in principle for the new Causeway hospital on 13 September. A site has been identified at Lodge road, Coleraine and negotiations for its purchase are in hand. I hope to be able to announce the time scale for the construction in the near future.

  Fishing
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will, for as long a number of years as is possible at reasonable cost, publish a table to show for each river in the area covered by the Foyle Fisheries Commission the number of(a) salmon, (b) grilse and (c) sea trout taken by (i) anglers and (ii) by commercial fishermen showing the number of fish taken by nets and fishing engines in each river estuary and in Lough Foyle, by other coastal fishing stations and by drift nets.

  Mr. Hanley
  The tables set out the information which is available. Separate figures for salmon and grilse cannot be provide.
  313

  Anglers' catch returns

  Salmon and Grilse

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Camowen/Drumragh

  5

  17

  4

  4

  37

  14

  3

  13

  3

  2

  Culdaff

  1

  8

  —

  —

  2

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Dennett

  6

  6

  3

  3

  6

  2

  1

  —

  4

  15

  Derg

  32

  193

  11

  13

  103

  10

  3

  9

  5

  40

  Deele

  4

  7

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  Faughan

  420

  403

  273

  52

  564

  371

  89

  165

  370

  332

  Finn and Reelan

  248

  273

  339

  75

  309

  324

  77

  208

  170

  188

  Foyle

  14

  68

  15

  80

  7

  25

  14

  39

  20

  4

  Glenclly/Owenkillew

  27

  125

  10

  5

  64

  22

  12

  20

  22

  25

  Mourne/Strule

  183

  479

  89

  79

  496

  270

  82

  410

  299

  156

  Roe

  552

  519

  80

  53

  224

  119

  96

  77

  81

  119

  Others

  25

  27

  7

  15

  —

  14

  13

  16

  2

  45

  Totals

  1,517

  2,125

  831

  379

  1,814

  1,172

  390

  960

  977

  927

  Percentage submission of returns1

  12

  17

  7

  15

  10

  8

  4

  5

  6

  4

  Sea Trout

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Camowen/Drumragh

  4

  15

  2

  4

  40

  30

  —

  —

  —

  6

  Culdaff

  10

  19

  15

  27

  29

  22

  5

  —

  —

  4

  Dennett

  299

  165

  165

  152

  68

  39

  14

  17

  95

  220

  Derg

  73

  196

  5

  6

  121

  13

  11

  23

  5

  10

  Deele

  15

  22

  —

  —

  36

  11

  5

  16

  —

  8

  Faughan

  2,950

  2,188

  5,723

  1.425

  2,808

  1,864

  1,210

  1,003

  648

  660

  Finn and Reelan

  408

  337

  103

  209

  137

  245

  253

  135

  55

  138

  Foyle

  199

  224

  39

  188

  46

  42

  263

  175

  122

  9

  Glenelly/Owenkillew

  163

  319

  85

  84

  148

  79

  73

  25

  23

  38

  Mourne/Strule

  1,092

  644

  368

  254

  633

  271

  97

  364

  170

  63

  Roe

  1,687

  756

  195

  773

  772

  135

  207

  216

  166

  193

  Others

  521

  114

  57

  466

  —

  178

  218

  107

  128

  50

  Totals

  7,421

  4,999

  6,567

  3,588

  4,838

  2,929

  2,356

  2,081

  1,412

  1,399

  1 Percentage submission of returns

  12

  17

  7

  15

  10

  8

  4

  5

  6

  4

  1 Anglers in the Foyle Fisheries Commission area are required, as part of the licensing arrangements, to submit catch returns but do not always do so. Figures cannot be extrapolated to give catch returns for 100 per cent, submission of returns as, among others factors, anglers are more likely to make a return if they have caught fish.

  Commercial fishermen's catches

  Salmon and grilse

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Drift nets—Sea and Lough Foyle

  21,252

  37,165

  65,654

  18,299

  24,528

  32,280

  12,587

  17,321

  55,108

  33,850

  Draft nets—River Foyle

  10,296

  17,036

  14,237

  9,697

  12,921

  11,355

  4,883

  15,358

  30,612

  9,188

  River Roe

  1,485

  3,268

  1,244

  595

  1,145

  1,354

  551

  818

  478

  1,011

  Fixed engines—Coastal

  435

  943

  627

  78

  674

  282

  47

  79

  330

  371

  Londonderry fishery River Foyle

  1,313

  1,745

  1,490

  863

  1,253

  1,083

  415

  763

  —

  —

  Totals

  34,781

  60,157

  83,252

  29,532

  40,521

  46,354

  18,483

  34,339

  86,528

  44,420

  Sea trout

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Draft nets River Roe

  473

  352

  942

  846

  225

  279

  285

  259

  22

  62

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will for as long a number of years as is possible at reasonable cost, publish a table to show for each river in the area covered by the Fisheries Conservancy Board the number of(a) salmon, (b) grilse and (c) sea trout taken by (i) anglers and (ii) commercial fishermen, showing the number of fish taken by nets/fishing engines in each river estuary, fresh water lough or by coastal fishing stations and by drift nets.
  314
  Mr. Hanley
  The information is not available in the form requested. In the Fisheries Conservancy Board area anglers are not required to submit catch returns but records of some catches are submitted on a voluntary basis and these are set out in the table together with the commercial fisherman's returns. Separate figures are not available for salmon and grilse and figures for sea trout are available only in respect of commercial fishing.
  315

  Anglers' catch returns

  Salmon and grilse

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Lower River Bann

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2,530

  1,831

  983

  Bush River Private Stretch

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  170

  70

  47

  New Stretch2

  —

  —

  —

  14

  47

  93

  65

  74

  25

  35

  Town Stretch

  1

  145

  89

  41

  146

  201

  195

  108

  57

  114

  Leap Stretch

  1

  17

  30

  9

  119

  122

  108

  122

  105

  150

  Rest of FCB area except L Erne

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  757

  1,900

  1 Not available.

  2 Opened in 1984.

  Commercial Fishermen's returns

  Salmon and Grilse

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Tidal draft nets

  180

  215

  520

  549

  400

  27

  69

  114

  74

  12

  Tidal drift nets

  992

  1,041

  1,231

  662

  1,01

  479

  248

  675

  812

  252

  Fixed engines

  7,474

  13,773

  13,366

  12,607

  7,944

  11,382

  10,577

  12.968

  17,364

  9,950

  Total

  8,646

  15,029

  15,117

  13,818

  9,354

  11,888

  10,894

  13,757

  18,250

  10,214

  Sea Trout

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Tidal draft nets

  254

  231

  721

  757

  418

  263

  332

  162

  221

  138

  Tidal drift nets

  —

  —

  3

  —

  2

  1

  1

  2

  3

  —

  Fixed engines

  138

  102

  155

  189

  65

  142

  120

  120

  163

  101

  Total

  392

  333

  879

  946

  485

  406

  453

  288

  387

  239

  North Down (Economy)
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will take steps to regenerate the local economy in the North Down area.

  Mr. Needham
  The North Down area benefits from the many measures currently being undertaken by the Government and their agencies to promote economic development throughout Northern Ireland.

  Capital Expenditure
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list all capital projects in the areas for which he has responsibility, either directly or indirectly through the South Eastern education and library board, which have been postponed by the recently announced capital expenditure moratorium.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The following capital projects in the area of the South Eastern education and library board will be delayed by the moratorium:

  Extension to St. Colm's High School. Twinhrook, Dunmurry

  Extension to St. Colmcille's High School. Crossgar

  Minor works at Longstone Special School. Dundonald

  Site purchase at Ballymacross, Lisburn

  National Health Service Trusts
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what hospitals in the Province have applied for trust status.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Royal group of hospitals has applied for health and social services trust status and its application has been accepted. The trust will become fully operational as from 1 April 1993.

  Public Expenditure, Strangford
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which projects by the roads service of the Department of the Environment in the constituency of Strangford are now delayed due to the moratorium on public expenditure.

  Mr. Needham
  A number of maintenance schemes to a value of approximately £200,000 and the following minor works schemes have been delayed:

  A20 Saltwater Bridge, Kircubbin

  Moss Road. Millisle

  Manse Road/Sainttield Road Junction, Carryduff

  Killynure Road/Church Road Junction, Carryduff

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) which projects by the Northern Ireland fire authority in the constituency of Strangford are now delayed by the moratorium on public expenditure;

  (2) which projects, supported by the industrial development boards, in the constituency of Strangford are now delayed due to the moratorium on public expenditure;

  (3) which projects by the water service of the Department of the Environment in the constituency of Strangford are now delayed due to the moratorium on public expenditure.

  Mr. Needham
  None.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) which projects by the Department of Agriculture in the constituency of Strangford have been delayed as a result of the moratorium on public expenditure for capital projects;

  (2) which projects by the Northern Ireland Fishery Harbours authority have been delayed following the moratorium on public expenditure in capital projects.

  Mr. Hanley
  None.
  317
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) which projects by the police authority in the constituency of Strangford are now delayed by the moratorium on public expenditure;

  (2) which educational projects in the constituency of Strangford are now delayed due to the moratorium on public expenditure.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  None.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at what locations in the constituency of Strangford(a) the building of new homes and (b) improvement schemes to existing homes are delayed due to the moratorium on public expenditure; and how many homes are involved at each location.

  Mr. Needham
  The chief executive of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive has advised me that the pause in public spending in 1991–92 will have no affect on the building of new homes or improvement schemes to existing homes in the constituency of Strangford.

  Electricity Employees (Pensions)
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will be receiving a reply to his letter of 28 November regarding pension arrangements for employees of Northern Ireland Electricity.

  Mr. Needham
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 16 December.

  Undergraduate Statistics
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what arc the most recent figures available for the number of undergraduates(a) from Great Britain, (b) from the Republic of Ireland and (c) in total at (i) the University of Ulster and (ii) Queen's University of Belfast.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Provisional figures for full-time undergraduates enrolled for the current—1991–92—academic year are:

  Queen's University

  University of Ulster

  Great Britain

  241

  452

  Republic of Ireland

  455

  1,190

  Total enrolement

  7,990

  9,313

  Small Firms
  Sir David Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many schemes his Department runs to provide help or finance for small firms; and if he will list them.
  318
  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 18 December 1991]: Through the Local Enterprise Development Unit—LEDU—and the Training Employment Agency the Department of Economic Development runs or supports 38 schemes.

  These are:

  Training and Employment Agency Schemes

  Training

  Overseas Export Marketing Programme

  Export Development Programme

  Finance

  Success through Quality

  Quality Management Training

  Small Business Development Programme

  Enterprise Allowance Scheme

  New Enterprise Programme

  Graduate Enterprise Programme

  Entrepreneurial Arts Programme

  Manpower Training Scheme

  Innovation

  Development of Enterprise in Boston in Ireland

  Local Enterprise Development Unit Schemes

  Information, Counselling and Consultancy

  Advisory Business Consultancy Scheme

  Health Checks

  LEDU Workshops

  Technical and Marketing Appraisal Visits

  Business Information Services

  European Information Centre

  Small Firms Counsellors

  Mentor Programme

  Acumen Programme

  Finance

  Capital Grant

  Working Capital Grant

  Unsecured and Secured Loans

  Setting-Up Grant Leasing Grant

  Equity

  Employment Grant

  Rent Relief Grant

  Interest Relief Grant

  Buying Time Assistance

  Management Salary Grant

  Incentive Grants Enterprise Grants

  Marketing Development Grant

  Development Grant

  Property

  Local Enterprise Programme

  Property Development Scheme

  Innovation

  Strategic Programme for Innovation and Technology Transfer

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bristol.

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, before the commencement of business I take the opportunity to inform the House that, with the consent of Her Majesty the Queen, I am to attend a Conference of Commonwealth Speakers in Kingston, Jamaica, from Monday 6th January to Friday 10th January 1992. Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence for Thursday 9th January 1992.

US Patents: UK Share
11.6 a.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham Lord Holme of Cheltenham asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are aware that, although the number of United States patents granted to the United Kingdom has remained more or less constant over the past 25 years, the United Kingdom's share of all patents granted has fallen significantly compared to other nations; and what action they propose to take.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Reay): My Lords, patenting is a commercial matter. It is not for the Government to tell individuals and organisations whether and where they should patent their ideas.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, which perhaps illustrates the extent of the problem. I am sure that he is aware that the number of patents issued in the United States is normally used as an indicator of the level of innovation in various industrial economies. However, is he also aware that the percentage share of new patents issued to the United Kingdom has fallen over the period in question from 4.2 per cent. to 3.4 per cent.? Is he further aware that, although that is somewhat accounted for by a great increase in new Japanese patents, over the same period West Germany and France increased their share of new patents issued?
In the light of those facts, does the Minister believe that the 2.5 per cent. increase in real terms that the Government have allocated to the science budget in 1992–93 is anything like adequate? Does he agree that, in retrospect, the abolition of the near market funding under the SFI's scheme, set up by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, has proved to be a great mistake for our industrial competitiveness?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I agreed less with the noble Lord the more he proceeded. So far as concerns the statistics, I agree that patenting is an indicator of innovation. But it is certainly not the sole indicator. There are other indicators. For example, research and development in private firms funded by UK and overseas sources in this country grew by over one half in real terms between 1983 and 1989. However, I agree that patents are important. They can be a hallmark of the technical quality of products; they are important in the process of innovation. We therefore support the drive by the Patent Office to make British industry more aware of the services available to it.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the figures quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, reflect inadequate investment in research and development in the United Kingdom? That was highlighted in the excellent report of the committee of innovation published last year. Are the Government satisfied about the adequacy of funds being allocated to research and development so that our industry remains competitive?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I have already quoted the degree to which expenditure on research and development by firms increased over the past six years. I should add that the Government now spend about £3 billion on civil research and development. That is as high a share of national income as that spent by Japan. In regard to the science budget, spending has increased by 23 per cent. in real terms since 1979–80.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that the share of British patents in the United States is a genuine, real and primary indicator of the level of research in this country? Will he also accept that over the years the Government have slashed their own investment in research and development and have caused all five research councils to cut their budgets?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I have agreed that the Government believe that patents are important and that they can impress customers as regards the quality of products. A great deal of promotion is being undertaken by the Patent Office. The publicity unit of that office has for some years promoted the importance of protecting innovation through patents and the registration of trade marks. Patent Office expenditure on publicity was over £400,000 in 1989 and a budget of £1.67 million is planned for 1992.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, obviously the noble Lord does not have much taste for statistics. However, is he aware that in this country we spend half the amount per employee on research and development than is spent in the United States, and one third of the level spent in Germany? In my view, any complacency on the part of the Government is misplaced.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I gave the figures as regards what the Government have been spending in real terms and pointed out the increase that has occurred over the past few years.

Manufacturing: Employment Statistics
11.11 a.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many people were employed in manufacturing industry in each month this year for which figures are available.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, the number of employees in employment in manufacturing industries in Great Britain in January 1991 was 4.949 million and in September 1991 was 4.693 million. Figures for the intervening months are available if required.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. However, is he aware that his department's figures, issued on 14th November, show that in 1989–90 we lost 68,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector and that in 1990–91 (September) we lost 348,000 jobs in the industry? That is an increase of 500 per cent. All that has taken place during the stewardship of Mr. Major and Mr. Lamont. In view of those figures, can the Minister now tell the House that the situation is improving?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I would have to quote the names of many people who have been in charge since manufacturing jobs have declined. They have declined since 1966 on a straight basis and therefore I do not believe that anything can be attached to the two right honourable gentlemen whom the noble Lord mentioned. It is a fact that these jobs have been lost. One fact that I have previously stressed to the noble Lord is that many jobs in manufacturing have been reclassified into the service industry; for instance, catering and cleaning have been contracted out and they no longer count as manufacturing jobs.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the recent report issued by the Engineering Employers' Federation which states that something must be done to stimulate a sustainable recovery? Can he urge his honourable friend to give attention and consideration to the recommendations of the federation?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, yes, that is exactly what the Government seek to do. Preliminary estimates show that GDP grew in the third quarter. The latest figures for retail sales show a welcome rise. Although I confess that manufacturing output has fallen during the past three months, the performance of difference sectors is certain to vary as recovery gets under way. However, the most important point is that inflation has fallen from 10.9 per cent. last autumn to 4.3 per cent. now. Interest rates have fallen four-and-a-half points since entry to the ERM last October. That should ensure that growth accelerates during the coming months.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, if the Government were to re-introduce, perhaps for a period of two years, a 100 per cent.
1460
capital allowance for plant and machinery, there would be a welcome, non-inflationary boost to investment, to manufacturing and thus to jobs? If my noble friend does agree, will he discuss the possibility with his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, as my noble friend suggested, any form of taxation change is a matter for my right honourable friend. However, he should understand that the adjustments that were made in the Budgets during the 1980s which brought down the rate of corporation tax and adjusted the rates of capital allowances have done a great deal for industry. They have ensured that the right form of investment has been made.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Members on this side of the House thoroughly agree with the proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford? Will he undertake to discuss the matter seriously with his right honourable friend? Furthermore, do the Government still adhere to their policy of replacing jobs in industry with jobs in the service industry? For several years that is what noble Lords occupying the position of Minister for Trade and Industry in this House were saying; notably the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, who was in the Chamber yesterday but who is not in his place today. Is that still the policy of Her Majesty's Government?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition is in some way decrying jobs in the service industry. Certainly during the past 10 years more than 2 million jobs have been created in the service industry and those people have earned their living from it. That is some record. I understand the attraction that a 100 per cent. capital allowance would imply to industry. However, that would be an extraordinarily heavy burden on the Treasury and any Chancellor must look at the issue carefully. I am grateful to know that that is now the policy of the Labour Party.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, in view of what the Minister said about the service industry, perhaps I may be allowed to say that coming from Wales I value the service industry very much, including the tourist industry. Is the Minister aware that the service industry in no way matches jobs in industry as regards future employment in this country?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I believe that to be just a supposition because there is no doubt that during the past 10 years manufacturing industry has remained at just under 25 per cent. of GDP. When jobs move from one industry to another, while manufacturing industry has retained its place in GDP, I do not believe that one can say those jobs have been lost in vain.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the issues of employment and the manufacturing base raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dean, are a concern to all Members of your Lordships' House. However,

1461
when last month the House discussed the constructive Select Committee report on innovation in manufacturing there was a total absence of input from Members on the Back Benches opposite. Does my noble friend agree that their concern would be seen as greater if there were a more positive and a less negative input?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I would have to agree with a great deal that my noble friend has said. The House will be aware, as will noble Lords opposite, that in the United Kingdom manufacturing productivity growth in the 1980s was the highest of the major industrialised countries. It is good to see that that productivity growth has resumed in recent months.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, how can the noble Viscount justify or brush aside the decline in manufacturing output that has taken place during this year and over the past three months? Is he aware that under this Government's economic miracle British manufacturing capacity is being permanently disabled? It will take years to get it back on its feet again.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Lord suggests that manufacturing output has dropped. All I can say is that in the past five years it has risen by over 10 per cent. I believe that the noble Lord refers to when manufacturing output dropped under a Labour government. That is what he remembers. Since 1981 the United Kingdom's volume of world trade in manufacturing grew faster than that of France, Germany, Italy, the United States and Japan. I believe that that is a fine record.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, referring to the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, about the 100 per cent. capital allowance being written off, is it not true that investment in manufacturing industry does not necessarily create jobs in manufacturing industry? As an industrialist of many years' standing, I know that every single proposal—
Noble Lords: Question!
Baroness O'Cathain: I did ask: is it not true that investment does not necessarily create jobs in manufacturing industry. What happens is that companies invest in manufacturing industry so that they reduce the labour content or the costs of production in order that those companies become more competitive. But there is a spin off to service industries. Does the noble Viscount agree?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I have to agree with the noble Baroness. The introduction of computers and robots into manufacturing industry has decreased the number of jobs, but it is important that a service industry should provide jobs for people. I believe that I have demonstrated that it has done so.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, was it not a healthy sign for the engineering industry that Govan shipyard announced yesterday that against extreme competition it had acquired an important order? That will be a huge impetus for the whole shipbuilding industry in this country which has been in a parlous condition for many years.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I believe that that is a good indication of the competitiveness of British industry.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, in reply to my first Question, the Minister used a form of smokescreen by referring back to 1966. However, he produced no figures for any year that showed anything as devastating as the figures issued by his department for the past 12 months. Will he comment on what my noble friend on the Front Bench, Lady Turner, said about the report issued by the Engineering Employers' Federation? It stated that if matters do not change the industry will have lost a quarter of a million jobs. That is not reclassification into the service sector; it is jobs vital to the economy of the country. Those are the findings of all the Select Committees reporting to your Lordships' House. Will the Minister try to persuade the Government to take action to prevent that taking place?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I agree that the loss of jobs is important to those who become unemployed. I have said so on many occasions. Unemployment is devastating to the individuals and their families. However, we must make certain—as the employment service does—that opportunities are available for those who lose their jobs to seek and obtain others.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, I believe I have asked the Minister this before. Does he agree that there is a close relationship between the balance of payments deficit and the rundown of the manufacturing sector of our economy? We shall never get rid of the balance of payments deficit until we rebuild the manufacturing sector. That is because the manufacturing sector makes goods to sell abroad.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the most important point is that there has been a sharp fall in the manufacturing deficit this year. In other words, manufacturing industries have been much more productive. The Autumn Statement forecast a deficit of £3 billion in 1991 compared with a deficit of £11 billion in 1990. The car industry is a particular success story. In the first nine months of 1991 car exports increased 39 per cent. on the corresponding period last year.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, arising from the first Answer to my noble friend Lord Dean, will the Minister tell the House on what basis cleaning and catering, which were classed as manufacturing, have been reclassified?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, catering and cleaning used to be considered as manufacturing jobs if they were carried out in-house in a company such as Ford. If they are now contracted out to a service company, they are reclassified as service jobs.

The Northern Region: Unemployment
11.25 a.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to establish a northern development agency.
Lord Reay: My Lords, the Government have no plans at present to do so.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I am pleased to hear the words "at present". It is the first time we have heard that. Is the Minister aware that the northern region has had the highest rate of unemployment outside Northern Ireland since the keeping of such records began? As the Government regard the Welsh Development Agency and the Scottish Development Agency as highly successful—which indeed they are—will the Minister bear in mind that the northern region has a higher population than either of those countries? Is there, therefore, not a strong case for establishing a northern development agency in view of the continuing chronic unemployment in the area?
Lord Reay: My Lords, we believe that the creation of development agencies for the English regions would require significant legislative and administrative changes. There is no evidence that the result would be more cost-effective than the present arrangements.
We already have structures which work well in England. The services which are provided in Scotland and Wales by the respective development agencies are provided in the regions of England by the main economic departments and the English Industrial Estates Corporation.
Perhaps I may add that the reason why there should be development agencies in Scotland and Wales is that those countries both have a Secretary of State with responsibility for the country as a whole. In England, therefore, it is natural that regional policy should be carried out through government departments.
Lord Elliott of Morpeth: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the success of the development corporations in areas like the North East of England has done a great deal to re-establish employment and industrial advance? These, together with the financial aid which already exists to the northern region, helps it enormously to recover full manufacturing and industrial potential.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend. The Government are committed to an effective regional policy. The assisted areas are concentrated in Wales, Scotland and the North; 83 per cent. of the northern region, going by population, has assisted area status.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we object to the imbalance in the public money available per head for promotional purposes? As my noble friend said, the four northern counties have the highest unemployment; they have more industrial problems, more social problems and more
1464
environmental problems than any other part of the United Kingdom except Northern Ireland. However, there is a great disparity in government funding of promotional work between the northern region and Scotland and Wales. We are not saying that Scotland and Wales receive too much. They do not. But the northern region receives far too little and we object to that.
Lord Reay: My Lords, a very high proportion of regional expenditure goes to the North. For example, in 1989–90, of the £280 million spent, about £120 million was spent in the North East and £75 million in the North West. In addition, the North West received £157 million for expenditure on inner city programmes in that year and the North East £123 million. In total, the North East has received no less than £1.5 billion in regional industrial assistance since 1979. That is very substantial assistance indeed.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, in view of what my noble friend has just said and in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, has said, is it not extremely unfair and a false approach to the problem when the Isle of Wight, which has exactly the same problems as regards unemployment—I notice smiles on the faces of noble Lords opposite, but I expected to see that—as Wales, let alone the North, and has a lower GNP per head of population than those regions, is subjected to poor treatment by my noble friend's department? He and his predecessors have turned down all the efforts that have been made in the past on behalf of the Isle of Wight. Will he give fresh consideration to according assisted area status to the Isle of Wight?
Lord Reay: My Lords, my noble friend's question goes somewhat wide of the Question on the Order Paper. I am sure noble Lords opposite will, however, wish to digest my noble friend's comments.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his replies have been extremely interesting? First of all he said there were no plans at present to establish the agency we have been discussing. Will there be such plans in the future and will those plans appear in the Conservative Party manifesto before the next election? Is the Minister aware that he said Wales and Scotland have their own development agencies because they each have Secretaries of State? Can we expect a Secretary of State for the North?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the noble Lord may expect anything. However, I personally do not expect that a Secretary of State for the North will be appointed.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, will the Government consider asking the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, to pay another visit to the North East? At least when he last made a visit to that region he showed there was a need to do something for the North East and he achieved much more than the present Government have done. If the Government would only send the noble and learned Lord to the North East again, that would offer some encouragement to the citizens of the region.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I do not wish to detract from the achievements of my noble and learned friend. However, I have already pointed out that the present Government have done a great deal for the North East.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I hope the Minister will forgive me if I make a small correction in his reply. I am talking about the northern region while he talked about the North East. The North East excludes Cumbria and I assure the Minister that the people of Cumbria would take great exception to that. I confirm what my noble friend Lord Williams has said. The Minister's reply has confused the position between the existing system of regional aid for the northern region compared with the aid offered by the development agencies. We all welcome the fact that there are Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales, but that matter is not relevant to the case I am discussing. Is the Minister aware that the Northern Development Company was set up by the CBI, employers, trade unions and local authorities and is a magnificent example of self-help?
Lord Reay: My Lords, we are fully aware of the problems of Cumbria. In June this year we announced a special £16 million programme of support for the area. In addition my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced only this month that he had commissioned a study to examine the case for an enterprise zone to be established in the area. Therefore the area is not being excluded from aid.

