Sitting of 20 November 1991

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    LONDON UNDERGROUND (KING'S CROSS) BILL
    Read the Third time, and passed.

    BRITLSH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)
    Order for consideration, as amended, read.
    To be considered tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Middle East
    Mr. Ron Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which middle east countries have no diplomatic links with Britain; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): We do not have diplomatic relations with the Republic of Iraq or with Libya.
    Mr. Brown: Obviously, both countries deserve to be recognised. Having said that, is not it clear that there can be no peace in the middle east until the Palestinian question is resolved? Will the Secretary of State set an example to his Israeli friends and recognise the Palestine Liberation Organisation as a Government in exile? Will he also allow it to set up an embassy in London? These questions are important.
    Mr. Hurd: The answer is no to both halves of the hon. Gentleman's question. We have not changed the basis on which we keep in touch with Palestinians.
    Sir Michael Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a place for parliamentary contacts where we have no diplomatic relations? Does not the record in recent years show that such contacts can facilitate the resumption of diplomatic relations, especially if tackled on an all-party basis by Members of this House?
    Mr. Hurd: I agree with that in particular cases, but perhaps not in all cases. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his recent success in the Inter-Parliamentary Union. Under his leadership there can be new opportunities for that organisation.
    Sir David Steel: In view of the constructive contribution which the Palestinian delegation, among others, made to
    252
    the Madrid peace talks, does the Foreign Secretary believe that it is any longer sensible for Ministers to continue to refuse even to talk to the PLO?
    Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman is confusing two matters. It is certainly important for us to keep in touch with the Palestinians, which is why I answered the original supplementary question carefully. We keep in touch. I saw Mr. Faisal Husseini earlier in the year and the Minister of State, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), has met other Palestinians. I have already answered the question about contacts with the PLO.
    Sir Robert Rhodes James: Although there is strong and real appreciation in the middle east of the British involvement in the Madrid peace process—not least among the Palestinians, as well as the Israelis—will my right hon. Friend confirm that there are no ministerial contacts with the PLO?
    Mr. Hurd: That is the position. The Palestinian part of the peace process is extremely important. By general agreement, the Palestinian component of the joint Jordanian-Palestinian delegation handled itself extremely well—indeed, with distinction—at the Madrid conference. There is a balance within the Palestinian group. We want to act carefully in order not to disturb that balance. It is important for us to keep in touch with the Palestinians. We shall continue to do so on the basis that I have described.
    Mr. Kaufman: Will the right hon. Gentleman join me once again in congratulating Mr. James Baker on the notable and indispensable part that he played in bringing about the Madrid conference? Will he pay tribute to all who participated in that conference, including the Palestinian representatives? Does he agree that if the Israeli authorities prosecuted Hannan Ashrawi, it would be an act of folly which would be destructive in further stages of the middle east peace process?
    Mr. Hurd: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman's first remark. I have encouraged Secretary Baker to continue to give his personal impact to those negotiations because that is essential, and he is clearly willing to do so. As I said, the Palestinian delegation distinguished themselves in Madrid. I could see no advantage, and considerable disadvantage, if Hannan Ashrawi were to be prosecuted in the way that the right hon. Gentleman described.

    Know-how Fund
    Mr. Rathbone: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration he is giving to additional know-how support for central and eastern European countries.
    The Minister for Overseas Development (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): By 1992–93, we will have more than tripled the original £15 million budget allocation for the know-how fund. At this stage we have no plans for further increases.
    Mr. Rathbone: I welcome that positive action by the Government. Will representations to other Governments be as strong as possible to encourage them to make the sort of contributions to the know-how fund and to know-how activity that is absolutely crucial for the developing economies in central and eastern Europe, and without which they will never develop democratic politics as well?
    Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend knows that the know-how fund is greatly admired by other donors and is very much appreciated in eastern Europe. We are told that it is the most flexible and fast-reacting source of aid, and that is exactly why we have pursued that route. We agree that it is the best way to help those countries to establish sound democracies and a sound economy.
    Dr. Kim Howells: The Minister will be aware that one of the most serious problems affecting the economies of central and eastern Europe is an energy shortage, which is mainly due to the destruction of hydrocarbon supplies from the Soviet Union. Will she ensure that all encouragement is given to the undoubted expertise in oil and gas exploration and technology in this country to aid the Romanians to revive their ailing oil and gas industries?
    Mrs. Chalker: I am aware that a number of United Kingdom oil and gas companies are extremely interested. They have not come to us for specific assistance under the know-how fund. Should they do so, we shall obviously consider it sympathetically in line with the priorities that we have set. Romania has a slightly smaller programme than the other countries, but we wish it to return to the path of good government and sound economics, and the fund is part of that.
    Mr. Atkinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that during a recent visit I made to Albania on behalf of the Council of Europe, politicians of all parties expressed a keen interest in receiving British know-how, but were disappointed that we have yet to establish a British embassy in Tiranë? When does she anticipate that that can be resolved?
    Mrs. Chalker: We must keep the matter under review. The economic and political position is very confused in Tiranë. We understand Albania's anxiety for British representation, and I shall keep that very much in the forefront of our consideration.
    Mr. Robertson: May I associate myself with the praise that has been heaped on the know-how fund? It has been an enormous success in central and eastern Europe. Throughout most of those countries the universal view is that Britain should do more to enhance its reputation through the fund. Will the Minister ensure that pressure is put on the Treasury, and kept on, to ensure that appropriate resources are made available? Will he further ensure that there is no inflexibility in the criteria, so that British know-how in areas such as local government and social services can also be exported?
    Mrs. Chalker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. We are grateful to him and to all the other people who serve on the advisory board of the know-how fund. We should concentrate our help on banking and financial services. They are not the only priority, but they are the highest. The banking system and the economic reforms must work in those countries before anything else can happen. It is a crucial part of their economic regeneration, and it is on that basis that other services can follow. I very much hope that the work that we are already doing will lead to initiatives being taken by those countries as a result of the guidance that we have given at local government, as well as national, level.

    Nepal
    Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on developments in United Kingdom-Nepalese relations since the general election there earlier this year.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): I recently visited Nepal and was greatly impressed by the commitment of the Nepalese people to the multi-party democratic system of government under a constitutional monarchy. I was also gratified by the immense good will and friendship towards Britain which I encountered on all sides.
    Mr. Pawsey: I thank my hon. Friend for another illuminating and helpful reply. I believe that he has just returned from his second visit to Nepal—a country with which this country has had good relations for about 175 years. Can he say what further action we may take to establish democracy firmly there?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We are immensely keen to help consolidate democracy in Nepal. We provide a substantial amount of aid, and £1 million of our aid money is committed for good government projects. Those projects are still to be selected. Following the imaginative suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne), in recognition of Nepal's return to democracy we are presenting to the Nepalese Parliament a throne for its Speaker.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: We welcome the positive response from the Minister. Will he tell us whether it is intended to give help for water projects, sanitation or afforestation?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, certainly those are all included in our aid programme which, as I have said, is substantial, amounting to some £17 million a year. That is nearly double what it was four years ago.
    Mr. Thorne: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. Bearing in mind that 500,000 Nepalese soldiers served with the British forces in the two world wars, that no fewer than 50,000 were either killed or seriously wounded, that 13 won Victoria Crosses, that 13 British officers serving with the Gurkhas also won Victoria Crosses, and that under "Options for Change" we are proposing to reduce the number of Gurkhas from 8,000 to 2,500, can my hon. Friend assure the House that the Foreign Office will take into account the reduction in what amounts to aid, currently provided through pay and pensions, in its future plans for aid to Nepal?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We are all impressed by the Gurkhas, and anyone who has visited Nepal and seen them in operation is even more impressed. We are helping with some specific problems that will occur in the run-down, such as the expansion of the former military hospital at Dharan. My hon. Friend will be aware that the terms of redundancy that are to be provided will be a significant improvement on previous terms. There is also a significant programme to help with the resettlement of former Gurkha soldiers.

    Croatia
    Mr. Alton: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now recognise the Government of Croatia.
    Mr. Hurd: This question is constantly reviewed. Those Yugoslav republics which want independence will get it, but recognition now would not stop the fighting. We have to judge whether recognition of two republics now would increase the very real danger of civil war in other republics.
    Mr. Alton: Now that the German Government have signalled their intention in the foreseeable future to recognise Croatia, would not it be a morally important statement for the British Government to do likewise and stand alongside this cruelly treated people? Now that humanitarian sea lanes are to be open, does the Foreign Secretary accept that there may also be merit in the British Government promoting the idea of an internationally enforced sky protection zone over Croatia to prevent incursions and the further bombardment of Croatian cities? Such a sky shield would protect people from further massacre and the destruction of Croatia's heritage.
    Mr. Hurd: European Community Governments will probably continue to act together on this matter. As I have said before, my worry is that if we recognise the two republics that the hon. Gentleman mentions, we may force the pace and create an explosion in Kosovo, Bosnia and Macedonia, where there are tensions and possibilities of bloodshed and civil war that go beyond anything that we have seen even in Croatia.
    There is another possibility, to which the hon. Gentleman alluded. There is now a chance of progress via measures such as those that the EC has taken, and via the possibility of a United Nations peacekeeping force. We are pressing forward examination of those in the Security Council. The new element is that both the Serbs and the Croats have, for the first time, shown a general willingness to accept such a force.
    Mr. Aitken: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear whether his answer, which displayed an understandable degree of elegant procrastination, will lead to the Government saying that the Yugoslav federation as we know it has no diplomatic future?
    Mr. Hurd: I think that Yugoslavia as we know it has come to an end. It is not yet clear what kind of agreements the six republics might be able to reach about future co-operation, but they will certainly not be on the old basis.
    Mr. Kaufman: As the right hon. Gentleman referred to action in the Security Council, and in the light of the fall of Vukovar and the continuing horrendous threat to Dubrovnik, will he seek to obtain agreement for a Security Council resolution imposing comprehensive sanctions, including an international oil ban, on the whole area, as a way of exerting pressure to bring the fighting to an end?
    Mr. Hurd: The three EC members of the Security Council—Britain, France and Belgium—have reached agreement on what we want the Security Council to do. Our representatives are now canvassing support for that. I am not sure whether we shall get the support, but the plan includes the elements mentioned by the right hon.
    256
    Gentleman, and encouragement for the concept of a United Nations peacekeeping force once the appropriate conditions exist.

    Baltic States
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Britain's relations with the Baltic states.
    Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what importance he attaches to developing relations with the newly independent Baltic states.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Garel-Jones): Our relations with the Baltic states are good. We welcomed their independence in August. We now are offering them help in consolidating their independence and rebuilding their economies. We are already backing projects in three states through the know-how fund. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State visited the states in September immediately after we re-established diplomatic relations with them to underline our support. British ambassadors are now operating in all three Baltic capitals. They are doing a good job under difficult circumstances.
    Mr. Coombs: Does my hon. Friend think that the Labour party was acting in the best interests of Britain and of our Baltic friends when, in 1969, it did a deal with Brezhnev and handed over the Baltic gold?
    Mr. Garel-Jones: The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) looks anxious, as indeed he might, because one of the current concerns of the Baltic states is the return of their gold. That matter is high on their agenda, and the hon. Gentleman may recall that the Labour party has distinguished itself over the past 40 years by being wrong about practically every foreign policy and defence issue that has come before it. On few occasions has it shown less moral scruple than when it made a deal with Brezhnev to dispose of the Soviet gold. The Conservative party opposed that agreement—my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) was one of those who voted against it. We thought it wrong then and we still think so. We do not know what legal or moral basis there was for it.
    My hon. Friend will be relieved to know that my hon. and learned Friend, my fellow Minister of State, is having constructive discussions with our friends in the Baltic states on the matter.
    Mr. Field: Will my hon. Friend confirm that as part of that remarkable deal the then Labour Government paid a £500,000 sweetener to the Soviet Government? Can he give a categorical assurance to the House that none of that money was used by the Soviet Communist party to try to destabilise this country and foment industrial disputes, as it has now admitted that it did?
    Mr. Garel-Jones: I can give the House no assurance about what the Soviet——
    Mr. Anderson: That is an own gold.
    Mr. Garel-Jones: The hon. Gentleman voted for the Bill. He was in the House at the time, so he should hang his head in shame. He voted for the Bill, as did two of the

    257
    Liberals here, the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) and the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston).
    I can give my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) no assurance about the eventual destiny of that money. At that time the Conservative party voted against the Bill because we thought that it was entirely wrong. The discussions that the Minister of State, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) is now having with the Baltic states are taking place in a constructive atmosphere. We hope to reach a satisfactory solution to this matter.
    Mr. Galloway: Coming from the party that went to Munich to betray Czechoslovakia—[Interruption.] I find the recourse to a 20-year-old smear by the Foreign Office Minister most unseemly. It might have something to do with the forthcoming general election when any smear will do.
    Since the Minister is so concerned about the gold belonging to the Baltic states, will he see justice done for the poorest country in Europe, Albania, whose gold is in the Bank of England and was stolen from that country four decades ago?[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This question was supposed to be about the Baltic states, but as we have become hooked on gold, I think that we had better have the answer.
    Mr. Garel-Jones: Moral indignation sits rather uneasily on the hon. Gentleman's shoulders, particularly on this matter. The question refers to the Baltic states, not Albania.
    Mr. Flynn: The people of the Baltic states will be baffled at the petty party points that Conservative Members have tried to make out of the great victory that was achieved by those people.
    I have a serious question. What representations have the Government made about the new proposal, particularly in Latvia, to restrict citizenship to those whose descendants came from the Baltic states and to those who speak the Baltic languages? Are we making representations to widen the terms of citizenship in those three states to avoid their being turned into three Ulsters?
    Mr. Garel-Jones: Certainly, the hon. Gentleman has made an important point. Respect for human rights and minorities and, in particular, respect for those who speak minority languages or come from a minority ethnic group is an important matter. We have, of course, stressed to our friends in the Baltic states that their membership of the CSCE—Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe—process and their aspirations to join the Council of Europe will naturally depend to a great extent upon their ability to meet international standards in such matters.

    Cyprus
    Mr. Squire: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the Government's attitude to an international conference on Cyprus early next year.
    Mr. Hurd: Britain supported Security Council resolution 716, which endorsed the aim of an international
    258
    meeting. We hope that enough progress can be made for that objective to be accomplished, and shall continue to give the Secretary-General of the United Nations our full support.
    Mr. Squire: With the tragedy that is Cyprus today and the role that we have as a guarantor power, will my right hon. Friend confirm that he is prepared to use the framework of the Western European Union to press for an acceptable solution—acceptable to all sides in Cyprus? Will he bear in mind in particular that many Greek Cypriots are concerned about the Turkish guarantee that overhangs all the proceedings?
    Mr. Hurd: The best instrument for reaching agreement in Cyprus remains the United Nations. My hon. Friend rightly referred to our job as a guarantor power and, in that respect, we must do everything we can with the Turks, the Greeks and the Cypriots to help Secretary-General Perez De Cuellar to make some progress in his remaining weeks of office. I had hoped that some progress would be made in the autumn and I am disappointed that that has not happened. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have tried, together with all those I have described, to put impetus behind the process. I hope that the new Turkish Government will pay full and constructive attention to what the Secretary General is trying to do.
    Mr. Faulds: As British Governments of both colours have failed the Turkish Cypriot community in Cyprus, to whom they undertook certain responsibilities under the constitution of 1960 and the treaty of guarantee, would not it be advisable for the Government to be a bit more sensitive to the concerns of the Turkish Cypriots who do not want to see—under whatever agreement, which may be too favourable to the Greek Cypriots—a return to the situation in the 1960s? In 1963, Makarios aborted the constitution and totally destroyed Turkish Cypriot rights.
    Mr. Hurd: There is much more to the history of Cyprus than that. A heavy responsibility falls on Mr. Denktash, who is the acknowledged leader of the Turkish community in Cyprus. He has a strong responsibility not to be content with the status quo, but to exert himself to try to find an answer, community to community, to settle the dispute.
    Mr. Tredinnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some British companies have not received the compensation due to them from the Turkish authorities controlling northern Cyprus? Does he agree that steps must be taken to persuade the Turkish authorities to give such compensation, because it is causing great hardship? A company in my constituency is in that position. Will my right hon. Friend undertake to look at the question afresh, please?
    Mr. Hurd: Yes, I shall certainly do that. If my hon. Friend has not yet sent me details of the company in his constituency, I hope that he will do so.
    Sir Russell Johnston: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that an international conference as proposed simply would not succeed unless Greek and Turkish Cypriot com-munities admit that they have both been responsible for atrocities and extremism?
    Mr. Hurd: I do not know whether admissions about the past are as important as agreement about the future. I had hoped for a conference with the Turkish and Greek

    259
    Governments and representatives of the two communities. There seemed to be the prospect of such a conference in the late summer and autumn and the chance that it might make progress. That chance has faded, but we must try to recreate it.
    Mr. Anderson: Will the Secretary of State lay aside diplomatic niceties for a moment and say that that hope has receded since July as a direct result of the intransigence of Mr. Denktash, who has made no move despite the fact that concessions have been made by the other side? Is it not now time to say that clearly and to work with, we hope, the new Turkish Government, to bring pressure on Mr. Denktash to show some realism in the matter?
    Mr. Hurd: I answered the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) with my view about Mr. Denktash's responsibilities. I agree that the reaction and response of Mr. Denktash is an important part of unlocking the position.
    Mr. Day: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the difficulties of the tragic situation in Cyprus is that the Greek Cypriot Government are recognised as the Government of the whole island, whereas the Turkish invasion was precipitated by the Greek Cypriot coup, which destroyed the 1960 constitution? The Government recognise that constitution as giving the present Greek Cypriot Government legitimacy.
    Mr. Hurd: There is a lot of history to Cyprus. That is part of it, as is the Turkish invasion of 1974. We recognise the Government of the Republic of Cyprus as the Government of the whole of Cyprus. We recognise that it is crucial for any settlement that there be agreement between the two communities, as communities. That was all set out in the recent Security Council resolution to which I referred in my reply and for which we voted.

    East Timor
    Mr. Dunnachie: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government support the United Nations-led efforts to send a Portuguese parliamentary mission to East Timor.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Government support the efforts of the United Nations Secretary-General to encourage moves by Indonesia and Portugal to resolve their differences over East Timor.
    Mr. Dunnachie: In view of the appalling massacre that took place last week in East Timor, will the Government call on the United Nations Security Council to discuss East Timor? Will they press the Security Council to send monitoring teams to East Timor? What action, other than bland expressions of concern, will they take against Indonesia?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We are not in the business of making bland expressions of concern. I was answering precisely the hon. Gentleman's question. The developments that have taken place led to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State expressing the Government's worry to the Indonesian ambassador on 13 November. Ministers are following developments most closely. The Indonesian
    260
    Government have announced a commission of inquiry into the events in East Timor. We shall consider the position further in the light of that report.
    Mr. Couchman: When my right hon. Friend the Minister of State next has contact with the Indonesian ambassador, will he express the abhorrence of the House at the indiscriminate shooting of men, women and children in Dili, which I visited three years ago with other hon. Members? Will my right hon. Friend stress that, if this country is to develop further productive relations with Indonesia, a most important country, such outrageous behaviour must cease?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I can certainly agree with my hon. Friend—that incident was most regrettable, particularly in light of the fact that the human rights record of Indonesia had been improving in recent years.
    Mr. Foulkes: The Minister's complacency is appalling. Is he aware that the massacre in Indonesia was as intensive as that of the killing fields of Cambodia and took place in a country that Indonesia occupied illegally? As the Government are allegedly concerned about the appalling human rights record, why do they sell frigates, aircraft, missiles and armoured cars to Indonesia and provide military training for Indonesian troops? That position was intensified in September, when the Secretary of State for Defence visited Indonesia to seek out more military contracts. Is it not time that the Government stopped selling arms to a country with such a brutal regime? If they do not, they will be guilty of the worst sort of hypocrisy.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We do not allow the export of arms and equipment likely to be used against the civil population. [Interruption.] Let me indicate the European Community declaration of 13 November, of which our support was at the forefront. The declaration vehemently condemned the violence and urged the Indonesian Government to ensure that members of the Indonesian armed forces and police in East Timor refrained immediately from using violence, and that members of the armed forces and police who were responsible should be brought to trial. We welcomed the news that the Indonesian authorities were mounting an investigation, which would have to be carried out promptly, fully and fairly.

    European Foreign Ministers
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on co-operation and co-ordination between Foreign Ministers of the European Community.
    Mr. Hurd: I meet my European Community colleagues often. We have increasingly developed the habit of co-operation and common action among the Twelve. The system has worked flexibly and effectively to Britain's advantage.
    Mr. Arnold: Given the record of the European Commission to interfere in every nook and cranny in this country and others throughout Europe, is it not clear that the foreign policy of this country and the European Community should continue to be developed by the

    261
    Foreign Ministries of the Twelve? Should not our efforts be put into improving the mechanisms and practices of co-operation between the Twelve?
    Mr. Hurd: There is a lot in that. The Commission is present at the political co-operation meetings, which proves useful and important, but it does not have the monopoly of initiative, as it would have if the meetings took place under the treaty of Rome.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: While we have co-operation and co-ordination, will the Secretary of State encourage our European partners to start a true dialogue with the Palestine Liberation Organisation? The Secretary of State will know that it was one of his predecessors, Lord Carrington, who was instructed by the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), not to have formal contacts with the PLO in 1980. Given the success in getting the Israelis and Palestinians round the table, would it not make more sense for the Government to right that wrong and ensure that, during our presidency from July onwards, we talk directly to the PLO?
    Mr. Hurd: I had three questions on this point a few minutes ago. I tried to explain then the basis on which we maintain contacts with the Palestinians. I hope that I chose my words with some care; I do not want to add to them.
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: In considering what possible action to take against Libya in future, will my right hon. Friend work extremely closely with his European Community opposite numbers? Will he take note of the number of Arab countries that have been strongly opposed to many Libyan terrorist activities over the years?
    Mr. Hurd: I agree that, in handling the present situation after the issue of the Lockerbie warrants, we need to keep in close touch both with Arab friends and European partners, and that is what we are doing. I should have thought that the present requirement of the whole civilised world is relatively simple. It is that the Libyans should hand over to the United States or British jurisdiction the two named officials against whom the crime of mass murder is alleged in the warrants issued by the Advocate-General.

    Democratic Accountability
    Mr. Beith: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent meetings he has had with his EC counterparts to discuss the development of democratic accountability in the European Community.
    Mr. Garel-Jones: My right hon. Friend met our colleagues from the other member states of the Community for two days last week at Noordwijk. Strengthening democratic accountability in the Community was one of the issues discussed.
    Mr. Beith: If Ministers are serious about wanting us not to be governed by unaccountable bureaucrats, why are they not leading in the argument that those decisions that have to be taken at European level are fully accountable to a stronger European Parliament that is elected by a fair system? Why are they resisting those arguments, or seeing them as concessions that might be made during negotiations?
    Mr. Garel-Jones: The Liberal party persists in referring to proportional representation as a fairer system. It is not fairer, it is different. One of the differences, in my view, is that it provides a foot in the door for extremist parties of the sort that we do not want in Britain.
    Sir Peter Hordern: Is it not time to put an end to the fraud and corruption that go on within the European Community, as evidenced by the continual reports of the European Court of Auditors? Surely the European Parliament should be given powers to summon Commissioners and permanent secretaries of different countries to put those abuses to them.
    Mr. Garel-Jones: My hon. Friend is right: he has raised one of the areas in which Britain has tried to take a lead in the discussions in the Community. We have advocated a considerable extension of the powers of the European Parliament in its work in scrutinising the Commission and ensuring that proper financial accountability is introduced. We hope that there will be new articles in the treaty to strengthen the role of the European Parliament in the area to which my hon. Friend has referred.
    Mr. O'Hara: Will the Foreign Secretary enlist the co-operation of his partners in the European Community to address their attention to some of the living features of the history of Cyprus, to insist that every one of the 35,000 Turkish troops that occupy the northern part of Cyprus shall be withdrawn, and to send a message to the families of the 6,000 Greek Cypriots who were killed in 1974 and the sixteen hundred and——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a bit wide. The question is all about Europe.
    Mr. O'Hara: —who are still debarred from returning to their homes? In their language: "Then xehnáme"—"we forget not."
    Mr. Garel-Jones: If I can try to link the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question to the Community, the fact is that Cyprus has applied for membership of the European Economic Community. That membership, along with others, will not be considered until 1993. When the Community came to consider the application, one of the things that it would wish to ensure was that the benefit of the membership would be available to the whole community.

    Croatia
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will take measures to assist in the preservation of the integrity of Croatia.
    Mr. Hurd: We and our EC partners have repeatedly made it clear that we will not recognise changes in Yugoslavia's internal borders unless they are brought about by peaceful negotiation. They cannot be brought about by force.
    Mr. Butler: Why has the United Nations been so slow to act effectively to stop the Serb-led aggression reminiscent of the worst of communist thuggery?
    Mr. Hurd: As I have said before, the focus is now on United Nations intervention. I do not think that any member of the United Nations, any more than Her

    263
    Majesty's Government, would want to send their forces to fight their way into the situation. But the new factor is that both the Serbian and the Croatian leadership have said that they are willing in principle to accept a United Nations peacekeeping force. I accept that that puts the responsibility on the United Nations secretariat and on the Security Council.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Foreign Secretary go a bit further and say what the attitude is of the British Government? If the matter is being considered by the United Nations and a peacekeeping force is mounted, surely British and French troops, Western European Union troops, will be in the front line. What plans are being made to dispatch British troops to Yugoslavia?
    Mr. Hurd: No such plans are being made.
    Mr. Fry: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to preserve the integrity of Croatia is to work for a permanent settlement after a lasting ceasefire, and that recognition is just one of the issues that has to be sorted out before there can be a successful conclusion? Others include dealing with the disputed areas, the resettlement of the dispossessed and, and a very important point, adequate rights for the minorities in Yugoslavia.
    Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is right. Those are all matters that we are trying to persuade the different leaders in Yugoslavia to discuss. That is the purpose of the peace conference in The Hague, which they frequently attend and where they issue declarations and undertakings which they do not always respect when they get home. But we have to continue with that. My hon. Friend is right: if one tries to pick out one element and not the others, the result may not be beneficial.

    Germany
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British diplomatic staff are stationed in Germany; and what their responsibilities are with regard to human rights issues.
    Mr. Garel-Jones: The number is 81. The embassy and or consulates-general have a responsibility for providing regular reporting and analysis of issues in Germany, including human rights, relevant to United Kingdom interests.
    Mr. Winnick: Has the British embassy in Germany made it clear to the German authorities how deeply shocking and despicable have been the racist attacks by Nazi thugs there? Is the Minister aware that it is extremely unfortunate that once again Labour Members of Parliament in the House of Commons have to protest against racism, Nazi hooliganism and Nazi thugs operating on German soil? We do not require lectures from Germany about federalism and union and so on; we require Germany to put its own house in order.
    Mr. Garel-Jones: I do not think that there is a question of lecturing either of Germany by us or of us by Germany. Our distaste and disgust at the events in Germany are shared 100 per cent. by the German Administration and, as every opinion poll shows, by the vast majority of decent German people. Therefore, we do not have to make any firm representations to the German Government in such matters; they feel exactly as we do about them.

    Hong Kong
    Mr. David Young: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what legal advice is available to Vietnamese boat people during the screening process when they claim refugee status; what is done to inform applicants for refugee status of their rights; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Hurd: Under the comprehensive plan of action, responsibility for advice about screening falls to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which briefs all Vietnamese migrants on arrival. The Hong Kong authorities also provide a pamphlet in Vietnamese to all migrants explaining the screening procedures in detail. The UNHCR also provides legal advice and help to migrants at all stages of the screening and review process.
    Mr. Young: How many of the boat people have been granted refugee status? Has any pressure been brought on Her Majesty's Government by the Chinese, the butchers of Tiananmen square, to expedite the return of, or to remove any rights from, those refugees?
    Mr. Hurd: I can write to the hon. Gentleman with the figures, but the majority of arrivals from Vietnam who are screened are found not to be refugees. Only those who are screened out—who are found by that procedure not to be refugees—are sent back to Vietnam. That matter is one on which the people of Hong Kong feel very strongly. We have made repeated statements on our policy to the House, and it is not a matter on which we need to take advice or instructions from the People's Republic of China.
    Mr. Harris: Does my right hon. Friend accept that those of us who have observed the screening process in the camps in Hong Kong have been greatly impressed by its thoroughness and fairness? Will my right hon. Friend and others involved in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office accept congratulations on the patience with which that huge problem has been tackled? Most of us are pleased that those people who are not political refugees are sent back to Vietnam.
    Mr. Hurd: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, who has put his finger on the real point. It is not reasonable to expect Hong Kong to continue to accept, year in, year out, large numbers of people coming from Vietnam—not because they have a well founded fear of persecution, but because they want to better the economic lot of themselves and their families. Hong Kong cannot continue to accept that situation.

    EC Commissioners
    Mr. Cryer: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the accountability of Commissioners of the EC to the Council of Ministers.
    Mr. Garel-Jones: European Community Commissioners are appointed by common accord of the member states, but the main responsibility for ensuring the accountability of the Commission rests with the European Parliament. We believe that that role should be strengthened. We have put forward a number of proposals

    265
    to this effect in the political union intergovernmental conference. They have received a broad measure of support.
    Mr. Cryer: Is the Minister not concerned about the Commission's power to investigate various nooks and crannies of our national life? Does he agree that, if the Dutch treaty and article 103A are adopted by a qualified majority of the Council of Ministers—which is a procedure that the Government apparently accept—the Commissioners will have the power to issue secret instructions commanding the economy of another member state? Does the Minister oppose that, or will the road to Maastricht be littered with hypocrisy?
    Mr. Garel-Jones: The hon. Gentleman is of course a great expert in hypocrisy, and in the Community too—because he served as a European Member of Parliament when he was last defeated as a Member of the House of Commons; no doubt he will have to return there after the next general election. The hon. Gentleman referred to the nooks and crannies of the Dutch text. It may have escaped his notice that that text was removed from the negotiations about two months ago.
    Mr. Lawrence: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of us believe that there must be no further transfer of accountability from the Westminster Government or Westminster Parliament to any institutions in Europe, unless that is approved by the British people in a referendum?
    Mr. Garel-Jones: The views of this Government and of previous Governments on referendums are well known. We held a referendum on Britain's membership of the Community in order to extract the Labour party from the difficulty that it was in at the time. The result was overwhelming. I see no purpose in a further referendum on that matter—we are a parliamentary democracy.
    Mr. Beggs rose——
    Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the Government's unsatisfactory reply, I intend to raise that matter again on the Adjournment.
    Mr. Speaker: That loses the opportunity for the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) to ask a supplementary question.

    Africa
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made towards multi-party democracy in Africa.
    Mrs. Chalker: We welcome the fact that most countries in Africa practise, or are moving towards, multi-party democracy. We shall encourage all of them to do so, and to start and maintain good government practices.
    Mr. Bottomley: Given the British Government's determination to provide official aid to democratic countries—we are seeing the emergence. of a growing number of them—does my hon. Friend agree that it would be proper and popular over the next five years to halve the gap between our official aid and the United Nations target? Should not we include such a policy in our manifesto for the next general election?
    Mrs. Chalker: I do not think that that is a question for me to answer from the Dispatch Box. I will say, however, that I expect all the countries that we assist to make further progress towards democracy and increased accountability: we consider that vital. Countries must also be willing to move towards multi-party democracy, and to ensure that there is a chance for dialogue to take place. When those goals are respected, we may have the opportunity to spend increasing amounts.
    Mr. Corbett: Will the Minister confirm that Kenya and Malawi are the largest African recipients of British aid, and that both are one-party states which show no signs of progress towards multi-party democracy? In the light of that, will she review the aid programme?
    Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman may not have noted the fact that we continue to encourage the Malawian Government to apply the principles of accountable government that they endorsed at the Harare Heads of Government meeting. Following their failure to do so, we have already cut balance of payments support for Malawi.
    We have constantly stressed to the Kenyan Government the need to respect freedom of expression and the important outlets for legitimate dissent. We hope that those who have been arrested will be released immediately. We have told them that the suppression of opposing views is not the way forward, and have called for further progress towards democracy and greater public accountability.
    I am encouraged by the fact that President Moi has expressed his willingness to move towards multi-party democracy, and by the recent indications that fresh general elections may be held early next year. We shall urge the continuation of all the recent moves to root out corruption in that and every other recipient of our aid.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the carefully targeted aid that she has given to Zambia in recent years. It has led to the election of President Chiluba, leader of the country's multi-party democracy movement. Does my right hon. Friend believe that, as a result, multi-party democracy will be adopted in Kenya at an early opportunity?
    Mrs. Chalker: I cannot really add to the answer that I gave the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett). However, I pay tribute to all Zambians for the peaceful conduct of the recent multi-party election.
    The Zambians have chosen their President and their Government. President Chiluba has our best wishes to help him get on with the job; we shall do our best to assist him, because the election was a fine example of the principles that we endorsed at the recent Heads of Government meeting in Harare. We hope that there will soon be great progress in Zambia.

    Indonesia
    Mr. David Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with the Government of Indonesia.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As I have already said, the Government are seriously concerned about the shootings in East Timor on 12 November. My noble Friend the Minister of State expressed that concern to the Indonesian

    267
    ambassador on 13 November. We are urgently seeking clarification of the reports of further shootings on 15 November.
    Mr. Marshall: Further to the very unsatisfactory replies that the Minister has given not only to me but, earlier, to my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Dunnachie) and for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), may I ask whether the Government consider the Indonesian occupation of East Timor to be illegal? Regardless of the Indonesian investigation, will the Minister tell us exactly what the Government intend to do to convey to Indonesia the message that the international community simply will not tolerate outrages such as last week's massacre of innocent mourners in East Timor?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Her Majesty's Government most certainly do not recognise the incorporation of East Timor into Indonesia. As I have said, we have expressed our grave concern.
    Mr. Lester: My hon. Friend will know that many of us were awaiting a visit by a Portuguese parliamentary delegation to East Timor to analyse the situation there. We know now from the Portuguese Government that that delegation has been called off because of the recent tragic events in East Timor. Does my hon. Friend agree that what has happened in East Timor is the very opposite of good governance and that that ought to influence our aid programme to Indonesia?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have no doubt that, in the light of developments, the Government and our Community partners will be looking at the very matters to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention.

    Mr. Jacques Delors
    Mr. McWilliam: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he intends to arrange a meeting with the President of the European Commission to discuss recent comments on his views.
    Mr. Hurd: No need. The President of the Commission and I hear each others views directly, across the table in EC meetings, several times a month and always, I hope, with benefit.
    Mr. McWilliam: When the Secretary of State next meets the President, will he tell him why he alone, of all the Foreign Secretaries, left or right, within the European Community rejects the social charter? What is he afraid of?
    Mr. Hurd: I have already explained, I think three times, in the hearing of President Delors why this Government are not prepared to put at risk the striking progress that has been made in industrial relations in this country since 1979.
    Mr. Beggs: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I was called by you on Question 16, only to be discourteously interrupted by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), will you refer to the Procedure Committee whether or not such an interruption should be permitted as a means of closing a question, or whether Members should be afforded the courtesy of asking their question, after such an interruption, when Question Time ends?
    Mr. Speaker: It is not for me to refer that matter to the Select Committee. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to do so, he should do that himself. May I draw to his attention, and to the attention of the whole House, page 296 of "Erskine May"? It is clearly stated there that, if the hon. Member who originated the question rises and states that he intends to seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment, that is the end of that particular question.

    BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 6 DECEMBER
    Members successful in the ballot were:

    Ms. Joyce Quin

    Mr. Hugo Summerson

    Sir Bernard Braine

European Community (Intergovernmental Conferences)
[FIRST DAY]
[Relevant document: Minutes of Evidence taken before the Foreign Affairs Committee on 19th November ( House of Commons Paper 35-i)]
Mr. Speaker: Before we begin this important debate, let me say that well over 60 right hon. and hon. Members have applied in writing to participate in it today. Sadly, it may not be possible to call them all, but I shall do my best, provided speeches are brief. I propose to place a limit of 10 minutes on speeches between 7 and 9 o'clock. I hope that those who are called before 7 o'clock and those who are called after 9 o'clock will bear that limit in mind in the interests of their colleagues, as the debate is to continue until midnight.
I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you are aware, several amendments have been tabled. I understand that under Standing Order No. 9, as amended by Standing Order No. 14, you can select only one amendment because the motion has to be voted on after 10 o'clock. Nothing else is to be voted on after 10 o'clock. Can you confirm that if an amendment to an amendment were tabled and were to be considered suitable by you for voting on, should it be voted on before 10 o'clock the amendment could then be voted on after 10 o'clock, as well as t e substantive motion? That would enable the House to have a clearer division on ideas than is apparent from the two Front-Bench motions.
Mr. Speaker: That would be possible if I had selected the amendment, but it is hypothetical because no such amendment is on the Order Paper.
3.34 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): I beg to move,
That this House, believing it is in Britain's interests to continue to be at the heart of the European Community and able to shape its future and that of Europe as a whole, endorses the constructive negotiating approach adopted by Her Majesty's Government in the Inter-Governmental Conferences on Economic and Monetary Union and on Political Union; and urges them to work for an agreement at the forthcoming European Council at Maastricht which avoids the development of a federal Europe, enables this country to exert the greatest influence on the economic evolution of the Community while preserving the right of Parliament to decide at a future date whether to adopt a single currency, on issues of Community competence concentrates the development of action on those issues which cannot be handled more effectively at national level and, in particular, avoids intrusive Community measures in Social areas which are matters for national decision, develops a European security policy compatible with NATO and co-operation in foreign policy which safeguards this country's national interests, increases the accountability of the Commission, enhances the rule of law in the Community including improved implementation, enforcement and compliance with Community legislation, improves co-operation between European governments in the fight against drugs, terrorism and cross-border crime, and through these policies secures the long-term interests of the United Kingdom.
The European Council in Maastricht is set to decide issues which are crucial to the future of the European Community and to Britain's role as a leading member of
270
it. This afternoon I would like to set out what is at stake, the parameters of what we can accept and also what we cannot accept.
I shall deal, first, with a misconception that is held by some of our Community partners. They believe that Britain may argue hard against many of the proposals—object to them and protest—but that then we shall sign up to whatever is on offer at the 59th minute of the 11th hour. I urge them not to make that misjudgment; it would be fatal.
The Government want to reach an agreement at Maastricht. We are negotiating for one. There is still some way to go and I hope that we will be successful, but it may be that a deal is genuinely unobtainable. If we do not reach an agreement, it will be a setback. So it must not be through misunderstanding, or misjudgment, and certainly not through bad faith. Therefore, this afternoon I will make our position clear.
For historical, geographical and political reasons, the issue of membership of the European Community has been more controversial in Britain perhaps than in any other member state. We joined the Community late, and we joined a Community whose rules were drawn up by the original members and not by us. The structure of the Community's budget meant that only two countries—Britain and Germany—were net contributors. The common agricultural policy was designed to benefit those countries with small and often inefficient farmers. It took time, effort and controversy to redress some of those imbalances. My right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) secured a more equitable budget arrangement, and now we have started on the reform of the common agricultural policy.
Those issues have often obscured the benefits to Britain of the European Community. The first and perhaps overriding benefit is the contribution which the Community has made to democracy, stability and prosperity in post-war Europe. The Community is unique in having its own framework of law that is binding on member states. That framework of law is changing, not least to enable us to create the world's largest single market. Prior to the Single European Act, we were at a disadvantage. Britain had removed most of the barriers which stood in the way of countries wanting to export to us, but the reverse in no sense was the case. We often faced barriers to the export of our goods to other Community countries.
It is because of our membership of the Community that Nissan cars, made in Sunderland, can be sold freely in continental Europe. Seventy-five per cent. of the Sunderland factory's production went for export last year.
It is because of Community law that we shall be able to sell our financial, banking and insurance services freely throughout the Community. It is thanks to the collective strength of the Community that we can negotiate a good deal for Britain in international trade negotiations with the United States and Japan.
Those are all positive advantages. They illustrate very clearly why the countries of the European Free Trade Association, none of them economic slouches, have just done a deal with the Community. That agreement gives them the benefits of the European single market. In exchange, they have had to accept our regulations and our standards without having any say in framing them. Most of them now want membership of the Community to give them that equal say in framing the Community's laws.

271
There are, in truth, only three ways of dealing with the Community: we can leave it, and no doubt we would survive, but we would be diminished in influence and in prosperity; we can stay in it grudgingly, in which case others will lead it; or we can play a leading role in it, and that is the right policy. It does not mean accepting every idea that is marketed with a European label. It does mean trying to build the sort of Europe that we believe in, and I will turn specifically to that in the course of my remarks.
Mr. A. J. Beith rose—
The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I would like to make a little progress. I have much to say in order to cover the points in which the House will be interested.
At the Luxembourg European Council in June, draft texts on monetary union and political union were produced that had huge deficiencies but which did recognise many of our concerns. In September, a new Dutch text on political union appeared. That was quite unacceptable and we rejected it. It was withdrawn, and replaced a few days ago. These early texts have caused much alarm about proposals that this country would and could never have accepted.
I will turn first to the treaty articles on economic and monetary union. The treaty of Rome defines as its goal the achievement of
"an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe."
In 1972, the Heads of Government of the Community—and of Britain, Ireland and Denmark, who were about to join—agreed the objective of the
"progressive realisation of Economic and Monetary Union".
That goal was enshrined in the preamble to the Single European Act, but these goals were never defined.
The treaty now before us envisages the realisation of economic and monetary union through the creation of a single European currency to replace the historic currencies and a European central bank to manage monetary policy.
In stage 1 the single market and single financial area will be completed; competition will be strengthened; capital movements liberalised; and the greatest possible number of currencies will join the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system. The United Kingdom is fully committed to stage 1 which began on 1 July 1990. The substantive provisions of the treaty apply to the second and third stages of economic and monetary union. It is here that we begin to run into the areas of greatest difficulty and controversy in much of the negotiation before us.
In the second stage, the text proposes to establish a European monetary institute, essentially the present meeting of European central bank governors under another name. Its task would be to strengthen the co-operation between the member states' central banks and to promote the co-ordination of monetary policy. In stage 2, the European currency unit would be developed and hardened. During the whole of this period, monetary policy would remain entirely in the hands of member states. The European monetary institute would have a consultative and advisory role, and that alone.
The present stage envisages that, before the end of 1996, the member states of the Community would take stock, in the Economic and Finance Council and in the European Council, and reach a decision as to whether to move to the final stage of economic and monetary union. A crucial element in the decision whether or not to move to stage 3
272
would be the economic convergence of the member states. We were the first country to argue that convergence was vital before monetary union could even become a possibility. That view is now accepted by our partners. The latest text sets out strict convergence criteria on inflation, on interest rates, on successful membership of the narrow band of the exchange rate mechanism and on the avoidance of excessive budget deficits.
The Council of Ministers would decide who has met the conditions, and the European Council would decide unanimously whether or not the conditions were right for a move to stage 3. We believe that there should be at least eight member states ready to move to stage 3 before that step could be taken.
Our insistence that there should be no imposition of a single currency is well known: by that we mean that we cannot commit ourselves now to entry at a later date as a result of the treaty. We are therefore insisting that there must be a provision in the treaty giving us the right, quite separately from any European Council decision, to decide for ourselves whether or not to move to stage 3. That decision can be taken only by this House.
That means that, even if the requisite majority of member states decide to embrace full economic and monetary union with a single currency and a single central bank, Britain will not be obliged to do so. Whether to join—not just when to join—will be matters of separate decision by Government and by Parliament. Nothing in the treaty that I sign will bind us now to the decision that we must take then. Nothing in the treaty that I sign now will bind us then, because at this stage we cannot know what the circumstances then will be and whether it will be in the economic interests of this country to take part.
Mr. Beith: Is not the Prime Minister now outlining a fourth option, which is that Britain remains a member of the European Community, but excludes itself from the development of the single currency, and thereby excludes itself from being the financial centre of Europe and from gaining the full advantages of membership?
The Prime Minister: Expressly not. I am outlining circumstances that mean that we would decide to join provided the circumstances were right and that the House thought it was right. We are not committing ourselves to joining now without knowing the circumstances, without knowing the conditions, and without knowing what economic chaos it might lead to.
Mr. Giles Radice: Can the Prime Minister see any advantages for Britain in joining a European single currency?
The Prime Minister: I shall come to those points in a few moments.
Mr. Jim Sillars rose——
The Prime Minister: I have given way twice already. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman later.
One of the most sensitive issues in this debate is the conduct of the United Kingdom's fiscal policy—the powers to tax, borrow and spend. It is common ground that excessive budget deficits should be avoided and that the absence of such deficits should be a convergence condition for moving to stage 3. It is also agreed that there should be no legally binding budget deficit ceilings and sanctions in stage 2.

273
For stage 2, the treaty would provide for a formal process whereby the ECOFIN council can, on the basis of a Commission report, examine any state's economic policy and budgetary position. If it finds a budget deficit to be excessive, it can make non-binding policy recommendations. While the arrangements for prompting a Commission report would be an innovation in the text, the other powers of examination and recommendation are not. The Council can do that now—and it does.
Mr. Terence L. Higgins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Dutch draft as it now stands says, in paragraph 1 of clause 104B, that countries "shall not"—I repeat, "shall not"—have an excessive budget deficit, which is then defined? Clearly that wording needs to be amended.
The Prime Minister: I agree with my right hon. Friend. We have made it clear to our partners that we are still negotiating on that point and that we have not accepted that binding element in stage 2. As my right hon. Friend will see in a moment, we shall go further in terms of our position on binding deficits subsequently in stage 3.
Where we part company from some other member states is on stage 3. The Dutch draft treaty provides the ECOFIN Council with legally binding powers, backed up by sanctions, to require a member state to reduce its deficit. We consider that there is no better sanction than the market, and we will continue so to argue in the intergovernmental conference.
There are some hon. Members who say—I respect the feeling behind this—that the creation of a single currency and a European central bank should be blocked now. They believe that, if it is not, the pressures on us to join at a later stage will be irresistible. I am not of their view. It is true that, technically, we could block the adoption of an economic and monetary union treaty in its present form —that is, as an amendment to the treaty of Rome.
What we could not do is to prevent some or all of the other eleven member states making a separate treaty on their own outside the treaty of Rome. Those who argue that they would not do so are mistaken. They are as mistaken as those who said that, without Britain, the original Community would never happen, or that if it did, it would amount to nothing. I fear that I do not agree with hon. Members who take that view. I believe that they are wrong, and potentially damagingly wrong for the long-term interests of Britain.
Mr. Sillars: Will the Prime Minister give way?
The Prime Minister: No, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for a moment.
Therefore, I do not believe that it would be right to block the treaty on economic and monetary union, provided that it contains within it the conditions that could make such a union a success. Nor is it necessary to do so to safeguard our own interests. For the text gives this country the crucial provision that we need, which means that we can decide at a time of our own choosing whether to join or not.
Mr. Sillars: Let us imagine that we proceeded down the road that the Prime Minister describes. The other countries create a single currency, the ecu. This Parliament
274
decides not to become involved. Would sterling then float free, or would it be forced to shadow the ecu? If it is forced to shadow the ecu, what is the point of remaining out?
The Prime Minister: That is one of the matters which have been discussed only in preliminary form. It is likely that sterling would have a relationship with the ecu, but that is not yet determined, because the treaty is not yet concluded. It is precisely for that reason that we are still negotiating both in ECOFIN and at the European Council.
If the convergence conditions set out in the draft treaty are not met, we would certainly not wish to be part of an economic and monetary union with a single currency. But if they are met, our successors may wish to take a different view. A single currency could be the means of safeguarding anti-inflationary policies for the whole of the European Community. That would be a great prize. But the House knows that there is a price to pay for that prize. The price is that it would take from national Governments the control of monetary policy. That would be a very significant political and economic step for Britain to take. We cannot take that step now, but nor should we exclude it.
We have in front of us not, as it has been described, an opt-out clause but a clause that we have secured which enables us to opt in—if we wish, when we wish, and in conditions that we judge to be right. I believe that we should keep open that option and not foreclose it now.
In many respects, the treaty on political union poses starker problems. We are committed under the treaty of Rome to
"ever closer union among the peoples of Europe".
Under the Single European Act, the member states of the Community agreed
"to transform relations as a whole among their states into a European union".
The purpose of the new treaty text is to define what political union means in practical, legal terms.
For many of our Community partners the definitions are not as important as they are for us. For many of them the diminution of the power of national Governments and national Parliaments is not an issue. They accept the idea of a European federation. We have never done so. When we joined, we accepted that Community law would take precedence over national law, but for that very reason we have always been concerned about the scope of Community law—precisely because it took precedence. In these negotiations, we have shown ourselves ready to discuss individual changes in the role of the Community where these are in the national interest, but we are not prepared to accept wholesale changes in the nature of the Community which would lead it towards an unacceptable dominance over our national life.
Mr. Tony Banks: I am sure that the Prime Minister accepts that the Germans are as interested in their national interest as we are in ours. Why, then, does he believe that the Germans want to move so quickly towards a federal Europe?
The Prime Minister: The Germans have a different political history and structure from the one that we have in the House. It is for Germany to make its judgment. It is for the Government and this House to make the

275
judgment that we believe is right for Britain. We should not be bound by what other countries think is right for them.
It is against that background that we approach the political union treaty with its implications for our national sovereignty. Unlike the provisions on economic and monetary union, these provisions can be adopted only if all 12 member states and their Parliaments agree. That safeguard is there to be used if it needs to be used.
There are many definitions of what federation means, but to most people in this country the notion of a Federal Europe leads over time to a European Government and Parliament with full legislative powers, to which national Governments and Parliaments are subordinate. I do not believe that that is a road down which the country would wish to go. We will not therefore accept a treaty which describes the Community as having a federal vocation. Such a Community will not succeed.
Let me set out the main elements of the political union treaty, and our attitude to them. First of all is the treaty's structure. The first Dutch text in September brought all the elements of the treaty under a single structure—a unitary structure. That would have brought foreign policy, defence policy, interior policy and justice policy under the treaty of Rome and within the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. It would have been a massive stride towards a centralised federal structure.
Such a treaty may be popular with some of our European partners, but it is unthinkable for us. We made that clear, and those provisions have now been withdrawn.
The new treaty text would create what have become known as separate pillars. Some elements of our co-operation with our Community partners will come with the existing framework of Community law. Other elements of co-operation—notably on foreign and security policy, and against crime and terrorism—would be conducted on an intergovernmental basis. So, too, would co-operation in dealing with immigration and asylum. Those elements would be outside the treaty of Rome and outside the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. This means that there would be no supranational authority to adjudicate on the decisions taken by member states.
Those changes are welcome. The countries of the European Community would be able to co-operate within a legal framework, but the European Court would not be involved; the Commission would not have the sole right to make proposals. Those changes represent a significant step forward towards practical, more flexible arrangements.
We began co-operation in foreign policy, security and defence on an intergovernmental treaty basis, and we did so as a result of the Single European Act. Co-operation in foreign policy with our partners in the Community is in the interests of this country. On most issues, we carry more clout collectively than we would alone. It has therefore been a successful policy.
Under the Single European Act, we strengthened our co-operation by introducing the concept of joint action. That will continue under the new treaty. The text proposes that joint action, once determined by consensus, would be binding on all member states. Decisions on what should constitute joint action would be taken by unanimity, but it is proposed that detailed decisions, putting a decision of principle into practice, would be taken by a majority of member states.
Sir Patrick Duffy: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that question?
The Prime Minister: I have not quite finished the point, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me. He may not then wish to interrupt.
I see merit in joint action and in that joint action being carried out by member states. For example, were we to take a decision, as 12 member states, to impose sanctions on a country, it would be damaging for one member state to abrogate those sanctions unilaterally. In most areas it would be in our interest to work for joint action, but we cannot allow the search for joint action to inhibit our right to take separate national decisions essential for the pursuit of our foreign policy. Where we can act together, we will do so. Where we need to act on our own, we must be free to do so. Even where joint action has been agreed, there must be provision for a member state to act separately and unilaterally if it decided that its vital interests required it to do so.
Mr. Robert Hughes rose——
The Prime Minister: The text proposes that majority voting should be used for implementing decisions. We see great difficulties in that proposal. What, for example, is the difference between a decision of principle taken by unanimity and an implementing decision to be taken by majority vote? None of our partners has yet found a satisfactory answer to that question.
Mr. Hughes rose——
The Prime Minister: That seems to be a recipe for muddle and confusion. The onus must be on those who want to change the existing arrangements to justify that change. Thus far they have not managed to do so.
Mr. Hughes rose——
The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I have declined to give way to him and I do not propose to change my mind.
On defence, the position is clear. We have in NATO the means of our defence. At the recent summit, all the members of NATO were clear that we must do nothing to call in question the continuing American and Canadian presence in Europe. Europe should undoubtedly do more for its own defence, but we do not need to invent a new structure for that to happen. We need to develop a policy that is consistent with our existing obligations and arrangements through NATO and the Western European Union.
It is for that reason that Britain and Italy put forward proposals which would build up the WEU, not as the European alternative to NATO, but as the European pillar of NATO. We would establish close links between the WEU and the European Union. We can discuss security issues in the European Council, but we cannot accept a situation in which the European Community would effectively set up a competing security structure.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood)rose——
The Prime Minister: I give way to my hon. Friend.
Hon. Members: Oh.
Mr. Wilkinson: May I say how much I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement today that WEU is to be the European pillar of NATO, that we should fully

277
contribute to WEU and to NATO, and that there should be no incompatability between them? As he has dealt with many matters in detail, can he say what the aims and objectives of Her Majesty's Government will be at Maastrict?
The Prime Minister: I can certainly say to my hon. Friend—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister: The Government's aims at Maastricht on that point are entirely clear. They are to build up the WEU and to ensure that it has an adequate relationship with NATO and the European Council but is not subordinate to either NATO or the European Council. That point was made perfectly clear after the NATO summit, and I am happy to reiterate it today.
Europe should undoubtedly do more for its own defence. It is for that reason that Britain and Italy put forward proposals which would build up the WEU substantially. We would establish close links between the WEU and the European Union, precisely as my hon. Friend expected me to indicate a moment ago. We can discuss security issues, but we cannot under any circumstances have any shred of subordination of the WEU to the European Council. There is no case for making the WEU subordinate to the European Council. We cannot and will not accept any treaty that contains such provisions.
Sir Patrick Duffy: The Prime Minister properly recognises that the British-Italian proposal satisfies the essential tests of complementarity and lack of duplication, and therefore is entirely compatible with NATO and the continued presence of the United States in Europe. He has not mentioned the competing Franco-German proposal. Is not that still on the European security agenda?
The Prime Minister: The Franco-German proposal suffered a considerable rebuff as a result of the meeting on NATO in Rome some time ago.
As I expressly said a moment ago, we cannot accept a treaty that requires the Western European Union to be subordinate to the European Council—that is the essential core element of the Franco-German paper. It follows, therefore, that we do not accept the provisions of that paper, but we do accept those of the Anglo-Italian paper, which would lead to the arrangements that I described to the House.
We must not get into the habit of thinking that all European development has to take place through the European Community. I know that there are many in Europe who want to set everything in a Community legal framework, for fear that, if they do not, old nationalisms may reassert themselves, but that is not our view. We want to work more closely with our partners, but that co-operation does not always have to be in the same fixed framework. We have to find patterns of co-operation which work, and that may frequently be on an intergovernmental basis rather than in a full Community framework.
Mr. Tony Benn: May I ask an essential question with which the Prime Minister has not yet dealt? Even with the reservations that the right hon. Gentleman
278
has set out, which will be studied with great care, the changes that he proposes are fundamental in character and will affect parliamentary democracy itself. Does not the right hon. Gentleman believe that partnership with Europe must be paralleled by partnership with the British people? He has placed much emphasis on the citizen's choice and the citizens charter—the people's right to hold accountable those who have power over them. Are not the British people entitled to give the final verdict on whatever emerges from Maastricht?
The Prime Minister: As I said at Question Time yesterday, I do not favour the idea of a referendum, which underlies the right hon. Gentleman's question. I do not favour referendums in a parliamentary democracy, despite the arguments that others have advanced.
The role of the European Parliament is one of the most difficult issues in the development of the Community. There are widely differing views about it. Some believe that it should have the power to initiate legislation. We do not believe that. Many member states would like to give the European Parliament an effective power of co-decision, to make it an equal partner with the Council in determining Community law. We cannot agree to that. The Council of Ministers, whose members are answerable to their national Parliaments, must be the body which ultimately determines the Community's laws and policies. But the European Parliament is elected. From its inception it has had the power to block the budget, to sack the Commission, to propose amendments to Community legislation, and to give assent to certain international agreements. Its powers were increased by the Single European Act.
If we are to control the growth of Community law, it is essential that we have democratic control. National Parliaments, this Parliament in particular, have played a crucial role in that, and will continue to do so. I pay tribute to the Scrutiny Committee and the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who has chaired it with tireless skill. That work must continue.
Under the treaty of Rome, the European Commission has sole power of initiative for Community legislation. It also has certain independent powers—for example, supervising the implementation of Community law and initiating legal action against states thought to be in breach of it. Yet the Commission is unelected and largely unaccountable.
The Government would like to see the European Parliament given a greater role in monitoring the Commission and in scrutinising its role as the implementing authority of Council decisions. The Parliament should have a greater role in auditing the Community's expenditure. We would be willing to see the Parliament's links with the citizens who elected it strengthened through the appointment of a Community ombudsman directly answerable to the Parliament.
The European Parliament already has the power to dismiss the Commission. We are willing to see it take a greater role by approving the appointment of the Commission, although we do not think it right to give the Parliament the power of dismissing individual Commissioners. Those who favour the idea argue that it would lead to greater efficiency within the Commission. I am more inclined to believe that it would be likely to lead to a witch hunt against those Commissioners who carry out their duties without fear or favour.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: How would the Prime Minister envisage arbitration between a Government and the Commission on thorny problems such as additionality and RECHAR, which is affecting all our constituencies?
The Prime Minister: That is a matter for the Government to discuss bilaterally, not a matter to put in the treaty.
At an earlier stage, some member states were preparing to give the European Parliament far-reaching powers to impose its will on the Council of Ministers. We could not accept that, and we have secured radical changes that take us a long way from co-decision. The latest Dutch presidency text would give the European Parliament a more limited right to block certain Commission proposals once they had been adopted by the Council of Ministers. The Dutch presidency envisages applying this principally to those subjects to which majority voting was extended under the Single European Act. We are prepared to consider some blocking power for the European Parliament, but it must cover a far narrower range than that set out in the present Presidency text.
There is a tendency for the Community to want to legislate over a wide area. That tendency needs to be curbed [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That is the essence of what has become known as subsidiarity. I am aware that different people view it in different ways, but what subsidiarity must mean is that, if a problem can be dealt with at national level, it should be. If it can be dealt with at international level only, it should be. At international level we must then decide whether a problem is best tackled by the Community—which means the Commission, the Council of Ministers, the European Parliament and the Court of Justice—or by co-operation between Governments. We are looking to enshrine that principle of subsidiarity in the treaty.
There are areas where Community law must apply. A single market can work only if there are common standards. We need to know that our goods can compete on equal terms when we export. We want to be confident that imports meet safety standards.
There is no point in one country having one standard of river pollution and another country another. Pollution of the Rhine is equally damaging to France and to Germany, not to mention other North sea states. Majority voting was introduced in this area under the Single European Act and it could be extended under the new treaty, but there must be limits to this action. Whether a town bypass goes to the east or to the west has nothing whatsoever to do with cross-frontier pollution or competition policy or any other aspect of the single market. Those are issues that should rightly be settled at national level.
So too are matters relating to industrial practice, union relations and wage bargaining. We will not agree to extensions of Community competence which have nothing to do with fair competition but which would undermine the hard-won ability of industry to compete. Some claim that such measures would be in the interests of the working people, but in truth, they would not. One example under existing competence is the working time directive. That would make it illegal to work for more than 48 hours a week. It would add £5 billion a year to the costs incurred by industry. It would cost jobs. It would interfere in the right of individuals to decide how long they work, and it
280
would inhibit their ability to earn for themselves and their families. We certainly do not wish to extend competence in this area.
In health, it may be right for the Community to complement national programmes through co-operative research and collaborative health campaigns, but the basic provision of health care is a matter for the national Government. So too for education. It is right for the Community to ensure mutual recognition of qualifications; it should promote student exchange and language training; but it cannot have a place in determining national educational curricula.
Significant extensions of Community competence were agreed in the Single European Act. Other extensions have happened by a gradual process of accretion. It makes sense therefore to codify and ring-fence Community competence, but the Dutch text goes much further than is justified by any of the criteria I have set out. We shall therefore seek to curb the proposed extensions of Community competence either by cutting out some of the proposals altogether or by ensuring in other cases that decisions can be taken only by unanimity.
Our present system of frontier controls helps protect this country from not only crime but illegal immigration, drugs, and terrorism. It would be irresponsible to weaken our controls, and we are not prepared to do so, but in the fight against international crime we need the maximum international co-operation, exchange of information and joint action. The Twelve are considering the creation of a European version of Interpol to bring our co-operation together on a coherent basis. I welcome that proposal. It is a classic case for intergovernmental co-operation between the countries of the Community rather than for co-operation within the framework of Community law. It is an area where Governments, not the Commission, have expertise. I hope that Europol can be established at the European Council at Maastricht on an intergovernmental basis.
For an agreement to be reached at Maastricht, there will have to be give and take on all sides. I have set out for the House the most crucial points.
On EMU, there must be strict economic convergence, and a provision that will allow this country to decide whether, not just when, to join a single currency.
On political union, we must safeguard NATO and avoid the creation of competing European defence structures.
We will co-operate in foreign policy, but that co-operation must not interfere with our ability to take decisions on our own national interests.
We must include powers for the European Parliament that give it greater control over the Commission but do not allow the Parliament to become an equal of the Council in making policy for the Community.
We must constrain the extension of Community competence to those areas where Community action makes more sense than national action or action on a voluntary, intergovernmental basis.
The Community has been the motor force of Europe's post-war development. The aim from the beginning was to achieve far-reaching goals by down-to-earth means. The goals were democracy, prosperity and stability in Europe. The means were the creation of a single market in goods and services.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Will the Prime Minister give way?
The Prime Minister: No.
Today, the Community is still the motor force for Europe's development, but there is more at stake in Maastricht than the legal text that we shall have before us. In recent months, we have seen tumultuous changes in our continent.
Mr. Cryer: Will the Prime Minister give way?
The Prime Minister: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
At Maastricht in December, we shall shape the future of the Community. We must shape it in ways that will accommodate those wider European changes. Our overriding aim must remain democracy, stability and prosperity in Europe, but our responsibility is now wider than just to the existing members of the Community. It must also be to all the other European countries which are now returning to democracy for the first time in 50 years. Our door must be open to them.
We must prepare for the day when the EFTA countries in the north of Europe and the new democracies in the east of Europe want to become part of the Community. When they are economically ready to join the Community, we must be ready to accept them; and we must tell them so now.
We can now plan for a European Community stretching north to the Baltic and east to the Urals—a Community that embraces the free market principles that are at the heart of the treaty of Rome. Such a Europe would be more than an economic entity. It would not only guarantee prosperity, but would underpin democracy. It would put an end to centuries of mistrust, suspicion and war. It would secure a lasting peace across the whole of our continent. I believe that that is a Europe worth building and worth making sacrifices for. That is the Europe for which I shall argue at Maastricht.
I commend that Europe and this motion to the House.
4.19 pm
Mr. Neil Kinnock: I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'regrets that Her Majesty's Government's preoccupation with divisions in its own Party has meant that in the Inter-Governmental Conferences it has not taken the negotiating approach necessary to ensure that the United Kingdom exercises decisive influence on the future of the Community in ways which will help to advance the living and working standards of the people of this country in company with other peoples of Europe; calls upon Her Majesty's Government to work for an agreement at the European Council which ensures inclusion of the Social Charter, qualified majority voting on social and environmental matters, powers for the European Parliament to hold the Commission to account in ways that complement the role of national parliaments, decision-making at the level—local, regional, national or Community—where maximum democratic control is at all times exercised, foreign and security policy co-operation without the development of a European Community military role, widening of the Community as rapidly as practicable, co-operation to combat terrorism and other crime, and strengthened powers for ECOFIN as the politically responsible counterpart to any European Central Bank system; and urges the Government to work to secure agreement to, and adopt policies for, high levels of employment, sustainable non-inflationary growth, balanced regional and national economic development and social cohesion, and for the fundamental reform of the CAP, in
282
order to achieve real economic convergence in the years leading to economic and monetary union and a single currency as the essential foundation for those changes and to safeguard the long-term interests of the people of the United Kingdom.'.
The background to this debate, and clearly the cause of this debate, involves the great change—or different kinds of change—taking place across the continent of Europe and within the European Community. The basic question at issue in the debate is whether the United Kingdom is to be carried along in the wake of those changes or to be a driving force for change. It is essential that our country takes a lead. That is the only way to exert the decisive influence over the direction and nature of the economic, political and social development under way in Europe. The British people know that; they are well aware of the dangers of Britain being in a second division in Europe, and they do not want to be left behind.
The need for an active and positive approach to change is well understood by Governments in the rest of the Community. They recognise the reality of the economic interdependence that now exists and which will be intensified by the completion of the single market. As a result, they are determined to build on that interdependence by moving towards economic and monetary union. They are clear about their objectives; they know what they want. This Government most certainly are not clear.
"As so often in the past, our Government are stuck in the defensive mud. Grabbing a begrudged compromise here; clutching an opt-out clause there. Devoting maximum diplomatic effort to dilution and delay. This is a dreary, demeaning and ultimately self-defeating posture. It is playing for a draw."
I am grateful to the Daily Mail for that accurate description of the Government's attitude. It is not good enough for our country to have a Government who are playing for a draw. It became clear as the Prime Minister's speech progressed that that is precisely the most that he is playing for.
The country cannot be properly served by a Government who pretend that they can somehow call a halt to or defer the agreed purpose of the rest of the Community. As the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) advised everyone in the Financial Times last week,
"There is nothing to prevent a group of countries pressing on with a separate Treaty … The fact is that we cannot, even if we wished, stop the others going ahead."
The Government must face that reality and its implications squarely, but they have not. They must stop trying to persuade themselves or the country that some sort of semi-detached arrangement can be made that will serve Britain's interests—there is no such arrangement. Anyone who thinks there is should simply consider what our country's position would be if our neighbours and trading partners formed a monetary union and, even though economic convergence had been achieved, Britain stayed outside. The Prime Minister refused to answer that question, which was asked by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars). The implications of the Government staying out of a union when they had decided, on the basis of convergence, to form one, are serious and potentially disastrous.
More immediately, before those years pass and there is any immediate prospect of monetary union, it must be recognised how vulnerable Britain would be if the Government's strategy were to avoid commitment to the process under way in the European Community. That is

283
not a theoretical matter, but a practical issue. If a British Government continued, as a matter of policy, to stand apart from the process, would inward investors who need access to markets of the whole community think of locating in a semi-detached country?
The Prime Minister referred to Nissan at Sunderland. Everyone in the House must want further inward investment and the development that comes with it. In the intervening period between Maastricht and the further stages, the Prime Minister and the Government must face the fact that, if they are standing apart, they will put a question mark over the prospect of further investment and further development.
Mr. Robert Adley: The right hon. Gentleman spoke a short while ago of consistency and clarity. A few seconds ago, he mentioned inward investment and a Japanese company. I do not recall that that was always his keenest and most enthusiastic point. In 1972, when he and I were both in the House, I voted in favour of the European Communities Bill, as it then was, and the right hon. Gentleman voted against it. In 1974, I opposed the referendum on Europe when he was in favour of it. Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House one example—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making an intervention, not a speech.
Mr. Adley: Will the Leader of the Opposition give the House one example of one major issue since 1970 to this very afternoon on which he has not changed his mind, purely for the electors' convenience, that relates to the European Community?
Mr. Kinnock: Immediately the hon. Gentleman and I entered the House—on the same day—I formed the view that he was a jerk, and I still hold that view.
Hon. Members: Withdraw!
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us settle down. This is a very important debate that is being listened to outside the House. I am not sure—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]—whether "jerk" is an entirely parliamentary expression. I have heard worse things here. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will refine his reference to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Kinnock: The question to which the Government must respond——
Hon. Members: Withdraw.
Mr. Speaker: Order. This gives a very bad impression to those outside the House.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order to insult an hon. Member by calling him a jerk?
Mr. Speaker: I have just said that I think that "jerk" is not among the list of unparliamentary expressions but I asked the Leader of the Opposition to refine it. Perhaps he will now do so.
Mr. Kinnock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The question that the Government must answer—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]—if they are to maintain
284
their position—[Interruption.] If the Tory party demonstrates its great nervousness by its attempts to disrupt, the whole country will form an accurate opinion—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the House settle down. I said to the Leader of the Opposition that "jerk" is not on the list of unparliamentary expressions but, bearing in mind the nature of this debate, it would help the House if he refined what he has said in the interests of good order.
Mr. Kinnock: I respect you, Mr. Speaker, and I respect the House. If the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) is offended, though I doubt it, I withdraw any offence.
The question that the Government must answer is whether, if they were to maintain their stand-back attitude and what they call their options, British investors—not simply inward investors—who want to sell their produce throughout the Community and the rest of Europe would give priority to investing and developing in Britain when they had every reason to believe that the Government were ever ready to withdraw from the European process. That is the real problem.
Mr. Terry Dicks: Get on with it.
Mr. Kinnock: The hon. Gentleman has an incurable problem, so I cannot help him.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Norman Lamont): The House will be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, because he has been making a clear statement and drawing a clear distinction between the two sides of the House. May we take it from what he has said that he is saying definitely that he would be prepared at Maastricht to make an irrevocable commitment to a single currency? That is what he is saying.
Mr. Kinnock: I am coming to that precise point. It is interesting that the Chancellor should anticipate it, and I am sure that he will find the answer very satisfactory indeed. He will also discover that my desire—indeed, my absolute commitment—to ensuring that the House has a proper decision to make at any stage of development in the EC is at least equal to his. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will Conservative Members now please settle down? The Prime Minister was heard in silence, and I expect the same courtesy to be extended to the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Kinnock: The problem of the Government demonstrating a commitment to the continuing process in the EC is highlighted by the so-called opt-out clause. I understand that the Prime Minister wants to call it the opt-in clause. That is an interesting literary distinction, but I do not think that it is much more than that. As there is no possibility of any Government in the Community, 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, the opt-out clause simply codifies what will happen in any case, I believe, in every single one of the European Community democracies.
If that clause was taken to be a definition of the Government's position and repeatedly referred to as an escape route, which appears to be the intention, it would

285
fundamentally undermine confidence in the Government's commitment to the European process. It would be a deterrent to investment and a disincentive to industrial development. That is a matter of basic practical issues, of jobs and of prosperity. Opting out would mean losing out. That is not an issue for some distant day in 1996 or 1998.
Mr. Norman Lamont: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that what he has said is not correct. Other countries are prepared to give a commitment that they will move to a single currency without reference back to their domestic Parliaments. We are not prepared to do that, and that provision will not be in the treaty unless we ask for it. Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that he would give a commitment on any terms less than those that we are prepared to give? That is a question that he has not answered.
Mr. Kinnock: I would not be giving evidence of bad faith by looking for an opt-out clause—and the reason is that, unlike the Prime Minister, I do not have to try to patch my party together.
The issue of the strength of the Government's commitment to the process is not one to be kept until 1996 or 1998, but must be faced by the Government now—not with devices to mollify the rival factions in the Conservative party, but with a determination to promote the opportunities for, and the living and working standards of, the people of this country.
Mr. John Butterfill: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to intervene?
Mr. Kinnock: No, I will not give way. There have been a few interventions.
The divisions in the Conservative party have already undermined the Government's position in their negotiations at the intergovernmental conferences. Every other Government in the European Community know that, for months past, the British Government's negotiating energies have been directed not at shaping the future of the Community but at papering over the cracks in the Tory party.
The Prime Minister must, even at this late date, put country before party. In the 20 negotiating days that remain before Maastricht, the Prime Minister must work for a treaty that will serve the best interests of Britain, and in doing so serve the wider interests of the Community. The right hon. Gentleman can do that by negotiating a more practical approach to the co-ordination of economic policies within the European Community.
Would it be right to conclude from the Prime Minister's remarks about the limitations on deficits that he completely rejects the 3 per cent. limit? Would it be right to conclude from his remarks also that in place of the stipulations that exist—which are much too rigid and impractical to be accepted—he would allow the co-ordination of deficits by the market? Would it not then be the case that the market would have a form of control—indeed, sovereignty—that would not work to the advantage of the Community generally or of Britain specifically? It would be useful if the Prime Minister intervened to tell the House precisely what formula he had in mind for the limitation of fiscal deficits.
286
In a reply to me in July, the Prime Minister recognised that there was a need to achieve "flexibility" in responding to changing economic circumstances. Is that what he has been seeking to negotiate in the references that he made to the limitations on deficits? There is widespread interest in that aspect, and I am sorry that the Prime Minister does not take this opportunity to make clear what should be a very straightforward point.
The Prime Minister: I have done so already, expressly and explicitly, in my speech—as the right hon. Gentleman would know if he had listened.
Mr. Kinnock: I am sorry, but the Prime Minister—I am sure without any intention—is not right about the way that he expressed himself on that point. However, the House will have further opportunities during the debate to clarify that important point.
The Government should be negotiating on the basic question of the European central bank, to ensure that, in the Prime Minister's words to me,
"a European central bank … would … be accountable to a directly elected body."
I understand that the Government have not been negotiating for that. They should have been negotiating over the location of the European monetary institute and of a subsequent European central bank in the City of London, but they have never even raised those questions, despite the fact that, of all the countries of the European Community, the location of the central bank has much the greatest importance for Britain.
Our economy has a substantial financial services sector, which would be greatly disadvantaged if the central bank were located anywhere in the Community other than in this country and in London. The Government should be fighting hard, especially given the importance to the economy generally, and of jobs in particular, to ensure that the bank's location is established even as the European monetary institute is established.
Above all, the Prime Minister and the Government should be negotiating for the inclusion of a wider and more positive concept of economic convergence in the treaty than any that has yet emerged.
As the Prime Minister said,
"convergence would certainly mean bringing the European economies closer together."—[Official Report, 1 July 1991; Vol. 194, c. 25.]
He meant in regard to "growth" and "performance", as well as in regard to "inflation" and "fiscal deficits". I agreed with that definition when the Prime Minister offered it in the House in July. That is the position from which he should be negotiating, but he has not started to do so yet.
The treaty definition of convergence is, of course, of crucial importance to the whole process of monetary union. The Government should be negotiating to gain full recognition of the fact that monetary union and a single currency could work successfully only if there were convergence in the real economic performance of countries: convergence in terms of growth and employment, as well as in terms of inflation and interest rates. No one can be satisfied with the present position. British and German inflation rates have moved together, but the German economy is growing at a rate of 3·5 per cent., while the British economy is in recession and shrinking by 2·5 per cent. Real convergence would mean similar and sustained growth rates, as well as similar inflation rates.

287
If that real convergence is to be achieved, it will be necessary for the Community and member states to have worked out, and agreed to implement, regional and structural policies that—in the words of the draft treaty—"promote … balanced development"; but the Prime Minister is not negotiating for that either. Real convergence of economic performance, accountability of institutions and active policies for balanced development are the essential ingredients that will be required to make a single currency practical and beneficial.
Mr. Nigel Forman: The right hon. Gentleman has just mentioned balanced economic and social development, and his amendment refers to "social cohesion". Is he aware that some EC partner states want mechanisms for cohesion to be written into the text of the treaties that may be signed after Maastricht? What is his party's attitude to that idea?
Mr. Kinnock: I understand that the Spanish have made a specific point of seeking to ensure that outcome. On the basis of recent information, I am able to distinguish between their insistence at this point and a useful negotiating ploy. The hon. Gentleman would be well advised to pay some regard to the settlement of next year's budget, and to set arguments for including specific references to social cohesion in the Maastricht treaty in the context of the bargaining that that budget will involve.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has recognised the importance of convergence. Last Thursday, he said on television:
"If that convergence is not achieved then the establishment of a (single) currency could be a tremendous dislocation and be at tremendous cost."
The right hon. Gentleman was, of course, absolutely right; but he went on to say:
"We ought to wait and see if this convergence happens".
There you have it, Mr. Speaker. From the man who told us that unemployment was a price well worth paying, we now have the strategy for the 1990s—"wait and see". The Wilkins Micawber of 11 Downing street tells us to wait and see. No other Government in the European Community are taking such a supine attitude to the need to secure convergence.
Mr. Peter Shore: My right hon. Friend has made a number of important points about the changes that will be necessary if European monetary union is not to do the country enormous damage. Can he assure us that he would not be prepared to support the present EMU treaty, which does not contain the provisions and safeguards that he has mentioned? Can he confirm that he does not merely wish to have a treaty that does not currently exist?
Mr. Kinnock: The unfortunate fact that my right hon. Friend must recognise is that the current treaty has been negotiated by the current Government, who do not share our sense of priorities. I can tell him that, if we had been involved in the process during the years in which this Government were involved, proper priority would have been given to the very stipulations that we laid down some time ago about convergence, the accountability of institutions and the need for a change in regional and structural funding—as well as several other considerations, some of which are now contained in article 2 of the treaty. Given my right hon. Friend's well-known views and
288
his desire to protect the interests of the British people, I am sure that he would have found his part in the process very satisfying.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): Surely the right hon. Gentleman realises what nonsense he is talking. If he had been in charge, we would have been out of the Community, because that was the basis of his election campaign.
Mr. Kinnock: If Britain follows the policies and approaches set out by the right hon. Gentleman, it will be in the second division in the Community. To illustrate that point, let me remind the right hon. Gentleman of what his right hon. Friend the Chancellor said:
"wait and see if this convergence happens."
That is not being said by any other country or Government in the Community. Other countries are not saying, "Let us wait and see if convergence happens; let us wait and see whether performance improves." They are saying, "Let us get on with building economic strength and working actively to secure convergence." That is what we in Britain must do: we must catch up, and then we must compete effectively as we have not done since the present Government came to office.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Members who are rising are on the list of those wishing to speak in the debate. It will not make it very easy for them to be called if they seek to interrupt now.
Mr. Kinnock: The great problem for our country is the fact that our Government do not follow the policies that are necessary for the building of economic strength. Economic, industrial and social policies that are regarded by Conservatives, Christian Democrats, socialist Liberals and coalition Governments in the rest of the Community as the conventional duties of government are anathema to our Conservative Government. As a result, our country is in severe recession, with falling manufacturing output, falling investment and negative growth for the second time in 10 years. It is small wonder that, of the 940,000 jobs that have been lost in the Community in the past year, 768,000—80 per cent.—were lost here in Britain. Every day since the current Prime Minister took office, 3,000 people in Britain have lost their jobs. That is not convergence; it is divergence of the worst kind.
Not content with letting Britain's economic performance fall behind, the Government now want its social provision to fall behind as well. The 11 other Community Governments—Governments of all political persuasions—all accept the social charter and the extension of qualified majority voting to social policy. They understand that the single market must have a social dimension if it is fully to benefit the people of the Community. They face, realistically, the fact that in the single market there must be guaranteed minimum provisions of employment and social provision, so that countries with high standards are not undercut by those with low standards. Only the British Conservatives reject that rational view. Only the British Tories reject the social charter. Only this Government refuse to guarantee their people the same minimum rights as their fellow Europeans.
Eleven other Governments believe that employees are entitled to involvement in and information about the

289
management of large-scale European companies. Only the British Government oppose that principle. Eleven other Governments believe that there must be general limits on daily and weekly working hours. Only the British Government oppose that principle. Eleven other Governments accept the proposals for basic rights to parental leave. Only the British Government are against that. Eleven other countries accept the extension of full-time employment rights to part-time workers. Only this Government oppose that in principle.
Not content with relegating the British economy to the second division, the British Government want the British people to have only second-class employment rights in Europe. A Government who deliberately stand in the way of basic employment rights for millions of British people cannot claim to be standing up for Britain. They cannot claim, either, to be at the heart of Europe.
By the same token, a Government who resist qualified majority voting on environmental policies fail in their duty to our country and to the Community. It is clear to everyone that management of the international environment is a Community responsibility. I hope that the Government will approach that question at Maastricht in the most positive way, given that they perpetually make claims about their commitment to the environment. They make other claims, of course——
Sir Peter Blaker: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Kinnock: I apologise for not giving way to the right hon. Gentleman. It is difficult to do so after so many interruptions, all of which have eaten into the time available. In order to keep a sense of balance, I shall have to deny the right hon. Gentleman the opportunity to intervene.
The Government claim that, whenever decisions are taken at Community level, they are the actions of bureaucratic and unaccountable members or agents of the Commission who are trying to push their way into every nook and cranny of national life. It is true that the Commission has great powers that have been ceded by Governments and Parliaments—powers that will not be reclaimed by Governments and Parliaments. All the more reason, therefore, to make changes to address the resulting democratic deficit by ensuring that the Commission is held more effectively to account by the European Parliament, which is elected by the people in every Community country. I was glad to hear what the Prime Minister said in his speech, but it has to be put to him that if it is right for a non-elected Commission to initiate legislation that affects everybody in the European Community, how can it be wrong for the elected members of the European Parliament to have the same right to initiate legislation?
In the European circumstances, which are still volatile—sometimes tragically so—the Community has inevitably and increasingly become the centre of political and economic development in the entire continent. The evolution of the Community is continuing, both with the European Free Trade Association countries and with the new democracies of eastern and central Europe. That change must be fostered. I was glad to hear the Prime Minister strongly confirm that today. Among the most important of the actions to be taken is the gradual
290
development of associate membership and then, I hope, full membership for countries in eastern and central Europe, both to encourage economic advance and, vitally, to strengthen democracy.
The European Community now has a political identity that is in part being forged by the efforts of member states and in part by the movement of international events, especially in recent years. Some wish further to define that identity by adopting common foreign and security policies, with qualified majority voting. That, however, would produce a result which would probably be the opposite of the one that its proponents desire. It would weaken, not strengthen, the Community and its ability to act. Co-operation and consensus, therefore, remain the most useful and reliable arrangement for Community foreign and security policies.
Europe now has more democracy, more freedom and more potential for economic, social and cultural advance than ever before in its history, but we know that if that potential is to be fulfilled it cannot be left to chance. That is why we have put forward policies to promote efficiency and growth, opportunity and social justice. They are all essential components in the development of a Europe that is not only a market for its producers but a genuine community for all its people. Developing that market, building that community, is the future for Britain in Europe. It is that future that the Labour party will work for, and it is that future that the British people will vote for at the election.
4.55 pm
Mrs. Margaret Thatcher: I should like to make it clear at the outset of my remarks that tonight I shall support the motion in the name of my right hon. Friend. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I say again—this time to those who sit on the Opposition Benches—that this debate is being watched and heard by very many people.
Mrs. Thatcher: For the sake of clarity, I repeat that I shall support the motion in the name of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my other right hon. Friends. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his speech and on the clear way in which he set out his views and indicated his way ahead. I know that he has difficult negotiations at Maastricht and that therefore he needs our support in those negotiations. I, for one, am——
Mr. Frank Haynes: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Thatcher: Not yet.
I for one am very grateful for this opportunity that has been given to right hon. and hon. Members seriously to put forward their views on what should be a very great and serious occasion. When my right hon. Friend is negotiating in Maastricht, it will undoubtedly be a very tense and hard negotiation. He has already said that there are some proposals which are quite unacceptable to the Government, and he pointed out which they were. His task will be to remove those proposals before he comes back to this House. [Interruption.] In my day, that would have required the occasional use of the handbag. Now it will doubtless be the cricket bat, but that is a good thing because it will be harder.

291
The Government will achieve their objectives only by putting our arguments vigorously and persistently, by refusing to be intimidated by deadlines and by making it clear that there are certain points on which we are not prepared to surrender. [Interruption.] Right hon. and hon. Members may be certain that I shall make my views clear, if I am given the opportunity to do so. It is not my custom to use coded messages
My right hon. Friends have already shown that they can negotiate hard and that they have the courage to say no to proposals that are plainly not acceptable to the House. They have already explained why some measures should not be made by amending the treaty of Rome because that would bring them under the jurisdiction of the European Court, which has different methods of construing any proposal or legislation from those used by our courts.
I was astonished by the speech of the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock). This is a very serious debate. There are enormously serious issues affecting the future rights of the House and its future responsibilities. When we are talking about the rights and responsibilities of the House, what we are really talking about are the rights of our constituents, and they need to be treated very seriously indeed.
Mr. Benn: The right hon. Lady has referred to the rights of constituents. Will she please clarify the reasons why she is opposed to inviting the people, whose rights are to be bargained about at Maastricht, to reach the final decision? I know that she took a different view when we entered the Community, at the time of the referendum and at the time of the Single European Act, but given the enormity of what is now proposed, even with the reservations that the Prime Minister has properly expressed just before a negotiation, will she tell the House why she does not support the rights of the people to give the final verdict on such a major constitutional question?
Mrs. Thatcher: I shall have something to say about that towards the end of my speech. I shall address my remarks directly to the point that the right hon. Gentleman has made. I am very conscious that the only authority that we have is the authority given to us by the ballot box.
May I make one or two more comments on the speech of the Leader of the Opposition? I came to the same conclusion from his speech as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor—that the right hon. Member for Islwyn was going to have a single currency willy-nilly. He has already made up his mind. The argument that he uses is that, if others have it, we must. That is an argument for a flock of sheep, not for people who are sent here to analyse the problem and to use our minds and our reason to say which course we should follow. If ever it is said that whatever they do we must follow, then they will put all kinds of things on the table which we shall have to fight very much harder.
I know full well that the Labour party made a commitment to a single currency and attached certain conditions. That commitment was made before the draft proposals were published. When they were published, as the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said, those conditions were not there. That should have made a difference to the Labour party's decision.
292
It is not surprising to some of us that the Labour party might wish to hand control of our financial and economic affairs to Europe, or indeed to almost anyone other than itself. It would suit it to get out of the responsibility and to pass it over to another body. That is not what we are here for. The fundamental issue—[Interruption.] I said that I am not accustomed to using coded messages. The fundamental issue——
Mr. Haynes: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Thatcher: Not yet.
I will take the broad-brush issues, because it is very easy to get lost in the detail. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. May I ask the House to settle down? This parliamentary debate is of great importance. I ask the House to deal with it seriously. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) must contain himself.
Mr. Allen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is within your discretion to impose a 10-minute rule on speeches. Is that applicable to all hon. Members, but more applicable to hon. Members who rarely turn up at this place?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member should know that it is not within my discretion to put a 10-minute limit on speeches at this point.
Mrs. Thatcher: Thank you very much. The speech would be shorter if I could get on with it.
The fundamental issue that will confront the Government at Maastricht is that the draft treaties propose an enormous, and, to me, unacceptable, transfer of responsibility from this House, which is clearly accountable to the British people, to the European Community and its institutions, which are not. In this House we are rightly——
Mr. Haynes: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Thatcher: In due course.
We are rightly jealous of our powers and responsibilities. As I said a moment ago, we are very much aware that our authority comes from the ballot box and that what we are talking about are the rights of the British people to govern themselves under their own laws, made by their own Parliament.
It has rightly been said that it is the character of a people which determines the institutions which govern them, and not the institutions which give people their character. Yes, it is about being British and it is about what we feel for our country, our Parliament, our traditions and our liberties. Because of our history, that feeling is perhaps stronger here than anywhere else in Europe, and it must determine the way in which our Government approach such fundamental matters.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said a good deal about the Single European Act, which has many lessons for us. It is not the case, as is sometimes alleged, that the Single European Act introduced qualified majority voting in the Community—it was already in the treaty of Rome. As my right hon. Friend said, the Act extended it in certain limited areas for the express and sole purpose of completing the common or single market by 1992. That was all. In the words of article 8A, these measures were adopted
"with the aim of progressively establishing the internal market over a period expiring on 31st December 1992."

