Sitting of 21 November 1991

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

    BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)
    Order for consideration, as amended, read.
    To be considered on Thursday 28 November.

  MOTIONS FOR UNOPPOSED RETURNS

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Return ordered, for Session 1990–91 of—

    (1) the total number of Questions to Ministers or other Members which stood on the Order Paper, distinguishing
    398
    those set down for oral, written priority and written answer respectively, the number of days upon which replies to Questions for oral answer were given in the House; and the total number of Questions for oral answer to which such answers were given in the House;

    (2) the total number of Notices of Motions given for an early day;

    (3) the number of Members ordered to withdraw from the House under Standing Order No. 42 (Disorderly conduct), showing separately the orders given in the House and those given in Committee; and the Members suspended from the service of the House under Standing Order No. 43 (Order in debate) or otherwise, distinguishing whether the offence was committed in the House or in Committee, the period of such suspension, the number of occasions on which more than one Member was so suspended having jointly disregarded the authority of the Chair, and the number of occasions on which the attention of the House was called to the need for recourse to force to compel obedience to Mr. Speaker's direction; and

    (4) the number of public petitions presented to the House distinguishing separately those brought to the Table at the times specified by Standing Order No. 133 (Time and manner of presenting petitions).—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

    CLOSURE OF DEBATE AND ALLOCATION OF TIME
    Return ordered, for Session 1990–91 of—
    (a) applications of Standing Order No. 35 (Closure of debate)—

    (1) in the House and in Committee of the whole House, under the following heads:

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    Date when Closure claimed, and by whom

    Question before House or Committee when claimed

    Whether in House or Committee

    Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by the Chair

    Assent withheld because, in the opinion of the Chair, a decision would shortly be arrived at without that Motion

    Result of Motion and, if a Division, Numbers for and against

    and

    (2) in Standing Committees under the following heads:

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    Date when Closure claimed, and by whom

    Question before Committee when claimed

    Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by the Chair

    Assent withheld because, in the opinion of the Chair, a decision would shortly be arrived at without that Motion

    Result of Motion, and, if a Division, Numbers for and against

    and

    (b) applications of Standing Order No. 28 (Powers of Chair to propose question)—

    (1) in the House and in Committee of the whole House, under the following heads:

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    Date when Closure claimed, and by whom

    Whether in House or Committee

    Whether claimed in respect of Motion or Amendment

    Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by the Chair

    Result of Motion, and, if a Division, Numbers for and against

    and

    (1) in Standing Committee under the following heads:

    1

    2

    3

    4

    Date when Closure claimed, and by whom

    Whether claimed in respect of Motion or Amendment

    Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by the Chair

    Result of Motion, and, if a Division, Numbers for and against

    and
    (c) the number of Bills in respect of which allocation of time orders (distinguishing where appropriate orders supplementary to a previous order) were made under Standing Order No. 81 (Allocation of Time to Bills), showing in respect of each Bill—

    (i) the number of sittings allotted to the consideration of the Bill in Standing Committee by any report of a Business Sub-Committee under Standing Order No. 103 (Business sub-committees) agreed to by the Standing Committee, and the number of sittings of the Standing Committee pursuant thereto; and

    (ii) the number of days or portions of days allotted by the allocation of time order and any supplementary order to the consideration of the Bill at any stage in the House or in committee, together with the number of days upon which proceedings were so taken in the House or in committee.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

    DELEGAIED LEGISLATION
    Return ordered, for Session 1990–91 of—

    (A) the numbers of Instruments subject to the different forms of parliamentary procedure and those for which no parliamentary procedure is prescribed by statute (1) laid before the House; and (2) considered by the Joint Committee
    400
    and Select Committee on Statutory Instruments respectively pursuant to their orders of reference, setting out the grounds on which Instruments may be drawn to the special attention of the House under Standing Order No. 124 (Statutory Instruments (Joint Committee)) and specifying the number of Instruments so reported under each of these grounds; and

    (B) The numbers of Instruments considered by a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c., and by the House

    401
    respectively, showing the number where the Question on the proceedings relating thereto was put forthwith under Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

    PRIVATE BILLS AND PRIVATE BUSINESS
    Return ordered, for Session 1990–91 of—

    (1) the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, Bills for the confirmation of Orders under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders introduced into this House, and brought from the House of Lords, and of Acts passed, specifying also the dates of the House's consideration of the several stages of such Bills;

    (2) all Private Bills, Hybrid Bills and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which were reported on by Committees on Opposed Bills or by Committees nominated by the House or partly by the House and partly by the Committee of Selection, together with the names of the selected Members who served on each Committee; the first and also the last day of the sitting of each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; the number of days on which each selected Member served; the number of days occupied by each Bill in Committee; the Bills of which the Preambles were reported to have been not proved; and in the case of Bills for confirming Provisional Orders, whether the Provisional Order ought or ought not to be confirmed;

    (3) all Private Bills and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which were referred by the Committee of Selection to the Committee on unopposed Bills, together with the names of the Members who served on the Committee; the number of days on which the Committee sat; and the number of days on which each Member attended;

    (4) the number of Bills to confirm Orders under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, distinguishing those proceeded with under section 7 and under section 9 respectively; specifying, in the case of Bills proceeded with under section 9 against which petitions were deposited, whether a motion was made to refer the Bill to a Joint Committee, and if so whether such motion was agreed to, withdrawn, negatived or otherwise disposed of; and stating for each Joint Committee to which a Bill was referred the names of the Members of this House nominated thereto, the first and last day of the Committee's sitting, the number of days on which each Joint Committee sat for the consideration of the Bill referred to it, the number of days on which each Member of the Committee served, and whether the Committee reported that the order ought or ought not to be confirmed;

    (5) the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, Bills for the confirmation of Orders under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders withdrawn or not proceeded with by the parties, those Bills being specified which were referred to Committees and dropped during the sittings of the Committee; and

    (6) the membership, work costs and staff of the Court of Referees and the Standing Orders Committee.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

    PUBLIC BILLS
    Return ordered, for Session 1990–91 of—
    The number of Public Bills (other than Bills to confirm Provisional Orders and Bills to confirm Orders under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936) distinguishing Government from other Bills, introduced into this House, or brought from the House of Lords, showing: (1) the number which received the Royal Assent, and (2) the number which did not receive the Royal Assent, indicating those which were introduced into but not passed by this House, those passed by this House but not by the House of Lords, those passed by the House of Lords but not by this House, those passed by both Houses but Amendments not agreed to; and distinguishing the stages at which such Bills were dropped, postponed or rejected in either House of Parliament,
    402
    or the stages which such Bills had reached by the time of Prorogation.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

    SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
    Return ordered, for Session 1990–91 of—
    the days on which the House sat; stating for each day the day of the month and day of the week, the hour of the meeting, and the hour of the adjournment; the total numbers of hours occupied in the sittings of the House; and the average time; showing the number of hours on which the House sat each day and the number of hours after the time appointed for the interruption of business; and specifying, for each principal type of business before the House, how much time was spent thereon, distinguishing from the total the time spent after the hour appointed for the interruption of business.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

    SPECIAL PROCEDURE ORDERS
    Return ordered, for Session 1990–91 of—

    (1) the number of Special Procedure Orders presented, the number withdrawn; the number annulled; the number against which Petitions or copies of Petitions were deposited; the number of Petitions of General Objection and for Amendment respectively considered by the Chairmen; the number of such petitions certified by the Chairmen as proper to be received and the number certified by them as being Petitions of General Objection and for Amendment respectively; the number referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses; the number reported with Amendments by a Joint Committee, and the number in relation to which a Joint Committee reported that the Order be not approved and be amended respectively; and the number of Bills introduced for the confirmation of Special Procedure Orders; and

    (2) Special Procedure Orders which were referred to a Joint Committee, together with the names of the Commons Members who served on each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; and the number of days on which each such Member attended.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

    STANDING COMMITTEES
    Return ordered, for Session 1990–91 of—
    (1) the total number and the names of all Members (including and distinguishing Chairmen) who have been appointed to serve on one or more Standing Committees showing, with regard to each of such Members, the number of sittings to which he was summoned and at which he was present; (2) the number of Bills, Estimates, Matters and other items referred to Standing Committees pursuant to Standing Order No. 101 (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.), or Standing Order 102 (European Standing Committees) considered by all and by each of the Standing Committees, the number of sittings of each Committee and the titles of all Bills, Estimates, Matters and other items as above considered by a Committee, distinguishing where a Bill was a Government Bill or was brought from the House of Lords, and showing in the case of each Bill, Estimate, Matter and other item, the particular Committee by which it was considered, the number of sittings at which it was considered (including, in the case of the Scottish Grand Committee, the number of Meetings held in Edinburgh, pursuant to a motion made under Standing Order No. 94(3) (Scottish Grand Committee)) and the number of Members present at each of those sittings; and (3) the membership, work costs and staff of the Chairmen's Panel.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

    SELECT COMMITTEES
    Return ordered, for Session 1990–91 of—
    statistics relating to the membership, work costs and staff of Select Committees (other than the Standing Orders Committee).—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Surplus Food and Drink
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total volume and value of surplus food and drink stocks in (a) the United Kingdom and (b) the European Community.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Gummer): We place volume figures in the Library each month. The latest values are £197 million in the United Kingdom and £2,297 million in the European Community.
    Mr. Canavan: As the amount of surplus food is even greater than last year, will the Government ensure that at the forthcoming Maastricht summit a high priority is given to the eradication of the absurd and immoral common agricultural policy? Until that is done, will the Government adopt a more generous attitude towards pensioners and others on low incomes by distributing more of the surplus food to them, especially in the lead-up to the Christmas season?
    Mr. Gummer: I note that the hon. Gentleman has signified his opposition to the Labour party's policy of abject surrender to the rest of Europe in a motion that he has signed. He has again pointed to the immense divisions in the Labour party on the subject of Europe. It would have been better if he had understood that this is not a subject for Maastricht. It is under immediate and continual discussion in the European Council of Agriculture Ministers, which is undertaking a wholesale reform of the common agricultural policy. That reform has been demanded by the Government and I intend to ensure that it is to the benefit of farmers, consumers and taxpayers alike.
    Mr. Robert Banks: Will my right hon. Friend do all that he can to ensure that surplus food within the Community and outside is sent as quickly as possible to the Soviet Union and eastern European countries, where there are cases of terrible poverty and a shortage of foodstuffs? I should be grateful if he would do all that he can for them.
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right to point to the distinction between free enterprise in western Europe, where we have too much food, and to eastern Europe under the socialist system which has too little. We are trying to increase the amount of triangular trade, which enables the former socialist countries of eastern Europe to provide for the needs of the Soviet Union, as they used to do. We shall be funding that through the generous offers of the European Community and the bilateral offers that we have been making.
    Mr. Ron Davies: Does the Minister agree that the MacSharry proposals, which are supposed to deal with the excesses of the common agricultural policy will, if accepted, breach the legally agreed budgetary guidelines for several years to come? Will the Minister continue to press in the Council for a reduction in commodity price support and in export restitutions? Will he also press for an
    404
    increase in resources diverted to environmental payments? Finally, will he give a firm guarantee to the House that he will veto any agreement that leads to a breach of those budgetary guidelines?
    Mr. Gummer: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making those points, but I was surprised that he did not put first the fact that my duty is to fight to ensure that British farmers, taxpayers and consumers are not disadvantaged by the MacSharry proposals. The fact that the hon. Gentleman did not include that in his list shows that Labour Members have no interest in British farming and it betrays their total lack of farming policies.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. Friend accept that farmers in this country are pleased by his efforts to encourage triangular trade, thus stopping products from eastern Europe flooding and undermining the market in Britain?
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend would agree that we must make greater access available for eastern European products, but that they should be at a price that produces a significant return to enable eastern European countries to uphold the growth in their economies, rather than be used as a source of cheap imports, the profits going to the processors in western Europe. Triangular trade helps in that mix. I still want greater access, but I want it at a price that benefits the economies that we are trying to support.

    Ducks
    Mr. Salmond: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to agree to a meeting to discuss the case of Mr. Johnston, a constituent of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, and the slaughter of his duck flock under Ministry regulations.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Maclean): I have explained the Ministry's position to the hon. Member in two detailed letters and there would be nothing that I could add at a meeting.
    Mr. Salmond: The Minister knows the background to this case. My constituent, Mr. Johnston, lost everything due to a salmonella outbreak on his duck farm. There are legitimate questions that he wishes to pursue about whether the Ministry's policies have been consistent in respect of, first, the Grampian outbreak and, secondly, the outbreak of salmonella at the Kent supplier to the Grampian duck farm. Why has it taken the Ministry seven weeks to reply to my letter asking for a meeting, merely to say no? Is the Minister aware that the replies so far do not satisfy the legitimate questions asked by myself, by my constituent and by the medical officers in Grampian region? Does he acknowledge the right of hon. Members to seek meetings to defend the interests of their constituents? If not, why not?
    Mr. Maclean: I often meet hon. Members where there are appropriate issues to discuss. As has already been explained to the hon. Gentleman, the policy has been applied evenly and consistently in this case and his constituent has now gone to arbitration. However, in view of the hon. Gentleman's outrageous comments on the radio this week, I shall be delighted to give a full public

    405
    account of our policy and the conditions on Sharnidubs farm and I shall put them on the record in the House if the hon. Gentleman applies for a debate.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree—Hon. Members: Sit down.
    Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.
    Mr. Speaker: As I had already called the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), he had better ask his supplementary question. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I had already called him and he had started his supplementary.
    Mr. Walker: Whatever the merit or otherwise of the case in question, does my hon. Friend read into it that the Scottish National party is calling for different standards in Scotland? Are those standards likely to be higher or lower than the standards in England?
    Mr. Maclean: The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) seems to be implying that there is an English duck conspiracy against Scottish ducks. The state veterinary service operates over the whole country and applies even and consistent standards. Many of the excellent Scottish food producers whom I meet are proud that in the United Kingdom standards are among the finest in Europe and they want to keep them that way.

    Sugar Beet Growers
    Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received from sugar beet growers in Norfolk.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): We are in frequent contact with sugar beet growers about rhizomania.
    Mr. Bellingham: The beet growers in my constituency are very happy with the Government's policy on ducks. Is my hon. Friend aware, however, that those beet growers have had a black cloud hanging over their operations in recent years because of the threat of rhizomania? Although, mercifully, there has not been an outbreak this year, a number of farmers have been affected during the last few years, with great consequences for their livelihood and farms. Is not it time that the Government had a comprehensive policy and package for dealing with the problem?
    Mr. Curry: The Government have a comprehensive policy, which is to be absolutely categorical in preventing the spread of rhizomania. Had we not held the line last year, we may not have had a test of more than 2,300 samples this year with no results being positive. However, I wish to maintain the flexibility to deal with individual circumstances. We have done that, which is why I am not prepared to lay down a categorical guideline that would hinder my ability to be flexible within the bounds of keeping that disease under control.

    Live Animals (Transport)
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the minimum value system for the transport of horses will be maintained.
    Mr. Carrington: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement on the recent agreement in the Agriculture Council on the transport of horses and other animals.
    Mr. Gummer: The Government have successfully negotiated in the Agriculture Council the retention of our controls designed to prevent the export of horses and ponies for slaughter. The Council also agreed to return to the issue at a later stage with a view to setting special welfare conditions for all transport of horses in the Community.
    Mr. Butler: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on that splendid achievement. Will he assure the House that in future he will repel attacks on traditional British practices?
    Mr. Gummer: In fact, we have been defending a traditional British non-practice. I should like to extend our attitude towards all animals, especially horses, to other countries in the Community. We have much to learn from them about a number of matters—not least, for example, the way some of them treat children. However, they could learn a great deal from us about how to treat animals, and I intend to take that line continually in the Council.
    Mr. Carrington: My right hon. Friend will know that there is still grave concern about how our European Community partners treat animals in their husbandry and farming. Will he ensure that the best practices that are common in this country become European Community policy and enforceable in other European countries?
    Mr. Gummer: I am very much encouraged by the number of other countries in the European Community that are beginning to accept our views on those matters. In the meantime, we shall continue to set the example. I hope that those people who press me for higher welfare standards in this country will remember that it costs money. When they buy veal or pigmeat products, I hope that they will remember that they should buy them from the country where standards are the highest.
    Mr. Geraint Howells: I congratulate the Minister on his stand and achievements. I am sure that he has read the latest survey from Europe, according to which British farmers are farming at a loss while their counterparts in Holland and Greece are farming at a profit. Why does that happen?
    Mr. Gummer: First, it is characteristically kind of the hon. Gentleman to offer his congratulations when they are in order. I much appreciate that. The second half of his question is not necessarily connected with the first. British farming is under considerable pressure at the moment, which is why I am fighting hard against the suggestion that we should discriminate in some way against British farmers, who are characterised in the rest of Europe as being better off than their European partners. That is not so and we must show that family farms in Britain need the same support as family farms elsewhere in Europe.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: The Minister will be aware of the excellent resolution that came out of European Standing Committee A, saying that the Government should stand by legislation on the transport of animals. There are 15 pieces of such legislation. Will the Minister assure us that

    407
    the resolution, as adopted by the House, is being pursued rigorously in the Council of Ministers? Is the current deal temporary or permanent?
    Mr. Gummer: I much appreciate the support that has been given by that Committee. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that, on this specific question, we have managed to get the Community to accept much higher standards on the transport of live animals—much closer to what we stand for—than it ever has. There are still additional points to be discussed before those decisions can be reached, including specific hours, for which we must press. I undertake to the House that I shall continue to make that a very high priority.
    I am as yet the only Minister in the Community who takes animal welfare matters seriously. I am increasingly gaining support from our Dutch and German friends and I hope ultimately to have everyone's support. [Laughter.] Those who think the subject amusing should remember that animal welfare is of considerable importance to the House, not something about which to make jokes.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend accept the thanks and congratulations of all those who love man's very best friend, the horse, for his protective action on horses—
    Mr. Canavan: Speak for yourself.
    Mr. Greenway: Man also loves other animals, but his best friend is the horse.
    Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Commission's action is not final? Will he promise the House and the nation that he will not rest until it is guaranteed that minimum values on horses dedicated for export from this country will be preserved and our excellent attitude towards horses and other animals is spread throughout the rest of the Community?
    Mr. Gummer: I thank my hon. Friend. I hope that he knows that I have fought hard on the issue and shall continue to do so, not only to defend our attitude towards animals in Britain, but to spread those attitudes to other countries. I find the nationalistic view that we should defend animals only in this country somewhat odd. As a strong supporter of our membership of the Community, I want to use the basis of our membership to spread more widely our general attitude to animal welfare, which is supported by Conservatives and giggled at by the Opposition.

    Fish Lorries
    Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has made to the French Government concerning the blockade of British fish lorries at Boulogne and Dieppe.
    Mr. Curry: We have raised the incident of the blockade of a fish lorry with the French authorities. It is just as serious as the interruption of meat exports.
    Mr. Foulkes: Was the Minister able to get down to room W6 this morning, as I did, and buy the excellent fish provided by the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) and my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), which was being sold in aid of Children in Need? If he did, he would be fortified to say to his French counterpart—as I hope he will—that British
    408
    fishermen are subject to exactly the same European Community rules as French fishermen. Therefore, were there to be another blockade such as that which stopped fish lorries from Ayrshire and Aberdeen without the French force of law and order being mobilised, it would be wholly unacceptable to the United Kingdom Government.
    Mr. Curry: The answer to the first question is yes. I bought one monkfish and four kippers, to be precise. I am willing to exchange monkfish recipes, but most of mine are French.
    I take the hon. Gentleman's point about blockades, whether of fish or meat. French farmers are trying to take away the livelihoods of British farmers and fishermen, instead of getting together to try to sort out the problems that afflict us all. When I next meet him I shall put that point forcefully to the French Minister, as I have in the past.
    Mr. Dickens: Will my hon. Friend make it crystal clear to his counterpart in France that if the French people continue to block our goods, the British people might fight fire with fire by blockading frogs, snails, wine and cheese?
    Mr. Curry: A few months ago, I opened a British snail exhibition and I have introduced the English quality wine scheme. It seems that the British people can buy all the products that they want without recourse to French goods.

    Fishing Industry
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next intends to meet representatives of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations to discuss matters relating to the future of the fishing industry.
    Mr. Curry: I have regular meetings with the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, at which we discuss a wide range of subjects.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food gave guarantees on the dolphins population on 3 June this year. Can the Minister tell us how many dolphins have been killed as a result of drift-netting since 3 June?
    Mr. Curry: No, I cannot.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Five.
    Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman did not specify which boats, which drift nets or which ocean, which is why I could not give him a reply. Five were caught through drift-netting by British boats. The hon. Gentleman will know that as a result of the agreement that I reached in the Fisheries Council last month, drift-net fishery will, in practice, cease.
    Sir Michael Shaw: Is my hon. Friend aware that according to the salmon net fisheries report, administrative convenience is by no means an adequate reason for phasing out the north-east drift-net fishermen, whose trade has been pursued for many generations on that part of the coast?
    Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend will know that we published a report on the north-east coast drift-net fishery, which is a different matter from that raised by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). We

    409
    decided on a long-term phase-out because of the difficulty of management of stocks when it is a multi-species catch by drift net. Although it is a long-standing fishery, the introduction of monofilament net has meant a quantum leap in the technology applied to it. There is no threat to the stocks and that is why we decided on a long-term phase-out and said that fishermen would be allowed to finish their current licences. The National Rivers Authority has been invited to submit proposals, including one for a possible increase in fishing attached to the shore.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: On another aspect of the fishing industry and in particular conservation, can the Minister say, following Monday's meeting, what aspect of the eight-day tie-up he is prepared to be flexible about, given the serious threat, financial hardship and dangers that that tie-up is causing to the fishing industry? In advance of the meeting of the Council of Ministers, will he ensure that a constructive debate on the matter takes place with representatives of the fishing industry and that there will he no more childish outbursts from the Minister such as was witnessed recently in Fife?
    Mr. Curry: The hon. Lady knows that my door has always been open to the fishing organisations. That will continue to be the case. At the moment we do not have the proposals from Brussels which will go forward to the Fisheries Council in December. There are two important matters. First, we shall clearly need some continuation of effort controls, because conservation is paramount. Secondly, we shall seek significantly more flexibility in the way in which those controls are applied in the event of future controls as a result of the negotiations. By telling people the simple truth—that conservation matters must be taken seriously—my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is merely doing his job effectively.
    Mr. Michael Brown: The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and I were delighted to see my hon. Friend purchasing kippers and monkfish. As he eats the monkfish over the weekend and perhaps has the kippers tomorrow morning, will he ruminate on the call by the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations for a decommissioning scheme? He has written to me and to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby about the case, but the organisation feels that there is a need for such a scheme to bring fishing into balance with the number of vessels.
    Mr. Curry: I trust that my wife will cook my monkfish in a way that avoids rumination on the subject—[HON. MEMBERS: "French wife."] Yes, I have a French wife. We have made it clear to the fisheries' organisations that decommissioning could form part of a package, provided that it included long-term effective effort control measures. We have invited them to put such a package to us so that we can discuss it with them. I have already started the conversations and a constructive dialogue is under way. However, I insist that a package must contain effective long-term effort controls that go beyond mesh sizes and the sort of measures agreed recently by the Technical Conservation Council.
    Mr. Speaker: I am ruminating on whether fish should be sold in the House of Commons.
    Dr. David Clark: Does the Minister recall that, on 3 June, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food lost
    410
    his temper with me when I suggested that dolphins could be caught in a long drift net, and denied that that was so? Given his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Minister was wrong? Will he further confirm that, since the Fisheries Council meeting, European fishermen will still be allowed to use long drift nets for another two and a quarter years?
    Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman knows that when I went to the Fisheries Council the objective was to get the French on board. We had to get a deal that would bring all drift netting under control in the Community. Only five British but 60 French boats were involved. Therefore, if we had merely controlled the British fishermen, the majority of damage would have continued to be inflicted by other people. Therefore, we had to bring everyone under the same regulations. We achieved that only, after intervention by the French Prime Minister, by granting a limited extension to boats with a two-year track record in the fisheries. We had to pay the price, but it was a price worth paying because the alternative would have been no control at all, which would have been bad news for conservation, starting with the dolphins.

    Beef Industry
    Sir John Farr: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what new plans he has to improve returns in the beef industry.
    Mr. Curry: Returns in the beef sector can be improved only if a better balance between supply and demand is brought about on the market, and producers take positive action to supply what the consumer wants.
    Sir John Farr: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, but is he aware of the tremendous concern over the Irishification of British agriculture, and in particular of the despondence over the fact that the most efficient producers have their production capped, which only succeeds in putting up prices to the British housewife? When he next goes to Brussels to see Mr. MacSharry, will my hon. Friend make it clear that his proposals are unacceptable, and will he give real consideration to the possibility of Britain withdrawing altogether from the operation and manipulations of the CAP?
    Mr. Curry: On the last point, the United Kingdom is an integral part of the Community, and unilateral withdrawal from one part of it is not a practical policy. My right hon. Friend the Minister and I have said, since the introduction of Mr. MacSharry's proposals, that the idea of introducing capping and limits on what was eligible for repayment was fundamentally hostile to British agriculture. We have made that view apparent from the start, and will continue to do so as forcefully as we conceivably can.
    Mr. Corbett: I urge the Minister to take cooking lessons so that he can more properly take a share of household duties. Will he confirm that the best way to improve returns for beef producers is for the Government to give a lead in helping to move this trade from one that is on the hoof to one that is on the hook, so that beef producers can get full value for what they produce?
    Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman will know that there is a significant British export trade. We have recently got

    411
    British beef back into CAP reform for the first time for a number of years, which is a significant improvement to the situation. If meat is sold on the hook, like sheepmeat, the added value comes to the United Kingdom, but if people wish to buy British beef or British lamb on the hoof, the treaty of Rome does not permit us to prevent that sale. Furthermore, if that is what people want, we can make sure that when it is transported in good condition, it arrives in good condition, healthy and good both for the consumer and the animals concerned.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: How many more years will it take my hon. Friend to discover the obvious truth—that the only way in agricultural produce to relate supply and demand is by a quota system, such as that which exists for milk products?
    Mr. Curry: I remember the introduction of milk quotas and I recall the number of times that we have been obliged to cut the quotas because of the continued failure to match output with demand. We are faced with yet a new demand for a cut in milk quotas and it is precisely for that reason that it will take a long time to convince me that quotas are the answer.
    Dr. David Clark: Can the Minister explain why major British steak restaurants do not use a single ounce of European beef and say that this is because it lacks quality, when we have almost 1 million tonnes in intervention?
    Mr. Curry: Since I do not run any steak restaurants the answer to that is no. But I can tell them where they will get extremely good quality English beef, starting in my constituency. As I was buying fish early this morning, I shall undertake to bring the hon. Gentleman a sample of beef from my constituency where I live.
    Mr. Jopling: Is my hon. Friend aware that beef producers in the Lake district who, together with sheep producers, are having a difficult time, are rejoicing today following yesterday's announcement of the extension of the environmentally sensitive area scheme to the Lake district? The promise of many millions of pounds coming to their assistance demonstrates clearly that the Government are well aware of their problems and the need to preserve those beautiful areas.
    Mr. Curry: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. I recall that the first ESAs were designated when he was Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, so he is very much the author of the scheme. It is true that the scheme brings benefits to farmers, the landscape and all who live in and visit the countryside. It is rare to have a scheme that makes everyone happy, but this appears to be one of the few instances where that is so. I hope that we can discover more.

    Organic Farming
    Ms. Hoey: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what support is being given to increase the number of farmers using organic methods.
    Mr. Curry: In addition to that aid which is available to all farmers, we are financing research and development on organic farming systems and are grant aiding the United Kingdom register of organic food standards.
    Ms. Hoey: Research is important, but about two years ago the hon. Gentleman's Department announced the launch of a conversion scheme for organic farmers in Britain. More than 70 per cent. of organic produce in Britain is imported and support for German organic farmers is greater. Should not the Government be taking a lead in giving those British farmers who want to convert the same opportunities as continental farmers?
    Mr. Curry: The hon. Lady will know that we sought to introduce an organic conversion scheme, but at the time the Community regulations did not permit it. Similarly, we wanted a young entrants scheme for milk which was not possible. That has now been overtaken by the MacSharry proposals. We are aiming to introduce an organic conversion scheme in the course of the MacSharry reform because we believe that farmers should have that opportunity. Whether consumers want to buy and eat organic produce is a matter for them.
    Sir Richard Body: Will my hon. Friend bear it in mind that most of us who are organic farmers are receiving a premium of 25 per cent. above the market price, so we are not in need of the production subsidy to which he alluded? On the other hand, we welcome wholeheartedly the proposals for organic research in "Our Farming Future".
    Mr. Curry: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is important that in all these matters the market should decide whether it wants a product or not. Our job is to ensure that what purports to be an organic product is organic and not a false product, and that is what we have done. It is interesting to note that the previous Labour Government showed not the slightest interest in organic production.
    Mr. William Ross: What research has there been into the cost of producing food by organic means compared with the more usual methods? What sort of profits can farmers expect if they move completely to organic methods?
    Mr. Curry: I do not think that anyone is suggesting that there should be universal production of organic foods. As my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) said, organic foods command a premium and a significant proportion of such food is imported, so there is certainly scope to increase output in the United Kingdom. But the market must decide whether it wants such food and, if so, what sort of premium to pay for it. I do not think that we shall see universal organic production.

    Consultative Document
    Mr. Robert Hicks: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he hopes to publish his consultative document about the future of United Kingdom agriculture; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Gummer: The Government's statement on agriculture, "Our Farming Future", was published on 15 November.
    Mr. Hicks: I am sure that all concerned with agriculture and the future of the countryside will welcome that review. Does my right hon. Friend agree that farmers make a major contribution to the rural economy and that if that function is to continue, it is essential that, in the context of the CAP reforms, there should be no discrimination

    413
    against United Kingdom producers on the basis of farm size, and that payment for alternative forms of land use must be meaningful?
    Mr. Gummer: I thank my hon. Friend for his congratulations. I agree: payments must indeed be meaningful, and farmers must be paid for doing the job. We do not want to pay them for doing nothing; we want to pay them to look after the land properly. That is why we want environmental payments to be at the centre of agricultural reform, rather than being an extra.
    Mr. Hardy: Will the Minister give urgent consideration to a serious danger that is likely to develop as a result of the ban on stubble burning? There will almost certainly be a considerable increase in the use of pesticides and other farm poisons.
    Mr. Gummer: I would not designate pesticides "farm poisons". I think that, although we should use them to the minimum extent that is required, we should be grateful for the existence of pesticides, for without them we should not be able to feed our people so generously and valuably. I am well aware of the problem that the hon. Gentleman mentions, but I nevertheless feel that the Government were right to ban stubble burning, which I consider an unacceptable practice.
    Mr. Marland: I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend on his document "Our Farming Future". Does he believe that the day will ever dawn when we can begin to undo the harm done by the market-distorting subsidies that are given not only across the whole of agriculture, but across the European Community? The common agricultural policy has never cost so much money, yet the money never seems to be enough.
    Mr. Gummer: I agree. Paradoxically, at a time when the CAP is more expensive than ever before, farmers rightly complain that their incomes have diminished significantly. We need a reformed CAP that will do its job properly, and to do that we must be full, active and central members of the Community. I reject the remarks made earlier by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who said from a sedentary position, "We have had 20 minutes slagging off the common market", and then added—turning to his hon. Friends—"and now you are going to vote for it." That shows the extent of Labour's unity on the Common Market.

    Fishing Vessels (Decommissioning)
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to introduce a decommissioning scheme for fishing vessels.
    Mr. Curry: The Government are ready to consider a package of industry proposals which could include decommissioning, but only if it forms part of a wider conservation package aimed at reducing fishing effort.
    Mr. Campbell: I welcome the Minister's lukewarm conversion to the idea of a decommissioning scheme, but will he explain why it has taken so long? Fishing interests have long urged a change of attitude on the Government. Has it not been clear for some time that sensible conservation measures can be achieved only if the fishing fleet is restructured in a sensible way?
    Mr. Curry: I do not agree. It is important to distinguish between decommissioning as the sole instrument of conservation, and the other conservation measures that are necessary. It is simply not true to say that decommissioning by itself does anything for conservation; technical conservation and effort control must also be part of the process. As I have said, however, we are prepared to consider the possibility of a decommissioning scheme, provided that it is part of an overall conservation package. Conservation is, of course, important and I stress that fishing organisations must include it in their proposals if they wish to be taken seriously.
    Mr. Harris: I appreciate the difficulties that surround a decommissioning scheme and I agree with my hon. Friend that it is not a panacea. Does he agree, however, that the pressure for such a scheme to be introduced is likely to increase in view of the Commission's latest proposals—not yet made public—for some pretty hefty cuts in quota, not least for the south-west of England? Will he agree to receive an all-party delegation of Members of Parliament tO discuss the details of a scheme?
    Mr. Curry: I have already said that I will accept a delegation of hon. Members to discuss the possibility of decommissioning; in fact, I believe that a date has been agreed. Let me make it clear, however, that in accepting the delegation I am not accepting the principle of decommissioning. Conservation must be seen as a package. Effort control is part of that package; decommissioning could be part of it. I am having an extremely constructive dialogue with the fishing organisations and I hope that it will continue. The fact that that dialogue is beginning is due to the fishing industry's recent recognition that effort control matters.

    Milk Marketing Board
    Mr. Martlew: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the chairman of the Milk Marketing Board to discuss the board's future role.
    Mr. Knox: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he is next due to meet the chairman of the Milk Marketing Board to discuss the dairy sector.
    Mr. Gummer: I last met the chairman of the Milk Marketing Board on 6 November.
    Mr. Martlew: Is the Minister aware that the Milk Marketing Board has served the country well since 1933, especially in my area of Cumbria? Will the Minister acknowledge that there are major concerns and worries among dairy farmers in this country? Will he tell the dairy farmers and the House that he will support the MMB as it stands now, despite all the attacks from the EEC?
    Mr. Gummer: Anybody who said, "This company has remained the same for 60 years, so please invest in it" would receive a dusty answer from anybody who was sensibly involved. The world has changed over the past 60 years and that is why the Milk Marketing Board has said that it has to change. The Labour party has a policy of telling the MMB that it does not know its own business and that it should not change but go on as it has for the past 60 years. Once again, the Labour party shows that it

    415
    knows nothing about farming, cares even less, and hopes to win a vote or two for the most reactionary policy known in Britain.
    Mr. Knox: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the apprehensions felt by dairy farmers in my constituency about the future level of their incomes? Does he propose to take any action to reassure them?
    Mr. Gummer: I am very much aware of that and that is why, as my hon. Friend knows, the Milk Marketing Board has been concerned to change its structure in order to defend the income of his constituents and others. In general, over the past 10 years, the receipts of dairy farmers in Britain have been lower than most in the rest of Europe, but consumers have paid more for liquid milk than in the rest of Europe. Therefore, the Milk Marketing Board is right to seek changes and the Labour party is wrong to try to stop it.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ql. Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 November.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Pawsey: Does my right hon. Friend believe that there should be a referendum on the Maastricht summit? What is my right hon. Friend's opinion about a referendum to be held sometime in the future on the single currency?
    The Prime Minister: The answer to my hon. Friend's question in both cases is no. The Government do not intend to hold a referendum on the outcome of the Maastricht negotiations. There is no case for one and the Government will not offer one. On the second part of my hon. Friend's question, that issue would, self-evidently, be a matter for a future Parliament, but my view remains that we are a parliamentary democracy and I see no need for a referendum.
    Mr. Kinnock: I am grateful to the Prime Minister for that answer. Will he, therefore, confirm that for as long as he is leader of the Conservative party it will never accept referendums on European Community matters?
    The Prime Minister: I have just made the point clear to the right hon. Gentleman. On this issue I do not see the need for a referendum.
    Mr. Hannam: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hannam: Will my right hon. Friend take time today to read the speech of Mr. Jacques Delors in which he said that no single group of nations had survived purely on the basis of intergovernmental relationships? Will my right hon. Friend remind Mr. Delors of the existence of
    416
    NATO, where intergovernmental agreement has succeeded, and contrast it with the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, where excessive central control has undoubtedly failed?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a very telling point. The Community including the Commission, must adapt to the changes in Europe. There is a case for flexible arrangements and I set that out yesterday, but they are for Governments to determine. They are expressly not policy matters for the Commission to determine.
    Mr. Ashdown: Having yesterday heard the views of his predecessor with regard to Europe, surely the Prime Minister must now realise that he has to make a choice. He can either have Finchley or Maastricht, but he cannot have both. Will he now choose Europe or her? Or will he stay lamely stuck on the fence?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman was here yesterday when I set out quite clearly and in some detail the Government's position on the negotiations at Maastricht. As I recall, my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) began her speech by giving me her full support—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Batiste: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Batiste: Since our success in exploiting the opportunities of the European Community must depend considerably on getting the maximum benefit from our education system, is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern that mixed ability teaching in secondary schools is causing widespread under-achievement by pupils at both ends of the ability spectrum? Will he therefore join me in welcoming the comment yesterday of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science that streaming is the only effective way of getting the best from all our children?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) and with the remarks by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. Over the past few months he has shown clearly that he will make one of the great Secretaries of State for Education and Science.
    Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Jones: Following his reply last Tuesday to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), will the Prime Minister now promise to restore the unemployment benefit rights which so benefited him when he was a young man in the 1960s and which he abolished in the 1980s? Is not the Prime Minister guilty of kicking away the ladder now that he has got to the top?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman clearly does not understand the social security system any more than the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). If he did, he would be aware that since the early 1960s all sorts of care

    417
    allowances have been introduced such as invalid care allowance and the hon. Gentleman clearly did not know about that.
    Mr. Dunn: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Dunn: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be aware that we have more inward investment than any other European Commission country, partly as a result of our lower taxation policies on income, profits and employers. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we are likely to lose our advantage in attracting inward investment if we sign up to a policy of binding minimum rates of taxation in Europe, a policy which is already supported and endorsed by the Labour party and was yesterday by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham)?
    The Prime Minister: Higher corporate taxes are bound to mean lower inward investment from abroad, particularly in many of the regions of this country. It would be particularly damaging for Scotland, and that is also why a Scottish assembly with tax-raising powers would be very bad news indeed for Scotland. We will leave it to the Opposition to advocate higher taxes on companies and individuals. That is not our policy. We will advocate lower taxes and in so doing will encourage more inward investment.
    Mr. Callaghan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Callaghan: In view of the terrible brain damage suffered by two boxers in recent bouts, will the Prime Minister give the House his views on boxing? Does he agree with the British Medical Association that boxing should he banned in this country?
    The Prime Minister: No. I do not agree with banning boxing in this country. It is important that there is proper medical attention and that the referee has full discretion to stop the bout whenever he wishes. Boxing should not be banned in this country, and any move to do so would not have my support.
    Sir George Gardiner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Sir George Gardiner: Will my right hon. Friend give his assessment of the kind of man who, after declaring himself to be a reluctant European, can argue today in favour of an immediate signing-up to a single currency and joining a headlong rush to a federal Europe? In an attempt to resolve that enigma, will my right hon. Friend find time to have a private word with the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman)?
    The Prime Minister: I have a busy day, and I doubt whether I will have time for that, but I share my hon. Friend's concern at the U-turns that we have seen, but not
    418
    just from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman)—although certainly from him—but from the Labour party. We should remember that, if we had listened to the Labour party, we would not be negotiating at Maastricht, we would be queueing outside the Community trying to get back into it.