Business
11.33 a.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on housing repossessions.

Carriage of Goods by Sea Bill [H.L.]
Lord Goff of Chieveley: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to replace the Bills of Lading Act 1855 with new provisions with respect to bills of lading and certain other shipping documents. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.— (Lord Goff of Chieveley.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Sunday Trading (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to increase the penalties for offences against Part IV of the Shops Act 1950. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.— (Viscount Brentford.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

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

Procedure of the House: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move, That the First Report from the Select Committee be agreed to.
Moved, That the First Report from the Select Committee be agreed to.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:

Procedure of the House: Select Committee

  CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  1. Difficulties arose in Session 1990–91 when Commons amendments were considered at short notice. Large numbers of amendments sometimes had to be taken on the Floor of the House before many Peers had had an opportunity to study them in detail or to consult the relevant House of Commons Hansard.

  2. The Committee acknowledges this problem. The current Companion guidance is that "when possible, reasonable notice should be given for the consideration of Commons amendments", and the availability and scale of relevant papers is an important consideration when future business is arranged. The House should bear this guidance in mind at all times.

  On Question, Motion agreed to.

Consolidated Fund Bill
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 10th December), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Local Government Bill [H.L.]
11.38 a.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Schedule 2 [The Local Government Commission for England]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 28, line 34, leave out ("and not more than fifteen").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to remove the ceiling on the number of commissioners who may be appointed to the new Local Government Commission. In Committee an

1467
amendment was tabled to increase the number of commissioners to a fixed ceiling. We spent some time considering the appropriate number and how many or how few commissioners could best do the job that was allotted to them.
It is not necessary to include the restriction that the Bill seeks to retain by writing the maximum number of commissioners on the face of the Bill. By now we all appreciate the complexity and the scale of the task to be undertaken by the new commission. We all appreciate the speed with which it must work consistent with it carrying out its job properly and achieving the right results. Speed is necessary because the results of that task will affect people's lives.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, said on 3rd December at col. 189 of the Official Report that the commission would,
"carry out a rolling programme of work".
He also commented:
"It is always difficult to reach a consensus with a larger number of people and we have deliberately chosen a manageable number in order to facilitate the commission's work".
I do not take issue with what the Minister said. We have all had experience of groups that are so large it is impossible for them to reach a decision. I remind the House, however, of the comment made by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, at col. 191 of the Official Report when he said:
"the commission will not be overstretched and we shall ensure that it carries out its work thoroughly".
We all hope that will be the case. Is it necessary to have a ceiling in the Bill? Is it not more appropriate—we have debated the scope of the work of the commission and that will be debated in another place—that those whom the Secretary of State appoints should take on board the comments that have been made as regards the scope of expertise that will be required? There will be an amendment on that matter later today. Would it not also be appropriate to allow the chairman of the commission to make his contribution to the way in which the commission will work? Its method of working must, to some extent, be dependent upon the number of people who are available to do the job.
Various options are available as to the arrangements which might be made. For once I consider that the number of members to be appointed would be a matter which would be suitable for ministerial decision, without the present restriction, because the Bill itself does not provide for a specific number but merely sets out a floor and a ceiling. I ask the House to consider whether it would be more appropriate to provide the greater leeway which the amendment suggests. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is worth emphasising how different this amendment is from the amendment which we moved at Committee stage. Noble Lords may recall that the earlier amendment sought to increase the size of the Local Government Commission from the range of five to 15 members to a range of 25 to 31 members. I still think that a commission in that range is necessary to achieve a
1468
speedy and effective conclusion of its duties. We shall debate that matter in more detail when we consider the timetable.
The proper size of the commission is a prerequisite of a proper timetable. Anyone who played any part in the reorganisation of local government in London in the 1960s and in the rest of the country in the 1970s will recall what an extraordinary amount of disruption was caused by those reorganisations. The difference between what happened then and what happens now can be compared to the limitations of a fixed Whip in the House of Commons, where they know that there will be a Division at 7 o'clock or at 10 o'clock, and the running Whip which we have in this House where Divisions can be called at any time. Noble Lords who, unlike me, have experience of both Houses have often said to me that the demands on this House are very much greater than in another place.
Similarly, if we consider what is likely to happen in local government, the uncertainty of not knowing whether the local authority which one serves as an officer or a councillor will exist in one, two, three or four years' time must be very great. One will not know what the timescale for capital projects, for example, should be. These provisions sow unnecessary uncertainty.
It is clear that we support the objectives of the Government in this part of the Bill. It has been clear from the outset that we agree with the proposal that there should not be a prescriptive form of local government in different parts of the country and that local people should have their say. The corollary must be that they have their say in a timetable of consideration which is manageable. That in turn means that the number of people who will carry out the work must be adequate to the task. I support the amendment.
Earl Howe: My Lords, as the noble Baroness reminded us, we discussed the size of the commission at Committee stage. We were grateful for the views which were offered in that debate by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, about the number of members of the commission in the light of his experience of previous local government reorganisations and for the points made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Seear. Despite the obvious sincerity of those views we are still not convinced that the number of members should be increased. I should like to explain briefly our reasons for that view.
I should stress that we do not underestimate the scale of the task which we are asking the commission to undertake and the resources it will need. We have said that we wish the commission to carry out a rolling programme of work, looking at the country area by area. It will be given a staff to help it do that. Against that background the number of commission members specified in Schedule 2 to the Bill—between five and 15—seems to us a perfectly adequate number given the way in which we have suggested that the reviews should be carried out.
We are also aware that Mr. Banham, the chairman designate, is reported to have said that he thinks that a commission of 15 people should be appointed. That view carries weight. I am sure that my right

1469
honourable friends the Secretary of State and the Home Secretary—who is also concerned with the appointments—will take into account the views of Mr. Banham about how many members the commission should have when they make appointments.
There is another practical consideration of which the noble Baroness reminded us, namely, the desirability of a consensus. It is always difficult to reach a consensus with a larger number of people and we have deliberately chosen a manageable number in order to facilitate the commission's work. That number should not be unwieldy. That is why we feel that there should be a ceiling on the number of commission members.
We have thought carefully about the matter, but for the reasons I have stated I do not think there is any need to remove the limit of 15 from the commission's membership. I ask the noble Baroness not to press the amendment.
11.45 a.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I should like to be able to thank the noble Earl for that reply with a greater degree of enthusiasm. With the amendment I am not asking that the number of members be increased in any way which would require the Secretary of State to take a decision that there should be more than 15. It would still be open to him to decide that there should be only five or six. I hoped that what I thought was an uncontentious amendment which might facilitate the workings of the commission might find more favour. I accept the point about the need to reach a consensus, but the more that is mentioned the more one begins to worry that there may be a problem about reaching a consensus. That argument can perhaps be made too often. Nor do I consider that a few more than 15 members would make the commission unwieldy.
All I can say is that I hope that I am not proved right when the decisions as to how the review should be organised are implemented. That will be a matter for the Secretary of State and the chairman of the commission. There is a limit to what we can prescribe and how much we would want to prescribe. If that is how the Government wish to proceed I can only hope that they are right, but I have placed on record that we tried to assist in the process. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 29, line 35, after ("State") insert ("of whom at least one shall be a person with expertise in or experience of the management of the National Health Service").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a probing amendment. I should be very happy if at the end of the debate the Government were able to say that the idea is interesting and there are good reasons why they should take account of the suggestion that at least one member of the Local Government Commission should have expertise or experience of the management of the National Health Service. I should understand if they then said that they did not believe that that should appear on the face of the Bill.
There are good reasons why the Government should take that suggestion into account. The first concerns boundaries. It is well known that in the National Health Service difficulties have occurred where health authority boundaries do not coincide with local authority boundaries because of the overlap of National Health Service responsibilities and the public health responsibilities of local authorities. There have been moves in various parts of the country to try to rationalise the situation and ensure that, subject to the overriding needs of the health service to have sensible catchment areas for hospitals, boundaries should as far as possible be coterminous. Therefore the health service has a positive contribution to make to the debate on boundaries in different parts of the country. That view could be provided by at least one person with such expertise.
The second point is that the National Health Service is very much a locally provided service in which the scale of operations and therefore the size of the organisations concerned is of critical importance to the success of the organisation. That is one of the major considerations that will be taken into account by the Local Government Commission when it considers the size of the new authorities that it will set up or recommend the Secretary of State to set up.
There is also a great deal of talk ranging from the "big is beautiful" of the 1960s to the talk of the "small is beautiful" of the 1980s and perhaps of the 1990s which, although often worthwhile, is sometimes a little inadequately founded on evidence. The health service has experience of what works and particularly of what does not work. The health service has been particularly prone to the "big is beautiful" fallacy over the past 20 or 30 years and perhaps a member of the Local Government Commission who contributed evidence on the lack of success of too large authorities might be particularly valuable. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, we have already made clear that we want the commission to have among its members both people who know about local government and those with other types of experience. We are aware of the important connections between the work of local government and health authorities. We certainly think that it is important for the commission to be fully briefed on these issues, but we do not think that a statutory requirement to appoint someone
"with expertise in or experience of the management of the National Health Service"
is the best way to achieve this. We believe that a better approach is to ensure that the commission is fully briefed on these important issues through the procedures for consultation.
As we have already said, we intend to issue the Local Government Commission with guidance about the procedures that it should follow in carrying out its reviews and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will direct it to have regard to that guidance under Clause 15. That procedural guidance will include a list of bodies which the Local Government Commission should consult when carrying out its reviews. We certainly intend the guidance to cover consultation with the relevant regional, district health

1471
authorities and family health services authorities. As we have already said, we shall issue a draft of the procedural guidance and invite views on it.
Where unitary authorities are set up there will be single-tier local authorities with which health authorities will need to liaise. There should also be better co-ordination within local government between social services and other related services, such as housing, once they are under one roof. We firmly believe that unitary authorities will be an improvement on the present arrangements.
Proper consultation with health authorities seems to us by far the best, most practical way to ensure that the commission fully appreciates the important interactions between local government and the health service. It would not be sensible to impose a statutory requirement that one of the members of the commission must have experience of the management of the National Health Service.
I have tried to be reassuring on this point which we all agree is an important one. I therefore I hope that, in the light of what I have said, the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, one aspect of the noble Earl's speech is certainly reassuring. He has gone back to the proper use of the English language and now refers to "having regard to guidance" rather than any of those ideas of "contravening guidance" which were floating around the Chamber earlier this week and a couple of weeks ago. We must therefore welcome the fact that the proper use of the English language has regained, at least for this part of the Bill, its currency in government thinking.
I am a little puzzled as to the main thrust of the noble Earl's argument. I do not see any conflict whatever between proper consultation with the National Health Service and the family health service around the country and having someone with particular knowledge of the National Health Service on the commission. One could well argue that having someone on the commission helps it to carry out proper consultation with the health service around the country, even if that person does not have experience, as he or she is bound not to, in every part of the country.
If I were setting up a commission of that kind and I knew that I would be discussing, consulting and negotiating with the health service around the country, I would want one of the members of my commission to be able to guide me on the relevance and the force of the arguments being used by the health service around the country when they came to the consultation process. I am glad to have the Government's reassurance that consultation will be a firm element in the work of the commission and, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 [Duty to conduct reviews and make recommendations]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 11, line 2, leave out ("If the Secretary of State so directs").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 65, I should like to speak also to the substantive amendment, Amendment No. 66.
To my mind, the timetable of the work of the Local Government Commission is the most important single aspect of its work. I referred to that a few minutes ago, but I want to reiterate how seriously we on these Benches view the threat of a rolling commission without a predetermined timetable and a predetermined end to its work.
The amendment is very much less prescriptive than amendments that we moved in Committee. It does not stipulate that any particular timetable should be laid down in statute, but that a timetable should be published by the Secretary of State after consultation with the local authority associations. In other words, it is up to the Secretary of State to determine a timetable as he thinks fit, consult on it, publish it and make that the public expression of the Government's intention about the process of the Local Government Commission's work.
Everyone agrees that the commission should complete its work as soon as possible. The Minister confirmed that point in her speech in Committee when she said that a prolonged period of uncertainty is not desirable. She said that the Government share the aim of arriving at the right answers and putting them into effect as quickly as possible. I am bound to say that their resistance to our helpful suggestions about the size of the commission ties at least one of their hands behind their back in achieving that, but the intention is nevertheless welcome.
We believe that a requirement on the Secretary of State to publish a timetable at the beginning would have a number of specific benefits. It would remove uncertainty and allow authorities whose areas are to be reviewed later to get on with the job without thinking that the commission might be upon us at any moment. It will mean that there will not be a continuous process of lobbying and politicking about local government boundaries throughout the country, throughout the lifetime of the commission because a series of priorities will be set for and by the commission. It means that the chairman and chief executive of the commission will find it easier to prepare their own internal manpower plans, their forecasts of expenditure and so on and that their work will be much more efficient.
I am reminded of the poem of C P Cavafy about the Barbarians in which the citizens of an Egyptian city are spending a great deal of time, knowing that the Barbarians are at the gate or about to arrive at the gate, rethinking their whole method of operation; in local government terms, rethinking why they are there and why they should be there. They are spending more time worrying about the Barbarians than they are about the survival of the city. At the very end, when they learn that the Barbarians are not coming after all, C P Cavafy ends the poem with the line:
"These people were after all some sort of a solution".
I should not like to think of local government throughout this country under the threat of

1473
reorganisation for an indefinite time over an indefinite number of years only to find that the threat had been a distraction rather than a solution. I beg to move.
12 noon
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly support the amendment. It does not seem to be asking for the moon or even a minor star. To give assurances to those concerned about the timetable and to eliminate as much uncertainty as possible, it is suggested that we put on the face of the Bill the arrangements that we have discussed and about which we have been given assurances in general terms.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we fully appreciate that many local authorities and indeed local people are eager to learn when the structure of local government in their area is to be reviewed. We recognise that the uncertainty which inevitably accompanies the prospect of change may be worrying. To use the Barbarian poem as an analogy, however, is dramatising that uncertainty just a little too much. It is also being a little negative about the whole exercise.
We believe that a new structure of unitary authorities based on the communities with which people identify is an opportunity for improved efficiency and stronger local government. These amendments seek to require the commission to carry out reviews according to a timetable published by the Secretary of State after consultation with the local authority associations and to remove the Secretary of State's power to direct the commission to carry out reviews.
The Government have made it clear that they intend the Local Government Commission to carry out a rolling programme of reviews of local government covering all the shire county areas in England. The Secretary of State will set a balanced and manageable programme of areas for the commission. A great many local authorities, organisations and individuals commented on priorities for the review in responding to our consultation paper on local government structure. We are still considering what the commission's programme should be and we shall take those comments into account in deciding the commission's programme.
We intend to announce the programme of areas for review when the Local Government Commission has been set up, which cannot be before Royal Assent. We shall need to ensure we do not commit the commission to a rigid timetable or programme which fails to take account of the different scale of problems in different areas and hence of the different time that may be needed to undertake each review. We shall certainly try to give local authorities as good an indication as possible of when the commission will consider their area.
We have already made it clear that we shall give special priority to Humberside where the Local Government Boundary Commission found a strong case for change. We shall announce other priorities in due course. Areas where there is a history of dissatisfaction with the existing structure must be high on the list.
1474
Having accepted the uncertainty point and having taken on board not only remarks made at this stage of the Bill but also at Committee stage and indeed all that has come back as a result of the consultation process, the programme, when announced, will have been produced with all those concerns in mind.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is a little like the section at the end of the Queen's Speech where Her Majesty says:
"Other measures will be laid before you".
It is not all that helpful for those who have to think about parliamentary timetables or public policy issues. It is good to learn that the Government intend to give as much notice as possible to individual authorities about the timetable and how it will affect them. It is also good to know that the Government are anxious to reduce uncertainty so far as possible
I listened carefully to what the Minister said about consultation and the timetable. This is not a matter that I shall press to a Division but I want to impress on the Government that they will have the earnest thanks of those who have to run local government during this very difficult period if they provide as much advance notice as possible of the timetable of the commission. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I fear that, failing acceptance of the points that we have made in what I should have thought was an entirely constructive and helpful way, the commission will have great difficulty securing the kind of co-operation with local authorities and people in local areas that would have been easier to achieve had it set out a programme and had it also had the full resources to do the job.
As I said, this is not a matter that I wish to press to a Division. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 66 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 11, line 15, after ("recommendations") insert ("and in accordance with the electoral system provided by section 17").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 87. It may look as though this is the introduction of a rather less conciliatory amendment than those we have so far discussed today. However, I put it to noble Lords that the amendment is entirely within the spirit of the debate on the Bill. We have talked at length and all sides of the House have expressed concern that the authorities formed as a result of the work of the commission should reflect the interests of the communities that are represented, that they should be fully representative and that they should be highly accountable.
Those are aims which above all can be achieved by using a system of proportional representation by single transferable vote, as proposed in the two amendments. Many different interests are reflected in local government. We have mentioned the need to ensure that local authorities do not become hung up on party political differences. A fair electoral system would ensure that the wide variety of interests to be represented are in fact represented. The particular attribute of a form of fair vote is that the power is

1475
given not to the political parties but to the voters themselves. That must be something that we all wish to see.
The day before the Christmas Recess is not the time for long discursions into the merits and demerits of different systems. Although it is tempting to set off on that route, I have deliberately restricted myself to three short points. However, a fair voting system would achieve the stability that we want to see, particularly following a period of structural change. It is very important that the new authorities are able to settle down and get on with their work without having hanging over them concerns about wild swings of votes which may lead to wild swings in policies. After all, the results of the system will be broader representation and a better balance among authorities.
There is a lot of talk about electoral reform leading to coalition government. That may or may not be good in national government, but perhaps in this context one should think of the balance that results. If no one party has the overall majority of councillors, parties will have to work together to achieve consensus on important policies. I suggest that local government will be the better for it. It is a situation that we have seen across the country. It is not to be feared; in fact, it is something to be aimed for. Our representatives at local level work together to achieve the best for their communities. That will also be effective —another word which crops up a great deal in the Bill. In moving the amendment I do not suggest any measure that is outside either the words or the spirit of the Bill but a method of ensuring that the proposals are implemented.
Finally—because one should not talk about a voting system without a swift reference to it—the system must be fair. That must be at the heart of the matter. However, I believe that that almost goes without saying. That is why I have spent a little longer on the other aspects. I beg to move.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I shall follow the instruction of my Front Bench and be brief. I shall not give a long disquisition on systems.
Since the amendment is put forward exclusively by these Benches, I wish to address both sides of the House. The Government will recall that one of the origins of the poll tax—the community charge—was an attempt to deal with unrepresentative minorities who found themselves in control of local authorities and then pursued policies that were out of touch with the wishes of the electorate. In some instances such controlling minorities took off into Cloud-cuckoo-land. I am sure that we remember the words of the Prime Minister at the time. That was one of the main motivations for the community charge. It has proved quite an expensive sledgehammer to crack that nut; but the nut is real. The Government's motivation in wanting to pursue ways of dealing with that was a proper one.
Two out of three of the noble Lords sitting on the Labour Front Bench are members of the commission chaired by Mr. Plant which is looking at electoral systems. An interesting conclusion which it has
1476
reached—I understand that its work is not yet finished—is that different electoral systems may be appropriate for different levels of government. Given the commitment of the Scottish Labour Party to proportional representation for a putative Scottish Parliament, does the same principle apply to local government to which my noble friend Lady Hamwee referred? That is, getting local communities more sensitively and accurately in touch with their elected representatives. I hope that both sides of the House will give the amendment more sympathetic consideration than is often the case with regard to amendments on proportional representation.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I hope that the Government will give short shrift to the amendment. What most irritates me about the reiteration of demands for proportional representation is that they are always preluded by the word "fair". I do not believe that it is a fair system. That is a matter for argument.
The question is, to whom is the system fair? Various systems are fair to different people. No doubt it would be fair to people representing a small minority interest which might otherwise not be represented. However, the people to whom we try to be fair in devising a system of local government are the citizens. The question is what is fair to them.
If the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was right in her glowing vision of the future, and one had a multi-party, multi-group, multi-interest council, working with the single, devoted intention of reaching a consensus which would satisfy every citizen, it indeed would be fair. But it is like Europe: it is one of those pies in the sky. However, the experience of countries that have proportional representation in local government—I believe that Belgium is a good example—shows that far from having this benign effect, it merely makes the communities more difficult to run and agreement on necessary policies harder to attain. On the last day before the Christmas Recess, let us have a truce on this stuff.
12.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in view of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, has pointed out that I have two colleagues on this Front Bench who are members of the Labour Party's commission on electoral systems, it is better that I respond in case they should be thought to be speaking on behalf of anyone or revealing the thoughts of the commission —of which I am sublimely unaware.
I was surprised that the noble Baroness put down the amendments. I thought it strange, when we have worked alongside each other for such a long time seeking to push for local choice in the way that local government is run, that she now seeks to prescribe on the face of the Bill a specific electoral system for all parts of the country in advance without knowing at this stage the size or responsibilities of the local authorities to be set up. It would be more appropriate for the electoral system to be considered at a time

1477
when we know the composition, responsibilities, functions, size and boundaries of local authorities rather than trying to impose it in advance.
It seems peculiar to put forward one single electoral system —the single transferable vote—and describe that as fair. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, has referred to the unfairness of comparable systems in other parts of Europe. We could bring the argument much closer home. There are many councils in this country which are run on a no single party majority basis. They are hung councils. In other words, they are precursors of the kind of council that the noble Baroness wishes to see if her amendments were carried. Let us consider the experience of those councils. Let us say that one has three different groups of different sizes. If two of them represented 40 per cent. of the votes each and one represented 20 per cent. of the votes, the 20 per cent, would obtain equal authority with the two 40 per cent. representations. In other words, power and responsibility do not go alongside the wishes of the electorate. Also in hung councils officers take control. That is the reality of the matter. That is why I believe that it would be inappropriate for us to approve the amendment.
I do not say that the Labour Party sets its face against different electoral systems in local government or, so far as I know, different electoral systems in different parts of the country. The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, referred to our plans for Scotland. However, it is entirely inappropriate to try to push such amendments into the Bill now.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I should not like it to be thought that the Labour Party was unanimous in rejecting the amendments. I support the amendments in so far as I have considered them. I do not agree with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, about fairness and unfairness. There are a number of countries with curious proportional representation systems which bumble along at least as well as do our arrangements. No one can say that our system produces good, sensible government, either local or national—that is regardless of which party is in power.
The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, may well be right in saying that the system proposed is not fair. However, if he reflected upon the matter for any length of time, he would agree that it is less unfair than most other systems. It is certainly less unfair than our first past the post system.
I recall some years ago having dealings with the London Borough of Islington. In 1968 or thereabouts it had 100 per cent. Labour representation. There was an election which overturned that totally. Suddenly it had 100 per cent. Conservative representation. That may be fair but it was certainly not sensible. There was no way in which one could possibly imagine that the citizens of Islington, or any other place, were 100 per cent. of one persuasion on one day and 100 per cent, of the other persuasion the next day. The first-past-the-post system has a great many defects.
Older noble Lords may have cast parliamentary votes in the past under the single transferable vote system, because they will recall that until 1950, I think it was, there was a number of seats in the other place
1478
whose electorates were the graduates of the various universities. I was an elector for the Scottish universities which at that time had three Members. London had two or three, the English universities had two or three, and so forth.
It was the first parliamentary vote I had ever cast. We used the single transferable vote. The decision was based on proportional representation. No one at that time thought that that was an inappropriate means of electing to the other place representatives of those highly sophisticated electorates comprising of the graduates of the British universities. The system has been tried. It undoubtedly has defects, but it is by no means as bleak and unfair as the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, seems to suggest. The amendment should be supported. It is a perfectly proper provision to put into the Bill.
Earl Howe: My Lords, it would be churlish of me not to congratulate the noble Baroness on introducing the subject of proportional representation the moment she sees an opportunity to do so. I somehow doubt that she expects us to be persuaded.
The Government have repeatedly affirmed that there are no plans to change the present electoral system at local elections, or for that matter, at national ones. We consider the simple majority system to be preferable because it is well understood by the electorate, provides close and direct representation between the elector and the elected representative, and contributes to stable government at local as well as at national level. That is one of the most important points.
Let us not overlook the decidedly minus points of proportional representation. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Beloff for pointing out what happens in the real world. I agreed with every word that he said. Any system of proportional representation often results in some form of coalition government, based upon a programme which the electorate has not had the opportunity to approve or disapprove.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way, but did I just detect an implication that the whole of the rest of the European Community was not the real world? That rather confirms what seems to be the Government's approach to it.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I was paying a compliment to my noble friend and saying that his interpretation of what occurs is the real world.
At a local level that result would mean a tendency for elections to be followed by negotiations between the political parties. The electorate would have no say in such negotiations and would be unable to influence the type of deals and compromises which will be necessary to achieve a workable solution. That relates to the point about local choice made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I also agree with him that the balance of power under PR is often held disproportionately by a minority of people.
Of course there is no perfect voting system, and the simple majority system has drawbacks—I am the first

1479
to acknowledge that—and can result in anomalies. The Government remain of the view, however, that it should be retained for local elections because it is more likely than alternative systems to produce local authorities which are directly accountable to the electorate and responsible to it for the policies which they pursue. We cannot accept the amendments. I hope that now we have debated the subject the noble Baroness will be content to leave it at that.
Lord Morris: My Lords, it is not my intention to prolong the discussion—
Noble Lords: Order! Order!
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, perhaps we can have the discussion later. I wish I was surprised at anything that has been said this morning. The one thing that I am surprised at is that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is surprised because we have discussed briefly whether this is a matter to be raised at this stage of the Bill.
I shall respond to a few of the points that have been made. I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, was in the Chamber late at night when I withdrew the amendment that I had tabled in Committee. At that point I used the argument, which I am sure noble Lords will understand I find irresistible, that in my local authority the current first-past-the-post system is grossly unfair to the Conservatives who currently have only four councillors against the Liberal Democrats 48, and to the Labour Party which has had no councillor elected since 1974.
To take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, it is not that the system is unfair to the political parties; it is unfair to the citizens. That is why the system is wrong. The Minister said that he hoped that I did not expect the Government to be persuaded. It is the knee-jerk reaction to the issue which is so disappointing. It brings out the worst in many politicians. They retreat to their corrals instead of considering the real issues and—I hope this does not sound pious for it comes from the heart—the interests of those whom they represent.
Apart from the honourable exception of the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, in the latter speeches there seems to have been a coalition between the Conservative Party and the Labour Party on this issue.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, no.
Baroness Seear: Buggins' turn!
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, indeed it is Buggins' turn as my noble friend Lady Seear says. That is what we have. It does not impress the electorate that local authorities, like the country, are run on a system of Buggins' turn, and I wish to take the opinion of the House.
12.28 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 67) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 38; Not-Contents, 114.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Airedale, L.