293
Moreover, although it was in our interests to have majority voting on some measures, it was not on others and unanimity was explicitly preserved for other important areas. As article 100A makes clear, qualified majority voting does not apply
"to fiscal provisions, to those relating to the free movement of persons nor to those relating to the rights and interests of employed persons."
We would have expected some of the Commission's directives to have been taken under that unanimity clause, which requires us all to consent.
Mr. Haynes: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Thatcher: One moment—in due course.
The Commission, however, has subsequently tried to circumvent the unanimity requirements by bringing forward proposals under other articles of the treaty where qualified majority voting is the rule. It has received some support from the European Court, which made an interpretation that would not have been made by our courts.
I raise that because we should draw a clear lesson from what has happened under the Single European Act. Many of us gave assurances about the unanimity rules, fully believing that they would be honoured and that the spirit of them would be honoured. Any powers conceded to the Commission by agreement are likely to be widened in practice and extended into areas that we do not envisage. We must look at the draft proposals in that light.
The other important step in the Single European Act, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, was the agreement to strengthen and improve co-operation on foreign policy. That agreement was never made part of the treaty of Rome—and quite rightly not. There are two ways to go—the treaty of Rome, with the European Court's interpretation of it, which is quite different from ours, or an intergovernmental agreement which is binding upon us but which does not have to enter into our law and is not part of the treaty of Rome.
That agreement on political co-operation is an excellent agreement. It was wholly drafted by us in the Foreign Office—[Laughter.]—to whom I gladly pay tribute in connection with that agreement and hope that they will be pleased—but it was tabled after I had shown it to the Germans and the French to get their approval. It was a bit offside but, nevertheless, some would take it as a compliment.
Countries with a history and a tradition such as Britain's cannot allow their hands to be tied on defence and on foreign policy by making them or their implementation subject to majority voting. I was very grateful to the Prime Minister for what he said, because something in a speech made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary—I think, in The Hague—suggested that there might be majority voting for implementation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I know that he will take it in very good part when I say that I read it, analysed it and thought that he was going a bit wobbly. However, I am delighted to hear from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that it is all to be agreed and that there will be no majority voting, that we shall continue under the intergovernmental agreements and not have things attached to the treaty of Rome.
294
Looking to the longer perspective, the history of our dealings with the European Community seems to consist of our conceding powers, of reassurances being given about their limits, of those limits being breached, and of the European Community then coming back with a new set of demands for more power for the Commission. That is the conveyor belt to federalism. That conveyor belt will not be stopped just by removing the word "federal" from the treaty.
I do not believe that any of my colleagues want federalism, but, judging from the right hon. Gentleman's speech, the Opposition are already committed to it. Faced with this, I believe that the majority of the British people do not want to hand over substantially more powers to the European Community. I believe that our objective must be to uphold the sovereignty of Parliament which has served us so well. That is more than can be said for the use that the Commission has made of some of its powers to promote what one newspaper has rightly described as "Euro-lunacies". I shall not waste the time of the House by listing them.
It was never the intention—
Mr. Haynes rose——
Mrs. Thatcher: A little more patience.
It was never the intention, I believe, of the founders of the European Community that the Commission should try to exercise its control over every aspect of a nation's life in that way. Again, I was very grateful to my Foreign Secretary—[Laughter.] It is perfectly all right—my right hon. Friend is used to both praise and blame from me. Agreed? Excellent. Good.
Mr. Hurd: My right hon. Friend had a number of Foreign Secretaries in her time. I accept the tribute on behalf of them all.
Mrs. Thatcher: I am not quite sure whether he should.
However, that is why the Government are right to resist strongly—as my right hon. Friend said—attempts by some countries to bring education, health, social affairs, immigration and security into the treaty of Rome. We dealt with immigration under the Single European Act by a declaration which said that nothing in the Act should prevent us from making our own arrangements at borders to stop immigration, terrorism and crime. That is already agreed, and I hope that it will not be removed from the end of the Single European Act.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the social charter. I have never for one moment regretted being isolated in opposing the social charter. If I had not opposed it, it would have been assumed that we had agreed to many of the directives—there are about 40 under that charter—and there would have been implied commitment to them. There is not. It was absolutely right to oppose it. Moreover, it would have placed unnecessary burdens and restrictions on our industry, it would, of course, have caused more unemployment and it would have been an unwarranted intrusion into our national affairs.
Most dangerous of all when it comes to the transfer of powers is the draft treaty on economic and monetary union. My right hon. Friend has already said that he will reject most of the political proposals. Economic and monetary union and being in charge of one's own economic policy go to the heart of our democracy and our

295
powers. If one gives that up, one will have given up the capacity to make the main policies for which we are here and which affect the life of our nation.
Moreover, of course one is judged in an election on one's performance on the economy. Of course one is judged abroad on how successful we are and on how successful we were in transforming our economy from a socialist economy to an enterprise economy.
Mr. Tony Banks rose——
Mrs. Thatcher: If the hon. Gentleman would listen for one moment.
That will be the battleground for an election. It would be pretty ironic if, when arguing about the performance on this issue on one side or the other, candidates had, in the next breath, to say, "It may be that we shall pass all these powers over to the Community and other institutions." That is an enormous battery of powers, as one has seen from the economic and monetary union.
Money Bills and the general economic policy are the exclusive responsibility of this elected House. We are not, in my view, entitled ever to give away those responsibilities or to give away the people's rights, which is what a single currency would mean. Nor do I believe that a single currency would be in this country's interests. It would require a vast transfer of resources to the poorer countries of the Community to enable them to meet the obligations of membership of a single currency—and that at a time when we in Britain are already giving more money in most years to the European Community than to the third world. [Interruption.] Look at the autumn statement. Many people outside——
Mr. Haynes rose——
Mrs. Thatcher: No, I must give way to my hon. Friends on the Back Benches first.
Many people would have thought that we should give more money to the third world than to the Community. In the coming years, we shall be giving about £2·5 billion to the Community and £2·1 billion to the third world. That is before—[interruption.] No wonder they do not make very good speeches—they never listen. That is before any account is taken of increased requests for structural funds because of a single currency. I think that we should take that very much into account.
Most importantly, a single currency would take away any democratic accountability for our economic policies to the people of this country. I know that some people say, "Don't worry, a single currency will never come about, because the convergence conditions will never be achieved." The convergence conditions are totally unrealistic. Indeed, I doubt if they are achievable for many countries in the Community.
Mr. Tony Banks: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Thatcher: Certainly, it will be difficult—[Laughter.] It is dangerous to assume that, because the conditions are difficult at the moment, they will stay the same. It is quite possible that the Community will change them, while still keeping the goal of a single currency. Too often in the past, we have seen what we thought was a watertight agreement being subsequently eroded.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) has noted in correspondence in The Times, there is the serious question of surveillance of our
296
economic policies by the Commission and the duty not to have an excessive deficit. From studying the section to which my right hon. Friend referred, it seems as if we shall be under surveillance anyway on a number of issues, even though we choose to use the exemption clause in the proposed treaty.
Mr. Haynes: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Thatcher: For old times' sake, I will give way to the hon. Gentleman before I go on to the important point about the exemption clause.
Mr. Haynes: Just a year ago, the Conservative party committed a dastardly act against the right hon. Lady. I have missed her from the Dispatch Box ever since. If she was still in the seat of power, what would she be negotiating in Europe?
Mrs. Thatcher: I am making a pretty good fist of just that.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer hopes to secure agreement to an opting-out or exemption clause, and one appears in the treaty. My concern, which is shared by many hon. Members of all parties, is how effective it would be in practice, bearing in mind the fact that, even if we exercise that power, we are still required to sign up to the goal of a single currency and to sign up to the institutions designed to prepare the way for it.
How easy would it be in practice to resist the pressures to go further? We do not want to be told that, because we have agreed to take part in the earlier stages of economic and monetary union under the proposed treaty, we have no real choice left but to accept a single currency. It seems to me as if that is the design of the whole draft proposals.
First, one has to have convergence with very different conditions. Before one can enter the single currency, one has to have another set of proposals—including, for example, that one has stayed within the narrow range of the exchange rate mechanism for two years. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) spotted the proposition. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, eight member states could go to a single currency. We are in the exchange rate mechanism.
If we wish to keep open the option of going into a single currency, we have virtually no freedom of action in that time. One cannot have different interest rates. If one's interest rates are lower, currency will flow out. If one's interest rates are higher, a good deal of money might flow in artificially. One would be linked inevitably to that single currency. The rate would be 2·5 per cent. and we should be unable to operate separately.
That is the design of the treaty. It always happens little by little. We should be told that we have come so far—from 6 per cent. to 2·5 per cent., and then from 2·5 per cent. to 2 per cent. or closer—that we have no option but to join. We must totally reject that, if need be——
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Thatcher: Not at the moment. The hon. Gentleman should listen to my argument.
As the hon. Member for Govan said, in such circumstances it would probably mean coming out of the exchange rate mechanism to keep our freedom of action. That is the danger of signing up to this treaty, and I hope that my right hon. Friends will consider that carefully. My

297
right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor genuinely wish to keep open the right to go for exemption, and do not wish to be put by the treaty into a kind of funnel in which one has to go automatically to a single currency.
Mr. Dicks: After her clear analysis of the situation, will my right hon. Friend explain why she took us into the exchange rate mechanism?
Mrs. Thatcher: If one enters the exchange rate mechanism, one gets co-operation with the other European Community countries, and there is no need to go any further. One has the latitude one wants. That was the advice tendered to me on several occasions. We have a 6 per cent. latitude. Other countries have had to have their currencies devalued or revalued, and they have been perfectly able to do so in the circumstances. One uses the exchange rate mechanism and the deutschmark as a kind of gold standard, but one can change the value if one finds that one needs to do so and that the alternative would be unemployment. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) is satisfied.
In some ways, it would be better for those who want a single currency to be achieved to go to it by a separate agreement outside the treaty of Rome. If it is achieved through the treaty of Rome, we get all the difficulties of interpretation by the European Court. If people want a single currency, why should they not achieve it outside the treaty of Rome? We have had intergovernmental conferences outside the treaty. That would be the way to do it, and it would not get us into the difficulties that I have described, of signing up to the concept of a single currency, signing up to its institutions and being driven into what I regard as a trap.
I recall the debate on economic and monetary union on 2 November 1989, in which almost universal opposition was expressed in the House to the whole Delors concept of monetary union and a single currency. It was as recently as November 1989. I remember attending the next European Council and saying to my colleagues, "It is no good. Our Parliament just will not accept it. It goes to the heart of our parliamentary tradition". My colleagues understood that and were prepared to make provision for it.
There has been a colossal and inexplicable change, especially among Opposition Members. The Opposition seem to be prepared to give up the parliamentary supremacy that has been the heart of our constitution.
I want to reply to the point raised by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) about a referendum. If at some point in the future there should be agreement between the parties in the House to abandon the right to issue the pound sterling—not only now, but in the future—and if the House agreed to abandon the right to issue our own currency, with all that that implies, and to adopt a single currency, the people would have no choice at an election time about that enormously important point.
If the Conservative party, the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats all said, "We are going to have a single currency, we are going to abandon the powers of the House of Commons and we are going to take away your rights," people could not make their views known through the ballot box at a general election.
298
Whoever got into power would not then have the right to claim that they had a mandate. They would not have had a mandate because they would have deprived the people of a choice. They would have done so not on a small thing, but on a major fundamental constitutional issue which was the right of the people. The only alternative for the people would be to vote for extremist parties—something which I should regret very much. There would be extremist candidates everywhere.
My right hon. Friends must address their minds to this matter. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said clearly that he believed in choice. He will provide choice. If everyone believes in the precise same arrangements on exemption from the single currency but we sign up to the concept, how could the people let their view be known? If one really wants to know the answer, one can find it in Dicey on the constitution. He came to the conclusion that, under those circumstances, the only thing to do was to hold a referendum, because that states clearly the issue and the merits and demerits. In our system, it would be no more binding than previous referendums which we have held in my time in Parliament. A referendum is advisory but it is not binding. The answer may be overwhelming. We had referendums in Scotland and Wales. Constitutional issues warrant a referendum.
Anyone who does not consider a referendum necessary must explain how the voice of the people shall be heard. Therefore, I conclude that we should let the people speak. If not, we shall deprive them of their say on rights which we are taking away not only from them but from future generations and which, once gone, cannot be restored. A referendum may not be popular with some members of my party, but I doubt whether they have thought it through.
I am grateful for the opportunity to express my views clearly. I believe passionately in this House. I have been here for 32 years, although that is not as long as some Opposition and Conservative Members. We should retain parliamentary supremacy. We should not make a massive transfer of power to the Community, which is not accountable to our electorate. Therefore, we should not join a single currency.
I understand that my right hon. Friends wish to keep open the option, but the option is inevitably open because future Parliaments may consider it. We do not have to keep it open. I understand my right hon. Friends' wish, but I want to be sure that it is genuine. [Interruption.] Yes, of course. So does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I wish him well at Maastricht. Judging by the performance today, he will be our Prime Minister for a long time.
Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Paddy Ashdown. [Interruption.] Will hon. Members leave the Chamber quietly?
5.33 pm
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: May I say to the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) how nice it is to have her back in the House here among us and not to hear her words wafted to us over the airways from Memphis, Tennessee. I hope she will come back as often as she can. We love to hear her expressing her views in the House, although judging by the faces of those on her own Front Bench, I am not sure that the same applies to them.
Those of us who have argued passionately and long about Britain's place in Europe—the right hon. Lady will understand what I am saying—will, having listened to her

299
speech and in spite of its drawbacks, be delighted that the present Prime Minister is in his seat and that she is in another. I wish that she would not, as she did when she was Prime Minister, treat the Commission as if it were General Galtieri. That is the source of some of our problems.
For more than two years, we on these Benches have been saying that Britain's destiny in Europe is the most important issue which the House and the country will face in this Parliament. For two years and more, we have said that the confusion and division that has characterised the positions of both the Labour and Conservative parties would damage them and undermine Britain's best interests in Europe. For two years, we have said that sooner or later the Labour and Tory parties will have to come, however slowly, painfully and hesitantly onto the ground on which my party has always stood on Europe.
The speeches that we heard today from the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition comprehensively vindicate that judgment. However late, opportunistic, hesitant and reactive, the late conversion of the two right hon. Gentlemen is thoroughly welcome. My only regret is that, by leaving things so late and entering the negotiations so reluctantly, both parties have done mortal damage to Britain's interests. We shall pay a heavy price for that in the years to come.
But I give credit where it is due. I congratulate the Prime Minister. He has moved a long way since the summer of this year, when I asked him to accept or reject the principle of a single currency. He has come to accept it, even though he would not do so then. I make this prediction to him. He knows, we know and most Conservative Members know that, although he has come a long way, he has to move a long way yet. The stone has started rolling down the hill. There will be alarms and excursions and dramas up to the last moment in Maastricht, but, whatever the Prime Minister says, we all know that he will sign up at Maastricht. For he knows that there is no alternative, to coin a famous phrase.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ashdown: I shall give way in a moment.
If the question is yes or no on Europe, no is not an answer. The Prime Minister knows that, and I believe that he understands it. He knows that it is no answer to isolate Britain in Europe. Indeed, he admitted as much in his speech, when he explained why he could not reject a single currency. He said that, if the others went ahead, we could not be outside. That is correct. The Prime Minister knows that and I suspect that his tiny rump of European separatists knows it too, whatever they might say to the contrary. However vociferous separatist Members are, the question to which they have no answer is, "What future would Britain have if we rejected European integration in favour of isolation on the periphery of the continent which is geographically and historically our home?"
I give way to the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold). Ah, perhaps I have answered his question. Or did he intend to tempt me to provide the answer to the question that I posed?
Sir Teddy Taylor: To avoid any confusion that might arise from the right hon. Gentleman's amendment, will he make it abundantly clear whether his party agrees with the principle of a referendum
300
on the treaty? It is important that we should know. I want the right hon. Gentleman to answer yes or no, not to give a long answer.
Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman will discover that I shall give an unequivocal answer to that question in my speech.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Why?
Mr. Ashdown: I will tell the hon. Gentleman why. I intend to answer the question in my own time, not his.
I also congratulate the Labour party. As we heard today, it too has come a long way. I am not sure that it understands where it has arrived, but it has certainly come a long way. For Labour, it is a well-worn path. It has been here before. Labour has changed its mind on Europe twice in every decade since the 1960s—not so much the road to Damascus as another circumnavigation of the M25.
For the Labour party, on Europe, it is better to travel hopefully, even around in circles—or at least it is safer—than it is to arrive. So it will keep on travelling. No doubt it will do another circumnavigation when things turn round.
These conversions are welcome, as far as they go, but why is it that, yet again, Britain has been condemned, through lack of leadership, to be the laggard in Europe, instead of being among the leaders? Why is it that, once again, we have to be dragged along by others in Europe, unwillingly, uncertainly and at considerable cost to our influence?
My party's commitment to Europe has been consistent and clear. Our vision remains what it has been for four decades—of a Britain in the main stream of Europe, rather than seeking the illusory safety of a non-existent backwater. It is of a Britain which helps to share Europe's institutions instead of submitting to institutions shaped by others; a Britain which joins the leaders in creating an integrated Europe, rather than one which resists change until we have it forced upon us.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: If we are to recognise the right hon. Gentleman's description of Britain as the "laggard in Europe" perhaps he could explain how it is that, of all the signatories of directives in the European Community, we are the best at implementing them. If that is so, does he not think that there is some justice in our being cautious about accepting proposals for further progress from people who have not yet implemented what they have already signed up to?
Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman makes precisely the arguments that I make. We have obeyed the laws—we have had little hand in shaping them. That is the whole point. We have been forced to those conclusions without having the ability to shape the institutions.
Mr. William Cash: Rubbish.
Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman says it is rubbish, but is that not exactly what the Prime Minister said at the beginning of his speech? We did not shape the common agricultural policy, about which Conservative Members now complain. The fact is that we have to submit to it. We did not shape the treaty of Rome—we had to join it at the end of the day. I am seeking to avoid that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Johnny come lately."] I heard that comment from the Conservative Benches. This party has stood on this ground——[HON. MEMBERS: "which party?"] The

301
party that I represent and lead has represented that position for 40 years, and we continue to do so. One does not look to the Conservative Benches or to the Labour Benches for a clear and consistent policy on Europe, but to this party.
Mr. Cash: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ashdown: No, I have given way sufficiently at this stage. The hon. Gentleman will understand that I do not wish to take up too much of the House's time. If he wishes to intervene later, I should be happy to consider giving way.
While Labour and the Tories, separately, find themselves in a minority of one in Europe, my party, whatever its position in the House, is in the majority and the main stream among European countries—a majority that spreads across all the parties.
We have no difficulty with monetary union. It is, after all, the logical and natural extension of the single market, into which the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) took this country.
The important thing is that we do not underestimate the difficulties of monetary union. The right hon. Member for Finchley was right to point them out. We do not underestimate the difficulties that they will bring our country. We know that Britain will either have a difficult period of convergence before monetary union, or a painful period of adjustment after it, because monetary union will force this country to face up to the economic decisions that we have dodged for 40 years.
Our commitment to monetary union is not made because we think that it will be a soft option or that it will be easy; it is made because the alternative—economic isolation—is even more painful for this country.
We have no difficulty either with the idea of a European central bank. How else could one run an effective, responsible and firmly anti-inflationary monetary policy for Europe? Indeed, those who argue against an independent bank are making it clear that, for them, the defeat of inflation does not come first. That, not surprisingly, is the Labour party's view. The conditions that Labour sets on that issue, as on so many others, make it clear that, whatever its criticism of the Government's negotiating stance, it could not sign up to any agreement on monetary union that is likely to emerge from Maastricht. Its own conditions would preclude it.
Labour says that it would reject monetary union, unless it meets the conditions set out in Labour's document of 30 October. But the conditions that it set out would be rightly rejected by almost every other European Community country. So Labour's policy also points towards isolation.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: Does the right hon. Gentleman not understand that, without either total economic convergence—or near-total—or a massive machinery of redistribution, economic and monetary union must be as ruinous for this country as it proved to be for East Germany?
Mr. Ashdown: I know that the Labour party is in favour of it, but I have already said that I do not believe that monetary union will be a soft option. The reason for going into it is because the alternative—presumably preferred by the hon. Gentleman—which is economic isolation, would
302
be infinitely more damaging, and over a much longer period. But if we are to have monetary union, we must have a degree of political union, too.
I simply do not understand the Government's position. In one breath they complain, with some justification, about the interfering nature of the Brussels bureaucracy, but in the very next, they vote against increasing the powers of our democratic representatives in the European Parliament, to hold the bureaucracy to account.
The Government seem to believe—indeed, the Prime Minister said—that the right thing to do is to keep things as much as possible as they are, with the Council of Ministers controlling legislation. But if the Council of Ministers is so good at controlling the Brussels bureaucracy, how come there is so much to complain about?
The fact is that increasing the powers of scrutiny and of initiation of the European Parliament is the way that we bring Brussels—and the Council of Ministers—under effective democratic control, and if the Government stand against this then they are standing for the same status quo that annoys them now so much. They cannot have it both ways, and they had better make up their minds which of the two options they want. They must either keep things as they are and stop complaining or they must give our democratic representatives in Europe the power to hold them to account and to stop the interference from Brussels of which we now legitimately complain.
Finally, Maastricht will set the terms—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about the referendum?"] I promise hon. Members that I am coming to the referendum.
Maastricht will set the terms within which Europe will begin to establish a common foreign and defence policy, and rightly so. As European integration evolves, Europe's voice in world affairs will grow, and the need for Europe to speak with a single and powerful voice will grow too. We see the need for that so clearly in Yugoslavia. What we see in Yugoslavia today may well be the first example of the threats that will affect Europe's peace and stability. Threats to Europe's stability in the next few years will probably come, not from national conflicts about borders, but from older religious, ethnic and cultural conflicts which cross borders. As Yugoslavia has shown, it may well be that we have to call the power of the new Europe into being to cope with some of the problems of the old. [HON. MEMBERS: "We have failed in Yugoslavia."] Hon. Members sitting behind me say that we have failed in Yugoslavia, and so we have. Perhaps history will say that the Yugoslav problem came before Europe was ready—[Interruption.] I am glad to see some nods of approval for that thought on the Conservative Benches.
Mr. Adley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ashdown: I shall give way in a moment.
Mr. Norman Tebbit rose—
Mr. Ashdown: If the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall let him speak in a moment.
However, we had better be ready soon. Yugoslavia could be but a dress rehearsal for the problems that Europe will face if, as seems increasingly likely, the Soviet Union descends into economic chaos and disintegration. Then, a strong Europe, speaking with a common voice and

303
able to exert its influence in the region, would be a rock of stability at the edge of a sea of confusion and potential chaos.
Mr. Adley: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that those who say that the disintegration of Yugoslavia is an example that we should fear could not be more wrong? Surely history shows that Yugoslavia was created without any democratic institutions and without the involvement of any national Parliaments, whereas the coming together of European countries is with the consent of the Parliaments of those countries.
Mr. Ashdown: With the consent of the people, too, as I shall argue in a moment. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Tebbit: When the right hon. Gentleman considers the difficulty of finding a common view in this House on what our policy towards Yugoslavia should be—I might ask whether the right hon. Gentleman thinks that European policy should be to keep Yugoslavia together, as the Serbs want, or to let it break up, as the Croats and others want—he may become more keenly aware of the unlikelihood of the 12 nations agreeing on a single policy towards Yugoslavia and then enforcing it, which would require military means.
Mr. Ashdown: Clearly, the right hon. Gentleman ignores the fact that, so far as I can tell, we have already gone a long way down that track by formulating much of a common foreign policy. If he considers how the matter has developed since the Gulf, he will see that much progress has already been made. If he asks me whether I think that it is conceivable that we could reach the kind of position about which he is talking in four or five years, my unequivocal answer is that I believe we will.
I want to make it absolutely clear, so that people understand, that this party has no interest in taking any action that will undermine NATO. Nor do we wish to see the United States leave Europe. Indeed, continuing US and Canadian involvement on the mainland of Europe is an important condition for stability in the foreseeable future. Nevertheless, wise Europeans will want to begin to plan for the contingency that the US may one day leave Europe, not because we want that, but because it decides to. That eventuality could well arise within this decade. Therefore, an integrated European pillar within NATO makes good sense for today and provides a sensible preparation for what may happen tomorrow.
It is for that reason that the new Europe must embrace the new European democracies. There is no conflict, as some, including the right hon. Member for Finchley, have suggested, between deepening and widening Europe. The Government may not understand that, but the emerging eastern European democracies do, as the President of Hungary confirmed to me only yesterday. The Europe that they want to join is absolutely not the loose grouping of trading states beloved of European separatists; it is the integrated Europe that Maastricht is all about.
We in this party have no difficulty in agreeing to the main proposals that are on the table at Maastricht. I do not say that we do not have our points to make about the shape of the Europe that Maastricht is all about, but Britain will make those points effectively only if we are leading the debate in Europe about Europe's future. Ministers seem to spend their time fighting lonely battles
304
about issues that have either already been lost or are meaningless, rather than joining others to win battles about the things that really matter. There is no clearer example of that than the Government's ludicrous battle over the word "federal".
As the rest of Europe knows only too well, the whole case for Britain's opposition to federalism is based on the British Government's deliberate and obstinate misunderstanding of the meaning of the word. Was there ever a more ridiculous argument, since our mediaeval forebears disputed how many angels could sit upon the point of a needle? The rest of Europe knows and understands that "federal" means—not concentrating power, but spreading power. The Prime Minister can look it up in the dictionary of his choice and discover that that is the true meaning of the word.
Meanwhile, we have all been subjected to the ludicrous spectacle of the Government demanding decentralisation in Brussels, while emasculating local government in Britain and dismissing out of hand any notion of a Parliament for Scotland and Wales.
The real debate that we should be having in Britain is not about yes or no, because no is not an answer. The real debate should be about how we create a citizens' Europe, not a bureaucrats' Europe; how we can give each European citizen equal political rights by ending Britain's scandalous electoral system for the European Parliament and giving the British voter the same fair access and fair votes as are enjoyed by every one of our European partners; how we limit the Community's power to interfere inappropriately in our daily lives; what the residual powers are of national, regional and local government within a system of European political integration; and, above all, about how we resist the natural tendency of Brussels and, indeed, any bureaucracy to standardise, and create a Europe in which the national, regional and cultural diversity of our countries, which is our continent's greatest strength, is preserved. Unhappily, that is the debate that neither Britain, nor Parliament, has yet been allowed to have.
Mr. Michael Lord: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman must forgive me. I am not giving way at this stage in my speech.
The two other parties have both been more concerned about covering up their internal divisions than about deciding Britain's external future. Naturally, that has led to some wonderful contortions. Over the weekend I heard the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson), who is not in his place now, on the Walden programme. He set out his tough conditions for supporting the Government. There he was, saying how much he wanted to uphold this country's proud tradition of parliamentary democracy and how he would not be pushed around. In the very next breath he said that whatever the Government agreed at Maastricht, he would be bound to support them. So much for the courage of the convictions of the Euro-separatists. If they were convinced of their arguments, they would vote against the Government's motion tomorrow night. If the Prime Minister was convinced of his, he would tell them how little it mattered to him whether they did so or not.
Then there is the wonderful spectacle revealed on today's Order Paper. Those who have told us that

305
Parliament is sovereign and that Europe will destroy that sovereignty have suddenly discovered that Parliament is not so sovereign that it cannot be overridden by a referendum.
We in this party do not believe in the absolute sovereignty of this or any other Parliament; we believe in the absolute sovereignty of the people. We accept the historic nature and importance of what is happening at Maastricht. In that, the right hon. Lady is absolutely right. It will alter the British constitution and change the way in which we govern ourselves. We believe that the British people should not go into Europe blindfold, as we are now in danger of doing, but with their eyes open, having seen the issues and having been able to debate them. We believe that they have a right to be involved in this decision, not separated from it.
If this Parliament remains as unrepresentative of the views of Britain as it is and if it continues to be subject to a conspiracy between the two major parties to keep the real issues of Europe off the agenda, it would be appropriate to give the people a say in this decision after Parliament has spoken. I give Parliament this warning—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Oh, yes. If the opinion polls are to be believed, a dangerous gap is opening up between how Parliament will vote tomorrow and the views of the British people. That gap will have to be bridged. I can see no way of bridging it other than by a referendum and a broad discussion of these issues.
Mr. John Butcher rose——
Mr. Ashdown: No, I am not giving way. The hon. Gentleman will have to forgive me.
I do not fear the people's judgment on that matter. I believe that when they know the issues and hear the arguments they will see, as so many Members of this House do not, that Britain's future lies in an integrated Europe.
We shall vote against the Government motion. The Government have no clear vision for Europe. They simply want to bob along like a cork on the water, pushed this way and that by whatever is the prevailing tide of the moment. They have failed to show the kind of leadership that the country desperately needs on this historic issue. Their first aim has been the appeasement of their tiny separatist wing, rather than the long-term interest of the nation.
At this crucial moment Britain needs a Government who are clear, decisive and united on Europe. Instead, I fear, it has a Government who are confused, muddled and divided. Thank goodness a general election is not far away.
6.1 pm
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I begin by joining my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) in lending my full support to the Prime Minister in everything that he said, and in giving my full support to the motion—although I fear that my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and I may not be able to agree on other matters, with which I shall deal later.
The Prime Minister's speech was as comprehensive as it was meticulous, and well reflected the balance of the motion. It deserves the wholehearted support of the entire House. The only thing that makes me doubt that is that the
306
general proposition underlying it appears to have received some incoherent support from the Leader of the Opposition. If anything could have frightened us away from the proposition it would have been the failure of the Leader of the Opposition to advance a sensible argument on anything at all. I cannot imagine what comfort that gives the right hon. Gentleman's party.
Underlying the debate, a number of ancient fallacies have begun to re-emerge in this country and elsewhere. One that keeps recurring is that the Community to which we still belong remains an economic community, devoted only to economic objectives. That was never its purpose. It was one of the great post-war institutions whose central purpose was political—to put an end to the frightful nationalistic quarrels which had for decades, indeed centuries, seen the people of Europe tearing each other to pieces and spreading havoc far and wide.
The Community has gone a long way towards achieving that central purpose; towards taming nationalism without suppressing patriotism; towards sharing sovereignty without destroying nations; and towards putting the magic of markets to work for society in a stable democratic setting. In that way it has used economic means to promote the central political objective of
"ever closer union among the people of Europe".
That was at the heart of the process at the outset, and it remains so.
The next fallacy that causes some confusion in the discussion is the persistence of what I regard as a narrow outdated approach to the notion of sovereignty. Such an approach was repudiated by Harold Macmillan, the then Prime Minister, when we applied to join the Community, as it had been by Winston Churchill before that. That idea is that sovereignty is something to be guarded, preserved and held in splendid isolation, the idea that we must always think of sovereignty as something that we are required to hand over, required to lose, to surrender or to sacrifice—conceding, in the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley, powers demanded by the Community.
That strikes me as an unduly negative approach. Sovereignty is not an undivided thing. If it were, the only ruler who was absolutely sovereign and monarch of all he surveyed was Robinson Crusoe. But he was sovereign of everything and master of nothing.
There is a great confusion involved in regarding sovereignty as in some way akin to virginity—"Now you have it, now you don't." It is not a zero sum game, or some kind of single-entry book-keeping exercise, related to "graph-paper economics". Sovereignty is an asset to be used, deployed, exploited, committed and joined in partnership with that of others.
I make no apology for reminding the House of the quotation from Sir Winston Churchill upon which I drew last year:
"It is said with truth that this involves some sacrifice or merger of national sovereignty. But it is also possible and not less agreeable to regard it as the gradual assumption by all the nations concerned of that larger sovereignty which can alone protect their diverse and distinctive customs and characteristics and their national traditions."
That is a more positive and valuable view of sovereignty.
The historic deepening process of the Community was foreseen from the outset, which is why those who commended it to the country 20 or 30 years ago took care

307
to see that it was not misunderstood. Harold Macmillan, at the time of the 1962 party conference at Llandudno, when he applied to join the Community, described it as
"perhaps the most fateful and forward-looking policy decision in our peacetime history."
And so it remained.
"Ever closer union" is an objective which has been reaffirmed and defined time after time in successive meetings of the European Council. I remember that at the first European Council which my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and I attended together, in Stuttgart, it was reaffirmed as a clear objective. The Single European Act in 1985 reaffirmed the need to make concrete progress towards European unity in accordance with the Stuttgart declaration.
There has always been a temptation to regard the successive recommitments to the central political purpose of the Community as being confined to the small print, to be accepted only through gritted teeth and only on our terms. But it was never thus. It was always part of the process whose importance was made clear at the outset. My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) echoed Harold Macmillan's theme when he spoke to the House on 28 October 1971:
"I cannot over-emphasise … the importance … the scale and quality of the decision … whether we are going to decide that Western Europe should now move along the path to real unity … our decision tonight will vitally affect … the sort of world in which we British people and many generations to come will live their lives".—[Official Report, 28 October 1971; Vol. 823, c. 2202–3.]
It was more than an event; it was the start of a process.
It is a fallacy to regard that process as some kind of negative slippery slope along which each reluctant step should be seen as more sinful than the last. That negative, apprehensive, fearful, even sometimes hostile tone with which some Euro-sceptics approach and discuss the question is wholly contrary to the best interests of Britain. Those who most confidently claim to speak for British interests sometimes seem to have the least confidence that those interests are likely to prevail. All too often they see the European enterprise as one huge thicket of hostility and conspiracy. They far too seldom see it as a field in which British talents and interests can prevail and multiply. We need to see the process as a series of opportunities to be exploited and carried forward in good faith.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Sir R. Rhodes James), in his biography of Robert Boothby, quotes something that Churchill said to Boothby:
"We are not making a machine, we are growing a living plant."
That is the reality. It is our task, now as ever, to nurture the growth of that plant in the right way.
I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister dealt so firmly with one of the most gravely misleading illusions of the Euro-sceptics—that Britain can exercise a veto that will stop the process in its tracks. I was dismayed that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry told the Confederation of British Industry a couple of weeks ago:
"This train cannot leave the station unless we are on board".
That is not the position. A veto exercised at Maastricht will not bring the intergovernmental conferences to an end. They remain in place and will continue until member states reach common accord. So the issues could and would return—in Lisbon next June, and in Edinburgh the
308
following December. If that were the course of events, I must tell my hon. Friends that a pointless attempt to veto Maastricht would make it much more likely that those IGCs would resume under the guidance of the Labour party, heaven forbid.
An even more serious delusion is to believe that our veto could bring the whole process to a halt. That overestimates the leverage of this country, and underestimates the weight and momentum of the others in support of the agenda. It is a further error to believe—the Prime Minister made this clear—that, if the veto were deployed, others could thereby be prevented from going ahead on their own. As my right hon. Friend said, there is nothing in Community law to prevent a smaller group of countries from pressing ahead with a separate treaty, outside the existing Community structure, to pursue policies that go further and faster.
That does not mean that we are without support for our arguments in the negotiations. So long as we take part in good faith, with respect for the common objectives, we may take part with the utmost vigour. If our arguments are good, we shall find supporters and allies. However, if we seek partners for a suicide pact in those negotiations, we will look in vain.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Is it not right that such actions can be taken by our European partners only outside the treaty? It is totally illegal for them to take such action within the treaty.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: That is precisely my point. I am glad that my hon. and learned Friend has grasped it so clearly. There is nothing to stop a smaller group of nations, such as 11 out of the Twelve, going ahead with objectives that would leave us to one side and deprive us of the ability to contribute.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: So what?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall address that point later. I assure the House that if we were to stand aside in that way it would not stop our partners going ahead and it would ensure that we were left behind, quite possibly under a Labour Government.
Mr. Tebbit rose——
Mr. Nicholas Budgen rose——
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall not give way.
Mr. Tebbit rose——
Hon. Members: Give way.
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not give way, the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) must resume their seats.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall try to make my speech while finding opportunities, from time to time, to give way. I am beset on several sides, and I recognise the popularity of the case.
The emergence of the single currency as a lively issue in this debate is also unexpected in some ways, because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley said:

309
"Progressive realisation of economic and monetary union was agreed by the Community in 1972 and therefore was accepted by us when we acceded to the Community in 1973." —[Official Report, 12 December 1989; Vol. 163, c. 856.]
That view was endorsed many times at subsequent summits.
Does that or does that not mean a single currency? It should not take people by surprise if it means a single currency. It is a legitimate, understandable objective. One of the reasons that the Community came into existence was to create an economic unit in Europe capable of competing on the scale of the United States, where a single currency can be traded from Connecticut to California.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: It has the same language.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Yes. The United States has two advantages, which is all the more reason for looking seriously at the possibility of a single currency for the European Community.
Undoubtedly there would be a real advantage in achieving a single currency. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that that should be seen as the great prize. I accept, however, that a price would have to be paid for that prize. It is a prize because, without it, we are now spending 20 billion ecu per year on exchange costs between different countries. It would be advantageous not just to business men but to ordinary citizens if we could think in terms of one currency throughout our great continental mass.
A single currency is also regarded as something that is feasible, because the draft treaty on economic and monetary union is already close to agreement on the necessary arrangements. However, they must be on the right terms, as described by the Prime Minister. Effective convergence by the participants is crucial. A strong ecu is crucial. Accountability not just to the Bundesbank but to all member states is also crucial, but through and to an independent monetary institution. All those things can be achieved within the framework of the present proposed treaty. They do not impact on our right to retain independent control of our fiscal policy, expenditure and taxation. I believe that a strong, positive case can be made for a single currency. I would be prepared to support it on the right terms and conditions.
Mr. Dalyell: As a distinguished lawyer with considerable experience of European negotiations, who does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think is correct in the crucial argument about attribution and the whole question of additionality, which affects many of us? Is it the Prime Minister, who argues that Commissioner Bruce Milian is completely wrong or is it—[AN HON. MEMBER: "Is this relevant?"] It is relevant to many of our constituents—or is it the Commission, with its legal advice, which says that Britain will not receive many millions of pounds for the science budget or RECHAR? Who does the right hon. and learned Gentleman believe is right?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman flatters me by inviting me to offer a legal opinion. He seems to have confused me with the character who, 20 years ago, was one of the Law Officers to the Crown. It is not my function to answer such a question. The hon. Gentleman must find a more suitable target.
Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I think that I must be allowed to get on, in view of the nature of the previous intervention.
The Prime Minister is not arguing the case for the acceptance of the single currency now. However, it is entirely right to provide for the opt-in clause of the kind that is found in the present treaty. It is of the utmost importance to have such a clause, because it changes the automatic quality of the proposals originally put forward by Mr. Delors and the Delors committee. It provides for that kind of option. It was the Delors proposal that was at the heart of the debate in this House two years ago.
An even stronger case can be made for the single currency. What if all the others are able to agree within the framework of the treaty so nearly agreed by my right hon. Friend? What if they are able to put together a single currency? How then stands the case for us to stay out? I should tell my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley that this has nothing to do with flocks of sheep, dead or alive. It depends upon the heart of the argument, the practical argument about the interests of this country.
If the single currency goes ahead, it is likely to extend not just to present Community members, but, as the Community maintains its open door to the east, will apply to the European Free Trade Association countries and many if not all of the COMECON countries, and may become the key currency for many other countries, probably starting with the republics of the Soviet Union.
If such a thing happened just across the water from Britain, the ecu would become world currency and it would challenge the over-borrowed dollar and the yen for leadership of world markets. The European monetary system as such would disappear. If the pound sterling stood alone outside the single currency, it would be uniquely exposed. We would have to pay high transaction costs for exchanging currency, we would have high volatility in our exchange rates and high interest rates, and face a threat to inward investment that would also threaten the City of London. It is ironic that even the Swiss are now reluctant to face the prospect of exclusion.
We must ask ourselves whether we shall truly benefit our trade, our investment and the prosperity of our people if we defect from the club at the very point when almost the whole continent is thrusting to join it. I am grateful that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) is ready for the Government to sign up to the EMU text under suitable conditions. I certainly agree with that, although my right hon. Friend and I may not agree on other matters.
We must remain at the heart of the debate, not just for economic reasons but because of the Community's growing political importance. As far back as 1962, Harold Macmillan said clearly that if we stayed out of the Community:
"We would find the US and the Community concerting policy together on major issues, with much less incentive than now to secure our agreement or even consult our opinion. To lose influence both in Europe and Washington, as this must mean, would seriously undermine our international position."
If that was true then, how much more true must it be today?
Mr. Tony Banks: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: No, not for the moment.

311
We have seen, even from this debate, that we have now reached the point where scarcely any of the sceptics even argue that we should leave. They all accept that we should remain in the Community and, in those circumstances, we should do so in a way that enables us to take the fullest advantage of it.
We must face the real issues. They are totally concealed by over-simplified talk of the threat of a federal European super-state—yes or no? There is a huge range of theoretical and practical possibilities between the wholly independent—"sovereign" if one wishes—nation state and the wholly integrated federation of the United States or the Federal Republic of Germany. There are many different staging points on that spectrum. The question now is whether and, if so, where and how far we need to adjust the present position.
The real issues of importance are the quality and scope of the quasi-federal structure that already exists. The House must be grateful to the Prime Minister for the measured and comprehensive analysis that he has offered on all the issues that arise.
The biggest existing shortcoming in the present Community is in relation to the need for more solid barriers to the enlargement of Community competence. On that subject, I agree with the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley, and the present Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said that it was necessary to codify and ring-fence that part of the structure. It is right to resist ill-defined extensions of Community competence in social matters. It is right to resist extending Community competence that would threaten winning in the wrong way the "battle of Downing street", which we have won "in place of strife" on behalf of the Labour party—by reversing all our industrial legislation.
The Prime Minister was right to assert the importance of subsidiarity, and the terms and the drafting of article 3B of the treaty are crucial. Equally, it is not unreasonable, when discussing the democratic deficit, to recognise that there is a case for a modest enhancement of the European Parliament's role—to introduce an additional element of democracy, without subtracting from the role of this House but by complementing it.
It is certainly not unreasonable to accept some development of the role of the Community in security and foreign policy. That would be a logical extension of the proposals put forward, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley reminded us, in 1985 by the United Kingdom for political co-operation, provided that we retain—the Prime Minister was clear about the definitional needs—the need for unanimity on the key provisions of whatever structure is designed.
Likewise, on defence, the fundamental role of NATO must be preserved, but the central and developing role of the Western European Union as the European pillar for that part of our defence needs also to be developed.
Finally, it is sensible to develop the concept of a common citizenship in the Community. Some people are opposed even to that, in a narrow and unattractive way which I do not much like. A Community citizenship would be the most practical fulfilment of a dream enunciated by Sir Winston Churchill. It shows us how we should approach the matter. He said:
"We hope to see a Europe where men"—
and women, he might have added—
312
"of every country will think as much of being a European as of belonging to their native land, and wherever they go in this wide domain will truly feel 'Here I am at home'."
Does not that set the right, far-ranging tone for this debate? Certainly the Prime Minister's speech did so clearly and impressively. It contrasted sharply with the narrow, over-simplified terms in which the debate is all too often conducted. Too often it is conducted in terms of unbridgeable opposites, false antitheses and exaggerated choices. I emphasise that it is not a choice between a mythical independent sovereign state and a mythical federal super-state, nor a choice between one market and one country.
All too often, the sceptics, in language of beguiling simplicity, succeed in concealing the strictly practical middle way which alone can offer Britain a real future in Europe. That is the way to achieve and sustain a realistic prospect of influence and prosperity in the new Europe as it exists on our doorsteps, rather than as the sceptics still pretend it to be.
If we were to be led astray by the bogus dilemmas and narrow perspectives that have sometimes set the parameters of Britain's European debate in recent years, the achievements of the past 12 years would be set at zero. To avoid that calamity, we must ensure that the other European states do not move ahead without us—not now, not ever. We must remain determined—as I am sure the Prime Minister is—to lead from the inside, firmly committed to our European destiny, which we shall help to shape.
I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is so clearly determined to follow that path. It is well in line with the instincts of his predecessors. In the 1950s, Churchill set the ideals. In the 1960s, Macmillan took the initiative. In the 1970s, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup carried it through. In the 1980s, my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley achieved fundamental and far-reaching reforms. It is clear from the prospectus offered by the Prime Minister today that he is determined and well qualified to have a clearly directed and formidable impact on the Community in the 1990s.
My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary deserve the fullest possible support from the whole House, and I wish them well.
6.27 pm
Mr. Peter Shore: I shall not follow the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) very far, except to suggest that if he used the word "self-government" instead of the word "sovereignty", he might understand why that cannot be shared but can only be enjoyed along with others.
The heart of the debate is the nature of the treaties before us. This is a moment of great importance and great choice for the British people. As I have listened to the contributions that have been made, I have noticed that there is a fundamental divide between those who have sufficient self-confidence in their own people and the ability of our nation to survive and prosper as a free democracy, and those who have abandoned and despaired of that prospect and are looking for a new way in which they will be absorbed within a vast European federation. I think I know where I stand on that issue, and I hope that every other hon. Member also knows where they stand.

313
I said that this is a moment of choice, and I wish to illustrate how strong is the commitment in the treaties that we are discussing to a federal union. I know that there are nuances of federalism, but article A of the treaty states:
"by this Treaty the High Contracting Parties established amongst themselves a Union … this Treaty marks a new stage in a process leading gradually to a Union with a Federal goal".
That is the opening article of the treaty. One of the concluding articles—article W.2—says:
"A conference of representatives of the Governments of the Member States shall be convened in 1996 in the perspective of strengthening the Federal character of the Union".
The 200 or 300 pages of the treaties on economic, monetary and political union not only put to us all the propositions, but we are promised a further assault on what is left of our national independence in a new treaty and a new IGC, with the perspective of strengthening the federal character of the union. Those are clear words.
One of the great mistakes that we have made in the past, as the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) acknowledged, is that we do not always read the treaties closely enough. Unfortunately, the Single European Act was ambiguous and defective in several places. That is why the Commission has been able to construct all sorts of additional powers. It did so by interpreting, with the help of the Court, some parts of that treaty. The preamble to the treaty expressed in general terms the old rhetoric of Europe and of "ever closer union", which gave considerable force and drive to the new proposals that we are discussing.
I fear that we must watch with the utmost care the words actually used. I was pleased to hear the Foreign Secretary say yesterday before the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, and the Prime Minister repeat again today, that they will not have the commitment to a federal Europe. I understand that to mean that they will not sign a treaty which contains, in articles W and A, a commitment to a federal Europe. That is an important step, which we should all welcome.
The right hon. Member for Finchley was right to say that we have to consider not only the words but the content of the treaties, which present us with a greater difficulty. There are three great sectors of our national life which are being affected by the economic, monetary and political union treaties, and with which we are all familiar. The first is progress towards economic union, monetary union, a single currency and a central bank—which is pretty major in itself. Secondly, the treaties seek to embrace the whole of foreign and security policy within a process that will be determined by majority voting—whether or not that will be within or outside the old treaties is yet to be determined. Thirdly, they seek to extend the control of European institutions over immigration and asylum issues in this country.
If one considers any federal Government in any other part of the world, one knows perfectly well where the key powers are located. For example, in the United States they are located with the federal Government in Washington. That Government inevitably have control over the currency, with one federal bank; they are uniquely entitled to conduct foreign relations, defence and security business, and they decide who has the right to come and live in the United States and who does not.
314
Those are three crucial components of national sovereignty and independence. The treaties aim—we hope that they will not succeed—to transfer those powers from the keeping of the British Parliament and people to the grievously undemocratic authorities in the European Community.
Mr. Tony Fayell: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is important to scour the treaties; every hon. Member should read them. It is not good enough merely to look through the treaties to see whether they contain the words, "This is a federal treaty." We must consider what is contained in the treaties. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, when we read the treaty on political union, it is clear that it aims for a federal union? Chancellor Kohl and President Mitterand have said that, and all our 11 partners believe it to be so.
Mr. Shore: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. So many of our continental colleagues do not bother to disguise the fact. Almost exactly a year ago today, Mr. Andreotti made it absolutely plain in a speech to the European Assembly that, for the first time, there were federal proposals for monetary union and for a single currency to be transferred to the European authorities. Other European statesmen said the same thing. In order that we might not forget him and his great concerns, Mr. Delors reminded us in his address to the Assembly this morning that he wanted the treaties to have a character of a still more federal nature.
Mr. Budgen: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a further danger lies in the fact that the European Court is an openly political organisation in that it does not construe European law in a narrow way, as our judges do, but does so in the light of general policy objectives? As those objectives move, ratchet-like, towards a federal structure, the decisions of the European Court will inevitably be antipathetic to those of us who wish to perserve the rights of national parliaments.
Mr. Shore: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right on the issue of where the rights of the federal part of the European constitution impinge on those of the nation state. If the court is the ultimate arbiter of where the line is to be drawn, it has a most important and dangerous political character.
The three sectors in which the treaties seek to establish the competence of the European authorities are crucial to national sovereignty and national independence. I should like to think that foreign policy was as securely rescued from the grip of the European Community as the Prime Minister led us to believe this afternoon. However, the text contains some strong words. Article A.4 states:
"The Member States shall support the Union's external and security policy actively and unreservedly in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity … The Council shall ensure that these principles are complied with".
It continues to define in an interesting way what it calls "joint actions". It contains a declaration by the member states on the sectors in which joint action is to be taken as soon as the treaty comes into force. There is a list of sectors, including involvement in peacekeeping operations in the United Nations context, relations with the USSR and transatlantic relations.
Article C states:
"Whenever the Council decides on the principle of joint action it shall lay down the Union's general and specific

315
objectives … the Council shall stipulate as a general rule that the detailed arrangements for carrying out joint action shall be adopted by a qualified majority".
Much will depend on the line and division drawn between the collective process of launching an initiative and the implementation that will be undertaken through joint action.
The division is not clear, and I fear that there will be a dangerous overlap of one process into the other. I fear that joint action will lead to many majority decisions being taken on foreign policy issues, which I do not believe that the House would consider it right to cede to the European community. I am glad that both Front-Bench teams show considerable accord that that is not in our interests and should not be pursued.
Mr. Chris Mullin: Is it such a terrible thing for us to have a common European foreign policy as, for most of the past 45 years, our foreign policy has been in the grip of the United States, which I found regrettable? It cannot get any worse, can it?
Mr. Shore: Yes, it can, and I may have to disagree with my hon. Friend about that. I may also have to disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). I have no doubt that a common European foreign policy would have led to total inaction in Europe on the Gulf war, which would have been wrong. I am glad that we did not have a common policy then. That illustrates the sorts of problems which will arise.
I believe that, even when people disagree about what should be done, they should retain the freedom of action to do what they believe is right. If it was the wish of the British Government not to intervene, it should have had the right not to intervene, not because of a majority vote in Europe, but because it made that decision for itself.
Dr. Kim Howells: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Shore: No, I shall not, at least for a little while.
Another issue of major importance to the Government, but particularly to the Opposition, is the impact on economic powers and economic self-government of the measures proposed to take us into economic and monetary union. After all, many crucial powers of economic regulation have been abandoned in the interests of joining the European Community, such as control over trade, control over capital movements and control over many other things. I am not happy about all those abandonments, but that is the position.
What is left? What are the economic regulations that we can use to help guide the general course of the economy, to influence demand and to bear upon levels of unemployment? We have interest rates, mortgage rates, exchange rates, public spending and deficits. We know that deficits are justifiable in some years and are properly very large, and that in other years they do not make sense and should be non-existent. These judgments have to be made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day. After all, such decisions go to the essence of his Budget judgments.
What do we find? An entire protocol is devoted to setting out what the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to do if the United Kingdom became a full member of an economic and monetary union. The protocol refers to excessive deficits and provides that our Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day shall never have a public service borrowing requirement—I am glad to see my right hon.
316
and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) in his place on the Opposition Front Bench—of more than 3 per cent. It seems that that is to be the limit.
That provision would not be merely a voice in the Chancellor's ear, as it were, because the Commission would have the right to make public its advice, which would be to the extreme embarrassment of my right hon. and learned Friend if he happened to be Chancellor. Matters would go further than that, because a system of penalties could be imposed upon a sovereign Government. The penalties would take the form of fines and the stopping of structural funds, for example. It would be as if a Conservative Minister were dealing with a rebellious local authority that a Conservative Government did not like and which they thought should be rate-capped. It would not be tolerable for any British Government to accept such a system. It would certainly be intolerable for any Labour Government, who would have a strong reason to intervene in the economy.
Mr. Budgen: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Shore: No. I must hasten to complete what I have to say.
We hear about the accountability of the European central bank. It is said that that feature would make it acceptable, but how do we make a European central bank accountable to all the different Ministers of the European Community? I do not think that it is possible to do that, but it is written into the articles of the treaty that the bank shall be independent. Not only that, no one shall take instructions from outside the governing board of the bank. It seems that no one from outside shall seek to give instructions to the bank.
That is not acceptable. We shall find ourselves handcuffed and chained under economic and monetary union. No instruments of policy will be left for us to use. The present problem with the exchange rate mechanism is well known to the Treasury and, of course, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who would like more freedom. At present, he would like to lower interest rates, but he is trapped within the bands of the exchange rate mechanism, for reasons of which we are aware.
Mr. George Walden: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Shore: No. I wish to draw to a rapid conclusion. I know that many other right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak.
The concept of federation should be examined much more closely than hitherto, and with a good deal more sense of history. There are, I believe, 160 sovereign nations in the world of all sizes and shapes. Many of them are far weaker, less happy and less prosperous than the United Kingdom. I know of none, however, except the countries of the European Community, that are trying to construct federations. Most of them have become nations as a result of escapes from empires or imposed federations.
National feeling is not the great ogre and the great chauvinist horror that has been painted by some. Sometimes it is like that, but it is Janus-headed: on the other side of the coin it is one of the liberating forces for mankind. Let us be clear about that. There should be no shame about our commitment to our independence, to

317
self-government and to the democracy that we have, with all its imperfections. Our democracy is a damned sight better in this House than it is anywhere else in Europe.
6.45 pm
Mr. William Cash: I had a little local difficulty in Committee Room 6 the other day when it came to my position on Europe. Nevertheless, it is a matter of intense importance to us all that we work together, as I said during the debate on the confidence motion last year, to establish a role for the British people over the next 10 or 15 years.
There is much in the motion with which I agree. I acknowledge in my amendment, which has been supported by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), that at this stage in the negotiations it is proper for the Government to preserve their position and not to disclose everything they will do. I accept that entirely. Having said that, however, I have to say that several matters have been omitted from the motion—omissions that cause me some concern.
First, the motion does not reject the principle of monetary union, which lies at the heart of the debate. It raises in turn the principle of democracy and the manner in which we are able to represent the interests of the people who voted for us to be Members of this Parliament. It is not our Parliament, it is their Parliament. It is important that that point is made in the amendment.
Mr. Walden: I hope that my hon. Friend, when talking about economic and monetary union, will squarely confront the dilemma that faces him, me and every other Member of this place. Whatever our reservations about economic and monetary union, many of which I share with him, what happens to this country if other states adopt an economic and monetary union and a single currency, and the system works? What happens if that brings them trading, economic and military advantages from which we are excluded?
Either our position is that these people, these foreigners, are incompetent and cannot make the system work—that is one view—or it is that we shall be happy even if we are excluded from advantages because we are somehow inherently superior to them and do not mind being economically inferior. Unless the question is faced and answered, the House will not be facing what may be a real economic dilemma.
Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend has made an interesting intervention, but I think that he has not asked the real question. The first question that must be asked and answered is whether we are prepared to trade off the democracy that is inherent in the House for a system that will not necessarily deliver the benefits that my hon. Friend has mentioned. The two things are not mutually exclusive.
We can achieve price stability, surely, by our own efforts. We can work within the European Community to help that to happen, and that is why I voted for the Single European Act. That, however, has nothing to do with the matters that my hon. Friend has mentioned. When we examine the mechanics that have been set up by the proposed central bank, it is clear that unelected and
318
unaccountable bankers will be determining this country's economic policies and, therefore, those of my constituents and those of every other Member.
Under present arrangements, we can arrive at decisions for ourselves while we work within the European Community at the same time. There is no need for us to take this next step. Because I believe that that is the fundamental democratic right of the British people, I hope that we will reject the principle of monetary union.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I hope that my hon. Friend will deal with political union, which means effectively the extinction of Great Britain, Britishness, British influence and all that we stand for. Can my hon. Friend explain why, when we have just seen the disintegration of the fallacy of a bogus supranational state at one end of Europe, it seems sensible to create one at the other end?
Mr. Cash: I could not agree more with my hon. and learned Friend. Nothing is more absurd than for us to see what has happened in the USSR during the past six months and in Yugoslavia and eastern Europe and to observe that those people have fought for and obtained their freedom when we are being drawn, some would say by some kind of historical inevitability, in the opposite direction. That cannot make sense. Surely hon. Members on both sides of the House appreciate the inherent contradiction of that.
Mr. Tony Banks: How can the hon. Gentleman possibly make a useful comparison between the break-up of an empire under Stalinism in eastern Europe with the coming together of mature democracies in a voluntary process within the EC?
Mr. Cash: The answer to the hon. Gentleman is simply that, if he looks at the new proposed constitution for the Union of Sovereign States, he will see that the one thing that it does is to make sure that it does not go down the route that I understand he would propose we go down now. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman considers that.
Secondly, there is much talk about the vague word "subsidiarity". I think that it means whatever anyone wants it to mean. However, as I have said on previous occasions, quoting from Lewis Carroll,
"The question is … which is to be Master—that's all."
When I observed the emphasis that was placed in the motion on the superior European competence at the expense of the national competence that was to be prescribed under the motion, and when I looked at the question of economic and monetary union and asked myself where the main powers will be dealt with under the principle of subsidiarity, I concluded—I do not believe for a minute that any hon. Member would contradict me—that they will be dealt with at the top by the unelected and unaccountable bankers.
At the same time, that will strike at the heart of democracy and the rights of our constituents. That is why I object to it. There is an inherent deceit in the concept. I regret that that is a problem which permeates so much of this hall of mirrors that we experience in relation to the EC.
Sir Russell Johnston: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that, because the Federal Republic of Germany has the Bundesbank, it is not a democratic country? That is the same argument.
Mr. Cash: The Bundesbank is nothing like as independent as it is made out to be. Articles 9 and 12 of the Basic Law make it perfectly clear that the Bundesbank has responsibility for currency stability, but subject to the overall political control of the German Government.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that sooner or later the European Court of Justice will have to offer a definition of the legal concept of subsidiarity?
Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman and I sit on the Select Committee on European Legislation, and we have discussed that matter on many occasions. All the matters which will be gathered together under the broad concept of subsidiarity will go to the court. That is why, in the speeches that we have heard today, some distinction has been drawn between those competencies which are to go to the Court of Justice and the others which the Government rightly want to keep out because they are pillars of co-operation which must be dealt with in terms of intergovernmental co-operation. The problem is that. once the European Court of Justice has been allowed to become involved in questions relating to budget deficit and so on, we shall have opened a Pandora's box of problems, because the court will not be able to make the right decisions.
Furthermore, the constitution which has been laid down for the European central bank will not make the decisions any easier to make. They will still be political decisions. However, the difference is that no one will know whom to blame; no one will know how to get rid of them. The central bank is to have complete independence. If it makes decisions which are inherently wrong, what will happen? It is precisely because, over the past 300 years, the House has developed a concept of democratic accountability in relation to the redress of grievance, taxation, the economy and all that goes with it that we can fairly and properly represent the interests of our constituents.
The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) talked about the sovereignty of Parliament. That was an extraordinary way in which to put his arguments across. It is not the sovereignty of Parliament that matters; it is the sovereignty of the individual who goes to the ballot box, has a free choice and makes his decision, for which people have fought and died. We do not have to apologise for that, nor do we need to be pessimistic and defeatist, economically or politically, about our ability to produce results which are in the interests of the British people. But at the same time we can work within the framework of the EC. I voted for the Single European Act. I was a founding member of Westminster for Europe in the 1970s. But I have always felt that it was essential to maintain a realistic and practical approach to its development.
That brings me to my next point—the European Parliament. I do not believe that it would be right to extend the powers of the European Parliament in principle in a way that would have the effect of taking away the responsibility of Ministers to answer questions in the House exclusively in relation to matters of competence which apply to the United Kingdom. That raises the question of what those competencies should be and takes me back to the point about subsidiarity.
Once that enormous cavern of uncertainty has been opened up, we shall enter the grey hole which lies at the centre of the Government's motion. That is why I tabled
320
my amendment. I felt that it was necessary to try to address the question of what was left out of the motion in order to concentrate hon. Members' minds on what it is that we should be addressing.
Mr. Butterfill: Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that the question of subsidiarity is vital to our consideration of the matter and that it would be completely unsatisfactory if disputes of subsidiarity were referred to the European Court of Justice, particularly in view of its record? If subsidiarity were defined in the treaty, would it not be better for there to be another body to consider disputes regarding subsidiarity? My hon. Friend knows what I have in mind—it has been suggested in this place, by the French Gaullists and by the Irish—that we should have a separate body composed of members of member Governments and our Government to make such decisions rather than the Court of Justice.
Mr. Cash: I should be more inclined to go down my hon. Friend's route than the one proposed, because I see the most terrible difficulties emerging. What worries me when I hear people speaking, understandably, about the aims of the Community, and saying that we want peace, prosperity, stability, and all that goes with them, is that I believe that we are seeing the development of a policy that was devised in the 1950s for absolutely correct reasons at the time, in dealing with the aftermath of the second world war, and with the cold war, but which has been displaced by the bringing down of the Berlin wall and the reunification of Germany.
It is precisely because I believe that some of the policies adumbrated by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), for example, are based on the thinking of the 1950s and 1960s but are not relevant to what is happening in the 1990s, that I become so worried. I look around the world and see tremendous instability and uncertainty, such as in Yugoslavia and the USSR, and ask myself what will happen if the central bank starts to lay down rules that some of those countries cannot obey.
What will happen if the policies included in all the treaties were implemented by majority voting? Mr. Chevenement told my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on 4 January—I read this in The Economist—
"If there was majority voting in relation to these matters, there will be no Gulf war."
The consequence of that would have been such that it is doubtful that the Americans would have been able to embark on that conflict on their own.
The new arrangement that we are being encouraged to adopt will create not stability and prosperity, but tension and instability, because, if one tries to compress together people of different cultures and languages, has a European Parliament that will be largely a neuter, and does not have that basic democratic line between a Member of Parliament and his constituents, a Minister on the Government Front Bench who is answerable to Members of Parliament, and thereafter the Council of Ministers, I guarantee that we will end up with a system which is undemocratic, and which will create confusion followed by instability and tension—when it is exactly the opposite of that for which I would hope, from all the developments in eastern Europe and the USSR over the past two years.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I remind the House that speeches between now and 10 minutes to 9 o'clock must be limited to 10 minutes.
7.2 pm
Mr. Ted Rowlands: I agree with some of the concluding remarks of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) about the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe). I am convinced that he could have made that speech five or even 10 years ago, because it wholly ignored the convulsive context in which we are making decisions today about our future in the European Community.
For 45 years, Europe has enjoyed a peace of sorts—a peace based not on the European Community, or even on nuclear deterrence and nuclear power, but on the crude partitioning of Europe and the post-war settlement created by Roosevelt, Stalin, and Churchill. That was the basis of post-war peace. That post-war arrangement succeeded because it addressed itself to the two fundamental issues that caused war before. It prevented territorial changes and divided Europe so that some form of balance-of-power relationship and a sphere of influence were created.
Peace was paid for at a heavy price—at the price of freedom for the peoples of Hungary in 1956, and of Czechoslovakia in 1968, and of hundreds of thousands behind the Berlin wall in the 1960s and thereafter. Within the past two years, we have seen before our very eyes the dissolution and destruction of that post-war settlement and the emergence of new problems. It would be enough of a challenge to devise a new European order to replace the post-war settlement, but this year we are witnessing also the dissolution of nuclear super-power. Measured against those challenges, the treaties, drafts, and constitutional changes proposed by Ministers of the Twelve are at best all irrelevant, and at worst obstacles in the way of finding solutions to the real European problems that now confront us. The remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East did not once address those aspects.
We now face a major new European order. Those of us who are sceptical about the way that we should progress with the proposed treaties are not narrow-minded Europeans. The narrow-minded Europeans are those who are looking to create institutional ossification, in the form of institutions of the kind that emerged in the 1950s and 1960s.
I remind the House that the Common Market was created by the visions of Jean Monnet and others, but was rooted in the cold war. It created a number of institutions in a cold-war Europe, and I am sorry that the Prime Minister did not mention until the last few minutes of his speech the Community's role in addressing the problems that confront Europe today. It is amazing that, at a time when we are watching the constitutions of eastern and western Europe crumble, together with state-centred, non-pluralistic systems of politics and economics, we should be seeking to create—as the treaties will, if they are unamended—a more centralist, less pluralistic, economic and political system for the Community's 12 member states.
That—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) made clear in the illustration that he gave from the treaty—is at the heart of the problem. At the very moment when we are seeing,
322
rightly, the abandonment of constitutions that incorporate phoney, immutable laws, such as the dictatorship of the proletariat, the treaties seek to create half-baked economic maxims of their own. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney said, what place is there in a treaty or in a constitution for Europe that tries to create relationships between the diverse cultures and characters of even the 12 countries that comprise the present Community for such half-baked examples of economic theory as that which would dictate that public borrowing should not exceed 3 per cent. of gross domestic product? That is just as nonsensical a maxim to write into a constitution as that which imposed the dictatorship of the proletariat in the past in the countries of eastern Europe.
Irrespective of the practical arguments, clause after clause of the European monetary union draft articles seek to impose a rigid form of economic behaviour. There is nothing pluralist or democratic about centralist nonsense such as that to be found in article 106:
"Where exercising the powers and carrying out the tasks and duties conferred upon them … neither the ECB, nor a national central bank … shall seek or take instructions"
from any democratically elected body, Government, nation, or combinations thereof. Is that the right basis for a pluralistic, democratic Community and society? It is the very reverse. It is the constitution of a potential corporate state, however democratically based it might be. I will not support any treaties that come before the House that include provisions of that kind.
Our priorities and energies must be directed at finding solutions to the broader, new European order, which is absolutely essential given the drastic changes that have occurred in central and eastern Europe. We must bring within the fold of the Twelve Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland, whose freedoms were destroyed by the cold war. We must incorporate them in a direct working relationship, and give the fullest possible support to their liberty and democracy.
The treaties will do nothing to help that process. They will merely entrench the division of Europe rather than widening it. I believe that the only way to bolster the relationship between central European states and the Twelve is to reach out, politically at first and then economically, and thus bring the two groups together. Unless we do that, we shall not see a new European order that will provide peace and collective security by devising institutions and relationships to prevent conflicts such as the one in Yugoslavia, and others that may emerge on our television screens. Instead, we shall return to the old European order that led to tensions and territorial disputes, and to the great powers—and other powers—fishing in waters that did not belong to them.
At this stage in the history of Europe, it is especially important not to ossify the existing relationship of the Twelve in the form of new treaties. We should reach out to a broader Europe. That, I believe, will bring us all peace and prosperity in the 1990s.
7.10 pm
Mr. Cranley Onslow: Sadly, the Leader of the Opposition has not matured sufficiently to avoid the schoolboy technique of answering an awkward question with an insult, and then using the row that that provokes as an excuse for not giving way to further interventions. That was a bad start to a speech that did not get much better.

323
The most fervent admirers of Brussels would, I think, find it difficult to describe the Commission as anything other than its own worst enemy. The Sunday Times has rehearsed some of the more familar reasons—for instance, the definition of the carrot as a fruit, enabling it to be brought within the terms of some obscure directive; a Greek Commissioner's abuse of the Commission's competence in health and safety, in an attempt to restrict Sunday working hours; the extraordinary antics of an Italian Commissioner in regard to environmental matters; and the long-running and more deep-seated farce of the common agricultural policy.
None of those examples is a great advertisement for the Commission and its works, and it is not surprising that many of our constituents consequently regard Brussels as, in a sense, the headquarters of a hostile power. I therefore welcome the aim of the negotiations—to make the Commission liable to inspection, invigilation and close scrutiny on the part of the European Parliament. That can only be for the good, and it is long overdue.
None the less, it is not the central issue. I have no difficulty in supporting the Government's motion, which effectively sets out the other issues that must be given greater priority. I am sure that the Government and the Prime Minister have taken the right attitude on the question of a common foreign policy: it is idle to suppose that such policy can be formed other than by consensus, and it was a great waste of time to air the subject at all. The same applies to defence policy. It would clearly be impossible for Her Majesty's forces to be asked to risk their lives in support of a military venture that the House did not support.
Policies on immigration and asylum are integral to national identity. They must be determined by the House, and the Government were right to insist on that in their motion. Some Opposition Members may well see the Maastricht negotiations as an opportunity to try and introduce socialism into the country by the back door—no doubt they will disclaim any such motives, but it occurs to me as a possibility—and I am equally sure that Conservative Members are right to resist such an intrusion into our democratic process.
Existing Community organs and agreements must be made to work better. That applies especially to competition policy. I do not know whether all hon. Members are familiar with some of the vagaries of European practice. Under Dutch company law, for instance, a company that is threatened with a takeover can clone its own shares, enabling the directors to double their voting rights. I do not believe that that is consistent with 1992—any more than I believe that the ability of the French to invoke the interêt national at the drop of a hat is consistent with the level playing field that we all seek to achieve. I hope, and believe, that we shall continue to make swift progress on those points.
I find it encouraging that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has been able to secure an amendment to article 171, under which it will be possible for defaulting states to be taken to court, prosecuted and fined if they fail to conform to the directives by which they should be bound. I hope that the Commission and the courts will not hesitate; there are too many laggards under the arrangements that are supposed to exist in our so-called common system.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister rightly attached importance to the interests of European
324
non-member states—both the members of the European Free Trade Association, and the countries that have emerged from behind the iron curtain into a new freedom—and to the need for us to enable them to join the Community when they are ready. If we close the door against them, we shall be doing Europe, and ourselves, a great disservice. However, I have not yet heard as much as I should like to hear about the interests of some other European member states; perhaps I shall later.
I have heard—and I believe it to be true—that Chancellor Kohl is anxious for Maastricht to be used as an opportunity to bind Germany into the European Community. I have also heard that the French Government share that objective. Given the history of both countries, that is understandable; but, if it is so much in the interests of France and Germany, I think it only fair for them to pay the principal cost of the rope that will do the binding. We should be cautious about the extent to which we commit ourselves to sacrifices that may be made for ends that do not represent our own top priorities.
I understand that there are people known as Euro-fanatics; some may not be far from the House at this moment. I do not necessarily quarrel with such people, because their views are sincerely held, but they sometimes seem to fall into the same category as the famous mountaineer who, when asked why he wanted to climb Mount Everest, replied, "Because it is there." When I made that comparison to someone today, he said, "That is not wholly fair. There is a difference: Mallory could have walked away from Everest—he did not have to climb it—but we cannot walk away from Europe."
There is truth in that, and we should not forget it. We are a European nation, and we cannot alter our status now. There is another option, however, and it is significant that the Prime Minister stated it so clearly today. Mallory and Irving could have waited until conditions improved; they did not have to make a dash for the summit. So, if necessary, can we.
We are under no compulsion. The Prime Minister has the freedom to wait. We must encourage him to exercise it, if he thinks that that is right, rather than commit this country to anything at Maastricht. He must deploy the best and the most powerful case in support of British interests. We want the Prime Minister to return from Maastricht having successfully negotiated an agreement that will win the support of this House.
7.19 pm
Dr. David Owen: I am a lifetime supporter of British membership of the European Community, but I have never believed that that support implies acceptance of a united states of Europe. The Social Democratic party will support the Prime Minister's motion. We believe that it represents the best way forward, not just for this country but for Europe. I wish that we had been able during the last few months to persuade our European colleagues that we are not arguing just for a narrow British position. I want a common foreign policy and a common defence policy. I want the maximum degree of unity, but I also want a treaty to be constructed that carries no inexorable commitment to a united states of Europe.
We cannot stop our European partners arguing for a united states of Europe. They are entitled to do that in a free European democracy, but we are entitled to hold our

325
ground and to argue that we as a nation were never committed to a united states of Europe in 1973, that we are not committed to it now and that we do not intend to pre-empt that decision.
The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), was in danger of being, like a tram, stuck in a groove. She referred to the debate on Jacques Delors proposals in 1989. They were anathema to all of us. They sought to impose a single currency on all Community states. We do not sufficiently realise that we are no longer discussing a treaty that, like a tree, has grown only from the trunk of the European Commission, the European Parliament and the treaty of Rome. We are now discussing treaties that are based on three or four separate pillars.
I accept that all aspects relating to the single market fall under the treaty of Rome and carry a commitment to more powers for the European Commission and the European Parliament. We cannot interpret the single market as narrowly as some Conservative Members of Parliament. It embraces social factors and the environment. It will pay us to recognise that. The right hon. Member for Finchley was right to concede majority voting so that the single market could be in operation by 1993.
Those of us who desperately want Czechoslovakia, Poland and Hungary to be admitted to the European Community during this decade, with the transition over by the year 2000 before they are economically ready for it, have to accept that majority voting will be needed if the single market is to be operational in former command communist economies. It is geopolitically essential that we put Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Austria before Sweden, Finland and Norway in terms of membership. An exact parallel can be drawn with Spain, Portugal and Greece when they were admitted early for political and democratic reasons.
When I look at the European Community I see foreign policy and internal security pillars and ask myself how well the Government have been able to keep them purely intergovernmental and how many commitments we are making that will damage British interests in the future. My major concern about the Maastricht negotiations relates to the limited majority decision making envisaged for foreign policy. I do not see how we can separate principle from practice, policy from implementation.
I beg the Foreign Secretary to look again at this issue with the utmost scepticism. I understand the intention—of wanting to try to make a conciliatory gesture—but this could be the thin end of a very dangerous wedge. The Prime Minister's formulation is that it is for the other 11 member states now to demonstrate to us in watertight treaty terms that the right of all member states to determine their own foreign policies is not being abandoned or abdicated.
I say that for another reason. I still have grave doubts as to whether it is right to go for a single currency, fixed exchange rates and the whole of that considerable abdication of political sovereignty. I recognise, however, that sovereignty, as with most other things, moves with the times. It may be considered to be a vital British interest that we are not on the outside of the single currency in five years' time. That judgment will have to be made at that
326
time. I do not know how we can make that judgment until we have seen the texture of the decision that we are being asked to make.
One thing, however, is clear. We cannot have a single currency, a single immigration policy, a single foreign policy and a single defence policy without being a united states of Europe. If we go for a single currency because we wish to protect, above all, the position of the City of London—still the premier financial centre of Europe—and if we also concede ground on foreign policy, in terms of majority decision making, and on defence policy by creating effectively a defence community, and if we allow the Commission to issue visitors' visas, we shall be on a slippery slope. This House would then resist even more the move towards a single currency than it might otherwise have done.
That is the advantage of postponing the decision on a single currency. We should not find it easy to go for a single currency if we had already moved down the federalist route in a dangerous way on foreign and defence policies. It is in the interests of this country, therefore, to stand firmer now on foreign policy than appears to be the Government's position. Frankly, I do not believe that there should have been all this talk about a little bit of majority voting on foreign policy.
It would be better if the Government made concessions in other areas. I know that it will be difficult. Some of them may involve social policies; others may involve environmental policies on which we shall have to give ground during the next 10, 15 or 20 years. It is essential, however—if we do not want a united states of Europe to retain the right, within a co-operative framework to try to forge a consensus on foreign policy—to make our own decisions.
The treaty on foreign policy carries with it more than a commitment to co-ordinate our policies. That can lead only to a number of results. It means that Britain will no longer have a permanent presence in the Security Council in 10 or 15 years' time. It also means that there will be occasions when decisions cannot be taken, such as that taken by the former Prime Minister at Aspen, with President Bush, to put troops into Saudi Arabia. Such decisions will not be able to be made by a single Prime Minister without reference back. The present Prime Minister would be unable to come out of No. 10 Downing street and say, "We are standing by the constitution of the USSR and we condemn the coup as unconstitutional." That was quite different from what was said by President Mitterrand and Chancellor Kohl.
If we value independence in foreign policy making, let us not forget what happened in 1940. If we want to have that freedom again—to stand out against the trend and, if necessary, to be on our own—then I pray that the Government will look hard at the question of retaining the right of a single foreign policy, with the decisions made by this country alone. In that context—[Interruption.] I do not know what Labour Members are saying. All I know is that the Labour Government, who were in favour of the European Community, did not need any convincing that they were not in favour of a federalist united states of Europe. The danger is the convert being more zealous than the Pope in suddenly believing that we can abdicate on all issues of policy. If the Labour party is abdicating the right to retain foreign and defence policy in this country, it is not speaking for the country, and the Government will exploit that against it in the next general election.
7.29 pm
Mr. Alistair Burt: I make no secret of my gratitude for being a member of a fortunate generation who have not been called on to fight in Europe. There are coats of arms all around the Chamber of hon. Members who gave their lives for peace in Europe. I thank those who fought for that gift and who built the lasting institutions of NATO and the European Community from the ruins of 1945. We should never forget their origins, nor the driving force among continental Europeans who suffered occupation and war on their soil. The driving force of a European structure that would end the fear of war on the continent is sometimes not fully understood in these islands.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) said, the Community is a living thing. It has advanced at the pace of its peoples and must continue to do so. Maastricht is a further part of that evolution—not the end of it. Historically, it is less significant than the passing of the Single European Act in 1986.
My hopes for Maastricht are twofold. Firstly, I hope that we shall use Maastricht to reiterate our concerns about what is wrong with the European Community. The Commission is outside a sensible structure of democratic accountability and has shown a tendency to impose a Euro-synthesis at micro-level—silly proposals for the nooks and crannies of our life that antagonise the man and woman in the street.
Sadly, that insensitivity to national sympathies undermines the fundamental principles of European co-operation and has helped to build a stronger anti-European feeling in this country than is truly justified. We are right, therefore, and are acting in the best interests of the Community and this country, to seek to correct such unnecessary Commission interference by expanding the role of the European Parliament.
I hope, too, that we can convince our neighbours about the sensitivity of time. The past 45 years are but a fraction of more than 2,000 years of recorded European civilisation, yet we have achieved much. There is no need to settle the final irrevocable shape of Europe at Maastricht. Indeed, there may never be such a thing. Forcing nations together too quickly risks undermining the progress that we have made. We seem to be more alert to that than many others; hence our firm determination, which was re-emphasised by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister this afternoon, to make subsidiarity work. That must be the right way to progress.
Secondly, I wish to see our participation at Maastricht emphasising and improving those matters on which the Community is going in the right direction. It would be a tragedy, as some have argued, to see the door closed on closer economic convergence with the prospect of a single European currency at the end of it. I do not believe that our European neighbours will hang back from this for long. They have, on the whole, run fairly successful economies since the 1950s or since their accession to the Community. They firmly believe that greater economic rigour, based, it must be said, broadly on Conservative principles, will continue that prosperity. They have some claim to know what they are doing.
Should it be proved to the satisfaction of the House that the benefits that I have described will accrue, any decision to stay outside would be of immense disadvantage to us.
328
Foreign investors would see us not as the launch pad to Europe but as some backwater. For those whom we represent—for their employment, standards of living and the standards of their families—those should be the major guides to our thinking on Europe.
I hope that we shall make progress, along the cautious lines suggested by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister this afternoon, on a common foreign and defence policy. The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) was right in his analysis of Yugoslavia: nations forced together ultimately come apart. But those that come together for mutual support can and do survive.
The real genie that has emerged from the bottle of a changing Europe is nationalism. What structure can be devised to contrain the pressures and forces behind that? Are we truly prepared to offer no model of co-operating nations sinking their differences to achieve greater security, or are we prepared to live with a Europe that is increasingly fragmented, where nations' first demand on sovereignty is to equip themselves with weapons to tackle or to defend themselves from new nations on their own borders that have the same heightened state of frenzy and determination to do the same? We cannot be sanguine about the emergence of nationalism and the fragmentation of Europe. The European Community could provide a structure for people to bury their differences, not their dead.
At the end of the debate, the House will give its support for the Prime Minister carrying on playing a full part in European evolution—an evolution about which we have been too hesitant for too long. For too long, we have been hidebound by fears borne of self-selected memories and infused by a false jingoism—a vision of Europe in which Britain sees itself surrounded solely by enemies and not friends.
That is not an image of Europe that my generation sees from its experience of visiting Europe and its peoples. My generation delights in being British. Who delude themselves that the greatest attributes of our national character begin and end in this House? My generation also delights in the glory of all that is best in being European—its art, music, languages and modern-day prosperity, which are visible in European cities and all too often put ours to shame. We delight in Europe's architecture—or at least the architecture that has survived the bombing, destruction and mayhem that have been the legacy of hundreds of years of war in Europe, when the cause of nationalism has been invoked to unleash the slaughter that dragged young men from these islands to their untimely deaths.
My generation will not listen to those who will close the door on further European development. We have no blueprint for where, eventually, we or our children will go, but I know that we do not want to be isolated and alone, buffeted by currents and currency over which we have no say and no control and excluded from greater co-operation with European Conservative friends in sister parties who seek our help in building a lasting Europe.
If sovereignty is misused to mean the freedom to be poor and to miss out on economic benefits acquired by our neighbours, it is not a freedom that I seek for my constituents. The torch is passing from those who fought for peace in Europe and who nursed its early steps to those who will take it further, curbing its excesses and building on its strengths. This will be to the benefit of our nation, other European nations and the Community as a whole.