    Tibet
    Dr. Godman: To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with President Bush about the implications of that section of the State Department Authorization Act 1991 which relates to Tibet and the position of the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Government in exile.
    The Prime Minister: None, Sir.
    Dr. Godman: The United States Congress, by way of that Act, holds to the view that Tibet is an occupied country whose true representatives are the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Government in exile. It would appear, would it not, that President Bush also has that perception, as he signed that Act on 28 October? Does the Prime Minister share the belief that Tibet is an occupied country whose true representatives are the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Government in exile?
    The Prime Minister: Tibet has never been internationally recognised as an independent country. No country in the world regards Tibet as independent now. Having said that, we have taken every opportunity, including my recent visit to China, to set out our concerns about the way in which Tibetans are treated and to urge that they have proper human rights.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: While rejoicing with the rest of the civilised world at the release of Terry Waite and the other hostages—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about Tibet.

    Engagements
    Mr. Tim Smith: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, for the first time since the start of the recession, responses from Milton Keynes business to the latest quarterly economy survey show an increase in home sales and orders and that the more benign economic climate, with falling interest rates and falling inflation, has resulted in a further large increase in business confidence and an expectation of higher turnover and higher profits over the next 12 months? Is not that very good news indeed?
    The Prime Minister: It is, indeed, but it was foreshadowed by the authoritative CBI survey which shows rising expectations for investment, output and exports. That means an increase in planned spending on training and innovation which has now returned to pre-recession levels.
    Mr. Beggs: Can the Prime Minister assure the House that there will be no further concessions to the Irish

    419
    Republic in order to obtain the extradition of terrorist suspects to stand trial in the United Kingdom? Further, will he assure us that, if Her Majesty's Government decide to appoint a commissioner to supervise terrorist interrogations, that commissioner will be a British citizen?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows that we do not bargain and that we do not do deals. That has remained, does remain, and will remain the position.
    Mr. Cran: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Cran: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituents in the great northern constituency of Beverley would like to get away from the iron grip of Labour-controlled Humberside council? As the Boundary Commission has already asked for that council to be abolished, does my right hon. Friend agree that the local government commission that he is to establish should consider abolishing Humberside council before any other?
    The Prime Minister: I know of my hon. Friend's particular interest in that matter, but it would be wise to wait until our new local government commission has examined the overall structure of local government before
    420
    making any specific decisions. I assure my hon. Friend that we intend to ask the new commission to make that task one of its early priorities.
    Mr. Benn: I rise to ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on a point—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I called the right hon. Gentleman to ask a question.
    Mr. Benn: In that case, Mr. Speaker, my question touches on a point that I will raise with you in a moment.
    Mr. Speaker: I would much rather that the right hon. Gentleman asks his question of the Prime Minister, not me.
    Mr. Benn: The whole House understands that the Prime Minister's view is that the British people have no right to be directly consulted on the constitutional changes that may emerge from Maastricht. However, the Prime Minister will know, having been present for yesterday's debate, that right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House argue for a referendum. If the Prime Minister believes in parliamentary democracy, does he not agree that the House has a right to decide whether there should be a referendum, and will he provide an opportunity to hold one?
    The Prime Minister: Many views can be held on the subject of referendums. I have expressed my own, and I do not intend to change it.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: May I ask the Leader of the House to tell us the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 25 NovEMBER—Second Reading of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill.
Motion on the Library Charges (England and Wales) Regulations.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
TUESDAY 26 NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill.
WEDNESDAY 27 NovEMBER—Opposition day (1st Allotted Day). Until about seven o'clock there will he a debate described as "The Housing Problem" followed by a debate entitled "Sports Provision in the United Kingdom". Both debates arise on Opposition motions.
Motion to take note of EC documents relating to the 1992 EC budget. Details will be given in the Official Report.
THURSDAY 28 NovEMBER—Proceedings on the Welsh Development Agency Bill.
FRIDAY 29 NovEMBER—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 2 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Transport and Works Bill.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee B will meet at 10.30 am on Wednesday 27 November to consider European Community document No. 7485/91 relating to child care.
European Standing Committee B will also meet at 4.30 pm on Monday 2 December to consider European Community documents relating to indirect taxation. Details will be given in the Official Report.
[Wednesday 27 November European Standing Committee B
Relevant European Community document
7485/91 Child Care
Relevant Report of European Legislation Committee
HC 24-ii (1991–92)
Floor of the House

Relevant European Community documents

(a) 7184/91

Preliminary Draft Budget of the European Communities for 1992

(b) 7368/91

Letter of Amendment No. 1 to 1992 Preliminary Draft Budget of the European Communities

(c) 8442/91

Letter of Amendment No. 2 to the Preliminary Draft Budget for 1992

(d) Unnumbered

Commission's Letter of Amendment No. 3 to the Preliminary Draft Budget for 1992

(e) 7731/91

Draft Budget of European Communities for 1992

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee

(a) HC 29-xxviii (1990–91)

(b) HC 24-i (1991–92)

(c) No report

(d) No report

(e) HC 29-xxx ( 1990–91)

(f) HC 24-i (1991–92)

(g) No report

(h) HC 24-i ( 1991–92)

Monday 2 December
European Standing Committee B

Relevant European Community documents

(a) 6762/89

Indirect Taxes: Harmonisation

(b) 6641/90

Indirect Taxes: Harmonisation

(c) 6642/90

Indirect Taxes (Administrative Co-operation)

(d) 9670/90

Holding and Movement of Excisable Goods

Relevant Report of European Legislation Committee

(a) HC 15-xxxii (1988–89) and HC 29-xxviii (1990–91)

(b) HC 11-xxxi ( 1989–90), HC 29-i ( 1990–91) and HC 24-i (1991–92)

(c) HC 11-xxxi (1989–90) and HC 24-ii ( 1991–92)

(d) HC 11-.vxxiii ( 1989–90) and HC 24-ii ( 1991–92)

Dr. Cunningham: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement early next week by the Home Secretary? Is he aware of the serious allegations made in the television programme "Thames Reports" last week about the alleged involvement of the police in the break-out of terrorists from Brixton prison last July? Are not those very serious allegations? Is it not also serious that it is implied that the Home Office knew about that involvement at the time? Is not the House of Commons, indeed the country as a whole, entitled to hear from the Home Secretary in person exactly whether those allegations have any foundation? Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early oral statement on that important matter?
What has happened to the statements that we expected on revenue support grant? Given that the decision of the Department of the Environment and of the Scottish and Welsh Offices will have huge implications for the levels of poll tax that people will be expected to pay next year, should we not have an early statement in the Chamber on those issues?
Turning now to his own responsibilities, when does the Leader of the House expect to be able to make a statement on expanding the provisions of communication between Members of this House and the institutions of the

423
European Community? I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us about that soon and that he will make a statement on that matter next week.
Can the Leader of the House find time soon for a debate on the economy of London? Is he aware of the report by the Henley Centre for Forecasting, which states that, in the first nine months of this year, 12,359 small businesses failed in London and the south-east, which is more than in the whole of last year and shows an alarming and continuing increase in business failures in our capital city? The economy of London is suffering dreadfully in this second Conservative recession, and we should have an opportunity to debate that matter in the House as soon as possible.
Mr. MacGregor: No statement is necessary on the Brixton escape and there will not be a statement next week. I understand that, in view of the allegations about the conduct of Staffordshire special branch officers, the chief constable of Staffordshire has arranged for a full investigation by the deputy chief constable of another force. It would not be appropriate for the Home Secretary to comment until the inquiry is completed.
On the hon. Gentleman's request for a revenue support grant statement from my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Wales, the hon. Gentleman is correct in intimating that statements on those matters are necessary, and I hope that they will be made very soon—I hope next week. I cannot give a precise date, but that is the intention.
In answer to the hon. Gentleman's point about travel —which is what I think that he had in mind when he referred to "communication"—by hon. Members to European Community institutions, I hope to table the necessary resolutions very soon. They are being technically completed at the moment.
In view of our heavy business, especially that relating to legislation, I see no prospect for a debate in Government time on the economy of London.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. No fewer than 82 right hon. and hon. Gentlemen are seeking to take part—
Mrs. Edwina Currie: And Ladies.
Mr. Speaker: Yes, and Ladies—are seeking to speak in the European debate. Would the hon. Gentlemen—and Ladies—who wish to participate please reserve their fire at business questions so that we can get on? I may then be able to call them.
Sir Dudley Smith: Will my right hon. Friend encourage the Opposition to initiate a Supply day debate in the not-too-distant future on the subject of the recession, because there is a strange idea, fostered by the Opposition and the media, that it is a peculiarly British disease, whereas it is worldwide? A debate would present a good opportunity to underline the fact that many countries are experiencing far more difficulties than we are.
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend has made the point. Those of us who travel abroad know that he is right. The economic issues that he has menioned exist in many other countries and have implications for our position. I am sure
424
that he will agree that the improvements in manufacturing exports clearly show how well British industry is doing, given the world situation.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on yesterday's meeting of the Anglo-Irish intergovernmental conference, especially in the light of the Prime Minister's failure to respond to the second part of the question that was asked by the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs)?
Mr. MacGregor: I am not sure whether a statement on yesterday's meeting would be appropriate, but I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's request to my right hon. Friend's attention.
Mr. Michael Latham: Will my right hon. Friend accept the thanks of the whole House for agreeing to extend last night's debate until midnight, thus allowing a large number of Members to be called?
Mr. MacGregor: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend.
Mr. Max Madden: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Home Secretary to make a statement next week about political asylum fraud? Will he ensure specifically that the Home Secretary gives an assurance that no pressure or persuasion is being applied to the Metropolitan police in the case of Mr. Mohinder Paul Singh Bedi of Hayes to halt their inquiries or withdraw requests to investigate the bank accounts of Members of Parliament who have business or other links with Mr. Bedi?
Mr. MacGregor: I cannot comment on that case. The issue of political asylum is, of course, being debated in relation to a Bill which is currently going through the House.
Sir John Farr: Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to look at the Order Paper recently? Has he noticed that several right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have tabled a motion about the establishment of a Select Committee on Northern Ireland affairs? Has my right hon. Friend been able to consider that point yet?
Mr. MacGregor: As the House knows, because I have said it several times in business questions, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has said that the establishment of a Northern Ireland Select Committee is best taken forward in the context of the fresh political talks. I believe that that is right. We must all hope that in due course the talks will proceed.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food again to make a statement about the dioxins in Bolsover? Is he aware that, when the dioxin-contaminated milk was transferred in the summer from Bolsover to Severn-Trent for disposal, Severn-Trent did not have a licence? Then an attempt was made to get rid of it at 800 deg C in the west midlands but the incinerator needed to be at 1,200 deg C. The result was that the dioxins from Bolsover in the east midlands were transmitted all over the west midlands. It is high time that there was a public inquiry into the matter and that the Minister of Agriculture made a statement at the Dispatch Box.
Mr. MacGregor: I have responded as fully as possible when the hon. Gentleman has raised the matter, and I have drawn it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. As I have said before, the results of the testing will be published when all the data have been evaluated in the new year.
Mr. John Greenway: What is the progress on introducing the Bill to increase the penalties for youngsters who steal cars? Is my right hon. Friend aware that last night in my constituency a woman was killed in a car accident and three others were injured, one extremely seriously? The driver of the other car, which was stolen, was a 16-year-old boy. Will my right hon. Friend join me in sending condolences to the bereaved family and wishing those who are injured a speedy recovery? Does he agree that the sooner we put new measures on the statute book, the sooner we can instil into these young criminals the knowledge that such selfish and irresponsible behaviour will not be tolerated?
Mr. MacGregor: I certainly join my hon. Friend in sending condolences to the bereaved family and wishing a speedy recovery to the injured. I am sure that the whole House deplores such incidents. There can be no doubt about the message to young people who engage in this activity. I assure my hon. Friend that we are proceeding with urgency on the Bill. Technical considerations are being completed, and I hope that we shall be able to put it to the House before long. In view of what my hon. Friend has said—with which I am sure that everyone in the House agrees—I hope that the Bill will have a speedy passage through the House.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington): May we have a statement on Sunday trading? Is it true, that B&Q sponsored the agents' ball at the Conservative party conference? What is the connection?
Mr. MacGregor: I am not certain whether that is true, but I am sure that there is no connection. We have no plans to make any changes to the legislation on Sunday trading in the near future—for example, before Christmas. As the House knows, the Minister of State, Home Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold), has had detailed discussions on the reform of Sunday trading. Everyone recognises that the law is anomalous. The difficulty is to find a solution that will command majority support in the House. My right hon. Friend is continuing to explore that in her discussions.
Mr. Paul Channon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, before we get to Maastricht, it is important that we should have the views of all hon. Members? Therefore, will he arrange another debate before the summit so that we can hear the views of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) and establish whether all ex-leaders of the Labour party support its present policy?
Mr. MacGregor: If we tried to extend that to all Labour Members rather than to ex-leaders, we would have to debate the issue all week to tempt them to their feet. I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. He is right to draw attention to the divisions on the Labour side of the House, which were made clear by the way in which the House responded to a point that the Leader of the
426
Opposition made yesterday about the so-called unity of the Labour party. However, we have endeavoured to have as long a debate as we can on the issue yesterday and today.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Would the Leader of the House ensure that we discuss the relationship between a Secretary of State and a Select Committee of the House at the earliest opportunity? I refer to the "Waldegate Affair", of which I am sure he is aware.
Mr. MacGregor: That is a completely wrong description of a matter which the Select Committee on Privileges is now discussing—which is why it would not be appropriate for me to say anything further.
Dr. John Blackburn: Will my right hon. Friend consider early-day motion 209, which relates to a British company that has achieved a wonderful contract in Kenya?
[That this House calls upon the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Minister of State for Overseas Development to grant Aid Trade Provision Cover and ECGD cover over three years from 1992 to enable Communication Supplies Ltd. to continue to export further System X telephone exchanges and ancillary equipment to Kenya, which they have done successfully for the past seven years; and furthermore notes that the Kenyan Government considers this project as top of their list of priorities for trade with the United Kingdom, and the project will save and provide many thousands of jobs throughout the United Kingdom and will lead to repeat business for many years to come, and that if funding is not forthcoming the contract will be lost to the United Kingdom and awarded to either Japanese, French or Italian companies, all of whom have shown open interest.]
Will he consider an early debate on that important issue, or convey the motion's sentiments to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry?
Mr. MacGregor: I shall certainly convey the sentiments, but I am afraid that I cannot promise my hon. Friend an early debate.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Does the Leader of the House acknowledge that the discussions in which Ministers arc involved in the European Commission regarding the MacSharry proposals are of fundamental importance to the future of British agriculture? Will he undertake to debate, in Government time, the negotiations before their conclusion is reached or, alternatively, afterwards?
Mr. MacGregor: I certainly agree about the importance of the MacSharry proposals. The hon. Gentleman asks whether we could debate them after they have been debated in the European Community, but we are talking about a long time ahead. I understand that the Scrutiny Committee is due to examine the detailed text on 27 November, and we certainly plan to have a debate in early December. I agree with the hon. Gentleman on this matter.
Mr. Steve Norris: Will my right hon. Friend note that, with 82 hon. Members wishing to express an opinion in the debate later this afternoon, any suggestion that the additional two hours provided is adequate is clearly wide of the mark? Will he give the House an assurance that, when we discuss the post-Maastricht position, the debate will be unlimited? On

427
his discussions with Front-Bench Members, in the absence of a commitment to a referendum, will he ensure that, at least on this side of the House, there is a free vote?
Mr. MacGregor: I have done my best to give as much time as possible to the debate yesterday and today, including making my answers to business questions as short as possible so that we can get on with the debate. However, I would certainly not want to give a commitment about a further debate.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the Leader of the House aware that the representatives of every medical and professional body in Aberdeen and Grampian region oppose the opt-out application for Foresterhill hospitals? Although he may not care to remember as far back as a fortnight ago, does he recollect that every candidate in the Kincardine and Deeside by-election, including his own, expressed opposition to the opt-out proposals? Will he ensure that next week the Secretary of State for Scotland comes to the House and rejects the proposals out of hand?
Mr. MacGregor: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is considering the proposals and will make a statement on the matter as soon as he is ready.
Mr. Jerry Wiggin: Is the Leader of the House aware that more than 70 right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have signed a prayer against the explosives regulations? Will he find time to debate the matter?
Mr. MacGregor: I have noted what my hon. Friend has said. I shall have to consider it.
Mr. Dave Nellist: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 148 about the disgraceful closure of Coventry colliery with the loss of 1.300 jobs?
That this House condemns British Coal for its closure of the Coventry Colliery at Keresely with the loss of 1,300 jobs, completed in a mere 13 days from the announcement of the decision to the working of the last shift: believes that the pit is not abandoned but mothballed with 40 million tonnes of good quality reserves of medium sulphur content which will be kept on a care and maintenance basis until a link-up is organised by a privatised Daw Mill Colliery should the Government be re-elected; condemns British Coal's refusal to attend two meetings of local authority and parish councillors, local honourable Members of this House and church representatives and notes the absence at the meetings of 24th October and 11th November of the local Tory honourable Members; and calls for a public inquiry into the methods of the closure and the false economics which talk of 'losses' yet fail to take into account the future cost to public funds of lost production and taxes paid, and of dole and unemployment payments to be made.]
Following a meeting this morning at the Department of Energy, may I ask him to arrange for the Secretary of State to make a statement answering the anger in Coventry, not just about the way in which the pit was closed and the loss of jobs, but the belief that the closure took place to mothball 40 million tonnes of medium sulphur content coal so that, were the Conservatives to be re-elected and
428
the pits privatised, Daw Mill could take that coal out in a UDM pit? How much further do the Government intend to take their vendetta against members of the NUM?
Mr. MacGregor: I have seen the early-day motion to which the hon. Gentleman refers. He will know that decisions on individual colliery closures are matters for the British Coal Corporation. I understand that the closure of the colliery in question has been due to heavy losses resulting from continued failure to meet operating targets.
Sir Robert Rhodes James: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people inside and outside the House, while recognising that it is important to spend two days debating the future of Europe, wonder why the House is not debating, even for a short time, the fact that a war is raging in a European country—Yugoslavia? Will he consider having a debate on the situation there?
Mr. MacGregor: I have noted my hon. Friend's remarks. My problem is that a great deal of business needs to be done, and I have to try to accommodate that business as well.
Mr. Thomas Graham: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for the Secretary of State for Defence to make a statement about the way in which contractors are paid £10 an hour for security guards at some of our vital establishments when security guards in my constituency are being paid £1·80 an hour? Do I see the Leader of the House smiling at that? Is he aware that the nation's security establishments are being guarded by people who are paid £.1·80 an hour? It is a lamentable state of affairs. The Secretary of State should make a statement about private security firms guarding the nation's military establishments.
Mr. MacGregor: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the smile was not about the issue he was raising. I do not think it would be appropriate for a statement, but I shall draw his comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. David Porter: Will my right hon. Friend undertake to arrange a debate before Christmas, or at least before the December Council of Ministers meeting on fishing, so that we may have our annual chance to discuss the state of the fishing industry in England and elsewhere in the kingdom?
Mr. MacGregor: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern, and particularly his constituency concern about that issue. I promise him that I am endeavouring to find time for a debate.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: May we have a statement about whether the Government intend to implement a European directive—it should have come into effect this weekend—by which local authorities will be informed when nuclear waste is being transported through their areas? This is a vital issue. Is he aware that from Brunswick in Germany tomorrow a nuclear waste consignment will be arriving at Dover? It will be stored over the weekend at Winfrith and on Tuesday will arrive at Dounreay for reprocessing. Not one authority has been advised about that. It is wrong that we should have to reply on voluntary information in such an extremely important matter.
Mr. MacGregor: I shall look into the point with my right hon. Friends and endeavour to get a response to the hon. Lady.
Mr. David Shaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Dover port has special facilities for the safe transport of nuclear waste and is leading the country in making sure that the nuclear industry safety standards are fully adopted? Is he further aware that the port and officials at Dover make a major contribution to safety in this area? Will he, if he thinks it necessary, arrange for a debate on the matter?
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend has made the point clearly and I am grateful to him for doing so, in view of which I do not think a debate is necessary.
Mr. Harry Ewing: I urge the Leader of the House to reconsider the answer he gave to the shadow Leader of the House about the possibility of a statement being made by the Home Secretary next week on the Brixton prison break-out. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that two allegations were made in the programme in question? One was about the alleged involvement of the special branch. The other—equally damaging and important—was the allegation that the Home Office knew about the police involvement. The right hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that, as we would expect of the British police, when a serious allegation is made, the chief constable of one force arranges for a senior officer of another to investigate the allegations, and everything about that investigation is laid bare for the public to see.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should ask a question.
Mr. Ewing: Just as the Home Secretary used the prison officers as a scapegoat for the break-out—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a matter for debate; it is not a question.
Mr. MacGregor: I have nothing to add to the point that I made about the statement. The hon. Gentleman's allegation about my right hon. Friend is absurd and wrong.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: As returning stolen goods is different from aid, will my right hon. Friend ensure that, when the Foreign Secretary makes a statement on the return of the gold stolen by the Labour Government with the assistance of the then leaders of the Liberal party and is replaced in the Bank of England to the order of the Governments of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, that statement is not confused with an agreement on giving aid, which is a wholly different matter?
Mr. MacGregor: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is sitting beside me and has heard my hon. Friend's question.
Mr. John P. Smith: I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 220.
[That this House is dismayed at the failure of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise to provide adequate services at Cardiff-Wales Airport; considers it to be an absolute dereliction of duty to fail to provide continuous customs monitoring of international flights into the airport; notes
430
that travellers are advised to ring the Customs Office at Barry Maritime Docks in the event of their having anything to declare; and, given the potential danger of terrorist activity, drug smuggling and other illegal activities, demands the immediate restoration of a Jill customs service forthwith.]
May we have an early debate on the restructuring that is taking place in Her Majesty's Customs and Excise which has left Wales's international airport without customs and passport control? With regular flights arriving from Amsterdam, Miami and Cyprus, it raises serious questions about increases in terrorist activity, drug smuggling and other illegal activities. That will worry hon. Members on both sides of the House, and we should discuss it at the earliest opportunity.
Mr. MacGregor: I assure the hon. Gentleman that Customs continues to monitor international flights into the airport. Customs staff will continue to attend and challenge passengers on the basis of the assessed risks of illegal importations of, for example, drugs, obscene material and the instruments of terrorism to which he referred.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Although we are a parliamentary democracy and would expect to take nearly every final decision in this place, is there not a body of respectable constitutional opinion that says that, if we propose to transfer the democratic accountability from a Westminster Parliament to an unelected European Commission, or even an elected European Parliament, the British people are entitled to take a view on the matter? Furthermore, is my right hon. Friend aware that we are unable to vote on that matter—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a question of debate. The hon. and learned Gentleman must not make a speech that he might make if I were to call him.
Mr. Lawrence: I do not think that I shall be called, Mr. Speaker. Moreover, even if I were called, there is no opportunity to vote on the issue. May we have a debate next week or as soon as possible to consider whether we should have a referendum at any stage and in what circumstances?
Mr. MacGregor: Those are obviously matters that can be discussed in today's debate, so I see no need for a further debate. I entirely share the views which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister expressed this afternoon.
Dr. Kim Howells: Will the Leader of the House consider allocating time to look at planning requirements as they affect former nationalised industries such as the regional electricity boards, which continue to behave as though they were not in business for profit? They position their pylons anywhere they choose and act as though they were still the strategic industry that they were once defined as.
Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman must use the time available to him in the normal way to debate that matter. I see no opportunity to debate it in Government time.
Mr. Richard Tracey: The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) asked about the economy of London. May I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to the further deterioration in the

431
state of local government in the London borough of Lambeth? A Labour woman councillor has suddenly resigned in mysterious circumstances in St. Martin's ward and the council is now seeking to block information to the public. Will my right hon. Friend ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to investigate the matter and make a statement to the House about the deepening trough of local government in Labour-controlled parts of London?
Mr. MacGregor: I shall certainly draw my hon. Friend's point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
Mr. Bob Cryer: May we have a statement next week on the working of the Crossbows Act 1987, which was enacted after a number of serious incidents? The Act limits the possession of crossbows to those over the age of 17. In view of the serious incident that took place last night in Bradford, may we have a statement on the working of the Act to examine the possibility of a licensing system to curb even further the possession of such potentially highly dangerous weapons and to prevent a repetition of last night's attack?
Mr. MacGregor: I cannot promise a statement, but the hon. Gentleman knows that it will be possible for him to raise the matter at other times, such as on the Adjournment. I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Will the Leader of the House end the continuing denial of ready access to important information brought about by the Government's failure to publish in an accessible form the answers to hon. Members' questions to executive agencies? Such information is available only in the splendid publication produced by my office with, this month, the help of the Rowntree Trust. It is nonsense that it should be published by private enterprise and an outside charity. When will the Leader of the House publish the answers to such questions in a supplement to Hansard?
Mr. MacGregor: I have seen a number of comments that have been made on the subject, including those by the Select Committees. The Government have been considering how to make available improved access to the information. I shall make an announcement very shortly.
Sir Richard Body: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris)? What on earth will our constituents think of parliamentary democracy if so many of us are deprived of the opportunity of debating the subject?
Mr. MacGregor: In the run-up to the Maastricht negotiations, we have endeavoured to enable hon. Members to debate the matter in as wide and lengthy a manner as possible in the House. Obviously, there has to be some limit to the length of debates, but by extending last night's debate I endeavoured to allow as many Members as possible to contribute.
Mr. Andrew Faulds rose—
Mr. Speaker: Was the hon. Member present for the business statement?
Mr. Faulds: Yes, all the way through. I did doze off once or twice.
Will the Leader of the House urge the Prime Minister to use his powers to remove from the board of trustees of national institutions those guilty of criminal offences? I refer of course to Gerald Ronson, who was appointed by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor.
Mr. MacGregor: I do not think that there will be a statement or debate on that matter next week.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. As the House knows, I dislike cutting short business questions. I shall allow them to continue until 4.10 pm, and I hope to call everyone. However, Members should make their questions brief.
Mr. James Couchman: In view of the serious deterioration of the services provided by Network SouthEast on the Kent link and Kent coast lines which is causing serious dislocation and discomfort to my constituents and many other people, will my right hon. Friend ask the Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement next week on what plans he has to improve those services urgently?
Mr. MacGregor: I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. However, I do not think that there will be an opportunity for a statement on the subject next week.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate on the police next week to enable the House to send congratulations to Harrow police who, through their calm and efficient work yesterday, brought a siege at Pinn medical centre, in my constituency, to a peaceful conclusion? A debate would enable hon. Members to congratulate and thank PC David Nicholls, who, although a married man with two children, offered to take the place of the hostage at great risk to himself.
Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that the House agrees with the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend. I am glad that he has had an opportunity to make the point.
Mr. David Sumberg: May we have a debate next week on local government to give me the opportunity to point out that, following its disastrous investment of £6·5 million in BCCI, Bury's Labour council now proposes to close three old people's homes? Is that not an absolute disgrace and a foretaste of things to come if Labour is ever given power in this country?
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend is right about that being a foretaste of things to come if Labour ever comes to power. I am glad to say that I do not think that it will. My hon. Friend makes his point powerfully, and there is no need for a debate next week to take it further.
Mr. Simon Burns: Will my right hon. Friend consider finding time in the not-too-distant future for a debate on parliamentary language? There is a pressing need for a debate in view of the petulant outburst by the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. MacGregor: I think that that is a matter for you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I think that it is, and I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) to Peterborough's column in today's issue of The Daily Telegraph.
Mr. John Marshall: Would my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on the work of the national health service trust hospitals? Is he aware that, following the good news from Guy's hospital last week, it has been reported that since it became an NHS trust the Royal Free Trust hospital, which serves part of my constituency, has been able to increase the number of patients it treats and reduce its waiting lists? Any debate on NHS trusts will have to take place in Government time and not in Opposition time.
Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that we shall have an opportunity in future to debate the work of NHS trusts. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that these are important matters and that the trusts are already demonstrating the value of the change that we made. There will not be a debate next week, but I am sure that we shall have other opportunities to debate the subject.
Mr. William Cash: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that to the people of this country the freedom of the press is every bit as important as democratic accountability? Does he know that at the moment there is a campaign throughout Europe and in all the other member states to preserve the freedom of the press? Is he aware that a British agency was recently summoned to the Commission and told that if it did not withdraw from that campaign its Commission account would be stopped forthwith? Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a severe —
Mr. Speaker: Order. We are on the subject of the business for next week.
Mr. Cash: Will my right hon. Friend consider making sure that the issue of the freedom of the press in relation to the European Community is debated as soon as possible?
Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that my hon. Friend will wish to pursue that matter in other ways. I cannot see the prospect of a debate next week.

Points of Order
4.7 pm
Mr. Roy Hattersley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, concerning the statement made to the House by the Home Secretary on 8 July. The statement purported to describe the break-out from Brixton prison on the previous day. We now know that material, crucial facts were omitted from the Home Secretary's statement and account of what happened. As a result, the country was not so much informed as misinformed about the matter.
The Home Secretary has had many opportunities to rectify what I shall describe as his errors of omission. He has not done so. As you well know, Mr. Speaker, attempts have been made to require him to make a corrective and further statement to the House. All efforts have failed. The House and the country will make their own judgment about the reason for the Home Secretary's behaviour. What can be done to ensure that a report is made to the House, both of the full facts and on the Home Secretary's conduct?
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that I need any help on this. Hon. Members heard the Leader of the House say that an investigation has been set up. In due course the Home Secretary will have to make a decision about the matter.
Dr. John Cunningham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is unsatisfactory for the Government to hide behind an inquiry into the involvement of Staffordshire police? The point at issue is the behaviour of the Home Secretary in the House. The House is entitled to a statement from the Home Secretary, who ought to be responsible to the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker: That point was raised by the hon. Member with the Leader of the House. It is not a matter for me.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As a separate point has been raised, I should make it clear that the Home Secretary has not misled the House and the allegations about him are wrong. There are some security matters involved in this. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has been offered a full briefing on Privy Council terms, and he has refused it.
Mr. Peter Archer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It may not be within your knowledge that this week my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Banks) and I sought to table parliamentary questions to the Home Secretary on this matter, but it transpired that there was a blanket refusal to answer questions on any matter relating to the secret service, irrespective of how divorced they were from current operations. While I fully understand the reluctance of a Minister to give information about operations currently in progress, as that was not what we were seeking to elicit, if the Minister comes to the House and makes a statement purporting to deal fully with a matter, is he entitled to hide behind a blanket refusal that he has virtually waived? If not, does the House have any remedy?
Mr. Speaker: I have no responsibility for answers to questions. This is not a matter for me.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, in answer to a point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), you said:
"I have just said that I think 'jerk' is not among the list of unparliamentary expressions but I asked the Leader of the Opposition to refine it."—[Official Report, 20 November 1991; Vol 199, c.283.]
I want to make a submission to you, Mr. Speaker, which is of some substance. The list to which you refer only gives examples of what, in the past, Mr. Speaker has ruled to be unparliamentary expressions. That list has grown up by Mr. Speaker ruling each time—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot hear the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The list has grown up, Mr. Speaker, by your predecessors ruling each time a new expression is used which, in the opinion of Mr. Speaker, is unparliamentary. It is important that you should remind the House that that list does not and cannot constrain Mr. Speaker not to rule that expressions which are grossly offensive are not unparliamentary purely because they have not appeared on the list in "Erskine May" before.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has raised a serious point concerned with a judgment that I made yesterday. He is correct in saying that there is no list in "Erskine May". It was removed some time ago, because many expressions, such as "cheeky young pup", are no longer considered to be offensive. I said yesterday that I did not think that "jerk" was an unparliamentary expression. I was not absolutely certain what the word meant, but I found out from the Peterborough column today that it means a useless person but also covers a "hornyhead" and a "chubb-like fish".
Mr. Hattersley: Speaking in more or less that capacity, Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer to what the Leader of the House said about the Home Secretary's offer to me to discuss in Privy Council terms the matters with which I was concerned in my original point of order. I want to make it clear that that offer was made, but I refused it as I did not think that this was a matter that could be discussed in private by a coterie of senior Members of Parliament. I felt that it was a matter for the House and for the country.
Mr. Speaker: That has now been made clear.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

VALUE ADDED TAX
That the Value Added Tax (Buildings and Land) Order 1991 (S.I., 1991, No. 2569) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. MacGregor.]
Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day

  European Community (Intergovernmental Conferences)
  [SECOND DAY]
  [Relevant document: Minutes of Evidence taken before the Foreign Affairs Committee on 19th November ( House of Commons Paper 35-i)]
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on amendment to Question [20 November]:
  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 interest, 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 Prime Minister.]
  Which amendment was: 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 is 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 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.'—[Mr. Kinnock.]
  Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
  Mr. Speaker: I have already said that 82 right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to participate. I shall put a limit on speeches between 7 and 9 o'clock, but I ask those who are fortunate enough to be called before that time to bear the 10-minute limit in mind.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, I raised a point of order about whether an amendment to the amendment in the name of the official Opposition would be eligible to be called before 10 o'clock. Since that now appears on the Order Paper, I should be grateful for your comments.
  Mr. Speaker: I have not found it possible to select it.
  4.14 pm
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): This debate is crucial for us and it is a crucial part of the debate in the Community. It is natural for the European Community to consider from time to time its institutions and its working methods to see whether they can be bettered, and that is the purpose of the two intergovernmental conferences leading to Maastricht.
  My own view is that the conferences come rather too soon after the last one. The previous examination led to the Single European Act, which was signed in 1986 and came into force just four years ago. If we had waited three years longer, the single market would have been up and running, one or two new members might have come in and we would have been able to see more clearly the future shape of eastern Europe. But the Community decided to start last year and, that done, we in Britain, led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), rightly decided that we would take a full and energetic part in the two conferences.
  As Mr. Delors often says, Britain is the only member state in which there is a lively and sometimes passionate debate on Europe. That is normal here. We felt it again yesterday and it is an asset to Europe as a whole, but I also think that the weakness of our debate is that it is sometimes too defensive. We too often represent ourselves as in some way under siege, as if we were concerned only about the pace at which we yield to opinions and interests across the channel which are basically unsatisfactory and hostile. That defensive note is well astray if one looks at some of the main decisions of the Community in recent years, many of which owe a great deal to the debate in Britain and to British proposals.
  First, there was the Fontainebleau settlement in 1984 where Britain obtained a rebate and the Community got a fairer means of financing itself. The Community's budgetary system is still far from rational in the way in which it distributes resources, but the most glaring injustice of Britain's unacceptable net contribution was resolved by that agreement. My right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley played it right. She argued, she argued hard, and she signed once she had a good agreement for Britain and for Europe.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner rose—
  Mr. Cryer rose—
  Mr. Hurd: I shall get on a bit before I give way to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
  Or take the impetus for the single market through the Single European Act to make the job of selling throughout the Community easier for all businesses in the
  438
  Community, to increase the choice and the quality available to all the Community's 340 million consumers. Once again, my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley argued, argued hard, and signed once she had a good agreement.
  I am told that there were 29 outstanding issues on the day that my right hon. Friend went to the summit in Luxembourg in 1985. She sorted those issues out—perhaps, I do not know, with a little help from her Foreign Secretary of the day—and the agreement was signed. We are still in the arguing stage before Maastricht, but we hope that the rest will follow and the result will be satisfactory.
  The last example was the opening up of the Community to the emerging democracies in central and eastern Europe. That began as soon as the east began to choose democracy in 1989. It is now accepted by everybody that we started with trade and co-operation agreements—limited but important access to Community markets to countries which had overnight lost their biggest market in the Soviet Union—but as democracy and the market economy took hold, more help was needed. My right hon. Friend proposed the association agreements. I pressed for an early completion. We obtained a political commitment to finish negotiations in time for their entry into force in the new year, and those negotiations—with Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia—are on course.
  I have used those three examples because they are examples of undoubtedly good achievements by the Community which stem from our initiatives, and our persistent pressure, in this country.
  Mr. Skinner: I think that we ought to have the full picture before the Foreign Secretary concludes what he has to say about initiatives. The truth is that, although we were indeed promised barrel loads of money back when the last Prime Minister went to negotiate about the money, this country has paid more than £14,000 million to the common market since that date. The United Kingdom taxpayer has been handing over money to the tune of £18 a week for every family in Britain to prop up the discredited common agriculture policy. Let us have the full story, not just part of it.
  Mr. Hurd: That is the hon. Gentleman's speech. What his party's Front-Bench spokesmen propose would increase the burden substantially, while the actions of my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley would lighten it substantially. The hon. Gentleman's intervention has proved my point.
  The Leader of the Opposition described us as being stuck in the defensive mud. I think that I have proved that that is not true, but I fear that something similar can be said about the amazing speech that the right hon. Gentleman made yesterday. At times, it seemed as though Conservative Members were pouring salvoes into a grievously stricken vessel. Listening to the right hon. Gentleman, I came to the conclusion that we would never hear him make a good speech about Europe, partly because he finds the subject matter confusing—I do not criticise him for that; I often share the feeling—but mainly because he is fatally weighed down by his own past. The vessel is waterlogged before it even leaves the harbour.
  Labour has changed its policy on Europe seven times in recent years. It might have been expected that, according