Hunt, L.

Aylestone, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Kennet, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Lytton, E.

Carver, L.

McNair, L.

Desai, L.

Mayhew, L.

Ezra, L.

Mulley, L.

Falkland, V.

Ogmore, L.

Foot, L.

Redesdale, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Grimond, L.

Rochester, L.

Hampton, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Hamwee, B. [Teller.]

Seear, B.

Hanworth, V.

Stedman, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hooson, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Hives, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Arran, E.

Hooper, B.

Astor, V.

Howe, E.

Auckland, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Balfour, E.

Ironside, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Beloff, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Blackstone, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Blatch, B.

Long, V.

Blyth, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Boardman, L.

Lyell, L.

Borthwick, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Marlesford, L.

Butterworth, L.

Melville, V.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Merrivale, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mersey, V.

Carter, L.

Mills, V.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Milverton, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Monkswell, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Morris, L.

Coleraine, L.

Mottistone, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Mountevans, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Munster, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Nelson, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Nicol, B.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Norrie, L.

Denham, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Digby, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Ellenborough, L.

Pender, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Fitt, L.

Quinton, L.

Flather, B.

Reay, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Romney, E.

Gallacher, L.

Roskill, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Geddes, L.

Selkirk, E.

Gisborough, L.

Shackleton, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Greenway, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gregson, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Halsbury, E.

Henley, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

1481

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Varley, L.

Teviot, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Vivian, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Waddington, L.

Trumpington, B.

White, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Ullswater, V.

Windlesham, L.

Underhill, L.

Wise, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
12.35 p.m.
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 11, line 34, leave out from beginning to ("regard") in line 36 and insert ("In recommending any structural boundary, or electoral change the Local Government Commission shall have").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have drawn the short straw this morning in moving this amendment which, has nothing to do with party politics and it may not have very much to do with tinsel either. The purpose of the amendment is to strengthen the functions of the Local Government Commission. It may be of assistance to noble Lords if I refer to the previous amendment to Clause 13 which I moved in Committee. In moving that amendment I made two points: first, that the structure must as a matter of course follow function when considering any new local unitary authority; secondly, I made the point that as the Bill stands much of the Local Government Commission's work could be arbitrarily circumscribed by ministerial direction. In reply the noble Earl seemed to imply that those matters were dealt with in the Bill. However, with respect to him, I am not entirely convinced that that is so.
I am concerned that as it now stands the Bill looks very much like a tool for central government to reconstruct those authorities with which they disagree. I move this amendment to ascertain whether that is the intention or whether that is inadvertently just the impression which seems to be given. However, my interest is in genuine attempts to produce better local government and not about circumscribing the work of the commission.
I must record that on two occasions I have written to the Minister about my misgivings and I still look forward to a reply. It is partly for that reason that I feel obliged to raise my views in open debate.
If the Bill goes through unamended, Ministers will hold all the cards, the terms of reference, the scope of the investigation and recommendation—
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. I have written a fairly detailed reply to him and I am quite disturbed to hear what he has just said. He should have received it by now. I am checking to see whether there has been any delay between my signing the letter and the noble Earl receiving it.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. During the month of December I have not received a letter from her. It may well be that it has been delayed in the post. I did not wish to imply that the Minister had been guilty of any discourtesy. I was
1482
merely recording as a matter of fact that I have sent two letters and I have not yet received a reply to either during the course of this month.
I was referring to the fact that Ministers will hold all the cards, including the terms of reference and the scope of investigation and recommendation that would be available to the Local Government Commission. I believe also that there is no guarantee that the Minister of the day will adopt those recommendations. Therefore, all those matters can be dealt with at ministerial level with impunity, without any further reference to Parliament.
There are many unresolved questions which have cropped up throughout our discussions on the Bill as to what functions a future unitary authority may perform. Reference has been made to education, strategic planning, police, national parks—I note that there is a later amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie—and so on. I cannot entirely accept that the matter is simply a question of bestowing all or part of those functions currently performed by districts or counties, as the case may be, on a single authority. Such a notion is quite fanciful. Local government is far more complex than that allows for.
If that is what the Government seek to achieve, I am somewhat against it. Public interest surely demands the complete and absolute integrity of the Local Government Commission in all its works, its dealings and its recommendations. It must not only work efficiently, but be seen to be working efficiently; otherwise local government reorganisation simply becomes window dressing for some other motive.
The amendment does two things. First, it attempts considerably to clarify the wording of the existing Bill. Secondly, it seeks to make an imperative out of something which at present is a somewhat wishy-washy discretion. We hope that its effects will go a small way towards strengthening the breadth of function and remit of the Local Government Commission and avoid its work—the specific point I have in mind—being artificially circumscribed. I beg to move.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I understand from discussion on the last amendment that I shall not be able to rise after the Minister speaks. I hoped to be able to speak later in order to attempt to rebut what was said by the Minister. Unfortunately, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, will have to do his best in that regard.
I see this issue in a rather simple way. It is a matter of drafting. I believe that this new draft assists the Government in their intentions. In the earlier consideration of the issue my noble friend Lord Howe said quite clearly that the Local Government Commission will look —he stated the negative but it means the same thing—at the functions of authorities in the areas under review. That is an integral part of its consideration of structure. In other words, the Government have totally taken on board the point that structure should flow from function and not the other way round.
My noble friend gave us all a considerable degree of comfort when he said that Clause 13(5) will require the

1483
commission —that makes it mandatory—to have regard to effective and convenient local government. The amendment says precisely that in 17 words as opposed to 31 and in one-and-a-half lines as opposed to three. I do not believe that it makes a substantive change.
In so far as the amendment worships at the altar of revoking clarity, I should have thought that the Government would accept the recommendation. Furthermore, as the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, pointed out—in my view somewhat cynically—it does not matter. Clause 17(1) makes it absolutely clear that it does not matter what the Local Government Commission recommends. It states:
"Where the Government Commission submit to the Secretary of State a report on a review together with its recommendations, he [The Secretary of State] may, if he thinks fit, by order give effect to all or any of the recommendations, with or without modifications".
That is absolutely clear.
The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, did not raise the point that the Secretary of State could do that without coming back to Parliament. With respect, that is not so. It must be done by order. It is quite clear in that subsection. Notwithstanding that point, it is important that my noble friend makes clear that Her Majesty's Government is not hiding under what appears to be a somewhat obfuscatory drafting. They are trying to suggest that there is a mandatory duty when in fact it is a discretionary duty dressed up as a mandatory duty. The clumsy wording of,
"shall be such as appear to the Local Government Commission desirable having regard to",
puts considerable doubt in my mind. The new drafting is an improvement.
12.45 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Morris, drew attention to an important point in reminding us of the provisions of Clause 17(1). He quite rightly says that the Secretary of State will need to seek the views of Parliament in effect by the implementation being by way of order. But that allows for the position that the Local Government Commission may make recommendations which the Secretary of State does not wish to pursue. Inevitably the way in which the clause is worded means that there will be the opportunity to disagree with the Secretary of State if he makes a recommendation. If he simply does not proceed to make a recommendation based on the work of the Local Government Commission, then that will be an end of it. I am grateful to the noble Earl and the noble Lord for raising the issue again.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the effect of the amendment will be to lay a duty on the commission to have regard to the terms of reference in recommending any structural, boundary or electoral change. This change would make no practical difference to the way in which the commission goes about its work. I can assure the noble Earl that the commission will be required to have regard to the matters specified in Clause 13(5) (a) and (b) in carrying out its reviews. The drafting of the Bill does not leave that in doubt.
1484
The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, uncharacteristically accused the Government of setting up the Local Government Commission and putting it in place to do away with those authorities with which it disagrees. That could not be further from the truth when one looks through the Bill to see how independent the Local Government Commission will be in doing its work. But it is absolutely right, and the noble Earl was correct in saying, that it must be function led. It is essential that the Local Government Commission must consider the functions of local authorities and determine the appropriate level of authority to deliver efficient and effective services, taking into account and making it as close to the community as possible.
That is the way we perceive it will happen. The guidance will be explicit. There are a number of pages within the guidance which refer specifically to functions. It says that it is not exhaustive; there are other functions that will be contained within the final guidance. It will be impossible for the commission simply to be cavalier about dipping into some functions and not others. When it comes before the Secretary of State with a recommendation, which ultimately will have to come before Parliament and it will be for Parliament to decide, that recommendation must have addressed all the functions of local authorities. If it is vested in a unitary authority then it must convince Parliament and, in the first instance, the Secretary of State, that those services or functions can be delivered effectively and efficiently. It will be impossible for the Secretary of State to direct the commission in such a way that it will abolish some authorities and not others on purely subjective grounds. That cannot happen.
The noble Earl was right to say that complete and absolute integrity of the Local Government Commission was essential. I absolutely endorse that. There is no difference between us on that point. The noble Earl also said that the Bill seeks to impose central government influence on local government, which is the same point about how much the Secretary of State can actually interfere with what the Local Government Commission does. Again, I must remind the House that the recommendation in the first instance comes to the Secretary of State. There is a period when it will be considered—a minimum of six weeks; if it is a complicated structural arrangement then it may be much longer. Then the matter has to come before Parliament for approval.
The noble Earl also raised the question of unitary authorities having all local government functions. The department's draft guidance to the Local Government Commission makes clear that the commission should seek to recommend a structure which achieves the most effective exercise of all local authority functions including the strategic ones. That, I know, is the concern of many noble Lords. The commission will be required to have regard to the guidance in carrying out its reviews, but in the Government's view there is no need for any change to the Bill.
The anxieties that the noble Earl and my noble friend Lord Morris have are understandable. However, I hope that I have been able to reassure them that their concerns are very well taken care of by

1485
what is on the face of the Bill and the way in which the Secretary of State will instruct the Local Government Commission to have regard to the guidance.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that full reply. If my introduction of the amendment appeared slightly abrasive, that was deliberate. It has produced the response that I felt had been eluding me for some considerable while. That abrasiveness has therefore performed its function. Certainly, I did not wish to accuse the Government of trying to manipulate matters to their own ends. It is obviously a matter of great importance to the public at large and to this House that the Local Government Commission should be seen to operate as a free spirit in the truest sense of the word.
The commission is allowed to comment on boundary, electoral and structural issues. The question arose because, as I have implied, structure by its nature includes function. However, because function is not just a subsidiary of structure, but structure is a subsidiary of function, I have been concerned throughout that the function performed does not appear where I would have expected it to appear logically within the Bill. That is my conundrum. It is the point that I have been trying to impress, probably very imperfectly, on the Minister and her department. That is why I persistently return to it.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl and I ask for the leave of the House to reply. Does the noble Earl agree that in order for the Local Government Commission to do its work it must look at functions? The commission's consequential decision will be to determine structure. It cannot determine structure before it has considered, very properly, functions as a result of the guidance which it will be directed to pay regard to. Then the commission will have a view about structure.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, I accept that entirely. The way in which the Bill is put together seems to involve a circular argument. In other words, we would consider function as part of structure, but the functions to be taken into account would relate to boundary, electoral and structural matters. So the matter has come completely full circle. That is tautologous. That is the situation that I am trying to break out of in order to ascertain what the real intentions are. If we are simply talking about redefining all the little bits that go into local government at the moment, and not considering thereafter the greater issues that arise from a unitary authority and a new structure in terms of how it performs, and all the other factors which go into it; and if there is to be only a distillation of a selected few aspects of present local authority operation, then I am rather unhappy about it. I believe that the Local Government Commission should be in a position to look at that issue.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl and I ask again for the leave of the House to respond on what I believe is a very important point which should be clarified for the record. If I have given
1486
the impression that the issue is only about functions—in other words, looking at each function separately one by one and saying "This belongs here, and that belongs there", then that is why I believe the noble Earl is confused. There is a presumption in favour of changing the structure of local authorities. There is a presumption which is explicitly in favour of unitary authorities. That becomes the starting point. The commission will be looking for unitary authorities that make sense. They can only make sense if the functions vested in the unitary authority can be delivered efficiently and effectively. There is also a presumption against a proliferation of joint ward arrangements.
If one takes all those factors together they are mutually inclusive and not exclusive. We start in favour of change, and presume in favour of unitary authorities. It must therefore follow that there has to be efficient and effective delivery of functions. Structure will be determined on the basis of that work being done properly. I can assure the noble Earl that the kind of ad hoc arrangement to which he referred is not the object of the exercise.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, I believe that I have taxed the patience of the House for long enough on this amendment. We have moved into a philosophical dimension which I fear is beginning to leave me behind, even though I raised the matter in the first place. I am very grateful to the Minister for clarifying the matter. I have no doubt that her intentions and those of the Government are honourable. I am extremely grateful for the opportunity of having set down as a matter of record the Government's innermost feelings on the question. On the basis of what has been said and the reply from the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Norrie Lord Norrie moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 11, line 38, at end insert (", including the performance of strategic functions in the wider public interest").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to ensure that the Local Government Commission has regard to the important strategic role of local authorities. I raised the matter in Committee, but I am still concerned that the strategic dimension of local government should be acknowledged on the face of the Bill as an important guiding principle for the commission. I was reassured by my noble friend the Minister at Committee stage when she said that,
"before any unitary authorities are established, it will have to be shown that the issues of strategic planning and local planning, and of other services, including those which protect the environment, are satisfactorily covered".
She went on to say that the Local Government Commission should,
"consider convenience to local people and, in the case of strategic functions, consider the wider public interest". —[Official Report, 5/12/91; cols. 385 and 386.]
I welcome that commitment. It is important for local government reform to protect the public interest. If local government reform results in a large number of small unitary authorities, I do not believe that it will be easy to ensure that. Neither do I believe that joint arrangements make for effective strategic planning. This issue is of vital importance. I am worried that

1487
Clause 13 may not adequately reflect the strength of feeling about strategic matters which has been expressed on all sides of the House. The Bill should require the commission specifically to have regard to,
"the performance of strategic functions in the wider public interest".
That is the aim of the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I support the amendment. The draft guidance uses the words which are picked up in the amendment. It is important that those words are on the face of the Bill and not simply in the guidance which is subsidiary to it. The debate that we have just had about functions and structure and the inter-relationship between them is one that I welcome very much. It was for the reasons which concerned the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, that I tabled an amendment at a previous stage which I had hoped would tease the matter out more by making functional change another matter to be considered.
The debate that we have just had is relevant to this amendment as well. No particular model is being advocated here. The more we discuss this matter the more concerned I become that the question of strategic functions appears on the face of the Bill. I hope that the amendment will also serve the use (I avoid the word "function") of putting joint arrangements firmly in their place as a subsidiary effect.
1 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I would be happy to support this amendment if the phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie—"performance of strategic functions in the wider public interest"— means that one can ask the Local Government Commission to consider the regional dimension when determining structures. It is clear when talking about strategic issues that counties are not only too large for local services; they are increasingly too small for most strategic purposes. I am sure there is no difference between those on these Benches and the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, about seeking to protect the wider public interest when strategic functions are performed by an authority larger than the district council, as presently constituted. However, for several reasons I worry that the too ready identification of strategic functions with the existing county council tier will undermine the strength of his own argument in the final case.
One has to look at physical economic development and the way that districts and counties have had to develop SCEALAs, SERPLANs and regional economic planning bodies in order to deal with issues like the East Thames Corridor, the East coast motorway or the Channel Tunnel. Indeed, two studies of local government structure in Humberside and Cheshire performed by the School of Advanced Urban Studies at Bristol reported that many local government functions, particularly the strategic ones, required a regional perspective. With regard to Humberside and Cheshire, one study said:
"The county is increasingly neither the area nor the level for which that perspective is appropriate".
1488
It is not only in terms of physical economic development that regions will be increasingly the important fora. The same applies to environmental considerations. In this we make common cause with the noble Lord. The Countryside Commission, English Heritage, English Nature and the DoE itself, as well as tourist boards, sports councils and arts bodies, are all now organised on a regional basis. Water authorities, environmental recreation, tourism planning and national parks are all on a regional basis. We do not need national guidance, regional strategic guidance, structure plans and local plans—a cascade of four levels of planning guidance— especially as the 1991 Act significantly reduced the role of structure plans passing certain responsibilities over to local plans.
In the reorganisation of health authorities in 1980, when there were similarly so many tiers—national, regional, area (which is county) and district— government, rightly in my view, decided to dispense with the county tier—the AHA—on the grounds that it was too large for the local delivery of services, as my noble friend Lord McIntosh said, but too small for strategic and resource planning. As those in this Chamber who are active now in health authorities will, I am sure, accept, it is the region that has strategic perspectives and responsibilities.
Perhaps I may give the example of another green issue or environmental anxiety which I think the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, shares—coastal zone protection. On that issue, maritime district councils are the primary point of contact for local people. That is where planning, coast protection, leisure, tourism, environmental protection and public safety responsibilities interlock. As a result, a collection of districts have formed groups around the coastlines of England and Wales. Mostly they are multi-disciplinary, looking at coastal engineering, recreation, planning, health and tourism. In all cases it is the district councils that have taken the lead. I understand that the best developed are around the Anglian coast. They are not only based on districts, but go beyond the county to the region—that is, to Essex, Suffolk, Norfolk and Lincolnshire.
Let me give a second example: Hampshire. The DoE's regional guidance allocates to the county the requirement to fund sites for 66,000 dwellings. The county council has been arguing in public for a lower figure. The 13 districts, with a full range of political views, including balanced or hung councils, have jointly come together to support the DoE against the county structure plan. They regard it as inappropriately reflecting the dilemmas within Hampshire whether it looks to London in the north or to the problems of Portsmouth and Southampton in the south. The districts came together because of their belief that the regional guidance within the framework of the DoE was more appropriate and that if they did not do so the draft structure plan would be discredited at the examination in public.
It seems to me clear that strategic planning is best now considered at regional level. Those remaining county functions can well come down. All experience since 1972 has been the passing down of local planning

1489
functions to districts, on the one hand, in 1972, 1980, 1991, and, on the other hand, the development of regional fora—the ones I have outlined. Increasingly, the county is losing its position as a strategic planning authority. County boundaries in the first place were selected by either historical accident or for the convenience of providing particular services. Counties were never designed to be strategic planning areas. In some cases, large counties may contain several sub-regions, each with relative independent economies. Those are very different requirements. Other counties may be too small.
For those reasons, the county, as a body with a requirement to maintain strategic perspective, is increasingly too small for strategic purposes whether in terms of physical infrastructure, environmental protection, or concern for a proper long-term balance between development and environmental considerations. The county, equally, is too large for the local and the site-specific plans which increasingly district councils now handle.
If by this amendment it is meant that we can ask the Local Government Commission to consider the regional dimensions involved when determining structures, I shall be happy to support it. If it does not, and if it is simply a call to retain the county council as the only appropriate forum for strategic planning, then I suggest that it is artificial and would ossify everything that is now happening in this country.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, I should like to make a comment in support of the amendment. I preface my remarks by thanking the Minister for her letter of 17th December, which has just arrived. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, pointed out, the amendment that I moved has a dimension very close to, if not overlapping, the one moved by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie.
Perhaps I may refer to the final comment of the Minister's letter. It points to the inadvisability of widening the remit of the Local Government Commission because certain issues need to be dealt with on a national, not a local basis. Today we are considering a national basis of criteria that will govern a national commission looking at local authorities. Presumably we are not talking about a series of wholly different and dissimilar local authorities operating on quite dissimilar bases. It is my impression that local core needs are more notable for their similarities than for the converse.
In the context of strategic planning, this brings into focus those functions which may at the moment be outside those of local authorities altogether—outside the role of district and outside the role of county. It is important to make sure that, whatever comes out of the review, needs which rise above the structures which operate them at the moment are brought into consideration in dealing with new unitary authorities. That goes back to what I said a few moments ago. This amendment is important and I commend it to the Government.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, we had quite a debate on this subject in Committee. I believe I said then that many people were concerned that, unless the
1490
new unitary authorities were of a size and had a financial base which was relevant, we could find that local authorities would not be able to continue to discharge their functions.
I believe that I explained in Committee that many people were concerned, for example, that services like education, roads and social services could end up not in regional authorities as my noble friend instanced but in specialist authorities; in other words, we would have a schools council or a schools board administering schools throughout the country and similarly we would have a national roads authority administering, and indeed interfering in, if I may put it that way, the proper concerns of the local authority. I appreciate that this is a very difficult aspect but, nevertheless, it is a most important aspect of the Bill which will affect the commission in making its recommendations.
If we really are in favour of all-purpose authorities, as I believe we are, then we must ensure that the duties of such all-purpose authorities remain important and the authorities themselves are able, because they have a good financial base, to carry them out and to do so properly on behalf of the people in the local area.
I must say to my noble friend on the Front Bench that, despite it being Labour Party policy, I am a little concerned about regions. I am concerned that they may filch powers from all-purpose authorities. I am glad to see that my noble friend is shaking her head. Indeed, the fact that I am raising the matter shows the wide area of debate which is allowed in the Labour Party. Regional authorities must not be allowed to filch powers from the local authorities. I say that because I remain convinced that, if we are to have local government, it must be as near to the people as possible so that they know exactly who is administering the services and where they can go to complain about the services so as to have some effect on the quality of such services.
Having said that, I have no real advice to offer to the commission. I believe that it has a most difficult job in reconciling the two positions: first, to ensure that the strategic services operate and operate properly; and, secondly, to ensure at the same time that we really do have local government.
1.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this has been an interesting mini debate. Perhaps I may say first that I am most grateful for the opportunity to emphasise the importance which the Government attach to the strategic functions of local authorities. I should make it clear that we certainly do not wish to weaken the position of strategic functions. We fully appreciate their importance. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Norrie actually quoted what I said in Committee. He did so because of his concern about strategic functions. I can tell him that strategic functions are certainly very important.
In fact, I would go even further than I did in Committee and say it would only be when those important strategic matters are addressed or covered that a recommendation would indeed be acceptable. It would be inconceivable that the Local Government