329
Labour Front-Bench spokemen, with their inconsistent and embarrassing record on Europe, cannot lead our people on this issue. They have neither confidence nor credibility. Only my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary can do that. I believe that they have a greater vision of Europe, away from the narrow, and I am proud to stand four square behind that.
7.38 pm
Mr. Chris Mullin: In the referendum, I voted against our continued membership of the EC. I believed that, as a fundamentally undemocratic institution dedicated by its founding fathers to the free movement of capital and labour, it would be used to undermine many of the great social gains made in this country in the past 100 years. In particular, I believed that it would be used to undermine an elected British Government dedicated, as the Labour party is, to the fair distribution of wealth and power.
I also believed—and I still do—that it was then at least arguable that this country, with its vast reserves of coal, gas and oil, its huge fishing grounds and an assured supply of relatively cheap foodstuffs from the Commonwealth, stood a good chance of prospering outside the European Community. Many of us who voted against the European Community did not anticipate that we were about to embark on a 12-year period in which Britain would be ruled by a Government well to the right of that of all other members of the European Community, by a Government who had far less regard for the welfare of our least fortunate citizens and for our environment than the unelected mandarins of the European Commission.
I do not know whether it was right for Britain to join the European Community. It is early days yet, and the jury is still out. It will be for historians in another century to decide whether it was right or wrong. However, I accept that there is no going back—that, like it or not, Britain will be a member of the European Community for the foreseeable future and that we must therefore do what we can to ensure that the Community develops in a way that is beneficial to all our citizens and, indeed, to the human race as a whole. If we are to maximise our influence, we must enter into a positive dialogue with our partners and not give the impression that we are sullen and resentful.
There are several obvious benefits that we should acknowledge from the outset, the first of which is a common defence and foreign policy. I look forward to that—it does not cause me any problems, with great respect to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and to the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen). A common foreign and defence policy would release this country from its slavish dependence on the United States, which has been the shameful hallmark of all post-war British foreign policy under Governments of both parties.
The second advantage of EC membership derives from the exchange rate mechanism, although that advantage is not unqualified. As some hon. Members have said, I accept that there are disadvantages. There is a powerful argument that, by joining the ERM, we have effectively surrendered control of our economy to the central bank. I do not know whether that is so, but I do not believe that either the
330
central bank or the German bankers could make a bigger mess than the Treasury and our bank have done in the past two decades.
The one advantage of ERM membership is that it would no longer be possible for the Tories and their friends in the City to organise the run on sterling that traditionally accompanies the elections of a Labour Government. [Laughter.] Perhaps the Tories think that it would be, in which case I hope they will tell us, but Labour would no longer be held to ranson by speculators as it has been in the past. That is a major advantage not only for the next Labour Government but for the health of democracy in this country.
My main criticism of the European Community—and it is a large one—is that it is fundamentally undemocratic. Unelected Commissioners supported by an enormous and remote bureaucracy have arrogated to themselves powers for which they are virtually unaccountable. The European Parliament is unwieldly and cumbersome, and it is hard to see how, with its present organisation, it could be otherwise. I believe that any further power ceded to the Commissioners and to the bureaucracy in Brussels should be conditional on the introduction of democracy to EC institutions.
Those who hold power should be subject to rigorous scrutiny by those who are elected and who are, in turn, accountable to their constituents. That is a fundamental principle. I do not believe that the solution is necessarily to give more power to the European Parliament—national Parliaments might be the most effective means of holding to account those who represent our interests in Europe. It is time that we at Westminster adapted our procedures to enable proper scrutiny of what is done on our behalf by Ministers and officials who represent us in Europe.
As I said, it is too early to say whether we were right to join the European Community. I accept that, now that we are a member, we have a duty to make it work, and to do so in a positive spirit. If the EC's institutions are to command public confidence, they must demonstrate that they are concerned with more than—as the treaty of Rome implies—the merciless application of the free market.
I welcome the social charter. Indeed, I want to see it beefed up. I welcome the recent interest of EC commissioners in environmental standards, and I look forward to the day when they lay down minimum standards for the treatment of farm animals. That is a matter on which a Labour Government could take a lead. However, I equally understand that some Conservative Members of Parliament do not welcome such developments. When they signed us up into the EC without asking the British people, they thought that we were joining a rich man's club which would be exclusively preoccupied with the interests of capital. They thought that they and their friends would have the freedom to go on looting our country without reference to higher authority. It has come as a shock to many of them that the European Community has developed broader horizons. Long may it continue to do so.
I believe that the greatest test of the European Community will be the way in which it relates to what are surely the two greatest issues of our time—the survival of the planet and the benign development of the earth's resources for the benefit of all human beings, not merely for those who are fortunate enough to live within the EC. If a federal European Community becomes merely another great power which is motivated solely by

331
self-interest and which throws its weight around accordingly, we shall have failed. I hope that we do not fail.
7.45 pm
Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullen), who regards the issue as a capitalist plot, because many of the capitalists among my colleagues appear to be unhappy about their own plot.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on a clear exposition of our position and on setting out his stall so clearly. When the Tory Whips put it about in the summer that they did not think that there would be any trouble about economic and monetary union but that they were worried about the political union treaty, my suspicions were immediately aroused, and they remained so. Having heard my right hon. Friend, I believe that he has a good appreciation of the ground that should properly be given at Maastricht on political union, and I shall therefore concentrate on economic and monetary union.
I wish to complain about the Commission's slogan, "One market, one money; single market, single money." One might as well say, "Single men, single beds". The two do not necessarily follow, and the same is true of the market. I believe that the purpose of the Maastricht summit is to determine the next period of Europe's evolution and that it is a vitally important event. The issues at stake are not merely what is good for Britain or for the Tory party or how to win the election—although those matters are important—but the correct future course for Europe.
We must consider the effects of a single currency not merely on ourselves but on the other 11 members. My right hon. Friend rightly insists on convergence. I agree that it is ridiculous to think of a single currency unless there is convergence, but if there is convergence, there is no need for an institutionalised single currency and an institutionalised central bank. If there is no convergence or if, once convergence has been achieved, it is followed by divergence—which is all too likely—a single currency will of course not work, because it will be put under such strain by the non-converging or the diverging member states that it will break apart.
The only remedies in the hands of the authorities are grants. If grants which have been described as "massive" or "of disproportionate size" are to be paid, those who pay them resent them and those who receive them believe them to be inadequate. The result is tension and, eventually, a move towards separatist and nationalist parties. I hardly dare say it, but we have observed such a phenomenon in Scotland as a result of the single currency between England and Scotland.
We must have convergence, and convergence can take place without any need to institutionalise it. That brings me to an issue that I wish to stress., My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) and others have said that, if we do not join the single currency, or if we do not allow one to take place at Maastricht, the other 11 will go ahead and fix it. Yes, I think that they probably will. However, they would do so outside the treaty of Rome—outside the framework.
There would be several big differences. First, any grants that are payable under the single currency from the rich to
332
the poor, or to the people who cannot keep up or who diverge, will be paid by members of that little club, not by the people who are not part of that club. That must be right. Secondly, the countries concerned would suffer the same problems of divergence, and of how to produce the grants to compensate the least successful. Those countries will find that they have great problems in managing a single currency, because Europe is so divergent.
Thirdly, there are many examples of small countries trading highly successfully in large markets. Hong Kong has never been part of a fixed parity arrangement. Canada is another example—[Interruption.] Canada has a floating currency with the United States, although it is part of a single market in north America. There is no reason why people who tie themselves to a single currency that proves to be unhelpful should do better—in fact, they will probably do worse—than those who trade in that single market with a currency that is adjustable. It is important that the single market should be a real one.
Let us examine what is on offer in the Dutch provisional treaty for Maastricht on the economic and monetary union aspect. What is on offer is that we should be able to have an exemption, but there are four or five defects in the nature of that exemption of which the House should be aware.
First, we shall have to be subjected to the monitoring and scrutiny of our budget deficit. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and others have rightly found that objectionable in a sovereign Parliament. The ultimate remedy of discipline, such as fining us or stopping us having grants, would not be available if we had the exemption, but the whole panoply of a public rocket to the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the size of his budget deficit would be found highly embarrassing by hon. Members, and they would resent it if it ever happened.
Secondly, in the preamble to the draft treaty which concerns the principles, there are strong and unequivocal aspirations towards adopting a single currency. Under Community law, that puts a tremendous onus on us to behave in conjunction with that ultimate objective and ultimately to join. People have criticised my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) for allowing the Single European Act to go through because of the preamble. Is not the lesson from that that we should take note of the preamble to the Dutch treaty and that we should wonder whether the preamble should be altered so that it does not apply to those who are exempt? The draft treaty brings in the full panoply of the treaty of Rome and the whole legal apparatus to enforce compliance with the preamble.
Thirdly, it would automatically fall to us to contribute to the grants, which might be massive, that have to be paid from rich to poor even if we were exempt. I stand to be corrected by the Financial Secretary if I am wrong. I believe that the grants would be paid under the structural fund, the social fund and the regional development fund to which we are already signatories and paid-up members —or paying-out members. Whatever excesses resulted from a single currency among the 11, with ourselves being exempt, bills of billions of pounds might land on us for us to subscribe to an enterprise in which we were not taking part. That cannot be right, and I hope that the Financial Secretary will deal with that point when he winds up.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) referred to eastern Europe. It cannot be

333
right to say that we will build this tight, centrally controlled structure with what is really a common economic policy, run centrally from Brussels through the Economic and Finance Council and through the independent central bank, and to expect the Poles, the Hungarians, the Latvians and who knows who else, to be able suddenly to put their currencies into that system. That would delay by decades the time when we can welcome them on board.
It is not impossible to see membership for those eastern European countries in a short number of years, but if we were to proceed to the single currency described in the Dutch treaty, we should essentially make those countries second-class citizens for decades. We should confine them to taking what is handed out from Brussels, which the European Free Trade Association countries have been forced to accept. Those are the defects.
The future course of Europe will be decided at Maastricht, and important decisions will be made. We should show the type of Europe that we want. It is curious how near we are to unanimity in the House. We want a Europe open to all, we want a free trade area which is open to the world, and we want freely co-operating nation states within that system. If we were to sign up to the concept of the single currency, even if we had an exemption, we should find that we were living with a lie. We should be living with a principle with which we disagreed. That is why I hope that my right hon. Friends will bring back from Maastricht something better than what is on the table from the Dutch.
7.56 pm
Mr. Tony Benn: Three points about the debate have interested me. First, there is fundamental agreement among the three party leaders. The Prime Minister is on the eve of negotiations so he has to be cautious. The Leader of the Opposition, who hopes to take over, can be bolder. The Liberal Democrats, who are far from office, can be quite clear about their objective. There is no disagreement about the idea, that we should move from the original membership of the community through the Single European Act to something stronger.
Secondly, a degree of caution has emerged from people who, when they discussed the matter 20 years ago, were far more uncritical. Thirdly—I say this with some satisfaction —21 years after I urged a referendum, I have won the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) and the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) to my cause. I had to wait 21 years, but it has been worth waiting for some recognition of the fact that the people have a right to a say in their Government.
I do not want to go over old ground, because this is not a question of yes or no to the status quo; we are looking to the future. Some people genuinely believe that we shall never get social justice from the British Government, but we shall get it from Jacques Delors. They believe that a good king is better than a bad Parliament. I have never taken that view. Others believe that the change is inevitable, and that the common currency will protect us from inflation and will provide a wage policy. They believe that it will control speculation and that Britain cannot survive alone. None of those arguments persuade me because the argument has never been about sovereignty.
334
I do not know what a sovereign is, apart from the one that used to be in gold and the Pope who is a sovereign in the Vatican. We are talking about democracy. No nation —not even the great United States which could, for all I know, be destroyed by a nuclear weapon from a third-world country—has the power to impose its will on other countries. We are discussing whether the British people are to be allowed to elect those who make the laws under the which they are governed. The argument is nothing to do with whether we should get more maternity leave from Madame Papandreou than from Madame Thatcher. That is not the issue.
I recognise that, when the members of the three Front Benches agree, I am in a minority. My next job therefore is to explain to the people of Chesterfield what we have decided. I will say first, "My dear constituents, in future you will be governed by people whom you do not elect and cannot remove. I am sorry about it. They may give you better creches and shorter working hours but you cannot remove them."
I know that it sounds negative but I have always thought it positive to say that the important thing about democracy is that we can remove without bloodshed the people who govern us. We can get rid of a Callaghan, a Wilson or even a right hon. Lady by internal processes. We can get rid of the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). But that cannot be done in the structure that is proposed. Even if one likes the policies of the people in Europe, one cannot get rid of them.
Secondly, we say to my favourite friends, the Chartists and suffragettes, "All your struggles to get control of the ballot box were a waste of time. We shall be run in future by a few white persons, as in 1832." The instrument, I might add, is the Royal Prerogative of treaty making. For the first time since 1649 the Crown makes the laws—advised, I admit, by the Prime Minister.
We must ask what will happen when people realise what we have done. We have had a marvellous debate about Europe, but none of us has discussed our relationship with the people who sent us here. Hon. Members have expressed views on Albania and the Baltic states. I have been dazzled by the knowledge of the continent of which we are all part. No one has spoken about how he or she got here and what we were sent here to do.
If people lose the power to sack their Government, one of several things happens. First, people may just slope off. Apathy could destroy democracy. When the turnout drops below 50 per cent., we are in danger.
Mr. Peter Hardy: Like the United States.
Mr. Benn: As my hon. Friend says, in the United States turnouts are very low. That is partly caused by the scale of the country.
The second thing that people can do is to riot. Riot is an old-fashioned method of drawing the attention of the Government to what is wrong. It is difficult for an elected person to admit it, but the riot at Strangeways produced some prison reforms. Riot has historically played a much larger part in British politics than we are ever allowed to know.
Thirdly, nationalism can arise. Instead of blaming the treaty of Rome, people say, "It is those Germans," or, "It is the French." Nationalism is built out of frustration that people feel when they cannot get their way through the

335
ballot box. With nationalism comes repression. I hope that it is not pessimistic—in my view it is not—to say that democracy hangs by a thread in every country of the world. Unless we can offer people a peaceful route to the resolution of injustices through the ballot box, they will not listen to a House that has blocked off that route.
There are many alternatives open to us. One hon. Member said that he was young and had not fought in the war. He looked at a new Europe. But there have been five Europes this century. There was the one run by the King, the Kaiser and the Tsar—they were all cousins, so that was very comfortable. They were all Queen Victoria's grandsons, and there was no nonsense about human rights when Queen Victoria's grandsons repressed people. Then there was the Russian revolution. Then there was the inter-war period. Then there was the Anglo-Soviet alliance. Then there was the cold war. Now we have a Boris Yeltsin who has joined the Monday Club. There have been many Europes. This is not the only Europe on offer.
I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) is a democratic federalist, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes). They want an American-type constitution for Europe. It could be that our laws would hang on which way the Albanian members voted. I could not complain about that, because that is democracy, but it is unworkable. It is like trying to get an elephant to dance through a minefield, but it would be democratic.
Another way would be to have a looser, wider Europe. I have an idea for a Commonwealth of Europe. I am introducing a Bill on the subject. Europe would be rather like the British Commonwealth. We would work by consent with people. Or we could accept this ghastly proposal, which is clumsy, secretive, centralised, bureaucratic and divisive. That is how I regard the treaty of Rome. I was born a European and I will die one, but I have never put my alliance behind the treaty of Rome. I object to it. I hate being called an anti-European. How can one be anti-European when one is born in Europe? It is like saying that one is anti-British if one does not agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. What a lot of nonsense it is.
I ask myself why the House is ready to contemplate abandoning its duties, as I fear it is. I was elected 41 years ago this month. This Chamber has lost confidence in democracy. It believes that it must be governed by someone else. It is afraid to use the powers entrusted to it by its constituents. It has traded power for status. One gets asked to go on the telly if one is a Member of Parliament. The Chamber does not want to use its power. It has accepted the role of a spectator and joined what Bagehot called the dignified part of the constitution, leaving the Crown, under the control of the Prime Minister, to be the Executive part.
If democracy is destroyed in Britain, it will be not the communists, Trotskyists or subversives but this House which threw it away. The rights that are entrusted to us are not for us to give away. Even if I agree with everything that is proposed, I cannot hand away powers lent to me for five years by the people of Chesterfield. I just could not do it. It would be theft of public rights.
Therefore, there is only one answer. If people are determined to submit themselves to Jacques Delors, Madam Papandreou and the Council of Ministers, we must tell the people what is planned. If people vote for
336
that, they will all have capitulated. Julius Caesar said, "We are just merging our sovereignty." So did William the Conqueror.
It is not possible to support the Government's motion. I have told the Chief Whip that I cannot support the Labour amendment. I invite the House to vote against the Government's motion and not to support a motion which purports to take us faster into a Community which cannot reflect the aspirations of those who put us here. That is not a nationalist argument, nor is it about sovereignty. It is a democratic argument, and it should be decisive in a democratic Chamber.
8.6 pm
Mr. Ian Taylor: The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) made an extremely powerful speech. It throws up an interesting possibility which we shall not have the chance to explore. If my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) was still in her former position and the right hon. Gentleman had not been passed over for leadership of the Labour party, perhaps we would now face the possibility of a Finchley-Chesterfield coalition.
I differ from the right hon. Member for Chesterfield on the powers of the House. Many of the powers which he attributes to the House have been taken away from us, not by our choice but as a result of changes in the world. Many decisions about monetary policy over which the House would like to have control have not been made by the House in the years that I have been here—which is few compared with the 41 years of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield.
Early in the right hon. Gentleman's career in the House, many of the powers to which he assigns great democratic importance were taken away by the process of the market and the relationship between nation states. Money now moves through the exchanges 24 hours a day. The Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot suddenly decide that British monetary policy will be such-and-such without paying any attention to what is happening elsewhere in the world. The Chancellor does not ask the House what we should do about monetary policy: he tells us what he is doing. He tells us that he might not like to take a certain step but that interest rates in America are changing, the yen is changing on the world market, the deutschmark is doing this and the French franc is doing that.
It is no good deluding ourselves that we can hang on to something that we do not have. It is much more important to seek ways of overcoming the deficiencies in our control over our national affairs. That has been best achieved by the European Community, despite its faults and the justifiable criticisms that I and many others make. It has ensured the peace of a turbulent continent and the prosperity which acted as the catalyst for the changes in eastern Europe. It was not just the defensive alliance that made that change, important though it was. It was the catalyst provided by the proof that nation states could come together and co-operate not only politically but economically.
The Community enshrines 12 nations—340 million people. It was proof that a liberal, democratic, free-market system was infinitely superior morally and in terms of performance to that which existed in the east.
The origins of the Community were political. They were an attempt to avoid what happened after the first world

337
war as a result of the treaty of Versailles, when the French and others tried to impose stiff conditions on Germany. In a generous gesture, the French understood that they could not do so again after the second world war. They decided that they had to try to build structures which would enable Germany to recover without its recovery impinging on French security. If they were to achieve that, it could best be done through common institutions. The House made a classic mistake in the mid-1950s, because we thought that they could not achieve it. We thought that the free market was sufficient as a way for nation states to join together. We were wrong, and the price of our error was that the early character and developments in the Community were not under our control. When we eventually joined in the 1970s, we had not formulated the rules.
Quite unashamedly, the reason that I hope our Prime Minister gets the deal at Maastricht on the conditions that he has laid down, not under any conditions—that is what only the Leader of the Opposition would do—is that I do not want us to make another great error. We have a remarkable opportunity, and that is often not realised in this country. The German Government are prepared to do a deal on the deutschmark, on German foreign policy and on many other aspects of German power because they do not want Europe to return to a battle over spheres of influence. Germany does not want the changes in eastern Europe to be turned into a battleground for western European countries.
The German Government are prepared to give up something and, along with the other 10 countries, they are even prepared to say to the British, "We want you to help us formulate the rules of this club on economic and monetary union, but you do not have to commit yourselves to joining it." That is a remarkable deal. Whether we debate some of the finer points about what might happen pales into insignificance. We have the right to join later; we do not have to join now. That is a clear option and I am sure that it will be achieved. When the details come forth from Maastricht, I am sure that there will be no binding conditions on this country.
Many hon. Members who do not believe, for example, that we need fiscal harmonisation as well as monetary union could argue over the details, but the reality is that within the context of what we are achieving it is a great benefit to this country and we would be sorely wrong if we did not seize it, if we can get in the negotiations what we want.
The same is true of foreign policy. We are not being asked to give up all control over foreign policy, any more than the French would wish to give up control over their foreign policy. We are being asked to try to find common ground with our Community partners, and, if we do so, not to be held up by any one member over detail. That is a solution, albeit not yet perfect. Incidentally, it is important to me that it is not under the full weight of the treaty of Rome, but is on an intergovernmental, parallel basis, as part of a wider treaty of union. Therefore, I support what the Government are doing.
This is a terrific opportunity for us to ensure that our voice, on world affairs and on the great uncertainties that exist close to western European lands, is heard on a basis
338
of coming together to make agreements between countries. If that can be made effective, we shall all feel that we are not only more influential but are likely to be safer.
We should view these big opportunities positively and not merely as negative encroachments on powers that we no longer have in reality. The British Government have a voice in world affairs, but clearly that is because their voice is used to influence countries which are in union with us so that when we go to the United Nations or try to seek solutions to crises we can do so as an effective, combined force. The objectives of the British Government can be better secured by encouraging other people to back us within the Community. That is the definition of a common foreign policy. It does not mean that the Foreign Secretary is tied and must silently do what someone else wants. We should be more proud of our strength of argument than that.
There is a possibility of achieving a Community which can sort out problems that, as many people in this country recognise, are no longer confined by national borders. we have achieved a remarkable development through the objectives that we set out in the Single European Act—an internal market of 340 million people, growing to 380 million with the inclusion of the EFTA countries. People can move between countries. Opportunities are opening up for companies and for people of all ages.
It is inevitable that measures flow from that which will affect the entire Community. After all, it is because of a British initiative that that has been achieved any way. The Government should be trying to ensure that decisions are taken on an enabling rather than an interventionist basis. Of course, we should oppose the imposition of controls which prevent proper competition. That would deny the basis of the success, to date, of a liberal, free-market economy. However, we should not deny the possibility of a Community level of decision-making which, by setting a framework and ensuring by subsidiarity that it is carried out by national Governments, can make Europe richer, better, environmentally safer and a better place in which to work, for all our people.
That is another goal. It is the goal that is opening up at Maastricht. We should seize that opportunity, and we are close to achieving terms of which the House would approve.
8.16 pm
Mr. Peter Hardy: The hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) will forgive me if I do not follow his arguments, as the time limit applies.
I am reminded of the debates in the early 1970s, and one important speech by the late John Davies—his maiden speech shortly before he became a member of the Cabinet. He said that he had no sense of mandate about entry. There could have been no sense of mandate. That was partly because the Heath Government, when approaching the 1970 election, were well aware of the eloquent arguments that have been advanced in this debate by my right hon. Friends the Members for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). So the Heath Government played it very low profile. That may well lie at the heart of the difficulty. The matter was never faced fairly and squarely by the party which sought to be the Government to take us into the Community in the early 1970s.

339
I was opposed to entry and spoke against it then, as I spoke against continued membership before the referendum. I did so because of the incompetence of bureaucracy and the waste of the common agricultural policy. That dominated expenditure by about 75 per cent.—a percentage near to the figure which applies today.
That was in the 1970s, but I have to consider the situation for my constituents in 1991. In 1979, we were a great deal more properous in South Yorkshire than we are now. Britain was more prosperous. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Britain was then the sixth wealthiest country in the world. In 1991, after 12 years largely dominated by the right hon. Member for Finchley, who inflicted such a long speech on the House this afternoon, we are not sixth: we have fallen below Belgium and Italy. I have watched the growth in prosperity of countries which were in front of us then and which have soared further ahead, so that the conditions and quality of life of the people there are so much greater than ours. Having led us into decline, the right hon. Member for Finchley is hardly qualified to give advice to the House or instructions to the Prime Minister.
Can my constituents afford Britain to seek to extricate itself from the Community? Can they afford Britain's failure to seize opportunities which will give us the prospect of economic growth and a degree of prosperity which has been largely thrown aside by the present Administration? That very real question looms large.
I should also tell the House that for many years I have been heavily involved in the Council of Europe, so no one can say of me, as they do of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), that I am an anti-European. For a considerable time I described myself as an anti-market pro-European. I have also spent a great deal of time at the Western European Union. I wonder what the Government will do to secure the resources that the WEU will need and the skills that must be applied to ensure that it does not merely become a French preserve or subject to the diktats of Mr. Genscher, as seemed to be the case recently.
I want to see how Europe will react to the appalling needs in the east. One or two Members referred to the severe problem of nationalism. Among the many changes that have taken place since I entered the House in 1970 has been the growth of terror and the imposition of more and more security. The House should understand that the growth and flames of nationalism in Europe could dwarf the terrorism that we experience today in Britain and other parts of western Europe. That nationalism may run amok and engender balkanisation in Europe which would be exceedingly dangerous. Therefore, the rest of Europe must act with co-ordination and co-operation that has not yet been achieved.
If that is to be achieved, the European parliament must first make itself a great deal more efficient and competent than it was when it drove to despair members of a Council of Europe committee that I chaired who sought to co-operate. Secondly, it needs to attract attention. One of the great problems faced by the European Parliament is that the British media pay scarcely any attention to it. Indeed, political parties pay grossly inadequate attention to what goes on there.
If the European Parliament is not held to account, it will not behave accountably. It must have more attention if it is to exert proper influence on the Commissioners.
340
Moreover, it should be prepared to speak out and it should be heard on important questions, such as RECHAR. That brings me to my final point, given the time limitation.
The Government have behaved outrageously in seeking to malign Commissioner Milian for doing his job properly and honestly. In so doing, they have deprived areas of appalling need, such as mine, of the very resources that are readily available and waiting for us. We have been denied them. That is a disgrace. Tory Members may say, "We can't sacrifice sovereignty." Let me finish with this point: how valuable was sovereignty from 1979 until now, in the days of the vast, docile majority enjoyed by this Government who have brought Britain to a greater decline than any Government this century? [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Let me finish.
Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen knew, for example, that HMS Endurance was being withdrawn from the south Atlantic. That mistake cost £8 billion. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen applauded the grossly unnecessary conflict and cost of the coalfield dispute in 1984–85. That also cost £8 billion. There are scores of further examples of waste and wantonness, not least the poll tax. In the end, that may have cost the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) her job, but it will cost the British people £20 billion in grossly unnecessary administrative expenditure.
Where there is a majority that can coolly and calmly endorse the stupidity and wanton irresponsibility of this Government and troop without question through the Lobby in support of that Government, can we justly claim that Parliament is acting with wisdom in its use of that sovereignty, to which this evening so many pretentious remarks have been addressed?
8.24 pm
Mr. David Howell: One can tell that there are some odd currents running in this debate when the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who was in splendid form, rejoices at the support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) in his plans for a plebiscite or referendum to resolve these issues.
If a Back-Bench dimension has emerged from this afternoon's debate, in addition to the points made by the Leader of the Opposition and the excellent and comprehensive speech of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, it is that we should give maximum attention to what is happening in the other part of Europe. It is to remind the great policy-makers and the people lining up for the decisions at Maastricht, who seem so preoccupied, that, even since the original idea of intergovernmental conferences was conceived 18 months ago, the map of Europe has changed completely. Fundamentally new issues and priorities have emerged. New dangers have emerged. New requirements and priorities should perhaps have a higher place on the agenda than the undeniably important issues with which we have been concerned as we examine the minutiae of the Dutch draft treaty.
What has happened is indeed sobering. Perhaps we should pay more attention to the enormous rumbling dangers now developing in eastern Europe. I do not just mean in the former Soviet Union, which is looking into the abyss of disintegration, hyperinflation and the rise of the major-generals, with all the dangers that that implies, as well as the growth, possibly, of new nuclear powers; I mean also in the new democracies, about which we talk so happily—we assume that they have got rid of their

341
Communist nomencklatura or, rather, that such people have gone into the background, changed and become capitalists—which are swimming from being closed societies to open societies. They will not—at least not without the most enormous help and attention of western Europe.
Those countries, which the previous generation fought the second world war to make free—an objective that was denied us in the moment of victory—now have the opportunity to reach the democratic shore from the shore of a closed tyranny. We seem to think that they will get there by themselves while we busy ourselves with the details of the Dutch draft treaty and other matters. That is not so. There is a great arc of instability right across southern and central Europe. Self-determination is running riot. Tiny groups and nationalities, albeit with splendid aspirations, are pitching their ambitions and expectations far too high. These are real threats to the comfortable, cosy, stability of western Europe and its separate nations. We drift at our peril into the pathetic view of the 1930s, that these are faraway countries of which we need know nothing.
In considering the issues at Maastricht, I ask the House at least to keep in mind that Europe may have greater priorities than those of resolving every detail of European political and monetary union at Maastricht. Nevertheless, those are the practical requirements on the table and we must address ourselves to them in this debate. I shall add my twopenceworth in the short time available.
I shall deal briefly with the monetary union problems and then at greater length with political union, about which we face serious and fundamental difficulties. I can deal more swiftly with European monetary union because, from listening to some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, it is difficult to know what all the fuss is about. There will never be a single currency excluding all other currencies from Lisbon to Berlin, from Reggio Calabria to Glasgow. Nor would it make practical sense to attempt a monster bank, running a single pattern of short-term interest rates, not for 340 million people, but for 400 million or 420 million people as there will be then. The area it would cover might even run into the Ukraine—who knows? Such a development will not occur.
We will, however, have a common currency. The ecu will be widely used throughout Europe for international trade transactions, and even for paying salaries. It may be used by the Russians to replace their collapsing rouble —who knows? We want to be closely concerned with the monetary developments that lead up to it. I cannot agree with some of my right hon. and hon. Friends and others who say that we should veto the whole thing. The Prime Minister is right in saying that we have to be involved in these enormous monetary developments: the hardened ecu, the frozen basket ecu, or whatever, are coming.
We need have no fears about the single currency idea. It will not happen, so we need not be involved in it. The concerns of some Members on that subject are exaggerated. That is not so with regard to political union. On that, I have a different stance. Here we seem to have deep difficulties. It is often said that with great treaties the devil is in the detail, but in this case that is not so. In this case the devil is not in the detail but in the principle. As the
342
right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said, the devil is right there in the preamble, in the opening words. That is why we find the issue so difficult.
We have not come to a natural resting point in the unfolding progress towards a united states of Europe. We have come to a Y fork in the road. We have built the single market. Contrary to the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), Britain led the way there, as a pioneer, but now we have come to the point where there are fundamentally different views about which way Europe should go.
Should it go towards a united states of Europe, with a strong congress at the centre and a strong executive, or should we stick to the confederal view? Do we believe the doctrine of "acquis communautaire", which means that there will be an inevitable progress towards the Community institutions growing more powerful—a one-way ratchet to greater power at the centre—or do we accept that a great confederation of nation states, with the nations delegating power to central Community institutions for specific tasks, is the right way forward? That is a fundamental divide. We are all required to stand up and be counted, to say which way we should go.
Those who would like to see a united states of Europe call in aid the founding fathers—Jean Monnet, Walter Hallstein and such people. We are told that they were all in favour of a united states of Europe, that it is all a great process, and that only spoilsports and isolationists are against it. That is not so. Jean Monnet believed that the Community should not arrogate to itself the airs and graces of a nation state; it should not try to rival the nation states. Jean Monnet and Hallstein warned against the fancy and cavalier use of the word "federal", because they knew the difficulties that it would cause.
I share the concerns of those who talk about the drift to the centre—the awful centralism which belongs to the 19th rather than the 21st century. I share the views of those who say that political reform is needed. We need a political treaty, but it should circumscribe, limit and identify the central powers of the central Community institutions, as James Madison and others wanted in the original United States of America. But that was taken away by Abraham Lincoln and by the civil war.
The sort of subsidiarity that we want delegates functions to the centre from the nation states. There may be a wider range of functions. There may be new functions, and perhaps we should take away some of the old ones. If more environmental functions are to be handled by the Community institutions, perhaps we should consider repatriating some of the functions connected with agriculture and the rural economy—the Community has not made too good a fist of those.
Let us look at the idea in terms of limited power at the centre, to be reviewed and revised from time to time in the proper confederal spirit.
Over the past decade, we led the process of building the internal market. We have been the most assiduous in accepting the regulations and directives. In Brussels, we were the most forceful on all the committees in pressing for the internal market. We pushed ahead with what we saw as the kind of Europe that we wanted—the great open market, accessible to the new nations, the EFTA nations, the new democracies, as soon as possible. That was our ideal and our dream. It remains a fine dream, and a

343
tremendous vision of Europe. It is not the same as the vision of the centralists, of those who want to build up a stronger executive at the centre and a stronger Parliament.
When I say that the devil is not in the detail, that is what I mean. We can argue about the little movements one way or the other, but the spirit in which we do so, the broad approach and the principle on which we go to Maastricht will determine whether we have a Europe that is free and good—the kind of Europe for which we fought—or a Europe that is centralised, old-fashioned, paralysed, and inward-looking and that will ultimately betray itself.
8.36 pm
Mr. Denis Howell: I suppose that this has been a great parliamentary occasion, but I find it extremely disappointing and in a sense unreal. There has been hardly any mention yet from either side of the House of the economic consequences of our failing to be in Europe looking after the interests of British industry, especially manufacturing industry. With great respect to all the complexities of the political points that have been made, I was brought up to believe that political progress and economic prosperity had to go hand in hand, and that concept has been missing from the debate. Too many Aunt Sallies have been raised, not least by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who made a magnificent speech—magnificient in its humour but also in its irrelevance. We have got to get back to earth.
The Prime Minister gave us a disappointing start. There was no vision at all in his speech. I was tempted to quote my favourite text from the Bible:
"Where there is no vision the people perish."
If that is the sort of leadership that we shall have in Europe, the people will perish.
The right hon. Member for Finchley gave an extraordinary speech. It was a charade, a caricature of herself. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) raised that great Aunt Sally that we could not have entered the Gulf war had we been totally in Europe. I was under the impression that the Gulf war was authorised by the United Nations, and that France and Italy sent forces to support the enterprise. So why was that ridiculous Aunt Sally suggested?
As the chairman of the Labour Movement for Europe, I find the most galling event of the debate the fact that the Foreign Secretary intervened in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition to say that, if my right hon. Friend had had his way, we would not have been in Europe in the first place. May I remind the Foreign Secretary that, had it not been for 69 of my right hon. and hon. Friends who voted for the then Government despite a three-line Whip, the Government would not have been in Europe either?
Mr. John Biffen: How did the right hon. Gentleman vote on Second Reading of the European Communities Act?
Mr. Howell: I am sorry, but I did not catch what the right hon. Gentleman said, and as I have only 10 minutes, I hope that he will excuse me.
There are many fundamental questions of great importance that we are not tackling. Are we in Europe or are we not? According to most of the hon. Members who have spoken today, either we are not in Europe or we should not be in Europe—and that includes Members who will vote for the Government motion. Those are ludicrous
344
propositions. Did we sign the Single European Act or did we not? Did the former Prime Minister know what she was doing?
Another question that arises from the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield concerns the European Parliament. Are we saying that the electors, to whom we pay such lip service because they vote for us to come here, are removed to another planet when they vote for Members of the European Parliament? That is an extraordinary proposition. That is why I believe that the European Parliament will be given more powers.
I am worried about the situation in Europe. British industry—I have consulted the CBI, the engineering employers and the Birmingham chamber of commerce— knows perfectly well that our industrial future has to lie in one of the great trading blocs of the world—with the United States, with Japan, or with the European monetary system. Now 52 per cent. of our exports go to Europe. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield may want to change things, but despite all the criticisms that have been made, no one has said where we will be economically if we do not play our full part in Europe and sign the treaty. That question has been knocked all around the Chamber and we must answer it.
The West Midlands Engineering Employers Association put it in a nutshell when it said:
"We cannot hope to influence the future of Europe if we keep saying no or standing on the touchline. We must get involved in the game."
The social charter is the real reason for all the hesitation and doubts expressed by Conservative Members. That charter will compel the Government to accord to British people the same rights as those that will be enjoyed by the people of Europe and which the Christian Democrats— they have turned out to be even more left-wing than the Social Democrats—the traditional friends of the Conservative party, want to implement.
The attitude adopted by the Secretary of State for Employment is nauseating. He is nauseating on the subject of the minimum wage, the limit on hours to be worked, maternity leave and pensions.
Mr. Tony Banks: He is just nauseating.
Mr. Denis Howell: Yes, that is true.
What impression does the Secretary of State for Employment create in Europe as he argues passionately that British employers cannot afford to give 14 weeks maternity leave to women working in British industry? He argues that British industry will collapse if it has to give more than 12 weeks maternity leave. If that is the state of British industry, perhaps it is time that we came out of Europe. All the right hon. and learned Gentleman is doing is promoting a sweat-shop, poverty-ridden economy for our country. His attitude is a disgrace.
The Community is right to say that we should not work more than 48 hours, but the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Employment are seeking to defend sweat-shop conditions. I have been president of a trade association for many years, and I know that excessive hours of overtime, when constantly worked, are a great evil. However, the Government are seeking to defend them.
We are told that we cannot have a minimum wage because that would destroy our industry and the economy. France, Spain, the Netherlands, Portugal and Luxembourg have such a minimum wage, as does the

345
United States. Belgium, Greece, Denmark, Italy and Germany have created an acceptable minimum wage through negotiation. What on earth does British industry mean when it says that it cannot afford to pay, for example, £3·40 an hour? That is the sum recommended by my union, the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union. Its recommendation met with the overwhelming support of our people according to a recent MORI poll. We can be efficient in industry and at the same time afford to pay wages above the poverty line.
What about the scandal of pensions? I have no doubt that the European Commission and the dreaded Jacques Delors will soon say that the pensions paid in this country are a disgrace. Our pensioners are being cheated every week by the Government's decision to break the link between pensions and earnings. As a result, a single pensioner is cheated out of £17·65 a week and a married couple are cheated out of £27. The Conservative party may be proud of that, but I am sure that, in future, the Commission and the European Parliament will ensure that the link between pensions and earnings is hallowed in the United Kingdom. After all, that link has been kept in most other European countries.
The scandal about our pensions is another reason why the Government do not want to embrace the social charter, but that should be the reason for giving it overwhelming support. It is another reason why we should sign the treaty, which is in the economic interests of our manufacturing community. It will create jobs, not lose them. We should support the social charter, because it will bring social justice to the ordinary people of Britain.
8.44 pm
Mr. Tim Devlin: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt), I am a member of the youngest age group in the House. Like my hon. Friend, I want to concentrate on the future rather than the past 20 years. The arguments that were current in 1973 about our membership of the Community have been rehearsed over and over again today in the same vein.
The important thing that we must do is look ahead 20 years to the time when those of us who are, I hope, still active in politics will be asked difficult questions. We will be asked why the House diverted its attention towards those sceptics who persuaded us to shy away from an agreement at Maastricht. We will be asked why we did not see the importance of the emerging European bloc on our doorstep. We will be asked why, given the evidence of the time, when EFTA and the east European countries were queueing up to join the tighter Community that was being proposed, we allowed ourselves to be left outside.
People will ask why, given the importance of the single market to our high-volume, low-cost producers and the importance of our country—as a member of the Community—to the companies of the United States and Japan who have invested so heavily with us, we did not grab with both hands the opportunities that the Maastricht summit offered to fashion the Community to our advantage in the future.
Surely people will ask us why, in 1991, we did not recognise young people's aspirations to travel and work abroad. They will want to know why we did not appreciate the inconvenience and stupidity of having to change
346
currency constantly as one moved from country to country in the Community. Given the history of European developments in the past 20 years, those people will also want to know why we did not learn from Britain's earlier mistake. They will want to know why we did not join the Community at its inception and fashion the very fabric of it to our advantage. We now have the opportunity to do that.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) that other countries are offering to help us to use their sovereignty in a way that will benefit us in the future. It is no coincidence or mistake that it was the Conservative party that applied to take Britain into the Community, and which took Britain in. It is no coincidence that it was a Conservative Government under my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) who signed the Single European Act and joined the exchange rate mechanism. It is not a mistake that all that happened as a result of Conservative policy, because the Conservative party has consistently been dedicated to raising the living standards and the material prosperity of our people. That is why we have consistently adopted a pro-European stance.
We are following the commitment that we gave in 1973 to ever closer union, so why are we now beginning to get cold feet? Surely the House appreciates that some problems go beyond national frontiers, particularly those affecting pollution and international trade. Our ability to negotiate a better deal for our people can only be strengthened by ever greater co-operation with other countries. Young people look forward to co-operation, and aspire to building something good for the future. They are not looking back at what happened in the past.
A question that has still not been answered at any point during the debate was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden): what happens if the other countries go ahead without us? No one has given a satisfactory answer to that. We have heard some fine arguments about sovereignty, but sovereignty falls into two categories. First, there is legal sovereignty—the legal right to do as we please. Secondly, there is real sovereignty —the real ability to do as we wish. That is what the argument is really about.
I hope that this debate will be about the valuable contribution that Britain can make to the European community, rather than a sterile argument about whether the king's prerogatives will be taken over by the Government and given away in the face of the people. Britain has one last chance to ensure that it is part of the considerations in the emerging power block. It has a chance to influence that power bloc, democratise its institutions, correct the many faults in the present European community institutions, bring the new financial centre to London, and ensure that the bloc is a benign institution, shouldering world problems and finding aid and defence solutions to them.
The biggest mistake that we have made so far is the one that critics of the European Community so often turn against us—the fact that we were absent when the common agricultural policy was established. For all those who sit on European committees, the CAP is the main criticism that we have of the Community's work. The way in which some of the subsidies work is ludicrous, but had we been there at the beginning, we might have been able to reform

347
it so that it could work to our advantage. It is interesting that Britain and Denmark—the two most recent members —have been in the forefront of its reform.
Under the Administration of my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley, Britain regained her pre-eminence in world affairs. However, we have a long and enduring experience of wider responsibility in the world. We have taken on UN commitments to Kuwait and initiated efforts on behalf of the Kurds. Even now, a former Member of this House leads the European peace efforts in Yugoslavia, a conflict into which the European Community has been drawn because of its geographical position and economic strength. As yet, it does not have the power to solve it.
In the 1990s, we approach a new world in which the old cold war of the two super-powers has given way to three emerging super-power economic blocs: North America, South-East Asia and Europe. Some issues can be tackled only at a European level. They include the control of inflation and the provision of sound economies, because we have such interrelated and interacting economies. They also include the control of environmental pollution, and we could benefit greatly through co-operating further on defence and foreign policy.
Britain could have much more clout with the combined power of our neighbours than as an individual country. I believe that the British people look forward to greater development within the Community because they want the material benefits that that may bring. Naturally, they are worried that the Queen's head may disappear from our currency, but if we had economic and monetary union, as we have with Scotland, nothing would stop us providing different notes, even with a different name, provided that they had fixed values that were easily exchangeable.
Although people are concerned about the democratic deficit, their biggest worry is that they will not have the power to remove unelected bureaucrats in Europe. Therefore, they need the democratic powers and the rights of the European Parliament to be developed to ensure that those who are elected can be called to account.
I do not approach this question thinking only about how we shall hand ancient privileges over to foreigners. Like many people who promote the European Community in this country, I promote it because I see enormous financial, economic and environmental advantages for our country. It is essential, therefore, that the Prime Minister should sign an agreement in Maastricht. I strongly urge him to do so, if he can reach a sensible and reasonable compromise. I do not for one minute believe that we shall hand over everything that this country has ever stood for in terms of its independence. Rather, I see the process as continuing way into the future—a process in which Britain must play a leading and important part.
8.57 pm
Mr. Ron Leighton: As a good European, I attended a conference of Anglo-German parliamentarians earlier this year in Germany. A British Conservative MP—a great Euro-enthusiast—addressed the conference on what he called "the British problem". He explained the British problem to the Germans by saying that the British people had been lied to—they had not been told the truth about what used to be called the Common Market and is now called the European Community. He said that there was no full-hearted consent originally and that the 1972 White Paper presented by the right hon.
348
Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) explained that essential sovereignty would not be eroded. He said that in 1975 we had a referendum in which it was suggested that it was an economic and trade rather than a political matter.
He referred to the fact that the Government of the day distributed a manifesto to every household in the land. It said, first, that no decision could be taken in Brussels without the consent of a British Minister who would be answerable to the British Parliament—in other words, no political union. Secondly, it said that there had been a threat of economic and monetary union which threatened to bring unemployment, but that that had been removed and therefore people could vote in the referendum knowing that there would be no economic or monetary union.
It was suggested sotto voce that that could be a matter for our grandchildren. It is not a matter for our grandchildren or even our children, but it is to be decided in a fortnight's time. We are now told that, having been lied to over the years, the British people now have the prospect of political union, and they react against it and shy away. That is because they were told that it would not happen. A Conservative Member explained to our German colleagues that that was the reason for the "British problem".
At each stage of the story, Britain has been the odd man out. Why is it always the odd man out? It is because our system is one of parliamentary self-government, which is incompatible with the European Community system. We have been asked to give that up and to go over to the European Community system, with the European Court and majority voting—the shoe is pinching all the time. The Commission make us do things that we do not want to do and stops us doing what we want to.
Our former colleague, Sir Leon Brittan, is a far more powerful man now than when he was a Cabinet Minister and now tells us what we can do with Rover. Value added tax has been put on spectacles and surgical boots, which we would never have dreamed of doing. I heard it being suggested to the Minister that we should reduce value added tax in relation to the Royal Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children. She said that the European Community would not allow us to do so. The Community even tells us through which fields we are to put our roads. All that is resented by Parliament and our people.
The current proposition is that we should go further. As Mr. Delors explained—my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) and others will be interested in this—the suggestion is that 80 per cent. of our economic, social and political affairs should be decided in Brussels. Who wants that? [HON. MEMBERS: "We do."] Who wants that apart from a few wildly unrepresentative fanatics? The British people do not want it.
Mr. Derek Enright: How does my hon. Friend know that?
Mr. Leighton: The public opinion polls showed that three quarters of the British people do not want it.
We have had discussion about the word "federal". I know it is a word that can mean various things, but we must ask why some continental politicians refer to the word "federal" at every opportunity. It is because they want a super-state. The British people have not been told

349
the truth about that. Some people say that "federalism" means devolving power downwards to the people, which sounds good. They are trying to kid us again.
To use the jargon, federalism means extending the competence of the Euro-institutions to defence, foreign, immigration and asylum, social, and economic policies —the bread and butter issues of our politics are to be removed from this Parliament and transferred to Brussels. The power is not being devolved downwards, but up to the centre. That is the truth which the people of this country must face. If that is what one or two of my extremist fanatical friends and the people of this country want, so be it, but, that will destroy our democracy.
How does one define a democracy? The more I think about it, the more I believe that it is a political unit in which the minority accept the verdict. If the Conservative party wins a general election, I am upset and I don't like it, but I am willing to accept the result because I accept the verdict of the people. I think to myself that I can serve in opposition, make my case and perhaps win the next election, so I accept the result. However, if decisions are to be made in Brussels by alien institutions whose representatives are not elected by us and by people who we cannot remove, and those decisions damage my constituents, am I supposed to accept that? I do not think that we shall.
With my colleague, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars), in mind, I say that such a process will break up the United Kingdom. If the decisions are all to be made in Brussels, why should the Scots send Members of Parliament to Westminster? It would be a waste of their time to come down here, because the decisions will not be taken here, but in Brussels. The process constitutes a national threat because it will break up the United Kingdom.
Economic matters including interest and exchange rates, monetary and fiscal policy, budgetary policy, are all at the heart of Government and all are to be decided by a central bank, which will be the most important institution. The treaty states that Governments will undertake not to seek to influence the central bank. It states that they will even undertake not to influence their national central banks, which means rule by bankers. I did not become a Labour Member of Parliament to hand over all power to bankers. Clem Attlee nationalised the Bank of England because he did not think that we should have rule by central bankers.
The other idea is that we should have a single currency. If there is a single currency and economies get out of line, they cannot be adjusted by movements of the exchange rate, which is the normal way—so what happens? Countries will become blighted and depressed regions, with mass unemployment. I did not become a Labour Member of Parliament or the Chairman of the Select Committee on Employment to work for policies that would lead to chronic mass unemployment. Why should we agree to anything of that sort?
If we have a Labour Government after the next general election—obviously that is the result that I want—they will need the tools to do the job. That Administration will need to control interest rates, exchange rates and budgetary policy. If we go along with the present approach we shall have unilateral economic disarmament and many crucial
350
matters will be decided elsewhere. If so, what is the point of having this Parliament? What is the point of having the Labour party? What is the point of having elections? These matters—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), who is making expansive gestures, may be in favour of the consequences that I have described, but I do not think that the British people share her view.
All the evidence is that the British people think that we have handed over enough power to Brussels already. The British people do not want new treaties that will hand over the power that remains. It would be dangerous to foist upon the British people that which is being proposed, and the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South has no right to do so. None of us has a mandate to abandon the powers of Parliament, which are the powers of the people. We are the custodians of the rights and powers of the people, and we must hand them on to our successors.
Mrs. Edwina Currie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Leighton: No. I do not have time to give way.
I resent the bullying to which we are subjected. We are told, "We are forced to have this whether we want it or not." There is all this talk about a train—"The train is going, we don't know where it is going to, but we must get on. If we do not board it, we shall be punished. There is no choice. We can't use our intelligence or our free will. If we do that, we shall be punished."
How will we be punished? At present, we pay into the budget £2·4 billion more than we obtain from it. Will we be told, "We won't accept your contributions to the budget"? Is that being suggested? A huge trade deficit has been foisted upon us, so will we be told, "We won't trade with you. We won't let you buy our goods"? Under the common agricultural policy, we have to pay higher prices for our food. Will we be told, "We won't let you buy our food"?
We have the right and the power to make our own choices and to act on our own free will. We must have, of course, the closest possible relations with the other European countries, but these must be based on a different model. We want an association of self-governing countries who co-operate for the common good. We now have the chance to bring in the countries of Eastern Europe, but our response to the collapse of communism has been completely inadequate. We have been presented with a great opportunity but we shall not be able to take advantage of it by means of economic and monetary union.
The House will be aware of what the deutschmark did in East Germany, as it then was. Is it thought that Romania and Bulgaria will be able to enter the European Community on that basis? We are keeping the countries of eastern Europe out of the EC by removing the political barrier and erecting an economic barrier.
I agree with those who have said that we do not have the power to embark on such a huge constitutional change without consulting the people. The rights of Parliament are the rights of the people, and the people must be consulted. That process having taken place, the people must decide. If all the parties are split, if even the Campaign Group in the Labour party is split, how are the people to be consulted? There is only one way to do that,

351
and that is by means of a plebiscite. By that means we shall be able to put the issue before the British people and let them decide.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. It will be evident to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House that there are many who wish to speak in the debate today and tomorrow. The Chair can no longer impose a limit of 10 minutes on speeches, but I hope that those who are called to speak will feel that it is appropriate to volunteer no more than 10 minutes in their speeches.
9.8 pm
Mr. Tony Favell: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), because I agree with virtually every single word that he has just said. This is probably the first time that that has happened but, if the debate continues long enough, and I think that it will go on for some time yet, it will certainly not be the last. Like the hon. Gentleman, I believe that Britain now stands at a crossroads. The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) said that we are now at the Rubicon, and I believe that we are.
For a long time now I have been labouring under the delusion that the EC is about free trade. I voted yes.
Mr. Devlin indicated dissent.
Mr. Favell: My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) shakes his head. He probably rumbled long ago that the EC is not just about free trade and that it is what it is now apparently about—setting up a federal state. I am glad that today's debate has taken the wraps off so that we can all see what the EC is set for.
As Chancellor Kohl said throughout last year, the EC is about creating a united states of Europe. He has said all along that Germany wants the political unification of Europe and that for him German reunification and European unity are two sides of the same coin.
Until recently, even the leaders in The Times said that surely the Germans, French, Spanish, Italians, Danes, Dutch and so on would not give up their independence; surely they are not prepared to turn themselves into some kind of European super-state. But now it is clear for all to see. Mr. Delors has said so today.
This is a federal treaty. Mr. Delors seems to tell my right hon Friend the Prime Minister, just as he did my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), who made a marvellous speech today, that what he says goes. In fact, he rejoiced when my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley went, because she failed to recognise that the EC was all about the setting up of a federal state. He made no secret of it. Soon after my right hon. Friend went, Mr. Delors said that our present Prime Minister had better be careful or the rug might be pulled from under him. It is clear for all to see.
I agree with the hon. Member for Newham, North-East that this ultimate step should not be made without the wholehearted consent of the British people. That is a phrase that we have heard before, but this time it refers to the wholehearted consent of the British people to Britain no longer being a self-governing country as we understand it. Majority voting on foreign affairs, security, immigration, health, education, culture leading to a single federal
352
state. After 900 years of independent history, that step should not and cannot be made without the wholehearted consent expressed by plebiscite of the British people.
Because I have made no secret of the fact that I am in favour of a referendum—indeed, I have pushed for it—some have suggested that I do not have faith in my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. There is no better man to negotiate. I do not expect the hon. Member for Newham, North-East to agree, but there is no better man than he to negotiate. But much as I like, respect and admire him, I do not believe that one man should decide the nation's fate forever. That is what will happen if Conservative Members say that we trust the Prime Minister to sign or not sign as he decides when he goes to Maastricht, on 9 and 10 December. Not even Henry VIII would have made such a decision without the people behind him. That is why there must be a referendum.
When the Prime Minister returns from Maastricht, he must put the package to the people and let the people decide. That is what the Danes intend to do and that has taken the heat out of the argument there. The Danish people will have that right. There is no earthly reason why the British people also should not have it. I believe that the British people would say no. The people who are most vehemently opposed to a referendum are those federalists who fear that the British people would say no. They fear the answer. I do not fear the answer—and even if the British people said yes, I would abide by their decision. At least they will have been asked first.
It is our duty to do that. We have no mandate to give away the government of this country to others. Some people may have rumbled some years ago what the Community was about, but I did not. I know now, but many people outside the House did not know either. I believe that there should be a referendum. We have been failing the people who elected us, we have no mandate to give away the government of this country, and I will now give other right hon. and hon. Members an opportunity to speak.
9.15 pm
Mr. Calum Macdonald: I believe that I am the first Scot to be called to speak this evening, and I hope that my remarks will give a Scottish perspective to the debate, much of which has proceeded on a false premise. That was particularly so of the remarks by my right hon. Friends the Members for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). I admired the fluency and power of their speeches, but their basic assumptions were wrong. In so far as they and other right hon. and hon. Members defended the notion of national sovereignty and the powers and privileges of our national Parliament, they defended something that does not exist.
I refer not to the powers and privileges that, as other hon. Members pointed out, have constantly been eroded —which makes a good argument for trying to recover some of that real power by mixing our sovereignty with other countries. I refer to the non-fact of a national Parliament. This House is not a national Parliament but a multinational Parliament. It is the Parliament of our United Kingdom, representing nation states that were previously independent and sovereign, and which enjoyed self-government but relinquished it.

353
If the arguments in defence of a British Parliament made by my right hon. Friends the Members for Bethnal Green and Stepney and for Chesterfield had been heard by the members of the Scottish Parliament that existed in 1707, this British Parliament would never have come into existence. In that sense, my right hon. Friends' arguments were self-defeating. If one pursues the notion of national sovereignty, which advocates self-government, that is an argument for the break-up of Britain, not by mixing the present British Parliament into a higher federal union, but by breaking it up into the separate components of Great Britain.
It is ironic that those in Britain and in the House who are fighting a desperate rearguard action against the European Community fail to recognise European union as the logical successor of, and the greatest possible compliment to, the success of the British union—which can serve as the model for the European union of the future.
I am a unionist in both the British and the European sense, because in principle I favour the establishment of the broadest possible political community. I believe also in the principle of subsidiarity, not just within a new united Europe but within the existing United Kingdom as well. I find it odd that Conservative Members who advocate the principle of subsidiarity in Europe deny it within the United Kingdom, when they deny the possibility of devolution to Scotland.
There is no conflict between the principles of unionism and of subsidiarity. They are the two sides of the same federalist coin, and are entirely consistent. What is inconsistent and illogical is the curious muddle into which some hon. Members have got themselves in the course of tonight's debate.
As I have said, some Conservative defenders of subsidiarity advocate political devolution in Europe while denying it in the United Kingdom. The Scottish National party—its members have yet to speak tonight, but no doubt we shall hear from them—support separatism and sovereign independence from the English, but favour ever closer union with the Germans and the French, thus reducing their philosophy to simple anti-English prejudice. That is an illogical position, born of political opportunism.
Two lessons can be learned from the union of Great Britain if, as I suggest, we take that union as the logical and historical precedent for European union. The first is that there is no risk whatever of a loss of national identity, other than the loss of identity that follows naturally from the greater influence of commerce and trade within the Community. That bogey is dragged out time and time again.
Even after 300 years of political, economic and monetary union, it is still easier to distinguish an Englishman from a Scotsman—on the basis of accent, name or even manner—than it is to distinguish a Serb from a Croat. That is despite the fact that the union of Great Britain is much more rigid and centralised than the proposed European union. In the British union, differences have not only survived but flourished, and I believe that, in a European union, national differences would flourish to the same extent.
The second lesson is that we should not replicate the centralised nature of the British union. The EC is now
354
rightly moving towards a different model—a federal structure that would allow the institutions of the centre to deal with responsibilities that are rightly drawn into the centre. I refer to such macro-issues as monetary policy, environmental policy, trade and, ultimately, foreign affairs and defence.
It showed either inconsistency or a simple failure to understand the case for the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) to advocate the notion of a common foreign policy, while opposing the idea of institutions that would make such a policy effective. That is a recipe for the muddle against which so many people have warned us. If we are to avoid the muddle of the Gulf war and the contentions of the Yugoslav crisis, we must develop institutions that will allow us to overcome such differences.
Those who pretend that we are not moving towards a framework that will allow the Community to counter common decisions on foreign and defence policy are living in a dream world. Even after 1992—quite apart from the treaties that we are discussing—the single market and European competition policies will impose pressures for national Governments to achieve greater convergence on defence procurement. Once that happens, pressures will be imposed for them to reach greater convergence on defence policy in general.
Mr. David Winnick: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. MacDonald: I cannot do so if I am to abide by the 10-minute recommendation.
Those, then, are the macro-issues that should be left at the centre. At national and regional level, we can deal with domestic issues such as schools, health care, social services and local transport. Striking such a balance will avoid the constitutional stresses and strains that in recent years have afflicted the United Kingdom in particular. The treaties will embody that federalist approach—for that, in principle, is what it is, even if the word itself cannot be used because of the childish objections of British negotiators.
The treaties will begin the necessary task of making Community structures at the centre more directly accountable to European citizens, by extending and strengthening the powers of the European Parliament. That is extremely important. Eventually, this process will rightly lead to the Commission becoming more directly accountable to the electorates across Europe, not just indirectly accountable, as it is now, to the European Parliament and the European Council.
By extending the competence of the British union, in line with that federalist principle of subsidiarity and by making the union more democratic and accountable to its citizens, the European Community can begin to forge a union that will, in time, be as great a success as the British union has been.
In forging that union, Europe has a particularly great advantage, in that no country can dominate that union in the way that England has inevitably dominated the United Kingdom, or Russia has inevitably dominated the Soviet Union. That is the answer to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield. He raised the fear that union would lead to a rise of resentment, and thus to nationalism. The European union can be a genuine partnership of equals. It is one to which Britain must

355
belong if it is to secure prosperity and influence in the future and also if it is to be true to its own multinational unionist past.
9.26 pm
Mr. Terence L. Higgins: I greatly welcome the motion in the name of the Prime Minister and his right hon. Friends. I shall support it when it comes to the vote. I very much welcome also the opening paragraphs of my right hon. Friend's speech, in which he made it absolutely clear that he, together with the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would do their utmost to seek a negotiated settlement on this issue that was the best possible deal available. I do not believe that we could have a better team to try to achieve that deal.
My right hon. Friend went on to say that if, none the less, he felt that that deal was not satisfactory, either from the point of view of the United Kingdom or from the point of view of the Community as a whole, he would not go ahead and sign it. I think that we can have confidence that that will be so, although each of us will also have to decide whether we think that the best deal that has been negotiated is acceptable to us.
I very much hope that that deal will be one where we do not have to go for the so-called opt-in/opt-out clause. If we go down that route, we shall not only not have a full role in the further negotiations but, under the draft treaty as it stands, we shall be specifically precluded from participating in a number of important decisions. That opt-in/opt-out clause is very limited in its scope. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend will be successful in negotiating an arrangement that is acceptable without the use of that clause.
As for the referendum—or, I should say, referendums, because the plural of "referendum" is "referendums", not "referenda"—let me say very clearly that I am totally opposed to referendums in any shape or form. I believe profoundly, as the Prime Minister has made absolutely clear, that this is a representative parliamentary democracy. We are not here, in Edmund Burke's words, as delegates. If one has a referendum, there is a danger that one comes here as a delegate. If there is one thing that is absolutely clear, it is that this issue is of immense complexity and least of all suitable for a referendum.
I pointed out in the debate on the Queen's Speech that if one asked one's constituents, "What is the difference between a common currency and a single currency?", they would be unable to say, yet that is a crucial distinction. I issued a press release to that effect. The chief reporter on my local paper asked me whether I could tell her the difference between a common currency and a single currency, which seemed to me to make the point. We are responsible for considering these complex issues and making the decision on behalf of our constituents.
I have not been able to obtain the edition of Dicey referring to a referendum from which my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) was quoting, but if it is argued that, if all political parties take the same view of a particular issue, the electorate do not have a choice and a referendum should be held, a rather difficult technical problem arises. What happens as a result of a referendum? Will all the political parties say, "We shall accept the referendum and not what all of us believe"? I understand from Dicey that a referendum would not constitutionally bind the following Government, so such a
356
referendum is not the escape route that my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley suggested. It is our responsibility, as representatives of our constituents, to make a decision on this matter.
Mr. George Robertson: I agree with all the arguments that the right hon. Gentleman has advanced. He quoted the Prime Minister in aid of his argument. Is he as surprised as I was to learn that No. 10 Downing street has been briefing the press to the effect that the Prime Minister has not ruled out the possibility of a referendum in some future Parliament?
Mr. Higgins: I cannot comment on No. 10 briefings. I am clear about what my hon. Friend the Prime Minister said today, at Question Time yesterday and in the leadership campaign a year ago. Like me, he believes in representative parliamentary democracy and is against referendums. I have no doubt whatsoever about that.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) sought to say that the electorate have lost faith in democracy. It is not the electorate who have lost faith in democracy but people such as the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members who feel they have to resort to a referendum rather than carry out their true duty.
Mr. John Browne: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Higgins: I cannot. I wish to stick to the timetable, because I believe that Privy Councillors should seek to do so.
The draft treaty contains dates for the achievement of a single currency, but the crucial aspect is whether the necessary convergence has been achieved before that takes place. I have not time, I fear, to go into detail on the issue of a single currency, but it is absolutely clear that a single currency is not a reason why one should opt for the control of fiscal deficits and seek to undermine the fundamental control of money, taxation and public expenditure, which has been the basis of our power since the time of Simon de Montfort. It is important to stress that a single currency does not require the control of deficits.
I shall not go into detail on article 104B, although it is fundamental to the issue. The editor of The Times has been more than generous in allowing me to advance my views on that point. However, I want to deal with a point that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made this afternoon. The wording of paragraph (1) of article 104B is crucial. It says:
"Member States shall avoid excessive Government deficits."
The protocol explains what that means and other paragraphs state that the decision on whether a deficit is excessive shall be determined by the Commission in carrying out an investigation and then by the Council of Ministers.
The impression has got around—for example, in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley —that this is somehow only a question of surveillance. That is not true. The article says quite clearly:
"Member States shall avoid excessive Government deficits."
I therefore very much welcome the statement of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that that paragraph must be amended, because I have no doubt that we shall be entering into a binding agreement if we sign the treaty as drafted.

357
The fact that article 104B contains a paragraph which states not only that the penalties specified do not apply in stage 2, but that the existing sanctions in the treaty as a whole will not apply in stage 2, leads to the bizarre situation where one part of the article states clearly, "You shall not do it," but provision is made in other parts of the article to make that unenforceable. We should not doubt that, if we signed the treaty as drafted, article 104B would be binding and we would have agreed not to have an "excessive deficit". That strikes at the basis of control over public expenditure.
We are short of time and I am anxious to keep within the limit, so I shall deal with the crucial distinction between an agreement being binding and being enforceable. It is clear that when our Parliament signs an agreement in the European Community we abide by it. We have a better record than any other country of implementing what we have signed. I am becoming very concerned about the way in which that works in practice, because it is apparent that other countries in the Community have a different philosophy. Often they do not implement the proposals in the intended manner.
The Confederation of British Industry has recently criticised the Department of Trade and Industry. I am worried about the way in which that Department, for example, is implementing proposals imposed on us by the Community, although they are not being implemented in other countries. This is to our competitive disadvantage. It is tremendously important that when we implement such proposals the timing of the implementation should be related to that of the other countries in the Community. At present, the Department of Trade and Industry is too concerned with regulation and not enough with protecting our interests.
It is very important that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister should now negotiate as toughly as possible. I believe that he will achieve the best possible deal but, having done that, he and we must consider whether we can accept it. I have not the slightest doubt that we as representatives of our constituents must take the decision in this House. To try to pass off the responsibility in the form of a referendum is wholly abhorrent to me and, I hope, to the House as a whole.
9.37 pm
Mr. Denzil Davies rose—
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You had been in the Chair for only a few seconds when an Opposition spokesman made an important intervention. He made the rather surprising announcement that No. 10 Downing street had tonight given a briefing to the effect that a referendum had not been ruled out and, therefore, I suppose, might be ruled in. That is relevant to the debate and to the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), myself and other hon. Friends.
If that announcement is correct, we should be told, because it has an important bearing on our proceedings. We have here no lesser personages than the Minister of State, Treasury and the Foreign Secretary's Parliamentary Private Secretary. The announcement might be merely one
358
of the late night fantasies to which the the Opposition are prone, but we need to know whether such an announcement—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. Let us hear the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Aitken: I seek your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, before the proceedings continue. Can we have a statement from the Government to clarify what has or has not been said?
Madam Deputy Speaker: The House has heard what the hon. Gentleman has to say. Since I was a mini Back Bencher, I have always believed that any announcement of such a nature should be made first to this House. Those on the Government Front Bench have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said and what the Chair has had to say. I hope that they have taken that message to heart.
Mr. Winnick rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The House is now using very valuable time. There can be no further points of order. I have made the Chair's position quite clear.
Mr. Denzil Davies: I take it that my voluntary 10 minutes runs from now, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The amendments to the treaty of Rome on economic and monetary union, which mean a single currency and an unelected European central bank, go to the heart of our parliamentary democracy, as others have said. The amendments add up to a substantial transfer of control over money from a democratically elected Government and Parliament to an unelected committee of European bankers. When the spirit of the age and the spirit of Europe are for more democracy, better democracy and deeper democracy, the Government have been asked—indeed, encouraged by some—to act completely contrary to that spirit of the age.
I find it perplexing that so many groups in Britain today demand—rightly—better British democracy and criticise our democracy, yet many of those people are prepared to acquiesce in the transfer of power which will diminish the British democracy that they apparently want to enhance and improve. It seems that peoples and parliaments are not to be trusted with money; money has to be taken out of the democratic process and out of the democratic powers.
Over the ages, the European elite have often sought to entrench certain principles and rights in fundamental documents and fundamental laws. They do that basically to keep those rights and principles away from the people. Medieval theologians sought to make all human law conform to the higher law—the higher jus naturale. The divine right of kings was apparently not to be challenged by Parliaments or by people. Even Lenin, if one can call him a member of the European elite, tried to entrench the dictatorship of the proletariat and to put it out of reach of democracy and of popular control. I am told that some sections of the loony right in the United States even speak about something called the "law of the marketplace". Even that is now a kind of law to which all other laws must conform.
At least the medieval theologians sought to entrench rather uplifting moral and religious principles, but we are being asked to entrench for ever, if the amendments to the treaty go ahead, the little theorems and little equations of

359
economic theory, such as money supply, price stability, currency management and percentages of gross national product—and we have heard about 3 per cent. public sector debt ratios. All those rather simplistic and fashionable theorems and equations of economics are to be entrenched for ever in the new, amended treaty of Rome.
Governments, including ours, will then have to conform. If they do not conform to the provisions about excessive budget deficits, for example, they will be fined and punished. They will be charge-capped like recalcitrant local authorities under the poll tax provisions. All that will be under the control of bankers who will be the high priests of the mysteries of money. They will make all the decisions that will affect the lives of ordinary people.
I have a confession to make. I believe that price stability is quite a good thing. I do not really accept the argument that devaluation is a panacea for all the problems of British industry. I believe that Government borrowing should be controlled. In my day, I was a bit of a monetarist. However, tenets of economic theory are not absolute. They change with fashion. To attempt to entrench them in treaties which are outside the control of a democratic Parliament is ridiculous.
Sometimes it is necessary to trade inflation against unemployment. Sometimes it is necessary to realign the currency either upwards or downwards to protect industrial capacity. Sometimes it is necessary for the Government to borrow for investment and to redress grievances. Sometimes in a recession it is necessary to have budget deficits—large ones and perhaps even so-called excessive ones.
I do not know what the amendments to the treaty of Rome do to the Keynesians. I think that they are dished. They have had it, because they will not be allowed to have cyclical deficits, which are the basis of the philosophies and theories of John Maynard Keynes. I read nothing in The Guardian about the amendments to the treaty. I am surprised. I do not know where the Keynesians are. Where are the 300 Keynesians who like to write letters to The Times and The Guardian? I should have thought that they would be out demonstrating against the proposed amendments, which would entrench monetarism.
In their amendment, my right hon. and hon. Friends rightly urge the Government to work for several aims with which all Opposition Members agree. The amendment also talks about "social cohesion". I am not sure what that means, but there is a danger that, by transferring to unelected bankers the power to control money, we shall create a problem in respect of social cohesion. The precedents of the 1920s and 1930s in respect of social cohesion are not good. I do not understand the argument, but many people argue that the gold standard was far more flexible than what is proposed in the amendments to the treaty.
On re-reading my right hon. Friends' amendment, I was glad to see that we have dropped the silly idea that ECOFIN could control the European central bank. Even the Prime Minister floated that idea some time ago. I believe that it was thought up by some cynical French politicians—they do not come any more cynical than that —who thought that they could sell to the French electorate the idea of a central bank similar to the German Bundesbank by pretending that the animal called ECOFIN could control it. My right hon. Friends do not pretend that in their amendment.
360
The Opposition motion refers to ECOFIN as a "counterpart" to the European central bank. When I read it, I thought at first that it was a misprint for "counterweight". But it was not. When I looked up "counterpart" in a dictionary, I found that it was merely an opposite part to a part. Of course, the opposite part cannot control the part to which it is opposite.
We shall have a European central bank which is far more independent than even the Bundesbank. At least the Bundesbank has a Government breathing down its neck. We saw that when the governor of the Bundesbank had to agree to exchange one westmark for one eastmark. But there will be no Government watching over the European central bank. There will be only 12 Finance Ministers rushing back and forth to Brussels, checking plane and train timetables and rushing back to the House of Commons—often, if we have a hung Parliament—to make sure that the Government do not fall.
At least our motion is clear. We have accepted a single currency and everything that goes with it in terms of a central bank and control over Government expenditure. I am sorry that we have done so. It is an historic break with the tradition and beliefs of the party of which I am a member. I disagree with that move, but it is a fact, and one which we must all recognise.
As I said at the beginning of my speech—the Prime Minister said it, too—the economic and monetary union proposals are amendments to the treaty of Rome. When the United Kingdom acceded to the treaty of Rome, we accepted a large burden. The large burden was that, in terms of international law and sovereignty, we could not withdraw from that treaty without the consent of the other 11 members. But as lawyers always say, if there is a burden there is a benefit. The counterpart of the burden is the benefit that we do not have to agree to changes either. We can prevent the other 11 countries from making changes as the counterpart of the burden in that treaty.
Perhaps it is a forlorn hope, but I hope that one of these days—perhaps even at Maastricht—a British Government will finally have the courage and conviction to say, "Sorry, this is nonsense. Most people know and believe it is nonsense. We are not going to agree to these changes, because people outside the House and most hon. Members believe that they do not make any sense and will diminish our democracy."
9.50 pm
Mr. John Biffen: Like many other hon. Members, the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) has spoken of the Maastricht proposals and the philosophical challenge that they represent. I should like to think that a debate is now being undertaken in every other parliamentary assembly in the European Community with the candour and commitment that the House is showing. The fact that we are having this debate underlines that we are good Europeans because we view these issues with great seriousness and believe that they have considerable import for the Community's development, as it stands and in relation to a wider setting.
Mr. Tony Banks rose—
Mr. Biffen: I shall not give way. Allow me to get under way. Many other hon. Members would like to speak and

361
many hon. Members would like me to speak briefly, even more than they would like to listen to the hon. Gentleman's witty intervention.
If one looks back on the Community, one sees that one aspect of its economic development has been successful and has certainly been enforceable—the negative but highly productive policy of dismantling tariff barriers. The common external tariff was secured and internal tariff barriers eliminated, and there was little concern about the efficacy with which that was conducted. However, when the Community has had to deal with more positive economic operations, the story is quite different.
I take the example of the common agricultural policy, not because it is almost the institutional Aunt Sally, but because it has been in operation from the beginning of the Community and there has been a recurring commitment for its reform, which has failed.
What I find fascinating about the current state of the CAP are, first, the figures prepared by Mr. Anthony Rosen, an agricultural journalist, who approaches these matters with a robust pen, I admit. He has identified that, of current Community spending on agriculture in the Community, £18 billion comes from national aid and £24 billion comes from the CAP. I am not disparaging national aid, although I find it extraordinary that when I asked the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for its assessment—I did not wish merely to take a journalist's figures—its answer was:
"The Government does not keep comprehensive details of the national subsidies and other state aids available to farmers in other Member States, since to do so would not be a cost-effective use of resources."
Again, I do not disparage Whitehall's reaction, but one immediately sees the problem. In a major area of economic policy, there is a national and a Community element. The Court of Auditors tells us that there is considerable fraud. I accept that that is in no sense a continental European characteristic—it is inherent in the policy, however and wherever it is applied. However, if that situation exists, we ought to stop and consider the best framework to establish for future economic co-operation which involves the positive involvement of Community decisions.
If we are to transfer responsibility for energy, the environment, health and social security—the list is ambitious—we must at least reflect on what we think are likely to be the consequences. Many of my hon. Friends are worried about the actual transfer, and I acknowledge that anxiety. What concerns me is the total volume of public spending. There will be, not just a transfer, but more spending because there will be one further layer of government. If I may trivialise my argument, it will be local government reform writ large.
Those circumstances require the most careful consideration by both sides of the House—by the Conservatives because we have an anxiety about levels of public spending anyway, and by the Left because public spending is a most sensitive item of policy. It should be under clear, identifiable, political control. We are drifting towards, not some great tyrannical community, like a huge, effective leviathan, but a great lumbering spender of money without appropriate political direction. Nothing that I see in prospect at Maastricht persuades me that that fundamental problem is being addressed. It is being accepted.
362
Nevertheless, I do not disparage the idea of having Maastricht. From time to time there must be a major stocktaking in the European Community. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) and many others on both sides of the House have pointed out, the most extraordinary development over the past couple of years has been the disintegration of the Soviet Union. A number of Warsaw pact countries, such as Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia, are already developing a relationship with the west. I am sure that that trend will be carried further east to incorporate central Europe and, eventually, whatever pattern of states evolves from the decayed Soviet Union.
If there is to be an attempt to reassess the Community and redesign its objectives—we should have a new Messina in order to take stock of these challenges and then design a new European structure—that is what we should be considering. Obviously, that cannot be secured speedily. The situation in the successor states to the Soviet Union is still completely in flux. The situation in central European countries needs patient handling. Nevertheless, priorities are beginning to rebuild themselves. There is need for a political agreement, some military agreement as well as some economic agreement that can be phased in over time. That will provide the framework of a wider Europe, which is the real challenge. It is the challenge to which Maastricht is almost wholly irrelevant.
Given that situation, we must think of what institutions we need to anticipate that wider Europe which not only challenges us, but is unavoidable. I have no doubt about the words of President de Gaulle at his press conference in September 1960—after all, he had talked of a Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals—when he said:
"What are the realities of Europe? What are the pillars on which it can be built? The truth is that those pillars are the States of Europe … States each of which, indeed, has its own genius, history and language, its own sorrows, glories and ambitions, but States that are the only entities with the right to give orders and the power to be obeyed.
Those words are clear and relevant.
Then, in good faith and good nature, I consult the Order Paper, and read the Government motion, the Opposition amendment, the amendment of the Liberal Democrats—they are all about 20 lines long. I cannot think of another such extraordinary situation in which an issue of principle evokes such a response. That leads me to believe that there is an attempt to sidestep the profound central issue of principle. That issue is that Maastricht, by a fast route, a slow route or almost any other route, is not relevant to the real challenge before us. Reflecting thus, I feel that my course must be to vote against the Government motion.
10 pm
Mr. Jim Sillars: It is always a pleasure to listen to the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), but because of lack of time hon. Members will understand if I do not follow up many of the controversial things that he said.
I look at Europe from a different perspective. I am a member of a party that urges Scottish independence and full member status for the Scottish nation within the European Community. We do so because we believe that the union of the United Kingdom is unequal, that the Scots are politically frustrated within its framework, and

363
that we are more likely to find within the union of the European Community the equality necessary to alleviate our present frustration.
There will be seven small states in the Community which, while accounting for 16 per cent. of the population, will wield 37 per cent. of the votes in the Council of Ministers. On the "Analysis" programme on BBC radio 4 on 19 September, the Danish Prime Minister was asked about his country's position on loss of sovereignty. He replied:
"I feel today a lot more powerful than a Danish Prime Minister would have felt years ago. Why? … We have influence, and we have a lot more influence than is fair, considering that we are such a small nation".
I have never understood the logic of people who argue against Scotland being a member state of the Community, as are Denmark and Ireland. We would have far greater power and influence over the European matters that affect us, and would have considerable sovereignty on domestic affairs—matters peculiar to Scotland.
I do not approach the debate simply from the point of view of Scottish self-interest. We approach the European Community in the context of Europe as a whole, both west and east. To the Scottish National party, Europe after the cold war seems to be divided into three zones. There is a zone of turmoil—consisting of the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Romania and Albania—a zone of considerable economic difficulty—comprising Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia—and a zone of stability—that is the European Community and the EFTA countries surrounding it—of which the European Community is probably the most important part.
Whatever criticisms we may have, compared with the rest of Europe the European Community has been successful both politically and economically. The continuation of the Community's solidarity and integration is extremely important for dealing with the problems in the zones of difficulty and turmoil. That is why we welcome whatever impetus might come from Maastricht and elsewhere towards closer union between the member states of the Community. Therefore, any criticism that we make of the draft treaties is done in a constructive spirit in the hope that Europe, when it moves closer towards unity, will do so effectively and with the maximum sensitivity.
Earlier, an hon. Member said that Maastricht was the rubicon, but that is a matter of opinion. I do not believe that we crossed the rubicon in 1972 when we signed the treaty of accession, or in 1975. I believe that this state crossed the rubicon when we signed the single market agreement. There is a paradox associated with the liberalisation inherent in the single market, because one needs a great deal of regulation to ensure a level playing field for everyone. As the need for regulation develops within the Community, there will be more unity and joint action. That will lead to great pressure, principally from the business community, to produce for that single market a single monetary policy, a central European central bank and, ultimately, a single currency. There is logic in that theoretical argument.
I greatly doubt whether, at the end of 1996, the convergence of eight countries will be sufficient to allow them to move to a single currency. It is interesting that there are break points every two years after 1996 in the draft EMU treaty. Those breaks will enable member states to re-examine the situation to see whether they can move towards that single currency.
364
I was fascinated by the speech of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher). She discussed what would happen if eight former separate currencies, or perhaps 11, moved to a single currency. The right hon. Lady asked whether sterling, if disengaged from that single currency, would shadow it, or float free from it. She also asked why, if sterling shadowed the single currency, it should not be part of that single currency in the first place.
The right hon. Lady then said, however, that she would vote for the Government motion. That is a triumph of loyalty over logic, because the whole tenor of her speech was that one cannot sign the draft treaty because if we do, ultimately, no matter what one says about an opt-out, we will be part of the single currency anyway. She believes that everyone will face catastrophe thereafter.
I was also rather disturbed by the speech from the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), who made a cogent argument for greater unity and commonality in decision making within the Community. However, on 13 November he wrote an article in the Financial Times in which he said that, if one extended the competence of the Community to social affairs, it would be "a bridge too far". Why? If we are to liberalise capital movements and the free flow of capital goods and services, surely working people should be entitled to defend themselves by taking central action throughout the Community under the social charter. The Conservative party cannot have it both ways. If it is all right to have the liberalisation of capital, it is okay to mobilise working people to defend their interests.
We are in favour of greater unity. How we forge that unity is an important principle that will no doubt he dodged at Maastricht. Some argue that it should be forged on a federal basis. That means a contract between states which join an organisation which, theoretically, divides the power between them. Let us consider what has happened in the 19 existing federations. There is a great tendency for the centre to take power unto itself, principally because it makes the great decisions about war, peace and security. It therefore becomes the most powerful part of the federation, no matter what the constitutional theory might be.
We are not in favour of federalism, because we do not believe that that is the right framework by which to try to govern about 350 million people. If the Community extends to between 24 and 30 states, we will be talking about 450 million people. The federal basis would not be sensitive enough to the needs of all those people.
We prefer the confederal system, where ultimate political and legal supremacy rests with the constituent members—the sovereign states. The central institutions are subordinate to them and the legislative body consists of member state delegates who decide upon common policies. That is a reasonable description of a Community which would be sui juris but which would be based on a confederal model.
We do not want any departure from the legal basis of the Community, which means that sovereign, independent states—as recognised in international law—agree through international treaties to pool a certain amount of their sovereignty, but only that amount which they are willing to give to central institutions. The Community will not depart from that.
I understand that, in December 1992, which is after the general election, the European Council will hold a summit in Edinburgh. As the Scottish National party expects to

365
win the mandate for independence at the next general election—[Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh now, but they will laugh on the other side of their faces after the general election. We look forward to hosting that summit in Edinburgh.
10.10 pm
Mr. Christopher Gill: Many eminent commentators have said that the political union treaty is more important than the economic treaty. I entirely reject that view, as any realist would. A realist would understand that ultimate power and authority rest with he who holds the purse strings. It is ridiculous to believe that we can have an independent defence or foreign policy if we do not control our own money.
For example, does anyone seriously believe that the Falklands campaign could have been fought if economic and monetary union had been in place in 1983, or that we could have gone to war in the Gulf in support of our United States allies if a single currency had been in force last year? Some would say that such freedom of action is impossible only if we do not control our own fiscal policy, but all the evidence points to the fact that the European Community wants ultimately to do just that—control our fiscal policy.
To paraphrase the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), if we give the European Community an inch it will take a mile. I must warn hon. Members that talking up the importance of political union and talking down the importance of economic and monetary union is simply a device to get hon. Members through the eye of the proverbial needle, whence there would be no return.
Other commentators point out that there is no danger in signing the treaty at Maastricht because of the opt-out clause, which would allow exemption from a single currency. However, that opt-out is sustainable only if it is continuously and vigorously defended. The sword of Damocles would hang over us for ever and a day until, perhaps by the process of attrition, the House accepted the principle of a single currency. If it did not happen in that way, the arithmetic shows that this or any successor Government could introduce a single currency on a whipped vote. Alternatively, on a free vote, all Liberal Members, the majority of Labour Members and a sufficient number of Conservative Members would ensure that a single currency reached the statute book.
I invite hon. Members to search their hearts and ask whether it will ever be any easier than in the vote tomorrow night to express their candid view on a single currency. They should have no doubt that the adoption of the draft treaty proposals means nothing less than the full acceptance of a commitment to a single currency. Tomorrow night's vote is not a vote of confidence; subsequent votes may be.
The principle of a single currency is wrong and the Government should be prepared to walk away from the conference table. The British people will neither forgive nor forget the party that fudges this issue. To the electorate, one is either for or against the single currency; there are no shades in between.
What effect will a single currency have on hon. Members? I represent an agricultural constituency, and
366
farmers there say to me, "Your Government do not have a policy for British agriculture," to which I reply, "As long as we embrace the common agricultural policy, we cannot have a domestic or national policy. The common agricultural policy has to be my Government's policy." I hear what those farmers say, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food perhaps agrees with what they say, but without the support of the other countries in the Community, he is relatively powerless to satisfy those farmers.
Let us consider the position of other Ministers, particularly the Chancellor of the Exchequer, were we to have a single currency. There would be but one effective Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he or she would not be at No. 11 Downing street. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor would find himself in the same hapless position as our current Agriculture Minister—he would have all the responsibility without the authority to discharge it. That is a classic formula for disaster, and disastrous it would be, not just for the House and the parties represented in it, but also for the members of those respective parties.
When the British people discover that one party is no different from any other in the sense that, if elected to government, each would bear the responsibility for our nation's affairs without the authority to deliver people's natural and legitimate aspirations, the electorate will reject the entire body politic as we know it. The events of eastern Europe should be a warning to us all. The people of eastern Europe and Russia have not rejected federalism because their central Governments satisfied their aspirations. On the contrary, they have decisively rejected federalism because it denied them their aspirations.
What is the man in the street entitled to conclude when he sees the break-up of federalism in eastern Europe and Russia, and tiny countries such as Latvia, with a population of only 2·5 million, rejecting the eastern-style single currency of the rouble area and coming to this country with a request to the royal mint to mint their own sovereign currency? The man in the street might conclude that his country's politicians were either myopic or out of touch with the people. He might ask whether anyone had given him a satisfactory answer to the question that he might reasonably ask about what benefits he would derive from a single currency. I am speaking of tangible benefits, not abstract ones, which satisfy nobody and pay no bills.
It is not enough to say that we might miss the train or be left behind. How much is that worth on a balance sheet, when the other side of the sheet shows ever-increasing movements of funds from the United Kingdom to southern Europe, which is what would happen? One has only to consider the United Kingdom experience. In the United Kingdom, which for a long time has enjoyed political and economic union complete with a single currency, there has been a substantial and continuing movement of funds from the one richer country to the three poorer countries.
I am tempted to say now, particularly to those Opposition Members representing the regions of our nation, that charity begins at home. I say that because the prospect for the regions of Scotland, Wales and Ireland is that they will no longer be competing with each other for the British taxpayer's money, but competing in the greater Community against the countries of southern Europe—Greece, southern Italy, southern Spain and Portugal. If they believe that in that arena they will do better than they are doing now, they will believe anything.