  439
  to the rules of mere chance, Labour Members would light on some good arguments at some stage. Not at all: they are consistent only in that all their arguments are wrong.
  When the Community was anathema to Labour its most attractive facets were the ones that it attacked and detested, such as the commitment to freer trade and competition. Three years ago, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said that the Single European Act was a
  "breathtaking reduction in British sovereignty which the Labour party fought tooth and nail to prevent."
  Today, he is about to call for a breathtaking reduction in British sovereignty which the Labour party will fight tooth and nail to surrender.
  What attract both the right hon. Member for Gorton and the Leader of the Opposition, now that they have learnt to love the Community, are precisely the aspects of some Commissioners' instincts that are the most unlovable and the most dangerous for Britain—the itch to intervene in industry, the itch to regulate at the expense of jobs and the itch to impose worker representatives on company boards. The Labour party rejected the Community for the wrong reasons, and now embraces it for the wrong reasons. That is why Labour is wholly unconvincing on the subject—incredible, even—both at home and abroad.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: What is the Foreign Secretary going to do about my itch to bring about a solution to the problem of RECHAR additionality?
  Mr. Hurd: I knew that the hon. Gentleman would raise that point, and I am therefore particularly glad that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury dealt with it at length in his winding-up speech last night. My hon. Friend advised the hon. Gentleman—particularly as a Scottish Member—to address himself to Commissioner Milian, and to try to get him to change his indefensible policy.
  Mr. Andrew Faulds: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?
  Mr. Hurd: I would rather get on. The hon. Gentleman has already had a go this afternoon.
  While I am being a tiny bit controversial, I should like to add a word on the proposals for a referendum simply to underline the answer given earlier by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Naturally, there have often been arguments in the House about referendums. I am instinctively against them. In our parliamentary democracy, the line of democratic accountability runs from the Government to the House and from the House to those who send us here. If we take ourselves out of that line because the decisions are particularly important or difficult, it seems that we are dodging part of our responsibility.
  I respect the counter-argument, although I disagree with those who say that a referendum should be part of our constitution. Those, such as Dicey, who favour that argue consistently that it should be a considered change and that there is no case for introducing a referendum because of a particular issue.
  Nowhere has the case against introducing a referendum on a particular issue been argued with more energy than in the House on 11 March 1975 by my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley. She led us into the Lobby against
  440
  Harold Wilson's device of a referendum on Europe. In that speech, she quite correctly said that Dicey could he used on both sides of the argument. She also quoted Lord Attlee's saying that the referendum was a device of "demagogues and dictators". I am just a little sad that my right hon. Friend seems to have become a shade wobbly on the subject since then.
  Mr. Norman Tebbit: Does not my right hon. Friend understand that, at the time of the discussions on whether we should enter the European Community, it was possible for an elector to vote for a party that had a chance of forming a Government which would reject the proposition or a Government that would accept it? Does not my right hon. Friend understand that at the next general election the voter who wishes to vote against the proposed treaties will not be able to find a party to vote for that has a remote hope of forming a Government?
  Mr. Hurd: I do not think that my right hon. Friend is historically correct. In 1975, the leaders of all parties were in favour of a yes vote. Therefore, the position is not as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) described it.
  I am not dismissing the argument, because it is a serious argument that has been suggested seriously. As I have said, I believe that in a parliamentary democracy the line of accountability runs as I have described it. It runs through us and we are responsible to people who can, rightly, throw us out if we pursue policies with which they disagree. However mighty, parties have to pay careful attention to that.
  Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Will my right hon. Friend accept that since we have already had a referendum on the European Community and referendums on devolution, referendums are now part of the British constitution?
  Mr. Hurd: I may be wrong, but I suspect that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) may have joined me in voting against the idea of referendums on those matters. For the reasons that I have given, I do not accept that they are part of our constitution. I do not think that it is the right way to proceed in a parliamentary democracy.
  We shall face decisions and tough choices at Maastricht. Part of the value of the debate is the chance that it gives to send a signal—I hope a clear signal—of the chief concerns of the British Parliament as we all enter the final stages of this negotiation.
  We want to take advantage of the negotiations, not defensively, but to press the Community down the path that we think most sensible. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, that means putting ourselves at the heart of the Community, persuading different partners on different issues and using a style and a language that make it possible to persuade others of the value of our ideas for the future of Europe. I want to illustrate that with three principles that we regard as necessary for the Community and on which I believe the House will agree. We want to ensure the rule of law and a level playing field, we want to strengthen Europe's voice worldwide and we want an open and liberal Community.
  I want first to consider the proper application of Community law. When we agree in this country to do something, we stick by that agreement. When the Community agrees new legislation, we have procedures in

  441
  this country which turn that legislation quickly into British law and our Government and courts enforce it. One of the main criticisms of the Community often heard in the House, and one that I have heard in my constituency, is that this country acts in that way, but others do not.
  Our record in obeying our legal commitments is second to none. The most recent figures released by the Commission show only one European Court of Justice judgment outstanding against us. In delivering a recent judgment, the court referred to Britain's exemplary conduct in complying with EC legislation. We would regard it as progress if others began to compete with our record. Some lag far behind—12 for Germany, 13 for Belgium and 37 for Italy.
  At present, the only sanction against a member state that fails to comply with a judgment from the European Court of Justice is to bring that state before the court again. The present draft treaty will give substance to that second appearance by allowing the court to impose a fine on any member state found not to have taken the necessary measures to comply with its earlier judgment. That was our proposal and it is accepted. It will give the court the teeth that it needs to ensure compliance, and none too soon.
  Mr. Denzil Davies: That is an important point and according to a recent judgment, individuals may now be able to sue Governments who fail to carry out directives. What would happen if the House genuinely voted not to accept a directive? Would the British Government then be fined?
  Mr. Hurd: A judgment was given against the Italians a few days ago, but I have not yet had an opportunity to study it.
  Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Do not all supranational bodies of an incipiently federal nature have some form of power to enforce the of Neural decisions of the group, whether through an international police force or international army? There is no suggestion that the Community could ever use force to enforce its decisions against a member state.
  Mr. Hurd: That is why the proposal that I have just outlined is important. It gives the court the power to fine for the first time. If my hon. Friend is suggesting a corps of Euro Commissioners to enforce that, that would be a new and interesting suggestion, but I am not sure whether he is suggesting that.
  We must also strengthen the protection of the citizen. Chancellor Kohl is quite right to argue, as he did at the last European summit, that the European citizen needs better protection against the international criminal, the Mafia, the drug trafficker and the terrorist. When I was Home Secretary, we proposed a European drugs intelligence unit, and that is now being set up. The German Chancellor wanted to go further and establish a Europol. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday, we agree with that and we will support him. However, there is no need to impose a Community structure on that European work among police forces and agencies. It is important to concentrate on the substance of the matter, which is the protection of the citizen, rather than on the procedure and jurisdiction.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Hurd: I promise to give way to my hon. Friend later.
  One of the most difficult problems that Europe has to cope with is the increase in asylum seekers. In order to protect the sysem and to safeguard genuine refugees, we must prevent abuse of the system—hence my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's Asylum Bill. In recent years. there has been an increase in such abuse. When an applicant fails in one country, he crosses a frontier and tries again. Last year, intergovernmentally—with agreement between Governments—we agreed the Dublin convention to put an end to that, but we must do more.
  The 1951 United Nations convention was not written and ratified to protect the opportunists. The problem is a European problem. We want to see the Twelve better equipped to respond, with better co-ordination, but not central direction.
  All that comes within the work of the Trevi group, in which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary joins. The work of that group shows that intergovernmental co-operation is no less effective and no less European for being outside the framework of the treaty of Rome—outside the jurisdiction of the European Court. The Community—the Commission—does not need competence in order for an initiative to work.
  Let us concentrate on the substance. I believe that police forces work best together when they work directly together. In any case, given our differing legal traditions and judicial systems, the case is simply not made for generalised supranational enforcement. Member states need to remain responsible for law and order on their territory. It is certainly right for there to be more intense international co-operation. We have a long way to go before we can be sure that that is adequate.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary referred to citizenship, will he say clearly whether the Government support the proposal on page 15 of the Dutch draft article A? It proposes that
  "European union citizenship is hereby established"?
  It would help the House if the Government would make it clear whether they support or do not support the establishment of European union citizenship for all member states.
  Mr. Hurd: It is in addition to, and support does not in any way detract from, British citizenship. The only proposals are ones on which I gave evidence to the Select Committee the other day and which relate to the right of EC citizens in local and European elections, but not in national elections.
  Mr. Michael Shersby: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the views of some members of the European Parliament that Europol and the work of the Trevi group could be scrutinised by that body. Does my right hon. Friend agree, however, that they are adequately scrutinised by the Select Committees of the House and that that is the right place for them to be scrutinised and for their work to be reported to the House?
  Mr. Hurd: Yes, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The point I am trying to make in this part of my speech and, indeed, in our negotiations is that it is perfectly possible and often better for that kind of European working together to be based on co-operation between Governments, and therefore based on responsibility to national Parliaments, rather than under the structure of

  443
  the treaty of Rome. The same principle applies to the strengthening of European foreign policy. We hope that there will be agreement about that at Maastricht.
  Already, the practice in the Community goes beyond the co-ordination envisaged and enshrined in the Single European Act. We often commit ourselves—not because of any legal obligation but because of common sense—to joint action in many matters because it makes sense to put the combined weight of Europe behind our shared objectives. Once we have agreed on that in a particular subject, we honour the commitments that we have decided.
  There is great advantage for us in that system and in making sure that our partners do the same. There is positive advantage in securing obligations on our partners in cases where we have decided unanimously—by consensus—to work together. That is the essence of the proposal on the table.
  There are no grand schemes to do away with national initiatives, and there is no attempt to cast aside the national interest in this sphere, in the hope that an undefined European interest can take its place.
  No one, for example, is proposing a system that would prevent Britain from liberating the Falklands, or Belgium and France from sending paratroops to Zaire to rescue their fellow citizens. No one is proposing that any substantial decision on common foreign and security policy should he taken except unanimously. Our aim is a common foreign and security policy on issues where we find that we agree unanimously, always allowing for national freedom of action in other matters.
  No one is attempting to foist a foreign policy on us. The principle of joint action decided by unanimity is accepted. What is proposed—this was discussed yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) —is that secondary decisions—decisions to implement measures decided unanimously—might be taken by majority voting, to speed things up.
  We are not persuaded that the distinction between the original decision, which everyone agrees must be taken unanimously, and the implementing measures can be made to stick. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) criticised a proposal, and I am trying to answer the point that he raised.
  I endorse the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on that subject yesterday, with which my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley agreed. He said that there was no satisfactory answer to the question of how one distinguishes between the original measure taken by unanimity and the implementing or secondary measure, adding:
  "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."—[Official Report, 20 November 1991; Vol. 199, c. 276.]
  That is the Government's position, which I explained to our partners when we were negotiating at the Dutch seaside last week.
  As to defence, the story is straightforward. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spelled it out yesterday. NATO will remain. Europe will not replace or duplicate NATO's arrangements for the defence of Europe. There
  444
  are, as my right hon. Friend said, still differences on that, but there is also much common ground, and it has increased as a result of the NATO summit a week ago.
  Last month, we put forward with the Italians ideas on European defence, proposing that the Western European Union should be vehicle for a European defence identity. That idea is now accepted by our partners. We proposed also ways in which the WEU could be linked to the alliance and to the common foreign and security policy, in order to strengthen Europe's defence capacity within and outside the alliance.
  There is not agreement yet on the nature of that policy, and that will be crucial in reaching a general agreement at Maastricht.
  Sir Patrick Duffy: Yesterday, the Prime Minister confirmed in the House that the Franco-German proposal had suffered a serious rebuff at Rome. Is the Foreign Secretary assured, as a result of further bilaterals with the French, that—even within those parameters that the Prime Minister was largely responsible for drawing up in Rome—the French may not yet return at Maastricht with a further attempt to separate Europe's defence responsibilities from NATO?
  Mr. Hurd: I cannot answer that question, but if they do, we shall resist it. The defence principles under which we are operating are absolutely clear. They have been set out several times, including at Rome, by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. There are three of them, and I believe that they will serve to reassure the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Sir P. Duffy). First, any common defence policy must be genuinely compatible with NATO. It is not enough simply to say that NATO should be preserved. Any proposals for European forces should not cut across NATO's sole responsibility for the defence of NATO territory.
  Secondly, the WEU, which is the instrument of the European defence identity, should be linked in different ways to foreign policy and to the alliance, but be subordinate to neither. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister emphasised that point yesterday.
  Thirdly—this is of particular importance to the United States—European defence co-operation should not marginalise our other allies, or present them with decisions simply to take or to leave. Anyone who knows about such matters—such as the hon. Member for Attercliffe, or my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East—knows that those points are crucial, and we intend to hold by them.
  The third objective of an open and liberal Europe, which I sketched at the beginning of my remarks, is one on which my right hon. and hon. Friends are also wholly at one. To maintain a liberal Europe, we must maintain the free market thrust of existing Community policies—in particular, the preservation of the single market programme, backed by the tough new competition powers, which Sir Leon Brittan is exercising most effectively. If Community competence is to be extended, we must avoid any interventionist tilt.
  If we are to maintain an open Europe, we must ensure also that, after Maastricht, the Community maintains and expands a welcoming approach to enlargement. We welcome the prospect of early accession negotiations for Austria and Sweden, which are themselves a powerful

  445
  reason for concluding the Maastricht conference if we can. I hope that Poland. Hungary, and Czechoslavakia will be in by at least the end of the decade.
  Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: And Norway?
  Mr. Hurd: Norway has not yet made a decision on whether she wants to enter the Community. She held a referendum that went the wrong way, but my hon. Friend is right in thinking that Norway may find an opportunity to reconsider. I do not yet know.
  Mr. Michael Grylls: My right hon. Friend passed rather quickly over the question of the internal market. Will he return to that point for a moment? Many people think that proper enforcement of internal market legislation is of prime importance now. That is what business men want. What concerns me is that the Community appears to he moving on to new programmes before it has successfully completed its existing agenda.
  Mr. Hurd: There is a lot of truth in that. That is one reason why I said at the beginning of my remarks that the intergovernmental conference has come too soon. I n two or three years, we shall have completed our work on the single market. I agree that the existing presidency, the next, and the British presidency at the very end of 1992 ought not to forget that the overwhelming need is to complete the single market. I hope that the proposal that I outlined concerning enforcement by the European Court on lagging or non-complying states will help to deal with the problem that my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) mentioned.
  As to enlargement, Britain benefited after some delay from the fact that the European Community is bound by the treaty of Rome to be open to European newcomers, and we are clear that it is our duty and in our real interest to ensure that the Community's benefits are available to all states qualifying for membership.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Hurd: May I move on just a little, and then give way?
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The point will have gone by then. Earlier, my right hon. Friend dealt comprehensively with what would happen if Governments failed in the European Court of Justice. My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) raised the question of the internal market. How does my right hon. Friend propose to stamp out the fraud that disfigures the Common Market?
  Mr. Hurd: That is one area in which we should encourage the European Parliament to be more active. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spelled that out yesterday, and I will not follow in his footsteps. However, that issue is one on which the European Parliament could quite properly concentrate its energies. The proposals sketched by my right hon. Friend yesterday are designed to equip the European Parliament in that respect.
  Our basic concern in the negotiations is flexibility. We want—this intention is reaffirmed in document after document—to transform relations as a whole among member states into a European union. Peoples grow closer
  446
  when their Governments remove the barriers between them, not when their Governments try to dissolve into one.
  I believe that the House is pretty well at one on that point, which is crucial to the negotiations. Some things are best done by the Community. Others are best done by co-operating between Governments. That distinction is crucial. On 30 September, in the negotiations on political union in which I am involved, there was an important debate on that point. If things turn out right, that debate may turn out to have been a turning point.
  At that time, 10 member states, coming to the argument with different ideas, all concluded not to proceed with a draft put forward by the Dutch presidency, based on the proposition that all the changes agreed by the intergovernmental conferences should be agreed under one heading only—the Community, the treaty of Rome, and the institutions of the Community. The Dutch presidency wanted to bring it altogether into one pillar. The Dutch made that proposal in good faith, but a big majority of member states agreed on 30 September that that approach would not lead to a result at Maastricht. That may turn out to have been a crucial meeting.
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, we accept that in some areas action is best taken by the Community under the treaty of Rome. Such matters include the environment, international transport policy and external trade, which is already undertaken by the Community. But in others—
  Sir Russell Johnston rose—
  Mr. Hurd: No, I want to get on.
  In other areas, however, such as foreign policy and law and order issues, it makes more sense to strengthen co-operation between individual Governments, who have to keep the last word for themselves and their Parliaments. The latest draft, based on the Luxembourg draft, preserves that distinction. It is based on the concept of separate pillars—the Community within the treaty of Rome, co-operation and joint action in foreign and security policy, co-operation in interior and justice matters, all under the guidance of the European Council.
  The last draft, which one could call the draft of the pillars, is far from perfect. Many right hon. and hon. Members yesterday correctly drew attention to its imperfections. We cannot accept it as it stands, for several important reasons which were spelled out yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. However, its basic structure is right—and that basic structure creates sadness among true federalists. We saw that in a speech made last week by the President of the European Parliament.
  The draft now on the table is not a draft that provides for federalism. That point was made eloquently, after I had sketched these notes, by the President of the European Commission yesterday when he criticised the present state of the negotiations, precisely because they were based on the principle that Europe could work well by means of co-operation between Governments. From our point of view, that is a considerable advance, but it is a sadness to him. The question for Maastricht is whether those two points can be reconciled.
  Sir Russell Johnston rose—
  Mr. Hurd: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but this must be the last time.
  Sir Russell Johnston: As the Foreign Secretary is talking about central Community institutions, does he agree that a big gap in the Government motion is that there is no reference whatsoever to the European Parliament?
  Mr. Hurd: The gap was filled by the Prime Minister's speech yesterday, which spelled out in some detail the role that we foresee for the European Parliament in non-legislative areas, such as dealing with fraud, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), and the possibility of the negative assent procedure and what that should cover.
  The remaining reference to a "federal vocation" which the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) criticised yesterday, is an attempt to look forward wistfully to a day when we and others might have changed our minds and be ready to accept federal proposals. We do not ask—we cannot ask—any of our partners to renounce their hopes, but we are not ready to say that we will share them either now or in the future. In Europe there are many mansions and many ways of working together.
  Mr. Peter Shore rose—
  Mr. Hurd: I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman because I referred to him.
  Mr. Shore: Does that mean that the reference in article W-whatever not only to a federal future, but to a new intergovernmental conference in 1996 for that very purpose, will be expunged?
  Mr. Hurd: There are no objections to looking at those matters again—[Interruption.] No. What would be objectionable would be to prejudge that now. Therefore, the present draft of the review clause attempts to prejudge it in a wistful way, and we cannot accept that prejudgment.
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister covered the subject headings of the negotiations in detail yesterday. I should like to finish with my answer to the question that was asked yesterday by several right hon. and hon. Members. Indeed, they answered it themselves. It is the crucial question, "What kind of Europe do we, the British Government, seek?"
  I usually see us as the craftsmen rather than the visionaries of Europe. At meeting after meeting, we are usually concerned with the practicalities, with the next step and the next few years, rather than with the larger scene of the indefinite future, but it is right that, from time to time, we should raise our sights and look into that future. Indeed, a debate of this substance should make us all think of the real interests of the constituents whom we are here to serve. I am quite clear that our constituents want to preserve our distinct character as a nation. Whatever the Opposition may now say, we respect and share that view.
  Our constituents have other expectations that they expect us to do our best to realise on their behalf. They want a rising standard of living, brought about by investment and through open markets. They might ask, if not tomorrow then the next day, whether that would be compatible with standing aside while others build an economic system without us. This is relevant to the points made yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Prime
  448
  Minister about economic and monetary union. Our constituents undoubtedly want Britain to have effective influence in the world. I am clear that, in many but not all sectors, that influence is best exerted in concert with our European partners.
  As has often been said in such debates—this was expressed well by my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell)—we have to help forward the new democracies of central and eastern Europe. We have to try to rescue the peoples of Yugoslavia—to the extent that we can—from their present chaos and bloodshed. We have to use any influence that is available to us to prevent the peoples of the Soviet Union going down a similar path towards anarchy and bankruptcy. To be honest, we cannot yet be sure how effective we will be in dealing with those problems by acting together, but one thing is absolutely certain—we shall be ineffective or worse if we try to work apart or in rivalry. For heaven's sake, that is one of the lessons of this century, and it has been dinned into me over and over again by the experiences of the past two years.
  Our constituents want clean air, clean rivers, forests and seas and they accept—overwhelmingly, I believe—that that means new kinds of work with our neighbours who share that air and that water. Our constituents want better protection against the international criminal. They want order to be introduced into the questions of immigration and asylum. Again, that means more intense work together—not under the treaty or the institutions of the Community, but between Community partners with similar problems.
  The question is not whether that European work together is needed for our constituents and their interests, but how it should be organised. That is what the negotiations are or should be about. We are looking for the right way of working together, and that right way will vary from sector to sector and from policy to policy. That is the sensible way of looking at the deepening of the Europe of 12. At the same time, we have to prepare urgently to widen that Europe until it becomes a Europe that welcomes all those in our continent who share our commitment to political democracy and the market economy.
  Several right hon. and hon. Members have spent more time at Community meetings and at meetings of political co-operation than I have, but I have done enough to have my share of memories of frustration and exasperation as the discussions go on and on, hour after hour, day after day.
  I am no blind worshipper of the Community and the way it works, but I recognise that we are trying to do something that is unique in history. There are no precedents in the history of, say, the United States, Germany, the Soviet Union or Canada that can serve us. We are trying, in the interests of our constituents, to bring together ancient and diverse countries. We are trying to find ways of pooling our efforts and our energies without smothering that diversity.
  That is difficult. It has never been done before and there are no pathfinders. It is not at all surprising that progress sometimes seems unsteady and that much argument accompanies that progress. But the need to find that way is compelling—in all the sectors that I have mentioned and in others. If we neglect that need or pretend that it does not exist; if we claim that isolation from that common European work is feasible or profitable for us, in my view

  449
  we are not defending the interests of our constituents, but deserting them. We are not preserving the strength of this country, but weakening it.
  I cannot tell the House—no one can—whether we shall succeed at Maastricht. If too much doctrine is pressed upon us, we shall have to say that we cannot accept it, but I am clear that we are right to make the effort, as has been set out in the motion tabled by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. We are right to put forward our arguments with all the persuasive force that we can muster and, with the support of the House tonight, we are right to work strenuously for those arguments to prevail.
  4.59 pm
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman: A debate such as this imposes a special obligation on those who take part in it. We must define not simply the position that the Government should take at Maastricht and not simply the outcome that we want. We must define the Europe that we want to see far beyond Maastricht and how we believe that the Maastricht summit can assist in achieving that Europe.
  Let us be clear that we should not think merely of the Europe of the Twelve. Twenty years ago, the European Economic Community was the Six. With the adhesion of the United Kingdom, Denmark and Ireland, it became the Nine. Since then, three further countries have joined. Four more have applied to join, including Sweden and Austria. Their membership, which cannot and should not be long delayed, will surely be followed by that of the remaining European Free Trade Association countries. By the middle of this decade, the European Community may be 18. It could soon afterwards be 20 or more.
  The narrow European Economic Community of the 1960s is developing into a wider European Community which could eventually stretch from the Atlantic to the Urals, from the Arctic Circle to the Bosphorus. It will be a wider Europe that is a community of sovereign states not artificially welded into a super-state. It will be a wider Europe that is a social Europe, with the protections of the social charter.
  It will be a Europe that recognises that transna tional commerce and industry, with all their powers, are tolerable only if there are effective mechanisms to safeguard employed people—men and women, their families and retired people—who might otherwise have no defence against the demands and requirements of vast corporations operating on a continental scale. That wider European Community will be a different Community from the one that we know today. Even if it is desirable, it will not be possible to hold it together through the tight control of a bureaucratic Commission.
  National sovereignty and popular sovereignty in a Europe so wide will require not only more effective national Parliaments but Europewide instruments to express and administer Europe. Such a Europe will require more deeply entrenched and pervasive democracy at both national and European levels. That is what the participants at Maastricht ought to think about and what the House should direct the Government to think about.
  Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Kaufman: I will give way in a moment.
  450
  How can an unprecedented association of nations which come together voluntarily govern itself effectively, responsibly and responsively?
  Mr. Sayeed: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the agenda of the United Kingdom civil service is set by Ministers of the Crown, whereas the European Commission has the sole right of initiative. In other words, an unelected body decides what it will consider. Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that acceptable or democratic? If not, what would the Opposition do?
  Mr. Kaufman: It is neither acceptable nor democratic. In a moment I shall say what the Opposition propose. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for intervening on that point.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: I should be grateful for some clarification. I have been looking at the Opposition amendment. I have had a little difficulty with it. It is probably my fault. There are 31 lines in it, which makes it somewhat longer than the Government motion, which the right hon. Gentleman criticised. The Opposition amendment talks about achieving a single currency as an essential foundation. Does that mean that every Opposition Member who supports the amendment tonight is fully in favour of a single currency?
  Mr. Kaufman: If the hon. Gentleman would be good enough to read the amendment carefully, he might conceivably understand it. If he does not understand it, I guarantee that if my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) catches the eye of the Chair, even the hon. Gentleman will be fully educated on the matter.
  We say that a wider Europe must be a more democratic Europe. It must be more democratic at every level. On agreed and worked-out policies, one country in the ministerial Council should not be able to hold up the progress of the European Community as a whole.
  Mr. Tony Favell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Kaufman: I will proceed for a moment. If I am not held up too much, I will gladly give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  On social and environmental matters, the Labour party believes that there should be qualified majority voting in the ministerial Council, which is composed of a group of men and women already democratically accountable to their national Parliaments.
  Mr. Favell: The right hon. Gentleman was a Member of the House in 1975 when the Government, under the leadership of Lord Wilson, recommended a referendum to the people. Indeed, he probably even helped to draft the document "Britain's New Deal in Europe". I believe that at one time he was the Prime Minister's press officer and, indeed, worked in his office. In the document under the heading
  "Will Parliament lose its power?"—
  Hon. Members: Reading.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The hon. Gentleman is making an intervention. I hope that he will be speedy with it so that we can make progress and that he will not read from the document before him.
  Mr. Favell: The document says that no important new policy will be made without the consent of a Minister answerable to the House.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman is misquoting.
  Mr. Favell: I am not misquoting. The Labour party now departs from that. Is not it right that that departure should be put to the people? Why does his party object to a referendum now, when the right hon. Gentleman supported it then?
  Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman's memory of history is wrong. At that time I was a Member of Parliament. I was a junior Minister and I took advantage of the dispensation which enabled me to vote no in that referendum. But, unlike the hon. Gentleman, I accepted the outcome of the referendum. I voted and expressed my view. The result went against the way in which I cast my vote. As a democrat, I accepted the outcome of the referendum and I see no reason for another.
  Mr. Budgen: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Kaufman: No.
  The scope of the ministerial Council should be extended. That is why the Labour party believes that common foreign and security policies should be developed. On an ad hoc basis, the Community is already feeling its way towards such common policies. There has been a common approach to South Africa, the middle east and the Salman Rushdie death sentence. Those are contributions towards a common foreign policy. Admirable, if so far unavailing, efforts have been made to end the conflict in Yugoslavia. That approach is an element in the development of a common security policy. It will take some time to work out comprehensive and coherent common foreign and security policies. At that stage, we can consider qualified majority voting on those matters.
  The scope of the ministerial Council should not go beyond what is appropriate to the role of the Community and should not usurp the satisfactory work of organisations which already exist. That is why the Labour party opposes a defence role for the Community. First, Europe's defence needs are already satisfactorily met by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which is inherently more effective than any alternative because it includes the transatlantic nations. Secondly, some members of the Community and some applicants—Ireland and Sweden, for example—would find difficulty in being members of a Community with a defence role. Thirdly, a really effective and comprehensive defence structure for the European Community would be viable outside NATO only if it inevitably involved aspirations for a nuclear capacity. The Labour party is opposed absolutely to the creation of a new nuclear power, especially one with 12 or more fingers on the nuclear trigger.
  In response to the intervention by the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed), a more democratic Europe cannot continue to accommodate a non-democratic Commission. That is why we want to make the Commission democratically accountable. Since it cannot be accountable to national Parliaments, it ought to be accountable to the European Parliament. It might be appropriate to give the European Parliament rights of
  452
  confirmation for Commissioners, and it could be worth considering giving the Parliament rights of recall of Commissioners as well.
  The European Parliament should be given further additional powers: powers to initiate proposals for legislation, which would be considered by the Commission and the Council of Ministers; powers of second reading on social and environmental decisions by the Council of Ministers.
  Mr. David Ashby rose—
  Mr. Kaufman: I shall not give way, as I have already done so several times. Mr. Speaker has announced how many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate.
  The proposals for the Council of Ministers, the Commission and the Parliament should be part of the negotiating brief for United Kingdom Ministers at Maastricht, as should proposals on economic and monetary union, to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) hopes to refer later in the debate. Not only are the proposals right in themselves, but many of them might win support at Maastricht. A positive United Kingdom approach—good for Britain and good for Europe—could win us partners and allies at Maastricht who could support Britain's positive proposals, could associate themselves with us on proposals by others that we oppose, and could be counterparts in the give and take involved in any negotiation.
  Mr. William Cash rose—
  Mr. Kaufman: I shall give way because I need a drink of water.
  Mr. Cash: The right hon. Gentleman said that, when he went to the European Parliament in 1987, he was, to say the least, a reluctant European. Could he explain how, in the following five or six years, he has made such a massive transformation? Is it because he is hoping that there will be a socialist Europe?
  Mr. Kaufman: It is because I accept democratic change. Whether or not I like Acts passed by this Parliament, if it passes them I accept them. The right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), in her wisdom, guillotined the Single European Act through the House and it became an Act of Parliament. I accept the law. That is the reason why I have accepted the changes that have taken place.
  Our charge against the Government is that they have next to no positive proposals for Maastricht on the subjects that I have mentioned or on any other subjects. Yesterday, the Prime Minister started his speech by announcing that he would specify "what we can accept" at Maastricht. That is not what the United Kingdom will propose, with the intention of winning acceptance from others, but what we will accept, as proposed by others. He then went on to provide a long list, not of items that we could accept, but of items that we could not accept. His speech was a litany of "we will not accept" and "we will not agree". He used that phraseology over and over again.
  The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) intervened in the Prime Minister's speech and asked him to specify the Government's aims and objectives at Maastricht. The Prime Minister evaded the question and never replied to it. We still do not know what the Government's aims and objectives at Maastricht are.

  453
  What about the word "federal"? At Luxembourg in June, the Foreign Secretary got upset when that word was mooted. He said:
  "We've got real problems with this."
  Last month he changed his attitude. In his offhand way he dismissed "federal" as "only a word". Recently it seems to have been bringing him out in anxiety attacks once again. He skirted warily around it today. He should have seen the face of his right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley when he evaded answering a question about the word "federal". After three ministerial speeches, we still do not know whether the Government would veto a treaty at Maastricht that contained the word "federal". I take it that the Foreign Secretary will give me an answer to that question.
  Mr. Hurd: That question has been answered three days running. It was certainly answered by me to the Select Committee, as the right hon. Gentleman, who attended the Committee, will know. It was answered by the Prime Minister yesterday and by me again today. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is the answer?"] We could not accept a treaty that contained either a commitment at the beginning to a federal vocation or a review clause at the end—-this is the question I have just answered—which implied or stated that the result of the review must be a movement towards federalism. It is perfectly clear.
  Mr. Kaufman: We still have not heard from the right hon. Gentleman—
  Mr. Ian Bruce rose—
  Mr. Kaufman: No, for the moment they are the Government and they will be at Maastricht, so let us find out what they will do in three weeks.
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Kaufman: No, I am dealing with the Foreign Secretary, who gave me a circumlocutory reply to a question that I did not ask him. Will the Government veto a draft treaty—[HON. MEMBERS: "Would you?"] This is the Government for the time being. At Maastricht, will the Government veto a treaty that contains the word "federal", yes or no?
  Mr. Hurd: We have said yes three times now. The word occurs twice in the present draft and I have explained in some detail why it is not acceptable on either occasion. What would the right hon. Gentleman do in those circumstances? It seemed to be implicit in the speech by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday that the federal vocation is no obstacle to him. Is that true?
  Mr. Kaufman: I am not talking about the phrase, "federal vocation". What I asked the right hon. Gentleman—and what he has still not answered—is, would the Government veto a treaty with the word "federal" in it?
  Mr. Garel-Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Kaufman: No.
  Mr. Garel-Jones rose—
  Mr. Kaufman: No—not the office boy. There have been three interventions—
  Several Hon. Members: Give way.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Kaufman: There have been three interventions on this matter but the Foreign Secretary has not said yes or no to the question.
  Mr. Garel-Jones rose—
  Mr. Kaufman: No.
  Mrs. Edwina Currie: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Surely we should check the microphone system in the House. I do not know what the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) heard, but I distinctly heard the Foreign Secretary answer yes on several occasions.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: That is barely a point of order for me. I can hear most people in the House, including the hon. Lady.
  Mr. Kaufman rose—
  Mr. Garel-Jones rose—
  Mr. Kaufman rose—
  Several Hon. Members: Give way.
  Mr. Kaufman: If the Foreign Secretary is ready to say that he will veto such a treaty, I shall give way to let him do so. The Minister of State is not yet the Foreign Secretary and there is little time left for him to become Foreign Secretary.
  Then there is the problem of qualified majority voting on foreign policy issues. In June, the Foreign Secretary told the House that the Government opposed all extensions of qualified majority voting. In his speech in the debate on the Gracious Speech three weeks ago, he changed his tune. He spoke about not liking majority voting on foreign policy "matters of substance" and on "substantial decisions" in foreign policy. He did not completely rule out qualified majority voting on foreign policy issues.
  The right hon. Member for Finchley was right yesterday to express concern from her point of view that the Foreign Secretary was a bit wobbly on majority voting. After his speech today, we still do not know where he stands on that matter—not on the draft to which he was referring but on the principle of extended majority voting.
  It is ironic that the right hon. Member for Finchley was pitched out of office a year ago today as a direct consequence of that "no, no, no" with which she infuriated the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe). Yet under her successor, the Government have not advanced beyond no, no, no. The negative approach of a year ago is unchanged. The Government have made little progress beyond the position that the right hon. Lady set out.
  But there is one basic difference. The right hon. Lady said no, no, no out of firm conviction. She said it because she believed it. She challenged everyone—the Community, Parliament and her own party. It may have been war, but in a way it was magnificent. The present Prime Minister says no, no, no, not out of conviction or courage. He says

  455
  it not because, like the right hon. Lady, he challenges his party, but because he is afraid of his party—and one could never accuse the right hon. Lady of that.
  The motion that the Prime Minister has proposed for decision by the House tonight is intended to be so meaningless that any Tory Member can vote for it while interpreting it to suit himself or herself. The right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) can vote for it because he is opposed to a single currency, and the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) can vote for it while advocating a single currency.
  The right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) can vote for it while being reluctant to concede any more sovereignty to the Community, and the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East can vote for it because he is in favour of conceding more sovereignty to the Community. It is ironic that those two Members were allies in forcing the Madrid conditions on the exchange rate mechanism on the right hon. Lady and they are now at odds over further developments in the Community, but they can still both vote for this meaningless motion.
  Sir Teddy Taylor rose—
  Mr. Kaufman: The chairman of the Conservative party can vote for the motion because he is opposed to a referendum, and the right hon. Lady can vote for it because she advocates a referendum. At Question Time today, the Prime Minister, in ruling out a referendum, boasted that the right hon. Lady in her speech yesterday had premised him her full support. After what he has now said about a referendum, he had better watch out. Not only may she offer him her full support, she may say he is unassailable.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East said yesterday that he would vote for the Government because the Prime Minister was clearly determined to follow a path that the right hon. and learned Gentleman favoured. The right hon. Member for Finchley said yesterday that she would vote for the Government because they were following a path that she favoured—in precisely the opposite direction.
  This is not a clear path to Maastricht that the Prime Minister has set out. It is a maze in which Tory Members wander blindly, from time to time colliding with each other. When tonight those Tory MPs have all voted for the Prime Minister's motion—for different and often conflicting reasons—the Prime Minister will claim that his motion has given him a mandate for Maastricht, when he stands for nothing at all.
  It is as though the Prime Minister is trying to paint a canvas in the style of Georges Seurat, if I may be forgiven for referring to a continental artist. It will be recalled that Seurat was a pointillist who filled his canvas with dots. When he stood back, he could see that he had created a superb landscape with figures. The Prime Minister fills his canvas with dots all right, but when he stands back, all he sees is a mass of dots.
  The Prime Minister dare not present a clear picture, because such a picture would annoy some group or other in the Tory party. He cannot look our European partners in the face, because he is preoccupied with looking over his shoulder at his own party. His negotiation at Maastricht is not with fellow members of the Community but with
  456
  fellow members of the Tory party. The deal he seeks to make at Maastricht is not with the Twelve but with the 1922 Committee.
  The right. hon. Member for Blaby blurted out the truth on television on Sunday when he said that what the Government were aiming for was
  "what the Conservative party would accept."
  Mr. Nigel Lawson: Characteristically, the right hon. Gentleman has totally misquoted what I said. I said I was confident that the Government would come back from Maastricht with something that was acceptable to the Conservative party. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Kaufman: Not only has the right hon. Gentleman made an idiot of himself by that intervention, but he has achieved the interesting feat of misquoting himself. The words I quoted—
  "what the Conservative party would accept"
  —come not only from the transcript of "On the Record" but from even holier writ, The Daily Telegraph, on Monday.
  The Prime Minister claims that he wants to be at the heart of Europe, but his real objective is a bypass operation. The Prime Minister will brandish his meaningless majority after the Division tonight and claim it as a mandate for Maastricht. But this is a Prime Minister uniquely without a mandate. He is Prime Minister not by the vote of the people but by the votes of 185 Tory Members. I saw yesterday how the Prime Minister winced when the right hon. Member for Finchley said:
  "our authority comes from the ballot box."—[Official Report, 20 November 1991, Vol. 199, c. 291.]
  Not only have the people never voted for the Prime Minister at the ballot box: they have consistently and persistently voted against him at the ballot box. The Prime Minister has the worst by-election record in British political history. He is the only Prime Minister in the history of the United Kingdom to have lost every by-election during the period of his premiership. Even the right hon. Member for Finchley did better than that.
  The Prime Minister goes to Maastricht without a mandate or an agenda. He goes there talking about paper sovereignty, when the country's real sovereignty is increasingly dependent on the actions of our European Community partners. He proclaims a determination to defend our national currency. Yesterday, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had the cheek to intervene in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition on the national currency, when this week has shown that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor are powerless to defend our national currency against movements in the markets in Community countries and elsewhere.
  Mr. Anthony Coombs: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Kaufman: No, I shall not give way.
  Yesterday's Financial Times reported:
  "An additional factor deterring international investors from becoming involved in UK markets was the perceived disarray in the Conservative party ahead of today's two day Commons debate on Europe".
  Successive Chancellors have had to acknowledge that, too often, the parity of the pound and the level of interest rates are determined not in the Treasury or even the Bank of England, but in the Bundesbank. What kind of sovereignty is that?