1491
Commission could come to Parliament with a recommendation to restructure local authorities, having ignored the effective and efficient delivery of strategic services. My noble friend can be assured that such matters will be addressed. I leave him free to decide whether they are addressed to his satisfaction when they come before Parliament.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, went much further in pre-empting the outcome of the work of the Local Government Commission. Indeed, she not only went much further than I or the Government would go, but she also went much further than her Front Bench colleagues in another place would go. Moreover, in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said, it would seem that she has even gone much further than he would go. She has said publicly again and again both in Committee and now on Report that county government is too small to be regional and too large to be unitary. That pretty well pre-empts its demise at the outset. It is important to recognise the fact that it must be for the Local Government Commission, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said, to reconcile all those interests, to address them and to consider what the appropriate level of government should be. I suggest that it cannot be for this House or another place to pre-empt and to tie the hands of the commission.
Sometimes some of the strategic functions are somewhat overdone in the minds of noble Lords. The management of education and of our schools has been substantially devolved to the local level. That work must continue. That seems to me to be appropriate. So far as concerns roads, given the fact that there are trunk roads, primary roads and minor roads in local areas, the system at present works well. The networking of roads is dealt with at national level. It is not only the networking of trunk roads that national government determine; the primary routes are also submitted to government for approval so that the networking is co-ordinated at a national level. Long may that continue.
The responsibility for minor roads can be held at unitary authority level. Therefore, I believe that the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, are important. But as a House we should be careful of pre-empting the outcome of this debate and, as I said, of making up the mind of the Local Government Commission before the matter goes before it. It must be for local people, local business and commerce, local and voluntary groups, local authorities and so on to make their case to the Local Government Commission as to what they perceive to be the effective tier of local government. Then it must be for the Local Government Commission, in the light of the guidance and directions from the Secretary of State, to make a recommendation to Parliament. I ask the House to reject the amendment.
Lord Morris: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down I have one point to make. She has just suggested that it is not for this House or indeed the other place to blinker the functions and duties of the commission. But Clause 13(6) clearly states:
1492
"The Secretary of State may give directions as to the exercise by the Local Government Commission of any functions under this section; and such directions may require that Commission to have regard to any guidance given by the Secretary of State as respects matters to be taken into account".
Apparently Her Majesty's Government and the Secretary of State can do that, but it appears that under no circumstances can Parliament do so. I find that rather odd.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend made an interesting point. Of course, it will be for the Secretary of State finally to approve the guidance which is in draft form at present. In the light of that consultation process, he will eventually produce guidance to which the Local Government Commission must have regard. That will be in the public arena. It will be well understood by everyone concerned.
My noble friend is absolutely right to remind us that this House, as it considers the Bill, should ensure that no important function of local authorities is overlooked when it comes to advising the commission on how to carry out its work. I am hoping that we in this House will not pre-empt the outcome of that process; in other words, we should not at the outset almost pre-empt the demise of one single tier of local government and say that there is no room for counties because they are too small for regional government and too large for district government. That is what we should not pre-empt. I believe that we shall disturb a very large number of people in local government if we very strongly take that view.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her lengthy reply and to all noble Lords who have taken part in this so-called mini debate. The Local Government Commission should be in no doubt that the strategic role of local authorities is of the utmost importance. I am sure that the matter will continue to be debated but for now I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Beloff Lord Beloff moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 11, line 38, at end insert ("and
( ) to take account of local opinion.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 71. To those noble Lords who are bored with my speeches —a sentiment that I share —I must point out that I am not speaking in my own person. I shall endeavour briefly to represent the views of my two noble friends Lady Oppenheim-Barnes and Lady Young—we may call them the historic Baronesses—who for various personal reasons are unable to be present today.
The two amendments arise from the discussions which they led in Committee about the importance attached to the sentiments of tradition and historic accountability in the cities which have a long past in one form or another as organs of local government. On 12th December the Minister wrote to my noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes. Somehow it overcome the hazards of the Christmas post and was received by my noble friend who would like me to thank the Minister. It emphasised that the commission

1493
would be expected to bear in mind, among other things, the importance that people might attach to historic associations and the traditions of their locality, whether it is a cathedral city or whatever. It would be helpful if the phrases that the Minister used in the letter appeared in her answer to the debate on the amendments because it would be nice to have them in Hansard.
Amendment No. 71 is more general and refers to a point that I ventured to make in Committee. It illustrated a good reason for giving the commission a fairly wide range of possibilities. Although nothing is permanent, we are looking for a more permanent structure than some recent structures have been. I advanced the view that the only thing which made for permanence, or was likely to make for permanence, in a local government structure was the opinion of the people who actually lived under it. I know the difficulties and limitations on all forms of consultation with the citizens who cannot be regarded as entirely caught up in groups, parties or organisations. However, a structure that rests upon an ascertained commitment of local opinion is likely to be more effective and longer lasting than one which is thought of for reasons of administrative convenience, whether it is structure, the delivery of services or whatever. Such things change whereas people's affection may not change as fast. I beg to move.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I support the amendments, in particular Amendment No. 70. I have seen the letter from the Minister and I believe that it deals adequately with the second amendment. It appears to me that discovering the views of local people is absolutely essential if there is to be proper support for whatever structure emerges, be it in historic: cities or wherever. I urge the Government to ensure that that requirement is on the face of the Bill. In that way it cannot be overlooked by this or any subsequent government.
The Minister stated in her letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes:
"Full account is taken of how people feel about their history and how it affects their identity".
We wish to see the Government take full account of how the people feel about everything, not only about their history and identity in the city. I note from the letter that the Minister is committed to research which is being carried out to discover the best way of getting in touch with people and finding out how they feel about what they belong to. She stated:
"We will draw on its research in giving further guidance to the commission".
I welcome that statement. However, whatever the result of the research, we need to have on the face of the Bill the requirement to consult local opinion. It should be an overriding requirement and I hope that Amendment No. 70 will be accepted.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I too support both amendments, the historic Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. The overriding need to take account of local opinion is accepted but I see no logical reason why that should not be stated in black and white. At the Committee stage we talked about our historic cities. From conversations that I have had
1494
during the past week or two the sheer strength of feeling about the heritage and traditions of our towns and cities has become clear to me.
I was interested to hear about the contents of the letter that the Minister wrote to the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes. I shall not have an opportunity to comment on the letter after the Minister has referred to it, if she does so. However, I must point out that cities such as Stratford, Dorchester and Ely, have a heritage and tradition which I am sure their inhabitants will commend for themselves. I wish to associate noble Lords on these Benches with the arguments that I know they will be putting forward. I support the two amendments.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I too support both amendments, in particular Amendment No. 70. I have not seen a copy of the letter which has been referred to. However, I wish to make the point that when we talk about local opinion we should not be talking only about the local authority or the political parties but also about the ordinary people. They will be governed locally and they have had far too little say in how they wish to be governed.
I urge the Minister to try to ensure, first, that all kinds of methods are adopted by the commission to inform local people of what is proposed. It is not good enough to say that information will be in the newspapers or reported on the local radio. Not everybody takes a local newspaper or wants to read one. There are many reasons but often it is just because they are ridiculous rags. There must be other means of ensuring that the widest possible range of local people are informed of the proposals. There must be arrangements to ensure that ordinary people can put forward their point of view. It is not good enough to say to them, "You can write a letter". Not everyone likes writing letters and not everyone is able to put a letter together. I hope that there will be a wide variety of means of informing people and of enabling them in their own way to put forward their own point of view.
1.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, let me say at the outset that we are warmly committed to effective and accountable local government based on authorities that reflect more closely the communities with which local people identify. Local people and organisations will be able to have their say and the Local Government Commission will listen.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has just made an important point that there must be more than one way of securing local opinion. It cannot be done by letter writing; it must be done in a variety of ways. We expect the commission to invoke a number of methods of securing local community opinion.
The procedure which the commission must follow in carrying out its reviews is set out in Clause 15. The commission will be required to take such steps as it considers sufficient to inform interested parties of the direction to carry out a review, of any other relevant directions and of the period in which representations about the review may be made to the commission.

1495
We intend that the commission should publicise its reviews widely and make information about its activities available to local newspapers, radio and television stations and so on. Under Clause 15(3) (a) the commission will have to consider any representations made to it about the local government structure, which people and organisations would like to see in their area before drawing up its draft recommendations for change.
The commission will also publicise its draft recommendations widely and the arrangements for commenting on them. The commission will again be required to take account of representations made about its draft recommendations during this period.
At Committee stage we set out a number of ways in which the commission would elicit the views of the local community, and perhaps it would be helpful if I reiterated them now. Clause 15(7) empowers the Secretary of State to direct the commission to have regard to the guidance he intends to issue as to its procedure. This guidance will cover not only the periods of time the commission should allow for each stage of its review but also possible methods of consultation. As we said at Committee stage, this guidance will be subject to consultation before being issued to the commission. I hope on that amendment noble Lords are reassured.
As concerns Amendment No. 71, we discussed the important issue of history and tradition at some length in Committee. Heritage and traditional status of local authorities are an important part of an area's history and traditions. We have been giving further thought to these considerations and to how we can best ensure that proper weight is given to them in the commission's work.
My noble friend Lord Beloff was particularly concerned on behalf of what he called "the noble and historic Baronesses" that authorities which had no basis in historical tradition would not take root. I can sympathise with that concern. We are all aware of authorities created in 1974 which have not been widely accepted by local people. We have learnt from the 1974 reorganisation and are determined that this should not happen again. That is why community identity will be a central factor in the commission's work.
We share the aim of ensuring that this reorganisation builds on history. We fully appreciate the importance of local heritage and that authorities which have responsibility for caring for it may face particular problems which are less significant elsewhere. We also recognise the importance of the status which authorities in some areas have traditionally enjoyed. We are aware that areas which traditionally ran their own affairs are eager to do so again. It is certainly the case that towns and cities with long and proud historical traditions, which are guardians of their local heritage and have traditionally run their own affairs, are likely to be well placed to become unitary authorities. I know that many of our oldest cities are particularly keen to become unitary authorities.
1496
There are some areas where heritage and traditional status and local historical traditions will not be such a major factor. The status to which a new town could now aspire could be very different from its traditional status which might be that of a village, for example. What is important about historical traditions, local heritage and traditional status is the role these factors may play in shaping community identity.
The rationale for the Bill is that the structure and, where necessary, restructuring of local government are consistent with the wishes of local people. But that consistency has to include the effective, efficient delivery of services. It cannot simply go down the road of taking local views and opinions without accepting some of the concerns that all noble Lords on all sides of the House have: environmental concerns, strategic functions and proper, effective and efficient delivery of services. So again there has to be a reconciling on the widest possible basis of support from the local community for a unit of local government that makes sense in every sense that is set out in the guidance.
I remain of the view that it would not be sensible to expand Clause 13(5) to include specific references to heritage, history and traditions. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, made the point that once one puts historical traditions on the face of the Bill, there are many other serious considerations that also need to be taken into account. That is why we chose the guidance as a method of making sure that these matters are taken into account.
We recognise the importance of these factors. The draft guidance to the Local Government Commission makes it clear that the commission should consider the history of an area when assessing community identities. We shall be drawing on research we have commissioned into the best means of finding out what communities people feel they belong to; clearly heritage, history and tradition will be critical factors. We will draw on this research in giving further guidance to the commission. We should also be happy to consider suggestions that noble Lords may have for strengthening what the guidance says on this issue. I hope that the amendments will not be pressed.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I wish to thank noble Lords and noble Baronesses on the other side of the House for a rare alliance with myself. I feel that the historic Baronesses would have been satisfied with the reply that my noble friend the Minister has given. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 71 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 11, line 38, at end insert:
("( ) to promote accountable, responsive and accessible local government;").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I regret that the alliance with the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, will not continue as he is leaving the Chamber. I thought about these words again after the last stage of the Bill when the Minister said—and I accept her assurance—that the commission will seek

1497
accountable, responsive and accessible local government. She also said that the amendment was not necessary.
It seems to me that the words in this line are not clearly within the term "effective and convenient" which should precede them. The thrust of the amendment drew much support from all sides of the Committee and again I believe that if the proposal is accepted—as I believe it is—it will be something to which the commission should have regard.
It is entirely appropriate and desirable that the words should appear on the face of the Bill. These terms or requirements are not of the same type as "heritage and traditional status". I accept the argument that has been made that they fall within the umbrella terminology and are more a matter for guidance than for legislation. However, "effective and convenient" involve being businesslike, doing the job well, but without entirely defining what the job is. I hope that the Government may have thought a little further, as I have, about the desirability of including these words. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, although my name is not attached to the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on the Marshalled List, I also wish to support it. The more so because I was somewhat perturbed at the Minister's response on Amendment No. 68. She mentioned the "steer" that would be given, and not only that but the guidance to which the Local Government Commission would be directed to have regard. I shall not go back to those words. I noted the words she used, "functions, efficiency, structure", and the like. I believe I am right in saying that—and I apologise if I misrepresent the Minister—at no stage did she use the word "community" in her response to Amendment No. 68.
However, in response to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, which were supported by my noble friend Lady Nicol—Amendments Nos. 70 and 71—the Minister talked about the significance of communities. We on these Benches identify ourselves with this amendment because we believe that local government is more than a package of services or a package of functions. It is about representing and embodying democratic values of pluralism, participation and accountability. It is about the values identified by the Widdicombe Report.
The assumption is that functions come and go. We know that is the case if we look back over the past century Functions come into local government and they may go out to bodies. They may go down to self-management. They may be enabled out, or they may be provided by voluntary organisations. Communities therefore, much more than functions, are the building blocks of local government. They endure. It is for that reason that, if we wish to see local government based on communities and reflecting those values, it must be accountable—that means it must be single tier—and it must be responsive and accessible. It must constitute bodies most closely connected with local people. I believe it must consist of district councils. That way, we achieve local and accessible local government. I am happy to support the amendment.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for introducing this amendment. We discussed this matter at some length in Committee and we fully appreciate the importance which noble Lords on all sides of the House attach to accountable, responsive and accessible local government. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was concerned that the commission's duty to have regard to the need to secure effective and convenient local government in carrying out its reviews would lead to a "top down" approach to reviewing local government structure rather than a bottom up approach reflecting the need for local government to be responsive to its own local community.
We are committed to an accountable and effective structure of local government based on authorities which reflect the communities with which people identify. In carrying out its reviews the Local Government Commission will be required to have regard to the need to reflect the identities and interests of local communities. I remind the House that my noble friend Lady Blatch stressed that point in replying to my noble friend Lord Beloff a little while ago. There is no question of a top-down approach where the interests of local communities are ignored—instead they will be central to the commission's work. Authorities based on local communities will be best placed to achieve the accountable, responsive and accessible local government which both noble Baronesses wish to see.
I should also emphasise in this context the benefits of moving to unitary authorities. A unitary structure of local government will be more easily understood than the present two-tier structure, when many people do not know which council is responsible for particular services. Recent surveys have highlighted this point. Unitary authorities will be more accountable to their electorates. Local people will know which council is responsible for local services and will be better able to hold their authorities to account. Local people should be clearer about who their local councillors are. They should know who to speak to about local services. In this way local government should become more accessible. Unitary authorities based on local communities will also be in the best position to respond sensitively to the needs and priorities of the communities they serve.
We cannot secure accountable, responsive and accessible local government simply by rationalising its structure. We welcome the steps that many local authorities are taking to improve their responsiveness and accessibility in a variety of ways. The Citizen's Charter will of course be central to this process, and should encourage authorities to seek further improvements.
This has been a useful short debate but we do not believe the amendment is necessary. It is our view that the commission's terms of reference will be sufficient for the objectives which the noble Baroness has in mind. I therefore hope she will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
1.45 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply. It was a useful debate and I hope noble Lords will not feel it was a waste of the time of the House to have repeated, in part, a debate we had at the previous stage. I cannot resist agreeing with the noble Earl that it is not simply structure that secures accountability. That was precisely what I said about an hour and a half ago. We may wish to consider this matter in the context of the guidance which the Minister has asked us several times to respond to separately. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Norrie Lord Norrie moved Amendment No. 72A:
Page 11, line 38, at end insert:
"( ) to secure arrangements consistent with the constitution of a National Park Authority independent of any other tier of local government in each and every National Park.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, following the debate in Committee on the Local Government Bill I was heartened by the strong, cross-party support for securing independent authorities in national parks. I thank my noble friend the Minister for giving, in answer to my amendments moved in Committee, the strongest possible assurance of the Government's resolve to create an independent authority for each national park. My noble friend also made it clear that the Government intend independent status for the parks to be taken as read by the Local Government Commission. That is indeed good news for all of us who have the best interests of the national parks at heart. It means that my noble friend shares my concern that the fate of the parks should not be caught up in the deliberations of the Local Government Commission as it goes about its business region by region.
It is against that background of a strong, cross-party desire to treat national parks justly that I move Amendment No. 72A. My real concern is that the Bill as it stands does not give effect to the Government's widely supported objectives for the parks. Unless amended, the Bill still risks turning the national parks into unintended casualties. Having given careful consideration to the helpful answer my noble friend the Minister gave in Committee, it is my belief that two matters need to be addressed to safeguard the parks.
First, a way needs to be found to prescribe to the Local Government Commission its treatment of the national parks in accordance with the wishes of the Government. Again, as the Bill stands, national parks will inevitably get caught up in the regional consultations of the Local Government Commission. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, explained so clearly in Committee, our parks are national assets and are not suited to ad hoc regional arrangements. Yet the Local Government Commission is enjoined in Clause 13(5) to reflect local but not national interests in its deliberations.
My Amendment No. 72A would correct this. It would require the Local Government Commission to take as read the Government's intentions for national parks. I remind the House that those intentions have
1500
been arrived at by following advice from an extremely thorough and highly respected review of national parks under the chairmanship of Professor Ron Edwards. I hope the Minister will give careful thought to my amendment, which would establish on the face of the Bill a requirement for the Local Government Commission,
"to secure arrangements consistent with the constitution of a National Park Authority independent of any other tier of local government in each and every National Park".
The second matter to be addressed is the following. A mechanism needs to be found which will ensure that independent status can be given to the parks before the Local Government Commission makes any recommendations. As my noble friend will be aware, I am anxious that independent status be given to national parks before the first order is made to bring about changes in local government in any area in which there is a national park. It is my belief that national parks would, as independent authorities rather than as committees of county councils, be better able to withstand changes in the local authorities within the boundaries of which they presently lie.
Local government reform makes it even more urgent that the Secretary of State be given the power to create independent national park authorities. Without such a power he might find himself with no choice but to make some form of joint arrangements for national park administration among a number of unitary authorities. That would be a recipe for utter chaos in the parks and it would represent a step backwards to the worst aspects of pre-1974 national park administration. I feel certain that is a far cry from what the Government intend.
I appreciate the indications given by my noble friend in Committee that when the Government publish their full response to the national parks review—a response which is expected soon and eagerly awaited—there may be other matters which require legislation. I understand that a co-ordinated response may be desirable. However, I hope that in responding to the amendment my noble friend can reassure me that the problem of timing has been addressed and that relying on subsequent legislation to create independent authorities in national parks carries the risk that that legislation may come too late and may not prevent the parks from becoming entangled in local government reform initiated by this Bill. We live in an uncertain world. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, as one of those who supported Amendment No. 155 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, at Committee stage, I too am persuaded that, despite the very welcome assurance given by the noble Baroness in response to that earlier amendment, we should pursue our contention that the assurance that she gave should be reflected in words in the Bill, even though further legislation may be required to embody that assurance and other recommendations regarding the future of national parks.
That should be made explicit in the Bill so that, in discussing their future structure and boundaries, county and district councils will have to take account

1501
of the future status and upgrading of those national parks which at present are represented by committees of county councils.
My concern is the greater because I heard only recently that Gwynedd County Council has published a document, A Strategy for Gwynedd—I have not seen that document but its importance is clear—in which there is no reference whatever to the Snowdonia National Park, despite the fact that the Snowdonia National Park occupies nearly 60 per cent. of the county of Gwynedd. That gives some indication of the lack of regard of the county for the national park.
The assurance given by the noble Baroness about the upgrading of the committees will be especially important in the case of those national parks which extend beyond an individual county boundary. Exmoor, for example, includes part of Devon and the Yorkshire Dales National Park includes part of Cumbria. There are problems which will require full discussion of national park boundaries as well as their status.
My final point is that the amendment is needed because I hope—but have no great certainty—that the national park committees themselves will, in view of their future status, be invited to discuss boundary questions with the Local Government Commission. I say that I hope that that will happen because the parks do not have that status and authority at present and may not be invited to participate. County councils may be reluctant or unwilling to let them have a say.
With those additional arguments, I hope that the noble Baroness will be persuaded to accept the amendment.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, we too support the amendment and the intention behind it, as we made clear at Committee stage. I do not wish to weary the House by repeating the arguments made so well by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. However, I should like to emphasise one or two aspects.
We cannot afford delay, for the reasons which both noble Lords stressed. We are likely to end up with chaos. It is essential that a firm commitment is given by the Government at this stage, otherwise there may be some areas of disaster in the national parks, and that is not putting it too strongly.
The Government recognised the dangers to national parks as long ago as the mid-1980s and promised greater protection for national parks in their 1987 manifesto. I remind the House that that promise has not been fulfilled. That should give the noble Baroness additional strength if she seeks to give a better commitment now.
The parks which have, as we are all agreed, a regional role fit very well with the Labour Party's plans for strategic regional authorities. It is less easy to see how they fit with the rather uncertain pattern which may emerge from the unclear directions which the Government are giving. However, I am glad that the Government have at least declared their support for independent park authorities. Therefore I see no reason why this compromise amendment should not
1502
be accepted. It would at least offer the security of spelling out that the aim is an independent authority. At present that is not clear from the Bill.
It is odd that, having declared their position so firmly, the Government do not take this final step. That will inevitably be seen from outside, if not from within this House, as indicating that the Government's commitment to what they say they support is the less if they are not prepared to put it on the face of the Bill. I support the amendment.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I was very glad to put my name to the amendment. I was greatly encouraged by what the Minister said on the subject at Committee stage. We are all agreed that independent status is the best status for national parks. The government are to introduce that. The essence of the matter appears to me to be one of timing. It is important that the legislation to create independent authorities for national parks should come into effect before the first changes are made to local government under the present Bill.
The need to take account of local interests appears on the face of the Bill; so too should the need to take account of national park interests. The present amendment is entirely consistent with what the Minister said at Committee stage and should do what we all want effectively. It would prescribe to the Local Government Commission that each and every national park should have an independent authority. The administration of national parks would therefore be excluded from the scope of the commission's work and require the commission to ensure that any recommendations it makes for local government reform are compatible with the creation of an independent authority in each and every national park.
If we do not have something on the lines of the amendment and if we do not have legislation establishing independent national parks before local government reform begins, some damage may be caused to some of the national parks. The Secretary of State might be placed in the position of having to reconstitute a national park as more than one committee of several unitary authorities and then come up with some form of joint arrangement. That would be extremely unsatisfactory. There would also be tremendous uncertainty as to the future of national parks when their parent county councils came up for review.
The amendment would meet all the requirements and I very much hope that the Government would be prepared to accept it.
Lord Wise: My Lords, I too should like very strongly to support the amendment moved by my noble friend. I share his anxieties. I do not want to repeat the arguments put forward by him so persuasively and by the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Moran, and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. However, I should like to speak very briefly of the interest in and close contact of the Caravan Club with the national parks.
The Caravan Club has more than 283,000 members. That excludes their families so one can see

1503
that the club is involved in the leisure activities of a vast number of people. The club has 161 sites in England and Wales, of which 25 lie in national parks.
There are also some 3,800 certificated locations, of which 170 lie within the national parks. A certificated location is a small, privately-owned site, usually on a farm, with a maximum permitted number of five caravans at any one time.
Obviously, because of the beauty of the national parks they give immense pleasure and are favourite venues for Caravan Club rallies. In head office we have a rally co-ordination control group which assists the various rally organisers to ensure that all the rallies are well run in an orderly and well-mannered fashion. Co-ordination control obviously works in close contact with the national parks authorities and we would welcome independent authorities. It would make life so much simpler. I therefore hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to give an encouraging response if she does not feel able to accept the amendment.
2 p.m.
Baroness White: My Lords, I have been long enough in public life to be firmly convinced of the validity of the adage, "Put not your trust in princes, still less in Ministers of the Crown". I say that with the greatest regard for the most helpful response of the Minister in our earlier discussions on national parks and for the statements that have been made formally by the Department of the Environment in England and the Welsh Office for the Principality. However, we all know from experience that unless there is something on the face of the Bill the very best and most sincere intentions may go awry.
For the reasons that have already been most adequately deployed by those noble Lords who have spoken, there is a danger of something like that happening unless there is something on the face of the Bill covering the position of the national parks. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I have not myself seen the statement by the Gwynedd County Council. However, as to the Principality, which must after all be included in this exercise even though it is not included in the Bill as such, in the Snowdonia, Brecon Beacons and Pembrokeshire Coast parks there will be great difficulty unless there is a firm line to implement those proposals.
I do not wish to detain the House long because there is a great deal of business to do. I understand that there is to be a Statement later this afternoon, but the essential thing is that the doorkeepers' dinner must start on time. On a more serious note, however, this matter deeply concerns all of us who have experience of the national parks and are familiar with them. I therefore hope that, even if she has perhaps been asked from elsewhere not to include the amendment in the Bill, she will realise that it is essential that it should be included.
Baroness Blotch: My Lords, in the light of the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady White, I should point out that there are two Statements to
1504
come, plus an Unstarred Question at the end of this debate, so we are seriously running the risk of delaying the start of the doorkeepers' festivities this evening.
The Government are committed to the establishment of independent national parks authorities. I recognise the importance that your Lordships attach to the national parks and I sympathise with the desire expressed from all sides of the House that independent authorities for the national parks should be set up as quickly as possible. However, the Government remain of the view that it would not be appropriate for that to be done in the Bill.
Your Lordships are aware that the national parks review report, Fit for the Future, to which my noble friend Lord Norrie referred, is a good report. The Government's response to it will be published shortly. I do not want to pre-empt the publication of that response, but the Government may wish to legislate on a number of matters connected with the national parks beyond the establishment of independent authorities. In the Government's view, it would be preferable for those matters to be dealt with together rather than piecemeal. Your Lordships would not expect me to pre-empt future legislation in any detail. Nevertheless, I have taken note of the clear message that the whole House wishes it to be done speedily and I shall certainly relay that to the appropriate quarters.
Noble Lords are anxious that the review of local government structure may inhibit the establishment of independent park authorities. I wish to make two points which I hope will reassure your Lordships. First, the commission will review the structure of local government area by area. The process of reviewing the whole of England is expected to take several years and the first new unitary authorities are unlikely to be in place before April 1994. The order in which the commission is to carry out its work has not yet been settled, so at this stage I cannot say when the areas in which the national parks are situated will be considered. However, it will be apparent to your Lordships that, provided time can be found to bring forward the necessary legislation, it is likely that that would be a faster track to the achievement of the objectives that we all share.
Secondly, there is no reason to believe that the commission's work will in any way affect the establishment of independent national park authorities. The draft guidance that we propose to give to the commission is currently out to consultation. I propose to amend the guidance to make the Government's commitment to independent park authorities absolutely clear and to ensure that the commission carries out its reviews and makes its recommendations for structural changes with that in mind. The consultation period for the draft guidance runs to the end of January and the department will be happy to consider comments from consultees on how that commitment may best be reflected in the guidance.
The amendment in effect misunderstands what an Act of Parliament is about. It cannot be about some intention without being specific about the detail. If the amendment is inserted in this part of the Bill, it will be tied into the work of the Local Government