367
In the Community that we are putting together, poorer nations must learn to maximise the potential for their prosperity from the market opportunities that are opening up to them, and not by beggaring their neighbours.
Whatever treaty obligations are entered into at this stage, the Government must carry the British people with them. To ignore public opinion, especially in pursuit of abstract idealism, is the height of arrogance and political folly. Never must we underestimate the ability of the British people to stand up to bullies, to defend principle and, if necessary, to stand alone. For all our sakes, let us do what is right for Britain by rejecting now, just as did the peoples of eastern Europe, federalism and the single currency.
10.20 pm
Ms. Joyce Quin: I am sure that, as parliamentarians, we are all greatly influenced in our views by different levels of loyalties—to our constituents, to our party, to our region, whatever part of the United Kingdom we come from, to the United Kingdom and, if we believe in an evolving European Community, to what we think are the best interests of the Community as a whole. Indeed, we should look wider than that, to the rest of Europe and to the world beyond.
I shall seek to evaluate the Maastricht proposals in the light of these different levels of loyalty to help me to decide whether what is on offer is worth supporting. I have never thought that the EC was intrinsically or automatically good or bad, as much depends on the effect of what is decided on our constituents and, indeed, on the people of Europe as a whole. As a result, I have regretted the frequent over-simplification that often takes place in European Community debates. Indeed, the oversimplification that is involved in the labels pro and anti-European is often unhelpful. I am not convinced that the new labels of Euro-sceptics and Euro-federalists are much more helpful, for "federalism" seems to be a misused and contested term. In my view, federalism, while having an element of union, is based very much on the principle of decentralisation.
The term "subsidiarity" has been used during the debate. The Prime Minister seemed to describe the concept as denoting national versus European decision-making levels. To me, subsidiarity means taking decisions at the most appropriate level, whether it be European, national, regional or local. All levels of decision taking have an important part to play in our political process.
The over-simplification of the issues was part and parcel of a Gallup poll that took place last weekend. I and many other Labour Members were contacted and asked many over-simplified questions about our views on the European Community issue. I did not know at the time who had commissioned the poll, but I learned afterwards that it was the Conservative party. I strongly resent having my views sought in such an underhand way. I much prefer expressing my views publicly in the House to my constituents and others.
The main reason for many Opposition Members feeling more warmly towards the European Community now than they did in the past is the record of the Community in the past few years and the contrast between what has happened elsewhere in the Community and what we have seen take place in Britain. I believe that we have fallen
368
badly behind in the three important areas of economic development, social policies and, sadly, the quality of our democracy.
On economic development, we have failed to pursue the policies of partnership between Government and industry which are commonplace elsewhere in Europe and which involve not only management but trade unions and workers' representatives in a much more positive way than anything that has happened under this Government. We have fallen badly behind in terms of investment. We have higher interest rates, and recently we have also had rapidly rising unemployment compared with the rest of the EC.
On social policies, our record has been appalling: on that, I agree strongly with the points made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), who has just come into the Chamber, who strongly criticised the Government's record on social policies.
It is clear that there are two different views in the House of what a large market should be all about. There is the Government's view, which seems to see a large market as an end in itself, and there is the view expressed by my right hon. Friend, which sees a large market as successful only if it improves the quality of life of our citizens.
The British people understand what is happening in the EC, and they understand that the Government have stood out against other Governments in blocking positive measures which would have benefited our citizens.
Three questions about the social dimension should be addressed to the Government. First, is it fair that bad employers should effectively be subsidised by the state? In the absence of a minimum wage, many of our constituents earn such low wages that they have to resort to state benefits on top. Why should the state subsidise bad employers in that way?
Secondly, how do other countries that have a minimum wage and a better employment rights structure manage to cope so well? Thirdly, have the Government forgotten that, in the preamble to the treaty of Rome, which they say they support, there is a commitment to the constant improvement in living and working conditions of the people of Europe? For me, a key test will be how far the social provisions can be incorporated into the Maastricht agreement. That is important, and I am glad that the Opposition's motion makes it so clear.
Unfortunately, the only thing that seems to unite Conservative Members in this debate is their refusal to accept the social charter and the social measures which many of us feel are so important.
The final element to which I wish to refer is the quality of our democracy, which has exercised the minds of many hon. Members today. In the past 12 years, we have become one of the most centralised states in the EC, which I greatly regret. I am dismayed that so little has been done to decentralise, when so many other EC countries have clearly felt the benefits, both economic and political, of taking the decentralised route.
One of the Maastricht proposals is the proposal to create a body to represent the regions of the EC. I recently asked the Prime Minister about that, and was rather surprised to receive the answer that the Government supported proposals in the intergovernmental conference for a new consultative body to represent the regions at Community level. I hope that, when the Minister replies, he will tell me how that representation will be decided. Will

369
all the regions be represented as well as the nations of the United Kingdom? Can we be assured that those regional representatives will reflect the political majority in those regions and will not simply be Government nominees, as we have seen in so many quangos and regional bodies that have been set up in recent years?
The Maastricht summit gives us great opportunities for economic, social and democratic reform. However, the Prime Minister is not capable of obtaining a deal which will be to the benefit of the British people. He cannot have it both ways. He cannot claim on the one hand to be at the heart of Europe and at the same time want to be on the periphery of Europe and seem to want us to go at a slower speed than anyone else. That is an inconsistent position.
If the Prime Minister really wants to help the British people, he should use Maastricht to give us a system which will promote balanced regional economic development throughout the United Kingdom, attack some of the social ills and divisions which beset British society at present and, finally, enhance not detract from the quality of British democracy.
10.29 pm
Mr. Churchill: I strenuously reject the suggestion of the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is not the best person to negotiate on behalf of Britain at the forthcoming summit. I believe that the House will overwhelmingly register its confidence in his abilities in that role.
This remarkable and fine debate has thrown up some strange bedfellows, including the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher)—who found common ground on the question of a referendum.
In the 20 years since the House voted to accede to the European Community—which is now the destination of no less than 52 per cent. of Britain's exports—it has become a major factor in world trade and international power-broking. It has more than fulfilled its founding fathers' two objectives: to rebuild the economy of a shattered Europe, and to bury the hatchet between France and Germany and so bind together the nations of Europe that they would never go to war again.
Those substantial achievements are already on the record. We are now on the verge of a new, exciting, and long-overdue step—the creation of a single European market. That has already been agreed, and it will be in place by the end of next year. In a typically British way, we have failed to take the credit that is due to us for that achievement, which had its origins in the Kangaroo group of Members of the European Parliament founded by the late Basil de Ferranti specifically to break down the trade barriers that existed in Europe at a time when none of the other major Community partners wanted to know anything about it. They rested secure behind their trade barriers, and it was above all a British initiative that led to the creation of the single European market.
After advancing at a snail's pace for many years, we suddenly find ourselves invited to participate in a Gadarene rush towards economic and political union. I have always believed in the cause of European unity. It was the issue that first brought me into active politics as
370
long ago as 1964. I believe still that Britain's place is at the heart of Europe, although every time that puffed-up functionary, M. Delors, vouchsafes a little more of his vision of a centralised, bureaucratic, and socialist Europe, I confess that I have my doubts.
For one who claims to be the champion of European unity, M. Delors is its worst advocate, having a unique capacity to raise the hackles of the British people. That said, let no one doubt Europe's importance to Britain. Once the channel tunnel is built, from my Manchester constituency alone, seven freight trains a night will leave Trafford Park for Europe.
Nor should we underestimate the importance of Britain to Europe, for we have much to contribute and not just to the agricultural fund. Some half a million of our sons lie in Flanders fields—our sacrifice against tyranny in Europe. And today we have a contribution to make in terms of our history of free trade, our outward-looking attitude to the world, and the weight of our tradition of parliamentary and democratic government stretching back over the centuries—something unmatched by any of our partners, for some of whom the very concept of democracy is of recent origin.
We stand on the brink of two momentous decisions at Maastricht. We are invited to sign up for, on the one hand, economic and monetary union and, on the other, political union. I agree with everything that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said today, and I wish him every success at Maastricht. I have little doubt, however, that, despite Britain's reservations, our partners will move forward to economic and monetary union, and to the creation of a single currency. It will be difficult, if not impossible, for Britain to stand aloof from that process without unacceptable damage being done to our economic interests. I happen to believe that the fears that have been voiced on that account are exaggerated.
I do not accept that the proposal represents a major surrender of sovereignty. Just as the dominions of Canada, Australia and New Zealand were able to conduct their own economic policies while belonging to the sterling area —having their own Chancellors of the Exchequer operating their own fiscal policies, and raising their own tax revenues—so Britain will retain a wide freedom of action, while enjoying the benefit of belonging to a currency and economy underpinned by what will undoubtedly be the strongest currency in the world.
But political union is a different matter. Thanks to our parliamentary system and the stability that it has given us, the British people have been spared the horrors of revolution, civil war and invasion for more than 300 years. In that we are unique. Our Parliament has prevailed in the face of fascism, Marxism and communism, where others succumbed.
Mr. Butterfill: And socialism.
Mr. Churchill: Indeed.
That, undoubtedly, is why the British people hold this Parliament—if not its Members—in such affection. But woe betide the Government, or the Members of this House, who sell our Parliament for a mess of European pottage. The British people will not accept the relegation of the mother of Parliaments to the level of the legislature of the state of Nevada; but that is what is on offer to us if we go down the path of full political union. The House must retain control of those aspects of our national life

371
that are properly dealt with here: above all, we must retain responsibility for key decisions about foreign policy and defence, and the issues of war and peace.
I have every confidence that my right hon. Friend will not sell the pass on those vital issues, and that, if need be, he will indeed exercise our veto. To paraphrase Canning, however, it is time to call into being eastern Europe to redress the balance of western Europe. In the present circumstances, it is more important to widen the Community—to include the nations of EFTA and the new democracies of eastern Europe—than to deepen the political union among the Twelve.
I do not believe that those countries will be half as eager to abandon their new-found sovereignty so soon after regaining it. That is the path that we must pursue, with vigour and determination. We must build a free and democratic Europe, from the Baltic to the Mediterranean and from the Atlantic to the Urals: a Europe that will, however, respect the essential sovereignty of national Parliaments, and not trample them underfoot.
Mr. Butterfill: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am concerned about the welfare of certain hon. Members who, I know, would not voluntarily be absent from the Chamber, and who I fear may be detained elsewhere against their will. I refer, of course, to the Liberal Democrats, who I know would be here if they could.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman is being facetious during time that is very precious to the House. To my mind, his is a bogus point of order.
10.38 pm
Mr. Doug Hoyle: I have never been fanatical about Europe, but I accept that we are now in Europe.
I was amazed by the performance of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher). The speech by the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) was remarkable. We shall no doubt hear another remarkable speech from the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit). Both right hon. Members seem now to be very anti-Common Market, yet they were in the Cabinet when all the moves were being made that led to the passing of the Single European Act and to the creation of the single European market.
One would not have imagined, listening to the speech of the right hon. Member for Finchley, that she was the Prime Minister throughout that period and that it was she who took us along that road. What she told us today was completely different from what she did when she was Prime Minister. She took us into the exchange rate mechanism at the wrong rate and at the wrong time. She did so for political reasons, in the hope of retaining her post as Prime Minister. She failed.
It is difficult to believe that the former Prime Minister and her right hon. Friends, who were with her when they agreed to the single European market, never imagined that there would be demands for a single European currency or for a single European bank. If they did not, they must have been completely naive, which I do not believe for one moment. Neither the right hon. Member for Finchley, nor her colleagues who supported her, can escape from their responsibility.
372
Whether we like it or not, to all intents and purposes there is already a single European currency and a single European bank—the deutschmark and the Bundesbank. We read today that the market is strengthening and that, if the Germans put up their interest rates, we shall do the same, which is the complete opposite of what the Conservatives want. However, that move will be dictated to us. What we should therefore be asking ourselves is whether we can derive any benefits from the position in which we find ourselves.
We must ensure that this central bank is controlled not by bankers but by politicians, in the interests of people. However, the Conservatives are completely against that. They are also completely against any improvement in social conditions for ordinary people. They are against people being given information about the company that they work for. When Leyland Trucks was privatised, Daf in Holland, and the trade unions there, knew a great deal more about it than we did. They were told at midday. They had already been made well aware of it. I do not see why employees should not have information on their work or why they should work dreadfully long hours.
I should like Norway, Finland and Sweden to join the EC—they would certainly give it a new dimension. I have no doubt that eastern European countries and the Soviet Union will join.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: What about the vodka made in Warrington?
Mr. Hoyle: And very good vodka it is.
Europe must become wider and more democratic. The problem is that the Conservative party has negotiated nothing and accepted everything. I was amazed to hear a Conservative Member say, "We put into effect everything that happens in the market." The problem has often been that the Government have been absent from the negotiating table.
I hope that Europe will be a major issue in the forthcoming general election, when no doubt we shall see the return of a Labour Government.
10.46 pm
Mr. Ray Whitney: The hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) said that he would prefer a central bank run by politicians. With all respect to him, if that central bank were run by his party, I would have the gravest apprehension about the state of the currency for which it was responsible.
Some years ago, a prominent European leader set out in extremely clear terms the future agenda for the European Community and pointed out that it would be crucial
"to heighten the consciousness among our citizens of what unites us";
that the development of the European Community was not just a matter of a trading bloc but a question of creating
"a series of new policies to promote the economic, social and political growth"
of the Community; and that that meant
"giving greater depth to the Community in both its internal and external activities."
Those were the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) in a memorandum to her fellow Heads of Government in 1984. She was right then, and I believe that those views are right now.

373
We are debating the deepening of the internal and external mechanisms of the Community, which will be the subject of Maastricht. The need to achieve more depth to those mechanisms is greater because the pressures on the European Community to make itself a presence in the world are so much stronger and the opportunities to do so are much greater because of the collapse and the changes in the Soviet Union and eastern Europe. The world consists of the three key blocs of the Americas, Japan and the Pacific and western Europe.
The question is, are we, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister says, to be at the heart of the Community? There can be little doubt that, if we are not, we shall be in serious trouble—and not only in economic terms. Our impact in terms of policies and our security would be seriously diminished or, indeed, irrelevant. We are all concerned about the national interest. I urge all right hon. and hon. Members who are hostile to or deeply suspicious of the direction that the European Community is taking to consider how the national interest would be served if Britain were completely out of step.
Let us consider especially the single currency. The tone of the debate has suggested that the single currency will arrive the day after tomorrow, but that is manifestly not the case. There are serious problems involved in harnessing a system that could incorporate, for example, Germany and Greece at the two extremes. Hon. Members have spoken about the huge problems to be overcome, such as divergence. Such a problem is much greater for those countries than for Britain. We could live more easily with the problems that will undoubtedly arise with a single currency than could Germany or Greece and Portugal.
I urge right hon. and hon. Members who have serious doubts about the single currency or when it may come —who knows whether it might be in four or five years? —to consider Britain's interests as a trading nation and what the leaders of business and industry in Britain have said. For example, Lord Alexander, the chairman of National Westminster bank, said that greater currency integration was a compelling impetus for this country. The Governor of the Bank of England stressed the importance of stability of currencies to this country.
I must tell my right hon. and hon. Friends who have doubts about the arrival of a single currency that there would be serious consequences for Britain if we were left out. The champagne corks would be popping in Frankfurt and Paris because of the damage caused to the City of London, which earns us about £4·5 billion every year. One of my hon. Friends said that we could become like Switzerland, but we cannot. That option is not open to us.
There are immense problems with the two conferences, but they are not difficult only for the United Kingdom. Yes, we are significantly different for reasons of geography, culture and history from the other 11 members, but their divergences are also important. It is not only the United Kingdom that has problems, and we are not alone in having to make concessions and compromises.
Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends have not given sufficient credit to the immense achievements already made by our negotiating team under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. We have yet to see
374
what the team finally brings home when the Maastricht negotiations have been concluded, but it deserves sincere congratulations.
Many hon. Members have severe doubts about Britain's continuing collaboration in the move to closer union—none of us know what that will mean in the future —but it is an objective to which nearly all Conservative Members of Parliament have signed up through successive general elections and through various steps that our party has taken and of which it is rightly proud. We must continue to press for closer union.
People are beginning to say that we have gone on the wrong track. We must ask what the other 11 countries are doing. The European Free Trade Association countries, such as Sweden and Austria, want to join the European Community and are not content with EFTA. The countries of eastern Europe are knocking on the door of the European Community. Are those countries misguided? Are they mad? Are they all socialist? Are they all drunk? Why do they want to be ruled by faceless, unelected bureaucrats from Brussels? The answer must be that they have a point. There must be something about the ever closer union to which we have been attached for so long.
I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends who are doubting Thomases not to be afraid. The French are not frightened of losing their Frenchness by having a positive role in Britain. My right hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) suggested that there would be dangers in a British defence force being sent into military action against the wishes of the House. Of course that would be unthinkable, and it would be equally unthinkable for the French. That fear is a bogey with which we must not frighten ourselves. I urge my hon. Friends not to talk themselves into an unreal situation.
There are challenges and difficulties, but I am certain that we can get over them under the skilful leadership that has already been demonstrated. I warmly applaud what has been achieved by my right hon. Friends in the Government, and I shall have great pleasure tomorrow night in supporting them in the Lobby.
10.56 pm
Mr. Stuart Bell: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney). I hope that he will excuse me for not following his arguments because of the time limit.
I begin in a sense where the Prime Minister left off this afternoon. He did not rise to any great heights in his speech. We should be grateful to him for giving us some detail about the Government's negotiating position in Maastricht, although he did not tarry long on the subjects of economic convergence or the social charter. He did not tell us, for example, whether he thought that the Government believed in real or nominal economic convergence. It is a fact that we can get our inflation rate down to the German inflation rate, but the Germans have a 2 per cent. growth in their economy, whereas we have a recession. That is hardly a recipe for economic success.
The Prime Minister should have told the House whether he believed in real economic convergence. To find a definition of real economic convergence, one has to look at the Opposition amendment. It refers to "high levels of employment" and "sustainable non-inflationary growth".

375
In my view and in the view of many banks whose reports I have read, convergence involves growth of about 2 per cent. a year. Convergence consists of a
"balanced regional and national economic development" and of "social cohesion".
The Prime Minister did not linger long on the social charter. The right hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) was rather churlish in his intervention in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. It was clearly a bogus intervention, which ended up as a mini-speech. It was clearly intended to distract the Leader of the Opposition from his speech, which had vision and commitment. If Conservative Members had listened to that speech in the manner of a debate worthy of a parliamentary occasion, they would have understood the approach that has been developed by the Labour party. They would have been surprised that we have developed a positive approach to Europe whereas the Government are on the defensive.
It was left to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) to draw the attention of the House to the social charter, on which I should like to ask the Prime Minister a series of questions. Does he believe in freedom of movement within the Community? Does he believe in social protection? Does he believe in vocational training? Does he believe in protection of children and adolescents? Does he believe in the protection of elderly and disabled persons? Of course he does. I would not claim that he does not. So why does he not sign the social charter? Why does he not reverse the decision of his predecessor in Strasbourg?
Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Bell: I shall not give way, in view of the time.
We heard a remarkable intervention from the former Prime Minister which showed how quickly one can go rusty in the House of Commons and how bereft one can be of the parliamentary crib provided by the civil servants. The Prime Minister talked of swinging handbags and hardened cricket bats.
Mr. Morgan: The former Prime Minister.
Mr. Bell: The former Prime Minister—I fall into the same trap every time, and I shall come to the reason for that in a moment.
Of course, they do not play cricket in Europe and people do not understand that language. Her speech was incoherent in its contradictions. Her remarks on a referendum for a single currency were remarkable from a person who was Prime Minister for 12 years.
We heard an interesting intervention from the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins). He described parliamentary democracy and representative democracy, and ended by saying that he was gratified that the Prime Minister took the same view as him of a referendum. Tonight we heard on the nine o'clock news that briefings had been issued from No. 10 Downing street that a referendum was not ruled out. That may be the smack of firm government.
There was an interesting article recently in The Independent by John Pienaar, referring to the former Prime Minister's intention to speak in today's debate. The article said that if the present Prime Minister were to oppose the former Prime Minister—we must get our definitions right—
376
"one minister said. 'The party would roll over her. It just does. That is the way the beast operates.'"
The beast does not operate like that at No. 10 Downing street.
I am reminded of the exchanges between Lord Home when he was Prime Minister and Lord Wilson when he was Leader of the Opposition. Some interesting and kind words were said by General de Gaulle about Britain. The right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), who is not in his place, referred to General de Gaulle. When those kind remarks were made, Harold Wilson said of the Prime Minister, "He rolls on his back like a spaniel."
Today, the former Prime Minister made a speech and now the whole of Downing street is running from one end of the corridor to another saying that a referendum is not ruled out. That is hardly the smack of firm government. If the Prime Minister wishes to have a strong hand when he goes to Maastricht, he is going the wrong way about it. He gives the impression that he is not entirely clear about what he seeks to achieve.
The hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) asked whether one believed in a strong internal market or a federal Europe, or whether there was nothing in between. That dilemma has not been resolved in my mind or that of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister made much of his internal market. A new Europe that is built on an internal market with no collective provision is a Europe doomed to failure. There can be no successful economic union for the citizens of Britain or Europe if there is no social dimension.
If, in years to come, we end up with a breakdown in law and order, barricaded in our homes, what good will be an internal market which happens to be economically successful? We would be living the life in the fictional account of life in New York, "The Bonfire of the Vanities" —extreme wealth and extreme deprivation. That will not be a successful Europe. Basing oneself on economics alone and a naked capitalism without the social dimension will be doomed to failure.
We have heard a great deal about a new Europe. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) talked of a new European order. The Evening Standard tonight spoke of
"the plain-speaking guide to a new Europe."
In our national executive document dealing with monetary union, we also spoke about a new Europe. We are discussing not a federal Europe or a free trade area, but a new Europe. This new Europe, as the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) said, quoting Jean Monnet, should not be a Europe that gives itself the airs and graces of a nation state.
People such as Jean Monnet had a vision of a Europe free from war, and they had that vision, not for themselves, but for their grandchildren. They wanted them to live in a world and a Europe at peace. That is what they have achieved.
There is a saying in the republic of Ireland, "On the day, one will do the right thing." I am sure that, when the Prime Minister gets to Maastricht, he will do the right thing on the day. At that conference, he will sign documents that will lead not to a federal Europe but to the new Europe to which I have referred. It will be an interdependent Europe, based on the autonomy of nation states, linked through common institutions. It will not be a federal Europe, but it will be a new Europe all the same.

377
In the past, there have been people who looked to the future and to the future of their children and grandchildren, and that is what we should be doing. We should set aside all the shibboleths, myths and fantasies that we have heard in the debate and get to the truth, which is a new Europe for our children and grandchildren —a Europe that is positive, outward-looking and economically strong, but has the social dimension that will make life worth living for future generations.
11.5 pm
Mr. John Butterfill: My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) did the House a great service by reminding us of the past of the European Community, its origins and the tremendously brave aspirations associated with its founding. It is important for us to remember what an enormous contribution the Community has made to peace and stability, not merely in western Europe but throughout the world, and to give adequate weight to that perspective. Nevertheless, we must be practical. In considering further economic and political union, we must decide whether benefits are to be gained for this country by proceeding further down that path.
If we think about economic and monetary union and our present position in the Community, we realise that we are inextricably tied to Europe. When we joined in 1973, only 26·4 per cent. of our exports went to the Community. The Library tells me that the figure is now 53·3 per cent. Germany is our biggest trading partner.
Unless we were to change our existing policies radically, there is no way that we can resile from being inextricably tied up with the EC. That view is shared by the business community in this country. Let us consider the representations made to hon. Members before this debate by the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors, the City and all our major companies. They are telling us that we must proceed further with economic and monetary union.
Some of our colleagues are uncertain about monetary union and are worried that going further down that path may lead to a loss of sovereignty. I ask them to consider that, in reality, we are being asked to behave responsibly: to eliminate budget deficits; to live within our means; and, to introduce convergence within the economies in the Community. All that is thoroughly desirable. Many hon. Members who have apprehensions would not disagree that that is a correct economic policy to pursue. They say that if we are forced into a straightjacket we will lose our sovereignty. Sovereignty to do what? To spend more than we can afford, to fritter away our national assets or to behave irresponsibly? I do not think any Member of this House would wish to retain that sort of sovereignty. Therefore, we have nothing to fear from economic and monetary union.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been busy negotiating on the ultimate aspect of that, which is a single currency. It is arguable whether in the foreseeable future we shall reach the necessary degree of convergence to achieve it. Even if we reach a point where the majority of member states feel that a single currency is a viable proposition, we will still have an option. The Prime Minister has negotiated that we may then opt in. I was
378
puzzled earlier when the Leader of the Opposition said that he did not understand the difference between opting in and opting out. Once upon a time, Labour Members were most concerned about the difference between opting in and opting out.
This is a matter on which Parliament must ultimately decide. It should not be the subject of a referendum. First, the complexity of the issue makes it almost impossible to frame an adequate question for a referendum. Even if that could be overcome, we are concerned with the sovereignty of this House. Those who say that we would lose sovereignty must accept that a referendum would deny the sovereignty of this House. That is a contradiction in terms.
Mr. John Browne: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Butterfill: No, I must proceed.
I now come to political union. We can do many things together in Europe, either within or without the treaties. There are many advantages to be gained in co-operating with other member states to ensure that we do not behave in a way which damages each other's environment. Several hon. Members have rightly raised anxieties about the implementation of existing treaties. The enforcement of what we have already decided to do and the creation of a true single market is a legitimate concern of the EC. Policing, drugs, crime and terrorism are all areas where we could and should co-operate, either within or without the treaties.
At the same time, we must not bind the Community into such a tight form that it will exclude the future membership of the countries of eastern Europe and of the European Free Trade Association. It is essential to decide what should and what should not be within the competence of the Community. If we are to give people confidence that the Community should be given greater powers, it is absolutely vital that we define the whole principle of subsidiarity.
I do not believe that the definition proposed in the draft treaty should be acceptable to hon. Members. I offer them the definition that on 2 November The Economist suggested was appropriate:
"All laws will be made at national or lower level except where flows across frontiers of goods, services, money, people and pollution make Community law indispensable."
That seems an admirable definition of what should constitute subsidiarity. It would give the general public as well as hon. Members confidence that we would not be subject to creeping encroachment of powers by the Commission. There is a legitimate suspicion that that has already occurred.
We must also decide what should not be within the competence of the Community. If we follow the definition provided by The Economist, there are certain matters that should always remain the subject of local or national control—for example, health, education and transport, except where that relates to inter-Community transport. We should retain control over social issues, such as the number of hours worked and rates of pay. There should be no minimum wages for us, let alone restrictions on part-time workers, worker directors and all the rest of the claptrap that we have had from Madam Papandreou.
We should say a firm no to the proposals to extend Community competence to social affairs, but we should agree to increase the powers of the European Parliament. It should be empowered to control the activities of the Commission and it should have the right to initiate

379
legislation in certain matters which are subject to unanimity voting—not majority voting—in the Council of Ministers. That would reassure those who are concerned about this issue.
Subsidiarity should be strictly defined in the treaty and it should not be subject to definition by the European Court of Justice in the event of disputes. I do not believe that 12 non-elected judges should have the competence to decide on something of vital national importance to a member state. We should consider seriously the suggestion made by some hon. Members, the Gaullists and the Irish, for a second chamber—a senate, composed of members of national Parliaments. They could decide on subsidiarity disputes. I accept that that chamber could do other things as well, but its primary role should be as an arbitrator. Such a body would be much more sensitive to the concerns of member states than non-elected judges in the European Court of Justice.
There is much more that I would like to say, but time prevents me from doing so. We need to have a vision of a much more united Europe, but that should not be accompanied by a great give-away of power.
I am concerned about the Opposition's new enthusiasm for everything European. They believe that that means that they can get socialism through by the back door, but all it means is that they have become Mr. Delors' poodle.
The Liberal party—I am sorry to see that, once again, it is not represented in the Chamber——
Mr. Terry Lewis: It is past its bedtime.
Mr. Butterfill: I am sorry about that. The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) has adopted the puppy-dog tendency: he and his party roll over to have their tummies tickled every time they are invited to do so by a bureaucrat in Brussels.
11.17 pm
Mr. George Robertson: This will be a marathon debate by modern standards, but it will not be as lengthy as the five-day debate in 1971 on the decision to enter the EC. However, that was before my time.
Today's important debate centres on a crucial issue facing the country. One major change from the circumstances of 1971 is the sheer speed and scale of current events. Today, nothing is set in stone. Every day old certainties disappear. We must not allow ourselves to believe that the decisions taken today represent the last word. The processes may be irreversible, but their direction will not be marked out easily. We are in that process now—at its heart—directing, not following it. That is what the debate should be about.
It is right that those who have doubts about British entry into any political, monetary or economic union and what signing up to that union would mean should have the opportunity to spell them out. Those who are hostile or opposed to such union should have the opportunity to tell the people about the pitfalls, risks and constraints involved in signing up for more progress towards a European central bank and, eventually, a single currency. They have done so in this debate and will continue to do so tomorrow. For some of them, it will become a lifetime's crusade as self-motivating as that of the well-known gent who patrols Oxford street in sandwich boards proclaiming that society's ills come from the fact that protein breeds excess passion.
380
This is a democracy and opponents of political, economic and monetary union can have their say and outline their case. The right hon. Members for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) and for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) have all made it clear that they are opposed to the principle of a single currency and a European central bank. But precisely where the Prime Minister stands on that principle is still not clear. Although he was asked this afternoon, no answer was forthcoming.
But—it is an important "but"—in British democratic terms, those who parade the downsides so eloquently and in such detail and relish cataloguing the doom on which we are about to embark have a duty to their fellow country men and women: they must spell out the alternative. If they seek to persuade the electorate that a magical, unrestrained alternative world is out there ready for us to join and continue to preach that, if we opt out of this dangerous foreign adventure, national independence of action—genuine independent sovereignty in political and economic policy— will be available to us, and if they continue to ignore and contradict the relentless and far from recent process of interlocking economies, money markets and political decisions and their effects, they offer only an illusion, a grotesque fiction, of a future for Britain in the world today.
Opponents should say where we will be and who will be our partners and allies if we use the Government's famous opt-out or opt-in clause in four or five years' time. Who will be with us then in Europe's second or third division? Certainly not the Americans, because, despite the applause rippling across the Atlantic from the lecture halls of Memphis and Chicago to the theme of "Atlantic economic communities", Mr. Bush and Mr. Baker have heaped praise on the new European thirst for integration.
I deeply regret that the right hon. Member for Finchley is not present. She said so much this afternoon about the importance of the voice of this place. I hesitate to say that this is the second time that I have wound up a debate in which the right hon. Member for Finchley made a dramatic impact, and it is the second time that she has missed the winding up. I just hope that it is nothing personal. I hope that someone will remind her that it is discourteous to the House to miss wind-up speeches. I hope that she will read my speech in Hansard.
In her absence, the right hon. Lady may care to reflect on the words of James Baker, the United States Secretary of State, who said earlier this year:
"The European Community has achieved history's most intense and comprehensive voluntary evolution of governing authority above the national level."
That was risky stuff for the right hon. Member for Finchley and pretty risky stuff for the Government. He went on:
"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."
Clearly the American Secretary of State has not been paid to listen to the right hon. Member for Finchley as she trudges around every town in the mid-west for larger and larger fees.
It is surely time that we in Britain faced up to the fact that, whether we like it or loathe it, we are part of the inexorable process of integration, and we must either join it or bump along behind it. If there are any doubters left who wonder whether we as a country can follow the

381
policies we want, they should look at Austria and Sweden. Those are two proud and prosperous nation states that are both part of the European Free Trade Association, both long-standing neutral countries and both with applications in to join the European Community. If they ever suffered the illusion of being independent of the EC's influence, they do so no longer.
The newly elected right-wing Prime Minister of Sweden, Mr Carl Bildt, stated the obvious when he said on Monday that Sweden was
"determined to converge its economy with the best performing economies of the emerging EMU in all respects considered crucial to the functioning of that Union."
Sweden wants to sign up, as do the rest of the countries in EFTA and beyond in increasing numbers.
Those countries include the nations of central and eastern Europe, which have escaped communism but now see the EC as the model of the sort of economic building blocks that will give their democracies a guaranteed and assured future. All those countries have understood one overriding message: the European Community is the only show in town, and one has to be in it to shape and influence it, and the only alternative is to stand on the fringes and be run by it.
If any other doubters remain, they should look at France—a nation which is every bit as nationalistic as the right hon. Member for Chingford and which has absolutely no intention of conceding even a fragment of its precious national identity. However, it is still enthusiastic to join what we are told is an identity-crushing, centralising nation state. Why is that? The truth is mundane but revealing.
It is not explained merely by the easy theories related to Germany, although we would be wise not to ignore or underestimate the importance of the way other people look at European integration in relation to Germany. I found it offensive when the Chairman of the 1922 Committee earlier today suggested that the process was merely a method for France to tie up Germany, and asked why France did not pay for the binding rope instead of the rest of us. We in Europe are at a time when the apprehensions of Germany's neighbours—which have good historical reasons for being apprehensive—coincide with Germany's sincere wish to reassure them and the world that it is serious about integration, Europe, and being a good partner in a collective future for the continent. Who can say if this time will ever return?
In Britain, with a carelessness that has often bordered on recklessness, the Government have dismissed the importance of Germany's desire to be enfolded in the European embrace. Luckily for us, others have been much more wise.
Mr. Cash: Has it occurred to the hon. Gentleman that it is not impossible that the consequences of monetary union could be to hand over the key of the legal structure of the EC to those countries obviously dominated by Germany?
Mr. Robertson: I am reminded of the words of our good friend, Gregor Mackenzie, who in a legendary intervention once said to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) that the only thing that the hon. Lady and he had in common was that neither of them knew what she was talking about. I feel in precisely the same position, and am
382
beginning to realise why the Tory Whips turned out so many people the other night in order to place the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) in a position which has meant that he has had to sit through all this debate. That is the man who retired from the Cabinet to see more of his family. He is now afflicted with 10-hour debates on Europe. There is a prize!
The French are not ceding sovereignty to Europe. Instead, they are trying to get some back. They are not surrendering their identity, their institutions and their statehood. They are wrenching back a little of what has already gone to the Bundesbank, to Frankfurt and to the driving, dominating and strongest economy in Europe. They recognise what so many of the doubters in the United Kingdom will not face, which is that the choices for them and for Britain are shared sovereignty or no sovereignty, shared influence in Europe or no influence in Europe, and shared power or no power at all. Those are the choices, but I do not know how they would be set out on a referendum ballot paper. Unfortunately, we do not have with us this evening the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), the leader of the Liberal Democrats.
Mr. Morgan: Not unfortunately.
Mr. Robertson: Or fortunately, as the case may be. The right hon. Gentleman may be concocting more instant policy. I do not expect my good friend, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), to defend the amazing new idea about a referendum that has come from his party, which used to be so in favour of Europe. It strikes me that never has so much been changed by so few for so little.
Mrs. Currie: The hon. Gentleman knows that I agree with much of what he has said. I am not frightened of the change in his party's policy. I wonder, however, whether he is frightened about some people who are closer to home. What is his view as a Scot of the philosophy and policy of many of his compatriots, especially those who are supporters of the Labour party, who would much prefer Scotland to be dealing directly with Europe? Is he in favour of that policy?
Mr. Robertson: Why should we not deal directly with Europe? Why should a Scottish Parliament, which will be set up by the future Labour Government, not deal directly with Europe? If it is good enough for the federal German Lander, surely it is good enough for Scotland and for other parts of the United Kingdom. If I give way to the hon. Lady in future, I hope that she will not damage my future career by suggesting that she agrees with me.
This has been a remarkable debate. Perhaps it was made amazing after the contribution this afternoon of the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley. When she made allusions to "her" Government and "her" Foreign Secretary, the Government's position appeared to change. The Prime Minister, who earlier had been resolute—almost absolute—in his condemnation of a referendum, allowed his spokespeople in Downing street this evening to clarify the constitutional issue. It is, of course, possible that a referendum could take place in a future Parliament.
Mr. Favell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Robertson: I think that I have given way too often already.
Mr. Favell: The hon. Gentleman has not given way to me.
Mr. Robertson: I have not, and I have no intention of doing so. A man with the hon. Gentleman's sense of timing could perhaps resume his seat for a little longer.
The choice is that of shared power or no power. It is a simple choice, but it is not an empty one. The power that we share is in our own tomorrow too. It is within institutions that we can participate to preserve our best and to leave the rest in the Community. It is a shared influence to mould Europe in our style and our way for our people, and also for the people of Europe. Britain now has to decide its place in the inevitable, unavoidable and inescapable new Europe in which we now live. The Government know that it is all unavoidable too.
The right hon. Member for Blaby, who will no doubt put in a star performance tomorrow, set out the issue with his usual blunt frankness last week in the Evening Standard——
Mr. Cash: Appeaser.
Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman has allowed failure to go to his head. It would be wise to say it. When there was talk about a single currency, there was no talk about William Cash.
The former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Blaby, was quoted in the Evening Standard this week as saying:
"In these circumstances a crude 'No' to the EMU Treaty would be pointless, since it would not stop the others from proceeding with a separate treaty without us, using the EMS agreement as a precedent."
His predecessor as Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), also said that this afternoon.
But the real problem for the nation is that the Government do not have the vaguest clue about what they really want from Europe. That is why the Government's motion talks about
"preserving the right of Parliament to decide at a future date whether to adopt a single currency".
Strangely, it does not say one word about the imposition of a single currency, which was the slogan so regularly used by the Government to protect any lack of policy.
Of course, that never did make any sense anyway. since nothing can be imposed upon any Government or people, but it served for a moment or two to hide the cracks in the Conservative party. But that was until the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East, who at least had the decency to apologise for being absent for this part of the debate, blew the gaffe in last Tuesday's Financial Times, as he did this afternoon, when he said:
"Mr. Major, understandably, has maintained our stand against the 'imposition' of a single currency. But that, in a way, never was the central question."
Too true, it was not, but it is a pretty late confession to come now.
We know—of course we know—that the Government will sign up to the EMU treaty on 10 December. It is just that we do not know, and we have not been told, why they are going to do it and what the consequences will be. We have an opt-out clause which, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said, will simply create instability and uncertainty in industry and put a brake on inward investment. If they can get away with it, they have no intention of using it at all and we will be in the EMU without even a whimper.
384
But even at this stage, on the brink of signing the treaty, the Government cannot summon the guts to tell the people the cost and benefits of it or how Britain can measure up to it lest they irritate the flat earthers on the Benches behind them. Given the feebleness of the economy and the glaring absence of any plans to make Britain strong again, it is small wonder that they have now turned with renewed paranoia to the political union IGC.
By no stretch of the imagination is the political union IGC a blueprint for a European super-state. The British people are too intelligent to believe that kind of kidology anyway. They know that a single European market cannot be created by a process of majority voting on a huge range of industrial, commercial and business decisions and then go on to start to create a monetary union with a European central bank and one currency and then say that we do not need to develop institutions to deal with the new set-up.
That is what the rather ill-named political union IGC is all about—a step-by-step development of political institutions which will keep the Community democratic, accountable and effective. It will have, first, to be a wider Community with new members from EFTA and ultimately from central and eastern Europe as well.
Mr. Cash: Ultimately.
Mr. Robertson: Of course, ultimately. It has to be ultimately. They could not come in tomorrow, and they would not want to come in tomorrow on those terms. But the Government have still not said an official word about the application from Austria, which was submitted formally a year ago.
It will have to be a more democratic Community, where the powers already ceded by national Parliaments will be accountable not only to Ministers sitting and voting in secret, but to directly elected representatives of the people in the European Parliament. A veto on Council decisions taken by majority vote reinforces and does not detract at all from the say of national Parliaments.
The European Parliament must also have the power to bring the European Commission to account. We know that the Prime Minister agrees, but there has hardly been a word said about how that will happen, and it is not even mentioned in the Government's motion. It will also have to be a more balanced Community in which the social dimension involving people is given the same priority as creating a borderless market place.
Alone among all the 11 other Governments—left-wing, right-wing, centre of the road—the British Government stand opposed to the social charter and the legislation that would make it meaningful. That point was strongly made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), and by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell). Can anyone explain why it was not selling out to Brussels when the Government surrendered the veto on hundreds of single market laws, but that somehow it is an affront to national interests to eliminate the veto on social and environmental affairs?
It must also be an outward-looking Community, conscious of its responsibilities to its neighbours in the east, whose economic and social instability is now the main threat to our own security; and of the countries of the southern hemisphere, which look to our rich trading bloc to relieve their infinitely greater economic plight.

385
It must be a fairer Community, based on subsidiarity —a word that means decisions being taken at the lowest appropriate level—including locally and regionally, as well as nationally and European. It must be a Europe in which its social partners are intimately involved in how programmes are to be implemented.
That political agenda for the new Europe is not copyright, and it is not in any way sinister. It is not new, but Labour helped to create it. We will soon be able to implement it.
11.41 pm
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Francis Maude): The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) ended his speech on a fine, rousing note, but we heard from him a not unfamiliar tale. This is the eighth debate on this great subject in which I have taken part in the past two and a half years, and in many of them, I have been sitting opposite the hon. Member for Hamilton.
During that time, I have held a number of different jobs, reflecting the flexible approach to the labour market that my party has—but the hon. Member for Hamilton has been in the same job. He spent the earlier part as Labour's token pro-European, and over the years he has become gradually more cheerful, as he has seen his party catch up with him at breakneck speed. It now seems to have overtaken him—that is, if one could penetrate the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition at the beginning of the debate—but judging by the sound of the speeches by many Labour Members that followed, the message had not penetrated to most of them. No one has persuaded them of the breakneck rush to full-blown union for which the hon. Member for Hamilton has argued for some time, and for which the Leader of the Opposition argues now, somewhat incoherently.
Most of Labour's Back Benchers still live in the days of outright opposition to the Single European Act, when so many members of the shadow Cabinet and other Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen voted in straightforward opposition to that important step forward in European integration. The Government took that step, and the legislation went through Parliament, but Labour —which now claims to be so pro-European—opposed it outright.
The hon. Member for Hamilton addressed the issue of a referendum, and I am sorry that I missed his earlier point of order on that aspect. Perhaps I can make the position clear. It ought to be perfectly clear, and I am surprised that the hon. Member for Hamilton made such a fuss about it.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made perfectly clear, the Government do not intend to hold a referendum on the outcome of the Maastricht negotiations. That, indeed, was not the proposition advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher): she proposed a referendum in 1996. Surely it is not particularly startling to suggest that this Government, and this Parliament, cannot decide on such an issue now. It is not a matter to be resolved now; I personally see no need to do so, and neither does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
Until Opposition Members lowered the tone slightly, this was an important debate, and it is important for us to take it seriously.
Mr. David Shaw: My constituents are very worried about the profound changes faced by a number of customs clearance agents and freight forwarders in the constituency—perhaps 2,000—as a result of alterations to the Single European Act, and the single market proposals. Can my hon. Friend confirm that the Government will continue, at European meetings, to do all in their power to ensure that the effect of those changes is eased for my constituents? Can he also confirm that the Government will continue to examine ways in which their effect can be mitigated to help those working in the industry?
Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend has pressed that cause tenaciously and to great effect, and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Treasury has listened carefully to what he has said. We recognise that the changes will have an impact on customs agents and freight forwarders, and the Government have been consulting their representatives closely.
Important contributions have been made to today's debate from both sides of the House: by, for instance, my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley; my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe); the right hon. Members for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn); my right hon. Friends the Members for Woking (Mr. Onslow) and for Worthing (Mr. Higgins); the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies); and my right hon. Friends the Members for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) and for Guildford (Mr. Howell). It has been an extremely important and serious debate; and the theme that has emerged has supported the view expressed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that, in these negotiations that matter so much to the House of Commons, we should negotiate hard and positively and seek to build a better Europe.
That means being able to read the fine print—something that the Labour party has been remarkably reluctant to do as it has bashed around Europe signing every Euro-declaration that it can find, and then seeking to deny the terms of what it has signed. It also means—as my right hon. Friend pointed out—being ready to say no as well as yes.
Since the IGCs were set up, we have established our own objectives, many of which are being met. One of those objectives was to ensure that the Community emerged from the negotiations as a better organisation—a more effective and efficient body. We all know that it is by no means a perfectly functioning organisation at present. The measures that we have set out have not been given much high-profile media attention, because they are not particularly glamorous or especially controversial; none the less they are important, and there are good prospects that, if agreement can be reached in December, it will include serious and substantial reforms that are profoundly in the interests of the Community, and greatly to the benefit of Britain as a serious and law-abiding member state of that Community.
Mr. Dalyell: Will the Minister address himself to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy)—and by me, twice—about additionality and attribution? It matters to a great many of our constituents.
Bruce Millan is usually right about these matters; he has had 25 years' experience. In his considered opinion, the

387
Community lawyers are right; and you can bet your boots that we are not going to get the money. That matters to a heck of a lot of people.
Mr. Maude: It matters quite a lot to me as well, because my constituency is one of those affected. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will go to Brussels and urge his colleague, Bruce Milian, to stop withholding money that is properly due to the British people. If he can use his well-known persuasive powers in that direction, he will, for once, do something useful. I hope that he will do that.
I referred to our proposals for securing much better implementation and much better compliance with European Community law and for entrenching, as we hope we can, the principle of subsidiarity in a way that binds, and also to our proposals for much better financial management and accountability within the European Community. If we can achieve all those objectives—we are hopeful that we can—we shall have a Community that respects the same standards of efficiency and value for money as the British Government have for many years.
We want, as a result of this Government's initiative and persuasion in the intergovernmental conferences, a Community that will take better decisions and that will carry them out better. Our proposals are sensible, practical, perhaps workaday and unromantic, but rather important if the Community is to command respect.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will talk at greater length tomorrow about economic and monetary union, but the draft treaty, as has been made clear, divides the economic and monetary union process into two very clear and separate compartments—stage two and stage three. The draft treaty lists the articles that apply in stage two and those that apply in stage three. They involve very different institutional arrangements and different allocations of responsibility between the Community and national Governments. In particular, there is a sharp distinction when it comes to monetary policy. In stage two, monetary policy will be a national responsibility. We argued that that. We prevailed.
There must be no confusion of responsibilities. Interest rates in the United Kingdom must continue to be set in the United Kingdom. There will be a degree of co-ordination of monetary policies, just as there is now, both within the Community and in other bodies such as the Group of Seven. The governors of the central banks of the Twelve will continue to meet to discuss matters of common concern and, where appropriate, to issue opinions.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will no doubt continue to discuss monetary matters with his Finance Minister colleagues in the Council of Ministers, but at the end of the day he alone will be responsible in stage two for monetary policy decisions in the United Kingdom—and responsible to this House.
In other areas of economic policy, there will also be co-ordination. The Finance Ministers will discuss economic developments in the Community and in the member states. The process of convergence will be fostered by multilateral surveillance of member states' economic policies, as happens now.
Some hon. Members have suggested that stage two might bring a host of new commitments and new obligations for the Government and that their freedom of action would thus be undermined. That is not so. In stage two, member states would have to submit to the Community multi-annual convergence programmes. They
388
have already agreed to do so. In stage two, the Economic and Finance Council will be able to comment publicly on the economic performance of a particular member state. It can already do so. Only last week, ECOFIN considered a report on economic policy in Italy.
In stage two, the Council will be able to make specific recommendations to particular member states. Under the Council decision on convergence, agreed unanimously early in 1990, the Council can already make such recommendations. The Council's recommendations are not and will not be binding on a member state. The right of this House to determine fiscal policy would not be affected. The power to make recommendations has existed since 1974. It is not an innovation.
It has been suggested that, in stage two, member states would be forced to curb their fiscal policies so as to avoid running an excessive deficit. The relevant text of the treaty and the related protocol are still under negotiation, but as the text stands, no provisions would allow the Council to enforce changes in fiscal policy on member states.
We should be clear about what is envisaged. The treaty provides for the Community to examine the budgetary positions of member states whose deficits appear to be excessive and to decide whether a deficit is such as to be regarded as a gross error of policy. The Council can then issue policy recommendations. That is as far as it can go under stage two. That, again, is not new; it already has this power.
Mr. Denzil Davies: Who decides whether the deficits are excessive, and are there any definitions of "excessive"?
Mr. Maude: There are no definitions under stage two. The decision is made by the Council. The protocol sets out some reference values, which are still subject to negotiation, but only for member states that participate in stage three. The Council's power to issue policy recommendations under stage two has been in existence since the convergence decision in 1974. The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) may have played some part in that decision. He is shaking his head and pleading not guilty, but he may know something about its origins.
Under stage three, the Council will have no greater power over member states that have exemption status. The latest draft treaty gives the Council power to instruct a member state participating in stage three to reduce its deficit and to impose sanctions if it does not do so. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said earlier, we believe that the most effective sanctions are imposed by the market, and we shall continue to argue that in the IGC.
Some hon. Members have argued that the distinction between stages two and three cannot be maintained. They fear either that we are committed to move to stage three or that, irrespective of the provision in the treaty allowing us a free choice, we would none the less be obliged to move. We are still negotiating, but let it be perfectly clear that we shall not accept a text that involves such a commitment. The reference to a single currency in the opening articles of the draft treaty is explicitly qualified by the reference to the procedures set out therein, and those procedures include the right to opt for exemption status. If the procedures are acceptable—we are clear that they must be—the opening articles are also acceptable.
It has been suggested that, once we had accepted stage two, there would be intense and irresistible pressure to move to stage three. That has been described as the

389
"slippery slope" argument. I was interested in the argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), that, if convergence is achieved, a single currency is not necessary. That may be true, and it might affect the balance of advantage and disadvantage, but it does not need to be resolved at this stage.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) asked what would happen to the pound if the United Kingdom were exempt from stage three. The answer is straightforward: the exchange-rate mechanism would continue, run by the enlarged chamber of governors, and all currencies that were not in stage three could remain in the exchange-rate mechanism or outside it, depending on what they chose. That applies equally to eastern European states that become members of the European Community in the meantime. There are no provisions in the treaty that would exclude them from taking part in it.
When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister opened the debate, he made it clear that he had sensed right the mood of the House and of the British people. They want
390
the Government to be in the heart of Europe, negotiating positively and effectively not only for British interests but for a better Europe. That means a Europe in which national Governments retain the power to make proposals and in which national Parliaments retain their powers.
How different that is from the Labour party's position—it wants to lead according to the principle which states that where others go must be right. That is like the motto of the famous French revolutionary leader who said, "I am their leader; I must follow them."
How little the Opposition have thought about the issue. They want to commit themselves to a single currency and to deny a future Parliament or Government the power to make a vital decision. They say that they want real convergence and decisions in the treaty for which no one else in the Community has argued at any stage. They continue to argue for what no one else is prepared to offer and they are wholly isolated in a fantasy world. They claim to be nearer than us to the European consensus, but they are as far from reality as they ever were.
It being Twelve o'clock, the debate stood adjourned, pursuant to Order [19 November.]
Debate to be resumed this day.

Rape Case (Criminal Investigation)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Neil Hamilton.]
12 midnight
Dr. Norman A. Godman: I wish to make known my deep concern about the circumstances surrounding the brutal rape of a constituent of mine, who will be known as Mrs. X, about the way in which the criminal investigation was conducted and about certain matters relating to the horrible affair. I wish to ask the Minister a number of questions about such cases. Incidentally, I shall use the name Mary as a double blind in the sense that none of the woman's family or friends knows her as Mary.
I believe that the victims of sexual assault, of child abuse and/or sexual abuse should be treated in a decent, compassionate and sympathetic manner during the criminal investigation of such allegations. The compassionate and sensitive treatment should not harm the search for sound forensic and other evidence. Prejudice and bias have no place in the scheme of things. The Minister knows my views on such matters when they might affect service personnel and families. In every case involving armed forces personnel and their families, the benchmark must be the best practices found in civil society. An example of what I mean can be found in Strathclyde, where in every division of the police force there is a well-established female and child unit, staffed principally by female officers who are well trained and highly experienced in interviewing skills and techniques in cases involving sexual assault, child abuse and/or sexual abuse.
When dealing with previous Bills affecting the armed services, the Minister and his colleagues have always sought to assure me that the armed forces are keenly aware of the need to treat complainers—irrespective of age—in a sympathetic manner. My first question to the Minister, who is apprised of the case, is whether he is satisfied that Mrs. X and her husband were treated with compassion.
In the summer, I received a letter from Mrs. X which disturbed me greatly. She wrote:
"I am writing to you in the hope that you can help me with the injustice which has occurred.
On 16th February 1991 whilst my husband was serving in the Gulf on Operation Granby, I was invited to attend a function at the Corporals Mess"—
in a particular regiment which, of course, I shall not mention—
"which I did attend with some of my friends. I enjoyed the function and my friends kept me in good cheer as I was obviously anxious about my husband being in the Gulf and did have a few too many drinks. I also had a plaster of Paris cast on my leg (which had been injured in a fall some weeks before) and consequently had some difficulty in walking, I was put on the Regimental Mini Bus which was run purely to ferry married personnel to their married quarters after functions. I arrived at my quarter at what time I do not know due to me being very intoxicated and when I awoke some hours later I discovered the following".
I am quoting verbatim as you would expect, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

"1. My blouse had been unbuttoned.

2. My bra had been forced over my breasts.

3. My underwear had been removed and left torn in half on my bed.

4. My trousers had been removed with some force as my right leg was in a great deal of pain around the cast.

I then tried to deduce the events of the previous night and discovered some time later that I had been raped by force by
392
XYZ who had been on the mini bus and followed me home. I went to the medical centre and there a male doctor did a very degrading examination of my body. The investigator from the … Special Investigation Branch obtained the following statement from XYZ. He had whilst I was lying intoxicated on my bed in my quarter had oral sex, had masturbated over my body and had entered my vagina for about 10 seconds. I was assured by the SIB that there would be a court martial and XYZ would be charged with rape but that did not happen, he was charged only with being in the married quarter area, fined 14 days wages and demoted in rank to Trooper.
So dear Dr. Godman I feel I have been treated badly in this case and would he grateful if you would pursue this matter further. I have listed the facts to assist you:

1. I asked for my husband to be returned from the Gulf but this was not possible due to the ground war beginning.

2. I asked for my Mother to be brought from the UK to give me comfort in my husband's place, it took 3 weeks for this to happen.

3. The investigator of the SIB assured me that the evidence obtained from XYZ, written and recorded, warranted a court martial.

4. I asked for professional counselling which I didn't get."

Mrs. X goes on to list a number of complaints.
I wrote to Mrs. X to inform her that I would take her case up with Ministers at the Ministry of Defence. In a letter to the Secretary of State, I outlined my deep concern over the case and over the way in which the allegation by Mrs. X had been investigated.
In reply, the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces gave me certain assurances. He said, for example, that the matter had been
"thoroughly investigated by the Special Investigation Branch of the Royal Military Police. In accordance with normal regulations, their final report was forwarded to the Commanding Officer who sought legal advice on its findings. Legal advice recommended that, as Mrs. X was unable to remember anything of the alleged incident and that, as it may not be possible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that, not only did she not consent, but also that XYZ knew that she was not consenting, the case should be dealt with summarily by the Commanding Officer."
The Minister also said that the medical examination had been carried out in a sympathetic and professional manner.
I sent a copy of the Minister's letter to Mrs. X and she responded a few days later on 20 October. She wrote:
"Thank you for your letter dated 9th October 1991 which I have read with great dismay. You were right in saying that the minister Earl of Arran has disappointed me to no end. I find it very hard to understand that if a person who admits to having raped a person can get away with it. On his admission to a policeman in civilian life no doubt that person would be convicted of rape.
Yet in the army, a person who admits to having raped a married woman whilst her husband was fighting to preserve peace can get away with it.
I am now pursuing civil legal action and if need be publish it in my local daily paper and some other well known daily papers. The army has a lot to answer for. I intend to uncover the old boy system where everybody covers up when cases like this arise. Who knows how many women have had the same ordeal as myself? No wonder no woman ever comes forward to seek help if this is the sort of justice the army say it is. And because I was drunk and can't remember anything about my ordeal, does that give him the right to do what he did to me? So if all women are drunk and are raped then the person doing indecent assault has no case to answer to."
I sincerely hope that Mrs. X's complaint was not treated in a dismissive way because, as she readily admitted, she was drunk at the time of the assault. I know that the hand that rocks the cradle is supposed to be steady 24 hours a day, but that does not always hold. No woman should be treated in a certain way simply because she was drunk when she suffered an assault.

393
Mrs. X mentioned in her letter that she was giving thought to taking civil legal action, so I sought advice on private prosecutions from both the Attorney-General, for such actions in England, and the Lord Advocate, for similar cases in Scotland. Both offered only circumspect answers. The Attorney-General said in response to a parliamentary question on Tuesday 19 November:
"The information is not readily available. I will reply to the hon. Member as soon as possible."
In a letter dated 19 November, the Lord Advocate said that in Scotland
"Civil actions are raised in the Court of Session or Sheriff Court … Mrs … would have to establish first of all that she does indeed have a right to raise an action arising from the unfortunate incident of which she has complained. She would probably have the right to do so in the court in Germany which would have jurisdiction in relation to the place where the events happened, assuming that German law recognises the ground of action contemplated. A court in the United Kingdom might have jurisdiction if the alleged perpetrator was domiciled here because of the provisions of the Civil Jurisdictions and Judgments Act 1982."
That Act also determined the next question—whether the action should be brought in England or Scotland.
Everyone in Scotland knows of the famous Glasgow case involving a female complainer who took out a private prosecution in such a case. The case will be keenly remembered by the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn), who was the principal Law Officer for Scotland at the time.
I readily acknowledge that I cannot expect definitive statements from the Minister when the answers given by his ministerial colleagues, who have greater legal experience than the Minister and I possess, are, to say the least, somewhat circumspect. I must also acknowledge to the Minister and the House that I have been unable to interview my constituent face to face. Our exchanges have been by telephone or Royal Mail, so I readily acknowledge that there may be some problems there. Nevertheless, in my view, Mrs. X has been shabbily treated in what I can only call a squalid affair.
I seek the help of the Minister with some questions. Will he explain why the perpetrator of the offence is to be allowed to return to the base where Mrs. X's husband is stationed and where she lives? Mrs. X told me in a telephone conversation today that the acting commanding officer and the warrant officer, who is the family officer, have informed her that the man is to return within the next two weeks. I appeal to the Minister: the man should not be allowed to return to his unit; he should remain where he is at this moment.
In cases of this nature, is the victim, following the successful prosecution of the accused person, advised about financial compensation? Does a member of the armed forces serving in the United Kingdom or overseas, or a member of his or her family, have the right, where appropriate, to seek compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board? If armed services personnel and members of their families have that legal right, are they made aware of it by their commanding officers?
Is the Minister confident that the counselling services offered to someone in such circumstances are of the highest quality? Does it equal the counselling that a woman can obtain in Scotland, England, Wales, or indeed Ulster? Is
394
the Minister confident that medical officers carry out only one examination in each case, and is it conducted in a highly skilled and compassionate manner?
What practical advice could the armed forces offer to someone who contemplated taking out a private prosecution? Could that person obtain advice from people in the armed forces who have legal training, or could the armed forces obtain that sort of advice for the person seeking it? Will the Minister give me an assurance that Mrs. X was not discriminated against because, by her honest admission, she was drunk when she was assaulted?
I sought this Adjournment debate in the hope that Mrs. X and her husband could find peace of mind and could somehow be helped to strengthen their marriage. They have suffered a terrible ordeal, and it is my sincere hope that they will find the peace of mind that they so richly deserve.
I have mentioned the Gulf war. While I was opposed to that operation, I have the highest respect for our armed forces personnel, and—for rather quaint reasons—I have great sympathy and respect for members of the Royal Military Police.
Mr. Gordon McMaster: Why is that?
Dr. Godman: I shall make no confessions.
My constituent, Mrs. X, who is still suffering badly, had been treated in a less than fair way by those who conducted the criminal investigation and also by those who decided that there were no grounds for bringing the perpetrator in front of a court martial. I seek those assurances from the Minister.
12.18 pm
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) has been successful in securing this Adjournment debate. I know that the hon. Member has shown considerable interest in the case that is the subject of the debate, although I find it surprising that he has chosen to raise the matter in this way.
As he has outlined, the details of the case are extremely delicate and sensitive and, considering some of the descriptions of the case that he has given, it seems extraordinary that he chose to raise the matter on the Floor of the House. He could quite easily have asked to meet me or my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces—with whom he has been corresponding, as he said—at the Ministry of Defence, where we could have discussed the matter in a more suitable environment.
Notwithstanding, we are debating the matter on the Floor of the House and I shall have to go into some matters of delicacy in my response.
This is an emotive case, which has been subject to a full investigation by the special investigation branch of the Royal Military Police, and disciplinary action has been taken against the soldier in relation to the allegations. The charge was supported by the evidence collected by the Royal Military Police inquiries. As the hon. Gentleman has said, Mrs. X has indicated that she may be taking proceedings further, so it would be most improper for me to go into too much detail on this case. Having said that, I feel that there are significant aspects that should be brought out in order to put the matter in perspective.

395
As the hon. Gentleman has stated, Mrs. X, by her own admission, was very drunk. On more than one occasion she has admitted to being very intoxicated and I understand that she has stated that she had consumed about 24 single measures of dry Martini and lemonade, together with some white wine. It is perhaps not surprising that her recollections of that evening are vague. Indeed, the case against the soldier involved rests primarily on his evidence, not hers.
Once Mrs. X had made her allegations, there followed a full investigation by the special investigation branch, Royal Military Police, which included a full medical examination. I can confirm that, although the medical examination was clearly an unpleasant experience for Mrs. X, it was in accordance with the regulations and was conducted with kindness and sympathy throughout. Indeed, the examining doctor was a registered medical practitioner—a reservist called up in the course of the Gulf conflict. The examination was conducted in the presence of a female nurse and a female member of the Royal Military Police. As we know, the whole indignity that women have to go through for these examinations is, of necessity, I am afraid, an unpleasant experience. In this case, as in all cases, the examination was done with as much sympathy as can be shown.
When the case was presented to the commanding officer of the unit involved, he sought advice from the appropriate Army legal branch, which advised what charges, if any, were supported by the evidence. I should almost like to repeat that. It is important that we do not get away from the fact that, when any charge is laid, there must be evidence that will hold up for convicting somebody of that charge. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that a similar role is undertaken by the Crown prosecution service in criminal proceedings, and I am sure that he will agree that it is right and proper that such an independent assessment of the facts should take place. This independent assessment results in a judgment being made about the likelihood, based on that evidence, of a court finding a case proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Clearly in this case, where both parties were, by their own admission, drunk and unable to remember fully the
396
events that took place, the commanding officer was placed in a very difficult position. The forensic evidence did not support a charge of rape or any other assault. What evidence there was supported a relatively minor charge under military standing orders and the soldier concerned was charged, found guilty and punished under the powers accorded to the commanding officer. Mrs. X and the hon. Member are aware of the nature of this punishment. By the same token that we do not want to be able to identify Mrs. X, it would not be appropriate for me to reveal the exact nature of either the charge or the punishment received by the soldier.
This is a most regrettable incident, but I cannot accept a charge that the Army did not take the allegations seriously and that the full and thorough investigation was not conducted in anything but a professional and sympathetic manner.
The hon. Gentleman pointed out that the soldier returned at one point when Mrs. X and her husband were still at the base. That was covered in the letter sent to the hon. Gentleman by my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces on 28 August. The hon. Gentleman will see that the letter says:
"In the interests of all parties",
the soldier
"was posted … following this incident. It was unfortunate that he returned for a short time but this was necessary in order for him to complete training prior to deploying on an operational tour."
The reasoning behind that was explained to Mrs. X and her husband.
I am afraid that the circumstances of the case—two people who were extremely drunk and who have a very hazy understanding of what went on—make it difficult for any charge to have any validity. In those circumstances, I believe that the military pursued this with all the diligence that they could. I regret that they were unable to pursue the matter any further.
None of us knows what happened on that occasion, and it is sad that the participants cannot remember, either.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past Twelve o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Jasbir Singh
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Attorney-General whether the Department of Public Prosecutions plans to institute any prosecutions arising out of the unlawful killing of Jasbir Singh, following the inquest held by the Bradford coroner.

  The Attorney-General
  On 1 November 1991 the West Yorkshire police submitted a report which is being considered at CPS headquarters.

  Private Office Staff
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Attorney-General what are the numbers of staff he has in his private office; and what was the equivalent number in 1981.

  The Attorney-General
  Three officials staff the private office serving both myself and the Solicitor-General. The private office was set up in September 1989. Previously each Law Officer was served by a senior personal secretary only.

  County Courts
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Attorney-General what is the income received in fees for each county court in England and Wales.

  The Attorney-General
  The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. There are some 275 county courts in England and Wales and in 1990–91 the total income received in county court fees was £134,852,000.

  Immigration Tribunal
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Attorney-General how many times he has visited the offices of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal since taking office.

  The Attorney-General
  I have not visited the offices of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal.

  Sodigar Hussain
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Attorney-General when the appeal by Mr. Sodigar Hussain—TH/4303/90—was heard in Leeds; when Mr. Hussain or his representatives were informed of the outcome; what is the current position of this appeal; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The appeal of Mr. Sodigar Hussain (TH/4303/90) was heard by the adjudicator at Leeds on 21 August 1991. On 4 October 1991 the adjudicator's determination, dismissing the appeal, was dispatched to the parties' representatives in this country, and on 22 October 1991 Mr. Hussain's representatives 156
  lodged an application for leave to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal against the adjudicator's determination. The current position is that the president of the IAT has adjourned consideration of the application until 12 December 1991, to allow Mr. Hussain's representatives to submit grounds of appeal, if they so wish.

  It would be inappropriate for me to comment on the decision of the adjudicator to dismiss the appeal or that of the President of the IAT to adjourn consideration of the application for leave to appeal until 12 December 1991 as they are both judicial decisions.

TRANSPORT

  Cardiff Airport
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many international flights arrive from overseas destinations each week into Cardiff airport; how many flights per week arrive from Florida; and how many flights a week arrive from Amsterdam.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  In the 1991 summer season, there were about 88 international flights each week into Cardiff airport, of which 45 were scheduled services and 43 were charter services. Of the total number, one flight was from Florida (charter) and 18 were from Amsterdam (scheduled).

  For the 1991–92 winter season there will be about 75 international flights into Cardiff airport, of which 57 will be scheduled services and 18 will be charter services. Of the total, none will be from Florida and 19 scheduled flights from Amsterdam.

  Merchant Navy
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to publish his review on the strategic role of the Merchant Navy.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  A statement will be made on the availability of British flag shipping for defence purposes as soon as possible.

  Street Lighting
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will commit funds to local authorities to improve street lighting in high crime areas.

  Mr. Chope
  Local authorities already have the freedom to commit funds to the improvement of street lighting.

  Margaret and William II
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress of the investigation into the loss of the Newlyn fishing vessel, Margaret and William II.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Marine Accident Investigation Branch inquiry into this accident is complete and the inspector who carried out the investigation has submitted his findings and recommendations to the chief inspector of marine accidents. A report on the accident will be published.

  White Strobe Lights
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many structures in(a) the Solent area and (b) the United Kingdom are going to be fitted with the new white strobe lights under the International Civil Aviation Organisation requirement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The application of the International Civil Aviation Organisation requirements for the lighting of aeronautical obstructions, is a matter for the Civil Aviation Authority, which has the statutory responsibility for the safety regulation of civil aviation within the United Kingdom. I have drawn the hon. Member's question to the attention of the Civil Aviation Authority and have asked it to write to him direct.

  War (Shipping Requirements)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to announce what the shipping requirements in times of conflict should be.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Shipping requirements in times of conflict will depend on the type of conflict. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is considering the military requirements in the light of the NATO Heads of State and Governments' recent agreement in Rome.

  Blind and Partially Sighted People.
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his reply to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe, of 12 November,Official Report, column 429, if he has now received a copy of the report "Blind and Partially Sighted Adults in Britain—The RNIB Needs Survey"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I congratulate the RNIB on this comprehensive report. It will be very helpful to the Department of Transport in its continuing programme of work to improve facilities both in public transport and in the pedestrian environment for blind and partially sighted people.

ENVIRONMENT

  Inland Waterways
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to alter(a) by statute or (b) in any other way, the membership or function of the Inland Waterways Amenity advisory committee.

  Mr. Heseltine
  We are currently considering the structure and role of the Council in the light of the citizens charter and other relevant matters in consultation with its chairman and with the chairman of the British Waterways Board. The terms of existing members expire at the end of 1991 and I am consulting both chairmen on future appointments.

  House Building
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice has been given by regional controllers to local authorities concerning the treatment of funding required for new build projects, in negotiations on the level of housing investment programmes for the next financial year.
  158
  Mr. Yeo
  The Department's housing regional controllers remind local authorities during annual discussions on housing investment programmes of the Government's policy that they should fulfil in the main an enabling role in their area, and should concentrate their efforts on the renovation of their own stock. Scarce resources should be directed to where they will be best employed or where best value for money may be obtained, for example by taking advantage of private finance through sponsoring housing associations' developments.

  Planning Appeals
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many planning appeals have been lodged with his Department in each year since 1985 against refusal by a planning authority to allow the fitting of security shutters or other external security features on shop premises; and what percentage of these appeals were successful.

  Mr. Yeo
  The information held by the Department about planning appeals makes it possible to identify appeals affecting shop fronts, but not those concerned specifically with the security of shops.

  Hedegerows
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about his Department's proposals to introduce grants for hedgerow maintenance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  Following announcement of our proposals in July, the Department has received comments from a range of interested parties, including local authorities, landowning and farming bodies, and environmental groups. Our intention to provide new incentives for hedgerow management has been broadly welcomed and we are discussing with the Countryside Commission and others the detailed scope and terms of the proposed scheme. We shall be making a further statement in due course.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to introduce grants for hedgerow maintenance.

  Mr. Baldry
  We hope to make our proposed new incentives for hedgerow management available next year.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, further to his answer of 11 November,Official Report, column 395–96, when his discussions with the Countryside Commission and others on the proposed incentive scheme will be completed; and when the proposals will be implemented.

  Mr. Baldry
  Our discussions on a scheme to provide new incentives for hedgerow management are making good progress, and we shall make a further statement as soon as possible. We plan to establish the proposed scheme in the coming year.

  Retailers (Security)
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what quality standards are required for security features such as shutters, grilles and glass fitted in
  159
  commercial or retail premises in the United Kingdom; and what information he has on comparable standards prevailing in other EC countries.

  Mr. Yeo
  There are no statutory requirements expressly requiring or applying to the fitting of security features in commercial or retail premises in the United Kingdom.

  Voluntary guidance relating to the security of buildings against crime is contained in British standard 8220. Part 2 applies to offices and shops and part 3 applies to warehouses and distribution units.

  The Department does not keep information on the technical standards and practices applying to security features in commercial and retail premises in other member states. However, information on technical standards is available from BSI's technical help for exporters service based at Milton Keynes. The telephone number is 0908 220022.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress he has made since March 1991 on assisting Homeless Emergency for London People to get blankets from Government stocks.

  Sir George Young
  The Government are providing grants under section 73 of the Housing Act 1985 to over 80 voluntary organisations in England for practical projects to prevent and relieve homelessness. Homeless Emergency for London People, whose initiative on behalf of the homeless I welcome, has not asked my Department for direct assistance since March 1991. HELP was invited to bid for funds in February but no formal application was received from it.

  Enterprise Zones
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to review his policy on enterprise zones following completion of his Department's study by PA-Cambridge Economic Consultants assessing the impact of enterprise zones; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  The final evaluation of enterprise zones by PA-CEC will not be completed until 1995. Our policy remains that the creation of new zones will be considered only in exceptional circumstances.

  Water (Consultations)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidelines govern the consultations on water quality, water use and flood prevention strategies to be incorporated in environmental impact assessments to accompany private and hybrid bills; and if consultations require obligatory reference to the National Rivers Authority.

  Mr. Yeo
  An environmental statement deposited with a new private or hybrid Bill authorising the carrying out of works will, in accordance with Standing Order 27A (Private Business), generally be expected to contain all the information set out in schedule 3 to the Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988. This includes the likely effects of the proposed works on the environment by reference to their 160
  possible impacts on water. Promoters are advised when preparing their environmental statement to consult those bodies with relevant information in their possession including, where appropriate, the National Rivers Authority.

  Flame Retardants
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the current state of negotiations within the EC with regard to the Commission proposal 91/7 on the marketing and use of bromine-based flame retardants; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The proposal is for an immediate ban on the marketing and use of seven polybrominated biphenyl ethers (PBBEs) with three more (pentabromobiphenyl ether, octabromobiphenyl ether, and decabromobiphenyl ether) banned after five years. The Government's position on this proposal was debated in the House of Commons European Standing Committee A on 17 July 1991. The proposal was last discussed in the EC in a Council working group meeting on 1 October.

  There are two major problems with the current proposal. Firstly, due to a technical oversight in the wording, the three substances which the Commission had intended should remain on the market for a further five years will effectively be banned immediately. Secondly, the efficacy and safety of substitute compounds has not been addressed. The United Kingdom is concerned that, prior to a final ban, substitutes are assessed to ensure that they are effective flame retardants and demonstrably safer to man and the environment. A ban should only follow if the efficacy and safety criteria are met.

  I understand that the European Parliament Environment Committee has decided to defer consideration of this proposal until a directive on flame retardant materials used in soft furnishings is drafted. This directive will help to inform the debate on the efficacy of substitutes.

  Genetically Manipulated Organisms
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to publish the draft regulations on genetically manipulated organisms.

  Mr. Baldry
  A consultation paper containing draft regulations, "Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs): Proposed New Regulations", was published jointly with the Health and Safety Commission on 22 October 1991.

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish the findings of the drinking water inspectorate into the outbreak of cryptosporidia in the Hull area during 1990.

  Mr. Baldry
  The investigation by the drinking water inspectorate is nearing completion, and an announcement will be made as soon as possible.

  Severance Payments
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether his Department proposes to take any action to permit the payment of local enhanced severance payments following the judgment in the case of Allsop v. North Tyneside metropolitan borough council.
  161
  Mr. Key
  I understand that the metropolitan borough of North Tyneside has appealed against the judgment. The matter is therefore sub judice.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the capital receipts from council house sales in each district in his Department's eastern region for each of the last five years.

  Eastern Region1

  Discounted value of all sales (£'000)

  Town name

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Luton

  6,510

  9,714

  16,503

  10,790

  n/a

  Mid Bedfordshire

  4,767

  6,031

  7,743

  3,711

  3,198

  North Bedfordshire

  6,510

  n/a

  n/a

  7,373

  65,104

  South Bedfordshire

  4,486

  6,823

  8,601

  5,465

  3,203

  Aylesbury Vale

  8,415

  10,028

  11,791

  7,090

  4,987

  Chiltern

  3,810

  n/a

  31,264

  0

  0

  Milton Keynes

  1,812

  n/a

  8,542

  5,277

  1,782

  South Bucks

  2,195

  3,180

  2,931

  3,624

  37,213

  Wycombe

  n/a

  10,663

  11,042

  n/a

  n/a

  Cambridge

  6,021

  6,536

  9,344

  n/a

  4,002

  East Cambridgeshire

  2,181

  2,744

  3,303

  1,597

  1,092

  Fenland

  1,528

  2,494

  3,845

  1,585

  507

  Huntingdonshire

  5,446

  7,726

  9,603

  5,531

  3,802

  Peterborough

  n/a

  3,740

  6,272

  n/a

  2,056

  South Cambridgeshire

  4,406

  4,718

  6,585

  4,139

  4,112

  Basildon

  n/a

  n/a

  7,326

  n/a

  n/a

  Braintree

  5,896

  8,242

  9,136

  6,507

  2,740

  Brentwood

  2,125

  2,830

  3,778

  3,229

  2,127

  Castle Point

  1,557

  2,050

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Chelmsford

  3,834

  6,521

  10,203

  8,866

  3,509

  Colchester

  2,375

  4,697

  8,880

  n/a

  1,935

  Epping Forest

  n/a

  6,359

  6,498

  4,793

  3,373

  Harlow

  n/a

  n/a

  18,346

  22,445

  9,217

  Maldon

  1,337

  1,713

  2,092

  1,226

  970

  Rochford

  1,919

  2,182

  3,888

  n/a

  831

  Southend-on-Sea

  3,335

  3,082

  6,755

  n/a

  2,424

  Tendring

  1,843

  2,281

  3,462

  2,791

  1,395

  Thurrock

  6,943

  11,418

  13,748

  11,726

  6,418

  Uttlesford

  2,255

  3,528

  4,073

  1,660

  1,261

  Broxbourne

  6,536

  4,632

  7,212

  3,414

  4,947

  Dacorum

  12,014

  15,391

  21,420

  13,179

  7,769

  East Hertfordshire

  5,433

  5,419

  8,039

  6,188

  4,127

  Hertsmere

  8,546

  9,505

  11,138

  7,537

  4,008

  North Hertfordshire

  4,584

  6,310

  n/a

  7,729

  4,774

  St. Albans

  4,329

  5,490

  9,026

  9,144

  8,464

  Stevenage

  9,516

  n/a

  16,832

  12,735

  7,310

  Three Rivers

  2,645

  4,148

  6,372

  n/a

  3,148

  Watford

  4,459

  5,814

  8,257

  4,537

  2,572

  Welwyn Hatfield

  14,318

  18,162

  19,878

  14,810

  7,330

  Breckland

  3,273

  4,140

  6,539

  4,060

  2,069

  Broadland

  795

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  25,042

  Great Yarmouth

  1,247

  1,716

  2,794

  2,348

  1,388

  Kings Lynn and West Norfolk

  2,351

  3,252

  7,049

  2,221

  1,350

  North Norfolk

  1,380

  1,887

  4,140

  3,231

  1,168

  Norwich

  4,245

  n/a

  16,369

  10,562

  4,619

  South Norfolk

  2,239

  2,782

  4,533

  2,805

  1,672

  Babergh

  2,282

  2,618

  4,305

  2,016

  1,685

  Forest Heath

  2,318

  3,565

  3,707

  2,444

  1,737

  Ipswich

  3,436

  6,073

  11,219

  5,730

  2,336

  Mid Suffolk

  1,599

  2,304

  3,607

  3,478

  1,207

  St. Edmundsbury

  3,373

  5,360

  7,173

  4,805

  1,679

  Suffolk Coastal

  2,113

  3,602

  4,900

  2,705

  2,630

  Waveney

  1,582

  2,720

  4,252

  1,844

  1,668

  1 Figures shown are as reported by individual authorities.

  n/a indicates that no data is available.

  Oil Pollution (Kuwait)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with the International Council for Bird Preservation on the subject of assistance for Kuwait in tackling the problems caused to bird populations by remaining pools of oil.
  162
  Mr. Yeo
  The total discounted values of all sales of houses and flats, based on returns from local authorities, are shown in the table. Actual cash receipts in any year will depend on the extent to which sales were financed by loans from the authorities.

  Mr. Baldry
  I had an exchange of correspondence on this matter with the International Council for Bird Preservation in June and July of this year.

  Lead
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what standards exist for the presence of lead and derivatives of lead in(a) soil and (b) air;

  (2) what agency is responsible for the implementation of standards on the presence of lead and derivatives of lead in (a) soil and (b) air; and what guidance he has given to such agencies to report their findings and activities to his Department.

  Mr. Baldry
  (a) The Sludge (Use in Agriculture) Regulations 1989 set down a lead in soil standard of 300 milligrams per kilogram of dry matter. This only applies to those agricultural soils which receive sewage sludge. The regulations are enforced by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. (b) A maximum concentration of 2 micrograms of lead per cubic metre (expressed as an annual mean concentration) is set down in the Air Quality Standards Regulations 1989 which are enforced by the Secretary of State. Compliance is checked at air quality monitoring stations and results reported to the Secretary of State.

  Waste (Burning)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what regulations exist for the control of the burning of chlorine or PVC-based waste; and what agency is responsible for the implementation of such controls.

  Mr. Baldry
  The control of existing plant burning chlorine or PVC-based waste is presently subject to the following regulations:

  The Collection and Disposal of Waste Regulations 1988.

  The Control of Industrial Air Pollution (Registration of Works) Regulations 1989.

  The Collection and Disposal of Waste Regulations are enforced by waste disposal authorities. The Control of Industrial Air Pollution Regulations are enforced by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution.

  Since 1 April 1991, new incinerator plant for these wastes has been subject to the Environmental Protection (Prescribed Processes and Substances) Regulations 1991, enforced by either HMIP or local authorities depending on the exact nature of the waste and the capacity of the incinerator. Existing incinerators will progressively be brought under these controls.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many sites of special scientific interest are within 100 m of proposed local road routes.

  Mr. Baldry
  This information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Hook Island
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if a reservoir appraisal, as outlined in appendix B of the planning circular 2/85, has been carried out in the case of the proposed Hook island, Poole harbour, development; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if the procedure outlined in appendix A of planning circular 2/85 has been invoked in the case of the proposed Hook island, Poole harbour, development; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 14 November 1991]: Appendix B of DOE circular 2/85 explains the three stages
  164
  of onshore hydrocarbon development: exploration, appraisal and production. Appendix A of DOE circular 2/85 explains the Department of Energy's licensing procedures which apply to all oil and gas development. BP carried out offshore appraisal drilling in Poole bay in 1988–89 following consultations with local interests and the completion of an environmental assessment.

  Following successful appraisal drilling to determine the extent of the Wytch Farm oilfield, BP consulted widely on various development concepts. Its preferred option is the construction of an artificial island large enough to accommodate a well site and drilling facilities on which a conventional land-type drilling rig could be operated. Because the island would be in navigable waters, it is necessary for the construction of the island and the works associated with it to have the authority of Parliament. However, the Bill provides that the area of the sea bed on which BP proposes to construct the island will becone part of Dorset for planning purposes. This means that, if the Bill is granted consent, no development will take place unless planning approval is obtained from Dorset county council, or the Secretary of State on appeal.

  Sea Pollution
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what response he has made to the Public Accounts Committee report on oil and chemical pollution at sea.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Treasury minute in response to the 40th report by the Public Accounts Committee on oil and chemical pollution at sea is currently being drafted and will be published shortly.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Crime Prevention
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which cities are eligible to apply for specific crime prevention projects funding under(a) the safer cities programme and (b) urban programme schemes; and if he will list those cities in the last 18 months which have made successful bids for specific crime prevention projects.

  Mr. John Patten
  The 19 areas where the Home Office has established safer cities projects, listed in the table, are eligible for Home Office grants for specific crime prevention schemes. All have received funding in the last 18 months except Derby, Leicester and Middlesbrough, where projects began operation only this autumn.

  Fifty-seven designated districts, also listed in the table, are eligible to apply for Department of the Environment funding under the urban programme. Those marked with an asterisk have included crime prevention projects in their programme for 1991–92, the only period for which I understand this information is available.

  Safer Cities projects

  Birmingham

  Bradford

  Bristol

  Coventry

  Derby

  Hartlepool

  Hull

  Islington

  Leicester

  165

  Lewisham

  Middlesbrough

  Nottingham

  Rochdale

  Salford

  Sunderland

  Tower Hamlets

  Wandsworth

  Wirral

  Wolverhampton

  Urban Programme Local Authorities

  1Newcastle/Gateshead

  1Hartlepool

  1Langbaurgh

  1Middlesbrough

  1North Tyneside

  1South Tyneside

  1Stockton-on-Tees

  1Sunderland

  1Manchester/Salford

  1Blackburn

  1Bolton

  1Burnley

  1Oldham

  1Preston

  1Rochdale

  1Wigan

  Liverpool

  Halton

  Knowsley

  St Helens

  Sefton

  Wirral

  Barnsley

  Bradford

  Doncaster

  Kingston Upon Hull

  Leeds

  Rotherham

  Sheffield

  Kirklees

  Birmingham

  Coventry

  Dudley

  Sandwell

  Walsall

  Wolverhampton

  Wrekin

  1Derby

  1Leicester

  1Nottingham

  1Bristol

  1Plymouth

  1Hackney

  1Islington

  1Lambeth

  1Brent

  1Greenwich

  1Hammersmith and Fulham

  1Haringey

  1Kensington and Chelsea

  1Lewisham

  1Newham

  1Southwark

  Tower Hamlets

  1Wandsworth

  1 Authorities which included crime prevention projects in their 1991–92 programmes.

  Kerb Crawling
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the number of motorists convicted of kerb crawling in the Greater London area from January to October 1991.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information is not yet available for 1990 and 1991. In England and Wales in 1989 there were 166
  891 males convicted of kerb crawling. Of these 49 were within the Metropolitan police district and none within the City of London police force area.

  Criminal Injuries (Compensation)
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average length of time which elapses between the date of criminal injury and the payment of compensation in respect of that injury.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board does not record centrally the period between the dates of incident and registration of claim. Nor does it produce an average time for processing applications. However, percentages of cases completed within certain periods of registration are shown in the board's annual reports, copies of which are in the Library.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of incidents recorded per uniformed police officer for the year 1990–91 in(a) Weybridge, Surrey and (b) Newcastle upon Tyne.

  Mr. John Patten
  Figures are not available.

  Northumbria Police Authority
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to reply to recent representations from the Northumbria police authority.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. Friend has received a request from Northumbria police authority for a special payment to meet costs arising from the recent disturbances on Tyneside. This is receiving urgent consideration and my right hon. Friend will reply as soon as possible.

  Political Asylum
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when Mr. Daya Pal Singh and his wife (S 672230/2(S)), Mr. Harvinder Pal Singh (S 672231/2 (S)) and Mr. Hari Pal Singh (S 672909/2 (S)), all relatives of Mr. Mohinder Paul Singh Bedi of Hayes, applied for political asylum in the United Kingdom; what is their current status in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No.

  The hon. Member will understand that it has been the practice of successive Governments not to confirm or deny whether an individual has made a claim for political asylum in the United Kingdom.

  Police Cells
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment is made of the mental health of people held on remand in police cells in England and Wales when they are remanded.

  Mrs. Angela Rumbold
  Arrangements for caring for prisoners in police cells are for chief officers of police. I understand that the prisoners concerned are normally assessed by a police doctor on reception.

  Prison Accommodation
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are taken to ensure that prisoners for whom prison cell accommodation is not suitable are given acceptable alternatives.

  Mrs. Angela Rumbold
  The only circumstances under which prison cell accommodation could be considered unsuitable would be on medical grounds. In such cases the inmate would be accommodated in the establishment's health centre or, if necessary, transferred to hospital.

  Children and Young Persons Act
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state(a) the number of children detained in relation to section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 in each of the past 15 years, (b) the average length of detention or imprisonment undertaken by such offenders, (c) how many have been released under licence and (d) in how many cases licences were revoked; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Angela Rumbold
  [holding answer 13 November 1991]: The readily available information on the number of persons sentenced in England and Wales to detention under section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 is given in table 1. The lengths of sentence imposed on those sentenced under section 53(2) are shown in table 2.

  Further information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Information about the number of juveniles received into and detained in prison service establishments under section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 are published annually in "Prison Statistics England and Wales", tables 3.2 and 3.13 of the volume for 1989, Cm 1221, copies of which are in the Library.

  The numbers of prisoners released from prison service establishments in England and Wales on licence from

  Table 2

  Persons sentenced under Section 53(2) Children and Young Persons Act 1933 by length of sentence, 1984–1989

  England and Wales

  Number of persons

  Length of sentence

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1 1989

  Up to 4 months

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Over 4 months and up to 6 months

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  Over 6 months and up to 1 year

  1

  1

  2

  6

  4

  3

  Over 1 year and up to 18 months

  6

  9

  9

  3

  4

  1

  Over 18 months and up to 2 years

  23

  39

  30

  36

  32

  20

  Over 2 years and up to 3 years

  39

  70

  71

  59

  88

  66

  Over 3 years and up to 4 years

  17

  20

  21

  23

  25

  10

  Over 4 years and up to 5 years

  5

  10

  13

  14

  12

  9

  Over 5 years and up to 7 years

  4

  3

  3

  7

  8

  1

  Over 7 years and up to 10 years

  1

  1

  2

  2

  2

  —

  Over 10 years, excluding life

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Life

  2

  1

  3

  2

  1

  4

  Total

  99

  154

  156

  154

  177

  115

  1Comparisons with prison receptions data suggests that there may have been under recording in 1989.

  Table 3

  Prisoners released on licence from Prison Service establishments in England and Wales from detention during Her Majesty's pleasure or for life under Section 53, Children and Young Persons Act 1933: by year of release and average time served, 1976–90

  Year

  Number

  Time served1 (years)

  1976

  8

  7·4

  1977

  3

  9·1

  1978

  8

  7·7

  1979

  4

  7·5

  168
  detention during Her Majesty's pleasure under section 53(1) or for life under section 53(2), showing the average times served, are given in table 3.

  The majority of prisoners discharged from determinate detention under section 53(2) are released on licence before the end of sentence. In 1987, of the 140 detainees released from prison service establishments, about 90 were released on licence; in 1988 the figures were 120 and 100.

  The numbers recalled in 1990 from licence after determinate sentences under the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 are published in table 5 of the Parole Board's annual report for 1990 (HC 481), a copy of which is in the Library.

  Table 1

  Persons sentenced under Section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933: 1975–89 England and Wales

  Number of persons

  Section 53(1)

  Section 53(2)

  Total

  1975

  6

  45

  51

  1976

  7

  51

  58

  1977

  10

  59

  69

  1978

  9

  81

  90

  1979

  26

  54

  80

  1980

  19

  64

  83

  1981

  16

  71

  87

  1982

  31

  81

  112

  1983

  16

  69

  85

  1984

  22

  99

  121

  1985

  18

  154

  172

  1986

  16

  156

  172

  1987

  19

  154

  173

  1988

  22

  177

  199

  1 1989

  15

  115

  130

  1 Comparisons with prison receptions data suggests there may have been under recording in 1989.

  Year

  Number

  Time served1 (years)

  1980

  5

  8·8

  1981

  6

  8·6

  1982

  6

  8·4

  1983

  9

  8·4

  1984

  4

  7·4

  1985

  8

  8·5

  1986

  9

  9·1

  169

  Year

  Number

  Time served1 (years)

  1987

  11

  11·9

  1988

  2

  9·8

  1989

  7

  10·2

  21990

  6

  13·1

  1 Excluding any time spent on remand in custody, in non-Prison Service establishments or following any subsequent recall.

  2 Provisional Figures.

  Publicity
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide an up-to-date list of each television advertising campaign carried out, or to be carried out, by(a) the Home Office and (b) the Metropolitan police during 1991–92, and of each other publicity campaign costing more than £100,000, giving for each (i) the topic, (ii) the commencement date, (iii) the duration and (iv) the advertising, promotional and public relations companies involved.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  [pursuant to his reply, 5 November 1991, c. 34–36]: The Commissioner has told me that in 1991–92 the Metropolitan police service is funding one television advertising campaign, which is for police recruitment. This is a part of recruitment advertising for the service which, in this period, is the only campaign costing more than £100,000. It is a continuing campaign carried on throughout the year and is being handled by Collett, Dickenson, Pearce and Partners Ltd. and Moxon, Dolphin and Kerby.

THE ARTS

  library Association
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received from the Library Association about the views he attributed to the association in his reply to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) on 11 November,Official Report, column 776.

  Mr. Renton
  I am glad to have this opportunity of correcting a slip of the tongue in my reply to a supplementary question from the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) on 11 November,Official Report, column 776. I referred to the Library Association when I intended to quote the report "Libraries Choice", which said that the key issues facing public library authorities were not necessarily financial but were those of attitude, choice and commitment. I have acknowledged this in a letter to the Library Association and have copied the exchange of correspondence to the hon. Members for Crewe and Nantwich and for Stoke on Trent, Central.

WALES

  Special Schools
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the initiatives he has taken to assist pupils and teachers in special schools; and if he will make a statement.
  170
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  It is for local education authorities to ensure that appropriate provision is made in schools for children with special educational needs. The Welsh Office has issued guidance to LEAs and others on staffing for pupils with special needs and on the procedures associated with the assessment and statementing processes of the Education Act 1981. Further, the Department has made grant available, which is being continued in 1992–93, under the grants for education support and training scheme (GEST), for the in-service training of teachers of pupils who are visually or hearing impaired or who have severe learning difficulties and for the initial training of educational psychologists.