  457
  That is the reality of Europe. We in Europe are all increasingly interdependent, and our sovereignty depends not on empty phrases and petty posturing hut on recognition of that interdependent relationship and the part that we play in it. To fail to play a positive part in the deliberations at Maastricht is to surrender Britain's true interests. It is to let others make the decisions while pretending that we are free to stand apart, unscathed and unaffected, when every decision taken without our full participation will affect our country's future, perhaps for generations.
  Because the Prime Minister did not have the backbone to call a general election this month, Labour will be absent from Maastricht—[Interruption.] That is the only reason. The Prime Minister did not call an election on 7 November, because he knew that he would lose it then. Some time in the first six months of next year, an election must take place. Even this dithering Prime Minister cannot evade it. A Labour Government will be able, therefore, to play some part in the meetings in Portugal between January and June and they will take the chair at the meetings in the United Kingdom from 1 July onwards. By fighting for the ideal of a strong Britain in a wider, deeper and more democratic European Community, that Labour Government will be fighting for a true and meaningful British sovereignty.
  5.34 pm
  Mr. Edward Heath: The House may think that my views are already well known. If so, it enables me to speak briefly in this great debate and it will avoid the interventions of so many of those who are opposed to me; they already know my views.
  When the Prime Minister said, on his appointment, that he wanted Britain to be at the heart of Europe, my heart leaped with joy. That joy was echoed right across Europe. Other European countries said that the new British Government would be positive and co-operative and would put forward proposals for bringing about the completion of the European Community, for which they had been working for the past 40 years. I believe that that is the Prime Minister's intention, which is why I shall strongly support him tonight. I also believe that at the conference he will use all his persuasiveness to enable the European Community to move ahead.
  I have no desire to smear or jeer at the Opposition and the fact that they have now declared themselves fully in support of the Community, because that is a matter of intense pleasure to me. They recognise full well that, if that had happened in the 1950s, 1960s or 1970s, the story of this country in Europe and of the Community would have been different. However, that is history. Today we must welcome the fact that the three major parties in this country all agree about the importance of the Community.
  I regard it from the point of view of the importance to our people, our country and Europe as a whole. I confess that I sometimes wonder whether the thought of Europe as a whole is in some people's minds, particularly when we discuss our friends in the Community and their actions. Some of them do not always stick to the regulations as we should like. Although we are better than most, we are not entirely immune to that accusation. No development is helped by accusations and counter accusations between members of the Community.
  458
  I welcome what the Prime Minister said in his speech. He began by referring back to the summit in Paris in October 1972, when the House had already agreed to our membership but before we had become members. That was to happen on 1 January 1973. He pointed out, quite rightly, that at that summit the Heads of Government had all committed themselves to the future of the Community. He quoted in particular the text of the communiqué on the question of economic and monetary union, where we all affirmed
  "the determination of the Member States of the enlarged European Communities irreversibly to achieve the economic and monetary Union".
  That was 20 years ago, and what is more, we set the way to achieve it.
  The subjects with which we dealt at that time where widespread. We dealt not only with economic and monetary union, but with regional policy. The British were responsible for introducing regional policy, which has been of great benefit to the regions of this country. I am pleased that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has now announced that the Government are to have a strategy for industry, which is a suitable vehicle for regional development.
  We also dealt with social policy because we believed strongly in it. Herr Brandt wished to include in the communiqué the fact that trade union members of boards would be permitted because it had been so successful in his country, which was already the most successful economy in Europe. We went on to industrial, scientific and technological policy and also dealt with environmental policy. In 1972 at the Stockholm conference, Britain was to take the lead on environmental policy. The then Secretary of State for the Environment led that conference on the protection of the environment.
  There was then the question of energy policy and external relations. The communique concluded—this is the point that I wished to make—with the reinforcement of institutions. The final paragraph said:
  "The Heads of State or Government, having set themselves the major objective of transforming, before the end of the present decade"—
  that was the 1970s—
  "and with the fullest respect for the Treaties already signed, the whole complex of the relations of Member States into a European Union".
  It was a question not of economic, political or monetary union but of complete European union. That has been the objective of the other countries in the Community ever since.
  Mr. Tebbit: I particularly want to help my right hon. Friend recollect what he said in the House on 25 February 1970, which was:
  "What is more, those members of the Community who want a federal system, but who know the views of Her Majesty's Government and the Opposition parties here are prepared to forgo their federal desires so that Britain should be a member and take part in political consultation and co-ordination with them."—[Official Report, 25 February 1970; Vol. 796, c. 1221.]
  If my right hon. Friend was so keen for the members to forgo their federal destination, why is he now so keen that they should take it up?
  Mr. Heath: I shall deal with the question of federalism because I know that it is an obsession of my right hon. Friend.

  459
  I welcomed what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had to say yesterday. He was right to emphasise that we have had 20 years to examine the issues and make a complete decision on them.
  With regard to economic and monetary union, I wish to address the issue of a single currency. My right hon. Friend the former Prime Minister signed the treaty for the single market. It must have been quite clear—any economist could have stated it at the time—that if we had a single market with all the obstructions and difficulties removed, there was no alternative to a single currency. That was quite plain to see at the time.
  Mr. Budgen: Rubbish.
  Mr. Heath: I am accustomed to my hon. Friend shouting, "Rubbish"—he does it constantly, but what he says bears no resemblance to the truth or the facts of life. No great economy in the world today has more than a single currency. Let us consider the two greatest—the United States and Japan. Both have single currencies. What is more, we have made various suggestions in the past two to three years for avoiding a single currency, not one of which has stood the test of examination—and they will not do so. Therefore, there is bound to be a single currency, and the remaining question relates to the way in which and the time when that single currency is to be introduced.
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said that he will not be bullied or forced into accepting a single currency. He has left the position open so that he is able to accept it willingly. I am glad that he has done so, and the sooner the time comes for us to accept that single currency, the better. One factor that reassures me at present is that various of my friends are talking about a time schedule, which will not exist. It will be shortened at every stage as we make developments in the Community.
  It is in the interests of our businesses to have a single currency. Imagine what would happen if the rest of the Community had a single currency, and we were the only country without it. What would happen to our business men and our investment? The consequences would be unthinkable. Our business men are frank and recognise that if they are to take the opportunities that the Community offers, they must be part of that single currency and its machinery.
  How can we expect to make the City of London the financial centre of the Community if we are outside a single currency? It would just not be feasible. How can we expect the City of London to be the centre of insurance and other activities in the Community if this country is outside the Community's currency? That would be unimaginable. Those are the facts of life with which we must deal.
  Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Heath: No. Well, if my hon. Friend will refrain from describing my simple utterances as "rubbish", I shall give way.
  Mr. Budgen: Perhaps my sedentary remarks were somewhat rude.
  Will my right hon. Friend explain how it is that the Japanese financial markets are so successful when they trade in other currencies, and how they find it possible to trade in other countries so successfully?
  Mr. Heath: Many foreign exchanges trade in other currencies, but that is not what happens in manufacturing businesses, which have to use the people who trade in the currencies. It would be impossible for London to be the financial centre of a Community if London did not share that single currency.
  It is held up that we cannot devote any more sovereignty to such issues. We have pooled sovereignty in the Community. We all knew that in doing so we would have a say over other people's sovereignty. Sometimes a majority decision and sometimes a unanimous one gave us a say in other countries' sovereignty. That process will continue to develop, and rightly so, because it is of benefit to the people of this country. It will help our country, our nation and Europe as whole.
  When we joined the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, of which we heard much earlier today, we gave it the whole of our sovereignty in the case of war. The words in the NATO treaty made it clear that an attack on one was an attack on all. It did not state that a royal commission should be set up to examine the position or that we should have a chat about co-operation. We made a firm commitment that, all the time that we were in NATO, an attack on one would be an attack on all. There cannot be a greater contribution of sovereignty than that, and the Community is not asking for anything like that at present. Let us not continue the perpetual attack on sovereignty as the reason why we should not develop the Community.
  I am strongly in favour of more democracy in the Community. I do not agree with the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) that it is a bureaucratic Brussels—the common cry. We all have bureaucracies, and Brussels happens to have a more competent bureaucracy than most others in the world. We make a considerable contribution to it, which is why it is so successful in making proposals?
  Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Heath: No.
  How could the Community possibly have made the progress that it has in just 40 years unless it had had a central organisation to put forward proposals? I believe that the European Parliament should be given more powers as soon as possible.
  I quite understand that some right hon. and hon. Members may hate the idea of another organisation dealing with the affairs of the Community. However, as the Community has the power and we contribute the sovereignty, it follows rightly and naturally that the European Parliament should have those powers. Those who are opposed to it cannot have it both ways. They cannot accuse the Community of being undemo-cratic while refusing to grant any democratic powers to its organisations. That is why democratic development is necessary.
  The Government have taken a firm line on the social charter. I strongly support the Prime Minister in what he is doing at the conference. However, I ask the Conservative party to give a second thought to the social charter. Ever since Disraeli, the Conservative party has been proud of what it has done for the social services. I

  461
  believe that we should continue that development in Europe. What is more, we have said that the other countries must not compete unfairly.
  We must not allow that accusation to be levelled at us. They could say that any capitalist can repress the wages of young workers without limitation and accuse us of unfairness. What happens when, by the time workers are 20 or 21 they are sacked so that firms can take on the next generation of young people? We all have constituency interests in the subject. In my constituency I find that older workers are sacked so that companies can take on lower-paid, young workers—that does not constitute a healthy society. The Prime Minister should take another look at the social charter.
  With regard to immigration and similar matters, customs duties are being abolished inside the Community. Immigration inside the Community is covered by free movement and it is up to us in the Community to arrive at an arrangement about immigration into it.
  There are undoubted problems. We have the problem of those who want to come from Africa and the Asian continent to this country. Our Community partners, especially Italy and France, have the problem of those in Muslim and African countries who want to cross the Mediterranean and enter the Community. We all face such problems, but they can be sorted out jointly by the members of the Community. There is no reason to say that such matters can be left to one side.
  Now for the European Free Trade Association. The British created EFTA in an attempt to break up the Community. Neither the Labour Government nor, in their early years, the Conservative Government were prepared to join the Community and in 1958 we set up EFTA with its seven member countries. It did not break up the Community. The Community laughed at us and the only people who suffered were the British, because the smaller member countries said, "We are poor and weak." But they were much richer than we were. Those countries asked us to do this and that for them. I sat through innumerable EFTA meetings at which that was always the theme.
  When we went into the Community, we made a good arrangement for the EFTA countries. Denmark wanted to join, as did Norway, but it was defeated on a referendum. Eire engaged in negotiations. Now the EFTA countries want to join the Community, not because it is a free trade area or because they want to turn it into one, but because they see it as a complete Community. The Swedes, the Austrians and the Swiss—they above all—want a complete Community and do not want to see it disintegrate into a purely free trade area of the type that they are leaving.
  How can that be done? As I know only too well, negotiations take time and it cannot be done tomorrow. However, after 1992, negotiations can begin and it should be possible for those countries to become full members. That also has a relationship to defence, with which I shall deal in a moment. The Foreign Secretary has rightly said that central European countries should be welcomed when they are ready. That means economically and politically ready. They must be democratic in the fullest sense of the word, and must be able to take their place in what will be a single market by the time they join.
  Those are big requirements for people who have been suppressed for 40 or 50 years and who have no idea at the moment of how to run a market economy. Some of them are finding the utmost difficulty in establishing a democratic political society. People who say, "Bring them
  462
  in tomorrow or the wall of wealth is being used against them," are talking fantastic nonsense. As I have told the House before, it took us 11 years after the end of the second world war—six years of Labour government and five years of Conservative government—to abolish the restrictions that had been set up to carry on the war. I remember that well because there was a blazing row between Harold Macmillan and Anthony Eden about whether it should be done.
  After their dictators died, Spain and Portugal took 10 years before they were able to say that they felt ready to join the European Community. If we asked the central European countries to come in today as full members, they would be swept off the face of Europe. There is nothing that we want to buy from them because those countries have all been under Soviet domination. However, they have seen—as the east Germans saw in west Germany—what is available to the rest of us, and they want to buy it.
  The President of the United States is not justified in saying, "Do these things in a year and we will help you." It is not feasible for them to be done in a year. British business men who have been to central European countries and those of us who have travelled to most of them and spoken to their leaders know about the utmost difficulty they are having in changing to a new system. However, there will come a time when we should welcome them to the Community.
  Mr. Skinner: I am listening carefully to the right hon. Gentleman. I was here on 28 October 1971 for that important debate on Europe and for the vote. At that time about 500,000 people were out of work in Britain and some of us regarded that figure as fairly high. We had gone through a period since the end of the war when unemployment rarely went above 500,000. I have listened to the wonderful story about the Common Market. There are 2·5 million people out of work in Britain and millions are out of work in this nirvana of the Common Market that the right hon. Gentleman describes. Only 5 million people are employed in manufacturing in Britain. There will soon be more working in shops and hotels. Some of that has happened because for the past 12 years we have had a Tory Government whom the right hon. Gentleman has occasionally supported. When I look at the Common Market now I do not see an economic miracle any more. I see trouble with a capital T and mass unemployment.
  Mr. Heath: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would expect me to go into the history of the past 12 years on this occasion; nor can he blame the European Community for the situation. My Government managed to bring unemployment down to just 560,000 despite the policy that had been overdone by Roy Jenkins, now Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, whose financial policy pushed unemployment up well above 1 million.
  Mr. Skinner: The right hon. Gentleman is saying that he does not care about the dole queues.
  Mr. Heath: I am saying nothing of the sort. The hon. Gentleman knows that throughout my political life I have worked to bring down unemployment. On this occasion, the hon. Gentleman has gone too far.
  Defence is now being discussed, and it must also be treated realistically. NATO and those who are responsible for running it now feel that they have empty hands and are understandably looking for a purpose. I say to the Prime

  463
  Minister and to the Foreign Secretary that NATO is not justified in turning itself into a purely political instrument or in saying that it will extend its breadth to other parts of the world. I am strongly opposed to that, as, I think, are the majority of hon. Members, and it must not be allowed to come about.
  Let us examine the European contribution to NATO. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary knows very well what President Kennedy said to me. He may have said it to others. He said that he wanted two tall, strong towers in NATO—an American tower and a European tower. I said, "You have a tall, strong tower and we have a rather wobbly one"—to use the current expression. He said, "That is why I want Britain in the Community and will do everything I can to help you get into it. I shall be as discreet as possible and you know the way to let me know what you want."
  That is not anti-NATO. That is the proper basis for NATO. If the United States, a super-power, is one of the pillars, Europe is perfectly entitled to organise its defence to be the second pillar inside NATO. The Americans do not grumble about that. How could they? How do we form the European tower? There is no doubt that over time the Americans will remove more and more of their forces from Europe if the present situation continues. Therefore, we must be prepared to do more to look after our own defence.
  The Western European Union is said to be the answer, but it was formed for one purpose—to bring Germany into the family of European nations, and it was successful. After that, it fell into disuse. I resurrected it on 18 April 1962, so that we could have a discussion that the French would not allow in the Community negotiations, then it fell into disuse again. Now, we are trying to make an institution that had another purpose into one that will deal with defence in Europe. That may be the best way to deal with it at the moment, but I do not believe that, after a time, the Community will continue to exist with these outside organisations dotted about it. This will be particularly so as the European Parliament gains more powers and strength.
  What is more, one cannot separate defence from the economy, as we can see at the moment. We cannot separate defence from foreign policy, or foreign policy from the economy. Therefore, the time will come when these things will have to form a unity in exactly the same way as the three communities that used to exist are now one Community. These organisations will develop. It is because I believe that this is bound to happen that I am more optimistic than events give me justification for being.
  I shall deal now with the suggestion that there should be a referendum.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: I can now ask the right hon. Gentleman a question that I have wanted to ask him for 20 years. He has described his commitment to broad political union. Did he have a mandate for the vote mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)? Did the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) have a mandate for the Single European Act? Does the Prime Minister have a mandate for going to Maastricht next week and agreeing to what is in that treaty?
  Mr. Heath: I can answer only for myself; I cannot answer for my right hon. Friends. We had a debate in the House over many days in July and over many days when we returned in October, and at the end we had a vote, in which Conservative Members were free to vote as they wished. It was up to the Labour party to decide how it would allow its Members of Parliament to vote. It decided to put on the Whip, but 72 of its Members abandoned it, with the result that there was a majority of 112 in favour.
  Every time that the matter was debated, from my opening speech at the first conference in Paris in October 1961, it was made clear that the purpose was to have an ever-closer union to create a European Community. Every single document—I have quoted some already—has made that clear. I believe that we had complete authority from the House to carry on as we did.
  Mr. Spearing: Was that an electoral mandate?
  Mr. Heath: From the House.
  Mr. Spearing: From the country?
  Mr. Heath: Yes, because the country elects the House. That is why I want to deal with the referendum. There are those who say that there must be no infringement of sovereignty, but immediately say that we must have a referendum.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) made a dramatic speech in the debate on the referendum in 1975. Most people know that, when the House debated our entry into the Community, the then Mr. Wilson said that he would not tolerate a referendum, and we both agreed about that. At the end of the debate, there was no decision to have a referendum. However, there was a referendum because one of his Cabinet colleagues put pressure on him and he gave way. Even then, it was rightly said to be an exceptional case and not to be followed by any others.
  We are now told that it has become part of the constitution, but I am a simple fellow and I was brought up to believe that we do not have a constitution, so I do not see how a referendum can be part of it.
  Mr. Robert Adley: If my memory of those days is clear, the noble Lord Jenkins was Home Secretary in the then Labour Government and utterly refused to present to the House the Bill to allow a referendum. Is it not true that the noble Lord Jenkins, who is still a leading member of the Liberal Democrats, has done a U-turn, with the rest of his party, on this issue?
  Mr. Heath: I think so.
  I have here a quote from my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley, who said in the debate on the referendum:
  "It would bind and fetter parliamentary sovereignty in practice."—[Official Report, 11 March 1975; Vol 888, c. 315.]
  I agree with her entirely. It would, and I see no reason to change my view, or her view, at this moment or in the future. I do not believe in referendums as a means of government.
  Mrs. Margaret Thatcher: I know that I inherited that position from my right hon. Friend, and I loyally upheld it. Now, it looks to me as if three parties will be for a single currency and for sacrificing a great deal of the work that it has previously been the right of Parliament to do. How are the people to make their views known in

  465
  this absence of choice? That was the particular point. My right hon. Friend will remember that our right hon. Friend the noble Lord Hailsham, made an interesting speech on elective dictatorship.
  Hon. Members: Oh!
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mrs. Thatcher: Therefore, as he has been in the House longer than I have, will my right hon. Friend tell us how people can make their views known when all parties take the same view but each is divided?
  Mr. Heath: This is an occasion which constantly occurs in parliamentary history.
  Mr. Budgen: Rubbish.
  Mr. Heath: What a pity some people have such a limited vocabulary. People can make their views known in a variety of ways, as we know, and can judge candidates on other questions. If all three parties are united on the issue of a single currency—
  Mr. Cryer: They are not united.
  Mr. Heath: I said if they are united. I am talking about the party as a whole, not about those below the Gangway. If the parties are united, it is open for people to judge, on the merits of the candidates, whom they want to return. The Foreign Secretary quoted Lord Attlee saying that referenda are "for demagogues and dictators". As in so many other things, although he has never had the credit for it, Lord Attlee was right. I strongly support the Prime Minister in his mission and I wish him every success.
  6.8 pm
  Mr. James Molyneaux: Madam Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber do so quietly as a courtesy to the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) who has the Floor?
  Mr. Molyneaux: I am glad to follow the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), even if he, too, is below the Gangway. I share his view of the importance of co-operation with the rest of Europe. He and I are therefore in line with the Prime Minister, who yesterday said:
  "our responsibility … must also be to all the other European countries which are now returning to democracy for the first time in 50 years."
  He concluded with the words:
  "Our door must be open to them."—[Official Report, 20 November 1991; Vol. 199, c. 281.]
  I have faith in the Prime Minister's ability to ensure that at Maastricht the rules will not be drawn so tightly as to treat those eastern European nations as second-class Europeans.
  The right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) yesterday referred to the history of what she correctly termed "the conveyor belt". I want briefly to augment her history lesson. There are some present in the Chamber who can remember Britain's first tentative attempt to gain entry. We had an assurance at that time from the Macmillan Government that the Government were merely engaged in a reconnaissance operation to probe, to see what terms might be on offer, but not to make any kind of
  466
  commitment. There was no question of making any decision; the House of Commons would consider carefully any terms which might be on offer, but there would be no commitment to entry then.
  When the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup returned after having done, if I may say so, a good job from his point of view and from the point of view at that time of the majority of his party, we were then asked by the Macmillan Government whether it would be sensible to reject terms which were far better than anything that we had a right to expect.
  I am the only surviving Ulster Unionist on this Bench who voted against Second Reading of the European Communities Bill on 17 February 1972. At that time, I was in receipt of the Conservative party Whip. I defied a three-line Whip on that occasion in the Division which gave the Government a majority of eight to take Britain into what was then termed the European Economic Community.
  I was not disciplined on that occasion. I was not expelled. That came two years later when I opposed the same Government on the Sunningdale Anglo-Irish agreement. But it would be fair to say in defence of the majority of the 309 who voted for that Second Reading that they never intended that the structure should extend beyond its then title—the European Economic Community. In fairness to most of the 309, it has to be said that, once they became aware of the more sinister designs, they had the courage and integrity to say no, and they still have that courage and integrity. I defend the right of English men and women to say no, even though they occasionally deny the right to Ulster men to say no to the dictation of a foreign Government.
  In recent months there has been a parallel awakening throughout the entire United Kingdom electorate. In 1975, in the Wilson referendum, the electorate were prepared to support what was presented at that time as a wider trading bloc, and well we can remember that point being put to us. We were asked whether it would not be a good idea to enter this all-powerful bloc to enable our products to be sold to 250 million customers. That would, for example, benefit the British motor industry which would be able to sell its products to the 250 million customers in Europe, who presumably were thought to be incapable of making their own cars. I do not need to rub in the lesson of what has happened in the interval to the British motor industry.
  Whatever the speed of the conveyor belt, we have to accept that the long-term policy was and is one of gradualism. It is a policy which depends on a certain vagueness at all stages during the past 30 years and more and perhaps into the years ahead, but there is a responsibility upon those of us who have no particular vested interest in the outcome of the next general election to probe the intentions of both parties and to bring out the real effects in a way which is difficult for both the Government and the Opposition, for understandable reasons.
  Even in the past few months, the electorate have moved from approval in general to opposition in particular. The main cause of that is the way in which the Commission has prematurely shown its hand. The general public may not be greatly motivated by all the technical issues that we have been debating during the past two days which are of

  467
  legitimate concern to Parliament, but they are incensed by the nooks and crannies meddling, much of it unnecessary and all of it plain daft.
  The draftsmen of the European directive are unlikely to call a halt or to suspend production in what is for Britain a pre-election period. By the time we come to that general election, answers will be required of every candidate, not so much on the big issues, as on a range of needling, meddlesome demands. Answers of a kind may be given, but they are unlikely to allay suspicion. Election addresses and manifestos may or may not be unambiguous, but the return of what may be a candidate of conviction does not guarantee that he or she will be able to sustain his or her position in the context of a general election.
  The supremacy of the ballot box is subject of the greater supremacy of the party Whips office. Only on rare occasions can a three-line Whip be safely defied. Rebellions have to be rationed. That point is relevant to the exchanges between the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, the right hon. Member for Finchley and the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing).
  One example of the breakdown of the supremacy of the ballot box, even of common sense, in the face of the overlordship of the Whips office, is fresh in my memory. It came on the morning of the vote expressing approval of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, when countless right hon. and hon. Members, many of them present in the Chamber this evening, came up to me with words of encouragement which I summarise as follows—"Jim, sorry I couldn't be with you in your Lobby last night, but don't worry, the damn thing won't work anyway."
  That attitude did not disillusion me as it might disillusion others. I have been here long enough to be proof against disillusionment. I fully understand why right hon. and hon. Members had to say that. But that is why I have to agree with the right hon. Member for Finchley when she said yesterday:
  "let the people speak."—[Official Report, 20 November 1991; Vol. 199, c. 298.]
  As a constitutionalist, I have had to conclude, somewhat regrettably, that a referendum is desirable. To those who claim that framing a question would be impossible, I say let them try this for a draft: Do you want to govern yourselves or do you want to be governed by others?
  6.18 pm
  Mr. Nigel Lawson: The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) has been in the House for a long time, and during that time he has earned its affection and respect. I am pleased to be following him in today's debate, although I must add that I cannot agree with his final remarks.
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister opened the debate with a particularly well-judged and well-considered speech, and I entirely support what he said. As has been mentioned at least once today, on an earlier occasion my right hon. Friend said that Britain's place was right at the heart of Europe. I endorse that view entirely; but the question that most of us have been addressing in this debate is, what sort of Europe do we wish to be at the heart of?
  That is the key issue—the issue of what is to be the constitution of Europe. Such an important issue should be debated openly. It is useless for some right hon. Members
  468
  to say, "That was decided long ago; you signed up to this, that and the other." That is not so; this is a live issue, a difficult issue and an issue which the House must address seriously—as, in my view, it has done in this debate.
  Historians of the future may look back on the debate —or, at least, on one aspect of it—almost with a sense of disbelief. The big event of recent years has been the complete change in the European scene—and, indeed, the world scene—following the collapse of communism and the end of the cold war. As some of my hon. Friends have pointed out, that has had a profound effect on the condition of Europe.
  Countries—many of them members of the European Free Trade Association—that had previously felt that their commitment to neutrality prevented them from joining the Community are no longer inhibited, for the ending of the cold war means that the question no longer arises. Now they feel free to join, and wish to do so.
  As for the countries of central and eastern Europe—the fledgling democracies—they, too, want to join; but, as we all know, that part of our continent is in crisis. This half, fortunately, is doing reasonably well, but the same cannot be said of the other half. It is experiencing an economic crisis: parts of eastern Europe are on the brink of total economic disintegration. There are also political crises—crises of legitimacy, and the crises involved in accommodating the nationalisms that are emerging in various regions. Those nationalisms could be put to very constructive use, but they could also prove destructive. That is where the problems are; that is the part of Europe to which we should be paying attention today.
  Those historians of the future will, I think, be amazed that we are expending so much time, energy and effort on addressing not the half of Europe that is in difficulties, but the half that is not. We are fiddling with western Europe while eastern Europe burns.
  Mr. Hugh Dykes: I entirely agree with what my right hon. Friend has just said. Is it not encouraging, however, that—as far as I know—not a single eastern European leader has said, publicly or privately, that the Community should slow the developments that it is currently achieving, pending the eventual adhesion of eastern European countries? Despite the difficulties that those countries are experiencing, their leaders all say that they are fully prepared to join at the stage of development that currently prevails.
  Mr. Lawson: I now have a fair amount to do with the leaders of those countries, and, unfortunately, they are in a very weak position. But I have heard none of them say that they welcome the treaties or consider them helpful. The Community should be devoting much more attention to what it can do to open its markets to the produce of those countries, especially their farm produce. Their manufacturing sectors are in a very poor state, although there is a world market, and a European market in particular, for the agricultural produce that they are able to generate. The record of France—a prime mover in the current developments in western Europe—is nothing short of scandalous.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Trade with eastern Europe has normally been centred on the Soviet Union, which still needs that produce, because it is short of food. Surely it would be more logical—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has excellent parliamentary manners and knows that she should address the Chair.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Surely it would be more logical to continue the supply of food to the Soviet Union. I have been there recently, and I know that the people there are extremely hungry. If we provided aid, they could consume the food at home rather than putting our farmers out of work.
  Mr. Lawson: I am sorry that my hon. Friend takes such a narrow view. The problem with the Soviet Union, or rather the former Soviet Union, relates much more to the distribution of food there than the capacity to produce it. Eastern European countries produce an export surplus, and they desperately need western markets. They want to improve their trading connections with the west, and I think that we should encourage that.
  Let me return to the subject of the Maastricht treaties. The Government face a difficult task, which they are handling with considerable skill, but concern is still felt by many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House—including me—about the present position. For 40 years, I have believed that Britain's destiny lies in Europe; ever since the formation of the European Community, I have believed that we should join, and I am only sorry that we did not do so at the beginning.
  One of the reasons why I supported the Community was that it struck me as an inspired creation: it provided a means for the most intimate form of co-operation between the various nation states of Europe, without becoming a federation—a single united states of Europe. It got the balance right between the need for the closest possible co-operation and the retention of nation slates. I believe that the latter is not only important historically, but profoundly important to the successful conduct of policy. National loyalty is essential.
  We are now being asked to suggest that the careful balance which is the European Community be destroyed —transformed into a federal Europe. There was a time when people said, "There is no such thing; it is just a bogey in the night. Do not worry about a federal Europe, for that is not what it is about." Now, however, the cat is firmly out of the bag, in the preamble to the treaty—the "federal vocation". We know from the prime movers in the exercise that that is their objective; I disagree with it, but there is nothing disreputable about it, and equally no point in concealing it.
  Some Liberal Members have said, "What is all this about federalism? Federalism merely means decentralisation." Is it really being suggested that what Mr. Delors wants is less power at the centre and more power for the nation states? Is it really being suggested that what Mr. Mitterrand wants is less power for the Community, and more for Germany and other nation states? On the contrary: the desire exists to create a federal united states of Europe. As I have said, that is an entirely legitimate point of view, although I do not happen to share it.
  Why am I opposed to it? First, I believe that that is not what the people of Britain want and I suspect strongly that it is not wanted by those living in most of the other countries that comprise the Community. Secondly, history, including recent history, suggests that multinational federations simply do not work. To try to embark upon them is a road to immense political difficulties and
  470
  troubles and could lead to a nationalist backlash of the ugliest type. As I have said, nationalism can be channelled to positive purposes, but we all know that it can take an ugly form. That is the danger if we go along that route.
  Even those who favour a federal Europe—a united states of Europe—should be concerned at what is in the treaties and the way that things are going. The embryo federation is a much more centralist model than anybody, even those in favour of a federation, could be happy with. It gives powers to the centre which the united states does not require and provides protections for states' rights which are wholly inadequate.
  The doctrine of subsidiarity is an attempt to meet the problem, but it is wholly inadequate and feeble. Who is to decide and how are they to decide what it is appropriate for the former nations to have within their responsibility? Who is to decide what should be determined centrally? The idea is that issues should be decided at the appropriate level and, presumably, the Commission will make the proposal as to which that level is. That is nothing like the protection contained in the constitution of the United States, where there are clearly defined and written responsibilities for the federal Government and everything that is not clearly written down is the responsibility of the various states. There is no such protection here.
  Moreover, with the constitution-mongering of the Community, we have a constitution that is permanently on the move. That troubles me. I believe in a dynamic society, but that society needs a stable framework. A few years ago, we had the change in the constitution brought about by the Single European Act. Now, further constitutional change is proposed with the Maastricht treaties and we are told that there will be a further constitutional change in 1996, and so on. It is not only undesirable to have a constitution permanently on the move, but with each change there is pressure for more and more power to be given to the centre.
  Sir Michael Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that for the future we should think seriously about the six-month presidency? Is it not the nature of things that in each country's turn there is inevitably a trend to be different and to drive on in some other direction?
  Mr. Lawson: I agree with my hon. Friend. The issues are rather more fundamental than that, but I agree that the six-month presidency is not helpful and that an annual presidency would be preferable.
  I shall give two examples. First, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister pointed out, there are the social issues. Nobody is suggesting that social issues such as employment conditions and so on are not a fit subject for legislation. That is not the point. The point is at what level the legislation should be. Should it be national legislation, or should it be Communitywide legislation? It is striking that in the United States, which is a single nation state of a federal nature, it is largely the individual states that decide their own arrangements. They are not centrally imposed.
  If we take the latter route, there will inevitably be pressure to push up the level to that of the highest—the Federal Republic of Germany—and there will be huge costs on the whole European economy, particularly the poorer countries of the Community, which could not

  471
  possibly bear such costs. The countries that benefit will not be in Europe but will be Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong and elsewhere.
  Secondly, majority voting on the environment also concerns me. It is accepted far too readily because there are aspects of the environment that do indeed cross frontiers. I agree that it is appropriate for those aspects to be decided at Community level. However, there is also a range of environmental issues that are perhaps the most local issues of any that we ever deal with as Members of Parliament. The idea that they too should come under an environmental umbrella to be decided at Community level is absurd and offensive. River pollution has been quoted. Of course the Rhine runs through many countries, but there are not many rivers in this country that cross national borders.
  Clearly, the key issues are those of foreign policy, security—both external and internal—and currency and all that flows from that. I was interested to hear—it was one of the few clear things that was said by the Opposition spokesman, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman)—that the Opposition were in favour of majority voting on foreign policy. I had not heard that before. Without wishing to give offence to a great Department of State, I see a danger of a sort of Foreign Office view gaining ground which holds that foreign policy, defence and security are what really matter and that we should not worry about money. [Interruption.] Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer recognises that view.
  Such a suggestion could not be more wrong. As the EMU treaty makes clear, perfectly logically, a single currency requires a single European central bank and, in a democracy, that in turn must lead to a single Finance Minister and a single Government. Once that is established, independent foreign policy and independent defence policy go out of the window.
  In a sense, the game was given away by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) when he said that a single market requires a single currency. That is erroneous. Tell that to the Americans, Canadians and Mexicans—they have joined up in a free trade area. When he was trying to demonstrate the correctness of what he was saying, he said that we should look at the United States of America. Of course, the United States is precisely what I am describing. It is a single country with a single Treasury Secretary and a single Government.
  Mr. Doug Hoyle: There is only one dollar in the United States.
  Mr. Lawson: That is my point. They all go together —the single currency, the single central bank, the single finance ministry and the single Government. We must be clear that that is the choice facing us.
  The idea that we can have an independent European central bank alone, which would be far and away the most powerful institution in the Community with no accountability to anybody, is absolutely bizarre and democratically unacceptable. One of the extraordinary oddities—I put it no stronger than that—of the Opposition's position is that, with the enthusiasm of the convert, they have embraced the single currency and an
  472
  independent European central bank, but they will not tolerate an independent Bank of England. That is a very strange position for any party, even the Labour party, to adopt.
  Mrs. Currie: As my right hon. Friend probably realises, many engineering businesses in Derbyshire which trade in Europe already trade in deutschmarks. How much control and influence does the House have over that?
  Mr. Lawson: I have never been engaged in increasing governmental control. I am happy that the Government of whom I was proud to be a member and who were led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) abolished exchange controls. Business men in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) and elsewhere are now free to trade in any currency they choose. However, the advantages of having just a single currency are less than my hon. Friend may think.
  Mr. George Robertson: In an article in the Evening Standard last week, the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) concluded by saying that the Prime Minister should sign the economic and monetary union treaty at Maastricht because it was open to the other 11 members to go ahead with the treaty on their own. I put to the right hon. Member for Blaby, who has an intellectual reputation, a question that was put to the Prime Minister yesterday. If the other 11 were to go ahead on their own, what would be the position of sterling in relation to the single European ecu? Would it be able to float free or would it be forced to shadow the ecu? The right hon. Member for Blaby knows something about that.
  Mr. Lawson: I do not believe that the other 11 will go on their own, even though they are free to do so.
  There are budgetary consequences, too, of a single currency and they are spelled out in the Dutch draft treaty. It has been said that we do not need those to be spelled out explicitly and that we can rely on market disciplines. In theory that may be the case, but in practice it is doubtful. Market disciplines depend on a no-bailing-out rule under which the Community as a whole would not bail out a country in difficulties, just as a US federal Government would not bail out a state and we would not bail out a local authority. That may lack market credibility even if it is true.
  Other important problems such as debt overhang have not yet even been addressed. The various countries that comprise the Community have built up a considerable national debt which they were able to sell and have freely held, because those countries were responsible for their own currencies. Once they cease to be responsible for their own low currencies, the readiness to hold the existing debt, never mind any further debt, would be in doubt in a number of countries, although perhaps not in all.
  Several countries would face a critical situation in which they would not be able to borrow any more in the world's markets. Their burden of debt interest would rise considerably and they would have to raise taxes to meet that. There might even be a run on the Government. The market would see it coming and that would begin to affect the financial markets and the markets in that debt well before a single currency came about, if the market thinks that a single currency is on the way.