1505
Commission. As I made clear in my response to the amendment, I believe that a faster track than tying it up in that way would be preferable.
In response to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, the review is clear in its recommendations that the preferred option for the future of national parks is that they should be independent authorities. It is to the Government's credit that they did not wait for tile official response to be published, but it emerged clearly that they believe it is a preferred way forward so that it does not get muddied by the work of the Local Government Commission. I can promise that the official response to that report, which has been welcomed by the Government, will be out shortly and I therefore hope that the amendment can be withdrawn.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for her full and helpful response. I have listened carefully and it appears to me that there are major technical constraints on what can be achieved on the face of the Bill.
I fully agree with the Minister that if it is not possible to achieve independent authorities for parks in this Bill, it becomes vital to prevent the Local Government Commission from in any way prejudicing the Government's desire to create independent authorities as soon as possible. I am sure that my noble friend will understand my anxiety as to whether the guidance is sufficient, an anxiety shared by this House and certainly found among the large body of voluntary sector organisations concerned with national parks.
It is important to remember that we are not simply talking about a missed opportunity for national parks in this Bill. The effect of the Bill on national parks is not neutral. I respectfully ask my noble friend to reconsider the scope for inserting some form of national park safeguards on the face of the Bill between now and Third Reading. By then we shall know the Government's full response to the national parks review. I await that with tremendous excitement. Despite the frustrations as to what can be achieved for the parks within the scope of the Bill, the great enthusiasm for national parks has been a most striking feature of the Government's response to my amendments. I am very encouraged by that. I shall study the constructive response that my noble friend has given me. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 11, line 39, leave from beginning to ("and") in line 40 and insert:
("(6) The Secretary of State may give the Commission directions as to the discharge of its functions and the Commission shall give effect to any such directions.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to move this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 74. I was irresistibly tempted into these amendments by the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, at Committee stage. When I pointed out that there was different provision for the Audit Commission under the 1982
1506
Act and the Local Government Commission under this Bill in that the Audit Commission is, as I described it, a creature of the Government; in other words, the Secretary of State may give such directions as he thinks fit to the Audit Commission on any aspect of its duties and the commission shall give effect to those directions, whereas the Local Government Commission is under no such obligation, he said to me magisterially—or perhaps I should say ex-ministerially or even ex-commissionerally—that:
"I [Lord Cockfield] think he has misunderstood the constitutional position in the case of independent bodies. It is normal practice to include in an Act a reserve power for the Secretary of State to give directions. The reason it is done in that way is to maintain the rights of Parliament, because when a direction of that kind is made by the Secretary of State it becomes debatable in both Houses of Parliament".—[Official Report, 2/12/91; col. 37.]
That set my mind (such as it is) working and made me wonder why the Local Government Commission was not under the same obligation. Can it be that the Secretary of State does not wish the Local Government Commission to be debatable in Parliament? Can it be that the Secretary of State wishes to have the excuse of saying in response to Questions or Motions for debate: "Well, it is none of my business. It is the business of the Local Government Commission. It works under statutory rules laid down under the Local Government Act 1992 and therefore it is not debatable in Parliament"?
Then it occurred to me to ask why that should be so. There is a very good reason. The Department of the Environment has woken up to the fact that next year there will be a change of Government. It does not want there to be any opportunity for the Local Government Commission to be changed in any way by the Labour government which will take office in 1992. So far as they can, the Government want to tie fairly completely the hands of the next Government. That is why they set out the limits on the size of the Local Government Commission and that is why they refuse to have any of the amendments that we propose, giving greater possibilities for the Local Government Commission to take into account local government opinion.
I put it to the Government: do they want the Secretary of State to be answerable to Parliament for the activities of the Local Government Commission—in which case they will agree to my amendments—or do they not? Or—perish the thought!—is the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, perhaps wrong? I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation of the amendment. Under the Bill the Secretary of State may issue directions to the commission about its functions in relation to reviews, about the procedure for reviews and about its incidental powers and proceedings. I understand entirely the point raised by the noble Lord but I can assure him, on advice, that the amendments are unnecessary as the direction-making power implies that the body receiving the directions will be under a duty to comply with them.
If the commission did not comply with the directions from the Secretary of State, there would be

1507
several courses open to him. He has the power to remove members from the commission. The commission will be funded by grants for which the Secretary of State will be answerable to Parliament and ultimately the commission could be subject to judicial review and the Secretary of State could seek mandamus.
Those are of course extreme measures. In Clause 15(6) the Bill expressly allows for the Secretary of State to direct the commission to reconsider its review if for any reason he feels that it has not taken any matter sufficiently into account. However, I do not believe that the noble Lord's amendment would add to the sanctions available to the Secretary of State in those circumstances. In any case, the commission will not be a body which will take action itself. It will be a deliberative not a decision-making body. Its function will be to carry out reviews and make recommendations to the Secretary of State. Parliament will ultimately decide whether any of its recommendations should be implemented.
I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Lord will accept that the amendments are not necessary and will withdraw them.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I find that response very helpful. I am grateful to the noble Earl for putting it in those terms and for reminding us of powers that we shall have when we take over office in the first half of next year. It is very useful to have that on record in case our filing system—which everyone knows is the real requisite of a Socialist—should be in any way defective. I would not dare to draw the implication that the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, was wrong. However, perhaps the 1982 Act went a little over the top and provided general powers which are not necessary.
With that comforting thought, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 74 not moved.]
2.15 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 11, line 43, at end insert:
("( ) The Secretary of State shall publish all research commissioned by him in connection with the giving of directions under this section").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we have referred to research undertaken on the concept of communities. Quite properly the DoE proposals, both for compulsory competitive tendering in Part I of the Bill and structural change in Part II of the Bill, are being steered by research. That is absolutely right. Under CCT we understand that there was a PA report, some of whose recommendations have recently been disclosed in the Local Government Chronicle by Mr. Cresswell. We on these Benches requested the Government at Committee stage to publish the report. They declined to do so. That may be an issue to which we shall return at Third Reading.
On the research that is forming Government thinking on structure, the DoE has commissioned at
1508
least three pieces of research. It would be helpful if the Minister would indicate whether there are other pieces of research. I understand that the first is by CSL Limited. It is a two-part study, the first of which was designed to compile a list of factors which the commission could use to measure the case for structural change. We understand that the findings were submitted to the DoE on 28th November. The second part is designed to identify how those factors for structural change can be measured. That part is to be submitted to the DoE by tomorrow, 20th December. On the basis of that work we understand that the DoE intends to draft guidance to the commission on cost benefit measures that it should use in its work and to circulate the draft to local authority associations for comments.
It is an important issue which will also arise later on amendments relating to cost benefit analysis. We believe that the two CSL reports should be released into the public domain. It is in everyone's interest, not only central government but all differing parties in local government, that there should be general agreement about the cost benefit issues to be used in the restructuring exercise. For that we need open disclosure of the relevant material.
We also worry that the report may seek to compare like with unlike. How does one judge community identity, on the one hand, against facilities for information technology material on the other? We should like to be assured that the methodology as well as the guidelines can be properly scrutinised by local governments and professional bodies, such as CIPFA and so on.
The second research that the DoE is commissioning is by Newcastle University. It is a paper to help to identify communities and the extent to which such data can be incorporated into a geographic information system for the new commission. We understand that the research is mirrored by a qualitative analysis by Mr. Alan Hedges on how people think about communities. We also understand that both reports on the concept of a community are to be published in the new year. We hope to see them. Perhaps the Minister will kindly confirm that that research too will come into the public domain.
A third piece of research affects the Welsh Office. We understand that the Secretary of State for Wales is consulting directly with interested parties on his favourite option for structural change and that firm proposals will be put forward in the new year. We understand that the Welsh Office has hired the consultants, Touche Ross, to help them in that process which concerns the financial and cost benefit issues surrounding the options for structural change. Again, we should like an indication from the Minister as to whether the Welsh Office will be bringing that information into the public domain for debate. Will the Minister tell us whether the research will be published? —because, if not, there is a risk that the Local Government Commission may be steered by research findings that have not been properly discussed as to their methodology and implications by

1509
all the parties involved in what will be the most important local government restructuring this century. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I support the amendment. All that needs to be said is that we all want to see not just that the commission's work is done well, but that it is seen to be done well and fully, and that the debate which will engage people in so many different areas can be informed by the research. So, in the interests of a better standard of debate with everyone equally and properly informed, I support the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, under Clause 13 the Secretary of State may give directions to the commission as to the exercise of any of its functions under that clause and such directions may require the commission to have regard to guidance given by the Secretary of State as respects matters to be taken into account.
A draft of the Government's guidance to the commission was issued to the local authority associations and other interested organisations on 25th November. Comments were invited by the end of January. That draft guidance is about the overall policy considerations which the commission should take into account, including policy on specific functions. In addition, we intend to issue a separate comprehensive factual description of local government functions. The Government have also commissioned two pieces of research into particular aspects of the commission's work.
First, we have asked researchers Alan Hedges and John Kelly to look at means of developing and refining criteria which might be applied to the assessment of community identity and loyalties, and which might be amenable to testing by means of surveys of public habits and attitudes in a given local area.
Secondly, we have commissioned the Centre for Urban and Regional Development Studies in Newcastle University to consider the application of geographical information systems in the definition of community boundaries, with a view to developing a suitable methodology which the commission might use.
As noble Lords remarked when we debated these matters in Committee, the concept of community is not easy. We very much hope that the research will help the commission in its efforts to identify communities with which people identify and to take account of them in looking at possible local government structures. We intend to draw on that research in guidance to the commission which will be published. We may also decide to disseminate the results of those two pieces of research into communities more widely.
In the light of my assurance that the guidance to the commission based on this research will be published, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I mentioned three pieces of
1510
research. She has referred to one, and obviously I was delighted with her response. Will she comment on the other two pieces of research I mentioned—the cost benefit analysis and the Touche Ross work for Wales?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I did mention two pieces of research—the John Kelly and Alan Hedges research and that of the Centre for Urban and Regional Development Studies. As the noble Baroness has pointed out, we have also asked CSL Limited to look at the costs and benefits to be taken into account and at the methodology for assessing them. That study will enable the Secretary of State to give the commission guidance on those matters, either as a supplement to the main guidance or free-standing. That work is not classified as research. That guidance to the commission will be issued in draft form for consultation and published in final form. However, we would not expect to publish the CSL advice itself: such advice to a government department is not normally published. Of course advice is taken from a raft of people and organisations during the course of formulating guidance. What is important is that the guidance is in draft form, and noble Lords will be able to consider it at that stage.
The noble Baroness pressed me about the PA Consulting Group report. We made it clear to local authorities which took part in the case studies that all the information supplied would be treated as confidential. The study was an aid to the internal consideration of policy on CCT and formed detailed advice to the Government. As I have said, such advice is not normally published. It would not be right to overturn that convention in this case. We considered whether to publish factual and analytical extracts about present practice and experience, but taken out of context they could have been misleading or criticised for their selective or partial nature.
Mr. Paul Cresswell, who headed the PA team, has written to the Local Government Chronicle to put the record straight about its article of 6th December.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. She said that the two pieces of research on communities carried out by Newcastle University would be published. She said that the CSL research on cost benefit analysis will not be published and the Minister has not commented on the Welsh research.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I should correct the noble Baroness. I did not call what was done by CSL research. I called it advice. The advice of CSL is being sought, which is very different from research. As regards the Welsh matter, it must be for the Secretary of State to determine what should be published.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that additional elucidation. Although we welcome the fact that the Newcastle research will be published, on these Benches we are extremely disappointed that the Minister has not seen fit to publish the CSL guidance, advice or whatever she wishes to call it. It seems to be research if it is published and guidance or advice if it is not as far as I can tell.

1511
Amendment No. 77 deals with cost benefit analysis. That research would have been extraordinarily helpful not only to the local authority organisations but also to the Audit Commission. It is regrettable that what must be a substantial piece of research—otherwise the Government could not usefully use it—will not be made available to all the parties who will be making submissions to the Local Government Commission and the Audit Commission on the issues which that research addresses.
I hope that the Minister may reconsider her opinion on that when she receives all the information she seeks.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I repeat what I said at the beginning. We intend to draw on those two pieces of research in guidance to the commission which will be published. I believe that earlier I referred to those two pieces of research as being published, but in fact the guidance based on the research will be published.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we seem to be at cross purposes. We both agree that research from Newcastle which reflects community interests will be published. Additional research from CSL about cost benefit analysis will not be published because she regards it as advice and not as research. If I have that wrong, I am happy to give way.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Baroness has got it wrong. The two pieces of research to which I referred will be used to form the basis for the guidance which will be published. The pieces of research in themselves will not be published, nor will the CSL advice.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, that is the point I am trying to establish. The CSL advice on cost benefit analysis will not be published. Therefore it will be modified when it becomes advice to the commission. However, the original research will not be published although local authorities on all sides would find it useful and important. The Audit Commission and the Local Government Commission expect to draw on that research. It is sad that the research which will form the guidance that the Secretary of State will give to the Local Government Commission will not be available in the public domain when it is so vital. I do not understand the Minister's thinking on this but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 [Changes that may be recommended]:
2.30 p.m.
Lord Norrie Lord Norrie moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 11, line 47, at end insert ("or the reallocation of functions between the two principal tiers of local government").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 76 seeks to provide the Local Government Commission with greater flexibility in recommending the most appropriate form of local government depending on local circumstances. I moved the same
1512
amendment at Committee stage with cross-party support and make no apology for bringing it back. It raises matters that lie at the heart of the Bill.
Clause 14 is still too inflexible. It limits the definition of structural change as the abolition of a tier of local government. My amendment allows for the retention of a two-tier local government structure where it has been shown to have widespread support but with a redistribution of responsibilities for local services between tiers where the Local Government Commission considers it appropriate.
At Committee stage I suggested that that may be an appropriate solution, for example, where a large urban authority is able to carry out more functions effectively than it currently does but where a larger authority should retain a statutory overview for strategic purposes such as planning, or indeed for the fire services. I was disappointed by the response from the Minister to my earlier amendment when she said that she did not wish to see the commission recommending piecemeal changes to the functions of local government. It would blur accountability and create confusion in public awareness of each tier's responsibility.
I do not believe that the redistribution of functions should necessarily be considered piecemeal. It would have significant effects. But it is less likely to create disruption and confusion than the abolition of a tier of local government. We should not be unduly restrictive and the Local Government Commission should be able to consider all options. The Government already stated that the commission should have the freedom to recommend the most appropriate local government structure depending on local circumstances. My amendment seeks to provide the commission with that freedom to ensure the best outcome for all concerned. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I support the amendment. I am less wedded to the presumptions that are contained in the guidance regarding there being a unitary solution to the restructuring. Amendment No. 76 is designed only to give the commission flexibility; it is not directing it in a specific way.
On reflection I am a little sad that the term "principal" is contained in the reference to tiers of local government. One of the ways that the commission may go is in thinking about increasing the powers of parishes—something about which we talked a good deal at Committee stage. We also mentioned the allocation of functions among the various tiers, not necessarily just the principal tiers. It is a matter which I am sure will be debated under the aegis of the commission, though I accept that there is to be a consultation paper as well in the future about the functions and role of the parishes. The Minister referred to that at the last stage.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we on this side give limited support to the amendment. In other words, we prefer the concept of a unitary authority. We recognise that, where the Local Government

1513
Commission in response to local communities may wish to retain a two-tier structure, this will be a useful fall-back reserve power.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I apologise to the House for sounding so repetitive this afternoon. Many of these debates we have heard before. The noble Baroness referred to parishes. The fact that the word "principal" appears is no reflection on the importance of parishes and I believe I made that absolutely clear on a previous occasion.
When we discussed amendments about functions at Committee stage, I was able to offer reassurances that it will be central to the work of the Local Government Commission to look at the functions carried out by local authorities in the areas which it reviews and to make recommendations about how they should be discharged where it recommends unitary authorities. However, the amendment would have the effect of making it possible for the commission to recommend that there should be changes to the functions of local authorities as between the tiers. As we have already made clear, we do not wish to see the commission recommending piecemeal changes to the functions of local government. When we discussed similar amendments at Committee stage, my noble friend Lora Norrie and other noble Lords saw attractions in what was described as a more subtle approach, allowing the commission to recommend that functions should be reallocated where there continue to be two tiers of local government.
We see no attractions in that approach. On the contrary, we are convinced that this would be a recipe for blurred accountability and great confusion in the mind of the public about which authority did what. In the draft guidance to the commission which we issued for consultation last month, we set out the broad policy considerations to which the commission should have regard in looking at the structure of local government in each area it reviews.
The draft also contains some advice on the general issues to be taken into account when the commission is considering effective, efficient and convenient performance of specific functions. But neither the provisions of the Bill as currently drafted nor the draft guidance envisages that the commission will be empowered to recommend moving responsibility for functions about between the tiers. We do not believe that that would be a fruitful approach. I hope that the amendment can be withdrawn.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that lengthy reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Norrie Lord Norrie moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 12, line 9, after ("include") insert ("proper justification for the costs involved and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to ensure that the Local Government Commission justifies any costs that its recommendations involve. I moved a similar amendment at Committee stage. I was assured by my noble friend Lord Howe that the commission would not recommend change to local government structure
1514
without a proper justification of costs. I welcomed that statement. However, I was disturbed by an apparently contradictory statement made earlier during the Committee stage when my noble friend Lady Blatch said that there should be positive reasons for no change. I do not believe that there should be change for change's sake as the statement suggests. I hope that the Government will support my view.
I also welcome the fact that special guidance is to be issued on how the commission should assess the costs and benefits of change. I hope that that assessment will include consideration of environmental costs. However, I still find it disturbing that there is nothing on the face of the Bill which requires the commission to demonstrate the case for structural change. I share the Government's view that local government reform should be worthwhile and cost effective. The safest way of ensuring that that takes place is to place a statutory duty on the commission to provide evidence to that effect. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, clearly local government structural reform has to be worthwhile and cost effective. That is obviously right. We believe that there will be savings in single-tier authorities; for example, there will be fewer problems of overlap, better resource allocation between services that are integrated on the same tier, selling surplus property and the like. Equally clearly, there will be the costs of transition, especially as they affect staff, such as retirements, redundancy payments and so forth. However, as the Government argued when discussing CCT, costs tend to occur at the beginning and savings should be able to continue.
I have three points to make. First, any such savings will not be easy to forecast, as experience with the abolition of the metropolitan counties between 1984 and 1986, gave evidence. INLOGOV did some research after the metropolitan counties were abolished to see what the result in cost benefits seemed to be. Knowing that they were going to be abolished, the metropolitan counties, quite reasonably, were determined to run down their balances and, for political mileage, to fix as low a precept as possible in their final years. Equally, the districts which took on their responsibilities blamed the costs of transition for increases in their budgets even though the subsequent services were speedily integrated into delivery.
In other words, the response to cost benefit largely depended on the level of services explored and the level of charges pertaining after reorganisation. There were no easy answers. Similarly, when the Local Government Commission reviewed Humberside in 1989 with the same brief—namely, to find whether, as regards cost-benefit analysis, Humberside should be retained—the consultants were unable to identify the cost benefit simply because it depended on the future shape and level of policies and charges, as with the metropolitan counties.
Secondly, in any case, as was said concerning an earlier amendment, there are different kinds of cost benefit. There will be democratic gains, closeness to the people, democracy and the like. That has to be weighed against the financial gains from consortia purchasing and procurement. There we are comparing

1515
different classes and different categories of cost, gain and benefit. It is in this context that I find it very regrettable that a moment ago the Minister was unable to assure us that CSL research, so relevant to this transaction, would be published.
Thirdly, on these Benches we believe that the considerations for the future shape of local government should certainly include consideration of cost benefit, but that they should be led by considerations about community and about the strength of democracy. As the Local Government Boundary Commission said in its evidence to the DoE:
"We see it as probable that new unitary authorities will evolve new and more cost-effective means of service provision which are not capable of calculation in advance of the event".
The commission also warned that it is:
"important to avoid the risk that over-emphasis on the costs of introducing change might serve to frustrate the very improvements in local government and accountability that the very process of restructuring is intended to promote".
That was from the Local Government Boundary Commission—that the evidence of cost benefit analysis would be useful but of only limited help in determining the future structure of local government. I support the amendment.
Lord Digby: My Lords, anyone who lived through the reorganisation in 1973 can have no doubt about the costs of reorganisation. Most politicians see the mote in the existing eye and forget the beam in the one putting it in. I cannot imagine that the commission will fail to take the costs into account. However, I urge that the duty to produce proper justification should be written into the Bill. It will concentrate the mind in a most constructive way. I hope that the Government will accept this amendment.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for introducing this amendment which, as he reminded us, is similar to amendments which were tabled during the Committee stage. In those debates I gave an assurance that it was most certainly the Government's intention that there should be a proper justification for the costs and upheaval involved before any structural changes are made. That justification is part of the case for, or against, change. It is specifically provided for in paragraph 14 of the draft guidance to which the commission is required to have regard.
In that Committee debate I described the work being done by CSL Group Limited—to which the noble Baroness referred earlier—for the department on the costs and benefits of change. Its report will also be about methodology and will enable the department to prepare draft guidance to the commission on the way it should consider and assess these issues. I should like to say to my noble friend Lord Norrie that because of the presumption in favour of unitary authorities there must be positive reasons for no change, just as there should be positive reasons for change. I can do no more than say, as I did in Committee, that any changes that occur should not be changes for the sake of change.
The guidance to the commission will be issued in draft form for consultation. After the consultation has
1516
been completed it will then be published in its final form. In the light of that assurance, I hope that my noble friend will not press this amendment.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend's reply. I hope that the guidance will make it clear that the costs of change should be fully justified. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 77ZA:
Page 12, line 50, after ("area") insert ("or part or parts of its area").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 77ZA I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 88A. These amendments repeat amendments that were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Feversham, in Committee. He regrets that he is unable to be here, but as president of the National Association of Local Councils he is very much concerned with the position of parishes in the work of the Local Government Commission. He and I agree that we made substantial progress in understanding the provisions intended by Government. On the whole, we were pretty well satisfied with the provisions of the Bill as far as concerns parishes.
But there were two outstanding items which we believe it necessary to raise again briefly. The amendments are not the same, but they have been grouped together, with my agreement, in order to save time. I shall speak first to Amendment No. 77ZA. It refers to Clause 14(3) (g) where the changes which may take place under the clause include,
"the abolition of a parish, with or without the distribution of its area among other parishes".
We propose that the wording should read:
"the abolition of a parish, with or without the distribution of its area, or part or parts of its area, among other parishes".
It seems to us that the provision in the legislation is logically incomplete.
The permutations which seem to us to be possible are: first, the abolition of a parish in such a way that the whole area is unparished—that is provided for in the Bill as drafted; secondly, the situation where a whole parish is attached to another parish—that is also provided for in the Bill as drafted; thirdly, the situation where a whole parish is divided among different parishes, which is quite a likely situation as some parishes are too small and it would be proper for the area to be divided among neighbouring parishes —that does not seem to be provided for in the Bill as drafted; and, fourthly, the situation where part or parts are added to a parish or parishes but the rest is not parished—again, that is not covered by the Bill as drafted. Without in any way seeking to change the thrust of the Bill, we believe that all the permutations which may arise ought to be considered.
The second point arises in Amendment No. 88A. It refers to the obligation to give information to parishes. In Committee, when responding to Amendment No. 219, the noble Baroness gave an adequate assurance that there would be reference to information for existing parishes, but there was no commitment as regards the information being given to parishes which may be created. Therefore, by way of