  More widely, we are providing support to LEAs under the GEST programme for the implementation of school teacher appraisal schemes. Appraisal will help teachers, including those in special schools, to improve their professional skills and develop their full potential.

  Blind and Partially Sighted People
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he proposes to assist the blind and the partially sighted; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) on 12 November 1991.

  Hearing Impaired People
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for
  Wales what measures he proposes to assist those who are deaf or hearing impaired.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Under the provisions of the NHS and Community Care Act 1990, social services authorities are to publish their first social care plans by 1 April 1992. These plans, which in Wales are to be prepared jointly with all other relevant authorities and service providers, and representatives of user and carer interests, will include hearing impairment services and set out the way in which authorities intend to assess and meet peoples needs. The Welsh Office has issued guidance to the authorities on the preparation and content of these plans and on assessment and care management.

  This has recently been supplemented by the publication of the latest of the Welsh Health Planning Forum's protocols for investment in health services to achieve health gain, which covers the needs of those with physical or sensory disabilities. The Welsh Office is working closely with authorities in the preparation of draft plans to ensure that they address adequately the needs of all client groups.

  The Welsh Office is making available £1·6 million in the current financial year to encourage the development of more flexible forms of community care for elderly people and those with physical and/or sensory disabilities. So far, 39 projects have been approved, with more in the pipeline, and a circular inviting applications for schemes beginning in 1992–93 was issued in October. We are also making available £600,000 in 1991–92 to organisations active at an all-Wales level in promoting the interests of the elderly and of those with disabilities. Among these are the Wales Council for the Disabled (£250,000) and the Wales Council for the Deaf (£94,000).

  The Children Act, which came into effect from 14 October, lays a general duty on social services authorities to promote the welfare of children who are in need by

  171
  providing an appropriate range and level of services. Section 17 of the Act defines children in need so as to include deaf or hearing impaired children. The provision of education for such children is a matter for local education authorities. However, the Welsh Office has made grant available, which is to continue in 1992–93, under the grants for education support and training programme for the in-service training of teachers of the deaf/hearing impaired. Further, the Department has invited bids for grant aid under GEST for the development of a regional centre for the educational needs of those who are deaf and blind. Bids are currently being considered.

  Homelessness
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people in each district council area are(a) registered as homeless or (b) on the housing waiting list.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  (a) People do not register as homeless but present themselves, together with other members of their household, to the housing authority. The numbers of people within households accepted as homeless by local authorities under the Housing Act 1985 in the quarter ended 30 June 1991 are given in the following table:

  Persons accepted as homeless: quarter ending 30 June 1991

  Number

  Aberconwy

  26

  Alyn and Deeside

  165

  Arfon

  23

  Blaenau Gwent

  196

  Brecknock

  78

  Cardiff

  1,129

  Carmarthen

  47

  Ceredigion

  47

  Colwyn

  33

  Cynon Valley

  284

  Delyn

  191

  Dinefwr

  79

  Dwyfor

  24

  Glyndwr

  30

  Islwyn

  97

  Llanelli

  74

  Lliw Valley

  46

  Meirionnydd

  79

  Merthyr Tydfil

  103

  Monmouth

  83

  Montgomeryshire

  71

  Neath

  170

  Newport

  793

  Ogwr

  309

  Port Talbot

  109

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  63

  Radnorshire

  15

  Rhondda

  86

  Rhuddlan

  50

  Rhymney Valley

  95

  South Pembrokeshire

  60

  Swansea

  499

  Taff-Ely

  196

  Torfaen

  249

  Vale of Glamorgan

  233

  Wrexham Maelor

  176

  Ynys Mon

  31

  Wales total

  6,039

  (b) No information is available centrally.

  Home Repossessions
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many homes have been repossessed by loan or mortgage companies and building societies in each county of Wales during the current year.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Only the total numbers of warrants of repossession are available; those relating specifically to mortgages are not collected separately. However, separate data are available on the number of repossession orders made following mortgage actions. The numbers given in the following table relate to totals of orders made through courts within an area and as such do not correspond directly to the number of homes within that area on which orders were made.

  Repossession Orders made following Mortgage Actions1

  January—September 1991

  Clwyd

  542

  Dyfed

  608

  Gwent

  855

  Gwynedd

  445

  Mid Glamorgan

  1,203

  Powys

  98

  South Glamorgan

  918

  West Glamorgan

  719

  Wales

  5,388

  Source: Lord Chancellor's Department.

  1 Figures include suspended orders, whereby the mortgagees are given an opportunity to clear their debts.

  Geography
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he intends to publish an order to introduce a geography short course for key stage 4 in the national curriculum.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have published today an order specifying the attainment targets and programmes of study for a short geography course at key stage 4. These documents will come into effect from August 1994.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Bank Notes
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) when he last considered the privatisation of the Bank of England printing works at Loughton, Essex; what conclusions were reached; and what is the latest estimate of the proceeds that would accrue from such a privatisation;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to seek competitive tenders for the production of Bank of England bank notes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maples
  The printing of bank notes is the Bank of England's responsibility. The bank is, however, fully conscious of the need to ensure that bank notes are produced as cheaply as possible, consistent with maintaining the security and integrity of the note issue and it has assured me that it will take whatever steps it considers necessary to achieve that.

  BCCI
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has about the invoicing of fees by Price Waterhouse to the Bank of Credit and Commerce International.

  Mr. Maples
  None.

  Bank Regulation
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any plans to create a Banking Commission to regulate all banks in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maples
  No.

  Income tax, NICS and indirect tax payments at multiples of average earnings, 1990–91 and 1991–92—percentages of gross earnings

  Multiples of average earnings

  0·5 per cent.

  0·75 per cent.

  1 per cent.

  1·5 per cent.

  2 per cent.

  5 per cent.

  10 per cent.

  1990–91

  Single people

  Income tax

  15·6

  18·7

  20·3

  22·0

  26·5

  34·6

  37·3

  NICs

  6·9

  7·6

  8·0

  6·1

  4·6

  1·8

  0·9

  VAT

  4·9

  4·9

  5·1

  Other indirect

  7·4

  6·9

  6·6

  Total income tax and NICs

  22·5

  26·3

  28·3

  28·1

  31·1

  36·4

  38·2

  Married, two children

  Income tax

  0·8

  8·8

  12·9

  17·0

  22·0

  32·8

  36·4

  NICs

  6·9

  7·6

  8·0

  6·1

  4·6

  1·8

  0·9

  VAT

  4·4

  4·8

  5·4

  Other indirect

  8·0

  7·1

  6·3

  Total income tax and NICs

  7·7

  16·4

  20·9

  23·1

  26·6

  34·6

  37·3

  Married, both working

  Income tax

  0·8

  8·9

  12·9

  16·9

  18·9

  28·3

  34·2

  NICs

  4·8

  6·2

  6·9

  7·6

  7·7

  3·7

  1·8

  VAT

  5·1

  5·3

  5·5

  Other indirect

  9·5

  8·3

  7·2

  Total income tax and NICs

  5·6

  15·1

  19·8

  24·5

  26·6

  32·0

  36·0

  1991–92

  Single people

  Income tax

  15·4

  18·6

  20·2

  21·8

  25·8

  34·3

  37·2

  NICs

  6·8

  7·5

  7·9

  6·3

  4·8

  1·9

  1·0

  VAT

  5·4

  5·4

  5·6

  Other indirect

  7·5

  7·0

  6·7

  Total income tax and NICs

  22·2

  26·1

  28·1

  28·1

  30·6

  36·2

  38·2

  Married, two children

  Income tax

  0·7

  8·8

  12·8

  16·9

  21·4

  32·5

  36·3

  NICs

  6·8

  7·5

  7·9

  6·3

  4·8

  1·9

  1·0

  VAT

  4·9

  5·4

  6·0

  Other indirect

  8·1

  7·2

  6·4

  Total income tax and NICs

  7·5

  16·3

  20·7

  23·2

  26·2

  34·4

  37·3

  Married, both working

  Income tax

  0·8

  8·9

  12·9

  16·9

  19·0

  27·9

  33·9

  NICs

  4·6

  6·1

  6·8

  7·5

  7·8

  3·8

  1·9

  VAT

  5·7

  5·9

  6·1

  Other indirect

  9·6

  8·5

  7·3

  Total income tax and NICs

  5·4

  15·0

  19·7

  24·4

  26·8

  31·7

  35·8

  Notes

  1. Income tax payments are calculated on the assumption that the households receive no tax reliefs other than the standard allowances and only have income from employment. All earners, including wives, are assumed to pay class 1 NI contributions at the contracted-in rate.

  2. Since 1990–91, husbands and wives have been taxed independently. Previously the tax liability of couples depended on their joint income. To permit comparisons with earlier years, the table therefore shows income tax and national insurance contributions paid by a married couple as a proportion of their joint income, assuming, as in the earlier years, that where both partners are earners, the husband and wife share the relevant multiple of earnings in the ratio 60:40.

  3. In order to provide comparability with 1978–79, when support for children was given partly through child tax allowance, child benefit is treated as a negative income tax for the married couple with two children. (For 1991–92, the child benefit figure is a financial year average).

  Income Disposal
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing the percentage of gross earnings going in(a) income tax, (b) national insurance contributions, (c) VAT, (d) other indirect taxes and (e) the poll tax, of (i) a single person, (ii) a married couple both working, and (iii) a married couple with two children, on (1) 50 per cent., (2) 75 per cent., (3) 100 per cent., (4) 150 per cent., (5) 200 per cent., (6) 500 per cent. and (7) 1,000 per cent. of average earnings in each year since 1978–79

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 19 November 1991]: Figures for 1978–79 to 1987–88 have been placed in the Library of the House, as noted in the Official Report, 13 April 1989, column 624. Figures for 1988–89 and 1989–90 were published in the Official Report, 5 July 1990, columns 699–702. Updated figures for 1990–91 and the latest estimates for 1991–92 are given in the tables.
  175
  4. Average earnings are taken to be the average gross weekly earnings of all full-time males on adult rates with pay unaffected by absence. These are estimated to be £307·00 per week in 1990–91 and £330·80 per week in 1991–92, using the Government Actuary's Department's assumption of 7¾ per cent. growth in whole economy underlying earnings over 1990–91 as published in the 1991 autumn statement.

  5. The estimates of indirect taxes are based on equations derived from the 1985 family expenditure survey, uprated to later years using forecasts of aggregate tax receipts. They are based on the illustrative assumption that 10 per cent. of disposable income is saved. There are wide variations in spending patterns between households with the same composition and similar incomes and estimated payments of VAT and other indirect taxes are therefore approximate, even within the income range for which figures are shown. Outside this range, the margin of error is even higher and reliable estimates cannot be made. Because of sampling variation, there can be substantial differences between estimates obtained from family expenditure surveys for different years.

  6. It has not been possible to make satisfactory estimates of the burden of the community charge in the absence of sample survey results, which would enable actual payments net of adjustments arising the community charge reduction scheme etc. to be related to earnings.

  Bank Loans
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give comparable figures for the proportion of bank loans to industry which are for periods of five years or more, for each OECD country, for the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Maples
  [holding answer 18 November 1991]: No data are available in the form requested—that is,

  Country (currency/unit)

  Year

  Short-term loans A (up to 2 years)

  Long-term loans B (more than 2 years)

  Proportion of long term loans to total loans B/(A + B) Per cent.

  Austria (Sch billion)

  1985

  83

  68

  45·0

  Belgium (BFr billion)

  1988

  655

  890

  57·6

  Japan (Yen trillion)

  1988

  221

  173

  43·9

  Netherlands (F1 billion)

  1988

  29

  42

  58·9

  Spain (Pta billion)

  1989

  1,695

  4,478

  72·5

  United Kingdom (£ billion)

  1989

  20

  20

  49·8

  United States ($ billion)

  1989

  152

  462

  75·3

  Yugoslavia (D billion)

  1984

  1,599

  2,922

  64·6

PRIME MINISTER

  Debt Relief
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Prime Minister whether he has any plans to extend the debt relief he announced at the Commonwealth Heads of Government summit to all low income debtor countries.

  The Prime Minister
  There are no plans to extend Trinidad terms beyond the poorest and most indebted countries. There is widespread agreement that these countries have the most pressing problems. It is right, therefore, that our priority should be to address their problems. So far 22 very poor and indebted countries have benefited from the existing Toronto terms debt reduction package—another United Kingdom initiative. Although the precise criteria for eligibility for the Trinidad terms package are still being worked out in practice, those that qualify will enjoy a much more generous treatment than that presently available under Toronto terms.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Salmonella
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he has made in his negotiations in the Council of Ministers in introducing Community-wide measures to control salmonella in poultry units.

  Mr. Maclean
  We have continued to press for Community-wide controls on salmonella to be introduced as soon as possible. The European Commission has now published proposals for a regulation on the control of
  176
  differentiating loans for terms of more or less than five years. However, data are available for loans for more or less than two years—the standard system of national accounts split short term v. long term—for the countries shown in the table. These are published in OECD Financial Statistics Part 3, Non-Financial Enterprises Financial Statements balance sheets. The figures are for amounts outstanding in the latest year available, as indicated.

  salmonella and certain other zoonoses throughout the European Community. This is a significant step forward and will provide a useful framework for discussions.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his current policy on slaughtering salmonella-infected egg-laying poultry flocks.

  Mr. Maclean
  Poultry laying flocks in which the presence of salmonella enteritidis has been confirmed are required to be compulsorily slaughtered with compensation. On 31 October we announced that owners of poultry laying flocks infected with salmonella enteritidis and poultry breeding flocks infected with salmonella enteritidis or salmonella typhimurium would be given the option of sending their eggs for pasteurisation. This option will become available when pasteurisation plants have applied for, and have been granted, approval to process eggs from infected flocks.

  Fallen Animals
  Mr. Ron Davieš
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has concerning the numbers of dead farm animals disposed of improperly; and if he will collect details from highways authorities concerning the numbers of farm animal carcasses they collect.

  Mr. Maclean
  We have received some reports of unburied animals and illegal dumping, but as the Agriculture Select Committee accepted in its recent report, most are anecdotal. However, the state veterinary service continues to monitor the situation very closely in consultation with all interested authorities.

  Quarantine
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has concerning the number of attempts to break Britain's animal quarantine laws during the last two years; what species of animals were involved; and how many confirmed cases of rabies have been identified in animals either in or outside quarantine during that period.

  Mr. Maclean
  There were 80 prosecutions in 1989 and 1990 for breaches of the Rabies (Importation of Dogs, Cats and Other Mammals) Order 1974, as amended. The majority involved dogs and cats. Others related to rodents, primates, rabbits, ferrets, a hedgehog and a margay cat. Since the beginning of 1989, there has been one case of rabies identified in a dog in quarantine.

  Battery Cages
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made at the Council of Ministers in respect of the development of new standards of battery cages for laying poultry.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Commission is reviewing egg production systems, as required by the EC battery hens directive. I understand that its report, with proposals for revised welfare standards, is likely to be submitted to the Council in the second half of 1992. The United Kingdom will be pressing for significant improvements in welfare conditions and for the directive to be extended to non-cage systems.

  Number of suspect BSE animals slaughtered

  January 1991

  County

  Total slaughtered

  Number + VE confirmed

  Percentage + VE confirmed

  Number pending

  Avon

  63

  43

  72·88

  4

  Bedfordshire

  6

  4

  66·67

  0

  Berkshire

  11

  8

  72·73

  0

  Buckinghamshire

  15

  15

  100·00

  0

  Cambridgeshire

  6

  6

  100·00

  0

  Cheshire

  77

  74

  96·10

  0

  Cleveland

  3

  2

  66·67

  0

  Clwyd

  33

  29

  96·67

  3

  Cornwall

  159

  130

  81·76

  0

  Cumbria

  34

  31

  91·18

  0

  Derbyshire

  35

  32

  91·43

  0

  Devon

  200

  181

  90·50

  0

  Dorset

  179

  157

  87·71

  0

  Durham

  7

  4

  57·14

  0

  Dyfed

  113

  105

  92·92

  0

  Essex

  6

  5

  83·33

  0

  Mid Glamorgan

  2

  1

  50·00

  0

  South Glamorgan

  5

  4

  80·00

  0

  Gloucestershire

  73

  62

  84·93

  0

  Gwent

  13

  9

  69·23

  0

  Gwynedd

  5

  4

  80·00

  0

  Hampshire

  64

  54

  85·71

  1

  Hereford and Worcester

  38

  30

  78·95

  0

  Hertfordshire

  8

  7

  87·50

  0

  Humberside

  8

  6

  75·00

  0

  Isle of Wight

  14

  12

  85·71

  0

  Kent

  36

  34

  94·44

  0

  Lancashire

  50

  44

  88·00

  0

  Leicestershire

  49

  46

  93·88

  0

  Lincolnshire

  21

  21

  100·00

  0

  London

  1

  1

  100·00

  0

  Manchester

  6

  6

  100·00

  0

  Norfolk

  37

  32

  88·89

  1

  Northamptonshire

  8

  8

  100·00

  0

  Northumberland

  7

  7

  100·00

  0

  Nottinghamshire

  11

  10

  90·91

  0

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research he is undertaking into cattle disease indistinguishable in symptoms from BSE but not proven as BSE by post-mortem examination.

  Mr. Maclean
  There are several common diseases of cattle in which the clinical signs are similar to some of the symptoms of BSE, most notably hypomagnesaemia, nervous ketosis, hypocalacemia and listeriosis. A proportion of clinically suspect cases of BSE which do not have the post-mortem changes of the disease is therefore to be expected. Hypersensitivity, agression or recumbency may frequently prevent investigations into alternative causes either because farm staff will be at risk of injury, or because suspects have to be destroyed in order to prevent further suffering. Nevertheless, histopathological studies of the brains of such cattle have been carried out and no new significant neurological diseases have been detected. We will continue to monitor such cases through the epidemic.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish a table for each county of England and Wales for each month of 1991 to date showing the number of cattle slaughtered as BSE suspect; and how many and what percentage of cases were subsequently confirmed by post-mortem examinations.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is in the table:
  179

  County

  Total slaughtered

  Number + VE confirmed

  Percentage + VE confirmed

  Number pending

  Oxfordshire

  18

  18

  100·00

  0

  Powys

  21

  17

  80·95

  0

  Shropshire

  47

  40

  85·11

  0

  Somerset

  290

  241

  84·56

  5

  Staffordshire

  35

  29

  82·86

  0

  Suffolk

  37

  34

  91·89

  0

  Surrey

  14

  11

  78·57

  0

  Sussex East

  32

  28

  87·50

  0

  Sussex West

  42

  41

  97·62

  0

  West Midlands

  2

  1

  50·00

  0

  Tyne and Wear

  1

  0

  0·00

  0

  Warwickshire

  19

  14

  73·68

  0

  Wiltshire

  140

  110

  78·57

  0

  Yorkshire North

  78

  61

  78·21

  0

  Yorkshire South

  9

  9

  100·00

  0

  Yorkshire West

  8

  7

  87·50

  0

  Number of uspect BSE animals slaughtered

  February 1991

  County

  Total slaughtered

  Number + VE confirmed

  Percentage + VE confirmed

  Number pending

  Avon

  73

  42

  64·62

  8

  Bedfordshire

  9

  9

  100·00

  0

  Berkshire

  11

  8

  72·73

  0

  Buckinghamshire

  16

  11

  68·75

  0

  Cambridgeshire

  3

  3

  100·00

  0

  Cheshire

  60

  54

  90·00

  0

  Cleveland

  1

  0

  0·00

  0

  Clwyd

  28

  20

  90·91

  3

  Cornwall

  120

  83

  69·17

  0

  Cumbria

  43

  37

  86·05

  0

  Derbyshire

  27

  25

  92·59

  0

  Devon

  169

  148

  88·10

  0

  Dorset

  135

  114

  84·44

  0

  Durham

  9

  8

  88·89

  0

  Dyfed

  70

  62

  88·57

  0

  Essex

  4

  3

  75·00

  0

  Mid Glamorgan

  2

  2

  100·00

  0

  South Glamorgan

  2

  2

  100·00

  0

  Gloucestershire

  51

  47

  92·16

  0

  Gwent

  11

  10

  90·91

  0

  Gwynedd

  5

  3

  60·00

  0

  Hampshire

  41

  27

  65·85

  1

  Hereford and Worcester

  33

  31

  93·94

  0

  Hertfordshire

  6

  5

  83·33

  0

  Humberside

  8

  6

  75·00

  0

  Isle of Wight

  10

  10

  100·00

  0

  Kent

  23

  19

  82·61

  0

  Lancashire

  47

  41

  87·23

  0

  Leicestershire

  34

  30

  88·24

  0

  Lincolnshire

  9

  9

  100·00

  0

  London

  4

  3

  100·00

  0

  Manchester

  5

  5

  100·00

  0

  Norfolk

  25

  16

  64·00

  1

  Northamptonshire

  14

  13

  92·86

  0

  Northumberland

  13

  12

  92·31

  0

  Nottinghamshire

  5

  4

  80·00

  0

  Oxfordshire

  32

  20

  64·52

  0

  Powys

  18

  13

  72·22

  0

  Shropshire

  34

  33

  97·06

  0

  Somerset

  200

  173

  87·37

  5

  Staffordshire

  36

  24

  66·67

  0

  Suffolk

  16

  14

  87·50

  0

  Surrey

  6

  6

  100·00

  0

  Sussex East

  24

  18

  75·00

  0

  Sussex West

  52

  43

  82·69

  0

  West Glamorgan

  2

  2

  100·00

  0

  West Midlands

  1

  1

  100·00

  0

  Warwickshire

  15

  14

  93·33

  0

  Wiltshire

  120

  101

  84·87

  0

  Yorkshire North

  67

  56

  83·58

  0

  Yorkshire South

  4

  4

  100·00

  0

  Yorkshire West

  4

  4

  100·00

  0

  180

  181

  Number of suspect BSE animals slaughtered

  March 1991

  County

  Total slaughtered

  Number + VE confirmed

  Percentage + VE confirmed

  Number pending

  Avon

  63

  47

  83·93

  7

  Bedfordshire

  5

  5

  100·00

  0

  Berkshire

  11

  11

  100·00

  0

  Buckinghamshire

  16

  15

  93·75

  0

  Cambridgeshire

  6

  6

  100·00

  0

  Cheshire

  58

  49

  84·48

  0

  Clwyd

  32

  19

  76·00

  7

  Cornwall

  174

  141

  81·03

  0

  Cumbria

  39

  34

  87·18

  0

  Derbyshire

  28

  26

  92·86

  0

  Devon

  249

  213

  86·23

  2

  Dorset

  170

  143

  84·12

  0

  Durham

  3

  3

  100·00

  0

  Dyfed

  96

  83

  86·46

  0

  Essex

  17

  9

  64·29

  3

  Mid Glamorgan

  9

  9

  100·00

  0

  West Glamorgan

  1

  1

  100·00

  0

  Gloucestershire

  45

  36

  80·00

  0

  Gwent

  17

  15

  88·24

  0

  Gwynedd

  4

  4

  100·00

  0

  Hampshire

  82

  72

  88·89

  1

  Hereford and Worcester

  32

  30

  93·75

  0

  Hertfordshire

  7

  6

  85·71

  0

  Humberside

  5

  5

  100·00

  0

  Isle of Wight

  12

  11

  91·67

  0

  Kent

  29

  24

  82·76

  0

  Lancashire

  71

  62

  88·57

  1

  Leicestershire

  40

  39

  97·50

  0

  Lincolnshire

  6

  6

  100·00

  0

  London

  2

  2

  100·00

  0

  Manchester

  2

  2

  100·00

  0

  Merseyside

  2

  1

  50·00

  0

  Norfolk

  39

  35

  92·11

  1

  Northamptonshire

  20

  14

  70·00

  0

  Northumberland

  11

  10

  90·91

  0

  Nottinghamshire

  15

  13

  86·67

  0

  Oxfordshire

  26

  24

  92·31

  0

  Powys

  21

  14

  66·67

  0

  Shropshire

  39

  36

  92·31

  0

  Somerset

  246

  197

  83·12

  9

  Staffordshire

  37

  26

  70·27

  0

  Suffolk

  18

  17

  94·44

  0

  Surrey

  22

  21

  95·45

  0

  Sussex East

  21

  17

  80·95

  0

  Sussex West

  49

  44

  89·80

  0

  Tyne and Wear

  1

  1

  100·00

  0

  Warwickshire

  21

  19

  90·48

  0

  Wiltshire

  121

  86

  71·67

  1

  Yorkshire North

  98

  86

  87·76

  0

  Yorkshire South

  6

  5

  83·33

  0

  Yorkshire West

  14

  13

  92·86

  0

  Number of suspect BSE animals slaughtered

  April 1991

  County

  Total slaughtered

  Number + VE confirmed

  Percentage + VE confirmed

  Number pending

  Avon

  46

  36

  80·00

  1

  Bedfordshire

  8

  7

  87·50

  0

  Berkshire

  7

  6

  85·71

  0

  Buckinghamshire

  21

  19

  90·48

  0

  Cambridgeshire

  3

  1

  33·33

  0

  Cheshire

  85

  70

  83·33

  1

  Clwyd

  35

  25

  78·13

  3

  Cornwall

  174

  144

  82·76

  0

  Cumbria

  50

  44

  88·00

  0

  Derbyshire

  40

  36

  90·00

  0

  Devon

  239

  208

  87·03

  0

  Dorset

  185

  159

  86·41

  1

  Durham

  9

  7

  77·78

  0

  Dyfed

  118

  101

  85·59

  0

  Essex

  18

  14

  82·35

  1

  Mid Glamorgan

  6

  5

  83·33

  0

  West Glamorgan

  2

  1

  50·00

  0

  182

  183

  County

  Total slaughtered

  Number + VE confirmed

  Percentage + VE confirmed

  Number pending

  South Glamorgan

  9

  9

  100·00

  0

  Gloucestershire

  65

  48

  75·00

  1

  Gwent

  13

  11

  84·62

  0

  Gwynedd

  8

  8

  100·00

  0

  Hampshire

  105

  86

  81·90

  0

  Hereford and Worcester

  33

  26

  81·25

  1

  Hertfordshire

  8

  7

  87·50

  0

  Humberside

  9

  8

  88·89

  0

  Isle of Wight

  18

  15

  83·33

  0

  Kent

  34

  31

  91·18

  0

  Lancashire

  56

  43

  76·79

  0

  Leicestershire

  52

  48

  92·31

  0

  Lincolnshire

  19

  17

  89·47

  0

  London

  3

  3

  100·00

  0

  Manchester

  7

  3

  42·86

  0

  Norfolk

  60

  52

  86·67

  0

  Northamptonshire

  29

  27

  93·10

  0

  Northumberland

  7

  3

  42·86

  0

  Nottinghamshire

  6

  6

  100·00

  0

  Oxfordshire

  29

  24

  85·71

  1

  Powys

  22

  16

  72·73

  0

  Shropshire

  40

  36

  90·00

  0

  Somerset

  229

  178

  80·18

  7

  Staffordshire

  38

  32

  86·49

  1

  Suffolk

  20

  17

  85·00

  0

  Surrey

  16

  15

  93·75

  0

  East Sussex

  30

  25

  83·33

  0

  West Sussex

  52

  39

  75·00

  0

  Warwickshire

  24

  20

  83·33

  0

  Wiltshire

  142

  102

  73·38

  3

  North Yorkshire

  77

  62

  80·52

  0

  South Yorkshire

  5

  5

  100·00

  0

  West Yorkshire

  10

  9

  90·00

  0

  Cleveland

  5

  5

  100·00

  0

  West Midlands

  1

  1

  100·00

  0

  Number of suspect BSE animals slaughtered

  May 1991

  County

  Total slaughtered

  Number + VE confirmed

  Percentage + VE confirmed

  Number pending

  Avon

  54

  37

  72·55

  3

  Bedfordshire

  4

  4

  100·00

  0

  Berkshire

  13

  10

  83·33

  1

  Buckinghamshire

  15

  13

  92·86

  1

  Cambridgeshire

  11

  8

  72·73

  0

  Cheshire

  70

  59

  84·29

  0

  Cleveland

  3

  3

  100·00

  0

  Clwyd

  19

  14

  82·35

  2

  Cornwall

  147

  115

  78·23

  0

  Cumbria

  54

  51

  94·44

  0

  Derbyshire

  37

  32

  86·49

  0

  Devon

  180

  149

  83·71

  2

  Dorset

  141

  117

  84·78

  3

  Durham

  5

  4

  80·00

  0

  Dyfed

  93

  75

  80·65

  0

  Essex

  9

  7

  77·78

  0

  South Glamorgan

  4

  4

  100·00

  0

  West Glamorgan

  2

  1

  50·00

  0

  Gloucestershire

  46

  37

  80·43

  0

  Gwent

  11

  9

  81·82

  0

  Gwynedd

  3

  1

  33·33

  0

  Hampshire

  57

  48

  84·21

  0

  Hereford and Worcester

  28

  22

  78·57

  0

  Hertfordshire

  7

  7

  100·00

  0

  Humberside

  8

  4

  57·14

  1

  Isle of Wight

  10

  7

  70·00

  0

  Kent

  37

  35

  97·22

  1

  Lancashire

  46

  35

  77·78

  1

  Leicestershire

  41

  41

  100·00

  0

  Lincolnshire

  10

  9

  90·00

  0

  Manchester

  3

  2

  66·67

  0

  Norfolk

  35

  34

  97·14

  0

  Northamptonshire

  20

  18

  90·00

  0

  Northumberland

  13

  12

  92·31

  0

  Nottinghamshire

  8

  8

  100·00

  0

  184

  185

  County

  Total slaughtered

  Number + VE confirmed

  Percentage + VE confirmed

  Number pending

  Oxon

  35

  29

  82·86

  0

  Powys

  29

  21

  72·41

  0

  Salop

  32

  28

  87·50

  0

  Somerset

  208

  155

  78·28

  10

  Staffordshire

  32

  30

  93·75

  0

  Suffolk

  22

  17

  85·00

  2

  Surrey

  13

  12

  92·31

  0

  Sussex, East

  28

  23

  82·14

  0

  Sussex, West

  30

  23

  79·31

  1

  Warwickshire

  17

  14

  82·35

  0

  Wiltshire

  117

  90

  77·59

  1

  Yorkshire, North

  68

  52

  80·00

  3

  Yorkshire, South

  5

  5

  100·00

  0

  Yorkshire, West

  9

  8

  88·89

  0

  Number of suspect BSE animals slaughtered

  June 1991

  County

  Total slaughtered

  Number + VE confirmed

  Percentage + VE com-firmed

  Number pending

  Avon

  44

  24

  68·57

  9

  Bedfordshire

  8

  7

  87·50

  0

  Berkshire

  8

  8

  100·00

  0

  Buckinghamshire

  14

  13

  92·86

  0

  Cambridgeshire

  5

  4

  80·00

  0

  Cheshire

  72

  62

  86·11

  0

  Cleveland

  2

  1

  50·00

  0

  Clwyd

  37

  25

  86·21

  8

  Cornwall

  161

  129

  80·63

  1

  Cumbria

  33

  29

  87·88

  0

  Derbyshire

  24

  22

  91·67

  0

  Devon

  172

  156

  90·70

  0

  Dorset

  125

  108

  88·52

  3

  Durham

  4

  4

  100·00

  0

  Dyfed

  95

  82

  86·32

  0

  Essex

  10

  7

  87·50

  2

  South Glamorgan

  7

  6

  85·71

  0

  West Glamorgan

  3

  1

  33·33

  0

  Mid Glamorgan

  4

  3

  75·00

  0

  Gloucestershire

  32

  28

  90·32

  1

  Gwent

  13

  11

  84·62

  0

  Gwynedd

  4

  3

  75·00

  0

  Hampshire

  38

  33

  86·84

  0

  Hereford and Worcester

  28

  23

  82·14

  0

  Hertfordshire

  6

  6

  100·00

  0

  Humberside

  10

  7

  87·50

  2

  Isle of Wight

  10

  6

  60·00

  0

  Kent

  16

  16

  100·00

  0

  Lancashire

  39

  33

  84·62

  0

  Leicestershire

  39

  35

  94·59

  2

  Lincolnshire

  11

  10

  100·00

  1

  Manchester

  1

  0

  0·00

  0

  Norfolk

  26

  24

  92·31

  0

  Northamptonshire

  15

  10

  66·67

  0

  Northumberland

  9

  6

  66·67

  0

  Nottinghamshire

  4

  4

  100·00

  0

  Oxfordshire

  32

  28

  87·50

  0

  Powys

  16

  12

  75·00

  0

  Shropshire

  49

  35

  71·43

  0

  Somerset

  188

  133

  76·00

  13

  Staffordshire

  41

  33

  80·49

  0

  Suffolk

  16

  14

  87·50

  0

  Surrey

  10

  8

  88·89

  1

  Sussex East

  20

  19

  95·00

  0

  Sussex West

  38

  34

  89·47

  0

  Warwickshire

  17

  16

  94·12

  0

  Wiltshire

  110

  88

  80·73

  1

  Yorkshire North

  50

  41

  85·42

  2

  Yorkshire South

  3

  3

  100·00

  0

  Yorkshire West

  5

  5

  100·00

  0

  London

  1

  1

  100·00

  0

  Merseyside

  2

  2

  100·00

  0

  186

  187

  Number of suspect BSE animals slaughtered

  July 1991

  County

  Total slaughtered

  Number + VE confirmed

  Percentage+ VE confirmed

  Number pending

  Avon

  42

  29

  78·38

  5

  Bedfordshire

  3

  3

  100·00

  0

  Berkshire

  9

  7

  87·50

  1

  Buckinghamshire

  26

  24

  96·00

  1

  Cambridgeshire

  5

  5

  100·00

  0

  Cheshire

  84

  71

  93·42

  8

  Cleveland

  2

  2

  100·00

  0

  Clwyd

  43

  28

  93·33

  13

  Cornwall

  158

  133

  84·71

  1

  Cumbria

  70

  62

  88·57

  0

  Derbyshire

  29

  27

  93·10

  0

  Devon

  187

  171

  91·44

  0

  Dorset

  126

  115

  91·27

  0

  Durham

  3

  3

  100·00

  0

  Dyfed

  106

  92

  86·79

  0

  Essex

  11

  9

  100·00

  2

  South Glamorgan

  4

  4

  100·00

  0

  Gloucestershire

  43

  36

  85·71

  1

  Gwent

  16

  15

  93·75

  0

  Gwynedd

  8

  6

  75·00

  0

  Hampshire

  46

  42

  95·45

  2

  Hereford and Worcester

  33

  31

  93·94

  0

  Hertfordshire

  3

  2

  66·67

  0

  Humberside

  12

  12

  100·00

  0

  Isle of Wight

  22

  8

  42·11

  3

  Kent

  34

  30

  90·91

  1

  Lancashire

  59

  48

  81·36

  0

  Leicestershire

  48

  47

  97·92

  0

  Lincolnshire

  22

  20

  90·91

  0

  Manchester

  1

  0

  0·00

  0

  Norfolk

  58

  49

  92·45

  5

  Northamptonshire

  22

  18

  85·71

  1

  Northumberland

  7

  3

  50·00

  1

  Nottinghamshire

  11

  11

  100·00

  0

  Oxfordshire

  28

  23

  92·00

  3

  Powys

  18

  1

  61·11

  0

  Shropshire

  43

  37

  86·05

  0

  Somerset

  215

  155

  78·68

  18

  Staffordshire

  45

  42

  93·33

  0

  Suffolk

  14

  13

  92·86

  0

  Surrey

  9

  9

  100·00

  0

  Sussex East

  28

  24

  85·71

  0

  Sussex West

  40

  33

  82·50

  0

  Warwickshire

  18

  17

  100·00

  1

  Wiltshire

  85

  71

  84·52

  1

  Yorkshire North

  77

  51

  70·83

  5

  Yorkshire South

  8

  7

  87·50

  0

  Yorkshire West

  17

  16

  94·12

  0

  London

  1

  1

  100·00

  0

  Merseyside

  2

  1

  100·00

  1

  Bovine Tuberculosis
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish the number of occurences of bovine tuberculosis and the numbers of cattle affected and destroyed for each of the last 24 quarters; and if he will make a statement on the evidence linking badgers to such outbreaks.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is given in the following table. None of the cattle destroyed was showing 188
  clinical signs of tuberculosis. Every confirmed outbreak is investigated and all other sources of infection are eliminated before the possibility of cross-infection from badgers is assessed. This is based upon badger activity on the breakdown farm together with historical information on badger-related infection in the parish. In the majority of cases where a badger origin has been suspected, infection has been confirmed in badgers killed during MAFF control operations.
  189

  Year/Quarter

  Number of herds with cattle reacting to tuberculin test

  Number of herds with infection confirmed in quarter

  Cases attributed to badgers

  Number of cattle destroyed having reacted to test

  Number of cattle in which infection confirmed by post mortem and/or culture of organism

  1985

  Q1

  341

  34

  33

  268

  138

  Q2

  16

  203

  74

  Q3

  16

  142

  23

  Q4

  8

  87

  16

  1986

  Q1

  306

  24

  36

  150

  40

  Q2

  23

  172

  58

  Q3

  9

  109

  17

  Q4

  9

  86

  16

  1987

  Q1

  324

  24

  77

  163

  92

  Q2

  16

  123

  73

  Q3

  11

  243

  79

  Q4

  11

  94

  53

  1988

  Q1

  363

  38

  65

  180

  78

  Q2

  20

  183

  45

  Q3

  29

  155

  44

  Q4

  13

  159

  81

  1989

  Q1

  95

  37

  71

  183

  102

  Q2

  142

  37

  347

  162

  Q3

  109

  25

  189

  43

  Q4

  106

  24

  182

  48

  1990

  Q1

  103

  23

  81

  229

  97

  Q2

  149

  49

  341

  142

  Q3

  105

  31

  239

  83

  Q4

  112

  37

  239

  75

  1991

  Q1

  147

  39

  28

  343

  146

  Total

  2,402

  605

  391

  4,809

  1,825

  Sea Fish Industry Authority
  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make an announcement about the review of the Sea Fish Industry Authority carried out by Fisheries Departments.

  Mr. Curry
  Officials from Fisheries Departments were asked to carry out a fundamental review of the Sea Fish Industry Authority's future role, and the levy and basis of industry funding on the fisheries industry which would be necessary to support these activities. Their report is being made public and copies placed in the Libraries of the House. Certain other recommendations to the chairman on organisation and staffing will remain confidential.

  The report recommends that the SFIA should continue to carry out the majority of its functions but should cease its generic advertising campaign, allowing the levy rate to be reduced to the level which applied before the most recent increase. The report also makes a number of other recommendations about the application of the levy, the constitution of the SFIA board and improvements to efficiency.

  Fisheries Ministers have considered the report carefully and accept the broad thrust of its conclusions. We consider that the SFIA, since its creation in 1981, has contributed
  190
  substantially to the development of the sea fisheries industry. We endorse the review's finding that the research and development and training role of the authority is, in general, strongly supported by the industry. We feel that it should continue to work broadly along existing lines. We agree that various functional and organisational changes should be made to make the SFIA more efficient and cost effective.

  We endorse the reviewers' conclusion that the SFIA should terminate its generic advertising campaign, but should continue its more specific marketing and promotional programme. We also agree with the view from the industry that a reduction in the levy would be desirable, as it would help to lighten the industry's financial burden. The saving from ending generic advertising would be £1·3 million out of a current budget of £8·3 million and would enable the levy to be reduced to £7 per tonne. We propose asking the SFIA to take the necessary steps.

  We also agree with the recommendations that the levy should not be extended to salmon, trout, canned or bottled fish or applied on an ad valorem basis.

  Fisheries Ministers wish all sectors of the industry to be satisfied that their views on the SFIA's plans and budget have been properly considered and that they have

  191
  adequate representation on the SFIA board. However, we feel that these issues can be taken into account without the need to amend primary legislation if the SFIA and the industry work together to follow up the report's recommendations for greater industry participation in SFIA advisory committees and in drawing up nominations for the SFIA board. We propose to ask the SFIA to consider adjustments to its organisational structure in the light of these and of the various other recommendations for improving efficiency.

  Officials are today writing to organisations with an interest in the SFIA giving them a further opportunity to comment on the action now proposed before final decisions are taken. I have also met the chairman of the authority. To end the period of uncertainty about SFIA's future, our intention is to make a final announcement before the end of this year.

  Japanese Cattle
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what arrangements exist between the United Kingdom and Japan covering the imports of Japanese cattle;

  (2) whether he will permit the import of Kobe cattle from Japan.

  Mr. Maclean
  Japan is not on the list of third countries from which member states of the European Community are permitted to import bovine animals and no arrangements exist for the importation of Japanese cattle, including Kobe cattle, into the United Kingdom.

  Dioxins and Furans
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what tests his Ministry has carried out on the levels of dioxins and furans in mothers and babies; and whether the results of these tests have been published.

  Mr. Maclean
  In 1989 the Department analysed single pooled samples of human milk from both Glasgow and Edinburgh for dioxins and furans as part of a worldwide survey conducted by the WHO regional office for Europe. The results, which were similar to those reported by other western European countries, were published in a scientific paper, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the cost of offering environmentally sensitive area grants to farmers in each of the national parks in England and Wales using similar take-up percentages as exist in those areas which are of a similar nature and region.

  Mr. Gummer
  [pursuant to the answer, 13 November 1991]: I am today announcing my proposals to designate 12 further environmentally sensitive areas. They are:

  In 1992:

  Exmoor

  Hampshire Avon

  Lake District

  North Dorset and South Wiltshire Downs

  North West Kent Coast/South Western Peak;

  In 1993:

  Blackdown Hills, Devon/Somerset border

  Cotswold Hills

  192

  Dartmoor

  Essex Coast

  Shropshire Hills

  Upper Thames Tributaries.

  The new designations will more than treble the amount of farmland within the 10 existing ESAs in England.

  Environmentally sensitive areas have proved a tremendous success since they were first introduced in 1987. They help farmers to conserve special habitats, landscapes and features of historic interest. Their contribution to protecting areas of national environmental importance has been acclaimed by farmers and environmentalists alike, and they have paved the way for similar schemes throughout Europe.

  We are starting work immediately on six of the new areas so that they can come into operation next summer. The other six areas will open for applications the following year.

  The ESA scheme has proved an excellent example of the way in which agricultural and environmental policies can operate in harmony to conserve the best features of our countryside. We have pioneered this approach in the United Kingdom and I am delighted to be able to announce this major extension of the scheme.

ENERGY

  Natural Gas
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give the latest estimates of natural gas reserves for which production access exists or is planned(a) in the United Kingdom sector of the North sea, (b) in the Irish sea, (c) in the English channel and (d) in the western approaches.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My Department's latest estimates of recoverable gas reserves in the United Kingdom are set out in table 4 of my right hon. Friend's report to Parliament of April this year on the "Development of the Oil and Gas Resources of the United Kingdom", also known as the Brown Book, which is available in the House of Commons Library. Apart from reserves for Morecambe in the Irish sea and some very small onshore sources, all figures shown for fields in production or under development relate to fields in the United Kingdom sector of the North sea.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his latest estimate of natural gas consumption by all United Kingdom users, by general category, during 1990–91.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The latest estimate of natural gas consumption by all United Kingdom users, by main category of user, in the period April 1990 to March 1991 is as follows:

  million therms

  Fuel producers

  Natural gas producers own use1

  1,201

  Power stations

  87

  Gas industry2 3

  4597

  Other fuel producers2

  66

  Total fuel producers

  1,951

  Final consumption5

  Iron and steel industry

  461

  193

  million therms

  Other industry2

  5,222

  Domestic

  10,841

  Other final users6

  3,222

  Total final consumption

  19,746

  Total natural gas consumption

  21,697

  1 For drilling, production and pumping operations.

  2 Includes methane produced in collieries.

  3Including losses in distribution.

  4Figures for calendar year 1990.

  5Including non-energy use of natural gas Excluding fuel producers.

  6Mainly public administration, commerce and agriculture.

  Coal Reserves
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the latest estimate of coal reserves for which production access exists or is planned in the United Kingdom in each standard region.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  This is a matter for British Coal, which publishes estimates for total United Kingdom reserves in their annual report. My Department does not keep separate figures.

  Oil Consumption
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his latest estimate of oil consumption by all United Kingdom users, by general category, during 1990–91.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The latest estimate of petroleum consumption by all United Kingdom users, by main category of user, in the period April 1990 to March 1991 is as follows:

  Million tonnes

  Fuel producers

  Refineries1

  6·5

  Power stations

  6·1

  Gas industry

  0·1

  Total fuel producers

  12·7

  Final energy consumption (excluding fuel producers)

  Iron and steel industry

  0·7

  Other industry

  7·7

  Transport

  43·0

  Domestic

  2·3

  Other final users2

  4·2

  Total final energy consumption

  58·0

  Non-energy use3

  8·9

  Total petroleum consumption4

  579·6

  1 Fuel used in refineries (including refinery losses).

  2 Mainly public administration, commerce, and agriculture.

  3 Feedstocks for petrochemical plants plus other non-energy uses.

  4 Excluding deliveries to international marine bunkers.

  5 Due to rounding the sum of the constituent items may not equal the totals.

  Nuclear Power Stations
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his latest estimate of electricity generated for the grid by nuclear power stations in 1990–91.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The latest estimate for electricity generated, net of electricity used on works, by nuclear power stations in the United Kingdom in 1990–91 is 60,689 GW hours. This figure covers electricity generated by Nuclear Electric, Scottish Nuclear, British Nuclear Fuels and the Atomic Energy Authority.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list, by electricity generated and efficiency, nuclear power stations operating in the United Kingdom during 1990–91.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Nuclear power stations operating in the United Kingdom during the financial year 1990–91 are listed in the table:

  Nuclear Electric plc

  AEA

  BNFL plc

  Scottish Nuclear Ltd.

  Bradwell

  Winfrith

  Calder Hall

  Hunterston

  Dungeness 'A'

  (from

  ChapelCross

  'B'

  Hinkley Point 'A'

  October 1990

  Torness

  Oldbury

  no longer

  Sizewell 'A'

  supplies the

  Trawsfynnyd

  grid)

  Wylfa

  Dounreay

  Dungeness 'B'

  Hartlepool

  Heysham I

  Heysham II

  Hinkley Point 'B'

  Gross electricity supplied to the grid from nuclear power stations in the financial year 1990–91 was 61 Terawatt hours. Information on output and efficiency by station is a commercial matter for the companies.

  Oil Reserves
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the latest estimate of oil reserves for which production access exists or is planned(a) in the United Kingdom sector of the North sea and (b) in the western approaches.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My Department's latest estimates of recoverable oil reserves in the United Kingdom are set out in table 3 of my right hon. Friend's report to Parliament of April this year on the "Development of the Oil and Gas Resources of the United Kingdom", also known as the Brown Book, which is available in the House of Commons Library. Apart from a small contribution from onshore sources, the figures shown for fields in production and under development relate entirely to fields in the United Kingdom sector of the North sea.

  Coal Consumption
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his latest estimate of coal consumption by all United Kingdom users, by general category, during 1990–91.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The information requested for coal consumption in the United Kingdom in the period April 1990 to March 1991 is as follows:
  195

  million tonnes

  Consumption by fuel producers:

  Power stations

  81·9

  Coke ovens

  10·7

  Other fuel producers1

  1·6

  Total fuel producers:

  94·2

  Final consumption (excluding fuel producers):

  Industry

  7·4

  Domestic

  5·2

  Other final users2

  1·2

  Total final consumption:

  13·8

  Total coal consumption:

  107·9

  1 Includes consumption by collieries.

  2 Mainly public administration and commerce.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Nepal
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the human rights situation in Nepal following the May 1991 general election.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We are convinced that the best overall safeguard for human rights in Nepal lies in the country's recent transition to full parliamentary democracy. We welcomed the Government's decision in mid-June to release all prisoners who had been detained under the previous regime for religious activities.

  Guyana
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what efforts Her Majesty's Government have made to ensure that the forthcoming elections in Guyana are free and fair.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have urged President Hoyte and other Guyanese Ministers to take all possible steps to restore public and international confidence in the electoral system. I recently summoned the Guyanese High Commissioner to express concern at reports of serious inaccuracies in the electoral list and have made the same point to the visiting Guyanese Deputy Prime Minister.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what were the results of his latest meeting with President Hoyte of Guyana.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has not met President Hoyte. There have, however, been numerous recent meetings between United Kingdom and Guyanese Ministers, the latest between myself and Guyanese Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Winston Murray, on 18 November. On each occasion, the opportunity has been taken to repeat that we expect free and fair elections in Guyana.

  Burma
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received on the question of human rights in Burma.
  196
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have received numerous representations from members of the public, hon. Members, non-governmental organisations and others.

  European Integration
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about European integration.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The Government see the movement towards closer political union in the European Community as an evolving process, but we hope that it will be possible to make a further step forward at the Maastricht European Council, building on the existing wide range of co-operation.

  Croatia and Slovenia
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by what criteria he has denied official British recognition of the democratically elected governments of Croatia and Slovenia; and what were his reasons for urging his European Community counterparts to do likewise.

  Mr. Hurd
  This question is constantly reviewed. Those Yugoslav republics which want independence will get it. But recognition would not stop the fighting. We have to judge whether recognition of the two republics now would increase the very real danger of civil war in the other republics.

  European Frontiers
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures he intends to take to ensure respect in Europe for existing frontiers.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We will continue to uphold the principles and provisions of the Helsinki final act and other CSCE documents which include respect for the territorial integrity of states and the recognition that frontiers can be changed in accordance with international law, by peaceful means and agreement.

  Middle East
  Sir Richard Luce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's position with regard to the middle east conference in Madrid.

  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the middle east situation.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the middle east peace process.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The Madrid conference was an important step towards peace in the middle east. We congratulate the United States Secretary of State on his achievement. We look forward to the early resumption of bilateral talks between the parties and to the launching of broader discussions of regional issues in which we expect to play a part. We shall continue to do all we can to ensure the success of the process.
  197
  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to visit the middle east to discuss the prospects for peace in the region; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to visit the middle east.

  Sudan
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any plans to discuss the situation in the Sudan with leaders in that country.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  My right hon. Friend has no such plans at present. Our embassy in Khartoum follows developments in Sudan closely and puts across to the Government our views on the situation there.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement about the situation in Yugoslavia.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  On 8 November, we and our EC partners made clear our condemnation of the use of force by agreeing a number of economic measures against Yugoslavia. We are now working towards a UN Security Council resolution imposing an embargo on the sale of oil to Yugoslavia.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he intends to take to secure the establishment of structures to provide for the protection of minorities and minority rights before full recognition is given to any of the republics within Yugoslavia.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  There can be no stability in the region without credible guarantees of minority rights. This must be a major element in any political settlement.

  Foreign Affairs Council
  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what he intends to raise at the next Foreign Affairs Council.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The provisional agenda for the Foreign Affairs Council on 2–3 December is:

  —preparation for European Council;

  —Uruguay Round;

  —EC/Egypt;

  —Yugoslavia.

  There will also be a further conclave of Foreign Ministers to discuss political union on 2 December.

  United Kingdom Dependent Territories
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration he is giving to a review of the constitutional position of United Kingdom dependent territories.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Constitutions of dependent territories are periodically reviewed, normally at the request of the elected representatives of the territory. This ad hoc process is appropriate and flexible and fully discharges our 198
  international obligations under article 73 of the UN charter. It is implicit in article 73 that the constitutional arrangements must be tailored to the particular circumstances of each territory.

  Kashmir
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received concerning human rights violations in Kashmir.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have received representations from a number of hon. Members, members of the public and other interested organisations.

  European Economic Area
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the recent agreement between the European Community and EFTA on a new economic area common to members of each organisation.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We warmly welcome the political agreement on the European economic area reached on 21 October. The EEA will extend the EC's single market to the EFTA countries from 1993, creating the world's largest single market. It will be good for Britain, the Community and the wider Europe.

  Cambodia
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has regarding the disappearance of the leadership of the site 8 refugee camp on the Thai/Cambodia border; and what is the view of Her Majesty's Government on the implications for the credibility of the Cambodia settlement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Shortly before the comprehensive political settlement was signed on 23 October, elected administrators at the site 8 camp were summoned to Khmer Rouge headquarters in Cambodia and replaced. At the same time it appears that preparations were also made to return the inhabitants of the camps to Cambodia. At the urgent request of the United Kingdom and others, the United Nations Secretary-General intervened and all the Cambodian parties, including the Khmer Rouge, undertook that there would be no forcible repatriation from the camps that they control. Now that the comprehensive political settlement has been signed, we expect all signatories to meet their obligations under it.

  Turkey
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what weight Her Majesty's Government have given, in considering whether to support the application for EC membership from Turkey, to the human rights situation in Turkey; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Her Majesty's Government believe that applications for European Community membership should be considered on their merits taking into account all the relevant economic and political criteria, including respect for human rights. The Council, in December 1989,
  199
  concluded that the Turkish application was premature, but agreed that measures should be put in place to strengthen the Community's relations with Turkey.

  Turks and Caicos Islands
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about the current situation in the Turks and Caicos Islands; and if he will make a statement about the political, economic and financial position of this colony.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The new Government of the Turks and Caicos Islands are working closely with us to pursue their political and developmental priorities and to ensure the good government of the territory. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will carry forward the discussion when he sees the Chief Minister, the hon. C. Washington Misick, on 28 November.

  EC Treaty of Union
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will outline the areas of policy in which the EC and its institutions would seek participation in terms of the draft treaty of union considered by Foreign Ministers on 12 and 13 November; and if he will publish a list of the areas in which EC participation is not sought in terms of the draft.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The latest composite draft treaty texts circulated by the Dutch presidency, which are available in the Library, provide a comprehensive survey of all the areas where it is proposed to amend the existing provisions of the treaty of Rome. They also include the proposals for increasing inter-governmental co-operation within the framework of the Union.

  Eastern Europe
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what increases he has made in the United Kingdom's diplomatic representation in eastern European countries over the past year; if he has any plans for further increases; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Since November 1990 10 additional staff have been posted to eastern European countries, excluding the Soviet Union. We keep our representation in the region under constant review.

  Korea
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the admission of the Republic of Korea and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to the United Nations.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary gave on 16 October to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), at c.156.

  Vietnamese Refugees
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have been held between the British Government and the United 200
  States authorities on the recent repatriation of Vietnamese refugees from Hong Kong to Vietnam and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) on 12 November 1991, at c.480.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Vietnamese refugees have been accepted into the United Kingdom at the latest date.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Between 1975 and 31 October 1991, 18,032 Vietnamese refugees were resettled in the United Kingdom from places of first asylum in south-east Asia. In addition, a further 4,203 Vietnamese were settled in the United Kingdom under the orderly departure programme.

  Lockerbie
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to inform other Governments of the results so far of the Lockerbie investigation; and what steps he is taking to ensure that high-performance plastic explosive is made only under Government authority and incorporates a substantial signature to assist detection.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We have briefed a wide range of Governments throughout the world on the issue of warrants resulting from the Lockerbie investigation.

  The convention on the marking of plastic explosives for the purpose of detection was signed, subject to ratification, by the United Kingdom, and 40 other states, on 1 March 1991. The convention will require all plastic explosives manufactured by parties to the convention to be "marked" through a chemical additive which will make them detectable by existing equipment. (Official Report, 20 March 1991, column 114).

  The Government are now taking steps to enable ratification of the convention.

  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what evidence he now has on the country in which the high-performance plastic explosive used in the Lockerbie outrage was manufactured.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The Air Accidents Investigation Branch report No. 2/90 and the report of the fatal accident inquiry relating to the Lockerbie air disaster refer to the positive evidence of a detonating high performance plastic explosive, similar to Semtex, being responsible for the explosive destruction of Pan Am flight 103. We have no evidence linking any one country to the manufacture of the plastic explosive used.

  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to Czechoslovakia and any other country manufacturing Semtex or any high-performance plastic explosive in order to ensure a readily recognisable signature is included in the manufacture to assist detecting devices and sniffer dogs.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The United Kingdom worked closely with the Government of Czechoslovakia in the preparation of the convention on the marking of plastic explosives
  201
  for the purpose of detection which was signed, subject to ratification, by the United Kingdom and 40 other states, including all major producers of plastic explosives, on 1 March 1991.

  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Maltese Government following the findings of the Lockerbie investigation.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The Maltese authorities co-operated closely throughout the Lockerbie investigation. They have been briefed fully on the findings of the investigation.

  Vietnam
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the allowances paid to Vietnamese refugees returning voluntarily to Vietnam in order to help them resettle.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  [holding answer 18 November 1991]: All Vietnamese migrants who arrived in places of first asylum before 27 September 1991 and who volunteer to return to Vietnam receive US$410 repatriation assistance from UNHCR.

  Since it was clear that this payment was acting increasingly as an incentive for clandestine departure, UNHCR announced on 27 September 1991 that for all asylum seekers arriving after that date, the level of cash assistance for voluntary returns would be reduced to US$50.

  In addition, the international reintegration assistance programme aims to help all those who return to resume their lives in Vietnam by creating jobs in small and medium-sized enterprises and improving rural infrastructure and health and training facilities.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Local Government Finance
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish an estimate of the total amount of poll tax collected in 1990–91 from direct deductions from benefit in(a) Scotland, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Greenock and Port Glasgow.

  Miss Widdecombe
  An estimated £785,000 in community charge deductions was paid over to the local authority during the financial year 1990–91 by Benefits Agency local offices which cover the Strathclyde area. This figure includes about £37,000 collected from beneficiaries at the Greenock and Port Glasgow social security offices.

  A similar estimate for the whole of Scotland could be compiled only at disproportionate cost.

  Health Service Staff (Disablement)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is the amount of Department of Social Security disablement benefit received each year by health service staff for back pain or back injury;

  (2) what is the amount of Department of Social Security industrial injuries benefit received each year by health service staff for back pain or back injury;

  (3) what is the total amount of Department of Social Security disablement benefit received each year by health service staff;
  202
  (4) what is the total amount of Department of Social Security industrial injuries benefit received each year by health service staff.

  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.

  Departmental Circulars
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many circulars have been issued by his Department(a) to local authorities and (b) to other organisations or individuals, since 1 January 1991.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Eighteen housing benefit and community charge benefit circulars have been issued by the Department to local authorities since 1 January 1991. The other information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Resettlement Units
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about the closure programme of resettlement units; what alternatives are in place; and what assessment he has made of the number of people who may be made homeless as a result of these changes.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Information on the closure programme of resettlement units is in the Resettlement Agency annual report, a copy of which is in the Library. No one will be made homeless as a result of the changes. Details of alternative provision is a matter for Mr. Tony Ward, the chief executive of the Resettlement Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and a copy of the reply will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will list the membership of the regional review teams set up to produce and evaluate alternatives to resettlement units; and the dates each review team met; and what plans there are for future meetings;

  (2) if he will list the membership of the national advisory steering group set up to advise on proposed replacements to resettlement units; the dates it met; and what plans there are for future meetings.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The management of resettlement units is a matter for Mr. Tony Ward, the chief executive of the Resettlement Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and a copy of the reply will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many, and what proportion, of people in receipt of income support/housing benefit(a) disability premium and (b) severe disability premium, also receive invalidity pension/allowance.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 5 November 1991]: The number of cases in receipt of income support/housing benefit with disability premium and/or severe disability premium awarded, and in receipt of invalidity pension/allowance in Great Britain in May 1990, are as follows:

  203

  As a percentage of all in receipt of DP or SDP

  Per cent.

  With Disability Premium

  204,000

  42

  With Severe Disability Premium

  7,000

  10

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Overseas Aid
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the real-terms difference between United Kingdom overseas development assistance in calendar year 1989 and calendar year 1990.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Net official development assistance in 1990 was 12·8 per cent. lower in real terms than in 1989. The 1990 figure was low because a disproportionate amount of planned 1990–91 expenditure fell in the first quarter of 1991. Measured by financial years the aid programme has grown in real terms since 1987–88, and is planned to continue to do so.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any plans to reduce the amount of British aid tied to the purchase of British goods and services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The level of aid tied to British goods and services is regularly considered in the context of the effective operation of our aid programme. Proposals to untie bilateral aid within the Community are scheduled to be discussed by Ministers at the development council meeting on 28 November. We have always made it clear that we are ready to consider further untying if others are genuinely prepared to reciprocate, and there are satisfactory monitoring and policing arrangements.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he intends to link the quantity of aid given to recipient countries to his assessment of those countries' adoption of good governance.

  Mrs. Challker
  Individual aid programmes are regularly assessed to ensure appropriate and effective use of resources. We take into account a number of factors which contribute to good government in the country concerned. In June I announced a target of £50 million in new bilateral commitments for direct assistance on good government in the coming year.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government plan to increase United Kingdom aid to developing countries to the United Nations target level of 0·7 per cent. of gross national product.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Government accept in principle the United Nations target for aid of 0·7 per cent. of gross 204
  national product. Future levels of aid will continue to depend, however, on our economic circumstances and on the many other priorities for public expenditure. The Government's public expenditure plans announced in the autumn statement provide for aid to developing countries of £1,831 million in 1992–93, £1,900 million in 1993–94 and £1,980 million in 1994–95. These figures represent an increase, over this year's originally planned figure, of 15 per cent. in cash terms and 3 per cent. in real terms.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of British aid is fully and freely available for worldwide procurement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  In 1989, the latest year for which figures are available, 33 per cent. of British aid commitments were untied.

  Project Appraisal
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the project appraisal guidelines which have replaced the minimum test of development soundness to which he referred in his answer to the hon. Members for Esher (Mr. Taylor) and for Edmonton (Dr. Twinn) on 15 October 1991,Official Report, columns 126–27.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Aid and trade provision projects are now assessed to ensure that they represent sound investments which are financially viable and technically sound and are likely to bring economic benefits to the recipient country. This assessment includes the following factors.

  the market for the output;

  the best way of supplying the output;

  the rate of return on the project;

  the customer's capability for implementing the project including subsequent operation and maintenance;

  the recipient Government's policies in relevant sectors of the economy;

  the cost burden of the project on the recipient country; and the environmental impact.

  UN Environment Conference
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance has been afforded to(a) United Kingdom-based non-governmental organisations and (b) non-governmental organisations from abroad, by his Department's Overseas Development Administration, to assist their participation in the preparatory committee meetings for the United Nations conference on environment and development in June 1992.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Government pay for a representative from UNEP-UK, which is co-ordinating the views of British non-governmental organisations on the UN conference on environment and development, to attend meetings of the preparatory committee. I am considering how we might assist NGOs from developing countries.

  Forestry Protection
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress made by working group I of the preparatory committee for the United Nations conference on environment and development on forestry protection.

  Mrs. Chalker
  At its third session in Geneva in August and September, the preparatory committee began preparing a statement of principles on the management and conservation of the world's forests. It is expected that the statement of principles will be finalised at the final session of the preparatory committee in New York in March 1992, and that it will be endorsed by world leaders at the United Nations conference on environment and development in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992.

  Guyana
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much aid has been given to Guyana in 1988, 1989 and 1990.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Following are the figures:

  £ million

  1988

  0·6

  1989

  6·6

  1990

  15·3

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the threat to the greenheart tree in Guyana.

  Mrs. Chalker
  No such assessment has been made. Since October 1990 the bilateral aid programme has been financing a three-year research programme by Imperial college which is looking at the major problems concerning the regeneration of greenheart and other commercial timber species.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much the Guyanese Timber Company has received in World bank grants.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The World Bank approved a $10 million loan in October 1978 and a supplementary IDA loan of SDR8·7 million ($8·8 million) in March 1985 to the Government of Guyana for the Upper Demerara forestry project. A state-owned company, Demerara Woods, was set up to manage the project.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what present aid projects exist with Sri Lanka; and if he will list them.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave him on 18 November, column 71.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the costs of the work of the grant-maintained schools section of his Department as a percentage of the overall budget of his Department.
  206
  Mr. Eggar
  In 1991–92 the work of the grant-maintained schools division will account for around 0·7 per cent. of the Department's gross running costs recurrent budget.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many staff are employed in the grant-maintained schools section of his Department.

  Mr. Eggar
  There are 43 staff working in the grant-maintained schools division of the Department.

  Science Budget
  Sir Gerard Vaughan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish a full statement of the calculations underlying the transitional arrangements in respect of dual support for science funding summarised in his answer to the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis),Official Report, 7 November, columns 202–04.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  As my right hon. and learned Friend announced on 29 July, transitional arrangements will apply to projects for which grant funding is already in progress at 1 August 1992.

  The direct costs element of these projects will continue to be paid under existing arrangements but the research councils will make a contribution to indirect costs at the rate of 40 per cent. of the staff element of direct costs.

  The new dual support arrangements will apply in full to all grants starting on or after 1 August 1992; direct costs for these projects will be assessed using the new boundary and these grants will also be subject to a 40 per cent. addition to the staff element to cover indirect costs.

  The additions to the science budget for dual support announced on 7 November take account of the expected incidence of additional costs resulting from this phasing arrangement. They take account of the average grant profiles of the research councils; variations in the proportions of direct costs relating to staff; and the expected incidence of additional direct costs for each council. Information on the incidence of additional direct costs is based on the study undertaken jointly by heads of the research councils and the Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals, published in July. Copies of the joint report are available in the Library.

  Sir Gerard Vaughan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what arrangements as to quantum and timing of subscriptions to CERN he has taken into account in determining the changes in the science budget over the three years 1992–93 to 1994–95.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  In line with usual practice, the Secretary of State determined the changes in the science budget over the three years 1992–93 and 1994–5 following advice from the Advisory Board for the Research Councils on the research councils' latest assessment of their research priorities and consequent spending requirements.

  In formulating its advice, the ABRC gives due regard to the research councils' international commitments.

  Schools Inspections
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he wil publish his review report on Her Majesty's inspectorate; and whether parents will in future have access to such reports as part of their entitlement to information under the parents charter.
  207
  Mr. Eggar
  As my right hon. and learned Friend told the House on 6 June and repeated on 14 November, the review was set up to provide confidential advice to Ministers and would not be published. The parents charter sets out our proposals for ensuring that parents have the best possible information about local schools. Our plans for school inspection will play an important part in the process.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what estimate his Department has of the cost of reducing all registration classes to a maximum of 30 pupils.

  Mr. Fallon
  My Department does not collect data on the size of the classes in which pupils are registered, so no estimate of the cost of reducing them to a maximum of 30 pupils can be made.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many registration classes have more than 30 pupils.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Alzheimers Disease
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what future he envisages for accelerator mass spectrometry research relating to the possible role of aluminium in Alzheimers disease consequent upon the proposed closure of the nuclear structure facility.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Science and Engineering Research Council is currently reviewing future scientific options following the closure of the nuclear structure facility, including for research in the field of accelerator mass spectrometry.

  Higher Education
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has for improvement in the quality of higher education; and to what extent they involve computer-based learning and video teaching.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Government's plans for maintaining and improving the quality of higher education were set out in the higher education White Paper, "Higher Education: A New Framework", (Cm. 1541). They are provided for in the Further and Higher Education Bill now before Parliament. The information systems committee of the Universities Funding Council has launched a number of initiatives on computer-based learning which are contributing to the development of more flexible and effective provision on the lines envisaged in the White Paper. Capital funding for the Universities Funding Council in 1992–93 will he £9 million higher than in 1991–92; this should enable a start to be made on SuperJANET, the upgraded academic computer network proposed by the ISC.

  Teachers' Pay Review Body
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the expenses or honoraria which are to be paid to the members of the School Teachers' Pay Review Body.
  208
  Mr. Eggar
  Under the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1991, my right hon. and learned Friend is empowered to pay the chairman, deputy chairman and members of the review body such remuneration and such allowances in respect of expenses properly incurred by them in the performance of their duties as he may determine. The amounts to be paid will be those properly claimed by each member of the review body.

  SuperJANET
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received on the need for SuperJANET; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  We have received a number of representations from the academic and research communities about the proposed SuperJANET network. The spending plans announced in the autumn statement provide for capital funding for the Universities Funding Council in 1992–93 to be £9 million higher than in 1991–92: this should enable a start to be made on SuperJANET.

  Further Education
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, further to his answer of 6 November,Official Report, column 140, on what basis he has calculated the £25 million to be provided for 1992–93 for the costs of the establishment of the Further Education Funding Council and the removal of further education and sixth-form colleges from local authorities.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Government intend that, subject to the passage of the Further and Higher Education Bill, funding should be available to assist colleges in preparing for independence from local authority control. The £25 million included in the Government's expenditure plans for 1992–93 has been calculated on the basis that it will allow substantial help to be given to colleges for this purpose and will also cover the costs of establishing the new Further Education Funding Council.

  Teacher Training
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will undertake a review of the resource requirements of those grant-maintained schools which incur additional costs by providing teaching experience for postgraduate students who are following courses of teacher training.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Secretary of State has no plans to undertake a review of the resource requirements of grant-maintained schools for the provision of teaching experience for students on initial teacher training courses.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what funds are currently available to local education authorities and grant-maintained schools to assist them with the additional costs incurred in providing teaching experience for postgraduate students who are following courses of teacher training.

  Mr. Eggar
  Funding for students on courses of initial teacher training is directed, through the funding councils, to the teacher training institutions, which are responsible for making arrangements for teaching practice and other school experience for such students.
  209
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many students each year from courses of teacher training undertake training placements in schools; and how many days on average each student spends each year on such placements.

  Mr. Fallon
  During the 1991–92 academic year, about 15,000 postgraduate certificate of education students and about 23,000 undergraduate students will be placed at a school as part of their teacher training. Postgraduate certificate of education students spend an average of 18 weeks on school experience and teaching practice during their one-year course. Undergraduate students on four-year courses spend an average of 26 weeks in schools over the whole course, with much of this being concentrated in the final year of the course.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Investors
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the range of impartial professional advice available to investors.

  Mr. Redwood
  The provision of independent financial advice is one of the matters currently being considered by the Securities and Investments Board in its review of retail regulation.

  The Government are keen to see a wide range of suitable independent advice available in the market place through independent financial advisers and others.

  Accounting Standards Board
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will bring forward proposals to make the Accounting Standards Board a statutory body.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have no plans to change the status of the Accounting Standards Board.

  Company Disclosure Requirement
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has any plans to monitor compliance with the disclosure requirement of schedule 7 paragraph 9 to the Companies Act 1985.

  Mr. Redwood
  No. My Department will, however, continue to respond to specific complaints about non-compliance with statutory requirements relating to company directors' reports.

  Financial Reporting Council
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will provide details of the financing of the Financial Reporting Council.

  Mr. Redwood
  I refer the hon. Member to the annual report and accounts of the Financial Reporting Council Ltd. for the year to 31 March 1991, copies of which are available on request from the company.

  Company Investigations
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who carries out the investigations authorised under section 447 of the Companies Act 1985.
  210
  Mr. Redwood
  Investigations under section 447 of the Companies Act 1985 as amended are carried out by those persons described in section 447(3), that is, an officer of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry or any other competent person.

  House of Fraser
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he is satisfied with the progress being made by the Takeover Panel in its inquiries into possible breaches of the takeover code in relation to the House of Fraser; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Takeover Panel is not conducting its inquiries on my behalf, and I am therefore not responsible for its progress.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when, in accordance with the undertaking given by his predecessor to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, he expects to report to the House on how all the regulators concerned with the takeover of the House of Fraser have carried out their duties.

  Mr. Redwood
  Memoranda were submitted to the Trade and Industry Committee in November and December 1990 in respect of action taken by regulators in the House of Fraser case. When further relevant information is provided by regulators, the Committee will be informed.

  Guyana
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what were the results of the Department of Trade and Industry-organised seminar with President Hoyte.

  Mr. Lilley
  No such seminar has been organised by my Department.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what Department of Trade and Industry-sponsored trade delegations have been to Guyana.

  Mr. Lilley
  Since 1986 there has been one sponsored trade mission to Guyana. This was undertaken by the Caribbean Trade Advisory Group in February 1991.

  Information Technology
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many meetings he and his Ministers have had with information technology users and suppliers, and their trade associations, to discuss policy issues and reactions to EC draft directives;

  (2) if he will name all the third parties his Department has consulted during the last year on information technology and information technology-related issues.

  Mr. Leigh
  During the last year, DTI Ministers and officials have had numerous contacts with the suppliers and users of information technology, with their trade associations, and with other interested parties such as NEDO. Such contacts form an integral part of the daily business of my Department and cannot be quantified without disproportionate cost and effort.
  211
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last discussed information technology, or information technology-related, issues with other Ministers at the Council of Ministers.

  Mr. Leigh
  The Commission communication on the electronics and IT industry was discussed by the Industry Council on 29 April 1991, which Lord Hesketh attended, and again discussed by the Industry Council on 18 November. Lord Reay was unable to attend that Council as he was attending the European Space Agency ministerial meeting in Munich. IT was also discussed within the context of Community research and development at the Research Council on 28 October. Lord Reay represented the United Kingdom at that Council.

  IT has also been considered in the context of other Councils in recent times, such as the Internal Market Council on 7 November, at which the proposed IMPACT programme concerning the development of the European information market was discussed.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many people in his Department are engaged full time in monitoring developments from the European Commission in Brussels, in the realm of information technology;

  (2) how many staff work full time on information technology, and information technology-related, issues in his Department.

  Mr. Leigh
  My Department employs over 600 staff on information technology, and information technology-related issues. The major concentrations of these personnel are in information technology division, manufacturing technology division, telecommunications and post division and the national physical laboratory, and in respect of my Department's own use of information systems, services and management division.

  Of these staff, a number of them are involved with monitoring the European Commission's activities in relation to information technology research and other programmes that relate to information technology, but none is engaged full time in that capacity.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what initiatives his Department is planning in order to harmonise European information technology legislation.

  Mr. Leigh
  My Department is reacting constructively to current European Community initiatives which may affect European information technology legislation.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) whether there is a central record of reviews and surveys relating to information technology sponsored by his Department;

  (2) how many reviews or surveys relating to information technology, excluding those which relate to his Department's internal departmental use of information technology, are being sponsored by his Department; and what topics they cover.

  Mr. Leigh
  A list of management or computer consultancy contracts awarded by my Department during financial year 1990–91 was published in the Official Report on 5 June 1991, columns 241–46.

  Innovation Unit
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make a statement about the new innovation unit within his Department.

  Mr. Leigh
  I refer my hon. Friend to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's recent press notice P/91/544 of 10 October about the launch of the innovation unit.

  Spirits and Liqueurs
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on what grounds he has decided against extending the requirement to sell gin, rum, vodka and whisky in prescribed quantities to other spirits and liqueurs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  Following consultation, I announced on 25 July my decision not to extend the categories of spirits to be sold in prescribed quantities. No members of the public have complained to me about the limited scope of the legislation. Moreover, if the legislation were extended the same instrument design could no longer be used for all spirits subject to prescribed quantities. This might result in the accidental use of the wrong instrument and would place an additional burden on the trade. Some consultees also stated that many non-controlled spirits are sold as after-dinner drinks and tend to compete more with each other than with the four controlled ones.

  Inward Investment (Ireland)
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the inducements available in the Republic of Ireland for inward industrial investment from overseas and those available in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 19 November 1991]: Information on this subject is contained in "European Regional Incentives" prepared by the European Policies Research Centre, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received about firms relocating factories from the United Kingdom to the Republic of Ireland because of lower rates of corporation tax or other inducements.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 19 November 1991]: The hon. Member raised this issue with me when we met recently. I have received no other representations concerning relocation of factories from the United Kingdom to the Republic of Ireland because of lower rates of corporation tax or other inducements. My Department does not routinely collect information on such moves.

  Scotch Whisky
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on Taiwan's application to become a member of GATT, in the light of Taiwan's treatment of imported Scotch whisky.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 18 November 1991]: The discriminatory tax treatment of Scotch whisky in Taiwan is unsatisfactory. Relations with GATT are a matter of

  213
  Community competence and the Community's position on Taiwan's application to accede to GATT is still under consideration. The United Kingdom, of course, takes up the questions important to Scotch whisky with the European Commission and our European partners.

  Food Prices
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will refer the lack of price competition by the large food retailers to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission for them to carry out a full investigation.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 19 November 1991]: The Director General of Fair Trading continues to keep markets under review, but I understand that at present he has no evidence of price-fixing which would justify a reference of the food retailing sector to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Any evidence of anticompetitive practices should be referred to the director general. Recently there has been evidence of price competition.

  Footwear
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to provide increased financial and other assistance to British footwear manufacturers trying to gain access to the Japanese market.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 19 November 1991]: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave him on 12 November, Official Report, col 458.

EMPLOYMENT

  Ambrosia Creamery (Accident)
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 11 November,Official Report, column 411, on the accident at the Ambrosia creamery, Lifton, Devon on 28 November 1990, what consideration was given to the statements taken by the employer from witnesses during the course of their investigation before reaching the conclusion about the possibility of determining responsibility for the damaged guard mechanism.

  Mr. Jackson
  In coming to a conclusion about the appropriate action to be taken after determination of the extent of responsibility for the damaged guard mechanism, the Health and Safety Executive took full account of the statements taken by the employer from witnesses during the course of the company's own investigation.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 11 November,Official Report, column 411, if he will list the people interviewed by the inspector when carrying out the investigation into the accident on 28 November 1990, at the Ambrosia creamery, Lifton, Devon; and what positions in the company they occupied.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information requested cannot be provided. It is not the policy of the Health and Safety Executive to disclose such information without the knowledge and consent of those individuals concerned.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 11 November,214
  Official Report, column 411, what examination the Health and Safety Executive has made of the reason why an interlock switch was originally fitted to the hinged door to ensure that the conveyor was switched off whenever the door was open on the machinery in the accident on 28 November 1990, at the Ambrosia creamery, Lifton, Devon.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Health and Safety Executive inspector who investigated the accident on 28 November 1990 at Ambrosia creamery questioned the management team about the origins of the machine. He learned that it had been supplied from Germany without guarding at the cup feed point and that management considered that an interlocked guard should be fitted to prevent access to the feed mechanism while the power to the machine was switched on.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 11 November,Official Report, column 411, in connection with the accident at the Ambrosia creamery, Lifton, Devon, on 28 November 1990, for what period the interlocking switch which was fitted to the hinged door on the conveyor was out of action; whether the machine was made to operate after the switch was inoperative; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information available to the Health and Safety Executive investigation indicated that the door became unhinged during the early shift on 21 November 1990. As a consequence the door interlocking switch had been put out of action to allow the machine to operate without it. HSE established that a temporary repair was made during the same shift to restore operation of the interlock switch but this repair failed at a time and date which has not been possible precisely to ascertain.

  Crane Accident, St. Mary's
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 11 November,Official Report, column 413, whether the crane driver was interviewed following the accident to a crane at St. Mary's, Isles of Scilly on 13 July 1991; what observations he made; whether the safe load indicator was operating correctly at the time of the accident; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) inspector who investigated the accident on 13 July 1991 at St. Mary's, Isles of Scilly, did not interview the crane driver. HSE therefore has no information concerning his observations.

  The inspector found that the warning bell circuit of the safe load indicator was operational at the time of his visit. However he was unable to establish whether the entire system was operational at the time of the incident, because of the damage the crane sustained when it overturned and the loss of part of the jib during the dismantling operation to make the crane safe.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 11 November,Official Report, column 413, concerning the accident at St. Mary's, Isles of Scilly, on 13 July 1991, what load it was thought was being lifted by the crane involved; and what was the actual weight lifted in tonnes.
  215
  Mr. Jackson
  It was thought that the container lifted by the crane involved in the accident at St. Mary's on 13 July weighed 4 tonnes or less. The actual weight of the container lifted was later found to be 4·3 tonnes.

  Health and Safety Inspectors
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment for what reason the number of inspectors allocated to the research and laboratory services division at the health and safety inspectorate has been set at one; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  It is quite common practice in the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) for inspectors to be given short-term postings to non-inspectorate divisions, partly as development opportunities and partly to promote cross fertilisation of ideas. However, a great many of the professional posts in HSE's research and laboratory services division involve specialised scientific work and do not readily lend themselves to this type of approach. The division is therefore primarily staffed by professional scientific staff.

  The non-scientific posts in the division are largely concerned with service delivery, involving administrative/clerical and other support duties, and would not provide the right sort of opportunities for inspectors. Even though there is little scope for postings, however, scientists and inspectors regularly work together in multi-disciplinary teams, for example, in major accident investigations.

  Jasbir Singh
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will obtain from the Health and Safety Executive information about the activities of the Executive in connection with the recent death of Jasbir Singh at Idwal Fisher Ltd., Bradford.

  Mr. Jackson
  The fatal accident to Jasbir Singh on 9 April 1991 at Idwal Fisher Ltd., Bradford was reported to the Health and Safety Executive's (HSE) West and North Yorkshire area office immediately after it occurred. The HSE began an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the accident the same day. HSE is currently awaiting the outcome of additional inquiries being made by the police, with whom it is co-operating, before deciding what if any further action may be appropriate.

  Deaths with any mention of hypothermia on the death certificate, Scotland 1979–90

  Under 25

  25–34

  35–44

  45–54

  55–64

  65–74

  75–84

  85+

  Total

  1979

  3

  3

  7

  15

  29

  63

  89

  50

  259

  1980

  8

  2

  4

  6

  19

  47

  85

  28

  199

  1981

  8

  5

  2

  14

  26

  65

  87

  47

  254

  1982

  2

  3

  3

  7

  18

  52

  73

  38

  196

  1983

  5

  2

  2

  15

  16

  35

  60

  44

  179

  1984

  3

  2

  1

  6

  23

  44

  56

  41

  176

  1985

  2

  3

  1

  6

  16

  46

  93

  65

  232

  1986

  3

  2

  6

  8

  19

  41

  90

  40

  209

  1987

  2

  4

  9

  8

  16

  29

  51

  34

  153

  1988

  3

  0

  5

  9

  16

  18

  49

  38

  138

  1989

  7

  3

  5

  4

  14

  33

  51

  35

  152

  1990

  1

  0

  6

  5

  11

  25

  60

  29

  137

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what position the Liverpool, Riverside constituency held in the list of constituencies of official unemployment on a monthly basis from 1979 to the latest available date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  For areas with different sized workforces, such as parliamentary constituencies, the only meaningful comparisons are based on unemployment rates. These are not available at the level of parliamentary constituencies. However, information relating to the numbers unemployed in the Liverpool, Riverside parliamentary constituency, can be obtained from the NOMIS database in the Library and is available from June 1983.

SCOTLAND

  Crab Apples
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the contents of letters written by M. M. Cassie of the Scottish Department of Agriculture and Fisheries on the question of crab apples.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Only one letter was written by the official concerned on this subject. In April 1990 the Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department was notified by the United States Environmental Protection Agency of the proposed revocation of tolerances for residues of the fungicide captan on various fruits including crab apples because the use of captan on these fruits had been cancelled. Miss Cassie wrote to the agency seeking confirmation that the United States definition of crab apples was specific to that crop and did not include any variety or ordinary eating apples. The agency duly confirmed that the use of captan on ordinary eating apples was not being cancelled or the tolerances revoked.

  Hypothermia
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing how many people categorised by age died of hypothermia, or illnesses associated with hypothermia, in each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The figures requested are given in the table.

  Disabled People (Access)
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to amend planning regulations to enhance accessibility for disabled people in all new-build projects; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Office environment department is preparing amendments to the Building Standards (Scotland) Regulations 1990 which will extend access for disabled people to the upper floors of all buildings except dwellings. These amendments are generally in line with similar amendments being prepared for England and Wales and Northern Ireland. They will apply to new build projects and to alterations and extensions to existing buildings in Scotland.

  Waste Disposal and Collection
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a timetable for review of the Collection and Disposal of Waste Regulations 1988 and the subsequent implementation of part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to take into account an exception for Scotland equivalent to regulation 9(1) and schedule 6 case 13 to the 1988 regulations.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  We will undertake consultations on new regulations on waste disposal licensing prior to the implementation of the licensing provisions of part II of the 1990 Act. These provisions are currently scheduled for implementation throughout Great Britain on 1 April 1993. However this timetable will be reviewed in the light of the proposal to set up new environment agencies, for Scotland and for England and Wales, which will assume responsibility for waste regulation.

  Information Formats
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make special financial provision to assist local authorities to provide accessible information formats, such as Braille, large print, tape or videos in sign language, in public libraries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Statutory responsibility for the local authority public library service in Scotland lies with the local authorities themselves and not with the Secretary of State. It is for each local authority to determine the nature and scale of the service in its area in accordance with its duty to provide adequate library facilities for all persons resident in the area.

  Sports (Disabled People)
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide district councils with financial assistance to employ sports development officers to promote recreation amongst disabled people; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  It is for the local authorities in Scotland to determine their deployment of staff and their expenditure on recreation among disabled people according to their assessment of local needs and priorities, in the light of the financial resources available to them.

  HIV
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many non-haemophiliacs in Scotland have contracted HIV infection as a result of national health service transfers of contaminated(a) blood, (b) blood products and (c) tissue;

  (2) how many non-haemophiliacs in Scotland who have contracted HIV infection as a result of contaminated national health service blood-tissue transfers (a) remain alive, (b) have developed AIDS and remain alive and (c) have developed AIDS and have since died of an AIDS-related condition.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information is not available in the form requested. There were 11 reported cases of persons claiming to have contracted HIV infection from contaminated blood, blood products or tissue.

  Of the 11 reported cases, all were alive as at 31 October 1991. We have no information that any of these cases have developed AIDS.

  Food Manufacturing
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by region the numbers currently employed in the food manufacturing industry.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The most recent estimates of employees in employment according to industry and by region are from the September 1989 census of employment. Data for the food manufacturing industry are given in the table.

  Region

  Numbers employed in the food manufacturing industry

  Borders

  1,300

  Central

  900

  Dumfries and Galloway

  2,900

  Fife

  1,000

  Grampian

  10,700

  Highland

  1,300

  Lothian

  8,100

  Strathclyde

  18,300

  Tayside

  4,300

  Islands

  700

  Source: Employment Department 1989 Census of Employment.

  Notes:

  1. These estimates are for September 1989.

  2. The industries covered are Groups 411–423 of the 1980 Standard Industrial Classification.

  3. Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred.

  Organ Exchange
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether all Scottish hospitals take part in the human organ exchange scheme run by the United Kingdom Transplant Support Service Authority.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The national health service in Scotland participates fully in the voluntary organ sharing arrangements run by the United Kingdom Transplant Support Service Authority.

  Further Education
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the colleges of further education which are not under local authority control in Scotland.
  219
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Clause 30 of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill defines a "college of further education" as an educational establishment by which further education is provided. Information is not held centrally on such establishments not under local authority control.

  School Boards
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by education authority current vacancies in the membership of school boards; and if he will express this figure as a percentage of the total number of available places in each authority.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 11 November 1991]: This information is not available centrally. I have no evidence that there will be a significant difference in the number of school boards once the present round of elections and by-elections is complete early next year.

  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures his Department is taking to ensure that all school boards have their full contingent of members.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 11 November 1991]: The conduct of school board elections is a matter for education authorities. They have a statutory duty to ensure that parents are informed about the elections.