  473
  It is interesting to consider the other half of Europe. The more perceptive analysts of the political economy of the former Soviet Union are increasingly concluding that the only possible way out is to do away with the single currency, the rouble, and, on economic and political grounds, for the various republics to have their own currencies. Experts as far apart as Mr. George Soros and Professor John Williamson have reached that conclusion.
  Let us consider the draft treaties. The political union treaty in its present form, for the reasons that I have given and for those given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, is clearly unacceptable. However, I believe that the EMU treaty is something that the Government can sign, now that the stand-aside clause is written into it, and there is the declaration, which is separate from the treaty, of support in principle for the single currency, which we shall not be signing, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear. That is very important. I am glad that the declaration is there, because our ability to refrain from signing it demonstrates our position on that issue.
  Mr. William Cash: At the beginning of the draft treaty on EMU, there is a treaty obligation under clauses 2 and 3(a) which would commit us to a single currency and fixed exchange rates. Will my right hon. Friend clarify that?
  Mr. Lawson: I do not believe that my hon. Friend is right. The treaty clearly states that everything is governed
  "as provided for in this treaty",
  and the treaty contains the opt-out clause.
  The convergence conditions in fact make it unlikely that eight or even seven countries will be willing and able to qualify in the event. Those conditions are not an optional extra: they are inherent in the very nature of the enterprise. Germany is conscious of the immense problems that arose in relation to currency union with eastern Germany. Germany is aware that such convergence conditions, or something very much like them, are absolutely essential.
  I could support stage 2, with the independent national central banks co-operating together, as the Germans would like to see, under the Committee of Central Bank Governors, renamed the European Monetary Institute. That would be perfectly acceptable, but as a stopping point. That is a perfectly adequate constitution for the monetary side of Europe.
  But the real purpose behind all this is not economic: it is political. I believe that there is no net economic gain and that the politics is the politics of Europe past, not the politics of Europe future.
  6.48 pm
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: In the interests of time, and not wanting to abuse Privy Councillors' time, perhaps I should not refer to the speech made by the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) except in one respect. I found his comments about federalism extremely interesting.
  A headline in The Times today states:
  "Delors gives MEPs mocking account of Britain's stance."
  I simply say to Mr. Delors that I was in Vichy France in 1944 when the French fought each other. I do not mock it: it happened. That was a problem that France faced. If we have old historical problems and old historical ideas based on an unwritten constitution and the fact that we are averse to federalism, I hope that he will not mock. What
  474
  happened in Vichy France was endemic to France, and our feeling against federalism is something that we have grown up with over the years.
  This may be my last speech in a major debate. However, last week I saw a reissue of "The Four Feathers", a colour film which was issued in 1939 and which I paid one and sixpence to see. The film has been reissued, and it is very good. Reissued though the film was, people did not appreciate it in the way in which we younger people would have done in 1939.
  I was selected as a parliamentary candidate in 1952, and when I stood in 1955, we were at the beginning of the EEC debate. When I became more active and entered the House after the death of Hugh Gaitskell, it was the greatest problem of the Labour party. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) will remember that he was then a research officer at Transport house. The EEC was also the subject of discussion among the Conservative party.
  The conflict of views about going into Europe which was led by men whom I respected, such as Ernest Bevin, Attlee and Churchill, was not because they were evil men but because they came from a generation when going into Europe and eschewing the open sea was something that they could not comprehend. Now, with a wider membership and, as the right hon. Member for Blaby said, with what is happening in eastern Europe, with a broadening role in the face of new problems, and with the changes of the war years over, I have come to believe not that we should just be members but that we should play a more positive role not only to influence the future, which is important, but to change the existing system.
  I wish to refer to some of the existing institutions of the EC. Beyond Maastricht, we must consider those institutions closely. I look askance at the presidency system. Small countries are initiating discussion and moving forward on matters such as defence and foreign affairs about which they know very little. The Dutch Foreign Minister could draw up a constitution on every subject under the sun every morning before breakfast. Perhaps he could do one for Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Molyneaux: William of Orange.
  Mr. Rees: The fact that it would not work would make no difference.
  We should initiate change in the bureaucratic Commission. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), a former Prime Minister, was not concerned about the bureaucratic Commission.
  Mr. David Trimble: I take the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes about the presidency. The over-representation of small countries provides a built-in vote in favour of federalism. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that applies equally to the weight that they are given in the Council of Ministers and in the Parliament, and that equal representation and equal say, proportionate to size, are important?
  Mr. Rees: That subject should surely be examined. The point that I was raising was the six-month presidency, when countries seem to be more determined to show their political virility than to find a way forward. I certainly have no objection to the smaller countries. I was talking about the six-month presidency, which raises problems.

  475
  Of course the European Parliament needs more powers, but we should watch it very carefully. Over the years I have noticed some excellent Euro-Members, many of whom have ended up in this place. The aim of many Labour Members of the European Parliament is to come here. The fact that only 30 per cent. of people vote in a European election demonstrates a lack of interest in Euro elections. All parties need to do something about that.
  My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made clear his objection on foreign affairs, to the methods suggested in the treaty. Let us look at the practicalities and at the way in which the EC has behaved over Yugoslavia. The right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion, (Mr. Amery), to whom I always defer because he played a major part in a southern Slav country, 40 or 50 years ago—
  Mr. Giles Radice: And Albania.
  Mr. Rees: He was there too, but he behaved extraordinarily bravely during the Yugoslavian campaign. Most hon. Members would not appreciate that.
  The Germans, with their long-term policy in favour of Croatia and Slovenia, had to have seven divisions in Yugoslavia to hold them down. I played a small part in the air war. Anybody who believes that Yugoslavia could be dealt with as Saddam Hussein's Iraq was dealt with had better look at the terrain. The Serbs, with whom the right hon. Gentleman was fighting, who were fighting in the mountains, held up seven German divisions. The Italians were involved in a divided-up Croatia. The EC was romancing when it talked about dealing with the Yugoslav problem. There is no way of dealing with that country unless one redraws the boundaries, and that would be a difficult task. It is not enough just to have a common foreign policy. A common foreign policy means nothing if it cannot be implemented.
  On defence, if America is not involved, Germany or France will become the main nuclear power in Europe. It is important to remember that. There could not be a European defence force that was not a nuclear power. I would prefer America rather than France, Germany or ourselves to be the nuclear power. That raises other issues.
  The political side also relates to defence. The first time that I heard of Maastricht was on 12 May 1940, when the RAF was shot out of the sky and knocked on the ground. Fairey Battle squadrons went in to attack bridges over the canal at Maastricht. They were massacred. Politicians of all parties should realise how foolish they can be. Two young men won the Victoria cross at that time. They deserved the VC. The then politicians led them into battle without the right equipment and without a proper defence agreement.
  Of course, there was a defence agreement with the French, but what it added up to was mere chat. If there is to be a defence agreement, it must be in terms of integration of weaponry, what the targets are, and the supply of equipment. The day after the Maastricht massacre, the French general commanding the armêe de l'air said, that he was sorry, but they were the wrong targets; that was not where the Germans were. By the time they were located, the Germans were into France.
  476
  It is not enough to have a political policy, and it is not enough to have a defence policy just to give it a name. It will not happen that way. Therefore, we must watch matters very carefully.
  The decisions will be taken in the next Parliament, when I will not be here. Nor will 60, 70 or even more hon. Members when they lose their seats, plus another 100 or so who will retire. It is not the place of this House to take final decisions. It is up to the new Parliament to take final decisions. We are simply conducting a holding operation. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) advises me, as he always does, that a Bill amending the treaty will be before the House. It is important that we do not hand to our successors decisions made at the end of a dying Parliament; we should leave them to take the decisions in future. We should take it easy and not be led by the nose by the Commission or by the Council of Foreign Ministers. Let us not always be looking for great change. Let us see how it goes. Important changes will also take place in economic affairs, but it is the next Parliament that will matter.
  I have tried to end my speech before 7 o'clock, because many other right hon. and hon. Members want to contribute. I will finish by looking back—which, at my age, I do far too often. I have taken my children to the battlefields of north-east France as a result of which their grandfather died because of the foolishness of politicians. We must judge the second world war differently, but let us make sure that we do not repeat the mistakes that so many politicians thoughout Europe made over the past 100 years. They made elementary mistakes for which young men died.
  We must think hard. Just after the war, I taught in a grammar school, and one day the French assistance said to me, "This school will clap itself to death." I begin to believe that the House will clap itself to death one day. We think that we are so good and do everything absolutely correctly, but of course we do not. We sneer at the European Parliament, but it is time that we looked at Europe in other than a partisan way—"Ha ha, ha. Did you hear what happened? Did you hear what he said? Wasn't that funny?" We should look to the future, and if we make mistakes young men and women will die. I do not want my grandchildren to do what their grandfather did, or even marginally what I had to do.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I remind the House that the 10-minute limit on speeches is now in effect.
  7 pm
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I agreed with much of what the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) said at the beginning of his speech, but I did not go along with his closing remarks.
  I want to make one comment about the referendum before dealing with the main subject of my speech. I won a marginal seat and have held it on five successive occasions. I believe that real democracy is allowing voters to decide in a general election and not in a referendum, which is a totally different thing, and one that is alien to my concept of democracy.

  477
  My party is a broad church, with room for many shades of opinion. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends—be they pro or anti-European fanatics—to remember that voters will not support a party that is riven by doubts or dissent. The voters will write off the Opposition, whose policies are now purely hypocritical and do not matter. I appeal to my right hon. and hon. Friends to realise that elections are lost by a party that is divided.
  I turn to defence and security issues, and speak as the leader of the United Kingdom delegation to the Western European Union and to the Council of Europe. I much regretted the dismissive attitude taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who has clearly totally forgotten that the Western European Union was revitalised, added Spain and Portugal to its ranks, and produced the Hague platform—which provided for the WEU's nine members to defend their borders, with nuclear weapons if need be. It undertook out-of-area activities in respect of minesweeping in the Iran-Iraq war, and of the sanction stopping of ships during the Gulf war. My right hon. Friend cannot write off the WEU as simply and as simplistically as he did.
  Recently, both the Franco-German and Italian-British defence proposals were presented, followed by the valuable NATO conclusions. Again, I disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup in his comments on NATO, which were so childish as to be not worth considering.
  I will inform the House of the conclusions of the parliamentary assembly of the Western European Union, which comprises elected members from the Parliaments of France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Luxembourg, Belgium, Holland, and the United Kingdom. In December 1990, the parliamentary assembly
  "adopted a position opposed to certain proposals for WEU to be integrated in the European Community, Its view was that, if implemented, these proposals would weaken the Atlantic Alliance and also Europe's ability to play a useful role on the world stage. The Assembly therefore recommended that the Council pursue the reactivation of WEU in order to allow Europe to play a more effective part in NATO."
  That decision was carried overwhelmingly, with the support of all four of the political parties represented in the WEU.
  Subsequently, the presidential committee, which runs the WEU between assemblies, decided to offer advice to both the Council of Ministers and the intergovernmental conference. I was given the task of preparing a document, which was adopted without opposition in March 1991 by all nine nations and all four political parties. I will quote from it, because it is important to do so in the context of the reasons that have been given for not giving the WEU control of defence.
  "WEU could establish a link between a Europe in the process of unification and an Atlantic Alliance in the process of transformation and thus provide the vehicle for a stronger Europe to contribute more to joint security …
  WEU must be at one and the same time the means of allowing Europe to make its voice heard in a Euro-American dialogue"—
  it must never be forgotten that Europe must always have an input into that dialogue—
  "of which the Atlantic Alliance is the institutional framework and the instrument for making the most of the European contribution to the defence of the West …
  This contribution of Europe is the more essential in that the American military presence on the continent of Europe, reduced since the war in the Gulf, will remain below what it was in the past … Defence policy should continue to be made in the organisations which assure collective defence, NATO,
  478
  and WEU. It should be a task of the European Council to reach conclusions on common foreign and security policy. These would serve as a guideline for co-operation within WEU on defence matters"—
  not control, but guidelines.
  A linked theme, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) and others referred is the position of the members of the former Warsaw pact, who desperately want to be accepted and acknowledged as democratic. I had the privilege of leading two teams of Council of Europe observers to elections in east Germany and, recently, Poland, and I have spoken to Bulgarians, Hungarians, and Czechs—the last two are now full members of the Council of Europe.
  They realise that their route to the Community can be opened only if their countries are practising real democracy in respect of human rights, and multi-party Parliaments—although I said to my Polish friends, "You can go a bit too far." More importantly, in the light of the events in Yugoslavia, whose guest membership of the Council of Europe is likely to be suspended, those countries must provide proper protection for minorities. The question of protecting minorities is one that will pose a real danger to Europe in the next five years.
  It is simplistic to say that one should recognise Slovenia or Croatia. If one did so now, that would unleash some of the most horrible massacres in the other states of what was Yugoslavia. However, I acknowledge the tragedy of not recognising those two states. I do not propose at this stage to try to provide an answer. I only say that it is the route of the Council of Europe that has been recognised by the Community as leading to Community membership itself. That cannot be bypassed, because one cannot have in Community membership countries that do not follow the concepts of democracy and human rights.
  I address a final word to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary. When they go to Maastricht, they will face difficult choices and tasks. They should remind their opposite numbers that their own parliamentarians—the French, Germans, and Italians—all subscribed to the view that the defence issue to which I referred should not be brought within the European Community. The Prime Ministers and Foreign Secretaries of France, Germany, Italy, the Benelux or wherever should be reminded that they will have to account to their own Parliament.
  I advise the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South that the advantage of organisations such as the Council of Europe and the Western European Union is that they are composed of Members of their own national Parliaments who have roots inside democracies, and that those parliamentarians have spoken and have said no to the inclusion of defence in the competence of the European Community.
  I hope that that will be of some help to my right hon. and hon. Friends. It is something on which they can rely and something that their colleagues in other countries will find difficult to deny.
  7.9 pm
  Mr. Giles Radice: The European Community is one of the great success stories of the post-war world. As the Soviet Union collapses, the European Community, which is a union of free peoples, gathers strength. It is already a community of 12 members, and it could be a community of 20 by the beginning off the

  479
  next century. It is the world's greatest trading bloc and, with economic and monetary union, it could have the world's strongest currency. As the Foreign Secretary pointed out this afternoon, it increasingly takes a co-ordinated view of foreign policy issues. It is inconceivable that, by the end of the century, it will not also have a common defence identity.
  Whatever we do, the nation states of Europe wil increasingly combine. They will do so of their own volition, which makes the analogy with the Soviet Union or Yugoslavia patently false. The form that that closer union takes will be sui generis. It will be partly federal and partly confederal, but whatever form it takes, go ahead it will, whether we like it or not.
  The question for the nation and this House is whether we participate in the process of union or stand aside. I agree with the Prime Minister that we must be at the heart of Europe, working with our partners to build Europe's future. For too long, the British have been reluctant Europeans—for understandable reasons, because our strong sense of national identity has been shaped by our exceptional history. Unlike the other 11 members of the EC, Britain has not experienced serious military defeat, occupation, civil war or revolution for at least 200 years.
  At the end of the war, as one of the victors, we still believed in the absolute viability of the independent nation state. Our parliamentary tradition and constitutional development and our system of law have set us apart from the continent. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) that, because of our world empire, we looked outwards, across the Atlantic, rather than to the mainland of Europe.
  However, since 1945, our past has proved a poor guide. In the post-war world, our power has been reduced. We are now no more and no less than a medium-sized European power. Sadly, a whole generation of political leaders—and even some of their successors today, if what we have heard in the past two days is right—have failed to face up to that fact. When our decline in influence and shift in interest argued strongly for participation in Europe, they remained ambivalent about those whom they thought of as "unreliable continentals". We have heard some of that from the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit).
  As a consequence, Britain squandered crucial opportunities over the Schuman plan in 1950, over the common market in 1955 and 1957, and over British entry into the European monetary system in the late 1970s and 1980s. In the end, after allowing those proposals to go forward without us, we were forced to join after the terms had been fixed. It was a classic failure of political leadership. We must not make the same mistake again. Therefore, it is the Government's duty to explain why Britain has to be involved in the process of economic and political union which will be launched at Maastricht.
  Geographically, Britain is a group of islands off the mainland of Europe. Historically and culturally, it has always been linked to the continent. Strategically, what happens there has always been and is bound to be of vital interest to Britain. Economically, we cannot afford to be excluded from a group that includes most of our main trading partners, including our biggest partner of all, the Federal Republic of Germany.
  480
  I believe that the Government understand those inescapable facts. They know perfectly well that we cannot afford to be left out. They know that, if Britain is really to remain at the heart of Europe, we must sign—if not at Maastricht, then soon after. The Government should tell the House the truth about that. They should stop pretending that they are in a position—that the country is in a position—to refuse to sign the treaties. They should stop portraying themselves as doughty defenders of a Britain that is besieged by marauding continentals. That was always the portrait that was painted by the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) and I am afraid that that is occasionally true of the present Prime Minister also. That may go down well with some Euro-sceptics among Conservative Members, but it infuriates our partners and reduces our influence in the Community, as I know only too well.
  Equally vitally, the Government are failing to make a positive case for European integration. Listening to the Prime Minister, one gets little idea that a single European currency would end transaction costs for business and tourists; eliminate exchange rate instability; provide a stable environment for growth and be the most powerful currency in the world. One certainly would not understand that the real choice was between de facto membership of a deutschmark zone in which we would have no influence and membership of a single currency system in which we would have a stake.
  Above all, the Government have failed to point out that the doctrine of sovereignty, so frequently espoused by the right hon. Member for Finchley, is totally out of date. The British concept of parliamentary sovereignty is basically a hangover from Tudor despotism, with little relevance today. It fails to comprehend the weakness of the House of Commons when the Government have a majority. It fails to guarantee civil rights, as our lamentable record at the European Court of Human Rights shows. It underwrites the British state, which is the most centralised in the whole of the European Community.
  Equally important, it does not correspond to the facts of the modern world. For over 40 years, we have shared sovereignty in NATO, as the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) rightly pointed out. For the past 20 years, developments in the capital and financial markets have drastically reduced our autonomy in economic management. Since we joined the EC in 1973, we have lost sovereignty in the areas of trade and agriculture. Later, with the Single European Act and British membership of the exchange rate mechanism—the right hon. Member for Finchley took us into that—our sovereignty was further eroded.
  For a medium-sized power such as Britain, the best way to maximise our influence is to pool sovereignty by combining with others. Most European nations understand that, which is why they want to be active members of the European Community. The fact is that there is no alternative to working with our partners in the EC. That point has been reinforced in this debate by the total failure of the Euro-sceptics to come forward with any positive idea about Britain's role. We have not heard a single word. They have made interesting and occasionally convincing criticisms, but they have totally failed to suggest an alternative future for this country.
  I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on the positive case that they have made on behalf of the Labour party, especially for common environmental policies and

  481
  for minimum social standards as proposed by the social charter, which has been agreed by 11 other countries. My right hon. and hon. Friends have also rightly emphasised that, if one intends to make Community institutions more accountable, one must increase the powers of the European Parliament. They are right to say that.
  Labour's positive agenda opens up the prospect for the first time since we joined the Community in 1973 of Britain participating constructively in the European Community. That is the only way of securing the future of the British people.
  7.19 pm
  Mr. Norman Tebbit: I shall not take up the argument of the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice); it would be unwise to do so. This is a strange debate because, although the motions on the Order Paper tabled by both the Government and the official Opposition parties are long on words, they are short on relevance to the vital questions raised by the draft treaties which will be discussed at Maastricht.
  The real issue was put in possibly the best speech that I have heard in this place by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) last night. The question that he put is the right question: are the British people to be governed by those who are accountable to them, or those who are unaccountable or accountable to others? That question is not on the Order Paper. That is why tonight's vote will be interesting but irrelevant.
  In a short speech, I shall not attempt to make again the points made so tellingly by others, not least my right hon. Friends the Members for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), the right hon. Members for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash).
  In his speech, the Prime Minister set out the weak position from which he negotiates on economic and monetary union. He told us that he would not accept a treaty that was not in Britain's interest. I am sure that that is so, but he also reminded us that, if he vetoed the draft treaty, the 11 other member states would go outside the treaty of Rome and sign a currency agreement of their own, leaving us out. Bonne chance, say I, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury. But the Prime Minister has declared that that would be unacceptably damaging to us.
  Indeed, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), in a speech right out of the defeatist book which is kept at the Foreign Office, seemed to declare that a nation with its own currency could not survive in the days of the ecu. Tell that to the marines, and especially the Japanese marines. If the Prime Minister is convinced that we cannot be excluded from the single currency, he cannot afford not to sign the treaty. If that is so, he is not negotiating but pleading for terms.
  The Prime Minister says that signing the treaty is merely taking an option on the right to join. But the option has two costs. First, whether in or out, we would bear the cost of supporting the economies which had been made non-viable by the single currency. That is the price of regional aid or structural spending. Secondly, we should have made a moral commitment to the single currency.
  482
  Why pass enabling legislation to do what most Members of the House and most voters do not want to do? Why get engaged if we do not truly intend to marry? I remind the House that couples in the intimate atmosphere of engagement sometimes find that pregnancy arises and the shotgun marriage follows.
  Leaving aside the issue of sovereignty—not of the House but of the people to self-government—the devil of the single currency is not merely that the economies of the Community are simply not convergent and would be prevented from converging by a single currency, but that they are not all at the same point in their economic cycles.
  The exchange rate mechanism is a voluntary prototype for a single currency. That is why, when the French economy was screaming for lower interest rates, President Mitterrand increased them the other day. The German economy and the Bundesbank—independent, I am told —are screaming for higher interest rates. But interest rates are not raised. It would be madness indeed if the ERM was allowed to force an interest rate rise in Britain.
  I suspect that there is a deal, spoken or unspoken, which further undermines the Prime Minister's negotiating position. I think Chancellor Kohl has indicated that he knows the risk to the Government's chances of re-election if interest rates have to be raised in Britain. He may have said that there will be no increase in German rates before Maastricht—indeed, hopefully, so long as the treaty is signed, not before our general election. "That, John," says Helmut, "is what European solidarity is about."
  But what chance of help if the Prime Minister vetoes the treaty? After all, thinks Helmut, if interest rates rise, perhaps Labour will come in, which is a soft touch not only on the single currency but on political union. [Interruption.] I am glad that the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) follows the joke. It is the only thing that he has followed so far in the debate.
  There is only one way for the Prime Minister to strengthen his hand. He should legislate now for a referendum to be held once the negotiations at Maastricht are complete. It should put simple yes or no questions on whether the European monetary treaty—and, if there is one, the political treaty—should be accepted. He should say, "It is not me you must persuade, Helmut, but the British people. In Britain it is they who are sovereign."
  In the final minutes available to me, I turn to the proposals for political union. On that matter I stand where my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) stood on 24 May 1971. He said:
  "There are certain administrative arrangements which are handled by the Commission and which are clearly defined in the Treaty of Rome, and they cannot go beyond their powers. But our view is that it is the Council of Ministers, representing member countries, who must take the decisions."
  He went on to emphasise the importance of the national veto and said:
  "When I urged that there should be democratic control, I had in mind that Ministers are the representatives of their Governments and they are the ones who take the decisions. They are responsible to their own democracies."—[Official Report, 24 May 1971; Vol. 818, c. 43–44.]
  Amen to that, say I. I have not changed my mind, even if my right hon. Friend has changed his.
  A week or so ago I heard—others may have done so, too—Lord Cockfield assert that
  "the British people had no moral right and probably no legal right"
  to resist the demands of a federal Europe. We can argue about what "federal" means, but Chancellor Kohl knows

  483
  that he is head of a federal state. All the important issues, such as the economy, foreign affairs, defence, immigration and social affairs, are dealt with in Bonn. The rest is left to the provinces. In a federal Europe, that would be the pattern. With England, Scotland, Wales and Ulster seen as provinces like Saxony or Aquitaine, what role would there be for the Government or Parliament of the United Kingdom?
  Not only must federalism be stopped in its tracks. The treaty of Rome should be amended to uphold the union of nation state and exclude a federal destiny. In the words of Winston Churchill, who has been much quoted already in the debate:
  "We are with Europe but not of it. We are linked but not comprised. We are interested and associated but not absorbed and should European statesmen address us in the words which were used of old—'Shall we speak for thee to the king or captain of the host?'—we should reply. 'Nay sir, for we dwell among our own people'".
  That remains my view today.
  I repeat that the question on the Order Paper tonight is irrelevant to the question before the House and the country. We might be asked just as well to vote on any three pages picked at random out of "Alice in Wonderland" as on the motions before the House tonight. How can one vote in such circumstances? My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary recently came out of his negotiations with, among others, our French partners, and, in his diplomatic way, observed that, like Waterloo, it had been hard pounding. I yield to no one in my admiration for the great Iron Duke himself, but my favourite general of the Napoleonic wars was General Kutuzov. I shall follow his example.
  7.29 pm
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: I have disagreed with the political views of the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) on many occasions, but he has just highlighted what might be called self-government and he rightly pointed out—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. Will hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber please do so quietly?
  Mr. Spearing: The right hon. Gentleman said that the self-government of this country is in peril and, while I disagree with his domestic politics, he is right to point that out.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) has a vision of an international society, but the treaty before us—including the treaty of Rome—is not an international treaty. That is why many Opposition Members have consistently and persistently been against it.
  The right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) has said that he was attracted to the treaty of Rome because he thought that it would provide the vehicle to achieve the objectives that he, my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North and those of us who want a co-operating, international western Europe seek. However, the right hon. Member for Blaby did not say that tonight, because he now realises that it is not a treaty of that sort. Although the right hon. Member for Chingford agreed with his right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr.
  484
  Heath) way back in 1972, 1973 and 1974, he has also come to the same conclusion. Some of us, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) came to that conclusion a long time ago.
  The right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) has at last realised that perhaps she, too, made some mistakes when she was a member of the Government led by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup. I intervened to ask him what mandate he had, but I should have asked what electoral mandate. Of course, he did not have one; nor did the right hon. Member for Finchley have a mandate for the Single European Act; and nor does the Prime Minister have an electoral mandate to agree what may come out of Maastricht—he has not even got a parliamentary mandate yet. That is why, either in this Parliament or, more probably, in the next, the machinery for giving legal effect to any treaty that may come about will be a Bill which will have to be passed by the House.
  The right hon. Member for Finchley is not the only person to have erred on the subject—I shall come to the Prime Minister in a moment. I am glad that the right hon. Lady is here, because no one would deny that she at least has courage, but I doubt whether she has the instinct for parliamentary government, which some of us believe in. She went to Madrid where the principle of the Delors report was up for discussion.
  It is not a matter of memory, but a matter of record, that there was no debate on the Delors report before that summit. There had been a debate some time before on the general subject of a single currency, but not on the report. Yet, when she was confronted with a political situation not unlike that confronting the present Prime Minister—to take the least worst solution—she agreed to the principle of economic and monetary union. The question was, by what means and when? The principle was agreed by the right hon. Lady before any mandate had been given by the House, let alone the electorate.
  If the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup is right, that is the way in which European union works. It does not allow genuine negotiations, but provides a choice between the least worst solutions for leaders of all parties and all Governments. It provides a pattern of coercion and not of co-operation.
  Yesterday, the right hon. Member for Finchley drew our attention to the scope and powers of the Community. She said:
  "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".—[Official Report, 20 November 1991; Vol. 199, c. 292.]
  I wish that were true. However, as the right hon. Lady knows, or ought to know now, qualified majority voting could operate not in "limited" but in huge and undefined areas under articles 8A and 100A of the treaty. That is very relevant, because it gave away some of the powers of the House. Either the right hon. Member for Finchley knew that that was the case when she drove the Single European Act through the House on a three-line Whip or she did not. If she knew, she did not tell us and if she did not know, someone misled her. The result is that the single market now operates over a huge and almost undefined area.

  485
  My hon. Friends ask why that is so and the answer is simple. The single market is defined in the treaty as an area "without internal frontiers". It is not merely a question of lorries being able to go through borders, of barriers coming up and barbed wire boundaries on the map being expunged; it is a question of a legal boundary.
  There may be extenuating circumstances. Perhaps the enthusiasm of the right hon. Member for Finchley for market economics led her to say, "Yes, let's have the single market," because she wanted to bring the benefits of market forces to the benighted tribes on the other side of the channel and to drive market economics through. In so doing, she predicated a single market authority and a single Government. As the right hon. Member for Blaby said, a single currency means a single economic policy, which means a single Chancellor of the Exchequer and a single Government. We might end up with government of bankers, by bankers and for bankers. The only way round the problem is a supranational state, which is what the treaty will bring in if we are not careful.
  I give no one cause to believe that I am not an internationalist. The speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North greatly attracted me in some ways. However, the constitution of the European Community—in the treaty of Rome and the treaty before us—is incapable of providing us with what we seek. It is for that reason that I can have none of the treaty before us today.
  7.38 pm
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I also took part in the vote in the House in 1972. It comes ill from the lips of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) to say that he had a mandate to do what he did. I remember the cursing and threats—I saw one hon. Member being hammered over the head with an Order Paper. There was certainly no democracy in the House when it took that vital vote to go into Europe. Every hon. Member who took part in the debate knows that perfectly well.
  Sovereignty of the House has been mentioned, but what is that? It is the sovereignty of the people. People give this House sovereignty, and if we do not have the people behind us, we have no sovereignty. We have witnessed the collapse of a great federal empire in the east, an empire which had a single currency and controlled and regimented its inhabitants. It failed because the people were not consulted and were not behind it. It was brought down by people power.
  We are now told that we should go down that road. Jacques Delors, with his beckoning hands, is saying, "You must all come down this road." I have the privilege of sitting both in Strasbourg and in this House. I took part yesterday in the debate in Strasbourg. I have often wondered what was the motivation of the people of Europe in wishing to build another super-state. Super-states have been dangerous to the peace of the world. They never brought peace. They brought trouble in their wake.
  I got from the Library at Strasbourg a copy of the poster that I am holding up. It is interesting, because it depicts the future of Europe. The picture in the centre is a copy of a painting by a great Belgian painter—[Interruption.] It may be coloured orange, but it is yellow in the centre. It is the tower of Babel. In other words they
  486
  have chosen to depict the new Europe as the tower of Babel. We are well aware of the European circle of stars, with five pointed stars, one point facing heaven. Hon. Members will note that the poster tries to square the circle—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. It would be better if the hon. Gentleman did not use his visual aid.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I have discovered after 45 years of preaching that eye-gate is far more effective than ear-gate. In this poster, the stars are turned upside down. It is wonderful the way in which they turn things upside down and seek to square the circle. We are told that that is the direction we must take.
  I listened with interest to the speech of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup. He painted a wonderful picture, but I wondered what he was talking about. I recall him telling the people of Britain that, if they voted for Europe, two things would happen—first that we would solve our unemployment problem and, secondly, that we would retain the veto. We have not solved our unemployment problem. The right hon. Gentleman said that he brought unemployment down. I remember when we called him Mr. Million, unemployment having risen at that time to over a million.
  I remember the great things that the right hon. Gentleman said would happen as a result of our joining the Common Market, and I was amazed. In fact, our membership has weakened the economy of the United Kingdom. Food prices are higher and there is a deteriorating balance of trade in manufactured goods with the EC, with the consequent loss of many jobs, especially in manufacturing. There is an adverse effect on United Kingdom exports to non-EC countries. Britain has suffered in its trading activities, and the cost of the CAP has been extravagant, to say the least.
  The precious money that we pour into the Common Market budget would be better disbursed, by whatever Government are in power, in this country. Think of the £2,769 million that was paid by this country in 1978 to finance the CAP. That was equal to the cost of building more than 100 much-neeeded NHS hospitals, and 14 times more than the amount spent on all the textbooks in all United Kingdom secondary schools. We have heard in the House today details of a false balance.
  I am not opposed to co-operation among the nations of Europe, but the time has come to realise that the future for the European nations lies in co-operation rather than incorporation. It lies in unity and not in uniformity, in national sovereignty and not in international submergence. It should be a federation of nations, a family of nations, and not a federation of nations.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Will the hon. Gentleman, in his eloquent address, put an estimate on the cost to this country of the efforts that we had to make —when we had, as he believes, our full sovereignty—twice this century to restrain the exercise of national sovereignty by those who are now our partners in Europe?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: That is an irrelevant question, because we could have wars again in Europe. Indeed, a bloody conflict is now occurring, yet the EC is not handling that properly. The right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, gave a warning to that effect. Surely we

  487
  shall not have wars among ourselves? I thought that the Germans had been regenerated and that the French had been converted. Are we not all good friends and neighbours? It appears that the hon. Gentleman's question is totally irrelevant to the debate.
  The British Government need not go cap in hand to Europe. We have five strong bargaining points. First, the United Kingdom is one of the major contributors to the EC budget; secondly, this country is the only net consumer in the EC of many of the agricultural products that are currently in surplus; thirdly, Britain is overwhelmingly a net importer of EC manufactures; fourthly, this country is the most important provider of fishing waters forming the EC's common fishing policy; and fifthly, the United Kingdom is the only EC country sufficient in energy. Those are all vital bargaining counters. In view of that, and the references that have been made to the strength of NATO and Western European Union, we should not be going cap in hand to Europe.
  It is regrettable that in this House and Strasbourg there seems to be a desire to divide the people of this nation rather than to strengthen the hands of those who are negotiating for us. When I was in Strasbourg yesterday, the leader of this country's socialists, Mr. Ford, pleaded with the Council not to allow the British Government to dictate terms to the whole of Europe. "Do not let them cripple our common future," was the point of his argument. If Jacques Delors has his way, our nation will be not a cripple but a corpse.
  7.49 pm
  Mr. John Home Robertson: It would have been surprising if the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) had enthused on anything based on the treaty of Rome. However, it is a happy day for a Member for East Lothian to be able to support a Labour party motion in a debate on the European Community. It has not always been thus, as old friends of John P. Mackintosh may recall.
  This interesting debate can perhaps best be described as a re-run of an old debate between little Englanders and British Europeans. In the old days, the debate within the Labour party was between sceptics, who feared that the European Community would remain forever a market for the benefit of the strong and privileged, and the Euro optimists, who believed that Europe could develop into a Community with social priorities. On one occasion, when I got carried away, I expressed the view that, to deal with the problem of multinational capitalism, we needed multinational socialism and that the European Community was the way to achieve it.
  Happily, the doubts of the Euro-sceptics—or most of them—in the Labour party have been overtaken by the social charter, regional policy, environmental initiatives and the drive towards a fairer, broader and more democratic Europe. Surely democracy and the need for democratic accountability are crucial to this debate. There cannot be good government in a democratic society without genuine and credible accountability.
  There is a growing democratic deficit within the European Community, as collective powers have developed and accumulated within the Council of Ministers and the Commission. We must redress that
  488
  deficit. At the same time, to the eternal shame of this House, we have lost local, regional and national accountability in Britain as more and more powers have been centralised in Whitehall. In Scotland, that democratic deficit can be summed up as nine uncompromising Tories imposing their will, despite the fact that they are comprehensively outvoted by the other 63 elected members of Parliament from Scotland. That should be regarded as the basis of a constitutional crisis by any standards.
  While we are safeguarding the rights of nations within the European Community, we must follow the Germans and Spaniards in providing democratic accountability and safeguards for the nationl and regions within Europe's conglomerate states. I remind the House that Britain is not and never has been a nation. Rather, it is a union of nations, which the Government have not respected in recent years. The principle of subsidiarity must not stop at Westminster but must go further.
  Many Conservative Members have drawn great inspiration from the dreadful speech by the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) in Bruges in 1988. The speech included the following passage of awe-inspiring hypocrisy:
  "To try to suppress nationhood and concentrate power at the centre of a European conglomerate would be highly damaging and would jeopardise the objectives we seek to achieve. Europe will be stronger precisely because it has France as France, Spain as Spain, and Britain as Britain, each with its own customs, traditions and identity. It would be folly to try to fit them into some sort of identikit European personality."
  The right hon. Member for Finchley—the second hammer of the Scots—tried to fit the Scottish nation into an identikit Thatcherite personality that was totally alien and abhorrent to most of our national customs, to our traditions and identity. She spent her premiership concentrating unprecedented power at the centre of her Whitehall conglomerate, yet there she was, whingeing about the supression of nationhood.
  The supression of historic nations is a dangerous business, as we see in many parts of Europe today. The House would do well to recognise that, within the next couple of years, Scotland will have its own Parliament for a people who overwhelminghly aspire to have home rule within the United Kingdom and direct access to European institutions on the same basis as the German Lander and Spain's national regions.
  I appreciate that this debate must be difficult for many people from all political persuasions in England. It must be difficult for English people to reconcile themselves to sharing powers with other nations after such a long history of independence and, latterly, of dominating other nations. But history is marching on, and not even England can opt out of the reality that is developing in Europe. It can stand on the sidelines while everyone else moves on but it cannot stop the process. This is not the Flat Earth Society but the real world, and we should take part in it.
  The House could learn a little from Scotland's experience in 1707, when the rulers of Scotland were persuaded—or perhaps bribed—to enter what was described as "an incorporating union" with England. It was very controversial. There was to be a common market, a monetary union and a political union. It left many important national institutions secure—the legal system, the banks, the Church and the administrative structure, but the one fatal flaw was that we sacrificed our

  489
  Parliament. Otherwise, that union has been a tremendous success, with shared resources and opportunities, and great achievements over the years. However, the lack of parliamentary accountability over the Executive in Scotland has now degenerated into a running sore, particularly as the political priorities of our two nations have increasingly diverged in the past 50 years.
  Increasingly, Scots look to European institutions for protection against the excesses of an unaccountable British Government. This Parliament is supposed to apply democratic scrutiny and accountability to Scotland's national administration, but it does not do so. Under present circumstances, it cannot do so.
  The great totem of this debate seems to be the sanctity and sovereignty of this House. It has been described over the years as the Mother of Parliaments but in recent years it would be more appropriate to describe it, for so many of our citizens, as the ugly sister. What sort of mother inflicts a poll tax on its people? What kind of scrutiny system allows a poll tax to be inflicted on a nation? There are lessons to be drawn from that.
  There are fundamental flaws in our democratic system, both in the United Kingdom and the European Community. Major constitutional reforms are long overdue and I welcome the fact that the Laour party is leading the debate in those areas. If the House is to rise to the occasion of this debate, it should tell the Prime Minister to go to Maastricht and work positively toward economic convergence and monetary and political union with the European Community, even if it involves going in the direction of federalism. We must also take radical steps to correct the democratic deficit in the European Community and the United Kingdom. The Prime Minister will not do that, but the Labour party will.
  7.58 pm
  Mr. Julian Amery: There has been a galaxy of talent in this debate from the Front and Back Benches, but the most important speech was made outside the House of Commons yesterday—by Mr. Delors in Strasbourg. The words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) about our being on a conveyor belt to federalism were still ringing in my ears when I picked up the morning papers and read that Mr. Delors had said that Ministers had betrayed everything and that there was no federalism left in the proposals contained in the Council of Ministers' draft. The British had undermined them.
  I rubbed my eyes and wondered what it all meant. I then thought that it would be rather fun if MI6 had suborned Mr. Delors and persuaded him—I do not know how—that perhaps he should stop being a federalist. Or was he throwing dust into the eyes of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister so that he would think that he did not have to work so hard? On analysing the speech, I concluded that it was a real cry of anguish from a man who is a genuine federalist and saw his whole work in danger of being betrayed.
  Those of us who are frightened of federalism should take heed of the entirely opposite view expressed by Mr. Delors. He said that the Council of Ministers was betraying the principles of the founding fathers, by whom he meant Jean Monnet and the Demochristian leaders—Adenauer, Gaspari and Schumann—who were genuinely federalist. However, they were not the only founders.
  490
  Winston Churchill was the man who started the process. He thought of European union as something like the old British Commonwealth as defined in the Statute of Westminster. Why did he think that?
  People often forget that, at the beginning of the century, we offered Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Newfoundland a federal empire with a single Government, single navy and total free trade—money did not enter the debate, because we were all on the gold standard. Those countries turned down the offer. So we developed the idea of a Commonwealth, although we did not call it that in those days. In the first world war, in the treaty of Versailles, in the slump of 1929–31 and in the second world war, these countries worked together with us to such an extent that we constituted between us a sort of super-power.
  De Gaulle shared Churchill's view. He put it in his caustic way that he wanted to see a Europe on English lines but without the British.
  Mr. Delors got it wrong. He said that no intergovernmental group had ever been successful. It is curious that a Frenchman should have got it wrong, because, without the Commonwealth, France probably would not have won the first world war and would not have been rescued from the second.
  There have been two great strands of European thinking: the federalist and the union of states, represented by the British and the French. I do not believe that either strand will prevail. A balance will be struck between the two, but at present the balance is wrong. The Council of Ministers should be the Cabinet of Europe and the Commission should be its secretariat, with the Parliament supervising the Commission's work.
  President Giscard d'Estaing got it about right when he would not let Roy Jenkins come to the Ministers' dinner and said that he had better come for the cigars and coffee afterwards. We have allowed the Commission to get too much power into its hands. My right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) saw the danger clearly, but made a mistake by demonising Mr. Delors. She should have crossed swords not with a civil servant, but with the Chancellor of Germany or the President of France, who were her opposite numbers. She made the mistake of building up the image of Mr. Delors.
  We need to strike a balance somewhere in between—we need more institutions than the old Commonwealth had, but certainly not a united states on American lines. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) said yesterday when he quoted Churchill, we are planting a tree—I would call it a forest—not putting together a bit of machinery. That tree will grow in its own mysterious way, and when we look back on it we shall be able to say that it is neither a federation nor a confederation, but something new, based on new constitutional forms, which have not yet been devised.
  We must remember that behind my right hon. and learned Friend's vision, which I share and hope to try to convey, there is a basic fear. The movement to European union came out of a fear of Germany. That country was down, but there was a fear that it might revive, and revive it has. There are now 80 million—if one includes Austria, not far short of 90 million—Germans. Under de Gaulle and his successors, the French thought that they were the jockey who controlled the German horse. But once the wall fell, all that changed, and we now have not a Paris-Bonn axis, but a Paris-Berlin axis. Is that feasible?