1517
Amendment No. 88A, which refers to Clause 20 and "agreements as to incidental matters", we propose to provide an answer to the problem.
I hope that the Government will feel that both amendments are useful additions to a section of the Bill that is generally welcomed. I beg to move.
2.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I hope that I shall be able to reassure the noble Lord that all he seeks to achieve is covered in the Bill. Perhaps between now and Third Reading he will refer again to the Bill in order to bear out what I say.
Amendment No. 77ZA seeks to make it clear that, where a parish is abolished, not only will it be possible for all of its area to be distributed among other parishes or to become unparished, but it will also be possible for only part of its area to become unparished and for the remainder to be distributed. As I said before, the amendment is unnecessary. I tried to explain the position in Committee, but I am afraid that I shall have to try to do so again at this stage.
Clause 14(3) explains what is meant by a "boundary change". Paragraph (a) describes what is in practice the most common example of a boundary change; namely, the alteration of a local government area. Noble Lords will note that Clause 28 defines a local government area as including "a parish". It is therefore possible to transfer part of a parish to another parish simply by means of altering the boundary between the two, and making one parish smaller and the other larger. In such a case the entire area affected would remain within one or the other parish. An area cannot be abolished simply by altering its boundary.
Paragraph (c) permits the abolition of a principal area outside Greater London—that is, a county or a district—but requires the whole of the abolished area to be distributed among areas of the like description. That means that every part of England outside Greater London must fall within a county and a district.
The position with parishes is different, because not all of England is parished. Paragraph (g) therefore provides for,
"the abolition of a parish, with or without the distribution of its area among other parishes".
The effect of these words is that it is not necessary, every time a parish is abolished, for all of its area to remain within one parish or another. The words do not mean, however, that the whole of the abolished parish must either be distributed or become unparished.
Clause 13 requires the Local Government Commission to recommend such boundary changes as appear to it to be desirable. The commission may therefore recommend that part or parts of a parish should be transferred to one or more neighbouring parishes by means of an alteration of their areas and also that the former parish should be abolished and what is left of its area should become unparished.
In this manner the effect which this amendment is designed to achieve can already be achieved under the Bill as drafted. This provision is no different from that
1518
which already appears in the Local Government Act 1972, under which the type of changes that I have described have taken place on numerous occasions.
I turn to Amendment No. 88A. The Government are entirely in agreement with the intentions of the amendment. I can, however, assure your Lordships that it is unnecessary. Clause 20 refers to any public bodies affected by an order under Part II of the Bill and this reference is explained in Clause 28(3). The effect of that subsection is that the reference to any bodies affected by an order includes a reference to any bodies established under, or in consequence of, such an order.
All that the noble Lord desires of the two amendments is covered by the Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords understood that argument perfectly. I barely understood my own arguments and I certainly do not claim that I took in all the Minister's reply. I shall read it with great care. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 77A:
Page 13, line 20, at end insert:
"( ) In considering whether to recommend a structural or boundary change the Local Government Commission shall work on the presumption that local authorities individually shall have direct responsibility for local government functions.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I move the amendment following an interesting debate in Committee. I found helpful the statement which the Minister then made that joint boards even on a voluntary basis were intended to be the exception. We need to go as far as we can on the face of the Bill. The amendment is tabled to require the Local Government Commission to work on the presumption that the local authorities individually will have direct responsibility for local government functions.
Under the Bill and the draft guidance it is still envisaged that a number of services will be subject to joint arrangements of some kind or another. Strategic planning, social services, trading standards and the law and order functions are specifically mentioned in the draft guidance. I see some inconsistency between the paragraph in the guidance dealing with law and order functions in support of joint arrangements and paragraph 11 which states that the statutory joint authorities detract from accountability and should he the exception. I do not accept that the law and order services are different in any way nor that they should therefore be dealt with differently by joint arrangements in terms of funding, accountability or anything else.
We said in Committee, and it bears repeating in support of this amendment, that joint arrangements weaken accountability and public understanding of the system. The description of them as a hotch-potch is right, even if that is not a scientific or technical term. They certainly work against efficiency. I am told that the staffing figures indicate that between 1985 and 1987 there was a negligible overall change in the number of staff employed by the metropolitan councils and the number employed by the boroughs

1519
and the joint bodies which were created following the reorganisation of those councils. In Merseyside and West Yorkshire, the sum of the three joint boards' precepts was greater in 1986–87 than the final metropolitan county council precept in 1985–86. Whether the efficiency and cost-effectiveness argument can be relied on at all I rather doubt.
The standards of service undertaken under the aegis of the joint authorities also give cause for concern. Waste disposal in South Yorkshire and the West Midlands and trading standards in Greater Manchester and Merseyside are only examples I have received where independent research evidence shows that matters are not as they might be.
The accountability argument found favour with Members on all sides of the Committee and the lack of accountability was mentioned of those who take part in the joint arrangements. These people are not directly elected. They have no direct relationship with consumers or others involved in the various services. The arrangements are very much a second priority for those who take part in them in many circumstances. That is not to suggest that they are not taken seriously by the members. It is simply that the workload is so great that it cannot be their first concern. I believe that the work suffers as a result.
Most recently, we have had the example of the problems of the London Boroughs Grants Committee which have threatened services across the board. While I appreciate that the Bill does not concern London, we should regard that as an awful warning of what can happen if the structural arrangements are not appropriate.
I suggest that the evidence is that joint arrangements do not give us gains in effectiveness or efficiency. We lose on accountability. The public do not know who on earth is responsible for what. There is no evidence that the services are better; indeed, there is probably evidence that they become worse. The operation of the services becomes quite cumbersome. As we have mentioned before, the private tensions and private agendas of those who are involved in joint arrangements never quite surface but they affect the way in which joint bodies work.
In moving the amendment, I ask your Lordships to remember the heartfelt pleas of those who talked about joint arrangements on the previous occasion and to give the arrangements the status or lack of status which we suggest in the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I wish to say how encouraged I was by hearing my noble friend the Minister emphasise during the Committee stage that joint arrangements, even on a voluntary basis, are intended to be the exception. In your Lordships' House there is recognition that it would be wrong to be prescriptive about the size of unitary authorities and there is a clear understanding that it has to be a matter for the commission. However, there is also a realisation that
1520
authorities must be of sufficient size to command adequate resources for the tasks to be undertaken, which will increasingly be of a commissioning nature.
My experience in setting up commissioning teams is that it requires people of a high calibre if value for money is to be achieved. I fear that if small, tuppenny ha'penny unitary authorities are set up, they will fail to attract professionals with sufficient knowledge, negotiating skills and expertise that will be necessary if we are to give local charge payers the value for money which is their due.
I am aware that time is pressing and, like the doorkeepers, I am getting hungrier by the minute. However, it is worth while taking time to note that in the past 10 months under the NHS reforms, where we now have a defined split between purchasers and providers, regional health authorities have had to re-draw their district boundaries, merging districts in order to ensure that authorities are of sufficient size to attract and sustain the calibre of people to form the commissioning teams.
Frankly the tasks in local government are much more difficult as the services that are provided are more diverse and the span of responsibility is wider. I am concerned that if the principle is conceded by the commission that new authorities can be established without being of a sufficient size to have direct responsibility for virtually all the local government functions within their area, the intentions of my noble friend the Minister to ensure that joint arrangements are the exception rather than the rule will go by default.
We will have a system of local government which is incomprehensible to the public, where accountability is diluted, where officers are obliged to formulate policy and take decisions and where an inordinate amount of unproductive time is spent trying to reach agreements and negotiate future expenditure. We know that to achieve successful joint working there must be a shared vision. That is absolutely essential. There must be agreement on priorities and a willingness to finance particular schemes or commission particular services. Most important of all, there must be a shared ability to resource those joint plans once they are agreed.
I am sure there would be sufficient good will on this matter. I recognise that authorities will agree a joint vision and they will set the priorities and be willing to finance those aspirations in principle. However, my experience of joint working is that where the system fails is in its inability to synchronise resources and to deliver the finance jointly at the time required. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has already referred to some examples this afternoon. I could refer to 12 examples but I shall not do so.
However, I wish to explore the closure of hospitals where local government, social services, housing and planning departments have to work closely with health departments. We know that in this case too there must be a joint vision. We must get the timing right and take responsibility for the individuals being moved out of the hospital concerned. We must have regard to the future of those working in the hospital. Above all, we must slot the community services into

1521
place prior to the closure. In short, we have to make it happen. But does it happen? No, it does not. We are still left with countless piles of old, decrepit, Victorian workhouses and institutions suited for another age and another purpose. They are incarcerating people whose quality of life is shameful.
If over 20 years we have so abysmally failed those wonderful people, what are the chances of succeeding in the future when there may be nine or 10 social services departments with which to negotiate, whereas in the past there has been only one? I recognise that unitary authorities, incorporating as they do housing as well as social services, will enhance the chances of success. I am not arguing against the principle of unitary authorities. I am just anxious that they should be of a sensible size and that they should he coterminous with health authorities. I am anxious that we arrive at a sensible and workable system which enriches the lives of our citizens and fulfils their aspirations. I support the amendment.
3 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am afraid that we on this side of the House cannot support this amendment because the implication that local authorities individually should have direct responsibility for all local government functions would effectively mean an end to all partnership arrangements between districts, between counties and between local authorities and voluntary organisations. On behalf of these Benches I am not arguing for statutory joint authorities, although police and fire may be an exception here, as was the case before 1974.
We believe that voluntary joint arrangements are a useful, flexible, sensible and cost-effective way of handling and delivering those few services that draw on a larger population base than the district but almost always use a smaller population base than the county council. They may, for example, involve sharing specialist machinery, plant, or laboratory equipment, but the movers of the amendment would have all of that produced by each local authority. They may involve, for example, shared tourism arrangements or districts coming together to protect a green belt. Districts may, for example, come together on a voluntary basis—this is the case between Norwich and South Norfolk —to protect a river valley. Joint arrangements may involve co-ordination of neighbouring districts on arrangements to provide a common policy on concessionary bus fares. Are the movers of the amendment suggesting that these joint arrangements should not take place? There may also be voluntary joint arrangements between local authorities and voluntary groups which span several districts.
Some of the most fruitful developments over the past decade have been projects such as Exeter City Council's special needs forum, the cross-agency care in the community committees in Milton Keynes or Plymouth's housing project group and crossroad schemes for the disabled. All have been praised by the Audit Commission. They were all made possible by joint arrangements.
1522
What about care in the community? The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, said that boundaries should be coterminous with health authority areas. Having read fairly carefully the debates concerning patients in care which took place in 1980 when the AHAs were abolished, I noted that it was said that it was not a matter of overriding concern that the newly established DHAs should be coterminous with social service authorities. It seems a little curious for that to be quoted now.
Bottom-up arrangements work satisfactorily. It is simply not true that they are difficult to establish or cumbersome to operate. We have research from the Rowntree Trust, an independent body, published in October 1991, on the government of London which found that most of the borough joint committee schemes appear to work well.
Equally, after five years of experience of unitary districts following abolition of the metropolitan authorities, the AMA is not aware of any problems, with the single exception quoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, of the London boroughs grant scheme, although it has consulted its members widely. INLOGOV has also undertaken extensive research and makes the same point.
Both noble Baronesses have said that joint arrangements impede accountability. If for that the reason we are not to have them, local government will be forced into a two-tier structure which is infinitely more confusing and opaque than a handful of joint arrangements or, alternatively, local government will be forced into very large, county sized, unitary authorities with, as all the research shows, lack of local accessibility and real diseconomies of scale.
If your Lordships were minded to accept the amendment it would lock us into size, an issue which we explored at Committee stage. It would also lock us into an assumption that local authorities have to be large enough to provide all services. The whole development of local government in the past decade has been towards enabling authorities, authorities which procure services from outside, which span the public and private sector and span the statutory and voluntary organisation divide. The amendment is seriously out of date. It would ossify local government in the worst possible way. It would mean that no partnership arrangements could ever be established on a voluntary basis to respond to the new needs which might not relate directly to the local population base. It would mean that local authorities could not come together on concessionary fares, on green issues or on tourism. That would surely send local government in the opposite direction from everything which has made it sensitive and flexible and provided value for money over the past decade. We on this side of the House will certainly not support the amendment.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly support what my noble friend has just said and give one or two working examples of useful joint arrangements. I believe that choice should be a matter for local authorities. I do not want to see them compelled to make such arrangements or compelled not to. There are circumstances in which it would be

1523
advisable for them to enter into such arrangements and others in which those arrangements might not work.
The noble Baroness will be well aware of the arrangements in Cambridgeshire. Perhaps I may tell the House about one or two. For example, in some of the Cambridgeshire districts there has been some very useful collaborative work on the provision of grant aid for voluntary bodies. That makes sense because it means that the money is distributed where it is needed and it avoids duplication of effort.
I served for several years on a joint traffic management committee of the county and city councils in Cambridge. We argued sometimes because we were of different political persuasions and perhaps we did not always make the right decisions. However, most of the time the arrangement worked extremely well. Without it I suggest we would not have managed the traffic arrangements for Cambridge nearly so well.
In a further example the county council wished to close an educational and recreation facility. Three of the district councils got together and rescued that facility and are now operating it extremely well.
The final example that I should like to give, which I am sure will appeal to noble Lords on the Benches opposite, is the East Anglian Shires Purchasing Consortium in which local authorities got together to buy the items that they needed and were able to obtain a valuable discount by reason of coming together. Those arguments cannot be dismissed and I hope that the amendment will not be accepted.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, although I understand the anxieties in the minds of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and of my noble friend Lady Cumberlege, the debate has illustrated very well why it would not only be inappropriate but wrong to tie the hands of the commission, so that it would rule out either informal or formal arrangements for joint working. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, gave some examples that I know very well. I was party to the establishment of at least one of the three that she mentioned. I therefore ask noble Lords not to press the amendments.
In our draft guidance to the commission we make it clear that the commission should recommend a structure which enables individual authorities to be responsible for all local government functions, except law and order services, which are a special case. The significance of establishing unitary authorities which match communities will be lost if those authorities do not have such direct responsibility. I was sorry to hear that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, did not agree that it was sensible at this stage to make exceptions for police and fire authorities. It is sensible to say at the outset that it would not be desirable if they were fragmented into much smaller unitary authorities. There will be a great deal more stability and certainty in the future of police authorities if that is established at the outset, but it is a matter for consultation at present.
The Local Government Commission should have a free range across all other local authority functions to determine the appropriate level of authority. A
1524
structure of unitary authorities, each with responsibility for all local government functions, does not preclude voluntary arrangements between authorities to share expertise or facilities if that is sensible and efficient in practice. Where such arrangements are made, the authorities concerned may each retain statutory responsibility for a service in their area. They may draw on each other on an agency basis to achieve the most flexible and cost-effective results.
We cannot rule out joint arrangements for all local government functions whatever the circumstances. I assure the noble Baronesses that we are well aware that statutory joint arrangements detract from accountability. We have made it clear that we intend them to be very much the exception rather than the rule.
We are committed to an accountable and effective structure of local government based on authorities which reflect more closely the communities with which people identify. We consider that a structure of unitary authorities, each with responsibility for all local government functions, could be the most beneficial structure for local government in most areas. Where a unitary structure is not appropriate, two tiers may remain.
If the amendment were accepted, it is possible that, for every conceivable reason, there would be a good argument for a unitary authority to be established. However, because it would not be sensible to fragment the police authority, that would be the sole reason for not presuming in favour of what would be the most sensible decision, consistent with local community opinion.
The presumption in favour of a local government structure which enables individual authorities to have direct responsibility for all local government functions, except the law and order services, is set out clearly in the guidance and it is not necessary for it to be on the face of the Bill.
As I said, we cannot rule out joint arrangements for all local government functions, whatever the circumstances. The Bill as drafted leaves it to the commission to make recommendations about whether such arrangements are required. It will be open to the commission, under the Bill as drafted, not to recommend joint arrangements for most functions. However, where it is unlikely that a satisfactory local government structure can be achieved without joint arrangements, I am sure that the House will agree that the commission will be in an excellent position to make recommendations about them. It would be unwise to remove its duty to do so, as Amendment No. 78A seeks to do.
It is a unique event that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and I are on the same side of the fence. For that reason, if for no other, the amendment should be rejected.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, that state of affairs must make us all the more alarmed. I was surprised by the vehemence with which the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, greeted the amendment. I can only think that, like the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, she too is noticing the lack of lunch.

1525
In response to what the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said with regard to the restructuring of the health service, whatever the rights and wrongs, let me not the judgmental term "mistakes", but at least let us learn from history.
I had thought that what I propose in this amendment was a statutory way of saying that joint arrangements should be very much the exception and not the rule. If the amendment had been phrased in those terms, I should have been told that it was not quite the way that one should put it in the legislation. I did not intend to suggest and do not believe that I did suggest that there should not be voluntary joint arrangements. But we must accept that voluntary joint arrangements cannot be regarded as a panacea. They cannot be left as the means of mopping up what does not conveniently fit into the structural rearrangement in such a way that it tempts those who organise that structure to leave bits on one side, knowing that they can be mopped up, and not do their level best to deal with those services appropriately.
It is probably enough for me to say that voluntary joint arrangements are not ones which I would outlaw —quite the contrary—but neither are they arrangements on which we should rely. In view of the time, I simply ask leave to withdraw the amendment. However, I do not one whit retreat from my concern about the issue.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 13, line 30, leave out ("and").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, as I explained during our debates in Committee, we have been re-examining the provisions in the Bill to ensure that they do not rule out options for development planning—especially strategic planning of the kind we see in structure plan preparation.
The need for Amendments Nos. 78 and 79 stems from the fact that development plan preparation is not treated as a single function in the planning Acts. We want the Local Government Commission to be able to make recommendations about development plans. A full range of options should be open to it, including the option to have unitary development plans prepared by unitary authorities.
Part II of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991) deals with development plans. Chapter 1 of that part, which currently applies to the area of any local planning authority in Greater London or a metropolitan county, requires each local planning authority to prepare unitary development plans for its area.
A unitary development plan contains all the elements which in a non-metropolitan area would be found in the three or four separate plans. In such areas there are potentially up to four different types of development plan. That point has been mentioned already by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. Structure plans are prepared by the county council, as are minerals local plans and waste local plans; and local plans are prepared by the district council. It would
1526
clearly be administratively more efficient if a single authority could combine those functions rather than being required to carry out all the procedural arrangements three or four times over. That is already the case in the metropolitan areas where we have unitary local government now.
This amendment will give the Local Government Commission the flexibility to recommend either that the present system in the non-metropolitan areas should continue, adjusted as appropriate to unitary authorities, or that the new unitary authorities should prepare unitary development plans, as the London borough and metropolitan district councils do at present.
In cases where the existing two-tier development plan system is to be retained within a system of unitary authorities, it may be desirable for the local plan to include minerals or waste policies. The amendment also provides for that possibility.
The Secretary of State will be able to implement the commission's recommendations about arrangements for planning under Clause 17. As we have said before, we fully appreciate the importance of the planning system. We have made it clear that before any unitary authorities are established, it will have to be shown that the issues of strategic and local planning are satisfactorily covered.
Our draft guidance to the commission says that it should have regard to the need to establish authorities which cover areas such that they can carry out all their functions effectively and do so in ways which reflect community interests. The guidance goes on to say that the commission should look for a structure to achieve the cost effective exercise of functions and delivery of services consistent with wider public interest. It should consider the wider public interest in the case of strategic functions, which I know is behind much of the anxiety of my noble friend Lady Cumberlege. The draft guidance also sets out more detailed advice specific to land use planning.
In the light of our commitment to strong planning arrangements, I hope that noble Lords will accept these amendments which are designed to keep the commission's options open.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, the noble Baroness referred to Chapter 1, Part II, of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 which makes provision for the preparation of unitary development plans in metropolitan areas. The amendment allows for the extension of those provisions to any new authorities created in the shire counties.
I am not convinced that unitary development plans will work without an accountable, effective and enforceable strategic framework. I should like to know how the framework is to be provided. In my view it cannot be by joint arrangement.
The noble Baroness also referred to the second option under Chapter II, Part II, of the 1990 Act. The new unitary authorities would be required to prepare authority-wide local plans. They would be able to prepare joint structure plans with neighbouring authorities. That brings us back to joint arrangements. I have considerable doubts as to whether effective strategic planning can be provided by joint

1527
structure plans. I foresee deadlock where unitary cities may not agree with their surrounding shire areas about either the scale or location of development, the priorities for countryside protection or indeed the disposal of the city's waste. I believe that there are formidable problems with the two options. Joint arrangements should not be considered as an acceptable solution. I was encouraged by the Minister when she said earlier today that there was a presumption against the proliferation of joint arrangements. I greatly fear that the only way out is through my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment being drawn into an ever widening circle of local planning matters.
I have a preferred option. It would provide for a unitary authority large enough to prepare a structure plan but with local plans prepared on an area by area basis. The amendments should allow for that, but I am not sure that they do. Perhaps my noble friend will reassure me that such an option is possible.
My Amendment No. 78B provides an alternative way forward that would safeguard strategic planning. However, I wish to know how the Government intend to tackle the major problems involved in its own amendment to which I have just referred.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we believe that the amendment is sensible and wish to support it. We believe—we would like the Minister's comments—that unitary development plans have worked well in metropolitan districts many of which are no larger than existing district councils.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I too support the amendment. It allows the technical arrangements as options which will be necessary if the thrust of the Bill and the commission is to be implemented. The amendment allows structure and local plans to be dealt with at the same time as the other arrangements. That is clearly sensible.
I refer to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. From my experience in London it has been difficult and time consuming to ensure that strategic concerns are properly reflected in the unitary plans which are now at consultation and deposit stage in many London boroughs. The process has not been helped by the fact that the very fine work undertaken by the boroughs agreeing their advice to the Secretary of State has not been reflected in the guidance from the Secretary of State. I believe that that is a lesson from history that people have taken much to heart. I support the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the amendments relate to leaving open options for the Local Government Commission. They are no more and no less than that. I couple that with all the safeguards that I have described about how the commission will work and to what it must have regard in putting recommendations before the Secretary of State.
My noble friend Lord Norrie said that he would like the Government to set out now how they intend to resolve some of the problems to which he referred. At this stage, it is not for the Government to resolve
1528
those issues; it is for the Local Government Commission to set about its work. Where it changes the arrangements for the structure of local authorities—in other words, changes the responsibility for planning matters—it must, first, convince the Secretary of State that delivery of those responsibilities is effective and efficient.
Secondly, the commission must also convince both Houses of Parliament. In the light of the fact that I am asking merely for options to be kept open and flexibility for the Local Government Commission, I ask the House to accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 78A not moved.]
Lord Norrie Lord Norrie moved Amendment No. 78B:
Page 13, line 35, at end insert ("with the exception of functions performed under Chapter II of Part II of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 which the Commission shall ensure can be carried out effectively without joint arrangements").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment seeks to ensure that any new unitary authorities created by the Bill are large enough to produce structure plans without joint arrangements. There was much debate in Committee about the merits and problems of joint arrangements. Considerable scepticism was expressed on both sides, in particular by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about the effectiveness of joint authorities or boards. I shall not rehearse their various shortcomings now.
This is a probing amendment. It is intended to ensure that structure plans continue to be drawn up by one authority. The amendment may be technically flawed, but its intention is clear. Structure plans provide effective strategic planning. They are a framework for reconciling conflicting interests. They are most important for protecting the countryside and the wider environment. They are valued by developers as well as environmentalists for the statutory overview and direction they provide.
I do not believe that an effective structure plan could be prepared by more than one authority. Without structure plans, I fear strategic planning will be in turmoil. I am not sure that that can be the Government's intention. Unless we have effective strategic planning, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will be placed in the unenviable position of having to intervene increasingly in local planning problems. On the one hand, the Government recognise that joint authorities are to be the exception because of their limitations; but, on the other, the Government are opening the door to joint arrangements for the preparation of structure plans. I do not see how joint arrangements can be made to work effectively for strategic planning purposes. This is a matter of great anxiety on all sides of the House. I hope that the Government will respond positively to the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, much of the argument put forward on the previous two amendments related also to this amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, has said that it is a probing amendment, perhaps I can probe the Minister to find out what she

1529
envisages happening, as a result of what she suggests in the Bill, or what the noble Lord suggests, that would affect marine areas.
The Minister will recall that we have on a number of occasions discussed the need for a coherent approach to coastal areas. There has been no reference to that at any stage of the Bill. If the noble Lord's suggestion goes forward, I see the difficulties now existing in marine areas being exacerbated. I should like the Minister to comment upon that point when she responds to her noble friend.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do not wish to be repetitive on this amendment because we have covered almost all aspects of two tier authorities, joint authorities and so on. I hope that what is on record substantially answers that.
As regards the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, where it is a function of the local authority on any aspect of planning, whether it is responsibility for marine or land areas, that function must be addressed by the Local Government Commission. In other words, when a recommendation is made to the Secretary of State, the way in which that responsibility is exercised must be set out very clearly both for the Secretary of State and Parliament. I hope that in the light of answers given to previous amendments and what I have just said, the amendment will not be pressed.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 13, line 35, at end insert ("and
(d) whether, in connection with any recommended structural change, any authority should, for the purpose of the vesting of functions under Part II of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (development plans) in that authority—

(i) be treated as an authority to whose area Chapter I of that Part (unitary plans) applies, instead of Chapter II (structure and local plans); or