  NHS hospitals in Lothian Health Board—(a) in patient waiting lists and time spent on in-patient waiting list: by specially; (b) average wait for in-patient discharges

  (a) In-patient waiting list at 30 June 1991

  Number

  Per cent. waiting 6 months and over

  Per cent. waiting 12 months and over

  Per cent. waiting 24 months and over

  (b) Average (median) wait for in-patient admission for discharges in year ending 31 December 1990 (days)

  All Specialties

  11,971

  32·1

  14·5

  4·6

  29·4

  Acute Specialties

  10,036

  28·7

  11·7

  2·9

  33·4

  General Surgery

  3,272

  42·5

  17·6

  2·7

  27·9

  Orthopaedic surgery

  1,201

  19·7

  6·8

  1·7

  62·1

  ENT surgery

  2,547

  12·3

  4·5

  1·1

  81·5

  Ophthalmology

  1,451

  33·4

  9·6

  2·8

  30·5

  Urology

  1,196

  51·3

  30·3

  10·6

  26·0

  Orthodontists and paediatric dentistry

  12

  0

  0

  0

  11·5

  Oral surgery and medicine

  116

  18·1

  7·8

  1·7

  48·5

  Restorative dentistry

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  General medicine

  478

  17·4

  4·8

  0

  16·2

  Dermatology

  20

  0

  0

  0

  17·4

  Rehabilitation medicine

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Respiratory medicine

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Paediatric surgery

  140

  25·0

  8·6

  1·4

  77·0

  Paediatric medicine

  20

  0

  0

  0

  16·0

  Gynaecology

  571

  20·8

  6·3

  1·6

  31·8

  General practice

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Acute mixed

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other

  22

  45·5

  9·1

  0

  15·9

  Supra-area Specialties

  1,714

  51·2

  30·0

  13·6

  18·8

  Neurosurgery

  202

  41·6

  18·3

  0·5

  24·9

  Cardiothoracic surgery

  303

  36·3

  7·3

  0·3

  12·2

  Plastic surgery

  1,093

  62·2

  41·4

  21·1

  104·2

  Neurology

  34

  0

  0

  0

  14·5

  Radiotherapy

  23

  0

  0

  0

  14·6

  Spinal paralysis

  9

  44·4

  22·2

  0

  14·5

  Obstetric Specialties

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Specialist obstetrics

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  GP obstetrics

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Long Stay Specialties

  89

  21·3

  9·0

  0

  5·9

  Geriatric assessment

  8

  0

  0

  0

  5·1

  Geriatric long stay

  81

  23·5

  9·9

  0

  13·7

  220
  The Scottish Office undertook a press and television advertising campaign in support of education authorities in August and September to encourage parents to stand and to vote in the elections. In the parents charter, launched in September, we informed parents about the important contribution which school boards now make to the education system. My officials will also shortly issue advice to education authorities and school boards to encourage authorities to give boards greater flexibility in the exercise of their current functions.

  In-patient Waiting Lists, Lothian
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each specialty, the current in-patient waiting list figures in the Lothian health board area, and the average in-patient waiting times; and indicate for each specialty(a) the number and (b) the percentage awaiting in-patient treatment for (i) over six months, (ii) over 12 months, (iii) over 18 months, (iv) over 24 months and (v) over 36 months.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 11 November 1991]: The information available is contained in the following tables. Information on patients waiting over 18 months and over 36 months is not at present collected centrally.
  221

  (a) In-patient waiting list at 30 June 1991

  Number

  Per cent. waiting 6 months and over

  Per cent. waiting 12 months and over

  Per cent. waiting 24 months and over

  (b) Average (median) wait for in-patient admission for discharges in year ending 31 December 1990 (days)

  Young chronic sick

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Psychiatric Specialties1

  129

  45·7

  28·7

  16·3

  —

  Mental Illness

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Psychogeriatrics1

  116

  50·9

  31·9

  18·1

  —

  Child psychiatry1

  13

  0

  0

  0

  —

  Adolescent psychiatry

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Special Categories

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Communicable diseases

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Special care baby unit

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Intensive therapy unit

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Accident and Emergency

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  In addition there were 3 mental handicap patients awaiting transfers to a hospital in the Lothian Health Board area.

  1 Average (median) wait figures are not available for these specialties.

HEALTH

  Perinatal Neonatal and Postnatal Deaths
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he intends to take to introduce health promotion measures to ensure that the rate of perinatal, neonatal and postneonatal deaths is urgently reviewed and reduced; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The rate of infant mortality in England is now at its lowest ever level, of 7·9 per 1,000 live births in 1990. Perinatal mortality has also reduced significantly over the last 11 years, from 14·6 per 1,000 total births in 1979 to 8·1 in 1990. We continue our efforts to make further reductions.

  By the end of 1991–92, all regional health authorities will have in place a system of epidemiological surveys to investigate the patterns and trends of still births and neonatal deaths in respect of their own population. A national advisory body will shortly be set up to steer the Government's confidential inquiry into still births and deaths in infancy, and regions will be expected to play a full part in that.

  For 1992–93, the NHS chief executive has asked all RHAs to agree targets with their district health authorities and family health services authorities to reduce the number of still births and infant deaths still further. At the same time, consideration is being given to improving access to services for certain groups of women, such as those from ethnic minorities, and improvements in the level of consultant cover on labour wards will be sought.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the accuracy with which his Department enumerates homeless people in capitation calculations for health planning purposes.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The weighted capitation formula for allocations to regional health authorities takes account of projections of their resident populations but makes no separate allowance for homeless people.

  The projections used are prepared by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys from figures based on the census of population, adjusted for subsequent births,
  222
  deaths and migration. The census aims to cover everyone, but adjustments are made for under-enumeration in estimating the usually resident population of an area. In common with everyone else, the homeless are either included in figures for their area of residence, if they provide a usual address, or in the area in which they were enumerated if they have no fixed abode.

  The Department currently uses projections derived from the 1981 census, but these will be refined in the light of the 1991 census. In 1991, special measurs were taken to produce as reliable a count of people sleeping rough as possible. The results of this have been laid before Parliament in a supplementary monitor to the 1991 census preliminary report.

  Guidance to the NHS invites regional health authorities to consider whether they should adjust the allocations for district health authorities to allow for unenumerated homeless people.

  Nurse Regrading
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what actions he has taken in response to the backlog of nurse regrading appeals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Action to reduce the backlog of nurse grading appeals is a matter for the Nursing and Midwifery Staffs Negotiating Council. A joint working group of the negotiating council is currently considering options for streamlining the existing procedure.

  Health Authorities (Public Relations)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many regional health authorities maintain public relations departments; what is their total annual cost; how big are their staffs; and what increase there has been in their numbers.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Tobacco
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from the Institution of Environmental Health Officers, the BMA, the Coronary
  223
  Prevention Group and local authorities concerning the ban on tobacco advertising and promotion; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We have received a wide range of representations about tobacco advertising and promotion, including from the organisations named.

  Special Footwear
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recognised training is available to NHS appliance clerks in the Orthotics Service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Training for this group of staff is a local responsibility. There is no prescribed national training course.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how long on average a disabled person has to wait for made-to-measure footwear from the time of prescription to delivery; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not available centrally. The new NHS contract for prescribed footwear specifies that delivery must be made within six weeks of receipt of an order. Health authorities should ensure that the contractors with whom they place orders are complying with the terms of the national contract and take up any cases of difficulty which may arise.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has received a copy of the report "Footwear: A Quality Issue" published by the Disabled Living Foundation on behalf of the Disabled Living Foundation, the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy, the King's Fund and the Society of Chiropodists.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Yes, and we are considering the recommendations.

  New Norwich Hospital
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress with funding and plans for the new district general hospital in Norwich; and when he expects work to begin.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Options for the provision of hospital services in Norwich are being reappraised.

  Health Education Council
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the latest breakdown of the Health Education Council's budget and its programme for 1992.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested is published in the Health Education Authority's operational plan 1991–93, copies of which are available in the Library.

  "Enjoy Healthy Eating"
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the objectives behind the publication of the Health Education Authority's "Enjoy Healthy Eating" booklet; and to whom it has been distributed.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Health Education Authority's "Enjoy Healthy Eating" booklet is the first guide to be issued since 224
  the expert Committee of Medical Aspects of Food Policy report on dietary reference values published in July. It represents the start of the healthy eating education campaign, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State promised in the summer. The information and advice it contains has the full backing of both the Department of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  Further nutrition education resources for both professionals and the public are being developed. Two million booklets have been printed, for distribution to a variety of outlets through district health education units.

  Organ Exchanges
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which regional health authorities do not participate in the United Kingdom Transplant Authority's organ exchange scheme.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Participation in the voluntary organ sharing arrangements is a matter for individual units. According to information provided by the United Kingdom Transplant Support Service Authority, which administers the scheme on behalf of the profession, units currently not fully contracted into the scheme are located in the South East Thames and South West Thames regional health authorities.

  HIV
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many non-haemophiliacs in England have contracted HIV infection as a result of national health service transfers of contaminated(a) blood, (b) blood products and (c) tissue;

  (2) how many non-haemophiliacs in England who have contracted HIV infection as a result of contaminated national health service blood-tissue transfers (a) remain alive, (b) have developed AIDS and remain alive and (c) developed AIDS and have since died of an AIDS-related condition.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There have been 49 reports in England of HIV infection in people who received blood, including blood components, in the United Kingdom. There has been one report of HIV infection due to tissue transfer. The number of infected persons thought to be alive is 26. The number reported with AIDS is 26, of whom 21 are known to have died. We have no information on the cause of death.

  Health Education Authority
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which scientific advisers the Health Education Authority consults on its health education programme; and what academic members it maintains on its staff.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Health Education Authority takes account of a wide range of scientific evidence and advice in developing and implementing its various programmes, and employs staff suitably qualified to enable it to do so. If the hon. Member requires any further information he may wish to contact Sir Donald Maitland, the chairman of the authority, direct.

  Organ Transplants
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average waiting time for an organ transplant; and if he will detail this information for kidneys, heart and lungs, hearts, lungs, livers and pancreas.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not collected centrally.

  NHS Beds
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish a table to show the average number of national health service beds in use in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer the hon. Member to the statistical bulletin of 2 October 1990, "NHS hospital activity statistics for England 1979–1989/90", copies of which are available in the Library. More important than the number of beds is the number of patients treated each year. This has increased by more than one third since 1979.

  Operations
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the 10 most costly types of surgical operation currently being carried out under the national health service; and how many of each type were carried out in 1978 and in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 11 November 1991]: The information requested is not available. The costs of any particular treatment or procedure will vary according to the complexity of each case. The most costly types of operations will inevitably be among the most complex, such as double or triple transplants, which are performed only rarely.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Urban Development Grants
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, further to his answer of 11 November,Official Report, column 385, how many civil servants, and in which Departments, are engaged in administering the urban development grants which are funded by the International Fund for Ireland.

  Mr. Hanley
  Twelve all from the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland.

  CRISP Programme
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, further to his answer of 11 November,Official Report, column 385, on CRISP—the community regeneration initiative special project—if he will list the precise criteria for determining which towns and villages are in areas of particular disadvantage, state when these criteria were published and indicate what steps are taken to draw them to the attention of interested parties.

  Mr. Needham
  This is a matter primarily for the International Fund for Ireland. I have asked the chairman of the fund to write to the hon. Gentleman and will place a copy of his letter in the Library.

  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, further to his answer of 11 November,Official Report, column 385, if he will list with respect to each town every payment made under the CRISP programme indicating in each case the recipient and the purpose of the payment.

  Mr. Needham
  The information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  226
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, further to his answer of 11 November,Official Report, column 385, if he will list the specified areas of Belfast and Londonderry for which urban development grant is available and give the precise criteria for the selection of those areas.

  Mr. Needham
  Applications may, in principle, be accepted throughout the Belfast city council area. Because demand has exceeded resources for some time, funds are now focused on areas of greatest need. Currently these areas are those covered by the Belfast action teams, including small parts of some team areas which extend beyond the city council boundary. Outside action team areas, but within the Belfast city boundary, only exceptional projects in terms of urban regeneration are considered for grant.

  In Londonderry, urban development grant is available for approved projects in the main commercial and industrial sectors of the city within the area encompassed by the former county borough of Londonderry, and within the Londonderry enterprise zone at Campsie and Springtown.

  Water Pollution
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give the public funds expended and the various watercourses and lakes involved to restock such waters after pollution incidents in which fish were killed.

  Mr. Hanley
  There is no legislative provision for the use of public funds for general restocking of waters after pollution incidents. Public funds are used to restock waters only in cases where fish kills result from pollution incidents caused by facilities which are in public ownership. Details of such expenditure over the past five years are shown in the following table.

  Location

  Year

  Amount £

  River Creggan

  1987

  7,913

  River Callan

  1987

  3,000

  Restocking has also been carried out in other cases at the expense of those responsible for pollution incidents in keeping with the "polluter pays" principle.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table showing for each of the last three years for which figures are available the number of pollution incidents which resulted in fish kills in Northern Ireland waters, the waters involved, the fish species and approximate numbers, the action taken to restock, to identify the polluters and to prosecute the polluters and the result of court proceedings.

  Mr. Needham
  The information requested is not held centrally. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman in the near future when the details are available.

  Organ Transplants
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people in the Province are awaiting an organ transplant; if he will give the figure for 1990; and how long on average patient; wait for a transplant of a kidney, heart and lungs, heart, lung, liver and cornea.

  Mr. Hanley
  There are at present in Northern Ireland 72 patients waiting for a kidney transplant and about 30 waiting for corneal grafting. The remaining information requested is not readily available.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Stolen Property
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what is the estimated value of property stolen from the House of Commons during 1990 and in 1991 to the most recent practicable date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The estimated value of property reported stolen in the Palace of Westminster and in the Parliamentary Outbuildings was £16,700 in 1990 and £15,800 to date in 1991. This includes property stolen from contractors, which accounts for two thirds of the 1990 figure, as well as from Members, their staff and staff of both Houses.

  Each report of property stolen is vigorously followed up by the police, but it would greatly assist if articles of value were secured and desks and filing cabinets locked when offices are left unattended.

DEFENCE

  TOGS System
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the present status of the thermal observation and gunnery sighting system contract with United Scientific; and whether any penalty clauses have been invoked.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  A TOGS contract was placed with Avimo Ltd., a subsidiary of United Scientific Holdings. Deliveries of main systems are now complete and only the delivery of a number of spares is outstanding. The Department is not pursuing liquidated damages under this contract.

  AWACS Agreement
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the present value of offset contracts created as a result of the Boeing airborne warning and communication system agreement; and if the agreed amounts are being fulfilled.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Boeing has to date submitted progress reports listing contracts placed with United Kingdom companies totalling $1·855 billion, of which we have so far agreed that $1·197 billion should count for credit. I have little doubt that Boeing will meet the agreed target of some $1·5 billion.

  Explosives and Propellants
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many explosives and propellant contracts were placed in the periods(a) January to July and (b) July to December, for each of the years 1987, 1988, 1989 and 1990, respectively; and what were the values of those contracts;

  (2) what has been the expenditure on explosives and propellants in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  My Department purchases the great majority of its explosives and propellants as integral parts of whole munitions, rather than under specific contracts. Overall expenditure on these components is not separately identifiable.

  Starfighter Aircraft (Fuel Leak)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the report on the fuel leak from a C141 Starfighter aircraft at Air Force base Mildenhall in 1990.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I am not aware of any such report.

  HMS Itchen
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, pursuant to his answers of 7 November,Official Report, column 252, he will indicate the implications of the refit of HMS Itchen referred to therein for the availability of sea training facilities at HMS Wessex.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  During the refit of HMS Itchen, reservists' requirements for training at sea can be satisfied by using a mine sweeper fleet vessel allocated to another sea training centre. In addition, even when a ship is in refit some opportunities for training on that ship will still exist.

  Frigates
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether it is his intention to issue a request for proposals for the main gun armament of the replacement for the Type 42 destroyer.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  We intend to issue shortly an invitation to industry, through the Ministry of Defence Contracts Bulletin, to register interest in bidding for the supply of the main gun armament of the replacement for the type 42 frigate.

  European Fighter Aircraft
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy towards an integrated defensive aids sub-system for the European fighter aircraft.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Our policy towards the European fighter aircraft defensive aids sub-system is to equip the aircraft with a capability which meets the operational requirement in the most cost-effective manner.

  Rapid Reaction Corps
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy on the proposal that the Luftwaffe should lead the air component of NATO's rapid reaction corps.
  229
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  At their defence planning committee meeting last May, NATO Defence Ministers agreed, in principle, to the formation of air reaction forces. Since then, work has continued in NATO to determine the precise size and structure of such forces, including the command and control arrangements, which must be efficient and militarily effective.

  Menwith Hill Station (Cable)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when work to lay a new cable between Menwith Hill station and Hunter's Stones post office tower will be completed and at what total estimated cost; what is the purpose of the new cable; and if he will make a statement.
  230
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My Department has no knowledge of work to lay a new cable between Menwith Hill station and Hunter's Stones post office tower.

  Defence Equipment Exhibition
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assistance is available from his Department to British companies taking part in the Eurosatory land defence equipment European exhibition due to be held in Paris in June 1992.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The Defence Export Services Organisation offers advice and, where appropriate, support to any United Kingdom firm intending to market defence-related products overseas.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Exeter.

GATT: Uruguay Round
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made in discussions in the Uruguay Round of the GATT.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, over the past few months considerable progress has been made towards a successful conclusion to the Uruguay Round. Negotiators are close to agreement on many issues. Where difficulties remain—notably on agriculture—much has been done to narrow down the options. We hope that all participants will now work to resolve outstanding differences and to make the final compromises necessary to ensure a successful outcome by the end of the year.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Can he give any indication of the likely date for agreement being reached? Also, can he confirm that rigidity on the part of the European Commission will not inhibit necessary adaptations and reductions in the CAP required for the agreement?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I cannot give any specific date. As I said in my Answer, we hope to reach agreement by the end of the year. With regard to the Commission's attitude, we are all aware that the success of the agriculture negotiations are crucial to the success of the Round itself. All parties, including the Commission, committed themselves to reductions in three of the most important areas; that is, internal support, market access and export subsidies.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that the compromises he speaks of will not include acceptance of a modulation which will mean the support of small inefficient farmers in Europe at the expense of the efficient farmers in Britain?
Lord Henley: My Lords, that goes slightly beyond the Question on the Order Paper. The agreement will obviously need to consider the interests of all farmers, just as it will need to consider the interests of all other interested bodies who may be affected by the outcome of the negotiations.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the House will be grateful to him for putting into its proper context the role of the Commission in these matters? Indeed, a tribute should he paid to President Delors for the active role he has taken in helping to facilitate a successful negotiation.
892
Is the Minister aware also that failure of the Uruguay Round would signpost the way to a disastrous series of "beggar thy neighbour" policies which nobody can afford, least of all developing countries? In that regard, can the Minister give an assurance to the House that the Government support the need for concessions to be made to developing countries? For example, they could be given exemptions and privileges for a fixed period of time to help them overcome the difficulties of coping with a system of liberalised world trade.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that failure in the negotiations would be disastrous. It would not only risk losing the stimulus that success would bring, but also risk a slide-back into protectionism and managed trade. As the noble Lord will agree, that would be disastrous. With regard to developing countries in the third world, we accept that special provision will be necessary for the least developed of those countries. But we should like to see all countries taking on commitments commensurate with their level of development.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Scotch whisky industry is particularly interested in the agriculture part of the negotiations, which involve trade in spirits and other alcoholic beverages? Can he assure the House that the Government and the European Commission will be working hard in those negotiations to ensure the removal of unfair excise and import duties, in particular non-tariff barriers against spirits? Will he specifically look at the problems of what are called the 27 top priority GATT countries, which are defined by the Commission as the countries in which the Scotch whisky industry has a great interest in ensuring that the barriers which inhibit trade are removed?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I note my noble friend's interest in Scotch whisky, which many of us share. We have consistently supported the Scotch Whisky Association's position on the issue. The Government are well aware of the importance of gaining improved access to third country markets for Scotch whisky producers and, for that matter, for other spirit producers.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, will the noble Lord indicate whether this important issue will be raised at the forthcoming Maastricht Conference? If so, will he confirm that the British Government's view will be firmly that the Community in the future should be outward looking?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I imagine that it will be a matter that will arise at Maastricht. It is a matter of importance. I am sure that we all agree with the noble Lord that the Community should be outward looking in the future. That is the reason I tried earlier to stress the importance of a successful outcome to the negotiations.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I cannot join with my noble friend on the Front Bench in his eulogy of M. Jacques Delors, the president of the Commission, especially after his

893
remarks to the European Parliament yesterday? Is he further aware that I am encouraged by the progress that is being made? Bearing in mind that it costs the British family £16 a week extra in food prices, can the Minister say, as the result of what one hopes will be successful negotiations at the end of the year, when British consumers can expect lower prices?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not believe that there is any direct answer that I can give to the noble Lord's second question. I note that he does not agree with his noble friend in his attitude to M. Delors. I somehow expected that.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that a GATT committee has reported that the US-Canadian free trade agreement which has been recently concluded may create difficulties for GATT and for the Uruguay Round? Can the Minister say whether the Government have any view oil that matter?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I was not aware of the GATT committee's view. I shall certainly look into the matter and perhaps write to the noble Lord.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that to some of us it is a trifle disturbing that he is unable to give any indication as to when it is likely that agreement will be reached? In view of the long delay which has already elapsed in the early stages of the discussions, will my noble friend confirm that the Government regard it as a matter of some urgency to bring them to a reasonably speedy conclusion?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I believe I made it clear that we very much hope to reach agreement by the end of this year. I also said that we would consider it disastrous if we were unable to reach agreement. However, it is obvious that when different parties are trying to reach agreement one cannot give a specific time as to when that will be achieved, other than to say that we shall try to do so by the end of this year. As regards the long delay, I can only repeat what my noble friend Lord Caithness said in the debate on the Address, that one of the missed opportunities last year was that we did not reach a successful conclusion to the Uruguay Round.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, can the Minister say what action the Government will take if food prices go up?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I believe that to be another question.

ICBM Policy
2.45 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether President Bush's call for the elimination of all intercontinental ballistic missiles with multiple warheads affects their policy of continuing with Trident.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, no. The Government have made it clear that they remain committed to proceeding with Trident.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that Answer however negative it was. I thank him more especially for the letter which he was kind enough to send me following the gracious Speech. I ask the Minister to reconsider the matter from the point of view that Trident is a multiple warhead system. Is it not also the case that President Bush has said publicly, and it is quoted in the NATO Review—the official document circulated by the Ministry of Defence—that he hopes to get rid of multiple warhead systems? Does the Minister agree that for us to go it alone and develop a new multiple warhead system in these circumstances is somewhat foolish? Will it not lead once again to the expenditure of a very large sum of money which will be quite unnecessary?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I make it clear to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, that ICBMs should be distinguished from submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) and that President Bush made no such proposals in relation to SLBMs. These missiles are invulnerable to pre-emption and hence do not pose the same risks as ICBMs.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, in order for the Question to be clarified, can the Minister say whether intercontinental ballistic missiles are owned by other people? If they are, does the Minister agree that to keep Trident is a very sensible policy?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. Intercontinental ballistic missiles are owned by other people. However, we must at all times ensure that the protection of this nation remains credible.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the American Government are retaining multiple warheads on their submarine-launched ballistic missiles but abandoning them in connection with their air-launched missiles? Is that the difference? If that is so, does the Minister agree that, on that argument, there would be no particular case for getting rid of Britain's multiple warheads?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the Americans are retaining both.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, can the noble Earl give some indication as to how flexible the Polaris fleet will be as regards both the number of missiles carried on a submarine and the number of warheads on a missile?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am not certain of the question asked by the noble Lord. However, I can tell him that under the D5 missile system we have said that we shall carry no more than 128 warheads. At the moment under Polaris a missile carries 48 warheads.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, can the Minister give the cost of retaining this particular weapon?

895
Further, can he say whether the decision to retain it is a unilateral one on the part of the British Government or with the understanding of NATO allies?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's second question is that the decision is with the understanding of our NATO allies. As regards his first question, the current cost estimate is £9.863 billion. That is a real reduction of £126 million over the 1990 estimate. The total real reduction since 1982 is now over £1.8 billion.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, do the Government agree that the delivery of these missiles to Britain is something to which the United States is not bound by law or treaty and that their manufacture or not will be decided in accordance with whatever agreement the United States reaches with the Soviet Union? On the other side of the fence, the Soviet Union is rapidly disintegrating. Can the noble Earl say what new thoughts the Government have on these matters?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the point of accepting the D5 missile system is that we will at all times have a commonality agreement or understanding with the United States. That bodes well for the future.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, was the noble Earl suggesting in his answer to me that the total number of warheads carried on the Polaris fleet is negotiable?
The Earl of Arran: No, my Lords, I was not suggesting that the number of warheads carried on Polaris is negotiable because it is a maximum of 48 warheads.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, while attention is inevitably focused on the threat from the East, can my noble friend say whether other nations such as Libya are working on nuclear weapons, which could present a threat in the future?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I think your Lordships will agree that my noble friend is right about that. We live in an extremely uncertain world; hence the reason for retaining Trident and all that goes with it.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, following the question of my noble friend Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, is not the answer that the President of the United States has announced that he is proposing to scrap all land-based multiple warhead missiles but not submarine-based missiles, which would still carry multiple warheads? Therefore, as my noble friend pointed out, the argument of parity, as it were, on submarine-based missiles falls. Nevertheless, are the Government considering the possibility—I mention it only as a possibility—of having a single warhead per missile on our new Trident fleet?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, my understanding is that the Government are not considering that possibility.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is it not the case that there appears to be some confusion on this matter that is not confined entirely to the Government Benches? Whereas some people have been talking
896
about what is the present situation, I have been discussing what President Bush has described as his ambition. His ambition is to get rid of all multiple warheads, and not merely those that are not on submarines. At a time when the two largest states are proposing to get rid of ICBMs altogether, is this not a foolish moment for us to start developing our own on the enormous scale that is now proposed? Could not these huge sums of money be much better spent on either some extra regiments or on the National Health Service?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the noble Lord is fundamentally, totally and utterly incorrect. Adequate conventional and nuclear forces are the bedrock of our security. This Government will ensure that we retain both.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the Minister said that the change from Polaris to Trident will raise the number of warheads from 48 to 128. Can he describe for us what kind of political situation or war situation would make 128 warheads a greater deterrent than 48 warheads?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the size of our strategic forces is determined by the number of missiles and warheads that we need to overcome anti-missile defences and still present the prospect of damage that no one contemplating an attack on the United Kingdom could consider acceptable. The size of our strategic forces is not determined by the numbers of warheads and missiles that other countries have.

Trident
2.54 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will seek an all—party agreement to the cancellation of Trident.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, no.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is it not customary, or at least not uncustomary, for a government faced with a serious problem to sound out the position generally and to see whether they cannot achieve consensus on it? Is it also not the case that opinion on nuclear weapons is generally moving? It has moved in the United States and has already moved quite a large distance in the Soviet Union. In those circumstances, is this not the time to see whether consensus might be found on an all-party basis in this country?
The Earl of Arran: No, my Lords, that is not the Government's viewpoint. In fact, the noble Lord would probably entirely disagree with what his Front Bench is saying on this point. I will say one thing to the noble Lord. We have always said that if in time the United States and Soviet arsenals were further reduced substantially, and if there had been no significant improvements in defensive capabilities, we

897
would consider how best we might contribute to the arms control process in the light of the changed circumstances.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, in view of the noble Earl's last answer to the previous Question, is it the Government's view that these nuclear weapons will be a permanent feature of the British defence force; or do the Government have the ambition expressed in other countries that eventually nuclear weapons will be eliminated? Bearing that in mind, is the noble Earl aware that the supply of missiles from the United States to this country is held by many people to be an infringement of the non-proliferation treaty? The time may well come when what I have suggested will be accepted in the United States as well as in other parts of the world.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, we do not accept that the supply of missiles from the United States to this country goes against the non-proliferation treaty. I pointed out to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, that if matters were to improve we would consider how best we might contribute to the arms control process in the light of any changed circumstances.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, are not conditions improving now? Does the noble Earl agree that conditions in this area of activity have improved and are improving?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, conditions may have improved, but all noble Lords will understand that we still live in an extremely uncertain world.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that he has correctly stated the position of the Opposition Front Bench and of my party? I said in the debate on the Defence Estimates that we believe that Trident has to be kept and has to developed in the way the Government are developing it, subject to the problem of the fourth boat. There is a slight difference of opinion between us on the matter—we shall have to see how that works. Is he further aware that, if we are in government, we propose to keep Trident unless and until everyone else in the world gives up their nuclear weapons?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the noble Lord's pronunciation of the present policy of his party; whether it will be its future policy is a totally different matter.
The noble Lord referred to the problem of the fourth boat. The fourth boat provides an assurance that over the life of the Trident force there will always be at least one boat on station at all times, invulnerable to pre-emptive attack.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that the Question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, has now been effectively answered in the affirmative as there would appear to be all-party agreement on the matter?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, there may be all-party agreement on that particular matter but not on the original Question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I feel that we shall not make much further progress across the Chamber. Perhaps it would be better for the noble Earl and myself to allow our proceedings to continue. I say that in the hope that his party will betray the same element of flexibility that is to be found in the Labour Party.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, there is no flexibility for the time being on these Benches.

Clothing Workshops for the Disabled
2.59 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood Baroness Lockwood asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy for the future of clothing workshops for the disabled, in the light of the Science Policy Research Unit/Social Policy Research Unit report on this subject.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, the report highlighted the fact that clothing workshops meet the small and specialised needs of severely disabled people in the locality which they serve. They arose mainly in response to the former job creation schemes sponsored by the Department of Employment, funding from which has now been redirected towards training schemes. Nevertheless, the more successful workshops have remained viable by attracting local support from both statutory and voluntary groups. In our view the recommendation of the report for local support is more appropriate than the recommendation for short-term emergency funding.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. However, is she aware that about two years ago there were over 20 workshops providing special clothing for the disabled, that at the time this pooled research began there were 11 and that since that time four have closed, with the remainder facing financial difficulty? Does the noble Baroness accept that clothing for the disabled is an essential part of the health service and that it is necessary for disabled people to be able to obtain clothing which is both comfortable and convenient to wear in the light of their disability and which will give them a sense of dignity and pride in the wearing? If that is so, would it not be better for the Government to accept the recommendation to provide emergency funding for these centres until a long-term policy is established?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we certainly acknowledge the needs of what is a small group of severely disabled people in this respect. However, we believe that the department should look at the broader context of how acceptable clothing can be provided for all disabled people rather than from the perspective of one particular type of supplier.

899
Nevertheless, we are looking at the needs in this area. The suggestion in the report for longer-term arrangements, which suggests that this may be achieved on a fee-per-client basis from the local authority of residence, would fit in well with our community care reforms.
Baroness Young: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether any help will be coming from commerce, industry or the retail side of business to help in these particular workshops, so that all the money which is required does not come only from statutory authorities?
Baroness Hooper: Yes, my Lords, to remain viable clearly the workshops which remain in existence will need to improve their marketing techniques. We are investigating this with leading retailers and we have reason to believe that help will be forthcoming.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the comment on page 52 of the report from the Social Policy Research Unit? The sentence reads:
"We think that the clothing workshops have an important part to play as the core of future provision for the special clothing needs of disabled people".
Later, on the same page, the report states:
"Urgent intervention is necessary if the workshops are to be retained in their present form".
Can the Minister tell the House what disabled people who need this special clothing are supposed to do if these workshops are closed? They cannot wait until April 1993 when the community care proposals come into force.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as I said before, we cannot consider the clothing workshop movement in isolation. The Government are helping in a variety of ways. We already fund the Disabled Living Foundation, which runs a clothing advisory service. That is the country's primary source of information on clothing and dressing for the disabled. We also fund the Disability Information Trust, which publishes a series of illustrated reference books that provide information on the types of clothing, adaptations, patterns and so on, including suitable styles for particular problems, dressing aids and the care of clothes.
The workshops carry out excellent work. Indeed, I had the opportunity of visiting one with the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood. However, it is important to remember that they serve very local needs because an essential component of their work is to be able to measure and fit. Therefore, we need to look at the matter in a very much broader context. Appropriate local authority or local health authority support is the best thing for the long-term future.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, are the Government aware of how important clothing and physical appearance are to disabled people, especially young disabled people who may be looking for a job or who may want to join community activities? Is she also aware of how embarrassing it is for severely deformed people to go into an ordinary shop where they may
900
feel that their needs are not understood? Therefore, can the Government make every effort to help keep such workshops open?
Baroness Hooper: Yes, my Lords, the noble Lady has made an important point. We are very much aware of the needs of this particular group of severely handicapped people. We intend to do everything possible to help them.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, would it not be cost effective if the Government were to subscribe towards the appointment of a development officer who could efficiently develop the present workshops, and also co-operate and work with the retail business as suggested by my noble friend Lady Young?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the Department of Health has received an application for Section 64 funding along the lines suggested by my noble friend. We are considering this in terms of next year's grants under the Section 64 funding scheme.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, with so many people coming out of long-term hospitals into the community, and bearing in mind our cold climate, does the Minister agree that this is really no small matter and that choice is most important? As the needs of disabled people are so varied, does she also agree that having the right advice is most cost effective?
Baroness Hooper: Yes, my Lords. That is why the government schemes to which I referred earlier are essentially advisory. However, we are aware that both commercial and not-for-profit organisations can do more to develop special clothing provision. They are being encouraged to do so. Indeed, some commercial firms already market regular lines of special clothing; for example, through mail order.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that the report states that an alternative approach would be to give disabled customers the financial resources to obtain the special clothing that they require? Indeed, the report adds that that would give them greater choice and flexibility. The report continues that these people receive income support and severe disability premiums. However, it also points out that there is a problem as regards the take-up of existing benefits which would allow them this freedom of choice. Can my noble friend say whether anything can be done to increase the awareness of the availability of such benefits?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as my noble friend said, there are disability premiums for those on income support which take account of additional living costs, including the cost of clothing. We shall continue in our efforts to ensure that these benefits are brought to the attention of those who need them.

Business
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, with the leave of the House, and as the clock shows 30 minutes, I should like to say a word about the two debates standing in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. As the mover is allowed 15 minutes, and the Minister should rise to reply not less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate, in the case of both debates this means that all other speeches should be limited to a maximum of eight minutes. If any noble Lord were to speak at greater length he would be doing so at the expense of subsequent speakers in that debate.

The Police Service
3.7 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale rose to call attention to the problems facing the police service of England and Wales; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is some time since we debated the police. It needs no words of mine to remind your Lordships of the importance of the service to the life of the community; nor does it come cheap. We are talking of a service with a budget approaching £4.5 billion or perhaps, as he told us yesterday, the noble Earl would prefer to say £4,500 million. I am most grateful to those who put down their names to speak today. I believe that the list of speakers contains a greater level of expertise than we have ever previously managed to achieve.
Perhaps I may say at the outset that the police service in this country is one in which we can take great pride. Nothing I say today detracts in any way from my admiration for the service and the way in which it tackles its difficulties; including, for example, the kind of problems to which the noble Earl so graphically referred in speaking in the debate on the Address. All the same, the police would readily agree that there are problems. Regrettably, there is reason for thinking that public confidence in the police—and, indeed, trust in their integrity—is less than it used to be. Cases in which individuals convicted of serious crime have had their convictions overturned because of what came to light about police procedures have done nothing to help.
I first became involved with the police in my early days with the Home Office in the 1930s. There were then 180 or so separate forces in England and Wales. Training in most of them was non-existent. Out of the six top posts at Scotland Yard, four were filled by non-policemen, and we were only just beginning with the proper employment of policewomen and the development of police wireless and the forensic science laboratories. Indeed, in those days people knew what the word "forensic" meant.
How things have changed! There are fewer forces (43 of them) but there are more police, more civilians who help them and more civil servants in the Home Office. There is more crime and more traffic. There are more drug problems. There are more forms to fill in
902
and more offences that the citizen can commit. It seems necessary, for example, to announce at least one new criminal offence at every Conservative Party conference. There are new problems with the ethnic minorities and there have been extensive problems with riots, although those problems are not new. I have vivid memories of the black-shirted fascist brawls of the 1930s.
The first issue that I want to raise is that traditionally the police service is a local government service, although there has always been the marked exception of the Metropolitan Police force. As the Audit Commission has pointed out, the responsibility of each police authority to maintain an adequate and efficient force has become increasingly blurred. Is there not some risk that the new Local Government Bill will make matters even worse? In my time, police boundaries and local government areas kept on changing, but somehow never at the same time and never in step so that we now have merged forces such as Thames Valley, to take one example, responsible to a joint committee. What will now happen if we go in for the widespread creation of unitary local government authorities? I believe that Home Office Ministers have said that they do not contemplate any reduction in the size of police areas; so are we to expect considerable use to be made of the powers being taken in the Bill, amending the provisions of the Police Act 1964, aimed at amalgamations, which in their turn mean local responsibility at two removes, as it were?
I found it interesting, looking at the police service as a local government service, to note that, as far as I can see, not one word was said about the police in Monday's debate on the Local Government Bill and about the provisions in that Bill dealing with police amalgamations. There is the fact that, for all the police being a local service, there are already in being a number of arrangements which go beyond the boundaries of individual forces, and one wonders how much further down that road it will be thought fitting to go.
I can well recall my involvement in the setting up of a national police computer, but am I right in thinking that that is now old hat, and that there is to be a new and bigger computer with improved criminal records and, more especially, improved criminal intelligence records? What is to happen to the regional crime squads? Are there any prospects of including in the new set-up an automatic fingerprint recognition system? Will the local authorities still be paying their whack under the common police service arrangements, which I gather are themselves in some kind of trouble? If so, are they being given an effective say in what is to be provided?
That last question leads me naturally to my next point which is to ask about the control of the purse strings. The Autumn Statement allowed for 1,000 extra police, and some of us, I fear, are puzzled by the mysteries that that evokes about the relationship between police grant and the Department of the Environment's standard spending assessments and capping powers. Are the local authorities obliged to set aside in some way their contribution towards the

903
costs of the 1,000 new posts? Apart from a large extra allocation like that, is it the Department of the Environment or the Home Office which decides upon the size of the police ingredient that goes into the calculation of the standard spending assessment? Who in the end decides how much can be spent on the police" How does that apply to the Metropolitan Police force? Will it not become even more complicated outside London if there is a proliferation for which joint authorities are responsible? That is indeed arcane territory, and we look forward to some enlightenment.
Once a force has its money and its manpower, what about its management? The Chief Inspector of Constabulary said that, although the service seemed comfortable with the concept of operational responsibility at superintendent level, the same could not be said, with some exceptions, about financial control. He also thought that there were some 12,000 jobs at present filled by police officers which could very well be taken over by civilians. Such comments are bound to raise some doubt about the management of resources and whether it is yet as satisfactory as it might be.
The Audit Commission's comments, for example, on the top-heavy command structure in some forces add to those doubts. A report from the Select Committee on Home Affairs in another place on co-operation with Europe went rather further and talked about the service being made up of piecemeal solutions and Heath Robinson structures for a system designed for a Victorian Britain. It came as news to me that heath Robinson was a Victorian, but I let that pass.
I am aware that the inspectors of constabulary are conscious of those problems, but I wonder whether they have access to enough expertise. We have come a long way from the day when the Scottish Express stopped for an extra 10 minutes at Carlisle and the inspector, on his way to the grouse moor, stepped out to examine and inspect the local force, drawn up for his inspection on the platform. But there is a serious question here: should the inspectorate be supported by professional management expertise?
I must say a word about selecting the leaders of the service. We have said goodbye forever to the old days, when county forces tended to take their chief constable from outside, and when the pre-war Hendon Police College set about creating an officer grade—both of them arrangements which produced rather mixed results.
I am aware that much thought has been devoted to carom. planning. I understand that, unlike previous years, the accelerated promotion course at Bramshill is now full; but until now the procedure for filling the top posts from within the service has fallen some little way below perfection. I should like to hear from the Minister whether he is satisfied that we are now on the right course.
My last point is to inquire whether the Government contemplate any further changes in the procedure for handling complaints. These provisions have come in for criticism, for example, from the Police Federation. That body occasionally complains about things.
904
Seeing the arrangements from afar, one is tempted to wonder whether they have become rather too complex and will take too long to implement. Are the Government satisfied that we have this matter about right?
I am not advocating a Royal Commission. I know there are many who would like to see one, but a Royal Commission is already sitting which may produce findings that greatly affect the police. I believe it is as well to leave the matter there. Nor do I regard nationalisation of the service and the solution of the problem of the role of local government by removing that role altogether as serious starters. However, I recall that some years ago the Willink Commission demolished many of the arguments commonly advanced against a national force.
It is undeniable that various problems have arisen that call for careful consideration by the Government and by all those who have the future of the service at heart. I end as I began by stressing the vital importance of the service to the well-being of the community on whose behalf it acts. All I have sought to do is briefly to consider some aspects where there is reason for thinking there may be scope for making this splendid service even better and for recovering in full the esteem in which it used to be held by its fellow citizens. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.22 p.m.
Earl Nelson: My Lords, I start by making the observation that there are certainly more cops than robbers taking part in the debate today.
I wish to quote from a recent statement made by the Police Federation which sets out clearly current police thinking. It states:
"The time has come for the people of Britain to say what kind of Police Service they want, for the Government to provide the necessary resources and for the Police Service to give priority to public expectations".
It is a fact that from time to time the police find they lose direction and a sense of purpose. Why should that be the case today? The basic problems this time do not seem to revolve around pay and conditions as such. They are without doubt the ever-increasing demands on manpower and the consequential effect not only on human resources but also on morale. I recognise of course that the Government have increased police manpower and financial resources dramatically; but has that been sufficient given the awesome extra responsibilities that are heaped on to the police year in and year out, if not day in and day out?
There are persistent cries for more men on the beat, yet simultaneously there are increasing demands on manpower. My following examples illustrate those increasing demands. An avalanche of legislation has played its part in this regard. Recently the police have been required to police red routes and to implement dog registration schemes. They also have to process financial disclosures under the Criminal Justice Act and various drugs and anti-terrorist laws. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act has had the greatest impact as its system of checks and balances keeps hundreds of sergeants in chargerooms as custody officers, and it keeps arresting officers off the streets longer than hitherto.

905
Furthermore, non-criminal matters account for an increasing proportion of resources. All racial incidents must be fully investigated, the needs of victims catered for and action taken beyond merely giving advice. That is also the case when dealing with children, matrimonial disputes and domestic incidents.
Sporting events must also be policed. As the public continues to exercise its right to demonstrate, large numbers of police are committed to public order duties on a daily basis all over the country. During industrial disputes involving the emergency services, police have had to act as firemen and ambulance men. They have repeatedly had to act as prison officers. As a result of the current dispute, police are now guarding some 1,800 prisoners in police cells. Although costs are borne by the Home Office —that is certainly the case with overtime costs—large numbers of police are being kept from the streets. They did not join the force to become prison officers.
The expanding workload as regards data protection has led to an increased reliance on computers. In turn a greater capacity to search records has prompted yet further demands; for example, the vetting of juries and the vetting of employees with access to children and other matters. Those demands will grow. In the future the police may be required to issue certificates of good conduct to persons travelling abroad. They may also be required to vet employees of private organisations such as security firms. Complying with those requests while observing the principles of the Data Protection Act involves considerable extra work in checking inputs and in weeding things out.
The police are becoming increasingly anxious, annoyed and frustrated at the reluctance of some local authorities to detain juvenile defendants in secure accommodation; and at the Bail Act's restriction of the grounds for opposition to bail. We all know that that has led to an alarming increase in offences committed by people who are already on bail.
As regards motor vehicle crime, the police have long despaired that the act of taking a conveyance falls short of the definition of theft and is known as "joyriding". The current craze of "hotting" will perhaps change the perception of both the public and the courts as regards that offence. I am of course well aware that the Government propose shortly to introduce legislation to counteract that current craze. However, prior to 1988 the maximum penalty for taking and driving away a vehicle was three years' imprisonment. Under the Criminal Justice Act 1988, Section 37(1), the maximum penalty was decreased from three years' imprisonment. It stands presently at a maximum fine of £2,000 and/or six months' imprisonment. I wonder therefore whether we are not in part responsible for the present situation.
At present the public's attitude towards people who illegally drive away a vehicle is ambivalent to say the least. If the police chase a mere joyrider, they stand to be criticised when he crashes. If they desist from chasing, they only encourage criminals (who may have committed more serious offences) to make a run for it or to repeat the offence. In this case as in many others the police appear to be in a total no-win situation.
906
White collar fraud has become a growth industry to the extent that fraud squads can no longer cope. Offences involving millions of pounds are now dealt with by non-specialists who are taken off other duties to carry out that work. Government privatisation issues have become a particular headache for the police. Each one results in progressively more referrals for investigation. Contending with these examples of crime—there are of course many others—requires ever more sophisticated and comprehensive training. The number of Metropolitan Police personnel alone, either under training or providing training at any one time, is now equivalent to the number of personnel in a medium-sized police force.
It is simply not realistic to place seemingly infinitely increasing demands upon finite resources. The task of the police must be defined, resourced and then communicated to the public in such a way that there is no doubt about what we can expect from the police. The police cannot make these decisions alone. The future of policing is far too important a subject to be left to political decision alone. The choices must be informed by consultation and debate, and by the speedy setting up of a new Royal Commission.
3.29 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I do not enjoy the advantages of the two previous speakers. The noble Earl, Lord Nelson, was a much respected police officer and the noble Lord, Lord Allen, to whom we are grateful for opening the discussion, was the head of the Home Office for many years. However, I cannot fail to join with them in expressing our pride in the police force. As one who speaks often in this House from what might be called the other side of the argument I recognise that we, on our comfortable perches from which we recommend penal reform or other civilised causes, would hardly exist without the police force to whom we all owe so much.
In preparation for today's debate I have made a rapid investigation of the problems confronting the police in an area which I used to know well, the Oxford area. The so-called riots—which the police call disorders—have arisen on an estate, the Blackbird Leys estate, which did not exist when I was a councillor representing Cowley. They have taken place in an area where it would seem impossible that such things could happen.
In the course of my investigation I have done my best to talk to the right people. I have been given a great deal of help and been taken round the troubled area by a very able police superintendent. I have talked to a councillor who lives on the estate and is married to the Member of Parliament for Oxford, East. I have spoken to a lady who is chairman of the parish council and has lived in the area for many years, and I have also spoken to a minister of religion who has also lived there for a number of years. When time is available I try to equip myself to offer a few thoughts to your Lordships.
On the face of it, it is extraordinary that the disorders, which have been going on now for at least two years, should occur in that area. The estate cannot be described as a deprived area. No doubt I shall be

907
told (and the Reverend Stephen Heap has already told me) that there are many more disadvantaged people there than might appear to the visitor. Nevertheless, 50 per cent. of the houses are owned by the occupants. There are good facilities such as a swimming pool, a youth centre and playing fields, and unemployment is not as high as in some areas of Oxford. Therefore one cannot say that there is a correlation between a deprived area and the outbreak of disorders. One needs to look deeper. This afternoon I shall not embark on a sociological investigation, although perhaps on some other occasion I may do so. I shall say simply that in my opinion the one outstanding fact about that area is its isolation. The chairman of the parish council said that the residents do not feel that they are part of Oxford.
I shall now turn to the particular problems of the police. I asked the police superintendent why the police had allowed the disorders to continue for two years. He explained that the problems are a great deal more acute than the visitor might suppose. On the one hand, people go joy-riding and steal cars; if they are interfered with they assault the police. They wear masks, which makes it more difficult to identify them. When they have been identified, when the police try to arrest them a crowd assembles and people in the neighbourhood attack the police. Although we are told that 90 per cent. of the inhabitants of the estate are law-abiding it is extremely difficult and even dangerous to try to arrest someone in that area. When people are arrested and taken to the police station, as they are entitled to do they obtain a solicitor who advises them to say nothing and to observe the right of silence. Therefore it is very difficult to arrest people. Nevertheless, I believe that 99 people were arrested in connection with the riots or disorders which occurred at the beginning of September. Many of them are still awaiting trial.
I have taken one individual area, but the problem is widespread. What can be done about it? If one talks to the police, to councillors, to members of the parish council or clergymen living in the area there is general agreement that there should be community policing. That is a very easy phrase to use. Most of us think of community policing as meaning the bobby on the beat.
I have given the Minister notice of this question: can community policing be introduced without an increase in resources? I put to him the further question: if it cannot be, can he justify the refusal of the additional resources which are necessary if the police in Oxford and in so many other places are to be able to serve us as they wish to serve us?
3.35 p.m.
The Earl of Winchilsea and Nottingham: My Lords, I too am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for submitting this topic for short debate, a topic which is very current and one which demands urgent attention.
It is an extremely far-reaching subject, touching as it does nearly every aspect of our lives; social services, conditions and behaviour, education, planning, housing, employment, health, the judicial system, the
908
prison service, current thinking concerning the future of magistrates' courts and, with the coming of 1992, cross-border policing and all the problems that will come with that, to name but a few.
This afternoon I should like to speak from the street, as it were. Your Lordships may not be aware that one of the reasons why I do not sit on these Benches as much as I should is that for the past two years I have been spending a great deal of time with policemen and policewomen. I have been out on the streets, walking around with them, talking to them, yes, but mostly listening to what they have to say. I have done that all over the United Kingdom and I am continuing to do so. Tomorrow, for example, I shall be with the City of London police.
I have seen at close quarters what our police have to deal with and no doubt I shall see a great deal more as time goes by. Their role is often that of nursemaid to society. They have to deal with the results of legislation. They uphold, or try to uphold, the law of the land. They do their very best to maintain the Queen's peace. However, the reality of life out there is grim.
I have witnessed horrendous things. For example, I witnessed an attack on a home beat policeman by a man armed with a machete which opened his thigh down to the bone. A courageous council worker who went to the policeman's rescue nearly lost his arm for his trouble. Noble Lords will no doubt have seen the front page of the Daily Express two days ago which carried a short piece about a PC who saw two men tampering with a car in Chancery Lane and asked them what they were doing because it seemed to him as though they were trying to steal it. The men beat him up and then drove over him for good measure. He lies unconscious in hospital. Such are the hazards of modern day policing in this country.
Through the contacts I have established with members of our police service from all over the United Kingdom I think that I have built up a fairly accurate picture of how they feel and their thoughts and worries for the past, present and future. My experience is by no means confined to the federated ranks. It includes opinions voiced by high and middle ranking police officers as well as PCs on the beat.
There is no doubt that there are many problems facing our police service. Many are serious and common to all police forces. Others are problems which face a particular force for one reason or another. Although many of those difficulties are directly concerned with the public and the community served by its police, many are internal police problems that can be addressed only by the police themselves.
There are two problems in particular which stand out. They have been repeated to me over and over again by serving policemen everywhere. They complain most bitterly and with great feeling about the lack of communication between the lower and middle and the higher ranks. That in turn has an often disastrous effect on morale. It must be said that that complaint tends to grow with the size of the police force—the larger the force, the more often the complaint occurs.

909
The problem of communication is by no means confined to the police, although it is perhaps fair to say that, in an organisation structured, as the police is, on military lines, it is likely that divisions will occur between the Chiefs and the Indians. Many people say that there are too many Chiefs and not enough Indians. That is encouraged by the system, but it is not necessarily the wish of senior officers. It brings into question the entire promotional structure of the police which is another feature that is often a cause of worry and resentment.
The public want to see policemen and policewomen on our streets, patrolling the way that they used to. I can remember, growing up as a boy in central London, living in a street which had a police station at the bottom of it. Consequently, our street was full of policemen coming off and going on duty. We knew them all, some of them by their first names, but all of them by their surnames, and they knew everyone in the area. We knew that, if we misbehaved and were caught, we were in for it from a policeman and from our parents. We did not hate the police. We did not despise them for giving us the occasional clip round the ear. We admired them and respected them and looked up to them. They were part of the community that they served and they performed many valuable services to us all.
That may well be what the public want. It may well be what we need to help to bring back some of the values, morals and standards that make up a civilised society. There is no question that that is what the police themselves want. Give them the resources and they will do it. In many cases they feel cut off from the community that they are supposed to serve. They feel isolated and they do not like it. So often, the only contact that anyone has with the police is when they are in trouble, when a crime has been committed or when there is an accident or some kind of emergency. The normal, day-to-day friendly contact, the exchange of greeting and the passing on of information which may or may not be of interest or use is often sadly lacking. It is by those means that a position of mutual trust and respect is established. Without it, the police and the public remain separated from each other and that simply feeds the "them and us" approach which is so totally negative.
I talk about resources being given to the police. It is well known that the Government have given their support to the police by providing additional recruiting and money. It is not so well known that in many cases local authorities have not been able to allocate the necessary funds to recruit the extra men and women needed to meet the Home Office requirements because the same Government who recommended the additional recruits have imposed spending restraints on them. The community charge fiasco must bear the brunt of the blame for that.
As I mentioned, another problem affecting the rank and file of the police service is the promotional system within it. Too often, not enough thought and consideration is given to those members of the service who are not that interested in promotion, but who have joined the police to serve the public. In many
910
cases their superior officers cannot understand that all those officers wish to do is to remain as constables, building up a good local rapport and providing the kind of policing on which many of us look back with fond memories. The Dixon of Dock Green spirit is very much alive, but it needs a little encouragement to flourish. To encourage those community policemen, three different grades of constable should be established with adequate financial reward offered at each stage, perhaps after 10 and 20 years' service.
In connection with that point, another internal police matter that requires urgent attention is the attitude that derides the uniform branch as being something less than human, when the reverse is true. It forms the bedrock on which all else rests. Constables in particular find it hard to relate to middle and senior-ranking officers because, in so many instances, time does not allow it. It often seems that, just when you are getting to know your newest boss, he is posted elsewhere.
In conclusion, I should like to take the liberty of suggesting that, although I thoroughly approve of efforts to make the police more accountable to the public which they try hard to serve, it might be a good idea for the police to try to make themselves more accountable to their own members by giving them the chance to state their views and express their worries and by listening to what they have to say without any fear of retribution. We cannot afford to waste precious resources; what resource is more precious to us than the product of the human mind if it is allowed and encouraged to function positively and productively?
3.45 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Chichester: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for putting down this Motion on the Order Paper. He said that it would be largely a debate of experts. I make no claim to be an expert in this matter, but during the 18 years that I have been in Sussex I have grown in admiration and sympathy for the police and their work there and in my understanding of their problems. I welcome the Motion, particularly because it provides an opportunity to express support for the police and confidence in them at a time when many of them feel attacked and undervalued.
Some while ago the Chief Constable of Sussex invited a group of senior Church leaders to meet members of his senior staff for discussion because they felt that the publicity given to the overturning of various terrorist convictions in recent years had led to undermined confidence in the police generally. Although related to only a small number of officers, it was brushing off on the whole force and on forces in areas which were not involved. It is important to recognise that the troubles involve only a small proportion of the police. For example, I was told yesterday that in the Chichester area last year there were over 2,000 arrests and that the number of complaints dealt with was minuscule. That element of proportion must be borne in mind.
Law and order can be properly maintained only if there is a right relationship between those whose job it is to enforce it and the community at large. That

911
relationship depends on the quality of the police officers themselves and on the care by the community for the police. I am thankful that in Sussex we have an excellent well-led force and that relations with the community are good, but that cannot be taken for granted. It needs to be worked at and it is important that the leaders of the local community, whether they are those formally involved in local government or others, make a point of knowing their local police and supporting them in every way.
We have recently had a series of seminars for the clergy and the police. They arose out of the need to formulate contingency plans for major disasters in the light of the experience gained at the Clapham rail crash and other such incidents, but they extended into a wider discussion of relationships. Matters raised included the pastoral care of the police and their families who can feel isolated and at times vulnerable. The discussion also extended into the general area of initiatives in police and community relations. Such meetings are valuable. They supply important information about what is happening, they establish personal contacts and they help to build up confidence and trust.
We should all strive to see the policeman as a valued member of the community. That is why some of the suggestions to hive off some police functions to the private sector must be regarded with suspicion. The present combination of various functions in one force is an important factor in ensuring that the police are seen as part of the community as a whole and not just as a group in opposition to it. The dangers of having private security forces independent of the police are obvious. The protection of the police force should be open to all and should not just be for those who are able to pay for it.
I also join those who have criticised proposals for a national police force. Certainly there are areas in which a degree of national co-ordination is vital. Dealing with terrorism and some other sorts of crime is one. However, the further that control of the police is taken away from the local community, the more its influence and visibility as part of that community are weakened. I am sure that the proposals for privatising and nationalising contribute to undermining the morale of the service which, as I said, is already weakened by other happenings.
I suspect that it is not always recognised throughout the country at large to what greater extent nowadays pressures and demands are made upon the police, not only in the way of additional legislation, to which reference has already been made, but as a result of terrorism of various kinds. At the time of the bombing of the Grand Hotel in Brighton, there was some unjustified criticism of the Sussex police. Many people did not realise that only a week or so earlier that force had been fully employed in dealing with the Trades Union Congress in Eastbourne where there had been threats of demonstration from the miners. The coming together of two big occasions of that sort within a matter of a few weeks imposes enormous burdens on any police force. Such burdens are increasing, as was shown by the precautions taken at the last Conservative conference in Brighton, where a
912
large sector, part of the centre of Brighton became virtually an armed camp. Security problems are now so extensive that even such a small matter as a Crown Court service to be held in Chichester Cathedral next week is adding greatly to the burdens of the local force and takes men away from other duties.
All these things make it that much more difficult to maintain rural policing and in an area such as Sussex that is a serious matter, as I am sure it is elsewhere. The fact that the policeman is seen about and is known is in itself a deterrent to crime and a contribution to people's sense of security. But the strains on resources make it increasingly difficult to maintain rural policing. And then understandably country folk ask why they should pay the community charge so as to send policemen to protect the Conservative Party at the Brighton Centre. There is a proper place for national intervention. The financial burden should be spread more evenly over the whole country to cover the whole range of terrorist activities. I hope that this debate will help the police and assure them that their work is appreciated and valued. I hope also that it will encourage community support for the police.
3.53 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, those who are involved in upholding law and order are working to the best of their abilities, often in increasingly difficult circumstances, and there is on their part an openness which has not been seen in the past. Each component part of the criminal justice system can point to successes. It may be in the form of some local scheme where crime has been reduced; it may be a police area where detection figures have been improved; or it may be a voluntary body which has counselled youngsters away from crime. However, we have become used to ever increasing crime and new ways have to be found if the rise is to be stopped. What is missing is an unambiguous national and corporate policy to combat crime. Information must be the key.
At the moment, each organisation within the criminal justice system collects, stores, collates, assimilates and disseminates its own information. Much is common to and duplicated by all. For example, in the case of a juvenile offender, the name, address, date of birth, family circumstances, educational attainments and employment record will be kept respectively by the police, the social services, the education services, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Probation Service and magistrates' courts. If he or she goes on to a higher court and receives a custodial sentence, a further two organisations will duplicate that information.
There are also voluntary organisations which may become involved as well as the central criminal recording centre. One set of information can be duplicated 10 times. The cost in time and effort of that bureaucratic nightmare is indefensible. There is no argument for its continuance.
In addition to that common information, each agency will add its own unique text to its file, such as police interviews, custody records, prison records and prison release dates. A substantial part of that information has to be communicated to one or other

913
information agency in the chain. For example, the police files have to be passed to the Crown Prosecution Service and then to the courts. Where information is passed on, it is duplicated and copies are retained for the originating agency. Were all that information to find its way into a common database, available to all others within the system who could claim legitimate access, huge reductions in bureaucracy could be achieved. Information from a common database would immeasurably help agencies judge the effect of certain actions on criminality and if and how those actions had contributed to deterring crime, along with the effects of sentencing policies.
At the moment if we want to know the outcome of our sentencing policies we must first wait for researchers to take an interest and, secondly, just hope that those agencies will grant them access to the information that they need. Valuable work has for some time been undertaken to improve communication between the various agencies which have need to communicate directly. But each does not wish to lose control of its own system in favour of another's and each would claim, perhaps justifiably, that it had no resources beyond its own threshold.
How then could commonality be achieved? A national criminal justice agency should be created and be the responsibility of a Minister. It would not interfere with the independence of the component parts of the criminal justice system which would retain their own unique responsibilities, but it would have its own computer system linked to each agency. Once a person came to the notice of any agency within the criminal justice arena those details would immediately be available to others in the system.
The records would grow as other agencies fed in new information, but all duplication would be eradicated. Operational information would be available to all legitimate users and as that information became more comprehensive, so policy decisions could be based on that knowledge. That could well relate to resourcing, deployment of staff, employment of specific diversionary tactics which have proven successful, or redistribution of work. The possibilities for the use of that information and its impact on the criminal justice system within this country are limitless and the information would be available almost immediately.
The criminal justice agency could be created at little cost. It certainly would not make much of a dent in the £7 billion now spent on criminal justice. There may even be savings if the huge waste of time and money in the present system are taken into account and staff currently involved in administering the current system could be redeployed to the new agency. The advantages are legion. Practitioners would be more willing to outline clear strategies, confident in the knowledge of the likely effect on other agencies, crime and criminality. The policy makers and indeed the purse holders at national and local level would for the first time have some measure of the effectiveness of their policies. Above all, the community would have growing confidence in the system and it would be of inestimable value to the police.
914
One other point that I should like to make relates to the countryside. Rural crime is on the increase and thefts of farm machinery and equipment rose, according to the Economist, by 45 per cent. in the first half of 1991 over the previous year. Not only equipment but livestock, gates and even growing trees are taken as well; and of course there are home burglaries. Even stone walls, fences, roofs and ornamental statuary disappear regularly. Motorcyclists swarm at will and stolen cars are stripped down in the woods. Not only are there fewer farm staff to keep watch on the land but also criminals operate over a wider range, using wireless communications. They are prepared to be violent if in danger of being caught, as increasingly occurs elsewhere when they are confronted by the police. The noble Lord, Lord Winchilsea, referred to that point.
In the meantime, in many rural areas police are few on the ground. Many police officers are town bred and have little concept or appreciation of the problems in the country when they are fully occupied with survival against the town hooligans. Areas such as mine have formed Farm Watch. They have a special officer designated for the countryside. That must be a help for those hours when the officer is on duty. At least the farmer knows to whom to report the constant vandalism and theft. Perhaps it is a case for greater practical use of the mounted sections to provide a threat of an ever-lurking police presence.
However, the fact remains that the countryside is now being torn apart by vandalism. The police are hard pressed to do anything about it. I refer to vandalism and theft of anything that moves, or that can be prised off or dug up.
4 p.m.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, many speeches in the debate will undoubtedly focus on those areas where the police service has a deficiency—a lack of manpower, equipment, public support or accountability.
I intend to address an area touched upon already by the noble Lord, Lord Allen, and the noble Earl, Lord Nelson, of which the police service has had an excess in recent years. It is an area in which your Lordships have been directly involved and partially responsible for. I refer to legislation, in particular those pieces of criminal legislation, ill conceived and hastily drafted, which deal with complex problems that have suddenly attracted the attention of the more excitable elements of the media. I have in mind, for example, moral panics about mugging, drugs or dangerous dogs, and currently young car thieves and squatters. Few of them are new problems. However, lately there has been a rush into legislation and an assumption that the police service is a bottomless pit, an oubliette into which such problems may safely be dropped without extra resources or prior consultation.
Some of the legislation affecting the police service passed during the past 10 years has been excellent and well conceived. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 was an essential piece of legislation which forced us to put our house in order and it was drafted after considerable prior consultation with the police service.

915
However, the Act has had profound consequences for police resources, requiring the Metropolitan Police to withdraw 400 sergeants from street patrol to become dedicated custody officers, with a consequent loss of supervision and police presence on the streets. My figures refer only to London but are an illustration of the broadly similar effects elsewhere.
A further problem attendant upon each piece of new legislation is the need for training or retraining, which takes police officers off the street. For example, in 1985 over 45,000 man days in London were spent on training officers in relation to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. Even that was woefully inadequate for such a complex piece of legislation and further courses have since been run. The reduction in officers on patrol is not the only effect. Other planned training has to be cancelled. For example, in 1985 policing skills and race awareness courses had to be cancelled.
Other legislation has brought similar problems. The drugs profit confiscation legislation is so complex that dedicated officers have to go on courses on financial management and investigation. The Metropolitan Police in the past year alone has had to train 104 officers.
Those pieces of legislation have been useful but have put additional strain on police resources which is not al ways considered in advance by the Government or the Home Office and even retrospectively has not been allowed for in full when manpower increases are calculated.
An even more important anxiety is those pieces of legislation which are potentially damaging to the role of the police service by setting it against the less privileged sections of our society. Great damage has been done to the relationship between police and public in many parts of the country because of the cynical use of the police service by this Government to enforce trade union legislation. The image of the police service as "Maggie's thin blue line" has destroyed for a generation at least the relationship between the police and the community they serve in many northern and Welsh mining villages. It is very important that governments do not jeopardise the political neutrality of the police service by suggesting that they are on the side of the propertied and prosperous and opposed to the poor or the homeless.
Legislators also seem often to have wholly unrealistic expectations that the creation of a new crime will somehow eradicate a social problem. It was with Particular horror that I heard the suggestion by the Home Secretary that he was considering making squatting a criminal offence. Does he really believe that he will thereby eradicate the problem of homelessness? About a third of squatters are families with children for whom the alternatives are at best the placing of mothers and children in bed and breakfast hotel s. If squatting were criminalised, would the police service be expected to accommodate that new criminal class in police stations already crowded with men and women who should be in prisons?
Other hastily conceived legislation this year has been the Dangerous Dogs Act, with which your Lordships are all familiar, and in consequence of
916
which a number of owners of Staffordshire bull terriers are currently complaining of harassment by police officers. I can imagine only too well the media excitement when the first destruction order is issued for someone's family pet. It will be police officers, not legislators, who will be seen as brutal and uncaring.
Another issue which has attracted media attention and calls for changes in the criminal law is the long-standing problem of young boys who steal cars and drive them with dangerous and sometimes fatal consequences. If the Home Secretary were serious about crime prevention, he would not be considering increased penalties but would be encouraging the Department of Transport to lay an amended construction and use legislation on the table requiring all motor car manufacturers to fit tamper-proof ignition systems. Technology such as smart cards or embedding the wiring in the body of the car to prevent hot-wiring already exists. The main obstacle is of course the cost to the manufacturers and ultimately to the motoring public. But the alternative is the continuing cost of death and destruction.
Before new criminal laws are introduced, I suggest, first, that consideration should be given to the existence and adequacy of current offences. For example, there are perfectly adequate existing offences which duplicate the proposed new offence of prison mutiny. Secondly, consideration should be given to the ability of the police service to cope with the new demands upon it. For example, if red routes are introduced throughout London, the Department of Transport formula suggests that that would require 800 extra officers to enforce the parking restrictions. I believe that it is much better to spend public money on improved public transport. Thirdly, consideration should be given to the consequences that the legislation may have on the fabric of our society. Is it divisive, setting the police service on the side of the powerful against the weak; or is it even handed and directed at a real abuse so that the actions of the police service are seen to be just and legitimate?
4.8 p.m.
Lord Knights: My Lords, I too wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for introducing the debate, which noble Lords may feel comes at an opportune time when the police service is under the spotlight probably to a greater extent than it has been since the Royal Commission of 1959.
Against the background of continually increasing figures of reported crime, the role of the police service in the investigation of offences and the prosecution of offenders is under examination by the Runciman Commission. The service's general effectiveness and efficiency is the subject of detailed consideration and examination by the Audit Commission. The Association of Chief Police Officers is examining the ethical standards of police officers stemming from its recently agreed statement of common purposes and values.
With the likely requirements of the forthcoming Citizen's Charter and the reported preparation by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary of some 45 indicators against which to measure total police

917
performance, exceptional demands will be made on the management skills of chief constables. It is only right, therefore, that their ability to respond to those challenges should be examined. As the noble Lord, Lord Allen, said, some people have recently doubted that ability and have pressed for direct entry to the senior ranks to be introduced. I do not support that view. I believe the necessary quality is to be found within the service itself. After all, today one officer in every 14 is a graduate. I believe that to introduce direct entry, thus blocking promotion prospects, would inevitably and disastrously destroy the quality and variety of recruits to basic police work, at which level the relationships between the police and the public are really forged. It is vital that the present quality of the lower ranks should be maintained.
What is necessary is a "fast track" system which recognises real potential when it is recruited and ensures that it is properly brought on and prepared for the higher ranks. I am not sure whether that is yet the case. While the present arrangements for graduate entry and accelerated promotion by way of the special course at Bramshill may go some way towards meeting the needs of the ACPO rank—and, like the 1989 Home Affairs Select Committee of another place, I have some doubts about that—it does little to meet the need for high-quality officers in the rank of superintendent. At present there are approximately 1,550 throughout the country. Not only do they control operations on the ground but they are expected to handle the interface with other local government services and to take the day-to-day decisions about police priorities, budgeting, resource allocation and other management matters. It is a matter for concern that the staff college training for that rank is available only when officers are already chief inspectors with an average age of 42½ and having 22 years service. Perhaps the Minister will tell the House what progress has been made in the review of their training needs. That matter was referred to at paragraph 11 of the Government's response to the report of the Home Affairs Committee to which I have already referred.
If one were to ask a chief constable what was his main problem he would probably say that it was the fact that the service had no clear definition of its role. Many of the tasks required of it have nothing to do with maintaining law and order and preventing crime, as was said by the noble Earl, Lord Nelson. However, at the same time some traditional police duties—for example, those in and around the huge shopping centres throughout the country—are being discharged by other groups; in particular, the security industry and some statutory and voluntary agencies. Their activities and their relationships with the police need defining and regulating, especially those of the private security companies.
Coupled with that are uncertainties about what the public expect from the police, what the police's priorities should be and who should decide them. How should the public be consulted and what can the police realistically deliver? It is vital that those doubts should be resolved. Some of the anxieties of the police about
918
the criminal justice system are now being examined by a Royal Commission. There are those, including the noble Earl, Lord Nelson, who believe that a Royal Commission should be set up to examine the boundaries of policing. The Police Federation is also lobbying for that. I doubt whether there is sufficient agreement that the problem is so great as to warrant a Royal Commission. Nevertheless, the matter needs to be discussed. I know that the Police Foundation is anxious to undertake work in that field and I hope that it might take the matter forward. At least a start could be made in respect of the role of the security industry. Perhaps the Minister can tell the House what is happening in respect of the lengthy discussions on the regulation of that industry, which appear to be reaching no conclusion.
Finally, I wish to refer to the funding of the police, which is another matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. Undoubtedly the present system is less than satisfactory. That is particularly so in the metropolitan counties where the police budget is isolated from the district councils' financial considerations and is individually capped. It is argued with some justification that generally insufficient discretion is left with police authorities. They have been referred to only briefly in today's debate but they are an essential part of the police system of this country. The tight central control imposed on capital spending leads to difficulties as regards the provision of equipment. The fact that the Government by way of direct and revenue support grants meet some 70 per cent. of the bill should not lead to the police authority's essential role being eroded, as I believe at times it is.
No doubt there will be other opportunities to pursue these matters when local government reform comes before your Lordships' House after the general election, as it appears will be the case whichever party is then in power.
4.15 p.m.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, I must first declare an interest as a magistrate member of a county police authority. We are extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Allen for initiating this debate and for launching it with a typically incisive and thoughtful contribution. It is a most important subject which affects us all.
In many countries police forces are the tool of evil regimes. Here in a democracy they are a thin blue line standing between chaos and order and the instrument by which society protects its freedoms. However, it is undoubtedly the case that the mutual esteem which at one time characterised relations between the police and the public has in recent years markedly deteriorated. There have been examples of malpractice; in some cases grave malpractice. It is reassuring that in some cases the improprieties have been identified by the forces themselves or by others called in. However, other cases have come to light only as a result of the persistence of people outside the service. It is important to bear in mind that the price of a good police service is eternal vigilance.

919
It is also regrettably true that some officers in their dealings with the public are unimaginative, insensitive and fall short of the normal standards of courtesy. Ironically those shortcomings usually appear only in the case of relatively minor misdemeanours. That is a tragedy because such conduct is undesirable and damages relations with the overwhelming proportion of the Public who are law abiding and on whose good will the police rely.
There is another side to the coin. In the past 20 years or so a whole subculture has grown up. I regret to say that it has been fed by irresponsible elements in the media and by some fringe political activists whose aim is to undermine the police and the confidence of the public in them. Those two elements have combined in an unwitting alliance to reduce the esteem in which the police were formerly held.
My noble friend Lord Allen has already referred to the grim examples that were movingly reported by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, in his reply to the humble Address. Signs of similar breakdown have occurred in my area. On two separate occasions men have attempted to rape policewomen who were on duty in uniform. I know of a slightly-built WPC who recently was twice thrown through plate glass windows and of another whose jaw was broken. The list goes on and it is contemptible and deplorable. Make no mistake, my Lords, those who spit on the police spit on the people of this country.
Speaking as a magistrate, I must say that some of us do not come down as firmly as we should on people who attack police officers. Salutary though such a tightening up of sentencing would be, it would be a case of shutting the stable door after this particular horse had bolted. Society must address the problem of why people behave in such a way towards the police and turn them away from such anti-social behaviour. The only way forward is continuing emphasis on community policing in the hands of officers best suited to it, together with a major programme of educating the public, in particular throughout schools at every level, about the problems facing the police and how they deal with them. The importance of the task is confirmed by the fact that in 1988 a British crime survey found that 60 per cent. of the public had contact with the police during the course of a year. We must not fail in our task of making sure that in future that contact is based on mutual understanding and respect.
What of the police service in the 1990s? Pay has been improved to a point at which, at least in economic terms, a career in the police service is attractive. However, this must be matched by a career structure which ensures that an officer's abilities are fully utilised, which is something to which most forces are now fully committed. Ethnic recruitment is still disappointingly slow; in the area of which I have some knowledge, it is only I per cent. of the total. That is because the number of applications is low and the only way in which this can be overcome is by targeting such minorities and selling—I apologise for the use of this word but I have had a career in marketing—the attractions of a career in the police force.
920
Police forces are also fully committed to an equal opportunities policy and I have already mentioned the able and brave role that WPCs play in all operations. But an increase in their numbers of 24 per cent. in 1990 was matched by a leaving rate of 17 per cent. No doubt some of it was due, if I may put it delicately, to natural causes but it would be interesting to discover whether resignations due to stress-related causes are higher among WPCs than among PCs.
I now turn to the ever-increasing burden that we are asking the police to bear in today's complicated society. This has already raised by the noble Earl, Lord Nelson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton. For example, the police have to attend various sporting occasions; they have to separate fans at football matches and keep hunt protesters and hunts apart. They have to enforce stringent gun laws, act as gaolers in their own cells—and I am not talking here about what I might call "overnight visitors"—and undertake many additional tasks. Nor must we forget the enormous amount of paperwork that they have to get through due to procedures laid down, no doubt in good faith and with the best of intentions. by those not at the sharp end and whose perception is sometimes driven by the merit of what has been rather than what should be in terms of practicality and efficiency.
If we are to give the police all these additional tasks more resources will inevitably be needed. Civilianisation, already under way, must continue to be implemented as a cost-effective strategy for releasing more officers for up-front duty. There could also be merit, in the long term, in seeing whether some retired officers who were willing to serve could be re-engaged in a second-line capacity. The importance of the Specials too will continue to increase and they must be made to feel that they have an integral part to play in operations.
All such measures cost money but as the crime rate increases and the duties we expect the police to perform increase, so the need for more money will inevitably increase. There will be the usual cry of "more money". I fully appreciate the sensitivity of this area with so many competing claims on limited available funds.
Also, the workload of which I have spoken is often carried out in old and cramped accommodation. In one station in my area 20 policemen and women have the use of only one lavatory. In another area, were all the CID officers to try to get into their office at the same time they would be unable to do so because the office is too small. In others —the majority—there are no showers for officers returning from some unpleasant task or indeed after having spent hours on patrol in driving rain. The miracle is surely that, despite these conditions, they remain cheerful and their morale is high. However, a perceived indifference on our part to substandard accommodation and facilities scarcely reassures the force that alienation between them and the public is not fast becoming a reality. The danger is that if this drift towards alienation is not altered it may result in the creation of a fortress mentality—"them and us"—and that would be a tragedy of the greatest proportions.