  491
  I remember sitting in the gallery of the French National Assembly in 1954. The French Parliament was then a Parliament, not what it is today, and the Assembly would not accept the plans for German rearmament unless Britain also participated in it. Mr. Herriott was a large man—I remember him well—and it was because of his speech, in which he said that the French would not enter the process unless the British also did so, that the British Government made their proposal for the Western European Union. This was the real foundation of Europe.
  The problem is to know how to cope with the greater Germany. There are two ways in which to do so. We took the first option in 1954, when we decided to bring Britain more fully into the European combination. The French would not agree to German rearmament without British participation, so we had to play our full part—if Britain, France and Germany came together with the other European countries, that would constitute an important beginning. Beyond that process, the enlargement of Europe is the key. I am not against deepening and strengthening the combination, but we must bring in northern and eastern Europe. This is our "new frontier". We must do everything to encourage eastern Europe into the Community; nothing must be done to exclude it. My impression is that the Government understand those points well, and on that basis I support the Government tonight.
  8.7 pm
  Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: It is a privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), and I am sure that we all appreciate his historical references: he speaks with the experience of having participated in the processes, particularly the second great European civil war, the starting point of the Community.
  Another fascinating aspect of this two-day debate is that there have been interesting divisions of opinion across the Floor of the House which are not reflected in the motions. We can see the different emphases placed on issues by the various parties and the problems faced by them in adjusting to the changes taking place in mainland Europe. Whether we use the metaphors of forests or pillars in the debate about ever closer union, the fact is that there is a moving together of the economic, environmental, social, cultural and political strands towards a greater convergence, and we must decide how we relate to that process.
  My passport is in my breast pocket near my heart. It is not there is case I have to leave the country urgently, but because it is smaller than the old British passport and fits there more conveniently. It is a pleasant, burgundy colour, and the first words in it are "European Community". I have no problem with a notion of being a European citizen. That phrase is repeated inside the passport in nine languages, one of which, Irish, I recognise as a Celtic language. It is closely related to one of the languages that I speak, Welsh.
  Beneath the words "European Community" the passport states:
  "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"
  —the name of the state of which I am a member. However, the name of the state does not coincide with the description
  492
  of my nationality. The machine-readable plastic on the back of the passport states "British citizen". The birthplace of this particular British citizen is given as Carmarthen, although the authority that issued the passport was the passport office in Liverpool.
  The complexity of location, identity and administration does not cause me a personal identity crisis. I feel an affiliation simultaneously with all those different centres of administration and levels of government—European, UKanian, British, Welsh and English regional. I have no difficulty with the idea of unity in diversity, which is what I believe the tower of Babel was about—without going into detail on the theological references of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley).
  Like the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), I have always viewed the political structure of the United Kingdom in a diverse way. The United Kingdom is a multilingual, multinational, multicultural, multi-ethnic state. With its diversity and variety of people, it has always been so. All the people of these islands, including people whose families moved here from the new Commonwealth countries, are citizens of Europe. This is not an island race and never has been.
  Europe has changed and will change through population movements and through cultural and social changes. This is a subject on which I can speak with authority, because the Celtic culture of which I and other hon. Members are living exhibits is being celebrated this year at a marvellous exhibition in the Palazzo Grassi in Venice which is entitled "The Celts, the Origins of Europe". The Celtic experience in these islands proves conclusively that languages, identities and cultures can and do survive within state structures in which they are not properly represented.
  I would have no fear for the future of the English identity, although some English Members seem to have such a fear, as we move towards greater European unity. Such a unity will be based not on the model of the United Kingdom as a unitary state, but on the model of European federalism. I agree with the points made earlier that the likely outcome of the debate on Europe about federalism and nation statism would fall somewhere between the two.
  I mention federalism because part of our difficulty in the debate is an understanding of the terms arising from different political traditions. The debate about European union is seen by probably a majority of British people—and certainly by a majority of British politicians—through our experiences of being inside a unitary state in which political power is seen to be located in one place. If we think, as so many hon. Members do, that political powers exist only in one place—that is, here—then when those powers are transferred or seen to be exercised elsewhere, it appears as a threat to sovereignty. In that sense, the British notion of sovereignty differs from that of our European partners because that definition of sovereignty arises from our parliamentary history and procedure.
  Arising from that understanding of sovereignty there is a misunderstanding of the definition of federalism. Those who live not in a federal system but in a unitary state cannot apparently understand the notion that political powers can be organised in other ways. For example, within the German federal model, which was imposed upon Germany by the United States and the other allies, there are clearly defined levels of powers and responsibilities. Each level of government is, as it were, sovereign in its

  493
  area of competence, and that brings us to that other concept with which the House seems to have difficulty, the concept of subsidiarity.
  As the hon. Members for East Lothian arid for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) said, because the United Kingdom is a unitary state, local government—or what is left of it—regional administrations and the national territorial offices, Scottish Office, Welsh Office and Northern Ireland Office, are all creations of the Westminster Parliament and can be abolished by it, as were the metropolitan councils and the Government and Parliament of Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Brian Sedgemore: And the GLC.
  Dr. Thomas: Yes, and the GLC.
  That could never happen in a federal system, because, on the mainland, federal system, the powers of local, regional and national authorities and the powers of state governments at all levels are guaranteed as constitutional rights. Subsidiarity is precisely about that. It is about not carrying out functions at multinational level which can be better carried out at member state level, and about not carrying out functions at that level that can better be carried out at national, regional, or local level.
  Subsidiarity is the essential principle of how federalism works, operating according to levels of power. Not surprisingly, as Jacques Delors has said, subsidiarity
  "comes from a moral requirement, a limit to interference from a higher authority vis a vis a person or a community".
  Of course the term has its roots in the social doctrine of the Catholic Church—the need to disperse human political power in a fallen world. I shall not take that theological debate any further.
  It is in those contexts that we need to understand the vocation federale as it appears in the Luxembourg draft. It is a process, an ideal, a desire. The fact that the United Kingdom, with its parliamentary system, has a different culture and tradition arising out of the particular history of the unitary system does not make our traditions morally better or more politically effective or efficient. The principle of parliamentary sovereignty has more often blocked than aided the possibility of popular sovereignty. It has made it difficult for politicians and parties to deal seriously with the relationship between citizens and the state and, in particular, the relationship between different parts of the state and its centre.
  I am not the only one who argues that the unitary state in the United Kingdom is the preservation into the 20th century of a constitutional order designed for the 17th century. Tom Nairn beautifully described it when he said:
  "the state is like the advanced passenger train, a 21st century vehicle intended to run on existing tracks."
  What has been said in the debate about parliamentary sovereignty only covers up what has really happened in terms of Government centralisation and corporate decision-taking elsewhere. Our political traditions themselves are now in crisis, and part of that crisis is reflected in the debate. I ask the House not to prevent us from resolving that crisis by refusing to contribute actively to the political culture of that Europe of which we are an integral part.
  8.15 pm
  Sir Michael Marshall: I shall not follow the line of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) because in a sense he has made one of the points that I would have made, which is simply that he reflects the United Kingdom and the fact that, as part of a union, we should understand some of the arguments in a wider sense than is sometimes suggested in the rather navel-contemplating activities which sometimes characterise our debates.
  As a confessed Euro-enthusiast, I came to the House to help secure entry to the Community, but I have my reservations and shall touch on them in a moment. There has been a sense of deja vu about much of the debate. Those in favour of membership of the Community are broadly still in favour and those who are against are still against. In that sense, we have not learnt anything new, I do not share the worries of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) about the terms of the motion.
  As I look at the complexities of what will be considered at Maastricht, I am convinced that we are exceptionally fortunate to have in my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary representatives of our Parliament and country who will bring back an agreement that is acceptable to the House and the country. However, I should like to draw to the attention of the House and the Government one or two worrying matters. I shall deal first with the role of our Parliament and people and our industry, and then deal with the role of Europe and the wider world beyond.
  In terms of the role of our Parliament, I agree with those who feel that it is our responsibility to give leadership and not to fall back on referendums and seek in some way to arouse a great argument in the country which I do not think is there to be aroused. Despite my best endeavours, it is quite difficult in my constituency to attract people to a discussion on the issues before the House. There seems to be a general feeling, in some ways a slight sense of fatalism, that we are in and will not come out. In that sense, some moves are inevitable and we look to our leaders to achieve the best deal that they can—that is the general sentiment.
  In considering some of the difficulties, I should like to take into account the views of our business and industrial communities, because little attention has been paid to them in the debate. In the real world, business is years ahead of us in carrying through what the process of being a member of the Community implies. In terms of multinationalism in Europe, we should consider what is happening to large parts of British industry and the effect of flows of inward and outward capital.
  We speak in many old-fashioned ways about the British share of the market or about some kind of quota arrangement, but such matters are no longer relevant. I shall take two examples from within or near my constituency, the first of which is Matra Marconi. In its activities, whether in the defence market or the space market, it is difficult to define what is the British share. The shares depend on how the various constituent plants in that company carry out their contractual obligations, and the earnings from these share-outs are spread out across the company and reflected in investment patterns.
  In horticulture, which is important in my constituency, joint British and Dutch companies are a major feature.

  495
  The argument that we have had about the Dutch subsidies for heating and so on begin to drop away when we see the shared resources, shared opportunities and shared employment that can come from such joint ventures. My test of Maastricht is to ask how and in what way will the decisions being made assist the broad industrial development of Europe—naturally that includes Britain —while being realistic about what the multinational industries that we are developing mean to us all.
  The House will understand why I now move on to deal with a wider world. I am especially concerned that some of the aspects of the proposals for Maastricht will raise the hurdles and make it more difficult for countries in central and eastern Europe and the Baltic states, quite apart from the EFTA countries which have fewer problems, to accede to the EC. Therefore, I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary speaking about the pace of change. I still think that we have been driven at a faster pace than would have been sensible, and that we should have had an opportunity to bring in slightly wider membership before getting into this rather closed shop.
  In that regard, I strongly urge the political case for bringing some of the countries of central and eastern Europe into the Community very soon. I am sure that this view is shared throughout the House. The ending of the cold war must be replaced by an alliance wrapped round with hoops of steel. We want to ensure that those countries that are increasingly moving not only into multi-party, democratic ways of government but into a free market are brought without our system. We can then concentrate on the remaining problems.
  I believe that we shall see the accession of EFTA countries, bringing with them in their train, because of their special links, the Baltic states, and the pressures will accelerate. However, that process will be inhibited by some aspects of the Maastricht proposals, and that is why the detailed way in which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister outlined our position, rejecting and resisting some aspects of those proposals, was helpful.
  In that widening of the Community, we are being observed by the newly emerging democracies, not just in Europe but in Africa, Asia and Latin America. We have to find ways within the developments in the Community to assist in the process of democratic and economic development. We have to consider the imbalance of world trade, and we must come back to the GATT question. These are some of the background pieces of the argument that we tend to ignore as we narrow in on what is mainly a domestic debate.
  I should have liked to touch on many other aspects of the matter—the future role of the Commission, the European Parliament and, as I said in an intervention, the question whether we are suffering under the six-month rule of presidency moving around—that need to be debated once again. The structure by which we approach some of these questions is far from ideal. However, when we look at the world at large, I hope that we can reflect an outward-looking attitude for Europe, not only towards eastern and central Europe but to the many other questions that remain to be resolved. For example, one third of the world has the problem of too much food and two thirds of it is at or below survival level.
  496
  These broader questions must be considered if we are not to be too Eurocentric in our arguments. I have the greatest faith in my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. I hope that, even at this late hour, the Opposition will realise, if they see themselves as serious contenders for government, that there is much to be said for all parties coming together. When we travel abroad, parliamentarians across party lines can be effective and punch our weight. Sometimes when we have internal arguments such as those of the past day or two, we lose some force and credibility. With that plea, difficult though it may be in an election year, I thank the House for listening to my speech.
  8.25 pm
  Sir Patrick Duffy: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall). However, I know that he will understand if I do not dwell on his remarks. I wish to recall the speech of the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), in which he argued that the debate should have a financial approach and should not be guided by Foreign Office or security considerations. He reminded me of Thomas Hobbes's classical work "The Leviathan", in which it is argued that there is no instinct more profound than security in the conduct of human affairs. That is where my concern lies.
  I hope that the House will bear with me if I explain my long-standing attachment to Europe. I am one of the few remaining Labour Members of Parliament who defied the party whip on 28 October 1971. However, unlike my hon. Friends who incurred a censure motion or just a rebuke, on a Wednesday night during the following month of November, I had to travel up to Sheffield to face a sacking motion. After a crowded meeting that lasted for more than four hours, I survived by only five votes. That long debate, which had gone on all summer and into the autumn and had been conducted, as some hon. Members will know, in the constituencies as well as here, bit into my soul. I could have regarded the referendum option then as a convenient bolthole, but I did not. I have never doubted that the role of a Member of Parliament worth his salt is to stand his ground, defend his corner and stand by what he believes.
  Despite the long-standing attachment to Europe, I now see that a Europe that co-operates whenever possible and agrees to disagree when no common ground can be found is more desirable. I have backed off a federal preference. Because of my experience, I see that we cannot stand on the sidelines while others frame new structures, whether they are economic, political, social or, given my special interest, defence. On the other hand, the difference within Europe on that emerging architecture remain so profound that I can see no alternative to the intergovernmental treaty approach and its implied perception or a European "temple with columns" as against Mr. Delors' "tree with branches".
  This preference is confirmed by a brief examination of the prospect for a European community defence policy. We are all aware that the nature of the threat to the security of Europe has changed dramatically. There is a recognition, in the face of potential instability to the east and to the south, of the need for the western alliance to remain strong. It would be dangerous to undercut NATO's sole responsibility for the defence of NATO territory. We need to renew, not replace, the security guarantee that NATO has given us for the past 42 years.

  497
  We should also ask ourselves whether we will be prepared to foot the bill for going it alone without the Americans, as if Europe could do so without America's satellite and intelligence network or its transport facilities. I was surprised when the right hon. Members for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) said that there could be an independent European pillar within the alliance, perhaps within the foreseeable future.
  NATO is an alliance which has stood the test of time and also won the confidence of former members of the Warsaw pact. Only a month ago a Soviet figure as senior as Mr. Yuri Deryabin, the Soviet deputy Foreign Minister, was endorsing NATO as the security organisation for all of Europe and seeking formal ties. Yet a clear division has emerged in recent weeks between leading members of the alliance on how a revitalised and reinforced the Western European Union should link NATO and the political arm of the EC.
  Most member countries would like to have it both ways —to conserve NATO and its strong links with our north American allies and, at the same time, like the right hon. Members for Old Bexley and Sidcup and for Yeovil—I understand why—they want to give Europe a more pronounced role in its own defence. But the two objectives are not easily reconcilable in practice, as the sharp exchanges over the merits of two rival plans, one British-Italian and the other French-German, have demonstrated.
  Britain and Italy want the WEU to be used solely for operations outside the NATO area, thus complementing the alliance and avoiding duplication, while France and Germany have envisaged a corps which might operate both inside and outside—although how that will be done remains unclear.
  However, the Rome summit was useful, as the Prime Minister told the House yesterday, in laying down the parameters within which it is feasible for the Europeans to work out their defence co-operation and avoid this particular dilemma. Whether the problem has really been disposed of was the subject of my intervention yesterday in the Prime Minister's speech and today in the Foreign Secretary's speech. Let me explain why.
  The Prime Minister played a prominent and commendable part in Rome in devising an agreed framework for a stronger European defence identity within the alliance. He secured agreement among NATO leaders, including Mr. Mitterrand, that NATO had a continuing role to play as the main decision making forum on defence matters in Europe.
  But might the isolation of Mr. Mitterrand on this question bode ill for Maastricht when the issue of a common European defence policy will be back on the agenda? The 11: 1 vote in Rome against Mr. Mitterrand on this question is not yet reflected in NATO parliamentary circles, as the hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) who leads the United Kingdom delegation to the North Atlantic Assembly knows.
  Hon. Members from both sides of the House were unable to secure agreement in London a year ago on out-of-area activities—the intended role of the new-look WEU. Nor did they succeed in disposing of the Franco-German proposal at their Madrid meeting before the Rome summit.
  Furthermore, Mr. Mitterrand refused formally to acknowledge the primacy of NATO at that summit. Why
  498
  Not? Neither could he agree to a separate NATO declaration on the Soviet Union and the danger of nuclear proliferation. Why not? At whom was President Bush's admonition directed?
  Will it be enough for the Prime Minister at Maastricht, as he implied yesterday, to wave the NATO summit document in Mr. Mitterrand's face if the French leader makes any further move to separate Europe's defence responsibilities from NATO? Clearly, there may be scope and need for further bilaterals before Maastricht.
  Thus, whatever pillars may be involved eventually in the construction of the European temple, it is obvious that a defence pillar that is exclusively European cannot be seen as practical and workable. Nor is it considered desirable in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. Nor is there support anywhere in Europe for a policy which might cut across NATO or duplicate its military structure.
  The security structures that we choose must be properly thought through and practicable. They must avoid duplication and must in all forms be complementary to NATO. That approach is not possible in a federal context. It can only be realistically pursued on the basis of intergovernmental treaties.
  8.34 pm
  Sir Norman Fowler: The House listened to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Sir P. Duffy) with interest and with some admiration, knowing his record on the European issue.
  I have listened for almost 13 hours to virtually all the speeches that have been made during the past two days, and they have brought back two memories. First, they have brought back memories of my time as a Minister negotiating in Brussels. The highlight occurred while I was at the Department of Transport. In those days, responsibilities were divided between the Department of Transport and the Department of Trade, which looked after air transport. Thus, when I went to Brussels I went with the then Secretary of State for Trade, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit). Lunch was organised during a break in negotiations and to facilitate discussions a translator was put between myself and my right hon. Friend. This evening, I needed no translator to understand his message.
  The second memory was as a Back Bencher in 1971, when I took part in the debate on entry into the EC and voted for entry. We in the 1970 intake took great interest in the views of others elected in that year. It is a simple statement of fact that two of the most vociferous, persistent and eloquent opponents of the EC then are now the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Foreign Secretary. So we are not entirely prepared to take lectures from the Opposition Front Bench on Europeanism. We hear what they say, but we also remember their opposition to Community entry in the 1970s, their fight to withdraw from the Community in the 1980s and their extraordinary position of subservience today.
  Labour's European travels have been one of the greatest political mystery tours of the post-war years. No one knows where the journey is likely to take them next, but one thing that has been made clear by this debate is that no one in his right mind would believe that our negotiations in Europe should be left to the Leader of the Opposition.

  499
  I speak as someone who voted for our entry into the Community, who supported and supports the establishment of a free and single market and who, like my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, believes that the Community can help to secure a lasting peace across the continent.
  At the same time, it would be foolish to believe that the British public are not concerned about some of the developments inside the Community. They are concerned about what they see as an unnecessary interference in our national life. They are concerned about lawless acts being taken to prevent legitimate trade. They are concerned about the Commission for ever seeking to extend its operations. That is not an argument for leaving the Community, but it is an argument for the British public being represented by a tough Government who, while committed to the Community, are prepared and able to fight for the kind of Europe that we want, a Europe where the maximum is left to the nation state.
  That is why the Government are right to set out their opposition to a federal Europe. I certainly do not want a united states of Europe, and I suspect that few Conservative Members would. That is why my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was so right to say that much can be achieved by pure co-operation in, for example, police work, and why he was also right to set out his opposition to an extension of Community competence in areas such as social policy.
  Let it be clear what I say about social policy. For example, I believe that employee involvement is one of the great challenges which stand before British industry. I sit on the board of a major company which has a worker director. I do not believe that that is the work of the devil, but such decisions are best decided at national level. We are saying not that employee involvement is in some way wrong, but that such decision making should be at the national, local or company level and voluntary. If a party wishes, for example, to have a minimum wages policy, let it set that out, as I suspect the Opposition will do, in its manifesto and argue it in an election. But it is completely unnecessary to have a Community policy on such things.
  Much of our debate has concerned economic and monetary union, and, in particular, the single currency. What we must decide tonight is not whether to accept a single currency here and now, but whether we should reject it here and now, without further discussion or consideration and without allowing the arguments to develop.
  I confess that, over the past few months, I have not stumped the country advocating a single European currency in every constituency, but it strikes me as absurd to walk away at this stage, for several reasons. First, the Government are set to secure an agreement that will allow us to keep our options open in regard to whether we want such a currency and, at the same time, to influence the eventual outcome. That is a substantial negotiating success, on which the Government should be congratulated.
  Secondly, industry would think us mad if we simply walked away. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall). One of the advantages that we recycled Cabinet Ministers have is an involvement in industry; of course, some of the unreconstructed Cabinet
  500
  Ministers have that as well. It is obvious to us that industry now considers Europe to be crucially important: Europe is the home market. We should at least listen when organisations such as the CBI set out the transaction costs of hedging, and all the other costs, and advocate movement towards a single currency. We need not accept the argument in its entirety, but it is certainly an argument against rejection at this stage.
  Thirdly, if we walked away now, we should have to accept the probability that the other Community members would form their own agreement. Such an agreement might be outside the terms of the Rome treaty, but it could nevertheless be very effective. That, by definition, would mean that we would play no part whatever in the developments. The Government, surely, are entirely right: by keeping our options open, they preserve our national interests, allowing us to weigh the alternatives when the time comes.
  Some now argue for a referendum—and it is fair to add that some proponents of that view do not seek to give voice to a long-held belief in the extension of democratic rights which they have already presented to the country consistently, month by month and year by year; their real purpose is to find a way of killing anything that comes from Maastricht. If that cannot be done in one way, it must be done in another. There was no referendum on the Single European Act, and I personally remember no clamour for such a referendum around the Cabinet table at which I then sat.
  I can say with absolute certainty that, over the ensuing months, it will be Parliament which decides. The crucial issue was identified by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who rightly said that what the public must decide was which party best represented their interests. Is it the Labour party, which, over most of the past 20 years, has traditionally expressed antagonism to the Community, and which has now attained the uncritical zeal of the convert? Or is it the Conservative party, which took the country into the Community, helped to create the single market and makes it clear today that it will continue to fight for our national interests?
  No one needs a crystal ball to know the outcome. A few days ago, an opinion poll carried out by ICM showed that, by a margin of two to one, the public preferred negotiations to be conducted by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, rather than by the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Foreign Secretary.
  I am convinced of one thing: that margin deserves to be increased still further following this debate. I think that the public will believe that my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary are exactly the right people to represent our interests in Brussels.
  8.44 pm
  Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Right on cue, a convert rises.
  Undoubtedly, the people in this country who are the most excited about Maastricht are the young. Well they might be, because they have most to gain from the creation of a single European currency and political union. I outlined my views on both those subjects on 15 June 1990 in a 40-minute speech. I shall not attempt to repeat what I said then, for repetition makes bores of us all in the

  501
  House; I am glad, however, that the scepticism that greeted what I had to say about the benefits of a single European currency has since been replaced by understanding and support in several quarters. The translucent message from the corridors of power, in Europe and in Whitehall, is that a single currency will be established, and that we shall be part of it. The point of no return has been passed.
  I consider the idea that the issue should be decided by a referendum nothing short of bizarre. In the run-up to such a referendum, do the Government really intend to put through the letterboxes of Britain 17 million textbooks entitled "Fixed Exchange Rates and the Economic Consequences of EMU, by John Major"? Judging by the speech that the Prime Minister made yesterday, he is as capable of writing seriously about such matters as was Don Giovanni of writing a book entitled "Everything You Wanted To Know About Celibacy ".
  Speaking more generally, I suppose that I could sum up the Prime Minister's speech—without rancour—as timid, devoid of national purpose and lacking in inspiration. As he spoke, I asked myself whether the next 100 years of British history were to reflect the barren nature of his personality: the answer must be never, never, never.
  In my view, the creation of a single currency will be a major determinant of the course of British history during the next 100 years. I do not think that we should either underestimate or understate the magnitude of its consequences. I believe that monetary union is political union, and that the creation of a single currency is federalism. Indeed, the creation of a single currency is federalism without democracy.
  That is why the treaty on political union at Maastricht cannot be seen as some troublesome adjunct to the treaty on monetary union. The treaty on political union must begin to supply the democratic foundations of a devolved democratic federal system of government, without which monetary union will never survive. The one is inconceivable and unworkable without the other.
  Recently, an ambassador told me that issues such as defence and foreign policy were surely on a different plane from economic issues, involving as they did considerations of history, culture and identity. That is a plausible thesis; certainly, foreign policy and defence complicate the issue of political union and the directon of federalism.
  Let us consider this, however. One does not need to be an economic genius to understand that, when a country goes to war, the value of its currency is threatened, often decimated. Does any hon. Member seriously think that, after Britain has signed up for a single currency, we could go to war on our own and expect the 11 countries who share the same currency to stand idly by and see the value of their currency wrecked, for ever depreciating. just because Britain was in one of its periodic warmongering fits? Of course not. With a single currency in place., that could no more happen than the Government of the United Kingdom could today allow Wales or Scotland to go off and fight a war of its own. With a single currency, a common defence and foreign policy becomes inevitable and inexorable.
  One of our tasks in the House is to explain that honestly to the public. I am, of course, conscious that, as a convert to some important aspects of European integration, I risk being impeached for a lack of consistency; however, I am always happy to recall the words of Ralph Emerson, who said:
  502
  "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statemen and philosophers and divines."
  That brings me naturally to the scribblings of the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit). He provides the intellectual thrust and gravitas of the arguments of those who oppose monetary and political union. He set out his views in May 1990 in that weighty political magazine—I have a copy—The Field. His article is illustrated with huge colour photographs of the white cliffs of Dover in case the alligazoos who read it were tempted to miss the point.
  The right hon. Member for Chingford said that he cannot go along with the negotiations at Maastricht because he wants to protect Britain from "rabid dogs and dictators"—some might say from himself. He said:
  "Sterling looks set to be masticated by EM Us, ERMs and ECUs before being made fodder for that monetary successor to the Panzer, the Deutsches Bundesbank."
  Have you noticed, Mr. Speaker, how the right hon. Gentleman is moderating language and style in his old age? There is no mention of U-boats or the Luftwaffe.
  In his ignorance, the right hon. Member for Chingford I have given him notice of this—sees British history as a continuum stretching back to the dawn of time. He is quite unable to understand that the political settlement of 1688 had little in common with what went before, that the post-1832 settlement had little in common with the 1688 settlement and that the political situation today has virtually nothing in common with the post-1832 settlement.
  What I cannot understand is that the right hon. Member for Chingford and the Bruges group seem to support the existing system of government in Europe, which I would describe as a huddle of 13 bureaucracies in Brussels. Why do those people not want to bring democracy to a European Government that is currently bureaucratic, elitist, oligarchic and secretive? Perhaps it is because that is precisely the type of Government that the Conservatives developed in Britain in the 1980s.
  I believe that political union in Maastricht must put an end to that sort of Government by creating a strong European Parliament at the head of accountable, devolved, democratic federal structures.
  There is the question of sovereignty. In an article in The Guardian on 12 November 1991 the right hon. Member for Chingford said—it is a widely held view by those who did not read history at school—
  "Sovereignty cannot be shared or pooled. It is either here in our hands, or elsewhere in those of other institutions."
  It is possible that, in a period described by historians as the dark ages, sovereignty was indissoluble and indivisible. However, since then we have seen the rise of mercantilism in Tudor times, the rise of capitalism in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, and the rise of socialism. Under each of those ideologies, sovereignty has always, to a greater or lesser extent, been pooled between nation states. In short, perhaps for a period of 700 years in British political history, sovereignty has not been to be indissoluble and indivisible.
  There is a nasty side to the opposition to the treaty on political union expressed by a species known as Essex men and Essex politicians. They tend to be vulgar, philistine, xenophobic and nationalist. Surely, because we cannot afford those ideas to infest Europe, we need political union and a federal Government as a bulwark for freedom and civilised living.
  There is a litmus test for voting tonight. If the right hon. Member for Chingford can support the Government

  503
  motion, we will know that their motion is fatally flawed. If he rejects it, perhaps it has some merit. The real merit lies in the amendment to the motion in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), and I shall be supporting that.
  8.54 pm
  Mr. Michael Spicer: The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) has all the enthusiasm of a convert, and, if he does not mind, I will not follow his line.
  For the past four hours, I have been pondering the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls): why we are discussing political union in Europe when we have not achieved an internal market. It is a good question. Part of the answer must lie in the fact that many of the other countries in Europe do not want an internal market.
  When I was a Minister responsible for aviation or in the Departments of Energy and the Environment, I frequently went to the Council of Ministers. Invariably, I found an agenda before me on which the first item was often a British motion to extend the internal market and create freedom—whether it be for air fares, investment in other airlines, flying wherever one wanted in Europe or a free flow of energy around Europe. Invariably, that first item was voted down. That occurred because of national interest.
  In the case of aviation, it was because the Germans were concerned about their airline. I can recollect an occasion on which the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewksbury (Mr. Ridley) was present. He was so impressed by the protectionism of the German Minister for Aviation that he called him "Herr Lufthansa". The same was true of energy. The Germans were concerned about the ravages that might occur in their country because of cheap French nuclear-based electricity.
  The second item, which was often proposed by the French and Germans, was for greater standardisation in Europe. In the case of aviation, it called for Europewide air security or air safety regime and in the case of energy, it called for common standards of energy conservation. The other members of the Council usually voted in favour of that item.
  The third item was the press release discussion, when it was decided that the British position was anticommunautaire and that the French and German position was communautaire.
  The fourth item was the bribe which was handed out to the Portuguese, Greeks and others who had disagreed with the first item but voted in favour of the second and third items. So my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, North-West has his answer. We are discussing this rush towards political union largely because other countries do not agree with the internal market and many of the measures associated with it.
  I accept that this is a Christmas stocking motion, with presents for everybody. The present that I happily unwrap for myself is the commitment against federalism. I voted in favour of our entry of the EC, and I voted for the Single European Act. I did so on both occasions because I believed that it would be in Britain's interests to be a member of a free trading, confident and outward-looking
  504
  association of European nations. I did so because I believed, as did other hon. Members, that co-operation between the nations of Europe was better than what had gone before. However, at all times I voted for a common market, not for a common country.
  It has been said that the Single European Act was the watershed at which point essential political sovereignty was surrendered. That is not true. The Single European Act was about trade, association and co-operation. The draft Dutch treaty on economic and monetary union is about co-ordination, unity and single government.
  I agree that central—not peripheral—to the debate about federalism is the issue of a single currency. The relationship between monetary and economic union and political union is recognised by the draft Dutch treaty on monetary union. That treaty rejoices in the relationship. The point is recognised by the German Government, and it was recognised by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, he gave evidence to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee.
  If there is a single currency, there is political union. The one is part of the other. The reason for that has been made clear on several occasions during our debate. In order to operate a single currency, there must by definition be single monetary, interest rate, budgetary, fiscal and taxation policies. In other words, there must be a single economic authority which in turn must provide the basis for single government. Unless that federal state is to be a tyranny, there must be a single sovereign Parliament with a final say over the raising of taxes.
  I am against all that and, I hope, so are the Government. What is more, opinion polls now agree that the majority of the British people are on our side. That is why I will support the Government tonight. The Government are right to negotiate to protect NATO, to constrain the role of the Commission and to insist that other states obey the rules of the internal market as we do. They are right to press forward the development of an outward-looking free trading association of independent states. That is a noble concept. It would give European countries collectively and separately a positive influence on the rest of the world. That is the opposite of a protectionist, introverted, centralised federal state of Europe which is now being proposed by the Opposition and their socialist allies around Europe.
  That is ironic, but not surprising. At any rate, the Labour party has barred itself from asking basic questions which one would have thought was the role of a normal Opposition. Perhaps I should ask some of those questions. What is this rush to political union all about? What is in it for us? To what end is it now proposed that we risk the sacrifice of the power of our people, through Parliament, to rule themselves? Are we really sure that a non-electable, non-accountable central bank on the German model is, in the long term, preferable to economic management by elected politicians? Do we seriously believe that the French, Germans and Italians have a secret formula for political stability and sound democracy which we fail to emulate at our peril?
  A single currency would be the binding element of a federal state of Europe. I will support the Government tonight. I wish them well in their defence of British interests at Maastricht. However, that will not be the final say. That will come when we know what has been achieved at Maastricht. It will come if and when Parliament is asked

  505
  to ratify what has been done. I state this clearly to avoid misunderstanding: on the issue of a single currency, there can be no compromise. If Parliament was asked to ratify a treaty which I believed made British accession to a single currency inevitable, I would not vote for it, and many of my colleagues would feel the same. The British public overwhelmingly support such a position.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. John Smith.
  9.3 pm
  Mr. John Smith rose—
  Sir Russell Johnston: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not normal procedure to allow a representative of the Liberal Democrats to contribute during a day's debate?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recognises the difficulties facing Mr. Speaker and the Chair.
  Mr. Smith: Over the two days of this important debate, hon. Members have explored almost every nook and cranny, to use a contemporary expression, of the implications for this country and for Europe of the treaty amendments which may emerge from the European Council meeting at Maastricht, itself the culmination of two intergovernmental conferences which have been proceeding throughout the year. There have been echoes of previous debates—the long, sometimes weary saga of the consideration of Britain's place and role in Europe.
  It is worth remembering that it is 20 years since the House took the decision to join the European Community. A very great deal has changed since then, although that has perhaps not always been recognised by the regular participants in our national sovereignty debate. We have today and yesterday been back over the referendum ground. Yesterday, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) aced the Prime Minister with her demand for a referendum. She was not dissuaded by the fact that the Prime Minister had apparently firmly rejected a referendum in a reply to an intervention by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). Later, the Prime Minister appeared, to use one of the right hon. Lady's phrases about the Foreign Secretary, to "go a bit wobbly".
  Late last night, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who wound up for the Government, repeated the wobble by saying that we could not now decide whether there would be a possible referendum in 1996. I gather today that prime ministerial sources are trying to roll back to the position that the Prime Minister had before the right hon. Lady sprang her initiative upon him. That is hardly an example of clear, firm government. In its own way, it is a very revealing insight into the influences upon this Administration.
  Hon. Members have, as is quite proper and according to their point of view, sought to draw lessons from the history of our relations with the other states of Europe. For my own part, I believe that, in the 1950s, successive British Governments made an incorrect assessment of the strength of the movement to found the European Community. It was believed, first of all, that it would not happen and that, if it did, it would not amount to very much. However, with the perspective of history, we can
  506
  now see how wrong such a judgment was. One might also note a similar error in judging the potential success of the establishment of the European monetary system in the late 1970s.
  I seek to draw the conclusion from those experiences that in this country we have a tendency to underrate the forces behind European integration. We should have learnt that one of the penalties of standing back is lack of influence on the design and development of European institutions which eventually we feel obliged to join. Far from diminishing, the forces behind what we might call ever-closer union are increasing. Within the existing Community we are seeing the establishment of the single market after 1992.
  I have little doubt that two of the major reasons why economic and monetary union is more likely to become a reality this time round is that a single market is being established and that nearly all the member states of the European Community are now members of the exchange rate mechanism. Having regard to some of the right hon. Lady's observations yesterday, some might consider it ironic that she was the Prime Minister when the crucial decisions in both those matters were made.
  There are other factors of great importance to the debate. Capital movements have been almost entirely liberated over the whole OECD area, creating an entirely new situation from that in which Governments operated exchange controls and restraints on capital movement. In trade and in finance, we live in an increasingly interdependent world, and most certainly in a much more integrated Europe. In those circumstances, it seems to be essential that we are prepared to recognise the limits of theoretical national economic sovereignty which the real world that we live in imposes.
  Mr. Bob Dunn: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman were going to Maastricht in a few days' time as a member of a Labour Government, would he give an irrevocable commitment to moving Britain towards a single currency? Will he answer, yes or no?
  Mr. Smith: I will deal precisely with that point, but I ask the hon. Gentleman to allow me to develop one or two other aspects as a necessary background to my later comments on the issue that he raises. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is the custom to allow the contributors to a debate to make speeches in their own way. I have given an undertaking to answer the question of the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) very directly. If that suits him, it should suit other right hon. and hon. Members
  Before I was diverted, I was making the point that there are limits to theoretical economic national sovereignty, which are imposed by the realities of the world in which we live. What is more, we ought to be prepared to help to create a system that restores, at least in part, the influence that Governments should be able to have over economic and monetary policy. That is why Labour favours progress towards economic and monetary union—provided that the United Kingdom economy is made strong enough to gain rather than to lose from that experience, and that there is an adequate framework of accountability.
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls rose—
  Mr. Smith: I hope that point is clear to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Nicholls: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, because he makes a very helpful point. However, I remind him that, on the "Today" programme this morning, he said that he agreed with the proposition that there is no need to make an immediate move towards a single currency. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that he seems during the last few hours to have come over to the Government's position—which is that there is no need to make an immediate move to a single currency? It appears so, from his remarks on the radio this morning—or does he distance himself from them now?
  Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman should familiarise himself with the discussions at the intergovernmental conferences.
  Mr. Nicholls: The hon. and learned Gentleman should cut the abuse, and try to answer my question.
  Mr. Smith: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will do me the courtesy of listening to the answer that he invited me to give, without shouting at me from a sedentary position in a most boring and discourteous manner.
  No one in the whole Community is proposing an immediate move towards a single currency. The draft treaty provides that in 1996, or by the end of 1996 at the latest, the Commission will prepare a report to the Council of Economic and Finance Ministers, and thereafter to the European Council. The final decision that is postponed.
  Mr. Marlow rose—
  Mr. Smith: I have already given way a number of times. The final decision—this is the assumption on which those engaged in the debate are operating—will be made in 1996 or 1998—perhaps later, for all I know.
  Mr. Lawson: What the right hon. and learned Gentleman just said is absolutely right, but alongside the treaty on economic and monetary union, there is a declaration, which must be decided now. Is it Labour's position that the declaration should be signed, or that it should not be signed?
  Mr. Smith: I am not clear whether there is a declaration currently in the discussions. That rather depends on what provision is made for the so-called opt out, as to whether it is general or particular. The declaration that I saw made mention of a fast transition towards a single currency, which is not terribly consistent with the notion of real economic convergence. A single currency—it is surprising that the Prime Minister and other Government Members made little reference to this—would offer Britain some advantages, and I will describe what they could be.
  We could achieve a low rate of inflation, low interest rates, and a strong and stable currency—but only if we took steps to achieve real economic convergence, which would mean adopting economic policies that stimulated investment, promoted innovation and new technology, strengthened our regions, and built a world-class work force through a relentless commitment to education and training of the kind for which Labour constantly argues. Those policies are vital for our economic success in the 1990s whatever decisions are taken on economic and monetary union. It is absolutely clear that a country with a strong economy has little to fear from a single currency.
  In addition to the vital requirement of real economic convergence, it is equally important to secure a proper
  508
  framework of accountability for economic and monetary union if it occurs. We have heard nothing from the Government about their participation in the discussions in the economic intergovernmental conference about the accountability of the proposed European central bank and the allocation of responsibilities for economic and monetary policy between the Economic and Finance Ministers and the proposed central bank.
  The Labour party has argued consistently for the bank to operate in a stronger framework of political accountability than the present draft treaty proposes. Like the French Government, we believe that ECOFIN—the Council of Economic and Finance Ministers—should play a crucial role in determining overall economic and monetary policy. We believe that it is important, for example, that the setting of the external exchange rate for a single currency should be a matter for ECOFIN.
  On those and other matters, we simply do not know what the British Government have argued for or against, because Ministers have not reported back to the House on those issues. It would be appropriate tonight for the Chancellor to set out clearly the Government's position on the framework of accountability, which is one of the main areas of discussion at the intergovernmental conference. To my knowledge, we have not yet heard from Ministers about how the central bank should be controlled or about the role of the Finance Ministers in the proposed new system. Instead, when they last reported to the House in our debates on economic and monetary union in January, the Government told us that the main thrust of their policy was to advance the cause of the hard ecu.
  Let us remind the House briefly of the history of the Government's approach to such matters. The Government's early response to the Delors report was totally dismissive. However, once it became clear that there was real impetus behind the initiative, the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley, announced at the Madrid summit in 1989 that there would be a British alternative to the Delors plan. The then Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), was not present at the Madrid summit, which might help to explain why the Treasury was taken totally by surprise by the Prime Minister's initiative.
  On 18 September 1989, writing in the Financial Times, that distinguished commentator, Mr. Samuel Brittan, observed:
  "One very senior British official first heard of Mrs. Thatcher's promise, after the Madrid summit, to table alternative ways of achieving monetary union to that of the Delors Committee on his car radio."
  Mr. Brittan then said that the official, whom I am reliably informed is now permanent secretary to the Treasury,
  "was so astonished that he nearly drove his car into a tree."
  That was the genesis of the plan for competing currencies. It did not have a long life. It is, as I recall it, the so-called "market solution", in which currencies would engage in a Darwinian-type struggle for survival. Our Community partners soon put the hems on that one. There was no seconder to the motion.
  In the following year, the Government tried again. The then Chancellor, the present Prime Minister, launched the so-called "hard ecu plan". It was first revealed at a lunch meeting when he spoke to the German industry forum on 20 June 1990. The idea was that a 12th currency, a