(ii) be authorised to include any of the policies mentioned in section 37 or 38 of that Act (mineral and waste plans) in their local plan.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 80 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 15 [Procedure on a review]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 14, line 28, at end insert:
("( ) cause a public meeting to be held for the purposes of consultation to examine such matters affecting the consideration of representations as they or the Secretary of State consider ought to be examined.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in Committee I proposed amendments requiring a public inquiry to be held. I must agree with what the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said at that time; namely, that it is better to go along to a village hall and listen to people rather than to hold a stultifying formal inquiry. He is quite right about that.
However, I believe it is important that local people should not only be entitled but should also be encouraged to make known their views. The Government are placing considerable weight on the interests of communities in formulating proposals for reform. That is quite right. There has been a good deal of discussion about making provision for extremely detailed exploration of people's views.
We do not yet know what the guidance on procedures will contain, but I propose this amendment in the hope that it may take us further along that route. On this occasion I do not ask for a statutory requirement for an inquiry. I merely seek the less formal, cosier requirement of a public meeting. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with the spirit of this amendment. The Local Government Commission's procedure has been designed to provide for extensive public consultation, and the commission will certainly want to do all it can to make the best possible assessment of local views. When the Local Government Commission is carrying out a review of local government structure in an area it could certainly be useful for it to hold a public meeting to discuss the review as a means of gathering local views. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent the commission from holding public meetings and we shall certainly encourage the commission to hold such meetings whenever they are appropriate through the procedural guidance which my right honourable friend intends to issue to the commission and to which it will be required to have regard. We shall invite views about the contents of this guidance.
I cannot agree that it would be appropriate to require the commission to hold public meetings about all of its reviews.
I can assure the noble Baroness that we fully appreciate that public meetings can be helpful in discussing possibilities for change. We should certainly expect the commission to hold public meetings whenever they would be of value. The procedural guidance will encourage the commission to consider whether it would be appropriate to hold public meetings as part of its review process. But within the procedure laid down in Clause 15 and having regard to the guidance issued by the Secretary of State, the commission will need to use its discretion and judgment about how it carries out its work. It will need to be able to respond to local circumstances and the scale of the task in hand.
In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel more comfortable about the issue and will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am genuinely grateful for that response and feel that it has been helpful. In the light of the commitment given by the Government to take broad views on the content of the guidance—I accept that that is perhaps the vehicle for looking at these matters in more detail—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

House Repossessions: Prevention Measures
3.35 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a Statement. Over the past few weeks my right honourable and honourable friends the Secretary of State for the Environment, the Secretary of State for Social Security, the Minister for Housing, the Minister of State for Social Security and I have had a series of meetings with representatives of the Council of Mortgage Lenders to discuss the problem of mortgage arrears and repossessions. I wish to pay tribute to the lenders and insurers for the helpful and constructive approach they have adopted throughout these discussions.
"We all recognise the hardship that repossessions can lead to for individuals and families. But mortgage lenders have assured us that some of the figures that have been suggested, particularly in recent days, for the level of mortgage repossessions this year and next are greatly exaggerated.
"The lending institutions have already agreed to participate in the scheme announced in November by the Minister for Housing to make empty properties, which have already been possessed, available to housing associations to house the homeless. But we wanted in addition to take action to keep borrowers who are facing difficulties in keeping up with their mortgage payments in their homes. I am therefore able to announce to the House a number of measures designed to reduce substantially the level of repossessions over the next year.
"The first duty of lenders is, of course, to their investors. But they are also concerned about the position of borrowers, especially those in difficulties. In our discussions this week lenders have confirmed to me that they do not seek to take possession where borrowers have suffered a significant reduction in income but are making a reasonable regular payment. Borrowers will, of course, remain responsible for their debts.
"A substantial proportion of repossessions do not result from legal action by the lender. Lenders have assured me that they wish to encourage borrowers to stay in their own homes, and that they will continue to increase the counselling and advice they offer to borrowers in difficulties.
"The Government already make generous provision—over £600 million this year—for mortgage interest payments for people on income support. The lenders have argued that in many cases this money is being diverted for other purposes, resulting in unnecessary repossessions. The Department of Social Security is already introducing new arrangements to identify arrears
1532
cases and to make payments direct to the lender. The Government have now agreed to bring forward legislation after the recess to make direct payment to lenders the norm. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security will be making a further statement on this subject later today. In response lenders have confirmed that they will not take possession in cases where mortgage interest payments are covered by income support.
"There will, however, be cases where occupiers are not on income support but are nevertheless facing serious problems. Following our discussions this week the largest lenders have confirmed that they are prepared in case of need to provide funding on concessional terms to help such borrowers as far as possible to remain in their homes. In such cases the homes would either be sold to housing associations or taken into ownership by the lender. The borrower would remain in occupation as a tenant, or as part-owner, part-tenant. Individual lenders have undertaken to announce details of such schemes where they have not already done so, and insurers have expressed their support. Over three-quarters of a billion pounds has already been committed for this purpose over the next year by lenders responsible for 60 per cent. of total mortgage lending. The lenders' expectation is that the total figure could be around £1 billion if the need is there.
"The Government and the lenders will introduce these new measures as quickly as possible. In the meantime, lenders will continue to avoid repossessions wherever possible. The mortgage lenders believe that the new measures announced today, together with the actions they have already taken, will lead to a reducing trend in repossessions during 1992. All lenders are looking for an early and substantial reduction in repossessions. They have estimated that the measures I have described should prevent about 40,000 repossessions next year.
"But I recognise that there is a wider concern about the depressed state of the housing market, which has consequences for home owners in general and for the wider economy. I therefore have one further announcement to make.
"In his 1990 Budget my right honourable friend the Prime Minister announced that stamp duty on securities would be abolished late in 1991–92 to coincide with the introduction in the Stock Exchange of the system of paperless trading known as TAURUS. The Stock Exchange announced recently that TAURUS will not now be ready before April 1993. The abolition of stamp duty on securities will consequently also be delayed at least until then. This will result in a PSBR saving of £1 billion compared to the position shown in this year's MTFS.
"I have decided to use a portion of this additional revenue to help encourage and facilitate transactions in the housing market. I am therefore lifting the burden of stamp duty from the great bulk of house purchases for a period of eight months from midnight tonight.

1533
"Stamp duty is currently charged at 1 per cent. on the full price of land and buildings costing more than £30,000. I intend to raise this threshold to £250,000 for documents executed from tomorrow until 19th August 1992, after which it will revert to £30,000. Stamp duty at the current rate of 1 per cent. will still be charged on purchases of more than £250,000.
"For the next eight months this will mean that no stamp duty will be payable on 90 per cent. of private home purchases. The consequent saving on an average-priced house will be a little over £600. The cost to the Exchequer will be about £110 million in this financial year, and about £310 million in 1992–93.
"A short Bill will be introduced early in the New Year to give effect to this measure. Until the passing of the necessary resolution, people who need to get their documents stamped will be charged duty on the basis of the present £30,000 threshold. But legislation will provide that the Inland Revenue will refund any duty paid in excess of what will be due under the proposed £250,000 threshold. Further details will be set out in an Inland Revenue press release to be issued today.
"Mr. Speaker, the measures I have announced today and the schemes which the lending institutions are putting together will contribute to a decisive fall in the level of mortgage repossessions. They will also help to stimulate activity in the housing market more generally, benefiting home buyers and home owners throughout the country. I hope that they will be warmly welcomed by the House."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.42 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for repeating the Chancellor's Statement. It is a pity that because of the way in which we deal with these matters we cannot debate the social security Statement which is also being made. Presumably, that Statement has not yet been reached in the other place and we can hardly go in front of it.
One would not gain any impression from the Chancellor's Statement of the scale of the problem that is facing us as regards mortgage repossessions. One would not gain any idea that we are fast approaching what, in Conservative Party terms at least, could be the beginning of a significant social revolution. Nothing that the Chancellor said indicates that the number of repossessions in 1980 was 3,000 and that in 1986 it was 20,000. I shall return to 1986 in a moment because it is a very significant year. In 1991 the number of repossessions is likely to be between 60,000 and 80,000. For 1992 the best estimate produced by UBS Phillips & Drew, is 150,000 repossessions.
We are already in the position where one in 12 mortgagees is more than two months behind with mortgage payments. If that is not a matter for Government action then I do not know what is. The Government are themselves very largely responsible
1534
for what has happened not only because of the encouragement of house ownership, of which we do not disapprove, but because of the extreme means of discount on the sale of council houses throughout the 1980s. In addition, in 1986 the Prime Minister, in his then capacity as Secretary of State for Social Security, abolished the rule whereby those who are unemployed and on income supplement had their mortgage payments met by that supplement. Instead, he introduced a scheme where for the first 16 weeks of unemployment only 50 per cent. of the payments would be covered.
At that time the Building Societies Association pleaded with him not to make that change because they said it would increase the number of repossessions. Is it not the case that the dramatic increase in the number of repossessions follows directly from the action taken by the Secretary of State for Social Security in 1986? At that time, is it not also the case that Mr. Major said that he believed that claimants should generally be responsible for their dealings with their lenders and for their mortgage interest payments? If that was the case then we have an indication of what the present Secretary of State is going to say.
One must ask the Government what has changed since then. I shall tell the Government what has changed since then. Income supplement payments have become inadequate for the purpose. Many people have been enticed into home ownership who cannot manage it and in a time of dramatically increasing unemployment—brought about by this Government —the protection which mortgage holders once had against repossession and falling behind in their payments has been deliberately taken away by this Government.
Under those circumstances, will the Minister say what action is being taken by Government to deal with the problem? Nothing in the Statement showed any indication of Government action. In the Statement the Chancellor is saying that there could be three-quarters of a billion pounds of mortgage lenders' money made available—not Government money but mortgage lenders' money; but when it comes to action by Government, if we examine it closely, what the Chancellor is proposing is to recognise that he has a windfall of a £1 billion from the delay in the introduction of the TAURUS system, which the Government have committed to the abolition of stamp duty. He is going to give a proportion of that back—a proportion amounting to £420 million. As a result of this Statement the Government are going to make a profit of £580 million, in public expenditure terms.
It is difficult to see, in any case, what the stamp duty concession has to do with repossessions. It may do something for the housing market, but it certainly will not do anything for repossessions. There are many things that the Government could do if they are really serious about stopping repossessions. The £1 million which has been so freely bandied about in the press in the past few days could be made available from Government sources. The discussions that have taken place concerning the conversion of mortgages into

1535
rents—incidentally, that is a policy which has been Labour policy for more than two years now and is actually implemented by a number of Labour councils—could have been referred to here. No reference is to be found regarding mortgages into rents in the Chancellor's Statement.
There could have been a moratorium on repossessions, as recommended by the Labour Party and as advocated by mortgage lenders. Above all, there could have been a relaxation of the restrictions on expenditure on public housing, which is something that has been needed for many years now and is the only way to provide housing for those most in need.
Typically, the Government have chosen to make this Statement just before the House rises for the Christmas Recess. Even so, I cannot understand how on earth they hope to get away with such a shoddy excuse for a policy to deal with repossessions.
3.48 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I join with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in thanking the Minister for making this Statement. I also declare a personal interest as a director of a building society. 1 welcome the fact that the Government have now reacted—I think "reacted" is the word, rather than "acted"—to the lead taken by Mr. Paddy Ashdown in proposals to deal with this rising human problem of repossessions. Indeed, the proposals that the Minister has described in this Statement as coming from the building societies are very close indeed to the proposals that were put forward by Mr. Ashdown in his various interventions.
However, is not the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, absolutely right in saying that, in essence, this is a mean-minded Government Statement in relation to the magnitude of the human problem that is involved in the present housing crisis and the repossessions aspect of it? Further, is it not absolutely right that what the Government are proposing here is not a positive financial contribution to the problem, but a proposal to leave it to the building societies to make the main contribution while reminding people in the Statement that the first duty of lenders is to their investors.
As regards the particular proposals for dealing with repossessions in terms of the housing associations and the building societies changing mortgages into rents, should not the Government have made their financial contribution to that particular plan?
While we welcome the Government's stamp duty proposals in order to try to get the housing market moving again, is it not absolutely right as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that all that they are doing is redeploying money that they would otherwise have had to expend, and upon which they have had a windfall saving?
Is it not a very disappointing Statement indeed from the Government? Should it not be widely recognised outside the House that the Government are not responding to the magnitude of the problem and
1536
that they are, as usual, passing the buck to other people to rescue citizens from a problem which is, to a large extent, their own responsibility?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their reception of the Statement. I am sure that it will not surprise both noble Lords to know that I do not agree with much of what either of them said. I believe that the measures which were announced in the Statement will make a decisive contribution to reducing mortgage repossessions and will, in addition, help the housing market generally.
One needs to get the situation in perspective. I should remind the House that less than 2 per cent. of home owners are in serious arrears. Repossessions this year will be about one half of 1 per cent. of the number of all home owners. The lenders were expecting only about 80,000 repossessions next year before this package was announced. The lenders estimate that measures covered by the announcement should reduce the number of repossessions by 40,000 over the next 12 months. That is roughly one half of the expected figure. I believe that that puts the scale of the problem into perspective.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, implied that it was all the Government's fault, although I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, said that a substantial part of the problem was the Government's fault. The current weakness in the housing market is due to a wide range of factors. It is fruitless to apportion blame. The key issue is what to do. That is why the Government have come forward with an effective and workable package. I think that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that he did not disapprove of home ownership. I am glad to hear that, as I am sure other people will be.
I believe that the cry from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was, "Why no government money?" The package does not have to be subsidised by the taxpayer to be effective. The lenders have come forward with proposals for £1 billion of extra resources to introduce the schemes. That is a very substantial response. I see that the noble Lord wishes to speak, but he will have his chance to do so in a moment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there is a direct conflict between what the Minister is saying and what the Statement says. The Statement says three-quarters of a billion pounds and not £1 billion.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, if the noble Lord will look at the Statement more closely he will see that it refers to an expected figure of around £1 billion. In any event, it is still a substantial amount of money.
The Government are playing their full part in the changes proposed in DSS legislation as regards the housing benefit consequential as people move from being owner occupiers to renters. Moreover, the stamp duty measure is, as the Statement says, worth some £400 million. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, appeared to regard that as a matter of absolutely no consequence.

1537
The noble Lord also referred to the changes to the social security legislation in 1986. We think that it is right that there should be a fair and reasonable balance as between the borrower, the lender and the taxpayer in meeting the costs of home ownership in the first 16 weeks of a claim for income support from a person under the age of 60. When the rule was introduced in 1986 the Building Societies Association assured us that there was no reason to expect that people would lose their homes as a result. That remains the view of lenders and has been confirmed only recently by the Council of Mortgage Lenders.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to the Labour Party's proposals for a moratorium. He earlier referred to a statement made by a city analyst. I believe that it is the same city analyst who described the Labour Party's proposals as "an Enid Blyton story".
I hope that I have answered all the questions that noble Lords have asked.
3.55 p.m.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that, pending the passage of legislation relating to income supplement, there will be nothing to prevent the borrower from giving direct authority for payments to be made to the lender, thereby anticipating the legislation?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my noble friend is right. I believe that already many payments are made directly to the lender. There is nothing to stop that continuing pending legislation.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when we are talking about mortgage lenders we are talking about ordinary little savers who contribute money to building societies and other organisations? Therefore, the people who are bailing out the Government are not the mortgage lenders or the building societies but ordinary little people in this country. I sincerely hope that their funds will not be put at risk and that they will not lose out on the return on their capital.
Secondly, the Germans have just raised their interest rates by 0.5 per cent. Will the Minister assure the House that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not follow suit. If he does everything that has been announced will be nullified.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I take the point made by the noble Lord that it is the shareholders in the building societies and the banks who would ultimately pay the cost of any measures. As the Statement indicated, the lenders' first duty is to their investors. The measures announced today are fully consistent with that. It is in everyone's interests that those in borrowing difficulties should be helped to stay in their own homes. Of course, the stamp duty measures potentially benefit all home owners, including those mentioned by the noble Lord.
I take issue with the noble Lord in describing the measure as bailing out the Government. The idea is not to bail out the Government but to help those who are in difficulty with their mortgage payments.
1538
I noticed that this afternoon the Germans raised their two main rates of interest by 0.5 per cent. I cannot—as I could not the other afternoon when the noble Lord asked the question—give an assurance that our interest rates will not change. As I have said on many previous occasions, our interest rates will remain at a level necessary to continue to bear down on inflation and to remain within our ERM commitments.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, is it not clear that we are in a considerable muddle, largely due to defective economic and housing policies during the past few years? Therefore, will the Government accept that two principles should guide us in our efforts to get out of the muddle? The first is that existing mortgage borrowers should be enabled to remain in their present dwellings either paying interest only on their mortgages or paying a rent for their house which could perhaps be on a portion of the equity. The second principle is that the building societies should be enabled to sell their present repossessed houses to local authorities and to housing associations. However, they will not be able to do so unless considerable new funds are made available. These should come either from the proceeds of previous sales of council houses or from new capital to be made available to housing associations.
Lord Brabazon of Tara; My Lords, the noble Lord is right when he says that it is preferable that mortgage borrowers should remain in their houses. That is the main purpose of the measures that have been announced this afternoon. As the Statement said,
"The borrower would remain in occupation as a tenant, or as part-owner, part-tenant".
Those possibilities are being offered, but it is mainly for the individual lenders, the building societies or banks, to decide in their own cases exactly what might happen. I believe that they will be making their own announcements in regard to their own borrowers.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, this is obviously a good agreement for those unfortunate people who would otherwise lose their homes in the near future. However, a technical point arises on the Statement which I hope my noble friend will be able to answer. He will remember taking the Building Societies Act 1986 through this House. If my memory serves me right, building societies are only allowed to use 5 per cent. of their funds on owning their own properties. It seems to me that as a result of this agreement that amount will need to rise if the building societies are to part-own some properties instead of repossessing them and then selling them. Will the Government arrange to change this permitted percentage? If so, will that be by order or by primary legislation?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my noble friend makes an interesting point. I certainly recall the passage of the Building Societies Bill, on which I was ably assisted by my noble friend at that time. I recall the measure to which he refers. I do not have an immediate answer to the point so I shall have to write to him.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, the housing market is an extremely complicated phenomenon. It would be of assistance to the House, in trying to understand what is happening with mortgages, rents, house ownership and the rented sector, if the noble Lord could tell us what proportion of all the recent repossessions was former council houses which have been sold in the past few years to mortgage holders. I put this down as a Written Question but since the House adjourns today it might be convenient if we could have the Answer now.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it may be convenient but I am afraid the Answer is not available now.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that today's announcement on unemployment figures shows that the figure is now disgracefully over 2½ million? Does he also agree that the increase in unemployment will almost certainly continue throughout 1992? No doubt he will say that the increase each month will be smaller. However, all of us on these Benches are waiting for a decrease in unemployment.
In those circumstances, will the Minister say what provision is contained in the Statement on the machinery to be set up —and I detected none—to take care of the fact that the problem will be exacerbated by the increase in unemployment? That is the logical outcome and I hope that it is one of the factors taken into consideration in the Statement. It would be useful if the House received clarification in view of increasing unemployment in the country.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, obviously one regrets any increase in unemployment. One can only be encouraged that the increase in the unemployed is rising more slowly each month. We do not give forecasts of future unemployment but I suppose one could say that a good many of the measures announced today will be of direct benefit to those who are unemployed and in receipt of housing benefit or income support. The measures are helpful for them.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, my point is that unemployment is increasing. The Minister has not dealt with that point.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I did not say that it was not increasing. I said it was encouraging that it was increasing at a slower rate month by month. The help that is being given to avert repossessions will be of benefit to those who are unfortunately unable to keep up their mortgage payments because they are unemployed.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the Minister has said that the purpose of the measures he has proposed is not to bail out the Government in the present circumstances. Is the noble Lord aware that no magistrate at the present time would ever grant them bail anyway? The Government's housing policy lies in a complete shambles. The circumstances have arisen precisely because of the erroneous policies of the Government in the fiscal, economic and
1540
expenditure fields. The Government might at least have the generosity and the honesty to apologise for the grave errors they have committed.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord will not be surprised to learn that I did not agree with a single word he said. I have already mentioned the current weakness of the housing market. That position is due to a wide range of factors, not just one particular factor. It is fruitless to apportion blame. The Government's housing policy is certainly not a shambles. I referred earlier to the scale of the problem. The figures speak for themselves.

Local Government Bill [H.L.]
4.7 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 15.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 15, line 13, after ("State") insert ("after consultation with the local authority associations and such other organisations as are appropriate").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the Secretary of State intends to issue guidance to the commission on the procedures it will be required to follow for the conduct of its reviews. This amendment seeks some clarification about the precise nature of the guidance. I hope the Minister will give an undertaking that the draft guidance will be circulated to the local authority associations and other interested parties for consultation. I believe that would improve the chances of a consensus being reached on the best procedures to be used by the commission. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, directions under Clause 15 are concerned with the commission's procedures. When we discussed the commission's procedures in Committee, we indicated that my right honourable friend intends to issue guidance to the commission about its procedures and then direct it to have regard to the guidance under this clause.
We have already said that we intend to invite views on a draft of this guidance and I can assure the noble Baroness that the views of the local authority associations will be sought. As noble Lords know, we have already issued for consultation our draft guidance to the commission on the general policy which the commission should adopt. In the light of my assurance that the local authority associations will be consulted about our draft procedural guidance, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I could not be happier with that reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 [Consultation with the Audit Commission]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 83:
Page 15, line 29, at end insert ("and shall on request supply a copy of such information to any other body likely to be affected by proposed structural changes").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a rather different amendment. It concerns the disclosure of information. The Audit Commission in commenting on proposals from the Local Government Commission may require local authorities to supply it with all such information as is reasonable.
This amendment would ensure that relevant local authorities should also be able to receive copies of such information. On the assumption that the Local Government Commission will ask the Audit Commission for its views—which must be sensible—and on the assumption that the Audit Commission will, in turn, ask local authorities for information in addition to that already publicly available—that seems probable—I believe it would be helpful to ask that such information be mutually revealed, district to county and county to district.
Local authorities cannot rely just on using existing published material. County councils, for example, may have little detailed knowledge about the cost of collecting the community charge. It would be useful for districts in turn to have information on the disaggregated costs of certain county council services. We need that co-operation between all local authorities.
We are not asking for additional research, merely that the information which the Audit Commission thinks relevant should be made available. The fear is that that information may not be forthcoming because in the 1985–86 reorganisation of the metropolitan counties some councils withheld information. There are already signs that CIPFA is finding it difficult to collect the information it normally collects. It has been withheld in case it appears to give information and therefore ammunition to local authorities in the ring.
The information we have in mind will relate to the following areas. District councils may be interested in knowing the number of children with learning difficulties or on the risk register. They might want to know about highway maintenance standards and repair requirements, future plans and shortfalls in funding. In relation to social services they would want to know about caseloads and the level and nature of the cost of administrative support. They might want to know about repairs for the property portfolio or contracts for services which have been put out for CCT. They might want to know about some of the more specialist functions such as archive services and archaeological units. They need that information in order to know how best to discuss the situation with the Local Government Commission.
We are not asking for additional information but, for those reasons, we ask that the information which the Audit Commission itself will probably solicit should be made available so that there is, to coin a phrase from another debate, a level playing field as to the information employed when discussing and submitting arguments to the Local Government Commission. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, we appreciate that when the Local Government Commission comes to consider their area many local authorities will wish to make the case that they should have unitary status. Others may wish to argue that a two-tier structure should remain
1542
in their area. Obviously, authorities will want to back up their arguments with proper evidence, which may include information about services provided by other local authorities. That seems to us eminently sensible.
There are of course difficulties. Fortunately, much information about local authority services is already in the public domain. However, we are aware that some local authorities may be reluctant to pass on information about their services to others in their area. There is nothing to be gained by adopting that attitude. Efficient and effective local authorities should be willing to release information about their services.
We have therefore considered what arrangements might be made to ensure that information about the provision of services which is relevant to proposals for changes to local government structure is available to interested parties when local authorities are not willing to release it themselves.
Paragraph 4(3) of Schedule 2 to the Bill will confer on the Local Government Commission the power to request from public bodies, including local authorities, the information which it requires in order to make its recommendations. The commission would have the power to make that information available to local authorities and other interested parties if it judges that that would be in the interests of achieving the best structure for the area. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State proposes to ensure that the commission makes use of its power in that way by direction under paragraph 4(4) of Schedule 2.
In view of that commitment—and I put it as strongly as that—I hope that the noble Baroness will not feel it necessary to press the amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, again I am delighted, and I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 84:
After Clause 16, insert the following new clause:
("Consultation with Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England
.—(1) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England shall, if so required by the Local Government Commission, provide it with a written opinion as to the likely impact of any proposed structural changes on the quality and efficiency of education provided by such schools as are likely to be affected by the changes, and his opinion may in particular refer to services provided by any local authority.
(2) Where the Audit Commission has been required under section 16(1) to provide a written opinion, the Chief Inspector may exercise his functions under this section, at his discretion, jointly with the Audit Commission.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this may appear to be a complicated amendment but the argument does not need to be complicated. Under Clause 16 the Local Government Commission has the power to require the written opinion of the Audit Commission on proposed structural changes. One of the aspects on which the Local Government Commission ought to require information is the effect of structural change on education, and particularly education in schools.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, no doubt has experience of HMI from her local government days. I am sure that she will confirm that the inspectors are