921
I refer again to my opening remarks. This is a vital topic. It is one of the most important, complicated and urgent issues with which we have to deal at the present time. We owe it to all those brave men and women who do a job and do it very well—a job which I for one would not care to do one little bit—to give these matters our sympathetic attention and the highest priority.
4.25 p.m.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I believe that
the best way in which we can help the police and the long-suffering general public is to pursue the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Nelson, as to the deficiencies of the Bail Act and the offences committed by people while on bail. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Allen, for giving me this opportunity to draw to the attention of your Lordships' House the remarkable study which was done by the Avon and Somerset Police under Chief Inspector Brookes and his team. I would also draw attention to a study done in Northumbria about offenders out on bail committing further offences. These two studies show that one in three offenders arrested and charged with a crime were already out on bail for similar offences. We are talking about one in three, which is an extremely high offending rate and one which is also going to inflate the general level of crime. I am told that, so far as Avon and Somerset are concerned, extra cases last year arising from offences committed on bail totalled 28,000. Extrapolating the figures for this year would give a figure of 34,000. Those are shocking statistics.
At present a post-sentence review is being conducted in Horfield prison. Twenty-three offenders have been interviewed and have admitted that on average they had committed seven offences while on bail. One individual actually admitted to having committed 50 to 100 offences of mugging while on bail. Burglary and theft, including theft of and from motor vehicles, account for 70 per cent. of all crime. The criminals who commit these offences are also the ones who are most likely to offend again on bail. In addition, three-quarters of all those arrested for these crimes are 17 to 20 year-olds. Young people under the age of 21 are twice as likely to commit offences on bail than their older counterparts. It is these young offenders who are pushing up the level of crime and who are obviously in most need of rehabilitation; yet they are being sent back out onto the streets. Many of them believe that during the time they are out on bail there is no real harm in continuing their criminal activities, since they have already been arrested. In other words, there is no incentive to stay out of trouble.
Most of the re-offenders are in fact arrested for the identical offence for which they were originally arrested and bailed. Also, offenders with one or more previous convictions are much more likely to offend. What is even more perverse is the fact that fewer offenders with no convictions are out on bail than those with previous convictions. To put it more
922
clearly, one person in 10 with no previous convictions is out on bail, compared with one person in four who has three or more convictions.
There is a major discrepancy between Section 38 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and Section 4 of the Bail Act, which has no provision to allow police to refuse further bail when the offender is likely to commit further offences if released. Yet this provision under Section 4 of the Bail Act is given to magistrates. Your Lordships will know that, under the present law, after charge a person will be released unless—and here the Act gives a number of conditions such as reasonable grounds, own protection, no fixed abode and so on.
What is required is an additional ground for refusal to the effect that they have committed or are likely to commit offences whilst on bail, not that the police can decide on remand in custody but merely that the police have the right to bring the alleged offender before the court rather than releasing him on bail, and that the court may take into consideration the fact that offences are alleged to have been committed whilst on bail when deciding on bail or custody. Also, a separate offence should be created of committing an offence whilst on bail, to ensure that offenders receive additional punishment, not thinking that it is "Liberty Hall".
The question of overcrowding in prisons is often referred to. What are we going to do if there are far more bail refusals? I am going to make a suggestion to your Lordships which may reinforce my already rather tarnished reputation. Quite frankly, in view of the Defence Review that is in progress, I think that secure defence establishments should be taken over and used to house people who are on remand. Before the civil liberties lobby jumps on my neck about inflicting those conditions on remand prisoners, I hope that they can show me a record of having complained of the conditions in the camps when they were being used by our Servicemen and women. Desperate measures are required and I suggest that the Government look seriously at the point.
When the Home Office researched the Avon and Somerset and Northumbrian material it said that the findings would be produced by the end of October. I am sure that they will be published soon. I hope that the findings compare like with like; that is, that they look at police bail and not court bail.
We shall hear much today, as we have already, about resources. If we solve that problem the effect will be remarkable. I am told that at 0700 hours on 18th November the number of prisoners in police cells amounted to 1,623. In Avon and Somerset alone there were 44 in cells and another 36 for whom Avon and Somerset were responsible held in other local police force cells. Those remands may involve round trips of 300 miles and more. The number of police officers and the mileage involved is astonishing. Avon and Somerset calculate that in this year alone, from June to October, the costs amounted to more than £1¼ million. Your Lordships can imagine the countrywide costs when that figure is multiplied by 40 police forces. Moreover, in several cases the officers from Avon and Somerset had to travel to Bedworth, Warwickshire,

923
Sussex. Middlesex, Hythe and Worthing to collect and return prisoners remanded from courts within their own area.
The whole matter has become a nonsense. A prison- building programme is of no use if one is simply running hard to keep up with the increasing numbers. The Government should look again at the conditions of the Bail Act; consider the creation of a new offence; and bring into commission some of the secure camps which are now being abandoned by the Services. They are perfectly reasonable for holding people on remand. At a stroke it would cut through the rising crime figures and release extra resources to the police.
4.32 p m.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for initiating today's debate. Having taken the opportunity to ask a chief constable about the problems facing him and his force, I should like to concentrate this afternoon on rural areas in which the police work in this ever-changing world. My noble friend Lord Gisborough spoke of the Farm Watch scheme. The chief constable to whom I spoke told me of its success in the area in which I live. He said that besides deterring villains, it encourages individuals to keep the police informed of any strangers or unfamiliar vehicles. I hope for his sake that the schemes continue to expand.
In one county during the past three years the proportion of civilian workers increased to form almost 50 per cent. of the police available. That allows the police to do the jobs for which they were originally trained. One fact brought to my attention was that when a custodial officer is a civilian, the prisoner is less likely to vent his or her spleen on that person. In-house training enables civilian employees to be aware of police problems. In the recruitment of "specials", as mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, I understand that a large proportion of those applying are women. In their turn, those "specials" can train others on police issues.
One special anxiety in rural areas is the growing number of "acid house" or "rave" parties held in disused warehouses or barns where up to 1,000 people may be present. Parents would be horrified if they knew of the dangers facing their youngsters. At one such venue, when a large warehouse was broken into, the organisers sealed three out of the four openings, leaving the fourth opening to act as an entrance and exit. A generator was needed to supply light. Had that generator failed, what would have happened to so many people attempting to get out in the dark? A fire had also been lit inside the building. Even young women with babies were present. We can all imagine the terrible panic that would have ensued.
On that occasion the police stood back. They were present at night but realised that more problems may have been caused by confronting those inside and those outside waiting to go in. It was not until seven in the morning that they were able to arrest anyone.
Notwithstanding the valiant attempts by Her Majesty's Government to deal with the problems
924
presented by those illegal parties, public safety, public health and the noise nuisance surely merit more attention. Local authorities are hamstrung by the present law. Equally, the police do not possess powers to deal with that growing menace in the countryside. I hope that when my noble friend replies to the debate he will have some new initiative to help the police to deal with those illegal gatherings.
4.36 p.m
Lord Charteris of Amisfield: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to those of other noble Lords to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for initiating this interesting debate on the problems which face police forces in England and Wales. It is an important matter. We rely upon the proper functioning of those forces to ensure that the rule of law as opposed to anarchy obtains in this country. It is a matter of concern to all of us.
My reason for taking part in the debate is this. For the past four years I have been chairman of the Police Convalescence and Rehabilitation Trust which raised and continues to raise money for Flint House, the centre at Goring which looks after police officers in the southern part of the country who have been damaged physically or psychologically in the course of duty—by that I mean at the hands of the "opposition". Another centre at Harrogate deals with those officers injured in the northern counties of England.
I came to be chairman of the trust on the sad death of Lord Trenchard who did all the hard work in raising the money to bring Flint House into being. My work for Flint House over the past few years brought me into close contact with the police and taught me something in regard to the rougher side of the job that they are expected to do.
Flint House, which replaced the original convalescent home at Hove, was opened by Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother in June 1988. Ever since then it has been used to full capacity. I am sorry to say that there is a waiting list. Planning consent is now being sought to increase the size of the centre so that it may be better equipped to deal with the demands made upon it.
Perhaps I may give noble Lords some statistics for 1990 which illustrate why Flint House has a waiting list. During that year, working to capacity, Flint House looked after 1,064 police officers, of whom 257 came from the Metropolitan Police. During that same period in 1990, the number of assaults made on police officers was as follows. For the Metropolitan Police, 4,022; for the rest of England and Wales, 13,878. That made a total for England and Wales of 17,900. Noble Lords with a quick head for figures (or, alternatively, with a pocket calculator) will realise very soon that that is just over 49 a day, which is a great deal.
A policeman's life is by no means an easy one. It is not easy because, as the figures above illustrate, he is often threatened with physical assault. It is not an easy life also because in carrying out his job he is often subject to more subtle dangers than those presented by armed criminals or angry mobs. I mean the problems of exercising authority without aggression and with courtesy to all; to the young and to the old; to black

925
and to white. I mean the temptations put on him to twist the law for personal gain or to twist the evidence to obtain a conviction where he may be certain in his heart that the person concerned is guilty. We should never condone the conduct of police officers which falls in any way short of the very high standards expected of them; but we should remember the very difficult problems which they face.
If we were settling down to write a job description of the "perfect copper" I believe that it would turn out to be the Archangel Gabriel with a Ph.D. in psychology and a knowledge of unarmed combat. There are not many people of that quality around. We should be grateful that so many of them seem to be in the police forces of England and Wales.
4.43 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I too wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for having introduced this debate. I propose to speak briefly on three matters: one on which I believe significant progress is being made; and two matters where I believe that there is a very substantial problem.
Perhaps I may turn first to the most cheering example, which is the case of the Metropolitan Police. In a debate of this character it is right to recognise the very substantial progress that has been made in recent years. Many significant problems remain. Crimes of violence are continuing to rise; the level of drug trafficking is still increasing; and we are at constant risk of sustained terrorist attacks. In addition to that, the public inevitably expect improvement of the quality of service they receive from the police, particularly as regards offences for which in some respects they have a more direct interest, such as domestic burglaries and criminal damage. Nevertheless, the Metropolitan Police are now better equipped to deal with the situation than they were, say, 20 years ago.
The force is a great deal more professional; the quality of recruits has risen significantly, thanks partly to the Edmund-Davies' pay review, but also inevitably to the deterioration in employment opportunities elsewhere. The noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, also made the point about the reforms introduced as a result of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. That is a piece of legislation not based on the hunches of a number of politicians, but following a careful review by a Royal Commission. As a result of the implementation of that legislation, it is now less likely for malpractices to occur. That is not impossible because no system can ensure that, but it is far more difficult. There has been some encouraging indication that when misconduct or impropriety arises, there is a greater disposition for some officers to report such matters to their superiors.
There are many reasons for that, not least the plus programme which the present commissioner, Sir Peter Imbert, has introduced. The programme was a revolutionary idea not only in terms of the police, but also of the public service generally. Both the uniformed and civil staff of the force have been invited
926
to a series of small seminars where they have been encouraged to discuss in a frank and uninhibited fashion the quality of the service which they are providing to the people of London. I am sure that that is often a very uncomfortable experience for some managers in the service. However, I believe that the programme is already having a significant effect on the manner in which the Metropolitan Police are carrying out their duties. We owe a profound debt of gratitude to Sir Peter Imbert because without his determined leadership in this matter these major reforms would not have been pushed through.
I turn now to the other two matters which I want to raise this evening. There is the serious and, so far as the Home Office is concerned, unintended effect of the level of standing spending assessment and the charge-capping criteria adopted. That was a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, at the beginning of the debate. I refer in particular to the metropolitan county forces which are the largest forces in this country outside the area of the Metropolitan Police. All police forces are now facing serious budgetary problems; but the situation is far more difficult for the six metropolitan joint authorities which do not have the same room for manoeuvre as the forces of the shire counties.
The consequences of the policies of the Department of the Environment are as follows. The noble Lord, Lord Knights, was previously Chief Constable of the West Midlands force. In the current year that force has been compelled to make a 33 per cent. reduction in overtime working, which has had the effect of removing 150 officers from the streets. The force has had to freeze 140 civilian posts thus compelling it to use uniformed officers to carry out duties which could easily be the responsibility of civilians. There has been a reduced contribution to agency services such as the regional crime squad. One hundred police vehicles have been taken out of service, and there have been cuts in the medical services and communications budgets. All that has taken place in the area of a force which has had to deal with serious inner city disturbances as well as a swelling level of serious crime.
Perhaps I may now refer to West Yorkshire. In 1991–92 the force is having to cut its strength by 200 officers. An average of 100 civilian posts is having to be kept vacant. There has been a halt to the civilianisation programme, which again will lead directly to fewer police officers being available on the streets of West Yorkshire. Next year there may have to be further substantial cuts. That may lead to a situation in which by March 1993 there may be a shortfall of over 400 police officers and a cut of 200 in the number of civilian employees. How can that possibly be sensible? I have given the noble Earl advance notice of this matter, and I shall be grateful if he will deal with it in some detail. People in these areas simply do not understand why it is that police forces which have the most serious problems are being affected in this fashion.
I could go through force after force and perhaps I may deal with just one more—that of Northumbria. As we all know that is an area force which recently has

927
had substantial inner city disturbances. The force has been fared with a cut of 116 officers this year, and the prospect of a further reduction of 350 officers next year. In the area of this force we have also seen the development of what is now referred to as "ram raiding". There has also been the problem of attacks on the homes of police officers. Young criminals have attacked those homes, thrown paint around officers' living rooms, and threatened their families. The resource implications of something of this kind are substantial. The chief constable will have to make more officers available to deal with the problem. How can it be right to make this force reduce its already inadequate strength? I should be grateful if the noble Earl would deal with this aspect.
My next point concerns the curious situation in the county of Derbyshire, a shire county. The problem facing its police force is not, in my view, primarily the responsibility of the Department of the Environment. Last year Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary found that the state of policing in Derbyshire was "mixed", but that there was a deterioration of both infrastructure and morale. This summer he has issued a further report in which he has described the situation as "alarming". Despite the strictures in his report of last year, the police authority had taken little effective action except to consult senior counsel, a process which itself took several months.
The ratio of police officers to members of the public in Derbyshire is worse than in surrounding force areas and is a great deal worse than the national average. The inspector of constabulary went through a whole series of departments of the force—the casualty bureau, the fingerprint bureau, and so on. All of them were seriously deficient. There was an inadequate response time to emergency calls from police officers who found themselves in serious difficulties in the streets. The inspector of constabulary will carry out a further inspection of the force at the end of this year. As the noble Earl will be aware, if the inspector of constabulary does not give a certificate of efficiency to the force, the Home Secretary will not pay police grant to that authority. I very much hope that the Derbyshire police authority will now attend to the serious problems that have been raised in the inspector of constabulary's report. No sensible person wants a confrontation between central government and the police authority. But if the authority does not take action, that confrontation will inevitably take place.
The police service has passed through two or three years of immense difficulty. It would be foolish for us to pretend that that has not had some effect on the morale of the service. However, the service will be in a better position to respond to the challenge facing it as long as it listens to the public it serves and responds positively to their anxieties. The service will not be able to do its job effectively if force manpower in areas which have the most serious crime situations is driven down directly as a result of government action.
4.54 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I echo the thanks expressed by previous speakers to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for initiating this timely
928
debate. It has enabled noble Lords on all sides of the House to express, first, their admiration for the work of the police and, secondly, their anxiety about present police organisation and the prospects for the future. It is a debate in which it is not permissible for Front Benchers to speak for more than the specified eight minutes. I shall therefore concentrate on one issue and in doing so partially follow the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris.
The Government have made much recently of their support for the police and the increase in the number of police officers since 1979. But increases expressed in global figures are somewhat misleading. During the term of the present Administration the increase in police numbers has actually been less than 1 per cent. per annum. According to Home Office statistics, between 1984–85 and 1989–90 the number of police officers rose by 4.7 per cent. That is the scope of the rise that has taken place over the past few years. For the year 1991–92 the Government agreed that the authorised establishment should rise by 700. Even if this were achieved it would represent an increase of just over a half of 1 per cent. of the total authorised establishment—that at a time when crime rates are rising by no less than 18 per cent. a year. It is against the background of the Government's record in relation to increases in police numbers that we should spend a few moments and look at what we are asking the police to do.
During the past 12 years the police workload has increased dramatically. Between 1978 and 1990 reported crime rates doubled. They are still curving steeply upwards. The last quarterly figures, released on 13th September, showed an 18 per cent. rise over the previous 12 months—4.9 million offences were recorded by the police during the year. While the police have to do a great many other things, which I shall mention in a moment, their primary responsibility—and rightly so—is to do something about crime. Their primary responsibility is to prevent it happening and to catch the criminals who commit it.
In addition to that primary role, which has always been there and is implicit in any police work, they have had to cope with urban riots, non-metropolitan disturbances and football hooliganism. Police work has been increased by recent legislation such as the Drug Trafficking Offences Act, the Criminal Justice Act, the Firearms (Amendment) Act, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and even the Dangerous Dogs Act, which passed through this House just before the Summer Recess. The police have become increasingly involved in crime prevention work, particularly through the setting up of neighbourhood watch schemes. They have added responsibilities in relation to child abuse, domestic violence and the victims of crime. On top of that, they now have to spend a disproportionate amount of time guarding prisoners in police cells.
The point has been mentioned already during the debate but I should like to emphasise it to the House. In 1982 there were 47 people in police cells but by 1990 the figure had risen to 962. On 18th October 1991, which is the most recent date for which I have figures, no fewer than 1,802 prisoners were in police cells. That

929
is frankly intolerable. I do not want to repeat the points that were made during the course of the Criminal Justice Bill, but the noble Earl must not get the impression that because we have not been back to this subject for a month or so it is necessarily forgotten. It is not. It is a matter that causes the police to expend a disproportionate amount of their time, energy and effort. It is one also which I know causes great resentment in the police force itself. As a result of the rise in crime and the inadequate number of officers being recruited, the police are now grossly overstretched. It is against that background that the current position must be judged.
The outlook for most forces is extremely bleak. Due to the pressures that I have outlined there is now added to those pressures the grave financial pressure caused, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, indicated, by the impact of restrictions on local government spending. Many police authorities simply cannot afford to recruit the number of police officers to which they are entitled. There is indeed an ever-widening gap between the number of officers that forces are in theory allowed and the reality on the streets.
I hope the House will bear with me for a moment if I give some figures. On 31st May this year the authorised establishment was 125,794. The actual number of police officers in post was 125,053. That was a shortfall of 741 officers. There were 1,066 vacancies. As at that date, 28 forces were below establishment. The position of those forces will have deteriorated since that time. For example, Northumbria, which was 44 officers short in May, is now 87 officers short and expects to be 116 officers under establishment by the end of the financial year. Its prospects for the future are even worse. Merseyside was 36 officers short and expects a shortfall of 100 by the end of the financial year.
It is all very well for the Government to say that they are increasing police establishment figures and to claim at the Conservative Party conference, with a great fanfare, that we will have an extra 1,000 policemen. Unless the police authorities can afford to recruit the number of officers to get them up to establishment, such an increase is, frankly, illusory.
The impact of capping has been severe, especially on the six metropolitan authorities. It has had a devastating effect on the authorities of Greater Manchester, Merseyside, Northumbria, South Yorkshire, West Midlands and West Yorkshire. Those are the very areas which have some of the worst urban problems presently faced by this country. But what has happened to them? In 1991–92 those six police authorities were forced to make cuts amounting to no less than £33.3 million. In addition,£6.6 million was taken from reserves to reduce the impact of the capping. That was last year. However, for 1992–93 the position will become worse. Such authorities will now be capped on the basis of a deduction of £33.3 million which has already been made. Therefore, in future things will be even more tightly stretched than they are at present.
On 13th September a deputation from the Association of Metropolitan Authorities met the
930
Home Secretary. He told them—and this was an interesting comment—that it was a potentially fruitful time for the association to approach him. I am not quite sure why he thought that it was potentially fruitful, nor am I certain as to what "potentially" actually means. However, that seems to have been his opinion. The Home Secretary said the total local government spend had been announced for 1992–93 but that service-by-service distribution had not yet been decided. He added that he would "fight hard" for police and fire with his colleagues and that that would apply to all the authorities concerned.
The present situation cannot be right. We demand a great deal from our police force, especially as crime figures have doubled in the past decade. By and large, members of the police force perform with distinction and efficiency the tasks we place upon them. I should like to join the tributes that have been paid to our police force from all sides of the House. But, however willing, they may be—and, indeed, are—"over-stretched", and that can only be taken so far: eventually the elastic will break. Even if it does not actually snap, it will certainly lose its flexibility.
The police feel that they are now caught up in a battle between various government departments—the inevitable victims of the clash between operational requirements, on the one hand, and over-rigid cash spending limits on the other. It is unfair that they should be placed in this position. I hope that the Minister can give us some reassurance on that point.
5.3 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for introducing this debate on the police. It is important. He was quite correct to say that there has not been such a debate for some time. It is also correct that your Lordships should have the opportunity to debate the subject this evening.
At the conclusion of his speech, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said that the police felt that they were caught in the position of having an ever-increasing number of duties placed upon them on the one hand and the conflict among various government departments on the other. I can only say that inevitably the police have increasing demands made upon them. That is part of the nature of life. The Government increasingly have their own problems of trying to live within the constraints which are placed upon any government. It is their duty to try to match those two conflicting interests as best they can.
We have not only had an informed debate but we have also had the participation of my noble friend Lord Nelson, who was a police officer. Moreover, we also heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, who was a commander in the Metropolitan Police and from the noble Lord, Lord Knights, who was a chief constable. No one can say that your Lordships' House does not have people who are well informed.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, in his peculiarly slow way of speaking was enormously incisive. He shot a volley of questions. If I may say so,

931
his standard was repeated by the speakers who followed him. One important point he made—and we should remember this—was to emphasise the fact that policing in this country is done by consent. The relationship between the public and the police is essential; it is essential, as the noble Lord said, that the public should respect the police. It is vital for the public to respect and support them. I was glad that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester said that he hoped the debate would encourage the police to believe that they have support. They need it. It is essential to their work that they should feel that they have the support of the community which they serve. The noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, said that it was important to give sympathetic attention to the police and the problems which they have to face.
I believe that what noble Lords have said this afternoon has demonstrated the concern which is felt in this House. Everyone has his own ideas about the police and everyone has views as to the problems which the police have to face and how they should be overcome. The advantage of a short debate is that brevity crystallises the mind and a number of very concise and important points have been made. Those who occupy a position of high profile, as do members of the police force, are subject to constant inspection, criticism and direction as to what they should be doing and hew they should conduct themselves.
The shortcomings of the police or of anyone else leap up like hobgoblins in front of us. The successes, achievements and sources of pride are often taken for granted. The noble Lord, Lord Charteris, was correct when he said that we must never condone the police when they fall short of the high standards which are imposed upon them but that we should understand the difficulties under which they work. It is not unlike the thoughts is which Shakespeare must have had in mind when he wrote, under rather different circumstances:
"The evil that men do lives after them. The good is oft interred with their bones".
The things that go wrong exercise us all. They often submerge the things which go right and which so often never reach the public arena. While the public are quick to criticize—and there are areas which deserve criticism in the police service—there is much which is excellent about the police, and there is much in which we can all take great pride and in which we do take great pride. I was glad that the right reverend prelate the Bishop of Chichester emphasised that fact.
When I travel up and down the country visiting police forces —and I have done a lot of that over the past four years—and talk to chief constables and other ranks, including special constables, about their work and the problems which they face, I see a police service which is facing up to what is thrown at it, often quite literally in some of the most disgraceful scenes of violence which this country has seen: for example, police officers who are hit with scaffold poles; lighted rags which are put into the petrol tanks of occupied police vehicles; and officers who are hit with bricks and missiles and sometimes even stabbed. I was glad that the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, referred to that
932
aspect. It is a shocking state of affairs which reflects badly on our society. It is a situation in which none of us can take any pleasure.
The noble Lord, Lord Charteris of Amisfield, referred to Flint House. He told us that 17,900 officers were assaulted last year. That was a terrible figure, but Flint House does impressive work. When one is subjected to such behaviour, to deal with it and to come up smiling requires great leadership and brave and devoted dedication by each officer. Although not one greatly used to quoting poetry—the noble Lord, Lord Allen, is much more versed in it than I am—I say that the police could do well to remember the words of Rudyard Kipling:
"If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you …
You will be a man, my son".
With all the difficulties that the police suffer—which have been referred to by some of your Lordships—we must remember that the police service has been the recipient of substantially increased resources over the past 12 years. Police strength has increased by nearly 16,000, and that is 14 per cent. more officers than there were in May 1979. Police expenditure increased to £4.9 billion by the end of 1990–91. That is an increase of 67 per cent. Three quarters of the work which the police are asked to do—a point referred to by my noble friend Lord Nelson and the noble Lord, Lord Knights—is on matters other than crime. They are everyday matters such as nuisance, domestic disputes, traffic work and patrol and community liaison work. They are invisible so far as the criminal statistics are concerned, but they are essential and fundamental parts of policing, as we know it in this country.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, was right when he said the prime duty of the police is to catch the criminal, but those other facets of policing are also essential. He said that they should not be dealing with prisoners in police cells. I agree with him. That is not the job of the police service. That is not what police officers are trained for. But they sometimes have to deal with such matters in emergencies.
The police service is facing up to the need for change. We are establishing a national criminal intelligence service. The noble Lord, Lord Allen, reminded us that he had set up the first national police computer. We are now developing a second. The information on the second one is much the same as that on the first; but it is provided in a more efficient, flexible and helpful way. Work is now in hand to extend the range to include a national criminal intelligence system to support the new national criminal intelligence service. The national criminal record system will provide the police and other criminal justice agencies with direct access to police records.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen, asked what was happening to regional crime squads. ACPO proposed reconstructing regional crime squads by reducing them from nine to five, which should result in more effective investigation of major crime. Discussions are going on with police authorities, regional crime squad committees and ACPO to consider that matter. The noble Lord also referred to automatic fingerprint

933
identification. In 1991, the Home Office began working with the FBI to develop and implement a computerised automatic fingerprint recognition system. I saw it the other day. It is most impressive. The aim is to supply a system for the United Kingdom by 1996–97, but it is an expensive piece of equipment.
Our police service stands high in international respect. It is taking a leading part in shaping the structure of future co-operation in Europe. It is attracting good quality recruits, a point in which the noble Lord, Lord Knights, was interested. There are 50,000 applicants a year; and one in seven is successful. The police service can afford to choose and does choose. It takes only the best. There are more graduates in the police service than there are in the Army, the Navy or the Air Force.
The police service is tackling head on difficult and sensitive areas such as equal opportunity issues, and—this is a point referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby—it is encouraging members of the ethnic minorities to join the service. The police service is also determined, overtly and totally, to provide a better, more courteous and more personal service to the members of the public with whom police officers come into contact. That is what the police themselves had determined to do before the introduction of the Citizen's Charter. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, referred to the Commissioner's Plus Programme, and he was right to do so. It is an enormous task to try to raise the whole profile of a large organisation where each man is the person who faces the community. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, that the commissioner should be given great credit for what he is doing.
The Citizen's Charter will reinforce the commitment to improving the quality of service to all sections of the public. In all those areas, and many others, the police are showing great determination, professionalism and understanding. Of course they face problems. They always will, but they are tackling them with tenacity and determination. There is no easy route to dealing with the police. Of course if the supply of money were endless, the solution would be relatively simple; but it is not, and we have to accept that.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen, referred to expertise in Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and suggested that it would be a good idea to include some outside expertise. The inspectorate already has non-police expertise. There is an accountant/ statistician who is available to it and consultancy is provided from time to time. He also referred to the Audit Commission, which had commented that the command structure was top heavy. A number of forces have removed their divisional structure in recent years and have considerably slimmed down the command structure as a result. They all review their overall structure from time to time. The Audit Commission's reports have been helpful in providing the methodology for such a review.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen, also referred to common police services. Discussions are continuing with the Home Office, ACPO and the local authority associations about future funding of the police service.
934
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, referred to community policing. He said that community policing involves a considerable increase in police resources.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I did not say that. I asked the Minister whether community policing did involve an increase in resources. If it did, I said that it would need more resources.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that was because I did not take down my notes properly. Community policing does involve a considerable increase in police resources, but there is plenty of evidence to suggest that that style of policing is what the public wants. Police forces throughout the country are developing their own methods of doing it. The Metropolitan Police is introducing what it calls sector policing. That is where teams of police officers go out in what are called geographic sectors. They assume responsibility for those sectors on a 24-hour, seven days a week basis. Surrey has a total geographic policing system. Other forces have similar schemes.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, got on to the complicated subject of standard spending assessments. I am the first to admit that that is not after dinner small talk stuff; it is wet towel, late night stuff. The noble Lord's anxiety was whether SSAs deliver a fair allocation to police forces, whether they reflect the increases in establishment which will flow from the Government's public expenditure survey and whether local authorities will have to put aside extra money to pay for the extra policemen.
Total standard spending is the amount which the Government consider should be spent by all local authority services. The sum for the police is top sliced off the total standard spending amount. Part of that money is paid by the Home Office by specific grant. The noble Lord asked whether it is the Department of the Environment or the Home Office which provides the standard spending assessments. It is the Home Office. The amount of money available for police SSAs is that part of the police expenditure which is agreed in the public expenditure survey which is not provided through police specific grant. The SSAs are determined by reference to each police authority's establishment of police officers which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has approved.
The noble Lords, Lord Allen, Lord Knights, Lord Harris and Lord Richard, referred to the problems of the metropolitan authorities. They are single service authorities. I understand their anxiety as a result of the situation they face in 1991–92 as regards their budgetary problems. The authorities are also concerned about the possible effect of charge-capping criteria on budgets for 1992–93. They are in a peculiar position. They cannot move the money from one pot to another as it were. Their money is to be spent solely on the police.
It is right to remember—the noble Lord, Lord Allen, made this point—that the responsibilities we are discussing are not government responsibilities. They are local responsibilities. However, the Government provide the funds. Recently the Home Secretary met a delegation from the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and listened to its concerns

935
about the capping criteria which may be set for next year. We are concerned about that subject but it is currently under discussion. Therefore I am sure your Lordships will understand when I say I am not in a position to give any undertakings about the possible outcome of the discussions.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, referred to Derbyshire. Mr. Dear has deferred making any formal judgment on the efficiency of that force. He will revisit the force before the end of the financial year to assess the effect of the changes which are now being made. Like the noble Lord, Lord Harris, I, too, hope that Derbyshire will by then have taken the action needed to brig g its police force up to the standards enjoyed by other counties. A police authority has a legal duty to secure the maintenance of an adequate and efficient police force for the area concerned. That is solely the duty of the police authority.
Sometimes it is suggested that inadequacies occur as a result of the standard spending assessment formula or through the limited sums being made available for capital expenditure. However, the fact remains that those factors apply equally to all authorities. It is only in Derbyshire that affairs have been so badly managed as to provoke a high level of criticism from the independent inspectorate.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen, and a number of other noble Lords referred to the complaints system. The complaints system is operated by the Police Complaints Authority. Taints Authority. Since I have held my present office I have been horrified by the length of time taken for complaints or disciplinary matters—even those of a modest nature—to be investigated. That matter is being pursued.
My noble friend Lord Gisborough referred to a national criminal justice agency. His idea was interesting. Whether those tasked with guarding our civil liberties would agree that to have such a pool of information available for sampling would be a good idea is not something on which I can comment. Nor do I know whether information technology has reached the stage of sophistication necessary to handle so large and so complex a mass of information. However, my noble friend's idea is a constructive one and I thank him for it.
I realise I have nearly reached the end of my time limit and I have not replied to all the questions asked. I shall ensure that I write to those noble Lords I have not answered today. Finally, my noble friend Lady Sharpies referred to acid house parties. The Government took the view that the penalties available for holding such unlicensed events should be enhanced. That matter was dealt with in the Entertainments (Increased Penalties) Act 1990. The Association of Chief Police Officers was consulted and it took the view that its powers were sufficient to deal with that matter.
I fear I shall have to resume my seat despite the fact that I have not replied to all the questions I have been asked. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Allen, for introducing this debate. As I said at the beginning, the debate has covered a great many issues of great importance.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I drafted the original Motion in general terms to permit a wide-ranging debate. We have had such a debate. I am most grateful to noble Lords and to the right reverend Prelate for making such interesting contributions. I hope it is not invidious of me to say a few words of especial appreciation to the three speakers who have experience of serving in the police force. That experience showed in their contributions.
I have a few minutes left, but I shall not make another speech. I am conscious of the fact that there is an important debate to be held after this one. The Minister did not have time to reply to one or two points that were made in the debate including the position of local government under the terms of the new Bill with regard to police amalgamations. No doubt I shall hear from the Minister in due course.
I listened with some care to his comments on capping and standard spending assessments. I agree with him that the Byzantine complexity of the arrangements makes them difficult to understand. However, I am still puzzled by what will happen if the capping arrangements result in the reduction of a force to a size where the Home Secretary takes the view it is no longer capable of discharging its duties efficiently. However, I leave that thought for the Government to ponder together with some other thoughts that emerged during the course of this interesting debate. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Children with Special Educational Needs
5.27 p.m.
Baroness Warnock Baroness Warnock rose to call attention to the working of the Education Act 1981 with respect to children with special educational needs; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to your Lordships for allowing time for this debate. I need not remind noble Lords that at present there is an enormous interest in educational matters. It is a time of tremendously fast change. Therefore it seems appropriate to raise the matter of how the 1981 Act is working a decade later with regard to the education of children with special needs. The principle behind the 1981 Act is that education, at least up to the age of 19, is a legal right for all children, and that the purpose of education for all children, whatever their abilities, is to improve their understanding and enjoyment of the world, and thus to improve their chances of obtaining freedom, independence and an ability to make choices and therefore gain some meaning to their lives.
If education could fulfil those aims, it would meet the needs both of children and of society—the children we are discussing are of course members of society—at one and the same time. Noble Lords may think this philosophy is a little old-fashioned. The principle behind the Education Reform Act 1988 seems radically different. If anyone is defined as having needs in that Act, it is not children but society or employers

937
who need a workforce with certain competences in order to meet the economic demands of society as a whole. I do not believe those two basic intentions are contradictory save in one respect: there will always be some children who will contribute little to the economy and who yet have overwhelmingly strong educational needs according to the concept of need enshrined in the 1981 Act. It is precisely to explore that potential area of conflict between the two Acts that I was most anxious to launch today's debate.
I have one further general point to put to your Lordships before moving on to just a few of the more specific areas of anxiety. Time will certainly not allow me to cover all the issues that I believe need to be resolved. In the report of the committee of inquiry into the education of children with special needs, on which the 1981 Act was largely based, there was a chapter entitled Parents as Partners. The committee urged that parents of children with disabilities should be involved from the very beginning in the educational plans for their children and that they should work with the local authority and its officers and employees in an open and co-operative spirit for the good of the child. Those parents were of course the parents of those children whose special needs were so far as possible to be met by the local authority.
Since those days, two related things have happened. The powers of the local authorities have been enormously diminished and parents have acquired a far more influential role in the provision of education for all children. It seems to me that it is the very proper role of parents to be interested in the education of their own children. However, parents are not and should not be responsible for educational policy.
Happily, most parents have children without special educational needs and therefore it is unreasonable to expect those parents to be very much concerned with provision for such children. Such provision accordingly, if it is to be made at all, must be a matter of policy, and central policy requires central administration. Local education authorities have been very much criticised for spending too much on central administration and have been stripped of many of their responsibilities and much of their money. Yet without central resources, the needs of disabled children—whether physically, intellectually or educationally disabled —will not be met.
The new competitiveness between schools which is supposed to ensure parents' rights to choose the best schools by means of published examination results and other methods, and according to which the schools which perform badly by that criterion will either improve or wither away, needs to be balanced by central planning. Otherwise, children who inevitably bring down the examination success rate of a school because of the obstacles they have to face will be, as they say, marginalised. They will either not be entered for examinations or tests which it would be in their interests to take even if they do not do very well, or one way or another they will be excluded from schools altogether.
However, a central plan requires central resources and powers to implement it. I do not argue that the
938
only obstacle to the good working of the 1981 Act is lack of resources but I believe that it is one difficulty, and a very important difficulty, in the way of successful implementation of that Act.
The first of the particular matters which I should like to bring to the attention of the House is the question of what in the 1981 Act are called "statements". According to the Act, when a local authority believes that a child has, or probably has, a special educational need—a need which cannot be met by the ordinary provision of a school—an assessment of the child is set up, in which the parents play a part. If the local authority sees fit a statement of the child's need is made and maintained by that authority. The statement is supposed to specify in detail the needs of the child. Section 7(2) of the Act states that:
"In any case where a local education authority maintain a statement … in respect of a child, it shall be the duty of the authority to arrange that the special educational provision specified in the statement is made for him unless his parent has made suitable arrangements".
If a local authority makes a statement on a child and the parents dissent from it in any respect, they may appeal to a local committee which may refer the matter back to the local authority to rethink it. That often does not make very much difference because the very same people who first made the statement are later the judges of whether the appeal is to be allowed. Nevertheless, parents have that right.
If, however, the local authority decides not to make a statement on the child the parent has no appeal save to the Secretary of State in writing. Such an appeal takes an extremely long time. Cases are quoted in which more than three years of a child's life have gone by between the parents appealing and the response from the Secretary of State. More than a year is the norm. No oral evidence is taken. The parents are finally given the result but no explanation of that result or its grounds.
In 1981 none of that seemed to matter very much because it was assumed that local authorities would want to make statements for the good of the child. It was also presumed that there would be an atmosphere of openness and co-operation between local authorities and parents. We who served on the committee may have been naive in that assumption, but that was the assumption that we made. Now things are different. There is growing evidence that local authorities are issuing statements so vague in their wording that it can never be clear whether the authorities are fulfilling their duties; that they are altering statements according to the provisions they think they can afford without any evident change in the child's needs; and that they are issuing statements with the provisions that the need will be met if resources allow. Some have even begun to speak in terms of waiting lists for provision. If a child has an educational need, he has it now. Every day—let alone every year—that that need is not met, his educational condition deteriorates until in the end it is perhaps hardly remediable.
Worst of all perhaps is the growing tendency for local authorities to direct their officers, such as educational psychologists, not to make an assessment or diagnosis that would demand a statement, because

939
if no statement is made the local authority has no duty. Of course, local authorities will plead that lack of resources makes such carelessness of the law inevitable. I suppose that that is not an unreasonable plea. Nevertheless, the position is extremely unsatisfactory. The law is there. It is still in place. It is my belief that as regards statements it is not working as it was intended to work and that it should be amended.
If a new law is apparently less beneficial for children with special needs, it will be a sad day, but at least an unambiguous choice will have been made and we shall have moved away from the unreality of requiring local authorities to do things which, however desirable, they are unable or unwilling to do. Parliament will have said openly: "We can no longer afford to meet the needs of some children and we shall abandon the pretence of doing so".
I must necessarily deal extremely briefly with my two other points. I turn now to the matter of children with emotional and behavioural problems. The majority of those children have problems that have arisen as a result of their families, but they usually show themselves at school. Such problems constitute an enormous—sometimes an insuperable —barrier to education. Yet education is almost the only hope of salvation for those children. Some local authorities, notably Merseyside, give a high priority to the education of those children, but, unsurprisingly, they do not have much money to do it with. Nevertheless, they have stated that that is their priority.
However, the worst aspect of the predicament of those children is that they are increasingly excluded from mainstream schools, even from those that provide a certain amount of special support. The competition between schools, to which I referred earlier and which is likely to intensify, makes that almost inevitable. But there is a further twist to the tale. If a child is officially and conclusively excluded from a school—that is, expelled—the local authority must be informed, and it has a duty to provide an alternative placement. So the expedient being employed is that children are excluded from school, but only indefinitely, not permanently. That means that neither the school nor the local authority has a duty to provide any education whatsoever.
The pretence is that the child will come back to school, but too often that is no more than a rather shoddy pretence. Those children are in a kind of limbo. They are not being educated and, as there is no obligation to report their absence from school to the local authority, we do not even know how many of them there are. They are referred to as children "on hold". Educationally, those children cease to exist until, as like as not, they turn up in the courts and then their education will be the least of the priorities in their treatment. The law with regard to exclusion from school must be amended so that we can prevent a further growth in the membership of that dismal and, I am strongly inclined to say, dishonest category of children "on hold".
Perhaps I may deal briefly with my final point; namely, the provision of speech therapy. As your Lordships know, for many children speech therapy is the key to their education; indeed, one might almost
940
say that it is the key to their human life. If they cannot communicate, their life becomes meaningless. However, as their name implies, speech therapists are also involved in medical treatment. There are far too few of them and their deployment falls between the Department of Health and the Department of Education and Science. Numerous attempts have been made to sort that out, but nothing satisfactory is yet in place. Here is another issue that most urgently needs action and proper clarification and regulation.
I look forward with great interest to what I know will be an informative if not a particularly cheerful debate, and I thank your Lordships for your patience. I beg to move for Papers.
5.43 p.m.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, never before in my time in your Lordships' House have I filled the slot at the head of the list under the name of the instigator of the debate. I feel more than a little daunted following the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, with her immense knowledge of educational and many other matters. I well remember the Warnock Report, a learned and important document which led to the 1981 Act. I remember it with great pleasure because my interest in disability with regard to learning is on the whole related to dyslexia. I believe that dyslexia was mentioned for the first time in a proper way in the middle of the report. Until that point it had been hard to get the disability recognised. Since then, although it has been a difficult road to follow, the matter has progressed reasonably well. I always feel immense gratitude for the fact that that has come about as a result of the report.
I disagree with the noble Baroness on only two matters. First, she said that, fortunately, most parents did not have children who needed special education. However, according to my information, about 20 per cent. of children need just that. I would call that a more than significant number of worried parents. I understand that, of those 20 per cent., 4 per cent. come under the heading of dyslexic.
The second point on which I disagree with the noble Baroness is a major point of disagreement. One might say that money is the root of all evil, but in the end the whole matter comes back to the question of resources. I am not clear what happened under the 1944 Act. Disabilities were categorised which was an unsatisfactory approach. The new idea of looking at children in the round, taking into account their abilities and disabilities and then deciding whether there should be an assessment, a statement and subsequent suitable teaching must be right.
I remember the Bill going through your Lordships' House in 1981. We were all pleased with it. I do not remember it being controversial, creating cross-party controversy or any other kind of talk. Yet something has gone wrong down the line and it does not work as it should. I believe that it is a question of resources. The Act laid certain duties on local education authorities and gave certain rights to parents. That seemed right and proper, but the delays—mostly, one imagines, because of the shortage of teachers, educational psychologists and others—have been

941
phenomenal. I am told that to obtain a statement now —I understand that this is a considerable improvement on the past—takes 10 months. If you were ill in some other way and you had to wait 10 months between diagnosis and treatment—that does not take into account the questions of argument, appeal and so on—you would probably be dead. Those long delays mean that the education of children who need special education is critical.
Sometimes nothing much happens at all. Perhaps I may relate a tale regarding a charity event that I attended. I had always wondered what happened to children who did not read at all, given that they have to stay at school until they are 16. At last I found a grown-up who had been through that process and had written rather nice poetry by speaking to a friend who wrote it down. I asked, "What in the world did you do all that time?". She replied, "Colouring". She had been given endless books, like those that you give to a child, to colour in. That is not right and resources are at the nub of the problem. There is another question of resources besides money; namely, the will of the local education authorities to do the best that they can and not to fob people off as the noble Baroness suggested.
For the few minutes remaining to me, perhaps I may be allowed to revert to the problem of dyslexia which involves 4 per cent., give or take a little, of those 20 per cent. of people, and use it as an example to show how poorly that apparently good Act has worked. I was chairman of a bursary fund for a long time, providing money for people to come to be taught at the institute. All that time I could never see that it was right that that bursary fund should have ever had to exist. One heard of local education authorities which just did not recognise dyslexia, possibly because they knew perfectly well that they did not have the wherewithal to deal with it. One heard of local education authorities which would release children to one or other of the institutes for tuition but would not pay for it. The whole matter was most unsatisfactory. Although I think it is a good idea to keep children in mainstream schools, local education authorities should be allowed to take advantage of national resources. The dyslexic institutes now have 200 teachers qualified in this way, and on a national scale they must be considered an under-used resource. It would be simple to deploy them in some way, or possibly deploy the children to them, particularly now that schools are allowed to go independent and might be pleased to club together to use that form of teaching which is different and essential for the well being of the child. The need is for the resource of money and willpower.
5.51 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, we thank the noble Baroness for giving the House the opportunity to debate what is, in my view, a very serious problem. Throughout the country there is great concern among all schools that in many cases the number of children in mainstream schools receiving special educational need treatment is nil. The Government philosophy of
942
exam league tables, LMS funding and the influence of the market does not bode well for children who are not going to be what we call top flight. Therefore, we see injustices and unfairness creeping in when dealing with children who perhaps need very special treatment. Schools are now beginning to feel that they are inadequately funded for special education under the LMS, which means that the Government have seriously to consider the funding issue if children are to be educated in mainstream schools.
The HMI survey of special needs carried out last year gave various findings after visiting schools. There was considerable variation about statementing between LEAs and lack of specificity, as the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, said. Assessment was bounded by available resources; and that is the way you make your assessment. There was gradual integration of disabled children but with little planning and resources. There was a lack of school choices because schools had been closed as local authorities were forced to cut back on smaller schools. A point made by the noble Baroness was that HMI said there needed to be strategic planning if we were to have successful SEN provision, and it could not be left to individual schools or governing bodies; the local authority had to take over the whole picture.
Another important point raised with me concerns probationer teachers who come totally unprepared to the task of teaching special educational needs when they go into ordinary schools. In many instances the probationer teacher comes from the training college without having any knowledge of how to tackle special education teaching in front of the class. Perhaps the Minister is able to give some encouragement and agree that more practical training should be given to students if they are to contend with special school children.
I am involved locally as well as nationally with the partially-sighted and blind. Teachers in schools and colleges which are dealing with partially-sighted sighted and blind pupils must have a mandatory teaching qualification because it embraces more than one would expect from the ordinary school teacher and involves the wholeness of the person. It so happens that now these children are going into mainstream schools the teachers in them do not have to have those qualifications. That proves that the education they will be receiving will be less good than if they were in schools catering particularly for blind and partially-sighted pupils. If children are going to a special school it is important that they have the best available teaching, but if the local authority is not sending them to such a school it must see that the teachers in the ordinary schools are up to the required standard.
Another point is that there is a lack of what one might call mobility training for blind and partially-sighted children in mainstream schools. In many instances they do not understand the fundamental approach to mobility training. Without that training you do not get successful students because they do not get the necessary confidence.
I will not go into the urgent need for speech therapists and physiotherapists, but I sometimes

943
wonder whether there are not enough people being trained in those specialties or that the National Health Service is not being particularly helpful to the schools. But, if we are looking specifically at special schools, they are becoming more and more special in that they tend to serve a greater proportion of children who have severe learning difficulties. I speak as a governor of a residential school in that category. Many of the pupils there have been excluded from ordinary schools because of abnormal behaviour, lack of concentration and general disruption. The aim of our residential school is to do what we can to get those children back into the mainstream schools, but it is a very difficult process which takes anything up to three years. If they do not come to us at 12 or 13 there is no chance of getting them back into the mainstream schools.
There is one category of children which causes particular problems in terms of violence and its management. These are some of the very difficult children who cannot be contained even in schools for the emotionally and behaviourally disturbed. When local authorities try to deal with these children they are placed in very expensive private schools. In the past they had the benefit of part-hospital and part-educational training. I believe that has to be looked at very seriously. It is a special group of children which parents and schools in many cases cannot deal with. A concentration of hospital treatment is needed as well as education.
As the noble Baroness said, there is a conflict between the 1988 Act and the 1981 Act. I quote Professor Tim Brighouse, head of the education department at Keele University, who said:
"There is a conflict between the '88 Act and the '81 Act. The first puts the emphasis on market forces which tend to exclude people; the second is based on principles of inclusion".
In conclusion, though I have looked very seriously at the Government's Parent's Charter I do not see anything in it that addresses the special needs of educationally needy children. I believe that that charter should be amended to make quite sure that children with special educational needs have rights and entitlements. In that process schools and LEAs would put into operation those rights and would have to be given additional resources. We can then safeguard the education of some of the more deprived children in the education service.
6 p.m.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, I should first like to express my admiration for the truly liberal civilised concept of education with which the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, opened the debate. I agree with her that the Act is simply not working at the moment. The success or otherwise of its implementation needs to be considered from two points of view. In fact that has already been done but perhaps I can make the point more clearly. Perhaps I shall be forgiven if I fall into using some of the government jargon which I found myself doing unwittingly. I rather wish that I had not thought of it in that way but I did so.
The two points of view are those of the service providers—that is, the LEAs—and the clients, who
944
are the parents and children. A survey which was recently produced by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities (the AMA) summed up the situation rather well. It pointed out that there have been some successes but that there are numerous difficulties, which—here I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Radnor—resolve themselves into resources.
The basic problem, as the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, said, is that the education of children with special educational needs is not cost effective. Therefore it does not fit into a market philosophy of schools. It requires specially trained staff, special books and equipment, suitable premises and perhaps special transport. The survey points to the situation of the open ended needs of children in a closed financial system.
The White Paper which preceded the 1981 Act said:
"In the Government's view, authorities will be able to give progressively fuller expression to the new approach outlined … by the gradual redeployment of resources". That was a pious hope and a vain and shallow aspiration. Progressively over the past 10 years resources have been pared to the bone. Recent changes—numbers of schools going out of local authority control, local financial management of schools and demands of staffing for the national curriculum—have reduced to zero opportunities for redeployment. As usual, there is no money around. That may not be the only difficulty but it is certainly the main one.
Another difficulty pointed out by the association is the system of statementing—surely one of the unloveliest verbs in the language. It introduces an artificial barrier between those children who need special help and are acknowledged to do so and those who are only marginally less handicapped but apparently do not need special help.
A third point is that if a child has a statement, he or she will receive extra resources. Funds will follow the child, to use the jargon. That means that in the days when schools are managing their own budgets it becomes a pressing necessity for a child with special needs to have a statement. The process is likely to accelerate. At present there are 150,000 children with statements. It is projected that by 1994 there will be 754,000.
What can local authorities do, lacking the administrative resources to consider large numbers of children for special treatment and lacking the resources to pay for their special teaching? What happens to the notional 18 per cent. of children—making up altogether the 20 per cent.—who need special help but who are not statemented?
I turn briefly to the problems of what I have called the clients—the parents and children who need help. I think here in particular of dyslexic children. The trouble with dyslexia is that it is not an easily, medically definable condition as is, shall we say, deafness, blindness or physical handicap. One can argue about dyslexia: does this child suffer from dyslexia or not? Is there such a thing or is this just a matter of being a bad speller? The parents of dyslexic children—I confirm what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor—have encountered much obstruction from local authorities. There are delays over the

945
assessment which has to precede a statement and delays over agreeing to grant a statement at all. It can be an endless procedure. The noble Earl, Lord Radnor, quoted a figure of 10 months but it can be as much as two years. As the noble Baroness said, an appeal to the Secretary of State can take up to three years or more. What is the good of that to a child that needs help now, not in 1995, by which time its schooling may be over?
Much dissatisfaction has also been felt by parents over the appeals procedure as specified in the Act, which is always weighted in favour of the local authority. I do not have time to go into the detail but that has been a point of contention.
Certain parents have endured terrible hardship over this situation. I read of a single parent—a young mother with a little boy. When the boy was no older than five and a half, she became aware that he was behind in his reading. It was four years before she could induce the local education authority—in this case the Brent education authority—to acknowledge that there was a problem. At the age of seven and a half his reading and writing were only at the stage reached by a five year-old. He was then privately assessed and shown to have a high IQ but to be three years behind in reading and spelling. That is a clear indication of dyslexia.
The mother applied to Brent education authority for the child to be assessed with a view to a statement. After two and a half years that still had not taken place. Finally, an educational psychologist said that the boy had difficulty in word recognition. That was acknowledged after about three years. In the end the mother contacted the British Dyslexia Association, of which I have the honour to be a vice president, which pointed her in the right direction. She has now reached the point where an assessment has been agreed. It has taken four years. It is no joke for a young mother who is struggling alone.
It seems to me that either the Act has to be changed, as the noble Baroness said when opening the debate, or special financial provision has to be made. Why is it not possible for the Government to say: "This is an Act of Parliament. It must be made possible for it to be implemented and for the local authorities to have the resources that they need. We shall make grants as necessary and ring-fence for that purpose, on the same principle as the education support grants". Either the Act must be changed or special provision must be made. In 1981 Parliament willed the ends and the Government must recognise an obligation to provide the means.
6.8 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Exeter: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford spoke in your Lordships' House on Monday on the Local Government Bill and education. He will be in the Chamber again tomorrow. It therefore falls to me to contribute to this debate. Speakers from this Bench have, by their very title deeds, a special concern that they must express and act upon for the disadvantaged and for the wounded. This is done with no lack of
946
appreciation for the emphasis on achievement in education and financial discipline. Those two factors bring us into the classic tension between excellence and equality which has been endemic in the history of the human race.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, said, the number of statemented children is on the increase, and that is likely to continue. Therefore that will bring pressure to bear on the governors of schools. Through their admission policy they naturally prefer to choose the more able children because of the need for achievement. However, the increase in the number of statemented children will put schools under pressure. Will the Government require schools to publish their policies on special educational needs?
Teachers of children with special educational needs require good quality in-service training. However, is there not pressure on governors to allocate their funds for in-service training in a way which will favour those whose in-service training will support success in the league table standards of judgment? I understand that there has been difficulty in ascertaining the availability of full-time secondments for those teachers who wish and need to acquire special qualifications in this field. It would be helpful if that information could be made available. It would also be helpful if information were made available about the relationship between special schools and provision for special educational needs of children—whether or not statemented—in the mainstream schools.
Perhaps I may say a word about the relationship between content and process which is so important in any human undertaking. To have good policy content is essential. However, often good policy fails to succeed, not only through lack of resources but also because the introduction, pursuit and commendation of the policy is not appropriate. Perhaps I may dare to give an example and make a possible suggestion. The Secretary of State for Education is reported to have said that in GCSE examinations marks will be deducted for errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. It might be more appropriate to put that more positively: that extra marks could be given for good spelling, punctuation and grammar.
A teacher of a class of less able primary school children told them a story but did not give the familiar title of it; it was the parable of the good Samaritan. Having told the parable, the teacher asked, "Who do you think was the most important person in that story?" A hand shot up and a child answered, "The innkeeper". The teacher asked, "Why?" The reply was, "How would you like to have some beaten up person dumped on you and have to take him in? You wouldn't know if that man would come back and pay you the extra money that he promised so you'd simply have to trust him". From a less able child there emerged an insight that may well be totally original since the parable was first told 2,000 years ago.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Renwick: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate is not an easy act to follow. However, I speak today as the third vice president of the British Dyslexia Association. I assure noble Lords that it is

947
not a qualification that one's name must begin with an "R". I understand that my noble friend Lord Radnor is also president of The Dyslexia Foundation. I join with him in saying that we considered with enormous expectation the Education Act 1981 when it was first implemented in 1983.
Today is not the first time that Parliament has reviewed the Act. We are most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, for giving us the opportunity to do so again. A review took place five years ago when a Select Committee on education in another place produced a most helpful report prompting a revision of the circular on Assessments and Statements of Special Educational Needs. There was much valuable advice in that circular. However, it also had two major weaknesses. The first was that its recommendations were unenforceable. The second—which the circular makes quite explicit—was that the new elements were not intended to require additional expenditure. Like my noble friend Lord Radnor, I hope that that is something that we shall change.
The time is now ripe for a second review of the Act. We might do worse than to reconsider one of the main tenets of the 1981 reforms, and one which, for dyslexics, has had a less than wholly benign influence. I refer to the abandonment of what is known as "labelling". The term is pejorative, because the practice confers a stigma. However, a situation has since arisen in which the professionals, through their anxiety not to confer a stigma, have been unwilling to make a precise diagnosis. They have thus inadvertently made it impossible for some children to receive appropriate remedial provision.
With regard to statements of special educational need, I wish, first, to make two general comments. First, the British Dyslexia Association would like provision for each statemented child to be quantified. In June this year I tabled a Written Question asking Her Majesty's Government whether they had plans to require that to be done. The reply—for which I attach no personal blame to my noble friend who will reply for Her Majesty's Government today—did not answer the question. Perhaps my noble friend will do so later. Without any action on the problem, it will continue to be possible for a local education authority to make only token provision, perhaps by offering half-an-hour's speech therapy a week when two and a half hours are needed, without any prospect of redress for that child. That is a travesty of the way in which we understood the Act was meant to work. Action to stop such travesty ought to be taken without further delay.
Secondly, will Her Majesty's Government ask Her Majesty's Inspectorate to monitor the quality of statements, particularly those few LEAs which have delegated the 2 per cent. funding under local management of schools?
There is concern about statemented pupils in mainstream schools, as a report by Her Majesty's Inspectorate made clear two years ago. The British Dyslexia Association is surely not alone in wanting the statements for these children to be scrutinised, to check that needs are identified and provision duly
948
made in accordance with the educational, medical, psychological and any other advice tendered to the local education authority.
I come next to the amendments to the 1981 Act that have been proposed by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. I greatly regret that he is unable to be here tonight to present them in person. However, it is characteristic of his anxiety for the well-being of disabled children that he has made his observations available to us in his absence.
In summary, my noble friend's proposals are as follows: for the child, a strict limit to the time that he or she must wait to be assessed for special educational needs; for the parents, a power of appeal against a local authority's refusal to make a statement; for the local appeals committee, a power to amend a statement made by a local authority; and, for justice to be done and be seen to be done, a neutral appeals committee on which no members of the local authority against which the appeal has been brought would any longer be permitted to sit.
Such reforms would improve not only the educational prospects of the children who need formal statements but also the lives of their parents and siblings. We should do all that we can to end the protracted battles that sometimes take place before a statement is granted when whole families endure almost intolerable stress.
Without ceasing to be concerned for those children with severe difficulties, I do not wish to overlook the much larger number of children with special needs who are not formally statemented. I should like to see much greater effort made by some LEAs to meet the individual needs of primary level children without statements. There are models of good practice waiting to be followed, both in urban and in rural areas, where specialist remedial teachers are employed.
It is particularly regrettable that not all schools enjoy the services of a specialist remedial teacher trained in the multi-sensory method. Such a teacher can assist the memory development, and hence the learning capacity, of many children, not only the dyslexics. As an aside on the subject of memory, I wonder how many noble Lords heard a recent wireless programme in which the pianist Peter Donohoe spoke of rehearsing on a soundless keyboard as:
"Reminding my tactile memory of how it feels".
The actor Ian Richardson told listeners that:
"The muscles used in producing speech are also a memory aid".
I think it right that a review of the 1981 Act should also take into account the ways in which that Act is compromised by other legislation. The side-effects of the provision for local management of schools in the Education Reform Act 1988 are a case in point. LMS, too, needs to be reviewed in the light of experience.
I must also give warning that the examination league tables that Her Majesty's Government are known to favour may have damaging consequences in terms of parental choice where children with special needs—especially unstatemented needs—are concerned. I shall say no more at this stage as we are to have the opportunity to debate this issue later in the Session.

949
It is often said that the 1981 Act cannot be effectively implemented unless and until special educational provision is fully resourced. That is self-evident. At a time when increasing demands are having to be met we must look for new ways of meeting special needs. And it is in this context, too, that some of those new ways may be suggested by developments in information technology.
I am glad to know that IT-mediated assessment and remediation programmes are being researched at a number of universities, including Dundee, Sheffield and Hull. I also gather that a DES-funded research project at a school in Croydon is developing ways of using IT to assess dyslexic children through the national curriculum.
If developments such as these can be fostered I trust that resource-led provision for dyslexic children will cease to be the scandal that in some areas it has become. When partnership between parents, teachers, and local government officers is untainted by bureaucratic subterfuge, attrition, and recrimination then we can say that the 1981 Act has fulfilled its great promise.
6.24 p.m.
Baroness Brigstocke: My Lords, all children have special needs, as their parents and teachers will testify. But some needs are more special than others and in that sense some children are more special than others. The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, performed a major service for those special children when she published her report on children with special educational needs which led to the 1981 Act. She made those of us who were then in the teaching profession realise that children with special educational needs were the responsibility of all teachers not merely those with specialist training.
I am not sure that prior to her report the teaching staff and I at St. Paul's Girls School would have had the courage to accept pupils with serious physical disabilities which, it would previously have been argued, would preclude them from benefiting from a full, demanding academic curriculum. I have in mind in particular three young women who came to the school as children in the 1980s. The first suffered from cerebral palsy and could hardly walk into my office when we interviewed her at the age of 11. When she left at the age of 18, she could walk up the stairs, admittedly with difficulty, and was a much respected, active member of the sixth form. I agree that she attained only one A-level, but she was well integrated in the school.
Highly respected, too, was a girl who was statemented as partially sighted. She could see only dimly through a tiny pin point in one eye. In the past I should certainly have described her as being blind. She too was determined to read classics, of all subjects. She mastered the classical Greek script and has had a most successful academic career at Cambridge.
Most moving of all was the student whose growth was impaired as a result of taking steroids prescribed for her chronic juvenile arthritis. While she was at school she had two hip replacements. Determination
950
characterised her, too. She ran the school's theatre box office and was determined to become a businesswoman. Understandably, she took three rather than two years to attain her mathematics and economics A-levels. But she passed them and, to the delight of her teachers, she is now reading business studies at Manchester University.
My reason for recounting those three anecdotes is to make two points. First, special educational needs are diverse and wide-ranging. They derive from physical disabilities, the limited perception of blindness or deafness, and from mental, emotional and behavioural disorders. Secondly, not all children with special educational needs can profit from being taught in a mainstream school, fully integrated with his or her age group. If they are to do so successfully, they must have support and back-up from parents and teachers as well as from medical doctors, and often from psychiatrists. Clearly, children with severe learning disabilities need to be in specialist schools.
A particularly worrying group are children not with serious but with moderate learning disabilities. They are the most numerous and perhaps their parents are not sufficiently articulate to fight for the help that they need. It is the moderates who flounder in class and are likely to be difficult at home and in their communities.
The Government are clearly demonstrating their concern for children and for education. Perhaps I may ask them to look carefully at the effect which their well-intended measures might have on that special, vulnerable section of our young people. An otherwise laudable emphasis on examination and test results reflects badly on the majority of youngsters with special educational needs. That emphasis could undermine the determination of mainstream schools to give such children the extra, expensive and demanding attention that they need. Tomorrow will see the Second Reading of the Further and Higher Education Bill. Will the Government remember that the Warnock Report recommended that further education should be available to all students with special educational needs. I fear that is not yet the practice.
Finally, I turn to teacher training and support. There has been a reduction in the range of training courses available to staff working with children and young people with special educational needs. Specialist initial courses for teachers whose pupils had severe learning difficulties were closed in 1989. It was hoped at that time that to compensate for any shortfall in such specialist teachers, teachers from mainstream schools would transfer to specialist schools. Unfortunately, this has not happened; but the picture is not all gloom. The National Autistic Society in association with local societies and the University of Birmingham, is developing a training module concerned specifically with the learning and teaching of children with autism. It will be ready in April 1992.
I ask the Government, in their proposed new arrangements for Her Majesty's inspectorate, to remember that there is among them a small and valuable group of Her Majesty's inspectors who have built up considerable expertise in the areas of special

951
education that they represent and in the inspection of specialist schools. This valuable group, with its invaluable expertise, must be cherished and retained. I hope that the debate today will help the Government to identify the areas of anxiety which will need attention if all children, including those with special needs, are to be assured of the best possible and appropriate education.
6.31 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I too would like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, for giving us the opportunity to look at the working of the 1981 Act and for outlining to us such a comprehensive yet compact overall picture.
The aim of the 1981 Act—the noble Baroness put it much more elegantly—was to ensure that children with special educational needs were equipped to survive and compete in an able-bodied adult world by mainstream education where possible and to develop to their full potential by discovering their needs and making appropriate provision.
I should like to look at integration generally and at some particular points on assessment and statements. The national swing towards integration since 1982 has been slow —8 per cent., as shown in an analysis of 1990 [)ES data which was made by Will Swann of the Open University for the Centre for Studies on Integration in Education: 98,441 children of five and over were still in separate special schools.
I should like to ask the Minister—I have given her notice of my question—about DES statistics on children in special schools without statements. That should not happen. An earlier CSIE fact sheet in 1989 showed that 26 LEAs had large numbers of such children. In 1990 the DES stopped collecting this information which hitherto had been collected as a matter of routine. Why was that? I should like to ask the noble Baroness whether the collection of statistics has started again. Since 1982 44 LEAs have considerably reduced their levels of segregation, 15 of them by more than 25 per cent. That is very welcome, but 15 LEAs have significantly increased their level of segregation, three by more than 25 per cent., which is very disturbing.
The CSIE study found that opportunities for integration varied enormously from one part of the country to another, between 0.6 per cent. and 2.79 per cent. This patchiness in integration is worrying. It is hard for families when children with similar disabilities or learning difficulties are treated differently according to where they live. Why is integration so slow and why is it going backwards in some cases? Why is it so patchy?
The conditions attached to the duty to integrate in Section 2(3) of the Act allow LEAs to argue that the special educational provision which is required is available only in separate special schools. It takes a very committed LEA to adopt an integration policy which puts the resources and support which are needed by a disabled child into the mainstream system. At present integration has to be justified and fought for, whereas it should be the norm and a fundamental human right.
952
A possible solution would be to strengthen the integration section of the 1981 Act by placing a duty on authorities to justify segregation. In New Brunswick, Canada, Bill 85 attaches conditions under which segregation can take place, while we have conditions under which integration can take place. The Minister may well argue that Canada is different; but it can be done here and is being done by committed authorities. Reluctant authorities would simply be nudged into commitment if they had to justify segregation.
I should like to make two points on statements and assessments. Many problems stem from statements being resource led rather than needs led. I shall let other speakers give examples of that. Some have done so already and the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, spoke forcefully about this. I should like to say only that it is essential to know a child's true needs before it can be enabled to develop to its full potential.
The department made that clear in Circular 22/89. Paragraph 60, page 17, states:
"Section 2 must detail the child's SEN. It should include reference to all SEN identified, whether or not the LEA feel able to make provision for those needs in Section 3".
However, the draft circular which is planned to revise that reads:
"Section 2 must detail all the child's special educational needs. It should include a reference to all SENs identified during the formal assessment".
Does that mean that the statement of need will still be made regardless of provision? If so, why does not the draft circular say so? I should be very grateful if the Minister could comment on that. I have not given notice of my question about this but if she cannot reply this evening perhaps she would write to me.
A second point about statements emerged from discussions with the Independent Panel for Special Educational Advice. There is a weakness in the 1981 Act which can prevent children developing to their full potential. A child is deemed to have a learning difficulty only if he has significantly greater difficulty in learning than the majority of children of his age, not in relation to his own potential. Therefore parents who believe that a child is under-performing may be refused assessment unless he is at least two years behind his peers. Parents of a severely disabled child who question whether he is receiving the most appropriate provision are likely to be told that he is achieving on a par with others of like disability and therefore it is not necessary to examine any other approach. We should consider whether the law needs to be changed here, because this matter is very important.
The 1981 Act opened up possibilities for children with special educational needs, but I feel time has shown that it needs to be given more teeth if it is to ensure that children with special needs can survive, compete and thrive in an able-bodied adult world.
6.37 p.m.
Lord Blyth: My Lords, communication difficulties, in one form or another, face just about every child with a special educational need, whether those with cerebral palsy, Down's syndrome or hearing

953
impairment, or those for whom a communication difficulty is the primary disability. All these children have to be taught the skills we take for granted.
Children with speech and language difficulties, however they may be caused, number over 1 million within the school population and, unless and until they receive the help they need, access to the national curriculum, with its emphasis quite rightly on literacy and oracy, will be unattainable. This help is as yet only available in a scanty and patchy way, with few suitably qualified and trained teachers and little speech therapy within schools.
The parents of these children face ignorance and lack of understanding within the medical profession and often go without a correct diagnosis. If they achieve diagnosis, they are frequently then faced with intransigence on the part of their local education authority, together with an offer of help which could be considered an insult—a placement in a mainstream school with no specialist staff and no speech therapy support; a placement in a school for children with severe learning difficulties, where staff have little or no experience in developing language skills; or a placement in a school for emotionally and behaviourally disturbed children, on the erroneous basis that the behaviour difficulties suffered by these children are a primary disability and not a secondary one, caused by their inability to communicate.
Many parents experience disputes with their local LEAs which last for years. In desperation they have taken them to court at public expense, despite the immense anxieties and stresses it creates within the family. In such cases the families have invariably won—a success which is hard won and in isolation.
Such children need help in their early years if they are not to remain foreigners in their own land; unable to understand and express themselves; unable to appreciate the things that we all take for granted such as television, cinema, theatre and books; unable to participate in verbal games and conversation—forever the outsiders. AFASIC, the Association for All Speech Impaired Children, represents those children and recently brought together a large number of voluntary organisations, among them MENCAP, the Spastics' Society, the National Autistic Society and the National Deaf Children's Society, to ensure that LEAs fulfil their legal responsibility with regard to speech therapy for all children with speech and language impairments.
A "legal responsibility" was the outcome of a court case involving the Lancashire County Council in 1989. In that case the Court of Appeal ruled that where speech therapy was needed to,
"teach a child who has never been able to communicate by language",
to enable him,
"to be fully understood by others",
then it seemed to the Appeal Court judges,
"just as much educational provision as to teach a child to communicate by writing".
Only in a small percentage of cases, where a child's ability to speak had been damaged as a result of an accident, illness or operation, would speech therapy be a non-educational provision. The court ordered
954
Lancashire LEA to provide speech therapy, if necessary by employing its own speech therapists, going to other health authorities or using the private sector.
Recently the Department of Education clarified the legal responsibility of LEAs by issuing a draft addendum to Circular 22/89. However, that goes only some small way to helping those children, for it applies only to children with statements under the 1981 Education Act. Also, no extra resources have, so far, been made available either for speech and language therapy or for the specialist training of teachers. However, in an ITN interview on Friday, 15th November, Michael Fallon, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education, said,
"If it emerges that there isn't sufficient [speech therapy] provision in a number of District Health Authorities, and Local Education Authorities are having to buy it in from elsewhere then, if necessary, we will make sure that the Education Authorities have extra funds to do that".
That statement is welcome.
I have not given the Minister prior notice of my request, but in her reply perhaps she could indicate how all children with speech and language impairments are to receive the remediation necessary, including speech therapy and special teaching, to enable them to participate meaningfully in education, the national curriculum and, at the end of the day, employment. Perhaps she could further indicate what extra resources the DES intends to make available for those children, and how they are to be funded?
6.44 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, for introducing the debate today. In her speech the noble Baroness explained the procedure of statementing children with special educational needs and the submission of that statement to parents. As far as is practicable and possible the needs of the child must be met in the child's local school and neighbourhood, thus enabling the child to live at home with his or her parents. On the other hand, it was recognised that there were some children where the disability or home circumstances were such that they needed to be sent to a residential school.
The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), said that in some cases those decisions were resource-led rather than meeting the needs of the individual child. I spoke to a city treasurer who said that his local authority could not afford to send a child to a residential school even if that were recommended. In another case I was told that the treasurer in question asked the director of social services to submit three schools and he would then choose the cheapest rather than the one which best suited the child. We should all take note of that aspect.
Perhaps we should look at the part played by the Department of Education. Can my noble friend the Minister say whether the implementation of the Act has been monitored by the department? If so, has the report been submitted to the Secretary of State? Again, I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), said that at one time it was being monitored, but no more. Are Her Majesty's inspectors who are

955
specialists in the knowledge and understanding of the special needs of handicapped children spread throughout the country? I listened with interest to my noble friend Lady Brigstocke. I have not had her experience, but I have seen HMIs—extraordinarily nice and in many ways knowledgeable people—inspecting schools containing children with special educational needs of which they had little knowledge, experience or understanding.
I turn to the role played by local education authorities. Can my noble friend say how many local authorities are implementing the 1981 Act? I received written evidence from a doctor in one area regarding a matter mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. It said,
"Educational psychologists are briefed not to diagnose any problems; then there are no grounds for [the local authority] carrying out the Education Act of 1981".
That is a serious matter.
An independent panel for special educational advice carried out a survey of 34 different local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales. It found that 34 per cent. of children with special needs were in ordinary schools, 38 per cent. were in special schools and 28 per cent. were in no school at all. Having presented that worrying and dismal pattern I should say that throughout the schools in this country there are dedicated and interested teachers who give help to children with special needs beyond the call of duty. There are education authorities which are attempting to implement the Act. Alas, they are in the minority.
That brings me to the question of resources. It has often been said that resources are the problem. But what has the Department of Education done in regard to resources? Had a survey found that children were not receiving the education they should, as laid down by the Act, surely it would have been possible to submit a report to the Secretary of State for Education. The Secretary of State for Education could then submit a report to the Treasury. The problems have continued for too long. We are all aware of the situation but nothing is being done. Resources are a problem. However, if the matter was properly considered from a managerial point of view, throughout the country, then the country would want to do something about such children.
Perhaps the Minister could say whether the teacher training college students are taught to recognise and to teach children with special educational needs. I was recently in touch with two dyslexic boys. One achieved 14 credits in GCSE in a school using a word processor. The other, in a different school, speaking with sympathy of his teacher, said that the teacher had little time to help him. In fact, he has been placed in a class much lower than his age should require.
Another problem which I must mention is this: what has happened to the child guidance service which gave sound help to families and children and which helped in assessing the needs of children? At the AGM of Young Minds, Professor Rutter gave a notable paper on the services for children with emotional disorders; their needs, accomplishments and future development. He said that research showed that a
956
psychiatric disorder in a 10 year-old in the community could have been diagnosed earlier and, if that had been done, it could have been better treated.
This area needs to be looked at. I know that research is taking place in certain parts of the country. In the voluntary sector the Caldecott community is carrying out research through the Dartington research unit. The National Children's Bureau is conducting research into schools for maladjusted children. There is not time now to speak about non-school attendance, the health of children and the lack of school meals for those who badly need them. That will be dealt with in the Education (Schools) Bill. Meanwhile, if a good case for more resources is made by education officers surely that would be cost effective to the country. In the long run statemented children would be helped to take their place in society in earning their own living as stable, happy individuals. Instead of that, in the juvenile court I have had to deal with many children who were statemented and who later got into trouble. They were expensive to the country. Therefore, on an economic basis it is in the long run cost effective to help these children.
6.52 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, as I have been listening to this debate I have been stripping away parts of the speech that I was going to make as noble Lords who have spoken have covered virtually all the points that I intended to make. I hope that I shall be forgiven if I briefly recap on some of the points made and also pass comment.
I decided to speak principally about dyslexia for the simple reason that I am dyslexic. I have been involved with the British Dyslexia Association and the Dyslexia Institute in connection with various functions. Some of the luminaries and what I might call the very bright shining lights connected with those functions are sitting on the Benches here. I have a knowledge of the disability of dyslexia. That disability is similar in many ways to many other disabilities which have been spoken of in the Chamber. The noble Lord, Lord Blyth, spoke about the disability of dysphasia which means that people are unable to communicate. One cannot communicate with the rest of society; therefore one cannot learn.
Most disabilities will also have an educational implication. The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), spoke about integration in schools; for example, for people who have motor difficulties—that is to say, difficulties in moving. Such integration can and should be achieved. If all that is necessary is to provide a ramp inside a school or to provide help in the form of having someone to push a wheelchair or to assist the person up a flight of stairs, I see absolutely no reason why that should not be done. In addition, I cannot see that such provision would be very expensive. Once a ramp is in place it is there for as long as people are prepared to repair it, and that should be done whenever possible.
As regards other disabilities, it is unfortunate that people will be unable to take part in certain lessons to the same extent. The noble Baroness said that integration in classes worked for some but not for

957
others. The huge variety of problems means that we have to take a far greater overview. For example, a dyslexic child who can get to a classroom for English may well receive no benefit from the lesson if the wrong type of teaching is used. However, if someone in a wheelchair can be assisted to get to the classroom, that person will benefit.
Virtually all noble Lords have referred to the problem of resourcing and ring-fencing. It is important to see that the resources which are available get to the people with special educational needs—we have heard of a great variety—and are used in the correct way. That is a matter that must be addressed very soon. As many noble Lords have said, a statement can take years to obtain. The problem is often with the local authorities. But whatever the reason, we cannot go into it now. However, once the statement has been obtained the resources must be available to help if full benefit is to be gained from it. But we must have the statement as soon as possible. If that is done we shall find ourselves able to give greater assistance to a child with a problem. That means that the child will stand a better chance of competing in the adult world for employment. That is surely what education is about—preparing a child for later life.
Once again I echo what many noble Lords have said. We must spot the child with difficulties and give the correct help. That means that greater emphasis must be placed on specialist teachers and on general awareness among them in spotting the problems. We already have screening for disabilities such as deafness and blindness. Someone with a motor difficulty and who cannot move is easily spotted. For those who are deaf and blind, occasionally the difficulty is great enough to cause a problem but not great enough to be apparent at the start. Many other disabilities such as dyslexia fall into the same category.
If a child is badly dyslexic and happens to be reasonably talkative, with verbal skills greatly outstripping written skills, the problem will be easily spotted. However, if the child is equally badly dyslexic and quiet, the disability will not be spotted as quickly. If the child is equally badly dyslexic and disruptive, the child will be considered merely as a troublemaker. Therefore, screening is vital. One method is to screen everyone at a certain age. If the Government's assessments at the age of seven were concerned with screening and testing, and if the resources were made available, I would certainly support that. Unfortunately, it appears that we shall have something like a written test. The noble Baroness shakes her head. I look forward to being corrected.
We must make sure that the disabilities are spotted early so the correct help can be given. I shall give one example to show that correct testing can help by using myself as an example. As a dyslexic I was given an eyesight test when I was very young. I could not read the letters and therefore I did not know what they were. I could not pass the test. It was assumed that I was very short-sighted. If there was similar testing for disabilities which were not so obvious and which did not have such apparent physical manifestations we should achieve that aim. But the teachers must first
958
spot the problem, so first the test needs to be in place; but it will be of use only if we have the correct resources available to help the child later on.
6.59 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, for her helpful speech today in introducing the debate. She was in the chair of the committee whose report formed the basis of the 1981 Act. She was not then a Member of this House. Like my noble friend Lord Radnor, I took part in the debates in this House on the Bill in 1981. In fact, 1981 was also the International Year of Disabled People. One reason why I took part was that I was the chairman for Scotland of that international year. I was also brought in to participate in a number of events in England because the chairman for England was ill and in hospital for much of the year and, to our great distress, died at the end of the year.
I must point out that there was also a Scottish Bill in the same Session. The Act being discussed in this Motion applies to England and Wales. I am glad that there was an Act for Scotland at the same time and in the same Session. Of course, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Scottish Office education department are responsible for schools in Scotland. The Act that we are now considering has no application there. The Scottish Act included provisions for other education subjects in addition to special educational needs, but its intention was to apply in Scotland similar policies for children with the special needs. It is of course the Education (Scotland) Act 1981.
The noble Baroness's comments on what has happened since 1981 are of great interest to those of us who were involved in the formulation of the 1981 Acts. Today I was interested in what she said about examination results. I see that, putting it in another way, schools may well not wish their results or averages to be lowered. They may feel that if they take a large number of children with special educational needs that will happen. There is no time to go into the issue now but I urge the Government to remove any disincentives of that kind.
With regard to the statements and how they are being acted upon, I was appalled to hear about the delay of three years in one or more cases. Sections 3 and 4 of the Scottish Act have similar provisions, though in Scottish legislation the procedure is called recording. There is an appeal procedure for parents. The provisions of both Acts will be nullified both north and south of the Border unless inordinate delays are done away with. I ask the Government to investigate.
In 1980–81 majority opinion among those considering these matters was that children with handicaps or learning difficulties should, so far as possible, be enabled to attend ordinary schools. "Integration" was the dominant word—it would be good for everyone, including the able-bodied children with no special difficulties; they would learn from an early age to live with the disabled.
There had to be some exceptions. I and others pointed out at the time, 10 years ago, that some children are, and will be, so severely incapacitated that

959
it is not practicable for them to join other children in ordinary schools; for example, a child who is totally paralysed except for being able to move two fingers. Cases of that degree of severity exist. It is astonishing what young people with these great handicaps can achieve. They should be encouraged in every way. Aids and equipment have to be brought to them, where they are already surrounded by devices to help them with everyday life. The difficulties of moving such severely disabled children to an ordinary schoolroom will outweigh any likely benefits.
That exception does not invalidate the policy of integration where possible, which received strong support in 1980 and 1981. But how and where the dividing line can be drawn is a difficult matter, as was pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth). In 1981 we had especially in our minds—because it was the International Year of Disabled People—the physically handicapped. The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, referred in particular to the problems of the emotionally disabled. She also mentioned the contribution that speech therapists can make. Noble Lords may remember that some four or five years ago I was successful in the ballot and initiated a debate on speech and communication. Some noble Lords may have heard me on other occasions calling for more speech therapists. They are needed both for health and education, which involves several departments. That is part of the trouble. Too many departments are involved and as a result it is difficult to get agreement on the allocation of funds.
Twenty years ago I was a Minister who started action on the Quirk Report. In the report Sir Randolph Quirk recommended that there should be more speech therapists. We increased the numbers, but there are still not enough because there is so much more that they can now do. An increase in numbers and a rational distribution of speech therapists throughout the country could make a great difference to the learning capacities of many children.
In 1981, in the spirit of the International Year of Disabled People, there was great determination and enthusiasm behind the changes being made through the 1981 Acts. That pressure should not now be allowed to subside.
7.6 p.m.
Lord Wise: My Lords, we are all indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, for initiating this debate. We all seem to have much the same reservations about the 1981 Act. I am particularly concerned, as are many other noble Lords, about the procedures linked to statementing a child. I am concerned that those are becoming far too long and complicated. I feel that this could perhaps be viewed as an enforced means to reduce the number of statemented pupils, thereby reducing LEA expenditure.
LEAs will pay only for what they have identified. If a child has needs not noted on the statement, then no help or support is available. The trend is now to refer children later rather than sooner. Apparently a child is not statemented until the key stage two. Thus an eight-year-old who should be working at key stage
960
two level and is assessed as functioning at the beginning of key stage one/level one, or even before that, is statemented. That seems to be rather late, for surely the earlier problems are identified and the needs met, the more likelihood there is of success in the long term or indeed the elimination of short-term problems. I wonder whether there are sufficient resources to provide pre-school identification. Can my noble friend the Minister enlighten me? Perhaps some counties are better than others.
I am also concerned about the somewhat simplistic views expressed on integration. Integration is not always good and segregation is not always bad. Sadly, disabled and disadvantaged children will always be with us. As my noble friend Lord Campbell has said, some children are very badly disadvantaged indeed. Their special needs must be addressed with compassion and understanding. There must be as much integration as possible—one would wish to see that—but there must also be segregation, as necessary, according to the needs of the children in order that they realise their full potential. That must surely be of paramount importance, not financial constraints or idealistic philosophies.
The role of special schools is changing. As the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, said the children being referred now are more complex and challenging, especially as there is now more parental choice. Teachers are being asked to take on a new role with very little training. Within special schools the variety of need is such that it is difficult to identify the area of expertise required and to provide it. The mix of children makes life very difficult when considering all their needs.
Uncertainty regarding the future of special education is worrying to all staff. It makes it difficult for them to retain and maintain motivation. Again, I shall be glad to hear my noble friend's comments on the matter.
7.11 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, many of us have, for some time, been anxious about the way the 1981 Act was being implemented. That Act introduced very positive reforms and those of us who worked together very closely on that legislation believed that we were making real strides forward and changing attitudes. Every subsequent education Act has had different priorities. Special needs had hardly a mention and some of the 1981 reforms were undermined. Therefore, we are especially grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, for introducing the debate today. She did so in her usual clear and incisive manner. In this way the anxieties can be aired and the Government forced to make their assessment of the present situation and their position clear.
The Warnock Report established that there could be as many as 20 per cent. of children who needed special help at some point in their school career, not just the 2 per cent. in special schools. It stated that it was important for these children to be identified early so that they could have the necessary help to enable them to develop their abilities to the full. That is why nursery provision is so important. There is an early

961
opportunity for staff to spot children who need help. But it is well known how inadequate our provision is in this country compared with our European partners. Providing for special needs is expensive. I believe that we can say, as the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, said in a very interesting article in the Oxford Review of Education, that it was the financial crisis that made it inevitable that the 1981 Act should be more or less stillborn.
The 1988 Act has caused great problems for those catering for children with special needs. A recent HMI survey concluded that,
"this sector is not well prepared to meet the challenge of the 1990s, such as those of the national curriculum and LMS".
Yet both of those policies were central features of the 1988 Act. How will the national curriculum affect these children? Will they be included in the test results that the Government wish to be published? If so, will the school which allows them to be included have poorer results, and will that affect parents when deciding on the choice of school for their child? With LMS and the funding methods being used, will heads and governors be keen to receive children with special needs? The Government have given no coherent advice on the matter. If schools with LMS have problems, how much more will those with grant-maintained status have?
Those questions are at their starkest when several schools within one LEA are bidding to opt out. The law does not explicitly say how an LEA can meet special needs in a grant-maintained school as regards entitlement to the national curriculum or through the deployment of support teachers. Can the Minister give us some information on that aspect? The Further and Higher Education Bill, which is now before the House, pays scant attention to the problems of special need. That is an area which we will certainly have to explore in Committee.
The AMA's valuable review of 10 years' experience of the Act has been mentioned. It says that a number of LEAs have worked hard to implement the Act. One difficulty has been how to cope with the essential production of statistics if categorisation is to be avoided and to resist a natural tendency to regard particular types of school as appropriate for particular types of children. The review comments that the completion of a statement amounts to a form of prescription, but that has undesirable features. Children change and develop, their progress is erratic and at times unpredictable. A statement which has taken six months to produce—we have heard that many take much longer—is very likely to be out of date by completion. The reviewing of statements annually as required in the Act is hardly ever done as the resources, both of finance and of people, are not there.
The Spastics Society and the Institute of Education in London suggest that parents are well aware that local authorities are tailoring statements of provision according to the resources that they know they can command which fall far short of requirements. They say that there is evidence that LEAs are short circuiting the problem of having to meet extensive
962
need with very limited resources by not identifying the need in a statutory and therefore binding way; for example, by arbitrarily limiting the number of statements that they make as a result of assessment. However, there have been widespread reports about statements and increased demand for them as it is hoped that perhaps the money which will go to the schools because of this will be of assistance.
The scale of special educational needs is vast. It has been said that over 150,000 children are the subject of individual statements, with some 90,000 in special schools. But the number of statemented children in ordinary schools is growing fast—from 26,000 in 1985 to 58,200 this year. The figure is expected to be 75,400 by 1994. Those are huge proportional increases. The number of special schools is falling, but only gradually. Special schools are becoming more special in that they tend to serve a greater proportion of children with more severe learning difficulties and handicaps.
I should like to mention staffing. I understood that there had been changes in initial training to ensure that prospective teachers cover some work in special needs. However, from what the noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, said, I am not sure whether that is correct. Perhaps the Minister can give us the right information in that respect. HMI point out that the quality and effectiveness of such coverage is extremely variable. There is need for much in-service training. LEAs have drawn attention to the inadequacy of the resources offered by the programme of grants for educational support and training—GEST for short. But it is not only teachers who need the in-service training; support staff, ancillary workers and governors also need it.
The 1981 Act put LEAs at the centre of responsibility for SEN arrangements. Authorities have acted with good will in operating them. If LEAs did not exist, it is highly questionable whether an alternative administration could do as well. The control role presupposes resources at the centre, but LEAs have suffered attacks from Ministers for allegedly retaining excessive funds for central administration. But meeting special needs is an important part of that expenditure.
I should also like to mention the pressures from the NHS. Reorganisation has placed emphasis on the health service market and there are signs that the district health authorities will be keen to present bills to LEAs. If the whole of the community health service goes for trust status, it is unlikely that it will be able to provide freely for LEAs and schools in the future. It will appear economical to concentrate provision, but this goes against the principle of integration.
There is the particular problem of speech therapists. Although several noble Lords have already mentioned this aspect, I do not apologise for doing so. I believe that it is extremely important. It is not surprising that there is an overall shortage when one considers their low pay and the long training that they have to undertake. Some LEAs employ them direct, but there is uncertainty about financial responsibility. Can the Minister say whether a circular has been

963
issued offering guidance, as has been suggested, or whether there is a hope that such guidance will be given 3ecause of recent judgments in the courts?
I should like to finish with a reference from the Labour Party's consultation paper Every Child a Special Child:
"The challenge facing us is to meet the educational needs of all children and young adults of every race, the especially bright, those with severe disabilities, those with behavioural problems. The assessment and identification of the children from minority ethnic groups who have special needs, both before and after the 1981 Education Act, has been an ad hoc procedure. This is particularly the case when their first language has not been English. Education is an entitlement. We seek to make that entitlement a reality.
It is the "ad hocery" to which I should like to draw attention. What children have been offered has varied enormously over the country. Monitoring has been inadequate. A number of questions have been asked about monitoring and I hope that we shall receive an answer. Are the Government committed to the Act? It is not working. I ask the Minister whether the Government are prepared to set up a review body to evaluate the present situation, along the lines of the special needs advisory body, as recommended in the DES-funded feasibility study—following the recommendations of the Warnock Report.
7.21 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I welcome the opportunity given to us by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, to consider the important subject of provision for children with special educational needs. I wish to say, first, that the sound framework for special education which we have in this country today can be attributed largely to the ideas which found expression in the report of the committee of inquiry into the education of handicapped children and young people which was chaired by the noble Baroness.
It will be impossible to do justice to this interesting debate. As always, the House has done the subject great justice. I am afraid that I shall fall short of that in my reply. If I may be forgiven, I shall go at a fair gallop so that I can cover as many as possible of the points raised in the debate.
The noble Baroness mentioned a number of ways in which she thought that LEAs were failing to meet their legal obligations. There are well-established rights of appeal and complaint open to parents if they feel that their LEA is failing to perform its statutory duties, or acting unreasonably. Those avenues of appeal and complaint provide proper safeguards against the avoidance by LEAs of their legal obligations. The Brent example given by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, almost defies belief. I do net suggest that it was not true, but it means one of two things: it either reflects badly on the authority or the authority did not bring to the notice of the parents that they had a right of appeal.
A number of noble Lords mentioned speech therapy. The DES takes the view that speech therapy for children who cannot progress with their education, and who have a communication difficulty, is a special educational provision. That has been spelled out in the
964
department's recently issued draft addendum to its Circular 22/89 which makes clear where the responsibility for the provision of speech therapy lies.
My noble friend Lord Blyth quoted a remark made by my honourable friend in another place, Mr. Fallon. If speech therapy is prescribed for educational reasons, LEAs are under a duty to provide it. LEAs are, however, entitled to look to DHAs to arrange it, but if they are unable to do so then the LEA must provide it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, and a number of other noble Lords mentioned an important point: initial teacher training. HMI also pointed to the positive changes to initial teacher training courses which have occurred as a result of the introduction of the Government's Revised Course Approval Criteria 1984. The revised criteria require that all students on initial teacher training should at least be introduced to the needs and potential of pupils with special educational needs.
The LEAs' in-service training policy should also enhance, improve and build on that initial training element. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter expressed anxiety that dyslexic children would be penalised for their spelling, punctuation and grammar in GCSE examinations. The examining bodies can make special provision for assistance to be given to such pupils if head teachers require it. They can also modify the curriculum where that is appropriate.
My noble friend Lord Renwick and many other noble Lords asked about evaluation. I can assure all noble Lords that the various aspects of the 1981 Act, and subsequent legislation, are the subject of continuous review by the DES. The department receives regular reports from HMI as a result of inspections of special schools and of mainstream schools which provide for special needs.
In addition, the Audit Commission and HMI are now undertaking a joint study of certain aspects of the working of the 1981 Act. That is a partial answer to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady David. I am sure that that study will provide helpful guidance in some of the areas in which problems may arise.
A number of noble Lords have referred to statistics. The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, said first that about 150,000 children are now statemented. He said that that figure would rise to 750,000. I hope that he meant 175,000. If he predicts a 400 per cent. increase by 1994, I should be interested to know where he obtained that figure. What is important—this conflicts with the perceptions of many noble Lords—is that in 1985, 21 per cent. of the children who were statemented were in ordinary schools, and by 1990 that figure had risen to 37 per cent.; so there a steady stream of young people is being absorbed into mainstream education, and I believe that that is the right way to go.
The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth) was worried about the number of children placed in special schools, and how that can vary between LEAs. Again, the whole emphasis of the 1981 Act requires LEAs to make provision to suit the needs of individual children. They are required by the Act to make that provision in ordinary schools wherever that is

965
consistent with the child receiving the help that he or she needs; the efficient education of the other children in the school; the efficient use of resources; and must take account of the views of the child's parents. Those guiding principles under the Act remain appropriate today.
There is no point in placing a child in an ordinary school unless the child will receive the help that he or she needs. It would be wrong, for example, to insist upon quotas for integration irrespective of the needs of individual children. The noble Baroness also expressed anxiety about the department's draft addendum to Circular 22(89) and wondered whether we were suggesting that a child's needs should be defined in his or her statement without reference to provision. That is not what was intended. The draft addendum makes it clear that the statement should include all of the child's special educational needs and must specify the special educational provision required to meet those needs.
My noble friend Lady Brigstocke spoke eloquently and movingly and gave three examples of absorbing into her school children with severe difficulties—some of them physical—and how not merely the school rose to the challenge but how the young people themselves rose to the challenge. That must also be taken into account.
My noble friend also expressed anxiety about provision for disabled students. HMI confirms that FE provision for students with special needs has increased considerably in recent years. More students with special needs are now on mainstream courses. There has been an even larger increase in special educational needs students taking specially designed courses. We are now monitoring SEN student numbers and we shall be able to measure the scale of the increases in future. I can testify to some imaginative provision being made for young people in further and higher education.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull asked about monitoring. Monitoring takes place as a normal every day activity of HMI when inspecting special schools and mainstream schools where there are children with special needs. A great deal more is now happening over evaluating, to which I have already referred. My noble friend also asked how many education authorities are implementing the Act. All education authorities should be implementing it. Where it is known that they are not, the sooner the department is informed and the sooner procedures are invoked, the better.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull was concerned about the number of statemented children who were not in schools at all. These include pupils in maintained special schools, pupils in non-maintained special schools, pupils with statements attending special classes or units in ordinary schools, pupils with statements attending ordinary classes in ordinary schools, pupils in maintained hospital schools, pupils with statements attending independent schools approved under the 1981 Act and pupils with statements receiving education otherwise than at school, some of whom will be receiving approved
966
home tuition. That accounts for only 0.02 per cent. of all these children. Pupils awaiting the provision specified in their statements account for only 0.01 per cent. of these children. The total number of pupils with statements—this excludes London—is 139,000, with 1.9 per cent. of those children identified as statemented children.
My noble friend also mentioned the useful role played by the child guidance services. I recognise the value of those services. In Circular No. 2289 we encourage local education authorities, district health authorities and social services departments to co-operate fully in the interests of the child.
I have dealt with the matter of speech therapy. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, was concerned about testing at the age of seven. He suggested that that was merely summative. Assessment of young children goes firmly with testing. Assessment is a real part of the process for teachers in the classroom to determine both the weaknesses and strengths of young people.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy took part in the discussions in this House on the 1981 Act along with other Members of your Lordships' House. At that time I was a member of a local authority. I and many of my colleagues very much welcomed that Act. The noble Lord made reference to degrees of severity of handicap. I have been particularly moved when I have seen young children who can do no more than move a finger or flick an eyelid. Some children cannot even do that. However, it is a great achievement to progress from flicking an eyelid or moving a finger to looking around at one's surroundings or identifying the tinkling of a bell. Such progress is a great achievement for such children. This Act is concerned with such achievements.
My noble friend Lord Wise was anxious to know the age range of child to whom this Act applies. The 1981 Act covers all children from birth to the upper limit of compulsory school age at 16 and any pupils who are in education until their 19th birthday. To that end it is open to LEAs to decide whether and in what way to make a statement on a child under two. The referral of a child under the age of two can be carried out in many ways. For children over two, LEAs are required to maintain statements where they are of the opinion that they themselves should determine the special educational needs to be met.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, asked whether statemented pupils would lose out in the case of schools that became grant-maintained. Where a child has a statement of special educational needs, an LEA has a statutory duty to ensure that the provision specified in the statement is met whether the child concerned attends a local authority or a grant-maintained school.
I am sure that noble Lords will agree that the 1981 Act, which was introduced following the 1978 report of the committee of inquiry, has been successful in establishing a coherent basis for the identification of children with special educational needs. It has promoted a view of children which places emphasis on their individual needs rather than on their handicap.
The 1981 Act has created a system of assessment which gives LEAs clear and specific duties towards

967
children with special educational needs. The emphasis is placed firmly on assessing an individual's needs and making appropriate provision to meet those needs. It provides for children with special educational needs to be educated in mainstream schools where this is compatible with their receiving the help they need, the efficient education of the other pupils and the efficient use of resources. The Act quite rightly also gives parents clear and significant rights of involvement and of appeal.
Progress in achieving the aims of the Act has been substantial. As envisaged by the Warnock Committee, the majority of pupils with special educational needs are being educated alongside their peers in mainstream schools. While the number of pupils with statements has increased since the 1981 Act came into force n 1983 it is still below the 2 per cent. of the school population estimated by the committee at the time of its report.
In the years since the Act came into force, there have been criticisms about the way it has been implemented by LEAs. There has been criticism, for example, of the length of time taken by LEAs to carry out assessments. We must consider that criticism in the light of the fundamental purpose of the assessment process. We need to acknowledge that pupils with special educational needs stand the best chance of receiving the kind of education programme required to meet their learning difficulties if their needs are carefully identified at the outset. Where a formal assessment is required, it will involve reports from a number of specialists. This process can take some time to complete if it is to be done properly. However, that is time well spent. Notwithstanding that, the department recognises that it is in the interests of the child for the process to be speedily completed. The department has therefore made clear to LEAs that the Secretary of State expects a draft statement to be prepared for parents to consider within six months of the initial notification that an assessment of their child will be carried out. Ministers have stressed that they attach particular importance to this specific target being met by LEAs wherever possible.
A major strength of the 1981 Act has been the extent to which it has ensured parental involvement in decisions concerning the education of their children. In the advice which the department has issued to LEAs it has emphasised that assessment must be seen as a partnership between LEAs, teachers, other professionals and parents. Parents are encouraged and helped to seek advice from independent sources and, if they wish, to submit independent assessment reports which the LEA must then consider.
LEAs must also provide the parents of a child with a statement with the name of a person to whom they may apply for information about their child's special educational needs and the processes of assessments and statements. The concept that people are entitled to know who they are dealing with is important and is fundamental to our Citizen's Charter and to our Parent's Charter.
It has been suggested that in producing statements for pupils with special educational needs LEAs sometimes fail to specify in enough detail what a
968
child's learning difficulties are and what kind of educational provision should be made for the child. There will doubtless be some cases where that is true. However, we have made clear in statutory regulations what is required of LEAs. The department has also issued detailed guidance—I believe this point has been mentioned—to all LEAs which stresses the importance of specifying properly a pupil's needs and the help which will be provided to meet them. The guidance specifies that information should be provided in such detail as to enable parents, teachers and all those involved with a pupil's education to know exactly what is required of them.
Some have argued that there should be little difference between LEAs on whether or not a pupil receives a statement. Given that individual pupils' needs will vary considerably and that each LEA has developed its own pattern of provision for special educational needs tailored to reflect the particular characteristics of their pupils, it is not unreasonable to expect a degree of variation in approach. It would be wrong to attempt to prescribe nationally the precise circumstances under which individual pupils should be issued with statements. It was always envisaged that under the 1981 Act the pattern of provision for special educational needs would be developed locally. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), for her point about collecting information on the number of children without statements.
I wish to reaffirm the Government's commitment to a well resourced education service. Substantial and increasing resources are being provided for education. The facts speak for themselves. The latest available published figures show that over the past decade spending on special schools in England has risen from around £250 million in 1979–80 to an estimated total of more than £700 million in 1990–91. After allowing for inflation, that is a real terms increase of 25 per cent., which is a substantial increase.
Noble Lords may ask about integration and about what has happened to spending on ordinary schools. Spending per pupil in primary and secondary schools rose, after allowing for inflation, by more than 40 per cent. over the 10 years from 1979. There have of course been many changes over that period but the figure represents another substantial increase which, if properly used, should have benefited all kinds of children.
We do not yet have detailed data on spending patterns this year by education authorities. However, we know that the local authority financial settlement for 1991–92 allows for authorities in England to spend nearly £17.5 billion on education. That represents a 16 per cent. increase over the comparable total for last year. We cannot yet say how much of that will be allocated to providing for pupils with special needs. Within the national funding framework, it is up to each authority to set its own education budget and to decide how to allocate it between the different parts of the service, but the overall spending allowed for is a substantial rise, well in excess of inflation. Once again, properly used, that should benefit all types of children. We all recognise the importance of investing resources in children with special needs.