  509
  common currency, would be established, which could never be devalued, and which might develop into a single currency—or so some thought.
  Whatever else could be said about the hard ecu—about its merits or demerits as an instrument of economic policy —it had its political uses for the Conservative party. It enabled the then Prime Minister to claim that it could not develop into a single currency. It enabled the then Chancellor, the present Prime Minister, to say that, if peoples and Governments so chose, it could develop into a single currency. It even enabled the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to argue before an astonished House of Lords Select Committee:
  "a single currency could actually happen more quickly going down this path."
  In the January debate, the Chancellor warmed to the theme of the hard ecu. It was his initiative to be taken in the intergovernmental conferences. In that same month, he published detailed proposals, which were available at about the time of the debate. They were called "Economic and Monetary Union: Beyond Stage One." In the months thereafter, the Chancellor told us that there was growing support in the Community for his plan. One country after another was said to be treating with increasing respect this deft and ingenious British plan. How strange it was, therefore, that yesterday the Prime Minister, the veritable architect of the hard ecu, no longer sang its praises. Indeed, nothing has been heard of it since May this year.
  Mr. Marlow: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Smith: Let me finish this point.
  In the Financial Times of 13 May, there was a headline: "Hard ecu plan to be reviewed". The story read:
  "Britain may back down in its hard ecu plan. … The proposal will be reviewed by senior UK officials in the next few weeks as a goodwill gesture to Britain's partners."
  That story was undoubtedly read with pleasure and relief in the capitals of the Community, but the Chancellor was not pleased at the briefing activities of his Treasury officials—his increasingly desperate Treasury officials. Speaking at a conference at the Grosvenor House hotel on 30 May, the Chancellor struck back. He said:
  "I am happy to rebut suggestions that we are abandoning the hard ecu. On the contrary, the ideas which led us to put forward our proposals are making some headway with our partners. … We are often condemned for maintaining our position in the face of widespread disagreement, but we are certainly not so perverse as to throw away a good idea just because our partners agree with us!"
  He put an exclamation mark after it.
  Mr. Marlow: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Smith: No.
  With regret I have to tell the House that that last reference by the Chancellor was, I fear, the last known sighting of the hard ecu.
  Mr. Marlow rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order.
  Mr. Smith: In recounting these events, I am reminded of the story of the hunting of the snark, in which that mythical animal was destroyed. Something similar happened to the hard ecu. So I must ask the Chancellor the
  510
  pertinent questions. Did it die? When did it die? Who killed it? Where is it buried? I hope that the Chancellor can give us a full report on the sad demise of the hard ecu.
  It is abundantly clear from the draft treaty that it contains no hard ecu, and no common or 12th currency proposal. There was not even an agreement to harden the existing basket ecu mechanism. For example, the proposal in article 109E of the draft is that the currency composition of the ecu basket will be frozen at the start of stage 2.
  The ineluctable conclusion to which one is driven is that the hard ecu was never more than a device to paper over the cracks in the Conservative party. It achieved precisely nothing for Britain's interests in the negotiations. That is a theme which sadly continued to be dominant in the Government's approach to these matters.
  In the absence of the crack-covering hard ecu, what do the Government propose by way of amendments, if any, to the current Dutch treaty text? Did they make any proposal on how the central bank should be governed? Are they content with what is proposed? Do they wish to strengthen the role of Economic and Finance Ministers, as I believe would be right? If so, what proposals do they intend to make in the remaining weeks of negotiation?
  We believe that ECOFIN should be responsible for setting the Community's overall economic policy. In order to do so, its secretariat needs to be strengthened greatly, with a permanent staff so that it is capable of carrying out the task of surveillance and economic co-ordination. It already has that role, but it could play a greater role in future.
  There is one matter on which I agree with what the Prime Minister said yesterday. That is the important question of budget deficits. He said that negotiations were still proceeding on that matter and that there had been no acceptance of a binding element in stages 2 or 3.
  As presently drafted, the treaty is far too rigid. The 3 per cent. figure in the protocol seems arbitrary and surely, at the very least, there must be some common definition of what a deficit is considered to be when member states have different Government accounting practices.
  Since I am agreeing, in principle, with the line that the Government took on that matter, I hope that the Chancellor can enlighten us further on what the Government propose.
  Sir Peter Blaker: Was the right hon. and learned Gentleman present with the Leader of the Opposition at the conference in Madrid in December last year when a policy of a binding minimum rate of taxation throughout the Community was agreed? That agreement clearly referred to direct taxation. Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman care to elaborate on that, because we have not heard much about it from the Labour party?
  Mr. Smith: I do not think any more mischievous allegation has been made during these discussions than what the chairman of the Conservative party wrote in the letter that I have here. He explicitly referred to capital taxation; that is absolutely clear from the context of the document.
  Since we are delving into such matters, I took the trouble to inquire about another aspect of our relationship with Europe today—the Conservative party's application to join the European People's party parliamentary group

  511
  as an allied member. I have here a letter from the chairman of the Conservative party to Mr. Wilfried Martens, the president of the European People's party. He says:
  "I would like to take this opportunity to state once again that this application"—
  that is the application by the Tories to be allowed to tie up with someone; they have never managed it in all the history of the European Parliament, but they are feeling a bit lonely—
  "enjoys my full support and that of the Prime Minister as Leader of the Conservative Party."
  I was intrigued by the fact that a letter sent on behalf of Conservative Members of the European Parliament says the following:
  "I should like to emphasize that my colleagues fully support, inter alia: The institutional development of the community into a European Union of a federal type".
  I think that the chairman of the Conservative party would be better employed sorting out a few of those matters before he comes back to the House. I apologise for raising such matters in detail, but it is the duty of the House to do so—[Interruption.] I shall no doubt be corrected and hon. Members can always intervene, but I have it here in writing, and it would be surprising if it were wrong.
  Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not normal in parliamentary debate that, when a serious allegation is made against the Prime Minister, he at least gets up off his bottom and tries to respond to it? Can we not invite the Prime Minister to do so?
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Smith: I have mentioned our views on the development of economic and monetary union, but one matter that we have not touched upon sufficiently in the debate is the curious view that the Conservative party has on the social charter and the social action programme.
  In the remarkable speech by the right hon. Member for Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) this afternoon, it was as unusual as it was refreshing to hear a Conservative voice talking of the need for equity and social justice within the European Community. The right hon. Gentleman recognised, as we do, that it is hardly consistent to argue for qualified majority voting to create the single market if one opposes it on the social action programme, which gives rights for employees. It is staggering that the Government will apparently take the negotiations at Maastricht to the brink of failure because of their obstinate, dogmatic insistence that they will have nothing to do with competence in the social field or with majority voting in that area.
  The Government could change their policy on that precise matter without great difficulty. If they are worried about whether it is the right thing to do, I remind them of an article that the Secretary of State for the Environment wrote in The Times on 29 November 1989, in which he said
  "We paid a heavy price when others designed the common agricultural policy. It would be unforgivable to repeat that mistake in industrial and financial policies. The same argument applies to the Social Charter".
  512
  That was well said by the Secretary of State for the Environment. I hope that he will speak to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and help them to come to a wiser view.
  In the course of this debate, we have understood that the real priorities for Europe in the years that lie ahead are for the Community to become wider, more cohesive and more democratic. Those are certainly the Labour party's objectives. We have aims and objectives—the same cannot be said of the Conservative party. In the same Lobby tonight will be those who want a referendum and those who do not, and those who want a single currency and those who do not. Most remarkable of all, walking through the same Lobby will be the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup and the right hon. Member for Finchley, thus demonstrating the organised hypocritical disunity that passes for a Conservative party.
  That is why it will be not only a duty but a pleasure to vote against the Government tonight.
  9.32 pm
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Norman Lamont): This has been an important and historic debate. It has been a remarkable occasion, with some memorable contributions. It is not every day when one former Prime Minister intervenes in the speech of another. We have heard some outstanding speeches on both sides of the House. On the Opposition Benches, the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and the hon. Members for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Sir P. Duffey) made outstanding speeches. My right hon. Friends the Members for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), for Guildford (Mr. Howell) and for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) made powerful contributions.
  Obviously, it was right that the House should have an opportunity to express its views and vote on the broad negotiating stance which the Government will take. The motion allows the House to do that. If agreement is reached in Maastricht, the House will have a further opportunity to debate and vote on the detailed proposals in due course.
  Tonight, I wish to concentrate largely on monetary union and answer some of the questions raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith). First, however, may I make some observations on political union? Foreign and security policy is an area in which the Twelve can and do work together. Europe is an increasingly integrated region, and the individual members of the Community are likely to have common interests and many common views, especially on regional questions such as eastern Europe, to which several hon. Members referred, and relationships with the Soviet Union. The Community has a legitimate interest in those issues. At the same time, the individual countries have different histories, worldwide connections and interests. It is essential that we continue to retain the freedom to act alone in our own national interests.
  It also goes without saying that foreign and defence policy—questions that can involve issues of peace and war —cannot be subject to mechanistic voting procedures, which would be a recipe for less rather than more agreement. That is why, in the negotiations, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has placed the emphasis on

  513
  co-operation between individual states for agreement outside the treaty mechanism and has said that agreement should be by consensus.
  Much of the debate in the past two days has been taken up with arguments about the position of this House. We are rightly jealous of the power of Parliament to make laws, to tax and to spend. Of course our institutions and practices must be subject to examination, but we are voting tonight not for ourselves but for those whom we represent. It is my conviction that the British people overwhelmingly wish to reserve those fundamental powers for this House in this country.
  Mr. Tony Benn: It has long been Government policy that there should be no change in the status of Northern Ireland without a referendum, and that even a merging of sovereignty between Belfast and Dublin could not be entrusted to this House alone. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House the difference between that and the issue raised by the demand for a referendum which my right hon. and hon. Friends fully supported when it was made in 1975?
  Mr. Lamont: The Prime Minister has made it clear that we do not think that, on the issue whether we should move to single currency—an issue that will not arise for six or seven years—it would be appropriate now to have a referendum. In addition, he made it clear that he did not feel it was appropriate even later for there to be a referendum on this issue.
  I was referring to the fact that profound constitutional and political questions are raised in the debate, though they have not been seriously addressed by the Opposition. The Prime Minister has made it clear that we are against the idea of a European Government or a European state, and for that reason the Foreign Secretary has taken a cautious approach to any extensions of Community competence or to proposals to increase the powers of the European Parliament. We reject wide-ranging increases in the legislative powers of the European Parliament.
  We are prepared to consider a right for the European Parliament to block legislation approved by the Council. But the scope of such a provision should be strictly limited, and certainly more limited than is the case in the current draft. This negative assent procedure would of course not mean that the European Parliament could initiate legislation, still less impose anything that did not command the requisite support in the Council of Ministers. We have also tabled proposals to increase the accountability of the Commission—asked for by Opposition Members—to the European Parliament, particularly in its management of the Community budget.
  A number of my hon. Friends have noted that the draft treaty contains some extensions of Community competence and the scope of majority voting in the Council. Obviously, I cannot go over many of them tonight, but, unlike the Opposition, we are profoundly sceptical about the need for major new extensions of Community competence. There is no need for extended Community competence in issues such as industrial relations and social security. If wide-ranging social policies were imposed throughout the Community, they would increase unemployment and have massive economic costs.
  I can understand that Opposition Members take a different view on some of these issues and policies, but, as the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said
  514
  yesterday, that is not the real issue. The real question is why they want to take away the right of the British people to make the final decision on these matters.
  We believe that the political union IGC could deliver a constructive and useful package of reforms of the Community and its institutions, but the Community must not overreach itself. We cannot draw up grandiose, impractical blueprints for a structure that will not stand the weight it would be called on to bear. The consequences of over-ambition would be disastrous for the Community and for Britain, and we could not accept that.
  I come to the negotiations about economic and monetary union. While these have been conducted by Finance Ministers separately from those on political union, as my right hon. Friends the Members for Blaby and for Chingford said, nobody can he in any doubt that monetary union, if it happens. is a process with potentially profound political implications.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) made the case for a single currency, which he said could be seen as a logical extension of the single market. He referred to the reduction in transaction costs and exchange rate risks that could increase trade and investment, and promote investment from outside into the Community. Above all, some see it as achieving price stability—not only a single currency zone, but a low-inflation zone. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) said, many in industry and the City fear the commercial consequences if Britain were to exclude itself from any future European currency union.
  For those reasons, we think that it would have been wrong to stand aside or walk away from the negotiations, but the important potential economic arguments must be balanced against the political consequences and the practicalities. One thing is certain: any attempt to create a single currency in Europe must be based on the prior convergence, not just of inflation and interest rates, but market flexibility throughout the economies of the member states. Without that, there would be enormous and permanent regional imbalances which would have disastrous consequences.
  Mr. Stuart Bell: The House will have noticed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has widened the issue of convergence from the definition given by the Foreign Secretary this afternoon. We now have a better idea about convergence than we did this afternoon. May we have an answer from the Chancellor to the question raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) about the hard ecu?
  Mr. Lamont: I shall answer that precise question now if the hon. Gentleman wants. He is wrong—the hard ecu was discussed recently. Incorporating many of the features of the hard ecu, using a common currency to promote convergence and having something similar to the monetary fund that we proposed earlier are all ideas which are still on the table. Other countries wish to see a hardening of the ecu in stage 2. The basic framework of our proposal still applies.
  There are few recent examples of countries coming together to form a currency union of independent sovereign states. For that reason, it would be something of a step into the unknown. However we expect the Community to develop, events will no doubt turn out

  515
  differently. As many of my hon. Friends have said, notably my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford, over the next few years the current Community could be enlarged into one of perhaps 15 or 20 countries. A single currency would have to be able to accommodate that change, as would the institutions of the Community.
  Mr. Marlow rose—
  Mr. Ted Rowlands rose—
  Mr. Lamont: Several hon. Members have asked questions that I want to answer, because it is important to get the answers on the record. I shall give way soon.
  For the reasons that I have given, I believe that my right hon. Friends the Members for Worcester (Mr. Walker), for Blaby, and for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) were right to pose the question: is it possible to have a monetary union without also having a political union? They are right to ask whether it is possible to reconcile a single currency with national Governments who keep control of economic policy and maintain the freedom to tax and spend. Those are important questions.
  They also raised the issue whether there should be constraints on Government's fiscal policies and freedoms, and if so how far they should go. It was due to the huge issues involved that we have made it clear that we cannot make the commitment to move to a single currency without a separate decision at the appropriate time taken by Government and Parliament. We cannot, and we shall not.
  Some of my hon. Friends asked whether the text as it presently stands genuinely enables us to avoid the commitment to move to a single currency. On the basis of all the advice available to me, I can give the House that assurance. My right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley referred to the European Court of Justice. The advice that I have had is quite clear. There can be no question of the United Kingdom being in breach of the treaty for refusing to move to a single currency.
  Some of my hon. Friends, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), suggested that articles 2 and 3a of the draft treaty implied a commitment to move to a single currency. It is true that economic and monetary union is part of the Community task set out in article 2, as it was in the preamble to the Single European Act. However, as article 3a makes clear, nothing in these articles overrides the provisions for a form of exemption status which would be without time limit.
  Of course we are not committed to one particular draft, and we will need to be absolutely satisfied that the final text is legally watertight. I assure the House that we shall reflect on the points that have been made in the debate and that the Government will settle for nothing less than a treaty that leaves us wholly free to decide whether or not to move to a single currency. "Wholly free" means free to make whatever choice we wish.
  Mr. Rowlands: Will the Government sign a treaty which includes an absurd protocol limiting the rate of public expenditure to 3 per cent. of deficit and a central bank whose undemocratic status would not allow any Government to influence its decisions?
  Mr. Lamont: I am coming to those precise points.
  Mr. Rowlands: Answer.
  Mr. Lamont: I intend to answer. One of the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friends delivered a lesson on manners, but obviously the hon. Gentleman did not hear it.
  Some hon. Members have said that, if we sign a treaty that provides for a single currency, then, even if we are not legally committed to move to a single currency, the pressures to adopt it will be there, and a single currency will become inevitable. I say to my hon. Friends who advanced that argument that it shows a lack of confidence in their case. If a single currency cannot work, or cannot be made to work without unacceptable infringement of sovereignty, it will deservedly be rejected by the House.
  Because we are not prepared to make a commitment to move to a single currency, monetary, fiscal and economic policy in general will remain firmly in national hands until and unless the decision is made to move to a single currency and to stage 3. This is an extremely important point. It has been my intention throughout to negotiate a treaty which, up to the point of decision, leaves the Government free to continue to run our own economic policy.
  For example, in stage 2, monetary policy will remain firmly in national hands. The new European Monetary Institute will have co-ordinating tasks in the same way as the present Committee of Central Bank Governors has. It will oversee the development of the ecu, and the EMI will carry out work in preparation for a possible future move to stage 3.
  The EMI will not be a European central bank. It will not take away the freedom of member states to conduct their own monetary policies. A European central bank will not be set up unless and until the Community decides to move to stage 3. Hon. Members may have noticed that, although a country must be a member of the ERM to move to stage 3, ERM membership is not a treaty obligation in stage 2. Monetary policy remains with member states unless and until they choose to participate in the single currency area. The same is true of fiscal policy.
  In stage 2 of the Economic and Finance Council would be able to examine a member state's economic or fiscal policies and to make recommendations, but ECOFIN is already empowered to do exactly that. Other organisations such as the IMF and OECD are already engaged in and entitled to do this. The proposed procedure in stage 2 will be more formalised but contains little new. Council action in stage 2 would take the form of recommendations, which are clearly stated in article 189 to have no binding force.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing spoke about the general provision that member states
  "shall avoid excessive budget deficits"
  in stage 2, although he recognised that the draft treaty makes it clear that such an obligation would not be enforceable by infraction proceedings. The Government have pursued, and will continue to pursue, sound fiscal policies, and we think that other member states should do likewise. We are not prepared to accept any binding obligation in this area, and it is my firm objective to amend this provision so that it does not create any such obligation in stage two.
  Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Lamont: I will give way if my hon. Friend insists, but there are many important points to be made about the

  517
  negotiations, and we shall not have them on the record and the House will not know about them if I am not allowed enough time to set them out.
  In stage 3, matters would be very different. A European central bank would have been brought into existence, which would have sole responsibility for monetary policy in those member states that chose to move to a single currency. A number of right hon. and hon. Members—for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford—have pointed out that the European central bank would operate independently of political control. However, it would be accountable for its actions to the Council of Economic Finance Ministers and the President of that Council would be able to attend meetings of the governing board.
  The Council would also have an important role in formulating exchange rate policy. The Governor of the Bank of England would he a member of the governing board of the European central bank and would continue to be appointed at a national level, but the European central bank in stage 3 would have to be free to set interest rates without interference. That is the view of every member state. In a Community of 12 countries, it simply would not be practical for 12 Finance Ministers to intervene in the monetary policy decisions of the central bank.
  The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) spoke about the binding rules. A number of my right hon. and hon. Friends have noted that the current draft of the treaty also provides for binding rules of fiscal deficits in stage 3. This has been the subject of considerable argument in the debate. There are those who have argued that, if monetary policy is set by the centre, fiscal policy must inevitably be centrally determined; otherwise, there is a risk of monetary financing or inflation. Also, there would be the risk of excessive budget deficits in one country, which would push up interest rates throughout the single currency area.
  In my view, the rigid central determination of fiscal policy is neither necessary nor desirable. Even if there were to be one European currency and one European monetary policy, it is our intention that there should still be 12 fiscal policies and 12 Finance Ministers. The Government believe that, even in stage 3, Community action to restrict deficits would be necessary only in the rare cases where it was clear that the deficit was grossly excessive—for example, if it threatened monetary stability throughout the Community.
  The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney spoke about the 3 per cent. of GDP trigger, a point raised also by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney, my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing and other hon. Members. The present proposals would entail Council examination of the policies of member states with deficits exceeding 3 per cent. of GDP, but such deficits would not be prohibited. The 3 per cent. criterion would trigger investigation and would lead to further action only if the Council, taking the relevant economic circumstances into account, so decided.
  I agree with what has been said on this subject: that the proposals in the treaty are too onerous. We shall be working to ensure that the procedure catches only deficits that are clearly excessive and unsustainable. We shall try to secure in the negotiations rules that ensure that limitations on deficits operate with the lightest possible touch.
  Mr. Marlow: We have in a few minutes an important vote coming up, and I am sure that hon. Members will want to get the matter right. Among the 32 lines of gobbledegook that pass for an Opposition amendment, the Government are urged
  "to achieve … a single currency as the essential foundation".
  Conservative or Labour Members who vote for the amendment will want to know whether this is committing the Opposition to a single currency, come what may, willy-nilly.
  Mr. Lamont: I am just as mystified by the Opposition's amendment as my hon. Friend. It will not surprise him to know that I am about to come to that precise point.
  The speeches made by the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East were not up to the seriousness and the gravity of the issues that we have discussed tonight. Our approach to the negotiations has been constructive but cautious: cautious to ensure that British Governments retain the freedom to act in the national interest, but constructive in preparing Community arrangements which are practical and which, if they come into being, will work.
  That is the approach of a responsible Government, a Government who seek agreement with their partners but are prepared to say no if the nation's interests are under threat. It is an approach which is in the starkest possible contrast to the Opposition's attitude. There can be no more serious topic than that which we are discussing tonight, but the Opposition have in no way addressed themselves to the issues.
  The Leader of the Opposition spent the 1970s saying that membership of the Community was, to use his words, "an absolutely crazy mistake". He spent much of the 1980s demanding outright and immediate withdrawal, but now he proposes to spend the 1990s apparently willing to sign every piece of paper which floats across the English channel.
  Having once believed that the Community was entirely bad, the Leader of the Opposition now apparently believes that everything that emanates from Brussels, everything that is proposed there, is unquestionably good. He and his colleagues are prepared and ready to sign away the rights of this Parliament to decide our own social and employment laws. They propose regional policies which would, like so many of their ideas, cost the British taxpayer dear. They are ready to commit Britain to move to a single currency without any further deliberation or decision and without the slightest regard to the economic consequences.
  A year ago, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East said that it would not be prudent to commit ourselves to a single currency, but on Tuesday he issued a brief statement saying that the Labour party has made it clear that in principle it favours progress towards a single currency. Yesterday, the House heard me ask the Leader of the Opposition whether at Maastricht he would be prepared to make an irrevocable commitment to move to a single currency. I asked him whether he would sign not just the treaty but the declaration to move to a single currency. Various of my hon. Friends, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby, also asked the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East, but we have had no answer whatever.
  The Leader of the Opposition said that he would not be looking for an opt-out clause. That surely means that the Opposition are committed to move to a single currency.

  519
  That is what I would have thought. It is extraordinary that the right hon. Gentleman should say that he is not interested in that opt-out clause. It is there because we worked hard for it and we have negotiated for it. The right hon. Gentleman is saying that he does not want to take advantage of it. He is prepared to chuck away Britain's interests. Irrespective of having the opportunity, he would commit Britain to move to a single currency.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East said that the decision does not really arise until 1997, but the declaration which every other country is prepared to sign arises this year, at this moment. Would the Leader of the Opposition sign it? We have had no answer on that point.
  It is crystal clear that the Leader of the Opposition is prepared to commit Britain to move irrevocably to a single currency. That is the only conclusion that can be drawn after the speeches that we have heard in the past few days.
  The Government have been involved in long and complex negotiations. They have been fighting for vital British interests—the power of the House, the right of Government to take their own taxation and spending decisions, the right of Government to run their own immigration policy. Those on the Opposition Front Bench are prepared to throw that away. The Opposition have allowed themselves to become federalists in all but name. We reject their approach, and I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the Government's policy in the Lobby.
  Question put, That the amendment be made: —
  The House divided: Ayes 200, Noes 391.

  Division No.14]

  [10.00

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

  Corbett, Robin

  Allen, Graham

  Cousins, Jim

  Anderson, Donald

  Cox, Tom

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Crowther, Stan

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Cummings, John

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Ashton, Joe

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Darling, Alistair

  Barron, Kevin

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Battle, John

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

  Beckett, Margaret

  Dewar, Donald

  Bell, Stuart

  Dixon, Don

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

  Dobson, Frank

  Benton, Joseph

  Doran, Frank

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Duffy, Sir A. E. P.

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Blair, Tony

  Eadie, Alexander

  Blunkett, David

  Eastham, Ken

  Boateng, Paul

  Edwards, Huw

  Boyes, Roland

  Enright, Derek

  Bradley, Keith

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Caborn, Richard

  Fisher, Mark

  Callaghan, Jim

  Flannery, Martin

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Flynn, Paul

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Foster, Derek

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Foulkes, George

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Fraser, John

  Clelland, David

  Fyfe, Maria

  Cohen, Harry

  Galbraith, Sam

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Galloway, George

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  520

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Meale, Alan

  George, Bruce

  Michael, Alun

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Morley, Elliot

  Gordon, Mildred

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Gould, Bryan

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Graham, Thomas

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Mullin, Chris

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Murphy, Paul

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Grocott, Bruce

  O'Brien, William

  Hain, Peter

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hardy, Peter

  O'Neill, Martin

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Parry, Robert

  Haynes, Frank

  Patchett, Terry

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Pendry, Tom

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Pike, Peter L.

  Henderson, Doug

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Prescott, John

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Home Robertson, John

  Radice, Giles

  Hood, Jimmy

  Randall, Stuart

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Redmond, Martin

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Reid, Dr John

  Hoyle, Doug

  Richardson, Jo

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Robertson, George

  Hume, John

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Ingram, Adam

  Rogers, Allan

  Janner, Greville

  Rooker, Jeff

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Rooney, Terence

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Ruddock, Joan

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Sheerman, Barry

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

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

  Lewis, Terry

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)

  Litherland, Robert

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Snape, Peter

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Soley, Clive

  Loyden, Eddie

  Steinberg, Gerry

  McAllion, John

  Stott, Roger

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Strang, Gavin

  McCartney, Ian

  Straw, Jack

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  McFall, John

  Turner, Dennis

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Vaz, Keith

  McKelvey, William

  Walley, Joan

  McLeish, Henry

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  McMaster, Gordon

  Wareing, Robert N.

  McNamara, Kevin

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  McWilliam, John

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Mallon, Seamus

  Wilson, Brian

  Marek, Dr John

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Worthington, Tony

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Martlew, Eric

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Maxton, John

  Mr. Eric Illsley and Mr. Jack Thompson.

  Meacher, Michael

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Alexander, Richard

  Atkins, Robert

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Atkinson, David

  Allason, Rupert

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Baldry, Tony

  Amess, David

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Amos, Alan

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Batiste, Spencer

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Arnold, Sir Thomas

  Beggs, Roy

  Ashby, David

  Beith, A. J.

  521

  Bellingham, Henry

  Fearn, Ronald

  Bendall, Vivian

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Benyon, W.

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Forman, Nigel

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Forth, Eric

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Boswell, Tim

  Franks, Cecil

  Bottomley, Peter

  Freeman, Roger

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  French, Douglas

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

  Fry, Peter

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Gale, Roger

  Bowis, John

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Gill, Christopher

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Brazier, Julian

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Bright, Graham

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Goodlad, Alastair

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

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Gorst, John

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Burns, Simon

  Gregory, Conal

  Burt, Alistair

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Butcher, John

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Butler, Chris

  Grist, Ian

  Butterfill, John

  Ground, Patrick

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Grylls, Michael

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hague, William

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Cartwright, John

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Cash, William

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Hannam, John

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

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

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Chope, Christopher

  Harris, David

  Churchill, Mr

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Hayward, Robert

  Colvin, Michael

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Conway, Derek

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Couchman, James

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Cran, James

  Hill, James

  Critchley, Julian

  Hind, Kenneth

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Curry, David

  Hordern, Sir Peter

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

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

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

  Day, Stephen

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Devlin, Tim

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Dicks, Terry

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Howells, Geraint

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Dover, Den

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Dunn, Bob

  Hunt, Rt Hon David

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Hunter, Andrew

  Eggar, Tim

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Irvine, Michael

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Jack, Michael

  Evennett, David

  Jackson, Robert

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Janman, Tim

  Fallon, Michael

  Jessel, Toby

  Farr, Sir John

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Favell, Tony

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  522

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Norris, Steve

  Kennedy, Charles

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Key, Robert

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Kilfedder, James

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Page, Richard

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Paice, James

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Knapman, Roger

  Patnick, Irvine

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Knowles, Michael

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Knox, David

  Pawsey, James

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Latham, Michael

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Portillo, Michael

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Price, Sir David

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Raffan, Keith

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Lightbown, David

  Redwood, John

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Livsey, Richard

  Rhodes James, Sir Robert

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Riddick, Graham

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Lord, Michael

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  Maclean, David

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Maclennan, Robert

  Rost, Peter

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Rowe, Andrew

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Madel, David

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Maginnis, Ken

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Malins, Humfrey

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Mans, Keith

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Maples, John

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Marland, Paul

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Marlow, Tony

  Shelton, Sir William

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Mates, Michael

  Shersby, Michael

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Sims, Roger

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Speed, Keith

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Speller, Tony

  Mills, Iain

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Squire, Robin

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Moate, Roger

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Steen, Anthony

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Stephen, Nicol

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Stern, Michael

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Stevens, Lewis

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Stokes, Sir John

  Neale, Sir Gerrard

  Sumberg, David

  Needham, Richard

  Summerson, Hugo

  Nelson, Anthony

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  523

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Wallace, James

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Waller, Gary

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Ward, John

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Watts, John

  Thorne, Neil

  Wells, Bowen

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Thurnham, Peter

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Wilkinson, John

  Tracey, Richard

  Wilshire, David

  Tredinnick, David

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Trimble, David

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Trippier, David

  Wolfson, Mark

  Trotter, Neville

  Wood, Timothy

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Yeo, Tim

  Viggers, Peter

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Walden, George

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. Nicholas Baker.

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Question accordingly negatived.
  10.14 pm
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At the beginning of this Session we passed a Sessional Order to enable the byways to be kept clear for hon. Members to get to this House. Clearly something has gone wrong. Where are the other 29 Labour Members of Parliament? Where have they gone?
  Main Question put: —
  The House divided: Ayes 351, Noes 250.

  Division No. 15]

  [10.15 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Alexander, Richard

  Brazier, Julian

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Bright, Graham

  Allason, Rupert

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

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

  Amess, David

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Amos, Alan

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Arbuthnot, James

  Burns, Simon

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Burt, Alistair

  Arnold, Sir Thomas

  Butcher, John

  Ashby, David

  Butler, Chris

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Butterfill, John

  Atkins, Robert

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Atkinson, David

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Baldry, Tony

  Carttiss, Michael

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Cartwright, John

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Batiste, Spencer

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Chapman, Sydney

  Bellingham, Henry

  Chope, Christopher

  Bendall, Vivian

  Churchill, Mr

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

  Benyon, W.

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Colvin, Michael

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Conway, Derek

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Boswell, Tim

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Cormack, Patrick

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

  Couchman, James

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Critchley, Julian

  Bowis, John

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Curry, David

  524

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

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Day, Stephen

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Devlin, Tim

  Hunt, Rt Hon David

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Dicks, Terry

  Hunter, Andrew

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Irvine, Michael

  Dover, Den

  Jack, Michael

  Dunn, Bob

  Jackson, Robert

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Janman, Tim

  Dykes, Hugh

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Eggar, Tim

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Evennett, David

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Fallon, Michael

  Key, Robert

  Farr, Sir John

  Kilfedder, James

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Knapman, Roger

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Forman, Nigel

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Knowles, Michael

  Forth, Eric

  Knox, David

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Franks, Cecil

  Latham, Michael

  Freeman, Roger

  Lawrence, Ivan

  French, Douglas

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Fry, Peter

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Gale, Roger

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Lightbown, David

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Lord, Michael

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

  Gorst, John

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Gregory, Conal

  Maclean, David

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Grist, Ian

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Ground, Patrick

  Madel, David

  Grylls, Michael

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Malins, Humfrey

  Hague, William

  Mans, Keith

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

  Maples, John

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Marland, Paul

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Marlow, Tony

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Hannam, John

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

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

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Mates, Michael

  Harris, David

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Hayes, Jerry

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Mel lor, Rt Hon David

  Hayward, Robert

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Mills, Iain

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Moate, Roger

  Hill, James

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hind, Kenneth

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Morrison, Sir Charles

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

  Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  525

  Neale, Sir Gerrard

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Needham, Richard

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Squire, Robin

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Steen, Anthony

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Stern, Michael

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Stevens, Lewis

  Norris, Steve

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Stokes, Sir John

  Page, Richard

  Sumberg, David

  Paice, James

  Summerson, Hugo

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Patnick, Irvine

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Pawsey, James

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Thorne, Neil

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Portillo, Michael

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Price, Sir David

  Tracey, Richard

  Raffan, Keith

  Tredinnick, David

  Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Trippier, David

  Rathbone, Tim

  Trotter, Neville

  Redwood, John

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Rhodes James, Sir Robert

  Viggers, Peter

  Riddick, Graham

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Walden, George

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Waller, Gary

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Rost, Peter

  Ward, John

  Rowe, Andrew

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

  Warren, Kenneth

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Watts, John

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Wells, Bowen

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Whitney, Ray

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Wilkinson, John

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Wilshire, David

  Shelton, Sir William

  Wolfson, Mark

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Wood, Timothy

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Shersby, Michael

  Yeo, Tim

  Sims, Roger

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. Nicholas Baker.

  Speed, Keith

  Speller, Tony

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

  Benton, Joseph

  Allen, Graham

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Anderson, Donald

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Blair, Tony

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Blunkett, David

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Boateng, Paul

  Ashton, Joe

  Body, Sir Richard

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Boyes, Roland

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Bradley, Keith

  Barron, Kevin

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Battle, John

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Beckett, Margaret

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Beith, A. J.

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Bell, Stuart

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Caborn, Richard

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

  Callaghan, Jim

  526

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Howells, Geraint

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Clay, Bob

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Clelland, David

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cohen, Harry

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hume, John

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Ingram, Adam

  Corbett, Robin

  Janner, Greville

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Cousins, Jim

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Cox, Tom

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Crowther, Stan

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Cryer, Bob

  Kennedy, Charles

  Cummings, John

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Dalyell, Tam

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Darling, Alistair

  Lambie, David

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

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

  Lewis, Terry

  Dewar, Donald

  Litherland, Robert

  Dixon, Don

  Livsey, Richard

  Dobson, Frank

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Doran, Frank

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Douglas, Dick

  Loyden, Eddie

  Duffy, Sir A. E. P.