1543
very grand persons indeed. They always insist that they report directly to the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State speaks only to God. It is not easy to require HMI, or Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in particular, to respond to any request without proper authority. It seems to us that the proper authority ought to be statute in the form of this proposed new clause.
There is anxiety about how unitary authorities—which will inevitably mean that school education is brought down to a lower level—will fare under the guidelines proposed for the Local Government Commission. In paragraph 16 the draft guidance states that the number of schools operating as grant maintained is likely to rise significantly. That may affect the number of schools left to be run by perhaps smaller education authorities. I am not against smaller authorities or smaller education authorities, but the best possible educational advice should be provided for them. For that purpose, it seems appropriate to require Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools, at any rate in England, to provide guidance to the Local Government Commission, conjointly or not with the Audit Commission, but on the same basis as the Audit Commission is required to provide written opinions. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I support the amendment from these Benches. I am sure that underlying this is the concern of everyone involved with education; namely, that the quality of education should not be prejudiced by further change. Our education services must cope with plenty of change. They keep their heads above water, but sometimes with difficulty.
I was interested to learn from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that the Secretary of State has a dialogue with anyone. We have perhaps implied that he has only a monologue. I support the amendment.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, will be pleased to know that we have a great deal of sympathy with the spirit of the amendment and intend to ensure that Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools is properly consulted by the Local Government Commission. A wide variety of organisations, some of which are public bodies, are in a position to draw on their specialist knowledge to give the commission advice on issues relevant to its work.
It would not be feasible to list all those organisations in the Bill. The Audit Commission, with its special responsibilities for the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the whole range of local authority service provision, is a special case. We propose to ensure that relevant bodies and organisations are properly consulted by including in our procedural guidance to the commission a list of organisations that the commission should consult about its work. I can assure the House, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of
1544
Schools in England will be on that list. I have already told the House that there will be consultation about the contents of the guidance.
We fully intend that the Local Government Commission should seek the advice of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England for precisely the purpose highlighted by the noble Lord. This amendment is not necessary, and I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Earl will be able to reassure me about the status of being on that list. I want to be assured that being on the list means that Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools will feel that he has been given the authority to give guidance to the Local Government Commission and will not feel, as has so often happened in the past, that his responsibility to the Secretary of State for Education and Science is not in conflict with being on the list.
Earl Howe: My Lords, there is no question that Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools will be expected to respond to any approaches made to him about the impact of local government changes on the provision of education services. He will be among many on a long list, but there is little doubt that his advice will be required in every single instance of a proposed change in local authority structures.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for that entirely satisfactory answer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 85:
After Clause 16, insert the following new clause:
("Impact of proposed structural changes
. In conducting a review, the Local Government Commission shall seek the views of English Nature, the Countryside Commission, the National Rivers Authority and English Heritage, on the likely impact of proposed structural changes on the ability of local government to perform its statutory environmental functions.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I suspect that the answer to this proposal will be much the same as that which has just been given to my noble friend. Perhaps I may say first that the noble Lord, Lord Moran, regrets that he could not stay to discuss the amendment this afternoon and he apologises to the House.
This amendment requires the Local Government Commission to consult the statutory environmental organisations on the environmental implications of the proposed structural changes. Looking at the amendment, on reflection I suspect that it would have been better had we simply said "the statutory environmental organisations" instead of attempting to list them. After all, the names spelled out there are names which could well change in the next year or two. However, I hope that noble Lords will agree that that is a small point. At Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, moved an amendment to require the Audit Commission to provide a full measure of the costs, including environmental costs, of any reform proposals. In his response the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said:

1545
"I hope that it will not be thought from our debates so far that the Local Government Commission will have no access to advice on environmental issues. We shall be issuing guidance to the Local Government Commission about organisations it should consult in conducting its reviews. I can say that it will include suitable environmental organisations…the Bill does not in any way invalidate or weaken the impact of any previous legislation requiring local authorities to perform those statutory environmental functions".—[Official Report, 5/12/91; col. 440.]
We welcomed that statement but felt that Amendment No. 85 would reflect the Government's intentions as stated in the environmental White Paper This Common Inheritance, First Year Report. The Government said:
"The proposals should result in local authorities better able to reflect community interests and to rise to the environmental challenge. The new Local Government Commission will consider the need for effective environment protection in developing these proposals".
It seems important that the statutory organisations should be consulted over and above anyone else who may claim to have an interest in environmental matters. Theirs is the true expertise and they are in a position to offer sounder and less partial advice than many other organisations. As we heard, the commission itself is small and is unlikely to carry sufficient environmental expertise among its members. It is therefore essential that a provision of this kind should be in the Bill. I beg to move.
Viscount Mills: My Lords, throughout this Bill I have been active in promoting the importance of the environment when considering the activities of local government. Consequently, I have considerable sympathy with the noble Baroness's amendment. I should declare that I am an employee of the National Rivers Authority, which is one of the organisations mentioned in the amendment.
As the largest environmental protection agency in not only England and Wales but also Europe, the NRA has considerable expertise in environmental matters, particularly in relation to the aquatic environment. As such the NRA, if called upon, would be well placed to give local authorities professional advice as to the likely impact of proposed structural changes on the ability of local government to perform certain of its statutory environmental duties, at least those relating to the water environment. However, I consider of equal if not more importance the need for the Local Government Commission to consider the likely impact of proposed structural changes in local government on the ability of organisations such as English Nature, the Countryside Commission, the NRA or English Heritage to perform their statutory environmental duties.
In answering this amendment, I hope that the Minister will be able to assure me that those needs will also be met.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the House will recall that we had a most useful debate on the environmental advice available to the commission at the Committee stage of the Bill. An assurance was given that the commission would indeed have access to advice on such issues. We fully share the noble Baroness's concerns and those of my noble friend on the ability of local authorities to perform their statutory environmental functions.
1546
My noble friend Lady Blatch and I have already explained to the House that there are many organisations which are in a position to draw on their specialist knowledge to give the commission advice on issues relevant to its work, and that we do not consider it feasible to list those organisations on the face of the Bill. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State intends to issue procedural guidance to the Local Government Commission to which, as we have already said many times, it will be required to have regard and on which there will be consultation. That guidance will list a variety of organisations with relevant knowledge and expertise in a number of different areas, all of which the commission may consult about the implications of its work. I can assure the noble Baroness that those organisation listed in the amendment—English Nature, the Countryside Commission, the National Rivers Authority and English Heritage—will be included on the list of bodies from which the commission will be asked to seek advice. As she rightly said, they are uniquely placed to provide the advice that the commission will require.
For those reasons, the amendment is not necessary. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw it.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I do feel so able. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 [Implementation of recommendations by order]:
[Amendments Nos. 86 and 87 not moved.]
Clause 19 [Regulations for supplementing orders]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 88:
Page 18, line 7 at end insert:
("(e) the ability of the local authority for any area by agreement to carry out work for and supply goods and services to another local authority").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment raises the issue of cross boundary tendering. It follows the earlier discussion on joint and lead authorities.
Local authorities have traditionally collaborated in the provision of some services through joint arrangements, lead authorities and so on in order to get better plant, expertise or central purchasing where it would be uneconomical for individual authorities to maintain particular facilities for occasional use. That was permitted, for example, under the Local Authorities (Goods and Services Act) 1970 and again under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 for contractual arrangements in relation to computer facilities. It also applies to agency arrangements for highways, and so on.
The amendment seeks to ensure that such arrangements will be able to continue. It is a matter of some concern because the Audit Commission has expressed doubt about the ability of, and the extent to which, local authorities may provide services for other authorities. It has been challenged, for example, in Milton Keynes by the district auditor even though the

1547
Audit Commission believes that it is sensible to do so. Perhaps I may quote from the Audit Commission's consultation paper which states:
"The consultation paper recognises the potential for inter-authority co-operation, but should not ignore the difficulties which current legislation causes in cross boundary tendering when extended competition requirements are juxtaposed with widening inter-authority co-operation. This is an area which the Government may wish to consider further when the legislation is prepared".
In other words, taking on board what the Minister said earlier today about the important use as a reserve power of joint arrangements and lead authority arrangements, for those to be possible and plausible we need clarification from the Minister on the ability of local authorities to cross boundary tender in order to provide those services for each other in a sensible and flexible way. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the power of local authorities to provide services to each other is regulated by the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970. Reference has been made to the views expressed by the Audit Commission on the nature of those powers. In effect, the commission believes that they are not designed to give authorities the power to enter into trading arrangements with each other for the purpose of making a profit or extending employment opportunities. On the contrary, their purpose is simply to allow authorities to turn genuine surplus capacity to account rather than to allow them to build up their own trading empire.
Ministers have made it abundantly clear in public speeches that they fully endorse this interpretation of the legal position under the 1970 Act. We also believe that it is quite wrong that authorities should have the power to enter into competition with the private sector for the provision of services to other local authorities. Such competition would never be fair since a local authority, when the going gets rough, can always at the end of the day fall back on the public purse while the private contractor will always be subject to the ultimate discipline of the bankruptcy court. Such municipal trading inevitably puts the finances of the local authority which indulges in it at risk, with a real danger of imposing further burdens on hard pressed local taxpayers.
The intention behind the amendment must be to give local authorities wider powers to enter into trading activities of this kind. We believe that that would be wrong. I must therefore ask the noble Baroness whether she will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, and with the leave of the House, will she explain what implications she believes her reply will have on joint arrangements and inter-authority arrangements?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there is nothing to preclude authorities from working together. The provision precludes, first, trading for profit; and, secondly, where CCT operates local authorities should not compete with the private sector in respect of another local authority.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I note the Minister's reply. We may wish to come back to this on Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.30 p.m.
Clause 20 [Agreements as to incidental matters]:
[Amendment No. 88A not moved.]
Clause 23 [Staff commissions]:
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 20, line 30, leave out ("may") and insert ("after consultation with such bodies representative of existing local authorities or of staff employed by such local authorities as appear to him to be concerned, shall, not later than one month after the passing of this Act").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it might be for the convenience of the House if we discuss also Amendments Nos. 90 and 91. The purpose of the amendment is to lay a duty upon the Secretary of State to set up a staff commission within one month of the passing of the Bill. It further requires that the composition of the staff commission shall be determined after consulting interested parties—that is, the local authority associations and the local government trade unions—about it.
I am sure that the Minister will agree that safeguarding staff interests is a prerequisite for making a success of any plan to reorganise local government. Whatever we and other politicians decide, the job of implementing the plans and keeping services to the public running while the changes come into effect has to be carried out by local authority employees. It is therefore essential that staff can be confident that they will be treated fairly and consistently during the process of change, because it is humane and decent to do so and because it is in the interests of government and will help to ensure the successful outcome of their planned reforms.
The amendment would help to reassure staff in two ways. First, it would guarantee the setting up of a staff commission within one month of the passing of the Bill; and, secondly, it would ensure that the establishment of the commission would be subject to discussion by the Secretary of State, the local authority associations and the trade unions.
A staff commission should be set up speedily once the Bill has been passed. A promise to do so now will do much to reassure the staff about the future. Once the commission is established, it can begin to set the ground rules for the smoothest possible transition to the new system. Even though the first changes (possibly in Humberside and Avon) might not become effective for many months, the knowledge that ground rules would be established in advance and that machinery to deal with problems was already in place, would allay the staff's genuine fears. It would also be a sensible preparatory arrangement. Setting up a staff commission at the last possible moment will leave staff in limbo and will present the new commission and its officers with time pressures which will militate against its effective performance. Here is a chance for the Government to be proactive for a change.
In her reply to similar arrangements tabled in my name, and moved succinctly—if I may say so—by my noble friend Lord Desai in Committee, the Minister, who seemed to miss my presence at that debate—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: She did.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I feel flattered by that. The Minister may have felt that it was a good miss, because I might have been more wordy than my noble friend. I am certainly being so now. The Minister expressed the Government's opposition to the thinking that I have so far outlined. Although she accepted that staff commissions have been useful in past reorganisations, she suggested that that applied only if a major reorganisation took place on a single day. There is a strong case that the changes should take place on a single vesting day—I have another amendment down about that point—but that sensible course of action seems to be ruled out by the Government and the Minister. The fact is that it makes no difference whether 2,000 or 20,000 people are involved. The position that they face will be exactly the same. Indeed staff will expect—and they have every right to expect—that the same standards of fairness and consistency are applied to them, whatever the size of the change.
The noble Baroness argued also that, in choosing to move on an area-to-area basis, the Government would reduce the time span of uncertainty for staff and that that would be confined to a period which would commence at the time the commission begins its review of the employing authority's area. It will end when the changes are implemented. With all due respect to the noble Baroness, that argument does not hold water. Uncertainty and anxiety will begin for all staff on the day that this Bill becomes law. Anyone who has worked in an industry which has been reorganised, as I have, or who has negotiated on behalf of staff affected by that reorganisation will know what uncertainty means to staff.
The anxiety of staff will be intensified by the first review and will last until their own employing authority has been reviewed and change implemented. The period may last for four or five years, if I understand correctly the remarks about the timetable made by the Baroness in Committee.
The harsh fact is that this piecemeal style of reorganisation will result in prolonging, and for some staff intensifying, the period of uncertainty which is necessarily caused by reoganisation, whether the reorganisation involves 5,000 or 50,000 people. Those people are entitled to be treated with even-handed consistency. The commission may have periods of relative inactivity, but it can and should be established at the outset; not "for its own sake", as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, dismissively remarked on 5th December but for the sake of loyal and hard working staff and for the sake of ensuring a smooth transition to the new structure.
The purpose of Amendment No. 90 is to ensure that the Secretary of State must consult the staff commission before he makes decisions about staffing issues like transfers, compensation for loss of office, pensions and so on in respect of any particular
1550
structural changes which he proposes. I believe that the best way for the Government to deal with legitimate staff anxieties as to how reorganisation will affect them will be to incorporate into the Bill a set of clauses dealing with the transfer of staff, continuity of employment, compensation for loss of office and early retirement.
The Local Government Act 1972 did just that. It is a great pity that we are not doing that in this Bill. I commend this approach to Ministers. I urge them to reconsider their policy. Should they decide to do so, I should be happy to withdraw the amendment. However, in the absence of any such assurance, I believe that this amendment offers a certain qualified measure of assurance to staff. Its effect would be to ensure that the staff commission would have a further duty to the three already specified. That duty would be to advise the Secretary of State about orders or regulations he may wish to make regarding the transfer of functions and so on, so far as they relate to the full range of staffing matters which I have already mentioned.
Such an amendment would clarify the situation and would specify the role of the staff commission in a way that the rather vague terms of Clause 23(1) (c) do not. It would emphasise that the role is preventive and does not merely try to solve problems after they have arisen. It would also reassure staff to know that there is a body whose entire remit is to safeguard staff interest as a key role in the process of developing the transfer and compensation regulations.
While we all expect draft regulations of this kind to be circulated for comment before final decisions are made, to enshrine this principle in the Bill so far as the staff commission is concerned makes good sense. It will also help to dispel the unfortunate impression given by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in her reply to my noble friend Lord Desai when he moved Amendment No. 215 on 5th December. The noble Baroness seemed to imply that the savings she expects to be generated will come largely from staff savings. I take that to be a euphemism for large-scale redundancies. I hope that I am wrong.
I would argue that such a statement puts the cart well and truly before the horse. Surely it is up to the Local Government Commission to decide the new structure and how existing functions shall henceforth be discharged. How can the noble Baroness be so sure at this stage that it will lead to staff savings?
I sincerely hope that the amendment will be supported. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, through these amendments the noble Lord requests that there should be automatic establishment of staff commissions irrespective of whether there is need for them. Further, he asks that they should be established far in advance of any established need foreseen by the Local Government Commission.
I made a full statement in Committee on staffing matters, including the need for staff commissions. The need for a staff commission will depend on the scale of the changes proposed in any one area. Where major structural changes are proposed, the Government accept that there may well be a need for one or more

1551
staff commissions to be established. I can certainly assure your Lordships that, where a case for the establishment of staff commissions is made, we shall not hesitate to use the powers in the Bill. In some areas, however, the changes proposed may be quite minor and it would be wrong to set up a staff commission to deal with problems that can quite easily be sorted out by the local authorities involved in the reorganisation.
In the Government's view it would not be useful to have staff commissions in place so early in the review; the proposed Local Government Commission will be asked to undertake a review of local government in England area by area and we do not know how extensive a reorganisation of local government will result from that review.
Clause 26 makes provision for the Secretary of State to make orders or regulations on these matters. It would, of course, be open to the Secretary of State to ask any staff commission to give him advice on these issues. And indeed, where a staff commission is established, Clause 23(1) (c) would require the commission to advise the Secretary of State on the steps necessary to safeguard the interests of the staff. That already seems wide enough to encompass the matters covered in the amendment. In my view, therefore, the amendment should be rejected.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, time is moving on. The noble Baroness does not seem to understand the fear felt by staff that their interests will not be properly safeguarded. She will not give an undertaking that staff commissions will be set up. She will only say that if the Government feel that they should be set up, they will be set up. As I say, the staff fear that the whole object of this exercise is considerably to reduce, whatever the cost to services, the number of staff employed by the local authorities.
If these commissions were set up, the staff would at least obtain the assurance that an independent body, formed after proper consultation with the local authorities and trade unions, was working in their interests and looking after their legitimate concerns. However, it appears that I am not getting that message through to the Government. There will be a further opportunity to do so at Third Reading and indeed, when the matter goes to the House of Commons, it can be explored at great length at Committee stage.
In the meantime, and bearing in mind the fact that people want to leave for their Christmas Recess and, in spite of everything, wishing the noble Baroness, her colleagues and everybody else in the House the compliments of the season, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 90 and 91 not moved.]
4.45 p.m.
Schedule 3 [Amendments consequential on Part II]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 31, line 37, leave out ("section 10 of the Fire Services Act 1947") and insert ("section 6 of the Fire Services Act 1947 (power of the Secretary of State to make combination schemes)—
1552

(a) in subsection (2), after the word "thereto" there shall be inserted the words "or subsection (2A) of this section applies"; and

(b) after that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(2A) If, in a case where the authorities to whom notice of a proposed scheme has been given under subsection (2) of this section do not assent thereto—

(a) it appears to the Secretary of State that the proposed scheme contains only such provision as is appropriate in consequence of an order under Part II of the Local Government Act 1992 containing provision for giving effect to a structural change (within the meaning of that Part); and

(b) the period (if any) that has elapsed between the making of that order and the giving of that notice does not exceed twelve months, the Secretary of State shall be under a duty to consider any representations made by those authorities with respect to the proposed scheme within such period as may have been specified in the notice, but shall not be required under that subsection to cause a public local inquiry to be held."

1A. In section 10 of that Act").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, as noble Lords will be aware, draft guidance to the Local Government Commission makes clear the Government's belief that police forces and fire brigades would not be viable for areas smaller than present county boundaries. Therefore, Clause 18 of the Bill provides for any new unitary authorities to be treated as counties for the purposes of the amalgamation of police areas under the Police Act 1964, or for the combination of fire authority areas under the Fire Services Act 1947. The intention is that where any devolution of county functions to smaller unitary authorities is to take place, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary should have the power to amalgamate the new authorities to create viable police and fire authorities. In many cases it is likely that this will involve the re-creation of existing police and fire authorities.
In a similar spirit of Christmas, and wishing everyone a very happy Christmas, I hope that these amendments can be accepted.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, these are sensible amendments and we have to support them.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 33, line 25, at end insert:
(".—(1) In paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 to that Act (obligation to hold public inquiry before making amalgamation scheme if an objection is made), at the beginning there shall be inserted the words "Subject to paragraph 3A below".
(2) After that paragraph there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"3A. If, in a case where a notice of objection with respect to any proposed scheme is received by the Secretary of State as mentioned in paragraph 3 above—

(a) it appears to the Secretary of State that the proposed scheme contains only such provision as is appropriate in consequence of an order under Part II of the Local Government Act 1992 containing provision for giving effect to a structural change (within the meaning of that Part); and

(b) the period (if any) that has elapsed between the making of that order and the giving of the notice

1553
which is required to be given under paragraph above in relation to that scheme does not exceed twelve months, the Secretary of State shall be under a duty to consider that objection but shall not be required to cause a local inquiry to be held in respect of it." ").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Royal Assent
4.46 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Elliott of Morpeth): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Act,

Welsh Development Agency Act,

City of Edinburgh District Council Order Confirmation Act,

Strathclyde Regional Council Order Confirmation Act,

Torquay Market Act,

Commercial and Private Bank Act,

London Docklands Railway Act.

Motion for the Adjournment
4.47 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, in moving to adjourn the House, it might be appropriate to reflect for a few brief seconds on the busy weeks that have preceded this happy moment and also to prepare ourselves for the bracing events that lie ahead of us after the festive season of Christmas. It is also my happy task to thank all those who make debate and happy government possible in this great Chamber. I thank those of all political parties, the Parliament Office, those on Black Rod's staff and in the restaurant department. We should not forget those who provide essential services to your Lordships' House, whether they are from the Parliamentary Works Office, the Crown Suppliers, Her Majesty's Stationery Office and last, but by no means least, the police.
It is my happy duty, in moving to adjourn the House, to be able to wish all noble Lords a very happy Christmas with the hope that the lights that are on our temporary clock represent something that will look even prettier in those colours on a sleigh over the festive days that lie ahead. With those words I beg to adjourn the House.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, before the House deals with that matter, perhaps I may say that as regards the lights we shall take them as red! I was heartened by the Government Chief Whip telling us that we are looking forward to what I thought he said were "racing" weeks ahead but my colleague tells me that the word was "bracing". We on this side of the House note with particular pleasure that one of the arts which the Chief Whip has inherited from his predecessor is to say for all of us kind words about those who serve in this House. We are very grateful and we endorse everything that has been said.
1554
I think we ought to say a little more about how grateful we on these Benches are to all Members of the House, who have had an horrendous period. One thinks in terms of the fact that for four nights last week the House did not rise before midnight—it was 1 a.m. on Monday and midnight on Tuesday. Your Lordships' House sat later than the other place on most of those nights. Bearing in mind that this House in general is an elderly House, I think we should be very grateful indeed. All parties appreciate the support of the Back-Benchers as well as those who serve on the Front Benches. I know the whole House will endorse that.
In the absence of the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, I should like to say a special word. We all understand the situation. As the Opposition Chief Whip I should like to say to his Chief Whip and the Leader of the House how grateful we have been for the manner in which he has sought to discharge his duties. I may use a clumsy phrase, but he is always a gentleman. He has always been kind and courteous and he has never broken his word. He has always been willing to negotiate to the best of his ability in the interests of this House. We are very grateful indeed to him. We are sorry not to see him in his place. We understand and the House certainly endorses what the Chief Whip has said. We wish him, his colleagues and the Leader of the House a merry Christmas and a happy New Year.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, it is always difficult speaking third on these occasions because everybody has already mentioned everybody who needs to be mentioned. However, I certainly endorse everything that has been said in relation both to Members of your Lordships' House and to members of the staff.
This is a year which has brought many changes in the political life of this country, although I observed in the distance the right honourable Member for Henley and nothing had changed in the other place—he is still not the Prime Minister. One major change that is about to come upon us is that Black Rod will be taking his leave of your Lordships' House and will be succeeded by a sailor. We have already said in our various ways, but I think it is worth saying again, that we are all greatly indebted to Sir John Gingell for the enormous amount of work that he has done on behalf of all Members in all parts of the House and on behalf of the staff. That is the major change that will take place during this Recess.
I am very conscious that time is pressing. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Mayhew for agreeing not to press his Unstarred Question this evening. I understand it will be on the Order Paper on the first day of business after the Recess. One of the major considerations in these matters is that the Doorkeepers have an assignation as soon as we can clear the Chamber. That is much more important than any matters of state. Having said all that, I wish everybody a very happy Christmas and a very successful, prosperous and above all, peaceful New Year.
Baroness Hylton-Foster: My Lords, the Cross-Bench Peers would like to be associated with all the

1555
good wishes that have already been expressed. Although our Benches are a little bare, I can assure your Lordships that the spirit of goodwill is very much there. We too would like to congratulate the staff on the way they dealt with the complex arrangements of the Refreshment Department during the spill-over. We thank them for the calm way in which they dealt
1556
with all the difficult situations that arose at that time. We wish everyone a relaxing holiday and hope it will be free from unexpected troubles.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned for the Christmas Recess at seven minutes before five o'clock until Thursday, 9th January next.

  PRISONERS' TRANSFERS: REPORT
  PRISONERS' TRANSFERS: REPORT
  PRISONER "DAVID"
  PRISONER "DAVID"
  PRISON CHAPLAINCY
  PRISON CHAPLAINCY
  PRISONS: RELIGIOUS GUIDANCE
  PRISONS: RELIGIOUS GUIDANCE
  MR. SALMAN RUSHDIE: SECURITY
  MR. SALMAN RUSHDIE: SECURITY
  PRIVATE SECURITY INDUSTRY: REGULATION
  PRIVATE SECURITY INDUSTRY: REGULATION
  CONVICTIONS BASED ON CONFESSIONS
  CONVICTIONS BASED ON CONFESSIONS
  BEACHES: SAFETY MANAGEMENT
  BEACHES: SAFETY MANAGEMENT
  NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM: TERRACOTTA CLEANING
  NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM: TERRACOTTA CLEANING
  NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM: ALTERATIONS
  NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM: ALTERATIONS
  MAGISTRATES' COURTS ORGANISATION: REVIEW
  MAGISTRATES' COURTS ORGANISATION: REVIEW
  CROWN COURT: REVIEWS OF SENTENCING
  CROWN COURT: REVIEWS OF SENTENCING
  BALTIC STATES: GOLD RESERVES
  BALTIC STATES: GOLD RESERVES
  SOVIET NUCLEAR WEAPONS
  SOVIET NUCLEAR WEAPONS
  MINING AREAS: RECHAR GRANTS
  MINING AREAS: RECHAR GRANTS
  ARTICLES OF UNION: DISPLAY CASE
  ARTICLES OF UNION: DISPLAY CASE
  EC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT DIRECTIVE: UK DEVELOPMENT SCHEMES
  EC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT DIRECTIVE: UK DEVELOPMENT SCHEMES
  REGENT'S PARK OPEN AIR THEATRE
  REGENT'S PARK OPEN AIR THEATRE
  FARM WOODLAND PREMIUM SCHEME: EFFECT ON PLANTING
  FARM WOODLAND PREMIUM SCHEME: EFFECT ON PLANTING