969
It is clear that the 1981 Act established, for all pupils, an equality of opportunity to education designed to encourage them to progress whatever their abilities. It has changed attitudes and established the principle that pupils with special educational needs should be included rather than excluded.
The measures we have introduced in the 1988 Education Reform Act have reinforced that principle. I want to illustrate that by highlighting how two important elements of the 1988 Act, the national curriculum and accompanying assessment arrangements and local managements of schools, have contributed towards the continuing improvement of provisions for pupils with special educational needs and built upon the firm foundation laid by the 1981 Act.
With the introduction of the national curriculum and associated assessment arrangements pupils with special educational needs now share, for the first time, a common legal entitlement to a broad and balanced curriculum relevant to their particular needs. That is important. The fact that teachers in both mainstream and special schools now work within a common framework with common benchmarks should facilitate greater opportunities for integration. The programmes of study and attainment targets in the national curriculum and the related arrangements of assessment and testing have been designed to allow nearly all pupils to show what they have achieved and, more importantly, what progress they have made over time.
We have recognised that in exceptional cases some pupils—including some of those with special educational needs—might need to have all or part of the national curriculum and associated assessment requirements modified or lifted altogether to meet their individual needs. Your Lordships will know that the arrangements we have introduced are flexible enough for that. Where exceptions have to be made for individual pupils that will happen either through the existing LEA arrangements for making statements of special educational needs or through the new arrangements which allow a headteacher to make temporary exemptions.
I am pleased to be able to say that we have no evidence to suggest that LEAs are modifying or disapplying the national curriculum requirements too readily.
The recent report by Her Majesty's Inspectorate on schools' preparedness for implementing the national curriculum showed a widespread commitment by teachers to planning for maximum access to the national curriculum for all children. None of the 76 schools visited by HMI was proposing to disapply any part of the national curriculum for pupils with statements. That is encouraging news.
I should add that it is certainly not true to suggest that the inclusion of those pupils' results in tables of aggregated information will make it more difficult for them to gain entry to the schools of their choice. Under the law only selective grammar schools are allowed to discriminate on grounds of ability between applicants for places.
970
It is also worth stressing that the introduction of the national curriculum with its structured framework, core subjects and arrangements for regular assessment and testing should enable teachers to identify pupils with dyslexia at an earlier stage and to secure appropriate help for them. The national curriculum changes will be of enormous benefit to all children with special educational needs, not just those with dyslexia. I am convinced that in time they will result in improved teaching strategies and programmes for those children.
The movement towards delegating more responsibility for pupils with special educational needs to schools can also be seen in the increasing number of LEAs which are delegating, or planning to delegate, to their ordinary schools the resources for pupils with statements. The common claim in the earliest days of LMS that schools would hive off money intended for pupils with special educational needs and use it for other purposes has not been substantiated in practice. Experience has shown that head teachers and governors take their responsibilities towards children with special educational needs very seriously. Early reports from HMI visits indicate that extra resources for pupils with special needs are often one of the priorities for schools when they take over responsibility for their own budgets.
LMS should serve pupils with special educational needs but without statements just as well as those who have them. Formula factors for special needs have been included in LEAs' LMS schemes. The governors and teachers in daily contact with those pupils will be just as concerned as LEAs were to meet all their needs. Moreover, LMS gives schools flexibility in deciding how best to provide for their pupils with special educational needs.
We have provided for the extension of formula funding to special schools by 1994, or even earlier if LEAs wish.
The process of extending LMS to special schools provides a particularly good example of the way in which LMS is contributing to the development of special needs policy, and extending the benefits of local management of special schools will extend beyond the special schools themselves. That is because we are requiring all LEAs to produce a comprehensive and coherent statement of their policy for special educational needs for submission with their LMSS proposals. I was asked that question. That requirement is in keeping with the thrust of our policies for local management of schools which has been to ensure that LEAs have a clear rationale for and regular evaluation of their provision for children with special educational needs and that the allocation of resources for special education is subject to scrutiny and review.
That will undoubtedly lead to the biggest, most comprehensive review of special educational provision since the passing of the 1981 Act. The authorities will need to set out in their policy statements how they identify and assess special needs in children. They must outline what role the schools, ordinary as well as special, play and detail how co-ordination works in

971
their areas between the education, medical and social services. They must state how they monitor those arrangements to ensure their policies work.
The Government attach especial importance to that review. The preparation of the LEA policy statement will result in a meaningful, productive dialogue within authorities and result in a more cohesive, better understood and better promulgated pattern of special educational provision. The information we obtain as a result of that review will help us to monitor LEAs' progress since the 1981 Act came into force. Importantly, it will enable us to answer in an informed way criticisms that such progress has been uneven and it will provide a spur to any authorities whose progress is not up to that of the best.
To sum up, the 1981 Act has achieved a great deal over the past 10 years. We all know that there is more to do, and we must not be apathetic. The Act has established a coherent basis for the identification of pupils with special educational needs and has placed the emphasis firmly upon their needs as individuals. The solid foundation laid by the Act has been built upon by the measures introduced under the Education Reform Act 1988. We must look forward to achieving even further progress over the next few years as those measures take full effect.
Once again I thank the noble Baroness for initiating this very special debate.
7.47 p.m.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, the time is up, but I must just express my enormous gratitude to those noble Lords who have remained through the debate and above all to those who have spoken. The amount of anxiety which has been expressed and the knowledge of the subject which has been demonstrated has been extraordinarily impressive. I must also thank the Minister for her gallop through the scene.
I may have missed some of the elements of that gallop, but I did not hear her say anything about one of the problems which I consider to be one of the most worrying—namely, the policy regarding exclusion of children from schools. I hope that the noble Baroness will write to me on that matter because it is a very general and worrying problem.
If I may stretch the patience of noble Lords for a few minutes more I should like to say that, despite what has been said, I believe that there are enormous difficulties with the statementing law and I still believe that the Act should be re-examined. I do not believe that the appeals system is adequate. I am extremely sorry tat the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, was not able to be present tonight because he was able to produce some very disturbing figures on exclusions, which I had the benefit of reading.
The only other thing that I should like to say is that I put on a white sheet so far as concerns the report which tried to remove the categorisation of children. I think now that that was a rather trendy mistake, because children are necessarily referred to by the category of their disabilities and it is necessary to have some way of referring to those children as a whole and according to their individual needs. There was a terrible time, to the alarm and horror of my children,
972
when the children covered by the 1981 Act were known as "Warnock children". Fortunately, that name has not persisted. However, we must go back to thinking of children who have emotional and behavioural problems and to thinking of blind children and deaf children. It is absurd to try to cut that out.
That is all that I want to say. I hope that we shall have a chance to debate some of the issues again in the light of the new Education (Schools) Bill because some of the implications of that Bill are, as many noble Lords said, extremely dangerous with regard to children with special needs. I should like to conclude by thanking the House and particularly the Minister for her words. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Prisons (Freedom of Religion) Bill [H.L.]
7.50 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Perhaps I may emphasise at the outset that the Bill is not hostile to religion in prisons. On the contrary, it seeks to promote the spiritual welfare of prisoners and their spiritual growth and development and to maximise their opportunities to obtain the widest possible spiritual guidance during the time that they spend in custody.
The origins of the Bill lie in my correspondence over some considerable period with the Home Office Minister who deals with prisons on the administration of religion in prisons and particularly on the right of prisoners to have access to a minister of religion of their choice. In September 1990 I wrote to the Minister who deals with prisons, Mrs. Angela Rumbold, asking that a prisoner should be able to obtain spiritual guidance from any source. She replied that Section 10(5) of the Prison Act 1952 clearly prohibits a minister from seeing an inmate who is not himself registered as belonging to that minister's religion.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, perhaps I may seek a point of clarification. Will the noble Lord confirm that, if a prisoner wished to see a minister, the minister would not be excluded from coming in on an ordinary visiting order?
Lord Avebury: My Lords, yes, he would. If the noble Earl refers to Section 10(5), he will see that there is no ambiguity about the matter. It states in terms that a minister may only visit inmates who have registered themselves as belonging to his faith or denomination.
I pointed out to the Minister that Section 10(5) had not always been strictly observed. I asked whether that provision might be amended at a suitable opportunity so that, if an inmate asked to see a particular minister and the minister in question was willing to see him, that should be allowed, as apparently it is sometimes now. Mrs. Rumbold replied that there were no plans to amend that provision.
Meanwhile, I also asked about the arrangements for recording the faith of prisoners, which yielded

973
results that were difficult to reconcile with what we know about religion in the population as a whole. That is important in the context of the Bill because the justification for the pre-eminence of the Church of England in the religious affairs of prisoners is that a majority of the prisoners belong to that particular denomination.
Perhaps I may tell your Lordships what the Home Office survey of religion in prisons shows. The figures were collected in February 1990. At that time there were 24,994 Anglicans out of a total of 46,498, including 36,885 Christians. At that point, therefore, more than half the prisoners in England and Wales belonged to the Church of England compared with 2.8 per cent. who belonged to the Church of England in an active sense in the world outside prisons. That figure is taken from the survey in Social Trends for 1990. Mrs. Rumbold's explanation—
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, that is a fantastic misrepresentation. If asked, the majority of the population would say that they were members of the Church of England, although I am not a member of the Church of England. The noble Lord is talking about church attendance, but, as that is not compulsory in the Church of England, his figures are bogus.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, if the noble Earl will wait a few moments, I shall come to an explanation of the difference between those two figures and will concede that they are prepared on a different basis. If he listens carefully to the figures, he will see that the differences in the way that the figures are collected cannot account for that enormous discrepancy.
As I said, Mrs. Rumbold's explanation of the reasons for the difference in the figures was that people gave different responses to a question about their religion when they were inmates in custody than they would do in response to a survey outside. The noble Earl anticipated an additional point; namely, that the figures in prison are collected by self-attribution—in other words, prisoners are asked, "What religion do you belong to?" —whereas the figures that I mentioned from the Social Trends survey are those of active membership in the church which is defined by the presence of the person on the electoral register of the church. That means that he is an active member of that church. There could therefore be a good reason for some discrepancy between the active members in the world outside and those who simply attribute membership to themselves in answer to the question in prison.
The second point about the figures is that the Church of England accounts for a large proportion of the Christians in prison; that is to say, according to the Home Office figures, 68 per cent. of the total compared with 22 per cent. in the Social Trends figures. One would have expected the differences between active and dormant membership to be roughly the same for all denominations and not to show that enormous difference for the Church of England in particular.
The figures that I gave relate to 1987 and the chart in Social Trends shows that active membership in the
974
Church of England is declining by about 1.6 per cent. per annum. If we look at another test—that of marriages—we find that the proportion of civil marriages rises from 41 per cent. in 1971 to 48 per cent. in 1988, while over the same interval Church of England marriages went down from 35.8 per cent. to 30.7 per cent. As we all know, many people get married in the Church of England and never set foot in it again until the first baby is born and they want to have it christened. That is a fact. I deplore that kind of lip service paid to the church. The church should take greater care as regards whom it admits to those ceremonies.
On the other hand, we find that the non-Trinitarian churches are growing, as are the number of Moslems. It is wrong in principle that the Church of England should continue to control the religious life of prisons, although I concede that most chaplains are sensitive to the needs of inmates belonging to other religions. The administration of religion should be seen to be non-sectarian. Such matters as the provision of accommodation for different faiths, the storage and use of religious books and artefacts, the question of special diets for members of other faiths, the appointment of visiting ministers and the observance of special days for particular faiths should all be dealt with by the Secretary of State in a scrupulously impartial way as between one religion and another.
The Bill therefore abolishes the chaplaincy while continuing the Secretary of State's power to appoint a full-time minister of any denomination, including the Church of England, to a prison where, in his opinion, the number of prisoners belonging to that denomination justifies it. There is no difference in that power from what is found in the present Act under which the Secretary of State may appoint a full-time minister to any prison.
It may well be that when the Bill is enacted there would be no immediate change in the number of full-time ministers of any denomination. Certainly, one would not expect there to be large-scale redundancies among the chaplains when the Bill came into effect. It would be a gradual change because the Secretary of State would review the number of prisoners belonging to each faith in every prison and make his decisions on which faiths should have ministers in that particular prison.
Ministers of the Church of England would be on the same footing as other ministers appointed under Section 10(1). The arrangements for visiting ministers who deal with the spiritual and welfare needs of the small number of prisoners belonging to those religions are unaltered except that there is no chaplain involved in the appointment. At the moment the chaplain is directly concerned in the process of appointing ministers of other religions. Your Lordships may agree it is wrong for members of one particular religion to have any authority in the appointment of ministers of all other religions.
The other substantial change made by the Bill is that it allows a prisoner to attend the religious services or meetings of any faith in accordance with the arrangements in force and to be visited at his own request by an appointed or visiting minister of any

975
faith. A minister can visit only those prisoners who have declared themselves to belong to his denomination, except for the Church of England chaplain, who under Section 10(4) may visit any inmate he chooses. Every prisoner may attend the Church of England services but the rights of prisoners to attend other religious services and meetings are not spelt out in the Act. Standing Order 7A provides that a prisoner may attend the main service of the week and other obligatory services of his declared religion. Therefore, the prison authorities are under no obligation to allow, for example, Anglicans to attend a Catholic service, although they frequently do. This is a matter of discretion which appears to vary between one prison. and another.
The Principal Catholic Chaplain, the right reverend Mgr. P. Wilkinson, says that in prison the practice does riot always conform to the strict interpretation of the law. He adds: that an inmate can "usually" attend the services of a religion other than his own. It is not an in variable practice but something done at the discretion, presumably, of the governor. He personally does not know of any case where an inmate has applied to see a minister of a religion other than his own and has been denied.
On the other hand, the Secretary of State has told me that a procedure exists, which is not to be found in the Act, standing orders, rules or circular instructions, whereby if a prisoner wants to change his religion he may for that purpose apply to see another minister. I make two points about that procedure. First, it should obviously he made public, as I have requested so far without success. I wrote to the Secretary of State on November 7th asking whether I could have a copy of the instruction concerned which would have been very useful at the time of discussion on this Bill. So far I have not seen it and have not come across anybody among my wide contacts in the prison service who knows of its existence or has seen it himself. It is fundamentally wrong that there should be a provision contained in a secret instruction of this kind touching the religious life of prisoners.
Secondly, if ministers are allowed to see prisoners contrary to the provisions of Section 10(5) it sets a very dangerous precedent. Surely Parliament cannot tolerate secret instructions to civil servants to break even bad laws. It is wrong to permit access to another minister only when a prisoner wishes to change his religion. Any person should be free to explore other faiths without a commitment in advance to embrace those faiths. For a prisoner in particular the examination of new ethical and religious doctrines which may lead him towards a better way of life is surely to be encouraged.
The European Prison Rules, published by the Council of Europe, recognise that principle. Rule 47(3) provides that:
"Access to a qualified representative of any religion shall not be refused to any prisoner".
The explanatory memorandum comments that the rule is explicit and does not require any further explanation now that it has been made clear that a prisoner has freedom of choice in regard to visits by religious representatives. The Committee of Ministers
976
recommended that governments of member states be guided in their internal legislation by those rules. We have no direct treaty or contractual obligation to observe them, but in a Written Answer on June 12th 1989, Mr. Douglas Hogg, then Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office, said that we complied fully with all but 15 of the rules. He enumerated the rules with which we did not yet comply and they did not include Rule 47(3). I respectfully suggest to the Minister who is to reply to this debate that an inaccurate statement was made to another place and that should be corrected appropriately in the usual manner.
The denial of access to ministers of any religion and restrictions on attendance at services or meetings other than are necessary to preserve good order and discipline contravenes a number of international instruments to which the United Kingdom is a signatory. It contravenes Articles 9 and 10 of the European Convention on Civil and Political Rights, Articles 18 and 19 of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and also the Helsinki Final Act. Those instruments set out the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion and the right to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by authority. Surely, freedom of religion must include freedom to explore religious ideas and faiths other than one's own, subject to any restrictions in the prison environment necessary for the purposes of good order and discipline.
That argument has not been deployed by the Secretary of State. What he has said is that the restrictions in the present Act are necessary to prevent unsolicited proselytising and to guard against misuse of the system; for example, by a prisoner demanding to see a succession of ministers of different religions. It is not clear why there is a danger that other ministers would proselytise while Church of England ministers are supposed to be immune from the temptation, but if ministers of all kinds visit only those prisoners who ask to see them there is no risk at all. That is what my Bill provides. No minister may go to see a prisoner unless that inmate asks to see him specifically. He does not have to go to see him; whether he does so is at the minister's discretion.
There may well be cases where, as the Secretary of State maintains, a prisoner will seek to abuse the system by serially asking to see every visiting minister who comes to that establishment, but I think we can safely leave it to the ministers concerned to judge whether a prisoner's interest is genuine. In any case, the permissible restrictions on the freedom to receive and impart information in the UN covenant and also the European convention are only such as are provided by law and are necessary to respect the rights or reputations of others or for the protection of national security, public order, public health or morals. The reasons given by the Secretary of State do not fall into any of those categories.
Finally, the Secretary of State acknowledged that Section 10(5), and presumably all other administrative or statutory provisions affecting religion in prisons, could be looked at as part of the review of the statutory framework of the prison service to which the

977
Government are committed by the White Paper Custody, Care and Justice. In passing, I should like to mention that, rather surprisingly, religion is not referred to at all in that White Paper. One would perhaps have have expected to find some reference to it in the chapter on programmes for prisoners, which refers to the need to give prisoners opportunities for self-advancement and self-fulfilment and to challenge sentenced prisoners about their criminal behaviour a process to which ministers of religion obviously contribute. But I should have liked to see in the White Paper a statement on the lines of the first paragraph of the very helpful memorandum on this Bill by the Prison Officers' Association:
"Religious practice forms an important part of the fabric of everyday prison life and should be valued as such".
I warmly endorse that sentiment and I hope that all your Lordships will echo what the POA said. At least the Statement by the Secretary of State is some advance on Mrs. Rumbold's point blank refusal to contemplate any change. I suggest that it does not go quite far enough because if we are in breach of our international obligations—the Minister will probably be aware that the Washington—based Helsinki Watch has confirmed that it contravenes our signature on the Helsinki accords—it is our duty to amend the law at the earliest opportunity.
This Bill gives Parliament that opportunity. I hope that the Government will support it. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Avebury.)
8.11 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, the noble Lord has at least two strong qualifications for addressing the House on this subject. In the first place he has defended prisoners in a very effective way for many years. I have been told by prisoners before now that if only I had the guts of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, I might be able to help them better. So I salute him in that capacity.
Something he did not mention, although I may have missed it, is the fact that he is an eminent Buddhist and probably the most eminent Buddhist who has ever addressed this House. When I look around me I do not think that anyone can make a counterclaim. So perhaps he is putting over what might be called the Buddhist line. That is rather interesting. I do not think that we have had enough of that. I have been a member of this House for 46 years and not a word has been uttered on the Buddhist side of things. It is high time that we heard something and I am glad that we heard the point of view of a first-rate Buddhist.
I am also very glad that the noble Earl will reply because he has such very good ecumenical credentials. Thirty years ago his father opened the most famous Christian debate that has ever been held in this Chamber in favour of Christian unity. I remember it well. Archbishop Fisher was in the House. He was interrupted repeatedly by Lord Alexander, the Leader of the Labour Peers, who finally said, "Well, Archbishop, which is the Church of England:
978
Protestant or Catholic?", to which the Archbishop replied, "Both". That silenced my dear friend Lord Alexander for the moment, but only for the moment. I am also glad that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter will speak for the Church of England. I shall leave the main argument to him. However, just a few thoughts on this subject occurred to me.
The noble Lord is a Buddhist. Buddhists are not strongly represented in prison. I suppose it is because they are so law abiding. In fact, we are told that there are only 183 Buddhists in prison compared with 23,000—according to my figures—members of the Church of England. It does not necessarily prove that Buddhists are more law abiding. It does suggest that they are a somewhat insignificant factor in this whole position. So we cannot look at matters entirely from the Buddhist point of view.
I am glad that the noble Lord made it quite plain—indeed he made it just as plain in some notes that he gave me—that this Bill abolishes the chaplaincy. I do not believe that any Christian could possibly be pleased with that news —that the message of Christ carried into the prisons by the chaplains will be stopped. It will be left to the Secretary of State. It is very unlike a great Liberal like the noble Lord to leave all that power in the hands of the Secretary of State. I do not think that he would do so in any other connection. The Secretary of State—who may, of course, be an atheist; it is not likely I suppose, that he is a Buddhist but at any rate he might be any sort of free thinker—will have the power to decide all these matters. Are we to assume that all wisdom has been conferred on him? To me that is nonsense, mere drivel. Is the idea that you can leave the Secretary of State to decide in regard to particular prisoners whether to have this number or that number? This Bill is to abolish the chaplaincy. Let us focus on that. Chaplains will cease to exist—not only the Anglican, but the Catholic and the chaplains from the Free Churches.
So that is what we shall be doing. The Bill proposes to abolish the chaplaincy. What are we to put in its place? Nothing. Personally, I think it would have been far better —if I may say so respectfully to the noble
Lord, while I have his attention—to have brought up this matter as a Motion to discuss the working of the chaplaincy, its rules and procedure. I do not say that it is perfect. I know of a case, for example, of a pastor who had access to a certain prison when a prisoner was there. Then the prisoner was moved and he no longer had access. It is a rather complicated story. The prison authorities claim that he did not behave well. I do not know whether he did or did not behave well. At any rate, one can imagine cases where certain pastors feel that they have suffered an injustice. We could have had a very good discussion. The idea of abolishing the chaplaincy is like saying that as there have been some miscarriages of justice in which the police were involved let us abolish them and, for that matter, the Court of Appeal—all the lot.

979
I think that this is a deplorable Bill and if the noble Lord will forget about it and come forward with a Motion we could have a nice, friendly, intellectual discussion that would make some sense.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, the Bill introduced by my noble friend falls into two parts. Whether or not he intended it, one of those parts forms a pack—admittedly a self-contained pack—to disestablish the Church of England in one area of national life. The second part consists of some reforms, of which I am quite sure a number are absolutely necessary, in the rules and laws governing this matter.
I wish to speak on both these matters, I hope shortly: the first one—the disestablishment—because
as one of the few inferior clergy in your Lordships' House I have only recently been at the sharp end of the establishment and among the areas where 80 per cent. of my parishioners would have said that they belong to the Church of England, although a very much smaller proportion come to church on Sunday.
With regard to the second part, the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, very much regrets that he is unable to be here. As noble Lords who are involved in this matter will know, he has played a leading part in this House in debates on prisons. We have shared our views the subject and we find ourselves very much in agreement with each other.
Perhaps I may just touch first on the matter of the establishment. About a week ago, in Westminster Abbey, the Bishop Gore memorial lecture was held. Professor Adrian Hastings, a very distinguished Roman Catholic, gave the address. He started off by recalling that Bishop Gore had said in a speech in your Lordships' House that the Church of England was being disestablished everywhere except in lunatic asylums. Since he himself was speaking as an established Bishop in this House I do not know quite whether he put it in the same category as lunatic asylums.
This is undoubtedly a Bill which, if it were passed as it stands, would disestablish the Church of England as the Church of this land in the whole of one area of the government of the country. That is not a very good idea. Professor Hastings himself as a Roman Catholic made a strong case for the retention of the establishment of the Church of England—and a very notable and interesting lecture he gave.
There are arguments for and against the establishment of the Church of England. During my life, I have veered from one side to the other. I am never entirely certain on which side I stand at any given time. However, if the Church of England is to be disestablished, I believe that it should be disestablished in a more wholehearted way and not by means of a Bill about prison chaplains. Undoubtedly if the Bill is passed as it stands, it would be an act of disestablishment.
With regard to reforms, I have every sympathy with what the noble Lord seeks to achieve. I should have thought that at Committee stage a provision could be put info the Bill for a right to attend services in one's
980
own faith and denomination. That is not in the Bill at present. I believe that it would be right to make it clear that prisoners can attend services and see ministers of religions other than their own. In this area there is much that is useful which could either be put into law or be taken to such a stage that the Government would undertake to review the matter.
The Church of England should not seek to be autocratically and automatically represented by the head chaplain in every prison. Its status should be that which it holds ecumenically in the country: that is, that it gives leadership because it represents a large portion of the practising Christians of this country, and because those who nominally have acknowledged their membership of the Church of England count themselves as Christians as they regard the Church of England as the Christian Church in this country.
In this issue the Church of England should seek to be prams inter pares. There should be a presumption that the chief chaplain should be an Anglican unless there were good reason to the contrary, as there might well be in particular areas of the country.
I do not wish to spend more time on the principles of the Bill. However, I hope that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading so that we may consider the matter in Committee. Members of your Lordships' House may find that they disagree with more issues than those with which they agree. However, I believe that there will he sufficient agreement to make discussion worthwhile.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, suggested that the matter should have been dealt with by a Motion rather than a Bill. I have always shared the opinion of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that the only way to get things done is to go to the heart of the matter and to challenge the Government at the point where they have to answer and from where they cannot slide by in the nice Establishment way that the noble Earl suggested.
8.25 p.m.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for introducing the Bill and for giving us an opportunity to discuss these important matters. I promise to be brief because many of your Lordships will be more experienced and better informed than me on these matters and because the House will be eager to hear the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter speaking on behalf of the established Church.
Surely all the spiritual needs of prisoners are best served by a co-ordinator who is spiritually mature, trained in religious matters to organise and make the necessary arrangements for approved religious visitors, and trained to meet inmates of various faiths and denominations, as occurs at present. It would not be appropriate merely to have an administrator undertaking such duties.
The annual census of religious registration in prisons dated 10th February 1991 indicated that over half the inmates said that they were members of the Church of England, as the noble Lord has already said. Therefore, is it not appropriate that the spiritual

981
co-ordinator—if I may use that phrase—should normally be one of the Christian chaplains, as is often the position under present legislation?
Prisoners are easily manipulated and it is important that control is exercised as to who is allowed to visit inmates to ensure that they are authentic representatives of the various faiths and denominations, and not cranks. That is often undertaken by one of the chaplains. It seems to me to be entirely sensible. Furthermore, the Bill seems to offer little to replace the duties currently undertaken by the chaplains.
Finally, it is difficult to see what the Bill in its present form would achieve. It leaves many questions unanswered. Religious observance in prisons cannot be a free-for-all with access by any prisoner at any time on demand to any minister of religion. It has to be ordered and organised in a way which allocates fairly the resources of manpower, space and time available. It is hard to see any reasonable principle on which that can be done except on the basis of the proportions of the number of adherents in any one religious grouping. In other words, although the Bill on the surface looks very radical in that it seeks to do away with the established Christian chaplaincy, it does not legislate for any system which might replace it and which might or might not give greater freedom to minority religious groups than does the present system.
I have severe reservations about the Bill. It seems to be taking a sledgehammer to crack a peanut. I urge noble Lords to reflect very carefully before giving the Bill a Second Reading.
8.28 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Exeter: My Lords, I had not assumed that I would speak in the debate because I felt it was important that points which need to be made should be made by Members of your Lordships' House, some of whom owe allegiance to the Church of England. I believe that there should not be—I am glad that there has not been—dependency purely on the episcopal Bench. However, I came to the conclusion that I would be expected to speak.
I am glad to do so at this stage because I wished to listen carefully to the arguments put forward. Many of the points that I believe appropriate have been made, in particular, by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. I do not seek to repeat them in detail.
If there is need for precept to be brought into line with practice—as is contended by the mover of this Motion—then let the appropriate action be proposed and taken after debate. It appears that in order to achieve that objective, if it is deemed to be necessary, the proposal of a Bill that starts with the abolition of prison chaplaincy is, as the noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne, said, a strange way of going about it. Indeed, it is a way that would appear to jeopardise the other objectives of the Bill by seeking to raise a very large question to which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, has referred.
Is it possible that parts of the Bill are based on two misunderstandings? The first is a misunderstanding of the religious situation in this country. The people of
982
England are sensitive about whether they are regarded as Christian. Many of the people of England do not associate being Christian with belonging to a Church other than by infant baptism, as regards the Church of England, and infant baptism is highly prized. I make no value judgment about that but I record the fact. Furthermore, I record the important pastoral principle that the appropriate starting point is where people are.
Secondly, is it not possible that the Bill is also based on the misunderstanding of prison chaplaincy? As has been said, many but not all full-time chaplains are of the Church of England. The role and vocation of the full-time chaplain to a prison is a ministry to the whole person of the prisoner rather than simply to develop in the prisoner an interest in religion alone. It is first and foremost a pastoral ministry to the whole person as a human being from a faith standpoint. Furthermore, the role of the prison chaplain is a ministry to the whole community of the prison, which includes the staff whose work is most stressful. He is full-time precisely because in order to minister to the prison as an entire institution, he needs to be a member of the staff attached wholly to it and not some ancillary person who visits. He needs to be a member of the staff.
A similar model is that of the service chaplain. I suggest that a particularly appropriate model is that of the Royal Navy chaplain at sea. It is laid down in writing that he is to be the friend of all on board. The state pays such chaplains. That must mean that the people of England value this ministry. These chaplains in ministries are historic roles. Surely when one is seeking to raise a matter with deep historical roots, even though it may be a case of making the argument for change, it is wise to go about it broadly and carefully.
I believe that if the Bill goes any further it will undoubtedly be seen as a partial measure of disestablishment. "Establishment or disestablishment?", is an honourable question to raise and to debate. But surely it should be tackled as a whole question because it is one that has huge ramifications for the constitution of this country.
8.36 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I shall not speak from a party point of view because there is no doubt that this is a matter of conscience. I notice that the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, is in the Chamber and perhaps he would wish to speak before me—
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, my name appears accidentally on the wrong list. I am not interested in this debate but in the next one.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I thank the mover of the Bill because the debate has opened my eyes. Tonight I have learned things that I never dreamed of hearing. I thank my noble friend Lord Longford for telling me that there are 182 Buddhists in our prisons. I have certainly heard things about the Royal Navy about which I was not aware. I believe that the Bill should receive a Second Reading because I am convinced that tonight we have heard things that

983
the ordinary people of this country have not heard. I believe that it is absolutely essential that they should hear such things, especially in respect of a matter as important as disestablishment. I am opposed to the establishment of the Church of England, but then I am opposed to the Church of England—
The Earl of Longford: And to Christianity.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I am not necessarily opposed to Christianity if it leads people into the right way of life. However, the number of Christians who I am told are in our prisons today does not appear to indicate that they were all very good Christians. As regards the question of Christianity and the different denominations, it is wrong to have a society in which there appears to be an interest in its division into sheep and goats—into Christians, Moslems, Buddhists and the rest. That is absolutely wrong. I make a plea that the Bill be given a Second Reading in order that we can debate the issue of disestablishment in the prisons.
I wish to ask the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, a few questions. When he spoke of spiritual guidance did he mean only within the orthodox religious bodies? Does he give credence to the growing movement of humanism in this country that has no faith to respond to in the spiritual, supernatural sense but believes implicitly in the goodness of human kind? Does spiritual guidance include such an organisation? I detected a slight nod of the head but I was not sure.
I de not know why, when a prisoner is being locked up, we must ask him for his religion. Religion essentially is a personal matter. One should not subscribe to the point of view that someone is asked a question so that he can immediately say he is a Christian, Roman Catholic, Protestant or what have you. Religion is a matter between him and whoever he believes is his creator. I could go on for a long time but I will not, except to say this. Several years ago a certain person wrote a book about belief, his faith and creation. His name was Thomas Paine. He has been disestablished, but not by law. He has been disestablished, because all our favourite establishments within our broad establishment refuse to name him. Ask any child today coming out of school, "Have you heard of Thomas Paine?" The answer will be "No". Ask the BBC if they are prepared to celebrate his birth: "No" Ask the BBC if they will in fact repeat the film they made of Thomas Paine in which he was described by a very important person in the BBC as one of the finest Englishmen who ever lived.
We celebrated with our American friends freedom in America, so called. Thomas Paine played a very important part in that. We celebrated with the French the glorious revolution in France. Thomas Paine played a very important part in that; but because his spiritual beliefs were foreign to the establishment in England he had to run away. He was hounded, and now is being written out of the history books. Your Lordships may say that this has nothing to do with whether we should have a chaplaincy in the prisons—
The Earl of Longford: Hear, hear!
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, if I were to accuse the noble Earl, Lord Longford, of being biased in favour of a certain faith, that might be considered to be unfair. He says "Hear, hear!" This has a lot to do with the question. If you go into prisons today you will get the same attitude as you get in the Armed Forces. If most soldiers are faced with the choice of going on a 15-mile route march on a Sunday or going to church, they will opt for Christianity and go to church. We know that. It is a myth to suggest that large numbers of people in this country are still Christians; they are not, and the sooner that is said, and as loudly as possible, the better. The debate on Sunday opening reveals that. The number of people using shops on a Sunday reveals that.
In conclusion I am opposed to Sunday opening because I believe, as the Church says, that there should be one day a week to sit down and contemplate what has gone on and to think about the future. So I am opposed to Sunday opening. But the Church has lost its way because it relies on somebody else's revelation. The people do not listen to the Church, but if they were appealed to on humanitarian grounds—that is, that there is a need for contemplation at certain times in life—we may make further progress in the proper establishment of spiritual belief in this country, which need not necessarily come down from the vested interests of the Church.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, certainly put up a strong case in support of his Bill and we are grateful to him for bringing this question before us in the shape of the Bill. Perhaps some of us did not realise in the beginning that the arguments would be widened as far as they have been by my noble friend Lord Sefton.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, made some points which showed that there are anomalies in our law—and I do not think the fact that the noble Lord is a Buddhist has any significance here. He put his case not from the point of view of someone from another faith. He pointed out clearly the important fact that this Bill has two distinct sides to it. The first concerns the abolition of the offices of prison chaplain and assistant prison chaplain; the second is to promote religious equality in prisons. Both can be achieved: the first through amending Section 7 and the second through amending Section 10 of the Prison Act 1952.
My noble friend Lord Longford concentrated mainly on the first. He felt it was not right to abolish the office of prison chaplain and he put forward several arguments in favour of his contention. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, concentrated more on the second part of the Bill, as I would prefer to do. He made a case for the promotion of religious equality through amending Section 10 of the Prison Act. Whatever the relative merits or demerits of abolishing the offices of prison chaplain and assistant prison chaplain, I think it would represent a serious anomaly.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, made the point that, although argument surrounds the question of the disestablishment of the Church of England and although the Labour Party does not take part in this

985
debate, the disestablishment of the Church in prisons is quite another matter and, one would have thought, one that is secondary to the first. If you are going to abolish the chaplains, surely you would have to look in the first place at the position of the Church of England.
The actual role of the chaplain has been very clearly described by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter. He made the important point that the role of the chaplain in a prison is as a pastoral minister to the prisoner and also to the whole community. That is important. When I have visited prisons I have realised the very great welfare role carried out by the chaplain.
As regards amending Section 10 of the Prison Act, that is rather a different matter. As the Act stands it is, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, illegal for a minister,
"of any denomination … to visit prisoners … in a prison to which no minister of that denomination has been appointed under this section".
Perhaps the Minister could tell us what the situation is for prisoners wishing to gain access to a minister in whose faith they are not registered; and also how many complaints there have been and how many times someone registered, as, say, a Roman Catholic or as a Jew will not be able to have visits from the relevant minister.
Perhaps the Minister could also say something about another point which has been raised by the Prison Reform Trust—there is a conflict between the rule I have just described and European Prison Rule 47(3). That matter was also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. The rule states that,
"the prisoner shall he allowed to satisfy the needs of his religious, spiritual and moral life".
That would seem to be in direct contradiction of our law, under which it is technically illegal for a prisoner who has declared himself or herself to be of one religion on reception to be visited by a minister of another religion.
I am sure the Minister will agree that as a general principle domestic policies on such matters should be harmonised with European Prison Rules. Perhaps he will say whether in his opinion they do harmonise. Furthermore, for some prisoners prison is a time for relaxation and religious change and the present situation is a missed opportunity. It is a time when a prisoner may wish to change his ideas, views and beliefs, when he has lots of time to think—yet he cannot discuss a different faith while in prison.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, mentioned the Prison Officers' Association. He said that his Bill would establish the prisoner's right to religious discussion with ministers of other faiths either for contemplative purposes or religious conversion. That is an important point and one shared by the Prison Officers' Association, which, after all, is in a good position to hold a view on the matter.
There is certainly a case for amending Section 10(5), as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for the reasons I have given and to bring the Prison Act into line with what I understand is often the practice in most of our prisons. Failing that, perhaps when replying the Minister will say whether he will
986
consider issuing new guidelines to governors and chaplains to make it clear that Section 10 should not be used to deny prisoners access to a minister of religion on the grounds that they had not previously declared themselves of that denomination. It would appear to be a good way out of the difficulty.
Another idea that could be brought up at Committee stage, if the noble Lord's Bill receives its Second Reading, is that a request for a report on the current practice should be made by the Chief Inspector of Prisons when he next reports on prison affairs.
The issue is a matter of conscience. I do not believe that the office of prison chaplain should be abolished for the reasons I have given. However, there is virtue in Section 10 of the Prison Act being amended along the lines suggested in the Bill to bring it into line with practice. I therefore have no objection to a Second Reading. It will give us an opportunity to discuss the Bill and the parts with which we agree or disagree. From the point of view of my colleagues, it is for them to decide.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down will she make it quite plain that she is speaking entirely for herself? It is not a party issue.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, my noble friend was so busy rising to interrupt me that he did not hear my concluding comment. I said that as far as my colleagues are concerned it is a matter of their own conscience, but that I agreed that the Bill should receive a Second Reading.
8.53 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, seeks to amend the provisions of the Prison Act 1952. It would abolish the office of prison chaplain provided for in Section 7 of that Act. It would repeal the provisions relating to the exercise of the office of chaplain. And it would amend Section 10 of the Act which deals with the appointment of prison ministers.
The prison service attaches great importance to ensuring that prisoners are able to practise their religion, and that they have access to the appropriate minister to provide religious guidance. I therefore listened closely to what the noble Lord had to say. I must, however, make clear to the House that, in the Government's view, the noble Lord's Bill would not make for greater freedom of worship in prisons. Rather, by abolishing the office of prison chaplain, it is likely to do considerable damage.
Prison chaplains play an important role in serving those committed into custody, in seeking to look after them with humanity and in helping them lead law-abiding and useful lives in custody and after release. The tasks include a wide range of personal contacts with prisoners, particularly on admission to the prison, when an inmate may well be frightened, confused or depressed. During the course of the sentence the chaplain will help the inmate to come to terms with him or herself, and with others—family and friends, fellow prisoners and prison staff. It is the chaplain to whom the prisoner will so often turn when

987
faced with domestic difficulties, at times of bereavement or when faced with specific problems in custody.
A significant number of men and women in prisons address their Christian faith seriously for the first time. Many are supported or strengthened in their commitment. Chaplains work increasingly in ecumenical teams. They consist of Anglican, Roman Catholic and Methodist ministers, and are being increasingly extended to include lay men and women. Chaplains also have a significant part to play both in the preparation of prisoners for release and in their re-assimilation into the community.
But the role of the chaplaincy does not stop at a ministry to individuals. Within the prison the chaplain is concerned with the social values of justice and peace, of fairness and equitable dealing, and of growth and opportunity. He also plays a particularly important role in relation to the prison staff. A chaplain will thus find himself involved in many areas of staff anxiety—problems of family, postings and the stress which many in the prison service experience.
The duties of Christian chaplains appointed to prison establishments include facilitating the religious observance of prisoners who are members of other faiths, which is particularly important in the context of the noble Lord's Bill. In a multi-racial, multi-faith society, that does not conflict with a chaplain's calling as a minister and missionary of the Christian gospel. I should add that the work of the chaplaincy in that area falls clearly within the remit of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons. He is specifically charged to report to the Secretary of State on the treatment of prisoners and conditions in prisons.
There are undoubtedly at times problems for all ministers in finding the time and space they would wish for religious activities with inmates, but that can affect all faiths. What clearly emerges from reports is how impressed the inspectorate are with the efforts made by prison chaplains to meet the pastoral needs of prisoners and how carefully the needs of minority faiths are observed.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, sought to question the requirement of the Act that the chaplain shall be a clergyman of the Church of England. The Church of England is the established Church. But it goes rather further than that. On reception into prison, prisoners are asked to declare their religious denomination. That is recorded in an annual census. In 1991, of those who declared a faith, 92 per cent. were from the main Christian Churches and 63 per cent.—some 23,000 prisoners—were Church of England. Of other religions almost 2,000 were recorded as Muslims, 307 were Sikh, 194 Jewish, 183 Buddhists and 151 Hindus. Almost 7,000 declared that they had no religion. I do not suggest, of course, that all 23,000 prisoners who said that they were Church of England were practising members or regular churchgoers. I suggest that it is the faith which they acknowledged, in which they may have been brought up and to which they may be most likely to return.
In those circumstances I find some difficulty with the argument that the statutory appointment of Church of England clergymen as prison chaplains is in
988
any way inconsistent with the European Prison Rules. Those provide that, if the institution contains a sufficient number of prisoners of the same religion, a qualified representative of that religion shall be appointed and approved.
I now turn to the proposals in the Bill for the amendment of Section 10 of the Prison Act 1952. Section 10 provides for the appointment and payment of prison ministers of denominations other than the Church of England. It provides for visiting ministers and allows them to visit prisoners of their denomination. The section also restricts such ministers from visiting prisoners of other denominations. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, argued that such a restriction is inconsistent with the European Prison Rules, discriminates against ministers of other faiths and prevents prisoners from exploring other religions.
I believe that the wording of the section was intended to address two important and legitimate concerns. It seeks to prevent proselytising; that is, ministers seeking to exploit the volatile and unstable strand in many prisoners' make-up to solicit recruits for their own denomination at the expense of other religious faiths. It also prevents misuse of the system by prisoners; for example, by their demanding to see a succession of different ministers. The noble Lord has suggested the provision is in contravention of Rule 47 of the European Prison Rules which states that access to a qualified representative of any religion shall not be refused to any prisoner. I do not agree.
I do not believe that the rule should be taken to be so prescriptive as to allow access to ministers of religion by a prisoner "on demand". If it were, a prisoner could in effect require to see any minister of any religion at any time. This would be neither practicable nor desirable and could not have been in the minds of those drafting the rules.
The purpose of the rule is to ensure that a prisoner has access to a minister of his or her choice, while protecting equally those prisoners who do not wish to see any religious representative.
I also do not believe that it was the intention of those who drafted Section 10 of the Prison Act 1952 to prevent a prisoner, who genuinely wished to explore the possibility of converting to another faith, seeing the appropriate minister. Certainly that is not how the section is interpreted. In practice, if prisoners indicate that they want to consider changing their religion, the chaplain will arrange for them to see both the new minister and their existing one.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, what if the prisoner does not wish to convert? For example, let us suppose that he is a member of the Methodist Church and he wishes to examine the doctrines of Islam. He does not know that he wishes to convert to Islam and he could not possibly do so until he has had the opportunity of discussing the subject with an Imam. The Minister is saying that the prisoner cannot talk to the Imam unless he first indicates that he wishes to become a Moslem.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, perhaps I may continue. If, after these discussions, a prisoner wishes to change his or her registration formally, the application will then be sent forward to the governor.
We concede that there may be scope for improving the wording of the subsection to put the matter beyond doubt. The point has been noted for future legislation. It is not, however, I believe a problem in practice.
Perhaps I may conclude be referring to the Government's proposals for the prison service as set out in the White Paper, Custody, Care and Justice. The White Paper places emphasis on the need for caring prisons. The prison service must be ready to assist prisoners with their problems. It can do so by providing support and counselling and by enabling prisoners to maintain contact with the outside.
I doubt there are many of your Lordships who would disagree with those sentiments. By common consent, the prison service chaplaincy is seen as a force for good in the often bleak world behind the prison gate. Far from inhibiting freedom of worship in prisons, chaplains facilitate and sustain it.
We believe that the abolition of the office of prison chaplain would be a wholly retrograde step. The noble Lord's Bill is not acceptable to the Government and I cannot commend it to the House.
9.2 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I am very grateful to all those who have taken part in the debate including those who have made some criticisms of it, which reinforces the argument that the Bill should be allowed to go into Committee so that we can explore these matters in further detail. I do not propose to detain your Lordships at this hour by responding in great detail to the arguments put forward.
One would have thought from some of the speeches that we have heard that at the moment this Bill comes into force all the chaplains would disappear from the scene. As I emphasised in my opening remarks, the Secretary of State can re-appoint—as indeed he has the power to do at the moment —full-time ministers of religion to any prison in accordance with the numbers of adherents of a particular faith present in an establishment. I am saying that we should review the appointment of ministers of religion so that it bears some relation to the numbers of adherents and that they are not automatically serviced by a member of the Church of England.
I point out to noble Lords who have predicted dire consequences with the abolition of the chaplaincy that in Northern Ireland there is no such institution. It is not found that that causes great difficulty. There are obviously full-time ministers appointed to the prisons in Northern Ireland. They carry out all the functions which we have heard about this evening, which are clearly of the greatest importance. They carry out the welfare functions and the consolation of prisoners in bereavement. I can add several to those mentioned by the right reverend Prelate. I refer to the reports made by ministers on prisoners wishing to apply for release on licence or parole. There is also access to telephones for prisoners needing urgently to consult relatives. All
990
these are matters for the chaplaincy and they do not have any immediate relationship to the spiritual role which would be carried on by the full-time ministers who would be appointed by the Secretary of State if this Bill were to go through.
I disagree with those who have spoken about disestablishment. That is not the intention and the word does not appear anywhere on the face of the Bill. We are simply talking about the removal of the pre-eminence of the Church of England in one particular area of our national life. We are saying that if the Church of England has to have a statutory role in all areas of our national life, why stop at the prisons? Why not have full-time chaplains in the schools? We have them in certain areas of the old universities, which is a matter that we might consider on another occasion. No one is suggesting that because the Church of England is the Church of the state that we should have chaplains in every secondary school. Neither are we suggesting that because we do not have chaplains in every secondary school that that means that somehow they have been disestablished by their exclusion from the educational system. Therefore, why do we make the argument that the exclusion of full-time Anglican chaplains from the prisons would be in some way a step towards disestablishment?
I conclude by reiterating the point I made at the outset. I am not opposed to religion in prisons. I am seeking to improve the facilities that prisoners have for advancing their spiritual and philosophical welfare. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, in that there is no humanist ministry to the prisons. The religions which are allowed access are defined in standing orders. That may be a defect which the humanists would like to remedy if they could approach the Secretary of State and discuss it with him.
The discussion this evening has shown that there are points to pursue, even if we do not agree entirely on the abolition of the prison chaplaincy. There has been substantial acceptance of the view that the Prison Act as it now stands conflicts with the European prison rules. With respect, I do not think that the Minister dealt with that point satisfactorily. He read out the provisions of Rule 47(3) and then said point blank that in the opinion of the Home Office that was not contravened by Section 10(5). If one reads the two in conjunction, one cannot possibly come to any other conclusion. Those who have considered the point, such as Helsinki Watch in the United States, which is after all completely dispassionate in the matter and has no political or religious axe to grind, have written to the Secretary of State to point out that these provisions conflict with one another.
I leave it to the judgment of those who are well qualified to say whether the European prison rules are contravened. These matters are much better explored in Committee. As the noble Earl, Lord Longford, said, let us discuss these matters in some detail rather than—
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I must have been misunderstood. I did not say that we should discuss these matters in Committee. I want to destroy the Bill

991
at the earliest possible moment. I said that we should on another occasion have a nice intellectual discussion about the chaplaincy. I certainly do not suggest an inquiry in Committee—God forbid!
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I was taking up the noble Earl on his kind remark that we should have a nice intellectual discussion on another occasion. I look forward with great pleasure to crossing swords with him in Committee. I hope that your Lordships will now give the Bill a Second Reading.
9.9 p.m.
On Question, Whether the Bill shall be now read a second time?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 17; Not-Contents, 19.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L

Airedale, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Avebury. L. [Teller.]

McNair, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L. [Teller.]

Masham of Ilton, B.

Richard, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Tweeddale, M.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

White, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Ashbourne, L. [Teller.]

Morris, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Brentford, V.

Radnor, E.

Cross, V

Robertson of Oakridge, L [Teller.]

Exeter, Bp.

Greenway, L.

Romney, E.

Henley, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Lauderdale, E.

Seccombe, B.

Longford, E.

Ullswater, V.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion for Second Reading disagreed to accordingly.

Croatia
9.17 p.m.
The Marquess of Tweeddale The Marquess of Tweeddale rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will take urgent action to help the people of Croatia.
The noble Marquess said: My Lords, since last June, when the Republics of Slovenia and Croatia declared their independence from the Yugoslav Federation, we have witnessed two wars. The first, happily, of short duration between Slovenia and the Federal Army; and, secondly, that between Croatia and the Federal Army acting in concert with the largest republic, Serbia.
Both those conflicts arose out of declarations of independence made after massive popular assent in referenda. The second conflict has resulted in terrible damage. to Croatia, a state which, like Slovenia, is an obvious candidate by way of its culturally Western attitude for membership of the European Community.
Thousands of people have been killed and many more thousands have been injured, with hundreds of thousands of people being made homeless refugees. Whole towns have been laid waste. Countless
992
churches and other monuments have been deliberately, in many cases it would appear, wrecked. The Croatian president's residence has been murderously attacked by aeroplanes of the so-called Yugoslav People's Army. Moreover, something which brought matters well and truly to the attention of the bien-pensant world-at-large, Dubrovnik, a real jewel of a place and an entity never ever in its whole almost 1,000 year history in any sense Serbian, has been put under siege. The pretext for all that: the "threatening" of the very existence of the Serb minority in Croatia.
Now, there is little doubt that the uppity Croatian nationalist government of President Tudjman, with its reuse of something very much like the red-and-white chessboard symbol of the Croatian fascists of the 1940s, upset the Serb minorities in some places, especially in the Krajine—the area adjoining Bosnia in the South-West. There is also creditable evidence that Serbs in outlying areas of Croatia have been subject to negative discrimination of (sometimes) a very disagreeable sort. Of course, that is to be deplored. But, at the same time, we should not forget the fact that around 200,000 Serbs live, or have been living, secure lives in the great towns of Croatia; for example, Zagreb, Split and Rijeka. None of that justifies the Serb assertion that the new Croatian state is a fascist one which deserves the onslaught to which it has been subject in the past few months.
Those who have followed the development of affairs in the Serbian sphere since the advent of President Milosevic as First Secretary of the Serbian Communist Party have been, as the Foreign Office must or should have been, increasingly aghast at the unlovely symbiosis between Milosevic and his people. A great political performer and a demagogue, he has succeeded, in an extraordinary way, in combining a year's out-of-date communism (or socialism as they now prefer to call it) with an equally outmoded crass nationalism, to great popular effect. With slogans such as, "Serbia is where Serbs are", he has given that people the deluded sight of a return to their medieval destiny: the great Serbia of the old emperors; but that has meant aggression.
Thus there has been the brutal repression in Kosovo and the reduction of that now 90 per cent. Albanian province from the autonomous region which Tito had made it, to a Serbian fiefdom; thus the effective reincorporation of the Vojvodina (an area with the barest of Serbian majorities over Hungarian and other nationalities, including Croats); thus the brutal repression of opposition with tanks on his own Belgrade streets; thus the war with the Croats.
If the Croats had not provided him with a ready-made excuse, Milosevic would have had to find one. His is a regime which must expand or it will collapse. Such a regime must be met with force. There is no other way.
What have we members of the EC done? The answer, sad to say, is very little of any effect. I cannot help feeling that history will take a dim (and rather perplexed) view of that failure. The seemingly numberless EC-negotiated cease-fires have achieved

993
little beyond—through the professed even-handedness of the negotiators—promoting the idea that there was little to choose between the parties. That is an untruth.
It is surely time that we recognized—as I believe the right honourable gentleman the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs probably now has—that the Government's initial stance of trying to save the federation was mistaken and a let-down of the genuinely aggrieved parties.
I ask the Government to make up for their sad failure to recognise Croatia—and of course Slovenia—from the outset by contriving that the EC does so without delay. Further, will they declare their readiness to provide the Croatian republic with anything in the way of defensive weapons that it may reasonably require? I ask them to think deeper and harder about their—I am glad to say—already conceded, but highly qualified readiness to commit our warships to the Adriatic, and to extend that thought to using our air force to clear Croatian airspace of Yugoslav aeroplanes. In addition, will the Government use their offices to ensure that economic sanctions are applied which will be felt by Serbia and its ally Montenegro? All that I regard as urgent, since, for all the valour of the Croatian forces, the conflict is an unequal one, and, as things are, Serbian progress seems likely to continue. That may have two particularly undesirable consequences.
First, there is the possibility of a Right Wing coup against Dr. Tudjman's Government. Tudjman may not be good at running a democratic state in difficult times, and perhaps he is not a very nice man either. But he is surely no fascist. However, there are fascists—heirs to the Ustache who massacred hundreds of thousands of Serbs during the war—in Zagreb, and they are becoming more and more prominent. A takeover by those people would be a catastrophe.
Secondly, the greater the success of Milosevic's Serbia, the greater the threat it will pose elsewhere than in Croatia. The spectre of war in Bosnia, a republic with a threefold ethnic split (Moslem, Serb and Croat) looms ever more large. Let us be spared that horror.
Whatever else the Minister has to say about this issue, I shall be disappointed if he does not tell your Lordships that the Government plan to do their utmost to relieve the atrocious suffering of the Croatian people with humanitarian aid, particularly medical supplies, and very quickly. We acted on behalf of the Kurds, a people altogether more strange and obscure: we cannot leave that entirely European people—virtually neighbours of ours—to a fate which they do not deserve.
9.25 p.m.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, the family of the noble Marquess have been neighbours and have tangled with my family for many years. I rise to support his plea for help for Croatia. However, I do not support his plea for the recognition of this regime. I speak because for 60 years I have been in and out of Yugoslavia. I have worked in Belgrade, Zagreb and
994
Ljubljana for The Times. I endured Hitler's punishing bombardment of Belgrade in 1940. I have some knowledge, albeit imperfect, of the lingo.
Whatever the federal army has done—and goes on doing—there is little to choose between the regimes of Mr. Tudjman of Croatia and Mr. Milosevic of Serbia. Both are recycled communists. Both have built their new power on two factors. One factor has been the communist party dominance of the electoral machinery, including most of the media and especially the television. Secondly, both have made quite appalling appeals to racist jingoism to replace the Marxism which is now discredited.
In Belgrade the once respected newspaper Politika, which corresponded to The Times here in days gone by, has for several years now descended to the lowest sensational treatment of anything bad that could be said about Croatia. More recently, the other rather better paper in Belgrade, Borba, has tended to write in the same way. Only the weekly Vreme seems now to be the voice of civilised points of view within Serbia. Although in the Serbian Parliament, the Skupstina, there is a small and altogether ineffective and disunited opposition, I know of none in the Croatian Parliament, the Sabor. Anyone who has had the miserable experience, as I have, of listening to two days' debate in the Croatian Sabor will realise it is very like the very old Reichstag in its management.
In both countries the mass of ordinary people, in my observation, have lived fairly peaceably together, side by side, save where—as in the Krajina area—there are minorities who felt themselves threatened, as indeed they were, with bombs and terrorism, even before the declaration of independence by Croatia. They have felt much more severely threatened since that declaration.
Croatia has asked for and got rather more than it expected. Its unilateral declaration of independence was not made within the ambit of the constitution, rotten as that constitution was. The constitution collapsed, as it was bound to do, once the Communist Party collapsed which had sustained it. Although Milosevic of Serbia is to blame, to a degree, for blocking the presidency's election of a president, the fact remains that Croatia's procedure was outwith—as was Slovenia's—the framework of the existing constitution.
Whatever the politico-military outcome may be—in the past 48 hours we have witnessed the thirteenth breakdown of a ceasefire—there are several factors which seem absolutely clear. Under either EC or United Nations auspices humanitarian aid is urgent. I am sure there is no dispute about that. The provision of that aid is impossible until there is some kind of a standstill in the battles. Further, outside military intervention, except with the consent of the warring parties, is simply not on. If we once got in there, we would never get out.
The provision of a naval escort for evacuees from Dalmatia is welcome. It could be the forerunner of a peacekeeping force once the battles have stopped, and are seen to have stopped.
There are some major questions which must be answered. Under what competent political authority

995
does the army now claim to operate? There is no longer a presidency, yet it was supposed to take orders from the presidency. Therefore one has to ask whether the army has degenerated to a form of warlord status.
The second question is who, if anyone, controls both the Croatian Ustache and their many foreign recruits and volunteers as well as the so-called Chetnik irregulars? I have asked everyone I can think of and I cannot discover who controls either. They seem to be mini warlords.
Perhaps I may draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that until the last 48 hours, when the army took people out of Vukovar, there were very few reports of prisoners. I am afraid that that fact speaks for itself. Pictures of appallingly mutilated bodies are now in circulation, rather like filthy pictures in the Middle East.
The information I receive from both sides suggests that w are confronted with people who, under communism, were largely cut off from intellectual contact with the West. Whereas in days gone by people went to university in Paris, Berlin, Switzerland and so on, under the communist system very few were able to go to western universities. In that context the appeal of Croats and Slovenes to the principle of self-determination is a throwback to 19th century thinking and attitudes. While Dubrovnik says that the West has deserted it, we have no obligation whatever to give military help to Dubrovnik. Many people seemed to believe that the West would always come to the aid pf "good people". That is not so. That attitude is largely due to the intellectual isolation of Yugoslavia under the communist system.
The situation is summed up by the phrase "official disinformation". I should like to urge action-aside from the self-evident case for the maximum humanitarian help. I should like to propose and urge that the Government give serious consideration, when the opportunity arises, to making sure that Serbs and Croats can hear much more on the BBC of objective news. I believe that the BBC's news broadcasts should be extended, even if only for a few months, because the current disinformation is appalling. My family telephoned friends in Yugoslavia and we were shocked by the jingoistic nonsense coming from people who are normally sensible due to the fact that they do not receive clear information.
Secondly, in any cooling-off period it is important that provision should be made for representatives of the EC monitors to have assured access to television and radio, both in Zagreb and Belgrade for, say, an hour a day so that people can receive reliable informs Lion which they can trust and which is untainted by racist jingoism.
It would be wrong for me to sit down without paying a heartfelt and sincere tribute to the tenacity, enterprise and endurance of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the sheer heroism of the EC observers.
9.35 p.m.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, I must apologise to the House for not being here for the beginning of the debate.
996
Many of us who have watched the unfolding drama of the appalling casualties and destruction in Croatia have another concern—with the built heritage which has been under attack. It is not my wish tonight to comment on the policies followed by Her Majesty's Government and the European Commission in relation to that tragic and wasteful conflict. I would not be so callous as to suggest that the fate even of Dubrovnik's historic core is of principal concern at present. However, those of us who are not drawn into the immediate concern of stopping the fighting should consider what might be the situation when hostilities finally cease.
I am sure that many people and governments will wish to aid whatever form of nation emerges to recover as much as possible from the damage. It may be the Government's wish to consider whether we in this country have any role to play in relation to the built heritage. If so, perhaps I may make one or two suggestions.
One potentially useful link with Yugoslavia is through ICCROM—which stands for the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property—in Rome. My noble friend may recollect that the United Kingdom contributes £73,800 annually to that institution, equal funding being provided by English Heritage, the Overseas Development Administration and the Museums and Galleries Commission. That amounts to over 5 per cent. of the total ICCROM funding. English Heritage also provides a representative for the ICCROM Council.
Within ICCROM's architectural programme there is already a proposal for a joint Yugoslavian-United Kingdom-ICCROM project to establish at Split an international course on the processes of recording and analysis of historic buildings and sites. The United Kingdom contribution has been to supply a comprehensive model for the application of appropriate techniques, based upon the joint experience of the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments, English Heritage and others published by ICOMOS (UK) last year.
English Heritage has already suggested to ICCROM that, although the course cannot be proceeded with at Split as planned this year for obvious reasons, those skills and equipment could be diverted from training to recording and analysis of damaged historic centres. That is an essential first step in urgent conservation and repair work. It is likely that in such an eventuality ICCROM will appeal to its member states and other international institutions for additional funds or support in kind. In due course it may be a route for well-targeted aid from the United Kingdom, should that seem appropriate.
I feel strongly tonight, and I hope that your Lordships will support me, that we should try to have a person from the United Kingdom in Yugoslavia to see what we can do to contribute our know-how to repair the appalling damage in Dubrovnik, that great historic city which so much needs repair.
9.37 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I should like to join your Lordships in thanking the noble Marquess, Lord Tweeddale, for raising this matter tonight. It is an appropriate moment when we are watching that terrible tragedy unfold before our eyes and become more acute as day succeeds day. Both the noble Marquess, Lord Tweeddale, and the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, have painted a fair picture of the confused situation in what was Yugoslavia, because I do not believe that Yugoslavia can be said any longer truly to exist, and of the unhappy balance between the two opposing sides. I do not propose to follow the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, who made an interesting and important suggestion on which I am totally unqualified to speak. Nor is my experience of Yugoslavia equal to that of the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale. My experience is limited to a honeymoon in Dubrovnik and a visit of less than a week at the end of October as a guest of the Croat Government.
I shall try not to repeat what I said in the debate on the Queen's Speech, but the Question that has been asked by the noble Marquess urges the Government to take action to help the people of Croatia. As both he and the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, have said, that help can be in two forms: one is humanitarian and the other is political. With the approach of winter in a country with a continental climate the need for humanitarian aid is acute. When I was there the nights were freezing—and presumably that will now be more acute—and there were 400,000 displaced persons. The information I have is that today there are half a million displaced homeless persons. In addition, when I saw the President of Hungary last night he told me there were over 40,000 such people in Hungary.
Those are very substantial figures for countries which are not well endowed. So far the aid which has reached them from this country and elsewhere seems to be totally inadequate. I understand that Her Majesty's Government have given £250,000 to the International Red Cross to alleviate the problems faced by the two governments, but above all by the Government of Croatia where the bulk of the displacement has occurred.
The two reports I have from the Red Cross are dated 7th November, which is obviously rather old, and 20th November, which I received today. By November 7th they had sent over 50,000 food parcels and over 140,000 blankets, but that aid was for the whole of Yugoslavia and the Red Cross could not tell me how it was distributed between the Croatian and Serbian areas. The figures are not very helpful but indicate aid on a rather small scale considering the size of the problem. The report of 20th November is rather more detailed and gives an account of what they are struggling to do with about 50 expatriate representatives in the whole of Yugoslavia. Since 19th November they have had what they call 12 delegates in the town of Vukovar who have been able to reach the hospital and deliver a tonne of medical supplies. Yesterday they signed an agreement to neutralise, as they call it, the hospital. They have been told they can treat the wounded and evacuate those who cannot be treated in Vukovar. The trouble with
998
those agreements is that they are signed but broken. One hopes that this agreement will not follow the same pattern.
The noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, talked about prisoners of war. That is an important subject. The Red Cross report that they have visited 2,000 prisoners of war and more than 700 have been released with the agreement of both sides. They have also been tracing prisoners of war, which one knows is an extremely important task, so as to inform their families what has happened to them. A ship is leaving Bari on 20th November with eight Red Cross delegates aboard bound for Dubrovnik. A second one carrying foodstuffs, blankets and other supplies should be leaving either today or tomorrow.
It seems to me that with very limited resources the Red Cross are doing a job that needs to be done on the humanitarian side and deserve further support from the Government than they have so far received. I hope that we will be given an assurance that that is the case. As anyone who has ever touched this subject will accept, it is far more difficult to suggest any constructive political moves in a country which, as I was told by one of the monitors I met, who happened to be an Irish soldier, "is even more interested in history than we are". That makes me rather pessimistic.
They are very interested in history. As I said before, that history goes back to the old fault line—the split of the Roman Empire between Byzantium and Rome by Diocletian. It goes back to the Ottoman Empire and the Austro-Hungarian Empire. It goes back to the conflict between the Greek Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church. The whole situation is embedded in history. I suppose that we are regretting the breakup of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. We cannot see any substitute for it at this stage that will provide any kind of structure which, supposing peace were to break out, would make it possible for the people to live in peace together after the terrible events of the past few months.
So, let no one think that there are any easy or facile solutions. It is difficult to offer any proposals which have much reality in the face of the situation that confronts us. The object is peace. Without peace all humanitarian aid is first aid and first aid, as we know, is a temporary matter. The prerequisite for peace is a ceasefire that sticks. There have been 13 ceasefires so far, not one of which has stuck. I should like to join with the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, in his tribute to the persistence, patience and courage with which the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has pursued his deeply frustrating task. He is trying to deal with people who, if we speak of governments, as all noble Lords have indicated, are not the easiest or the nicest people to deal with and who sign anything and break anything with complete insouciance. His job is a terrible one.
However, we have to ask ourselves how Her Majesty's Government can help him in that task. First, we must recognise that the Yugoslavia which was created in 1918 no longer exists. My experience, as I said, is very limited, but we must try to instill into the Croat Government and the leaders of Croat society, some of whom I met, some degree of realism. They

999
genuinely suggested to me that they expected that a peace would be imposed by force by the European Community. When it was suggested that that was not on the agenda, they expressed surprise and incredulity. The advantage of such an attitude is that it stops them from having to think of a way out for themselves. In point of fact, the only way out must come from within those countries, even if we support it in every possible way.
other proposals have been made. One of them is recognition and I think that in due course recognition will come. The question is over the timing of that recognition. Can that recognition be used as in any way a negotiating lever or would it be more successful if we granted it now? I do not pretend to know the answer to that question. It is certainly one possibility which has to be considered.
The second constructive step is sanctions but how does one enforce sanctions in those countries? How does one enforce an oil embargo? We should certainly try, hut we should be optimistic if we thought that it would be easy or if we believed that the results from sanctions would be quick.
A third proposal has been put forward by the noble Marquess, Lord Tweeddale, and raised in another place. I simply do not know the answer. Is it possible with United Nations support to interdict the air space—to stop the flight of fixed wing aircraft over Yugoslavia? Is it possible to break the sea blockade which Serbia is imposing? I simply do not know the legality of the situation. I should be very interested to know whether that is a possibility and whether it can be done within the rules. I must say that I should be very hesitant to supply arms to anybody in the Balkans. It is a tinderbox. That is what is so frightening about the whole situation. The danger is that what started as a conflict between Serbia and Croatia will spread to Macedonia, Kosovo, which is 90 per cent. Moslem, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina. We know only too well the history of the past—and the past is forever present in that part of the world.
Finally, whatever the criticisms may be of the European Community's response, it is difficult to see what more they could have done than they have done although they could have done it more quickly and with rather greater resolve. That is because the machinery of political co-operation in framing a European Community attitude in foreign affairs is too clumsy and slow to meet the circumstances that we shall have to meet.
I make only three proposals; some are nebulous, some less so. First, it is essential that we give more help to the Red Cross for humanitarian aid. Secondly, I still find it extraordinary that our embassy in Belgrade has no one in Zagreb. How can the people in Zagreb know what we think? How can we know what they think if we have no one there? It is perfectly possible to travel through Hungary from Belgrade to Zagreb by motor car. The world press are there. It seems extraordinary that we have no one from our embassy in Belgrade in Zagreb.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, does the noble Lord say that there is not even a consul in Zagreb? There always used to be.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, there is a consul, but he is not a very senior officer. He is there to deal with tourists, of whom there are not many at present. There is no political man. I have been in touch with the Foreign Office about that.
Thirdly, we must continue to investigate ways and means of assisting the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, in his task by considering those steps that I have suggested, none of which I am optimistic about. But somehow or other we have to create circumstances in which peace is possible and, above all, in which the war does not spread.
9.52 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Marquess for having tabled the Question and launched the debate. I did not find myself so much in agreement with the content of his speech as with the fact that he has given us the opportunity to discuss the issue.
There is an air of unreality about the matter. Here we are, in November 1991, considering the minutiae of politics in the Balkans. One expects Palmerston to walk through the door and somehow or other impose a solution, as though in this day and age it were possible to produce 19th century answers to what is in many ways an historical problem. In that respect I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter.
However, the disintegration of Yugoslavia and its plunge into civil war raise the terrible spectre of unrest which could emerge as the countries of Eastern Europe—not only Yugoslavia but others—attempt to come to terms with the collapse of Communism. For all its faults, it provided a national framework and a central discipline. It managed on the whole to keep ethnic disputes under control, or at least prevent them from exploding. Coming to terms with the collapse of the regime under which they have lived for so long, and with the pressures that are now involved in developing new political and socio-economic systems, is a dangerous situation. It worries me greatly.
It is apparent that the changes which now sweep through Eastern Europe have brought to boiling point ethnic divisions and conflicts that have been simmering for years and which have remained dormant. Significant numbers of ethnic groups which were previously denied the right to express their national, cultural and political identities are now demanding those rights with what I can only describe as restless intensity. Unfortunately, the demands that they make are almost invariably hostile and mutually exclusive to each other with the danger that conflict will spread from Yugoslavia throughout the region.
The war in Yugoslavia illustrates too the terrible dangers that are posed by a virulent nationalism based sometimes on prejudice and bigotry rather than on any concept of mutual respect or tolerance, and upon the idea that historical grievances can now he resolved in "our" favour. If that is happening—I caught that from the flavour of the noble Earl's speech and he

1001
knows the country better than me—it is dangerous not only to Yugoslavia but to Eastern Europe as a whole. One must recognise that many countries, especially the Soviet Union, have the same inherent potential for self-destruction given the ethnic divisions and traditional enmities existing between many of the nationalities within their borders. It is critical to keep the genie inside the bottle if possible.
In such a situation one inevitably asks what we can do. It was emphasised in the debate that, like everyone else, the Serbs and the Croats are prisoners of their own history. The Serbs have never forgiven nor forgotten the war when thousands of their people were massacred by the Croats. The Croats have never forgotten their fear of being dominated by a more powerful Serbia. It is a dangerous brew.
In terms of finding a solution we on this side of the House fully support the current European Community and United Nations mediation attempts. After all, they are aimed at securing a cease-fire and promoting negotiations that could eventually produce a diplomatic settlement.
I join other noble Lords in paying the warmest tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. He has exhibited immense skill and courage in his untiring efforts to secure such a settlement. But, sadly, the fighting continues. It illustrates the extent to which the Federal Army and the Serbian and Croatian paramilitaries appear to be beyond political control. Therefore, the European Community has imposed sanctions against Yugoslavia.
Perhaps the Minister can outline the progress being made in the enforcement of those sanctions and in the implementation of the United Nations arms embargo. In the context of the United Nations it would be helpful if the Minister could indicate whether the Government have discussed the matter with other permanent members of the Security Council and whether they will sponsor a Security Council resolution proposing comprehensive international sanctions. What happens in New York at this stage could have considerable significance in the quest for a diplomatic solution.
Despite the continuing violence it has become evident during the past couple of weeks that President Tudjman of Croatia and President Milosevic of Serbia may—and I emphasise the word "may"—be willing to consider the deployment of a United Nations peacekeeping force. Admittedly there are enormous divisions between them in relation to the nature of that peacekeeping force and to its placement and proposed deployment. It remains to be seen whether they are acting in good faith. But it may represent a genuine tentative attempt to find a peaceful solution. As such we must examine the attempts with seriousness and urgency. I hope that this development, combined with the arrival of the UN mission to Yugoslavia last Monday to investigate the possibility of a peacekeeping force being sent to that country, together with the efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will finally produce an effective cease-fire and establish the dialogue which could lead to meaningful negotiations on both sides.
1002
Once there is a real cease-fire many things will become possible. Without a cease-fire those same things will remain intractable. By definition peacekeeping means that there is a peace to be kept. It is a different concept from peacemaking which implies that somehow somebody will impose a solution. I cannot see anybody imposing a solution in the present situation in Yugoslavia. First, any solution that is imposed is inherently weak because it is imposed. Secondly, who will do the imposing? I cannot believe for one moment that the European Community nor the United Nations will do so. If I were a member of the United Nations and were asked to contribute to a peacekeeping force in Yugoslavia I should have the gravest of anxieties before committing any of my forces into that part of the world.
In the present mood, I can only echo what the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said. There is no magic immediate solution to this problem. The parties have to want a solution and, frankly, I am not yet convinced that they do. The most we can realistically hope for at present is that the combined diplomatic efforts of the United Nations and the European Community will produce on both sides a recognition of this basic truth.
To move from where we are in Yugoslavia to a situation analogous to the Cyprus one, which has been mentioned, requires, first, that both sides should wish to have that type of solution. Secondly, it requires that they should agree on where a peacekeeping force should go, which means that they would have to agree at least on the de facto boundaries between the two potential or prospective combatants. Thirdly, they would have to be prepared to give very strict undertakings indeed as to the safety of any peacekeeping forces that were put in. So we are a very long way, as I see it, from a Cyprus-type solution.
We have seen in recent days television footage, and indeed we have read in the press, of the events that have followed the fall of Vukovar. The federal army really must take all necessary steps to ensure that there are no reprisals against Croat civilians or members of the Croat armed forces. The European Community observers have played an important mediating role in this conflict, and we should pay tribute to them for their brave efforts. Those officials are currently in Vukovar and it would be useful to know whether the Government have any information as to the extent to which the Community has been informed by them in relation to the surrender and the treatment of those surrendering.
The other problem, of course, is that the intensity of the fighting reduces the scope for getting humanitarian relief into the country. I do not think anybody in this House would doubt the need for sending humanitarian relief or, indeed, would be against that. I think we would all be massively in favour of it. However, I should be grateful if the noble Lord could outline the progress that has been made in allocating and distributing humanitarian aid and in bringing into effect the plan proposed by the French and the Italians to evacuate children from Dubrovnik and other cities along the Adriatic coast.

1003
I am afraid that what I have had to say is somewhat bleak. I do not apologise for that because it is a somewhat bleak situation. Unless one recognises the realities of the problem there one cannot sweep away the illusions. The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, spoke about the illusions that some people on the Croatian side have. Such beliefs are indeed illusory. Nobody is going to come in on a white charger and sort out the problems of Yugoslavia. Those problems will have to be sorted out by the Yugoslays themselves, though I think that the international community as a whole will do its very best to aid the process and indeed to emulsify the whole affair.
I hope that the Government for their part will be prepared to play an active role in the process. I am sure that they will. I also hope that the Minister's speech may perhaps not be quite so bleak as the one that I have felt obliged to make to the House tonight.
Lord Morris: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down. may I ask him a simple question, particularly bearing in mind the realpolitik of the situation and the absence of peace? Also, particularly bearing in mind that the noble Lord is a most distinguished lawyer and diplomatist, may I ask what his reaction is in the context of this very sorry story to the one fundamental principle that has flowed from the history of the United Nations since 1945; namely, the principle of self-determination? Would he care to comment on that?
Lord Richard: My Lords, the other side of the principle of self-determination, I have to say to the noble Lord, is the other principle which has been enshrined within the United Nations since it started: that the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of a member state. It has always been difficult to reconcile that principle, which is enshrined in Article 2(7) of the Charter and which indeed is one of the pillars of the United Nations, with the other impetus, if I may put it that way, which is the one to which the noble Lord referred.
Legally, I suppose, the answer is that one recognises the country first. It becomes a separate country and then the other provisions of the charter, other than Article 2(7), come into play. However, recognition of a country in the situation in which Yugoslavia now is is something which needs to be approached delicately and in concert with our European allies.
The noble Lord puts his finger on one of the great problems of United Nations law. He has provoked me on one of my favourite topics. Perhaps at this hour of the night one should not be provoked. However, a great deal of thought is going into trying to devise a corpus of law in circumstances in which the principle of non-intervention should be eroded. I do not believe that we are anywhere near producing such a corpus.
The Marquess of Tweeddale: My Lords, perhaps I may return to something said by the noble Lord to the effect that neither the Serbs nor the Croats want a solution. The Croats simply want the Serbian army off their territory.
Lord Richard: My Lords, with respect, it is not as simple as that. There was an ethnic Serbian minority
1004
inside Croatia. That minority had preoccupations and concerns that were recognised by the Serbian government in Belgrade. Until they are recognised it is not simply a boundary dispute between two gentle neighbours; it is a dispute which has historical and fundamental origins. Somehow or other each side must recognise that the other has a case. I am sorry to say that I do not believe either party is yet in that position.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that the obvious principle of self-determination is respect for and protection of minorities?
Lord Richard: My Lords, certainly one can say that. Before I sit down for the final time perhaps I may point out that I really am not the Minister.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I believe we have enough on our plates this evening without discussing that possibility. It is a serious situation.
I warmly welcome this opportunity to debate the tragic situation in Yugoslavia. The sieges of Vukovar and Dubrovnik have been on our television screens daily. Those images have recalled the horrors of past conflicts and bloodshed which we thought we had eradicated from Europe. A civil war in our continent in the late 20th century is indeed a terrible anachronism.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, in the debate on the address, rightly alluded to the ancient division between Serbs and Croats, 1.500 years of religious and cultural division, and the wartime massacres which killed probably 800,000 people and left a legacy of bitterness and distrust which will he hard to overcome. Unbridled nationalism can still have great destructive force. Moreover, our international political institutions are largely powerless to impose solutions on conflicts within the borders of individual states, as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said. Although the crisis has now developed many international ramifications, the Serbs and Croats will ultimately have to make peace between themselves. No final settlement can be imposed from outside.
Our overriding concern, and that of our EC partners, is to bring an end to the killing and destruction. The EC Presidency, under the forceful direction of Mr. van den Broek, has made every effort to establish lasting ceasefires. Since September, when the conference on Yugoslavia opened in The Hague, my noble friend Lord Carrington has also been searching tirelessly for peace. I join other noble Lords in praising his efforts. But 12 successive ceasefire agreements collapsed because of a lack of will on either side to respect them. That gives the measure of the depth of suspicion and hostility between the two sides. Unfortunately, it has also demonstrated that the politicians in Belgrade and Zagreb no longer control the military forces which they have unleashed. The private militias on both sides must clearly be brought under political control and demobilized.
In the past few days there has been an important and possibly helpful development. The Serbian

1005
political and military leaders have said that they are willing to withdraw from Croatia and leave the protection of the Serbian communities to a UN force. The Secretary-General's special representative, Mr. Cyrus Vance, is now in Yugoslavia and will report to the Secretary-General shortly on whether there is a basis for a peace-keeping operation. The conditions which will apply will be that there must be a durable ceasefire; that all the parties must want such a force; and that it should seem likely to contribute to a political settlement. Until these conditions are met, any force which intervened would risk being drawn into the conflict and might have the greatest difficulty in extracting itself.
In addition to working for a lasting ceasefire the EC is trying to provide humanitarian help for the victims of the fighting, especially in Vukovar and Dubrovnik. The main agency involved is the International Red Cross. WEU Foreign Ministers agreed in Bonn on 18th November to consider humanitarian help including the possible use of naval ships. Naturally we hope that this will not be needed and that the relief agencies will not be impeded in their vital work.
I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, in that regard that this country's total humanitarian aid now stands at £1.5 million. I can also tell him that EC monitors are working hard this evening to ensure that Vukovar hospital is evacuated. I can also tell the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that EC monitors have not so far reported atrocities in Vukovar. We hope that that remains the situation.
Moves to deal with the military and humanitarian aspects of the conflict must be accompanied by efforts to find a political solution. My noble friend Lord Carrington has been meeting in The Hague with representatives of all the Yugoslav parties and has produced draft proposals for a loose association of sovereign republics. These provide for political and economic links, as well as guarantees for minority rights. We see these as an essential part of any outcome, since the rights of the Serbs in Croatia are at the heart of the present conflict. Unfortunately, progress was blocked by objections from several republics and the conference has been in abeyance since 5th November. This followed a deterioration in the situation because of the federal army's cynical aggression against Dubrovnik, a city of no military significance.
On 8th November EC Ministers therefore adopted a number of economic measures, including the suspension of the trade and co-operation agreement with Yugoslavia, in order to bring pressure to bear on those responsible for the violence. At the same time Ministers requested the UN Security Council to look urgently at the question of a mandatory oil embargo. We are co-authors with France and Belgium of a draft resolution imposing an oil embargo. Comprehensive sanctions would be a much bigger question and we must go first for what might be attainable.
It is clear that Serbia, supported by the federal army, bears the greatest responsibility for this tragedy. If the current ceasefire fails to hold, and violence resumes, then we must ensure that an oil embargo is
1006
put in place. Fuel is the life-blood of any military machine and the army must be brought to a halt. At the same time we must ensure that the arms embargo which was put in place by the UN Security Council on 25th September, is rigidly enforced. As the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said, sanctions are not an immediate panacea and will take time to bite. But I believe that we cannot afford to overlook any step which will help to restore sanity and bring peace to a war-ravaged country.
Some have argued, as the noble Marquess, Lord Tweeddale, argued tonight, that the EC has failed to deploy the only really effective weapon against Serbia: namely, immediate recognition of the independence of Slovenia and Croatia. Like my noble friend Lord Lauderdale, we have considerable reservations about this course. Long-term stability of the region must be based on respect for minority rights. We should use the leverage of non-recognition to ensure that satisfactory mechanisms for protecting ethnic minorities are first put in place. Quite rightly, Croatia wishes to recover the whole of its territory, but it has been very slow to recognise that the many Serbs living there have genuine fears and grievances. It is impossible to envisage any kind of stable relationship between these two republics unless Serbs feel safe in Croatia, and vice versa. Finally, premature recognition of Croatia and Slovenia would, we fear, precipitate crises in other republics, notably Macedonia and Bosnia. These two would feel reluctantly obliged to go down the path of early recognition; but given the national and racial complexities this would, I fear, lead to serious violence there too.
The noble Marquess, Lord Tweeddale, and the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, referred to the possibility of air interdiction. That would need a United Nations Security Council resolution; otherwise it would be illegal. We would be unlikely to get such a resolution at present as third world countries would oppose.
My noble friend Lord Lauderdale referred to BBC World Service coverage. The service has already improved by beginning to broadcast in both Serb and Croat.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, before my noble friend leaves that point, will he take on board a further suggestion? Arrangements should be made as soon as possible both in Zagreb and Belgrade for the monitors to have access to television and radio.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I was just coming to that point. The monitors are not trained broadcasters. They have the practical task of negotiating prisoner exchanges, local ceasefires and so on. I do not believe that they should be distracted from that task. Nevertheless, I take note of what my noble friend has suggested.
My noble friend Lord Montagu quite rightly referred to the damage to the historical site of Dubrovnik. The best protection for historical and religious sites is an overall settlement. We strongly condemn the damage done to Dubrovnik and to cultural sites and churches throughout Croatia. As I said before, Dubrovnik is of no military value

1007
whatsoever. The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, referred to the embassy staff. We do not have anyone based permanently in Zagreb but embassy staff from Belgrade travel regularly to that city.
In conclusion, I should like to emphasise that we shall not weaken in our efforts to achieve a peaceful outcome to this crisis. It will not be easy and it may take time. But we cannot deny the peoples of Yugoslavia the right, enjoyed by the rest of Europe, to determine their own future. The future shape of Yugoslavia cannot be decided by force, against the wishes of the majority of the population. We therefore hope that the United Nations will be able to stabilise the situation and that the Hague conference will be allowed to resume. The effects of the violence will be longlating; but, at the end of the day, the peoples of
1008
the region will have to accept that they must co-exist in the same part of Europe. We and our partners will do all we can to help.

London Underground (King's Cross) Bill
Brought from the Commons, read a first time, and referred to the Examiners.

Consolidation Bills: Joint Committee
A message was brought from the Commons that they agree that the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills should meet at half-past four o'clock on Wednesday 27th November in Committee Room 3a, as proposed by the Lords.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes past ten o'clock.

  WASTE INCINERATORS: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
  WASTE INCINERATORS: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
  ORTON AND VERA CHIRWA
  ORTON AND VERA CHIRWA
  SEA FISH INDUSTRY AUTHORITY: FUTURE ROLE
  SEA FISH INDUSTRY AUTHORITY: FUTURE ROLE
  ORKNEY INQUIRY
  ORKNEY INQUIRY
  SCOTTISH LEGAL AID: ADMINISTRATION COSTS
  SCOTTISH LEGAL AID: ADMINISTRATION COSTS
  SCOTTISH SCHOOLS: ADMINISTRATION
  SCOTTISH SCHOOLS: ADMINISTRATION