  McAllion, John

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  McCartney, Ian

  Eadie, Alexander

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Eastham, Ken

  McFall, John

  Edwards, Huw

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Enright, Derek

  McKelvey, William

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McLeish, Henry

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  McMaster, Gordon

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  McNamara, Kevin

  Fatchett, Derek

  McWilliam, John

  Faulds, Andrew

  Madden, Max

  Fearn, Ronald

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Mallon, Seamus

  Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

  Marek, Dr John

  Fisher, Mark

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Flannery, Martin

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Flynn, Paul

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Foster, Derek

  Martlew, Eric

  Foulkes, George

  Maxton, John

  Fraser, John

  Meacher, Michael

  Fyfe, Maria

  Meale, Alan

  Galbraith. Sam

  Michael, Alun

  Galloway, George

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  George, Bruce

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Morley, Elliot

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Gould, Bryan

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Graham, Thomas

  Mullin, Chris

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Murphy, Paul

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Nellist, Dave

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Grocott, Bruce

  O'Brien, William

  Hain, Peter

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hardy, Peter

  O'Neill, Martin

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Haynes, Frank

  Parry, Robert

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Patchett, Terry

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Pendry, Tom

  Henderson, Doug

  Pike, Peter L.

  Hinchliffe, David

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Prescott, John

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Home Robertson, John

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  527

  Radice, Giles

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Randall, Stuart

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Redmond, Martin

  Stephen, Nicol

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Stott, Roger

  Reid, Dr John

  Strang, Gavin

  Richardson, Jo

  Straw, Jack

  Robertson, George

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  Rogers, Allan

  Turner, Dennis

  Rooker, Jeff

  Vaz, Keith

  Rooney, Terence

  Wallace, James

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Walley, Joan

  Rowlands, Ted

  Warden, Gareth (Gower)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Salmond, Alex

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Wilson, Brian

  Sillars, Jim

  Winnick, David

  Skinner, Dennis

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

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

  Worthington, Tony

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Snape, Peter

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Soley, Clive

  Mr. Eric Illsley and Mr. Jack Thompson.

  Spearing, Nigel

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  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
  528
  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 arc matters for national decision, devlops 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.

  ACCOMMODATION AND WORKS
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Patrick Cormack, Mr. Geraint Howells, Dame Jill Knight, Mr. David Lightbown, Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse, Mr. Ray Powell and Mr. Donald Thompson be members of the Accommodation and Works Committee.

  ADMINISTRATION
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Jacques Arnold, Sir Charles Irving, Mr. Allen McKay, Mr. Stanley Orme, Mrs. Marion Roe, Mr. William Ross and Mr. Tom Sackville be members of the Administration Committee.

  CATERING
  Ordered,
  That Mrs. Irene Adams, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Alan Haselhurst, Mr. Michael J. Martin, Mr. Colin Shepherd, Mr. Anthony Steen and Mr. John Townend be members of the Catering Committee.

  INFORMATION
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Spencer Batiste, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. Huw Edwards, Sir Ian Lloyd, Mr. John McFall, Sir Fergus Montgomery and Mr. Gary Waller be members of the Information Committee.—[Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  Adult Education (Croydon)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope]
  10.29 pm
  Mr. Humfrey Matins: I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise on the Adjournment the question of adult education in Croydon, and to see you, Mr. Speaker, in the Chair, because you and I are privileged to represent constituencies in Croydon. It is an area of great variety. It is renowned as a business and commercial centre. In Croydon, a large number of people from different ethnic backgrounds live and work happily side by side. In many ways, it is a thriving area, although it is not without its pockets of deprivation. It is certainly an area where a variety of different needs and different expectations exist.
  For many years, we have been fortunate in the excellence of the Croydon borough council, and nowhere is this more true than in its education department. In my time, I have known two outstanding directors of education, Donald Naismith and Paul Benin's; and two very fine chairmen of education, Councillor Derek Loughborough and Councillor Andrew Pelling. Members of the education department and councillors alike have constantly striven to provide a high standard of education for as rich and diverse a society as one can imagine.
  Nowhere is this more true than in adult education. In Croydon, the continuing education and training service is a free-standing adult education service, with a history of providing an important access point for those with needs for basic skills It provides English for speakers of other languages, training for employment, accreditation and qualifications, as well as many opportunities for those who wish to follow a variety of general adult education courses. The large programme is planned on a borough-wide basis, and delivered locally in 11 centres. Three of these are full time, day and evening, and are used exclusively by adults: Coombe Cliff, South Norwood—in your constituency, Mr. Speaker—and Smitham.
  Last year, there were some 42,000 enrolernents, representing 28,000 individual students. Some 60 per cent. of enrolments are for vocational courses and 40 per cent. are for leisure courses.
  I know that you, Mr. Speaker, recently visited the South Norwood centre, and that you were mightily impressed by everything that you saw. I, too. was privileged to visit that centre and the one at Coombe Cliff, in the company of Margaret Davey, the head of continuing education and training service, and of Barbara Holland, who looks after South Norwood.
  What we both saw was impressive: adults of all ages atending a wide variety of courses. Keep fit was taking place alongside book-keeping; languages and embroidery were next to jobsearch; cookery and pottery were adjoining computer studies; upholstery was alongside management training and business start-up. The atmosphere was friendly. It was informal and, above all, accessible—evidence, no doubt, of the absence of entry requirements and the availability of fee concessions for those most in need. In the centres, the general public as well as students are made to feel welcome, and the atmosphere is overwhelmingly adult. I can well understand that many older and less confident people feel comfortable and unthreatened in such places.
  530
  Such a service is unique in the way in which it works through and with other partners, in both the voluntary and statutory sectors. Voluntary organisations have a key role in the total range of provision for adults and are strongly supported in Croydon. Three examples are the university of the third age, the south London refugee project, and the Croydon action group for the unemployed, where aspects of specialist work are undertaken, with the support of the adult service.
  Croydon's free-standing and continuing education and training service is cost-effective, vigorous and efficient. The net cost per student hour is about half what it is in the local colleges. It has a distinctive role in Croydon, quite separate from the large further and higher education college and yet there is still considerable collaboration with many joint projects and attention to progress routes into further education and beyond.
  I have a concern—the Government have sought to divide courses at centres into vocational on the one hand and leisure on the other. The implication is that responsibility for running vocational courses will rest with colleges, who will themselves apply to the funding council for money to run such vocational courses. So-called leisure courses will be left with the local authority in the adult education centres.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: As chairman of the all-party adult education committee, I congratulate my hon. Friend on this most important debate. Does he agree that there is another worry about separating vocational from non-vocational adult education? If one separates them, it may be assumed that vocational courses are more valid than non-vocational, but nothing could be further from the truth.
  Mr. Matins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, because his expertise on this subject is well known, as is his general understanding of the problems involved. I hope to touch on the subject that he mentioned shortly.
  In Croydon dividing courses could have a number of damaging effects. Great damage could be caused to the prospects of the adult education centres, where currently vocational and so-called leisure courses exist happily side by side. The centres might have to go cap in hand to the Croydon college and the two sixth-form colleges in the borough asking their governing bodies to apply to the funding council for funds for vocational courses, in the hope that funds would be obtained on behalf of the adult education centres. A large part of their excellent work might disappear.
  There is a strong link between so-called vocational and so-called leisure courses. The person, for example, who is nervous or diffident or who has, or might have, unhappy memories of school, may initially have the courage to join a pottery or dancing class. Having plucked up the courage, he or she will find perhaps in the next room a course in Spanish or computer studies. He or she may well progress from one to the other. Surely that is to the general good.
  The Bengali lady who enrolled in an English cookery class, so that she could provide English food for some of her son's chums at school, is likely next to take a GCSE in English and help prepare herself for a job that may be just around the corner. The hesitant middle-aged gentleman who was brave enough to join a keep fit class later found himself confident enough to join the neighbouring

  531
  management training and business start-up class, and grew in confidence and ability to the extent that he opened up a new business. Such is the inextricable link and the social cohesion brought about by a variety of classes under the same roof.
  My concern is that the criteria for college eligible for funding, through the new funding council, will exclude a clearly successful service and a supportive authority such as that found in Croydon. The result could surely be a damaging split between the different types of courses, with responsibility for the eligible areas potentially fragmented between the further education college, sixth form colleges and the remainder. The so-called leisure and recreation programmes would be the responsibility of the local authority and might become too small to be financially, organisationally or educationally viable.
  If they went, what a loss it would be. Is there not a strong argument for the free-standing services such as Croydon's continuing education and training service to be able to bid direct to the funding council rather than through the new sector colleges?
  Another concern relates to premises. The three buildings in Croydon which are exclusively dedicated to the education of adults are intensively used as an important access point for people following general non-vocational, basic skills, accredited and work training programmes. They are used to capacity—daily, at weekends and holidays—and they are a valuable resource used by the voluntary sector. If the new sector colleges were able to apply for the use of those premises it could jeopardise the adult ethos and character of the provision and would subsequently deny many adults their first step back into education.
  I am not exaggerating when I say that I was inspired by all I saw at the adult education centres in Croydon. I dare say that you too, Mr. Speaker, were inspired by all you saw, and of course you have visited them all over the years and have great experience of this subject.
  For that reason, I am desperately concerned for their long-term well being, and I know that that sentiment is shared by you, Mr. Speaker, and by many thousands in Croydon, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir. W. Clark) who I am delighted to see in his place for this debate—I welcome his support—and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Moore).
  I cannot end this short debate without paying tribute to the Government, who have without doubt recognised that adult education is vital—that adults are an important client group who have education and training needs well worthy of Government interest and support. That is well recognised by the Government, to whom much credit is due.
  10.40 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Alan Howarth): I am grateful, as is the House, to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Malins) for providing us with this opportunity to consider education for adults in Croydon.
  The House always appreciates the close interest which you, Mr. Speaker, take in Adjournment debates initiated
  532
  by hon. Members on the Back Benches, but you will have an even greater personal interest than usual in this debate. Croydon is indeed a borough fortunate in its parliamentary representation. We also have present my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark), so there is powerful representation in the House tonight in the interests of adult education in Croydon.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West for two reasons. First, I am pleased that by means of this debate, we are able to look closely at one particular education service for adults. Secondly, I am glad to have the opportunity of relating the framework of our Further and Higher Education Bill, which has today been debated in another place, to the education for adults as it take place on the ground. The importance that we attach to the further education of adults will be clearly demonstrated through this debate.
  My hon. Friend has vividly described the features of the Croydon education and training service, which is one of the largest services for adults in the London area. It has an impressive enrolment count and a strong place in the local community. It establishes this place through a dispersed service which is accessible to the community at large, using a mix of dedicated facilities and the premises of schools and colleges.
  My hon. Friend demonstrated his close knowledge of the service in Croydon and made clear his commitment, and that of his hon. and right hon. Friends who represent Croydon constituencies, to the provision of a diverse and consistently high-quality service.
  Much of the provision in Croydon falls within those areas of priority which the Government have identified in the legislation—that is, courses leading to qualifications, basic skills courses, courses in English as a second language and access courses. The community is served in the widest sense through an open access policy which welcomes adults at whatever educational stage they have reached. It is also served by the good links which the service has established with the local training and enterprise council and with industry. I welcome the partnership it has established with voluntary organisations.
  Those are considerable strengths. Our policy on the further education of adults will pose no threat to them. Indeed, it will enable the Croydon education and training service, along with all others, to preserve the characteristics of their provision, including their community role, and to build on their strengths.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his recognition of our firm commitment to the further education of adults. As he will know, our reforms for further education as a whole are designed to provide enhanced opportunities for both young people and adults and to provide a further stimulus to increased participation. We have provided for the transfer of further education and sixth form colleges to a new sector, which will be funded directly by new further education funding councils in England and Wales. We believe that the new funding regime will give colleges an even greater incentive to recruit additional students and to expand participation accordingly. For students—young people and adults alike—it will mean more opportunities to gain new skills, obtain qualifications and develop fully the roles that they need to fulfil themselves at work and as citizens.
  Our proposals, as set out in the White Paper "Education and Training for the 21st Century", have been

  533
  generally welcomed. But my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science and I were aware of some uncertainty about the place of adults within the new policy framework and the arrangements that would apply to them. We clarified a number of points before the legislation was introduced. The Bill addresses other concerns in a way that serves to underline our firm commitment to all kinds of further education for adults.
  Few of the provisions of the Bill belong uniquely to the 16–19 age group, but some have a very special application to the provision of further education for adults. I shall describe those provisions and how they will work for the adult sector at large, including the Croydon education and training service.
  The Bill provides a clear duty for the provision of all kinds of further education for adults. The whole scope of the present duty set out in the Education Act 1944 as amended is retained. We intend that, in future, it should be divided between the funding councils and LEAs. Within their respective duties, the councils and LEAs will each be required to take account of students with special educational needs.
  The funding councils' duty will embrace courses leading to academic and vocational qualifications; access to higher education courses; courses that provide access to qualification-bearing courses and higher education courses; basic skills courses; courses in English for speakers of other languages and, in Wales, courses leading to proficiency in Welsh. Those are the Government's priorities. They will be secured by the funding councils working through the colleges within the new sector. They cover courses which the Government believe should be secured at national level because of their national significance.
  The second strand of the duty to provide further education for adults falls to the local education authorities. Their duty covers all kinds of further education for adults that do not come within the scope of the funding councils' duty. By contrast with the duty placed upon the councils, the LEAs' duty can be characterised as being generally of a more local nature and best catered for locally. It is a duty that goes very wide. It covers the provision of courses that meet the leisure interests of adults, but also many other important interests.
  Courses coming within the remit of the LEAs' duty can help people progress to more advanced courses—my hon. Friend made that important point—help them in their jobs and prepare them for various roles, such as good parenthood, or for responsible functions within the wider community. They can make a significant contribution to the general health and well-being of individuals and local communities.
  The whole scope of the duty to secure provision for adults as it will be divided between the funding councils and LEAs will continue to be supported from public funds. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science made clear on 24 September that, in calculating the transfer of funds from local authorities to the funding councils in recognition of their new responsibilities, the resources attributable to those courses for which the LEAs will continue to be responsible will be left within local authorities' standard spending assessments. That means that there will be no question of our reforms causing fees to rise. LEAs will continue to be able, as now, to respond flexibly to local
  534
  demand and to the needs and circumstances of their local communities, taking account of the ability of students to pay fees.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Croydon, North-West and for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) have referred to a vocational/non-vocational divide within our proposals. I hope I can reassure my hon. Friends that the framework of duties within the Bill does not create such a divide. The provision for which the funding councils will be responsible goes well beyond the purely vocational. Similarly, the duty upon LEAs can lead to provision which serves ends useful to the individual within his work, such as foreign language classes. The arguments which have been advanced that our proposals create a distinction between two types of provision is not borne out either in terms of the legislation or in practical terms.
  It is important to underline the role of access and progression within the proposed framework. My hon. Friend has mentioned the strong link between provision which falls respectively to the duties of funding councils and LEAs. We attach great importance to widening access as is evident from the Bill. Certain kinds of access have been given priority and fall to the duty of the funding councils, but progression routes from LEA sector provision to more formal qualification-bearing courses are also important.
  The division of duties between the councils and LEA will not stand in the way of adults wishing to progress from informal study to courses leading to qualifications. Adults now study on all kinds of courses in a variety of institutions—further education colleges and adult education centres and colleges. They will continue to be able to enrol on courses in their local institutions, as they do at present, and to progress to more advanced provision. That might be within the same institution or elsewhere, depending upon the pattern of provision locally. Therefore, adults in Croydon will continue to be able to take full advantage of the access and progression routes provided by the Croydon education and training service.
  My hon. Friend raised two particular concerns. The first was about the funding relationship between the Croydon education and training service and colleges in the new further education sector in respect of the provision made by the service which falls to the duty of the funding council. We want to see all resources available for adults used properly—whether they are in further education colleges or in adult education colleges and centres run by LEAs. It follows therefore that we will expect further education colleges in the new sector to support provision which falls within the funding councils remit where this is made in adult education colleges and centres.
  We have considered carefully how our legislation will help to achieve that end. We propose that the governing body of an institution outside the funding council sector will be able to make to an institution within that sector a request that it should apply to the council for support on the external institutions behalf. The funding council sector institution will forward the application to the funding council if facilities for the kind of courses in question are not adequate in the locality. If the further education college does not forward the application, its decision will be subject to review by the Secretary of State on the grounds of unreasonableness or failure to perform a duty.
  The councils have a duty to secure facilities which are in such places, of such character and so equipped as to meet reasonable need. In addition, the regional advisory

  535
  committees will have an important role in advising the funding council for England on significant local issues. Their role will be to see that local people are properly served. I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friends and you, Mr. Speaker, on that point.
  Those are substantial safeguards. They mean that the Croydon education and training service will continue to be able to make provision which falls to the duty of the funding council and to receive council funding via the local further education college or colleges for the purpose. I note that the Croydon service has good collaborative links with Croydon further education college. These links, together with the safeguards within the legislation, will provide a firm basis for continuing collaboration in the interests of adult students.
  My hon. Friend asks whether the Croydon education and training service might be able to bid directly to the funding council. We think that our Bill has taken account of concerns of adult education colleges and services, such as Croydon, about funding for the range of provision they make. However, we recognise that some institutions may be interested in exploring the possibility of incorporation within the new further education sector by reason of the balance of provision they make. That is not ruled out.
  The Government had to set criteria in the Bill for the automatic transfer of further education colleges to the new sector, but the White Paper made it clear that the funding councils could propose that other institutions which fell outside the criteria might be included in the new arrangements. The Bill provides for this. Institutions which want to take forward the possibility of incorporation should make application to the funding councils. We propose to ask the funding councils to deal with such applications as one of their first tasks.
  Sir William Clark: I fully support what my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Malins) has said, and I am delighted that the Minister supports funding. There is a problem about adult education in Croydon, but many other constituencies must suffer from the same problem. Does the Minister think it extraordinary that no Opposition Members are present for this important debate?
  Mr. Howarth: My right hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. Some Opposition complaints about our policies
  536
  have been factitious. Thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West, we have an opportunity to debate an immensely important issue about which there is great interest in the country. It is extraordinary that the Opposition Benches are empty and that neither Labour Members nor Liberal Democrats have bothered to attend the debate. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for drawing the matter to our attention.
  It is important that each institution considers very carefully whether such an application for incorporation would be appropriate in its case. LEAs have important duties to fulfil through these institutions and will continue to receive public funds in support of these duties. Under the Bill, they will also be able to give recognition to the status of their institutions by establishing governing bodies and by delegating functions to them. The best place for some institutions may indeed be within the funding council sector, but for others it may be within the local education authority.
  The second concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West is about the future of those premises of the Croydon service which are dedicated to the further education of adults. Let me put his mind at rest. A further education college can apply for an order to gain the use of local education authority premises after April 1993 only in tightly defined circumstances. First, the premises in question must have been used for further education purposes and have been, or be about to be, taken out of use for that purpose. Secondly, the further education college must have been unable to secure use of the premises by agreement with the local education authority. Our intention is to secure that facilities used for further education continue to remain available to the local community for further education purposes, where the college governors consider it important in order to carry out their responsibilities. This provision poses no threat to the Croydon service's premises.
  We have had a useful debate. The aim of our policy is to develop a better education system which will provide a wide range of important opportunities for adults in the interests of meeting the needs of the nation and of individual citizens. The Government are deeply committed to adult education. I am confident that our Bill will achieve its aims and that it will serve well the Croydon education and training service and the citizens of Croydon.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Eleven o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Sunday Trading
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Attorney-General what recent discussions his Department has had with local authorities regarding enforcement of existing Sunday shopping legislation; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  I have had correspondence with three local authorities in England recently concerning enforcement of the law and, in particular, the effect of recent decisions of the courts.

  A local authority in Northern Ireland has also asked me whether I would be prepared to consent to an application for an injunction against a retailer that was allegedly breaking the law. My consent is needed under the law of Northern Ireland.

TRANSPORT

  Seat Belts
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he intends to require seat belts to be fitted in buses(a) used to transport school children and (b) in all buses and public service vehicles.

  Mr. Chope
  By reason of European Commission directives, it is not possible for the United Kingdom unilaterally to require seat belts on all seats in new buses and coaches.

  Highways
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of the announced £1½ billion additional expenditure is to be invested in highways in East Anglia; what sums are currently being spent on highways in this region; and if he will publish a list of the trunk road schemes currently under construction, shortly to be started and in preparation in the counties of Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex with the approximate cost of each.

  Mr. Chope
  The £1½ billion additional expenditure over three years announced by the Secretary of State on 6 November is almost all for public transport provision throughout the country, including East Anglia. Provision for highways was not increased.

  Forecast expenditure on motorways and trunk roads in the Department's eastern region—the counties of Essex, Suffolk, Norfolk, Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Cambridgeshire—is estimated at £312 million in 1991–92.

  The total of local authority expenditure budgets for local roads in these counties for 1991–92 is £102 million capital and £198 million current.

  Following is a list of the motorway and trunk road schemes in progress in Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex.
  232

  Approximate £ million works costs (excluding VAT)

  NORFOLK, NATIONAL SCHEMES

  Under construction

  A47 East Dereham—North Tuddenham

  7·6

  A47 Norwich Southern Bypass Contract 1

  9·7

  Contract 2

  10·2

  Contract 3

  17·1

  Contract 4

  22·6

  A12 Gorleston Relief Road

  19·2

  A47 Narborough Bypass

  2·25

  A10 Brandon Creek to Southery

  1·0

  To start construction this financial year

  A11 Thetford to Bridgham Heath

  3·4

  A11 Besthorpe to Wymondham

  22·9

  In preparation

  A17/A47 Tilney High End to Sutton Bridge

  35·2

  A10/A47 A134 Hardwick Roundabout Improvement

  16·4

  A47 Hardwick to East Dereham

  72·0

  A47 North Tuddenham to Easton

  18·0

  A47 Blofield to Acle

  4·7

  A47 Acle Straight Improvement

  15·0

  A11 Fiveways Roundabout to Thetford

  42·1

  A11 Roundham Heath to Attleborough

  20·4

  A11 Attleborough Bypass Improvement

  9·0

  A140 Dickleburgh to Norwich

  24·0

  A140 Scole to Dickleburgh

  10·0

  A47 Walpole Highway—Tilney High End

  18·36

  SUFFOLK, NATIONAL SCHEMES

  In preparation

  A12 Hartlesham—Wickham Market

  12·6

  A12 Wickham Market—Saxmundham

  13·6

  A12 Saxmundham Bypass Dualling

  10·4

  A12 Saxmundham—South of Wrentham

  23·0

  A12 South of Wrentham—Kessingland

  8·0

  A12 Lowestoft Relief Road

  70·0

  A12 South of Four Sisters GSJ

  3·0

  A45 Quarries Cross GSJ

  3·0

  A45 Rockery Cross GSJ

  2·0

  A140 Beacon Hill—Scole

  34·0

  ESSEX, NATIONAL SCHEMES

  Under construction

  A127 Rayleigh Weir GSJ

  16·0

  In preparation

  M25 Junctions 25·28 Rapid Widening

  100·0

  A127 M25—Rayleigh Weir

  85·0

  M12 M25—Chelmsford

  65·0

  A12 Chelmsford Bypass Widening

  35·0

  A12 Hatfield Peverel—Marks Tey Widening

  40·0

  A120 Stansted—Braintree (100 per cent, grant)

  73·0

  M11 Junction 5 North facing Slips

  6·0

  M11 Widening

  75·0

  A13 Wennington—Mar Dyke

  23·5

  A120 Braintree—A12

  28·6

  A1 (North Yorkshire)
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the estimated cost of the upgrading to motorway standards of the A1 in North Yorkshire and the completion date of the programme.

  Mr. Chope
  Seven A1(M) upgrading schemes are wholly or partially within the county of North Yorkshire. The estimated cost of all these schemes at current prices is approximately £550 million and completion is expected within 10 years.

  Orange Badge Scheme
  Mr. Channon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he proposes to bring forward amending regulations regarding the orange badge scheme for the disabled.

  Mr. Chope
  Amending regulations will be brought forward within the next fortnight. The intention is that the new scheme should come into effect on 2 March 1992.

  Vehicle Licensing
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will bring forward proposals to alter the public service vehicle and goods vehicle licensing system to extend to parish councils the right to make representations about public service vehicle and goods vehicle operating centres; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  A commitment to amend the goods vehicle operator licence provisions to give a general right of environmental representation for parish councils was made in 1989. This followed a wide-ranging review of operators licensing and acknowledged the role of parish councils as representative of local communities.

  A change to the primary legislation will be required.

  Public service vehicle operating centres are not currently subject to environmental control through operator licensing. This is being reviewed at present.

  M5 (Drains)
  Mr. Ted Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will investigate the motorway contractor's proposals in the M5 junctions 6 and 8 widening contract to change from modern drains specification to traditional drains.

  Mr. Chope
  The contractor's proposal to use filter drains instead of Fin drains was within the scope of the Department's specification and the terms of the contract.

  Road Accident Statistics
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make arrangements to obtain information, for inclusion in the annual road accident statistics, about the numbers of fatalities and injuries in road accidents in Great Britain resulting from the use of motor vehicless which have been stolen or driven without the owners' consent, resulting from the use of motor vehicles driven for other criminal purposes, and resulting from the use of motor vehicles by the police in connection with the performance of their duties, including when pursuing drivers of vehicles which have been stolen or taken without the owners' consent or used for other criminal purposes.

  Mr. Chope
  I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Building Contracts
  Mr. Ted Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with John Laing Construction and other major motorway road contractors regarding changing contract specifications after a contract has been awarded by public tender.

  Mr. Chope
  There are regular discussions with the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors about matters of common interest.

  Road Accidents (A1)
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many deaths and how many injuries have occurred as a result of road traffic accidents on the A1 road between Morpeth and the Scottish border in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Chope
  The number of deaths and injuries as a result of accidents on the Al between Morpeth and the Scottish border during the period from 1980–90 are shown in the following table:

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  1980

  8

  42

  66

  1981

  6

  25

  92

  1982

  6

  40

  91

  1983

  7

  20

  77

  1984

  11

  33

  74

  1985

  4

  35

  112

  1986

  6

  35

  84

  1987

  5

  18

  68

  1988

  4

  24

  65

  1989

  8

  26

  72

  1990

  4

  33

  127

  Total

  69

  331

  928

  Motorways (Drainage)
  Mr. Ted Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to ensure that the motorway contractors adhere to consulting engineers' specifications for drainage on major contracts.

  Mr. Chope
  Under the terms of the contract the engineer has a duty to consider alternative materials or methods put forward by the contractor and may approve their use provided they meet the criteria set out in the Department's specification for highway works and represent good value for money.

  Air Pollution
  Ms. Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he intends to ta ke to combat air pollution caused by road transport.

  Mr. Chope
  Stricter limits on emissions have very recently been agreed by the United Kingdom and its EC partners.

  On 26 June the EC Council of Ministers adopted an amending directive 91/441/EEC setting tighter limits on emissions of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) by new cars and light vans. The standards set by the directive will require almost all new petrol-engined cars from the end of 1992 to use three-way catalytic converters and to run on unleaded petrol. Diesel cars and light vans will need to comply with a strict limit on particulates—smoke.

  Pride of Portsmouth
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received concerning the dismissal of the British crew members of the Pride of Portsmouth.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Mr. McCluskie of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers has
  235
  written to the Secretary of State concerning the owners' decision to replace the British crew members of the Pride of Portsmouth with foreign nationals. I will be responding shortly on behalf of the Secretary of State and will answer the points made by Mr. McCluskie.

  Scandinavian Star
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will obtain a copy of the Danish inquiry into the case of the Scandinavian Star.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  A copy of the inquiry report on the Scandinavian Star accident has been requested from the Danish maritime authorities.

  Ferry Safety
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will review the implications for safety of British passengers travelling on ferry services crewed and staffed by non-English speaking officers and ratings.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  This is kept under review. Surveyors make unannounced safety inspections of foreign registered passenger ro-ro ferries visiting United Kingdom ports and, among other items, they are instructed to check that enough crew can speak English to be able to give announcements and communicate with United Kingdom passengers in an emergency.

  Road Schemes
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will be issuing for consultation the criteria he proposes to use in exercising his discretionary power under section 62 of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 to acquire property which is seriously affected by his Department's road schemes; and whether he expects to make the criteria public before the end of 1991.

  Mr. Chope
  Guidelines for the use of the new discretionary power to acquire property seriously affected by the Department's road schemes will be announced as soon as possible. The guidelines will be reviewed in the light of experience, and any representations received will be taken into account.

  Lyme Bay
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to inform all the agencies to which he wrote on 22 July about anchoring in Lyme bay that ships may continue to call off Lyme/Torbay for legitimate servicing, and that they may anchor there for that purpose for periods of time.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Letters sent out by my Department on 22 July were directed to the owners of three ships and referred specifically to the long-term anchoring of those ships in Lyme bay with the attendant risk of large-scale pollution. It is not proposed to write again to these owners on this matter.

  Fishing Vessels (Accidents)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport in relation to the losses of the fishing vessels(a) Girl Fiona, (b) Inspire, (c) Alert II, (d) Boy Shaun,
  236
  (e) Sylvia Marita, (f) Jake II, (g) Tarradale II, (h) Pearl, (i) Mhari L and (j) South Stack which had Marine Accident Investigation Branch inquiries; which of these were published; which had any other inquiry and of what nature; and which of those were published.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  All the accidents occurred before July 1989, when the marine accident investigation branch was set up. Under the pre-existing system losses were investigated by the Department's surveyors, but there was no provision for making reports available for general release, unless the accident was subject to public inquiry. The loss of Boy Shaun, being an Irish vessel, will have been investigated by the Irish authorities. None of the incidents listed by the hon. Member led to such an inquiry. Summary reports of the surveyor's investigations into the losses of Mhari L and of Inspire were produced and the hon. Member will recall having being sent copies.

  The deaths of those lost in the accidents were subject to inquest, fatal accident inquiry or to a death inquiry under the Merchant Shipping Acts. Reports of such proceedings are not published though the findings are made known to those concerned.

  Since July 1989, specific provision has been made in the relevant regulations for the reports of investigations submitted to the Secretary of State for Transport to be published under the terms of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will instigate a full public inquiry into the sinking of the Wilhelmina J; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will instigate a full public inquiry into the sinking of the Ocean Hound; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Both accidents are the subject of investigation under the provisions of the Merchant Shipping (Accident Investigation) Regulations 1989. Such investigations are very comprehensive and are the most expeditious means of establishing the nature and cause of a marine accident, and my right hon. and learned Friend is not minded to order full public inquiries.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has about incidents involving(a) United Kingdom and (b) other fishing boats in United Kingdom waters and submarines in each of the years (a) 1989, (b) 1990 and (c) 1991 to date; what action he is currently considering to reduce such incidents; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The fishing vessels reported to the Department as having been involved in incidents or suspected incidents in UK waters with submarines from 1 January 1989 to date are as listed, together with the reported date incident.

  Vessel

  Date of Incident

  New Dawn

  3 January 1989

  Lau Ann

  22 January 1989

  Spes Bona (and Arturus and Strathayre)

  27 February 1989

  Seagull

  31 March 1989

  Northern Lights

  31 March 1989

  Laurel

  17 April 1989

  Huntress

  28 June 1989

  Scotia

  13 November 1989

  Sarah Marie

  7 December 1989

  Moray Adventurer

  4 October 1990

  237

  Vessel

  Date of Incident

  Antares

  22 November 1990

  Green Eagle

  14 December 1990

  Delvan

  13 February 1991

  Maritan

  19 February 1991

  Hercules II

  February 1991

  Wavecrest, Alpha and Athena

  6 March 1991

  Swyn-Y-Mor

  20 March 1991

  Saffron

  12 November 1991

  All are UK vessels except the Laurel—Isle of Man—and the Sarah Mardie—Jersey.

  A sub-group of the Department of Transport's fishing industry safety group—which will include representatives of the fishing industry, the Fisheries Departments and the Ministry of Defence—will meet on 9 December to discuss safety issues arising from the interaction of fishing vessels and submerged submarines. My Department is also giving urgent consideration to the recommendations contained in the determination of the fatal accident inquiry which followed the loss of the Antares with regard to the issue of fishing vessel safety certificates, the siting of liferafts on fishing vessels and arrangements for the carriage of emergency position indicating radio beacons and will consider the marine accident investigation branch's recommendations as soon as these are available.

  British Rail
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has had over his proposals to privatise British Rail.

  Date of accident

  Name of vessel

  Type of vessel

  Flag

  Size

  Type of accident

  24 July 1991

  Valulla

  Class V Passenger Launch

  United Kingdom

  112·06 grt

  Fire

  24 July 1991

  Pride of Baltimore II

  Sailing ship

  United States of America

  97 grt

  Grounding

  28 July 1991

  Southern Comfort

  Class V Passenger

  United Kingdom

  —

  Accident to Person

  29 July 1991

  Loch Maravaig/ Amity

  FV/FV

  United Kingdom/ United Kingdom

  12·59m/ 20·68m

  Collision

  30 July 1991

  Larrissa/ Rebis

  FV/ FV

  United Kingdom/ Danish

  37m

  Collision

  30 July 1991

  Jubilence

  Cargo

  United Kingdom

  475 grt

  Accident to Person

  31 July 1991

  Thomas William

  FV

  United Kingdom

  9·75m

  Capsize/Sinking

  1 August 1991

  Geestcape

  Cargo

  United Kingdom

  8,030 grt

  Fire

  5 August 1991

  Kedarost

  FV

  United Kingdom

  23·41m

  Fire

  5 August 1991

  Emerald

  Bulk Carrier

  Isle of Man

  1,583 grt

  Fire

  12 August 1991

  Ocean Hound

  FV

  United Kingdom

  21·40m

  Sank

  17 August 1991

  Fidelity

  FV

  United Kingdom

  14·33m

  Grounding

  22 August 1991

  Autobahn

  Vehicle Carrier

  United Kingdom

  499 grt

  Machinery Failure

  25 August 1991

  Un-named power boats

  Power boats

  Various

  Various

  Grounding

  28 August 1991

  Calby Queen/ Un-named tender

  Passenger/ Tender

  —

  —

  Collision

  2 September 1991

  Ocean Crest

  FV

  United Kingdom

  24·34m

  Accident to Person

  4 September 1991

  Esso Mersey

  Tanker

  United Kingdom

  11,898 grt

  Explosion

  5 September 1991

  Margaret & William II/ Jacobus Broere

  FV/ Tanker

  United Kingdom/ Netherlands

  10·90m 3,693 grt

  Missing

  12 September 1991

  CPC Gallia

  Cargo

  Antigua

  6,500 grt

  Grounding

  18 September 1991

  Arran Lass

  FV

  United Kingdom

  15·24m

  Fire

  19 September 1991

  Mountwood

  Passenger Ferry

  United Kingdom

  464 grt

  Contact

  238
  Mr. McLoughlin
  We have had a number of representations about British Rail privatisation. We expect to publish proposals soon.

  Pilots
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to arrange for consultations to take place between his Department and the United Kingdom Pilots Association, Europilots and local pilots before decisions are taken and changes made which affect the livelihoods of the pilots; if he will ensure that guidelines are published in consultation with the pilots regarding anchoring of tankers in Torbay and Lyme bay: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The action taken with regard to tankers in Lyme bay did not affect the overall demand or the arrangements for pilotage and the Secretary of State saw no need to consult the pilot organisations. I have arranged to meet my hon. Friend to discuss these questions.

  Marine Accident Investigation Branch
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list and give full details of all investigations carried out by the marine accident investigation branch since April 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  A list of investigations will be found in the appendix to the occasional marine accident investigation branch publication entitled "Summary of Investigations"; the next edition is to be published before the end of this year. The list of investigations carried out between 1 April 1991 and 15 November 1991 is as follows.
  239

  Date of accident

  Name of vessel

  Type of vessel

  Flag

  Size

  Type of accident

  26 September 1991

  Brummi/ Norina

  Cargo/ FV

  St. Vincent/ United Kingdom

  423 grt 39·25m

  Collision

  26 September 1991

  Diamond

  Bulk Carrier

  Norway

  35,873 grt

  Explosion

  29 September 1991

  Marga Cortes

  Cargo

  Honduras

  499 grt

  Stranding

  1 October 1991

  Whispering Hope/ Sagacity

  FV/ Cargo

  United Kingdom/ Bahamas

  10·42m 1,594 grt

  Collision

  4 October 1991

  Hoverspeed G8

  Ro-Ro Passenger

  Bahamas

  3,003 grt

  Broken down

  5 October 1991

  Farstream

  Tug/Supply

  United Kingdom

  1,583 grt

  Accident to Person

  14 October 1991

  Freedom

  FV

  United Kingdom

  14·33m

  Fire

  20 October 1991

  Sally Star

  Passenger

  Bahamas

  9,120 grt

  Fire

  28 October 1991

  Sincere

  FV

  United Kingdom

  9·35m

  Grounding

  31 October 1991

  Rix Eagle

  Barge

  United Kingdom

  292 grt

  Explosion

  Environmental Assessments
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give details of the tendering procedure adopted by his Department when employing consultants to undertake an environmental assessment.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 20 November 1991]: Generally the tendering procedure for appointment of the main consultant is by means of a one or two-envelope competition, dependent upon the cost of the works. Under the one-envelope system, quality and financial bids are assessed together.

  Under the two-envelope system, quality is first assessed and then the financial bids are considered. The quality envelope contains the consultant's proposals for handling and staffing the commission and details of the firm's relevant experience. A panel gives an overall quality marking to each tender. Tenders which receive unacceptable quality markings are not considered further. The second envelope is then opened in which the consultants provide details of their financial bids. The contract is awarded to the consultant who tenders the best balance of quality and price.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what criteria outside consultants are required to meet when appointed by him to carry out an environmental assessment.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 20 November 1991]: The consultants who are appointed to undertake the preparation and supervision of trunk road schemes are generally large multi-disciplinary civil engineering firms which have significant resources and well-proven skills. They are responsible for the full range of duties associated with each commission, including an environmental assessment where appropriate.

  Many large firms have a separate specialist division dealing with environmental matters. Where a consultant does not have, or needs to supplement, in-house environmental expertise, he will appoint a sub-consultant. Such appointments require the Department's approval. The Department considers proposed appointments on the basis of relevant expertise, capacity to undertake work and a proven track record.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish the findings of the standing advisory committee on trunk road assessment report; and 240
  what timetable he envisages to incorporate the recommendations of that report into his Department's environmental assessment procedures.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 20 November 1991]: Early next year.

  Birkham Wood
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what alternative routes he considered to the proposal to build a road through Birkham Wood.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 20 November 1991]: Five routes were considered by the inspector at the public inquiry in 1989 before the Secretary of State confirmed the route proposed by North Yorkshire county council.

  Road Fund Taxes (Coaches)
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for each European Community country the road fund tax payable on(a) a 30-seater, (b) a 40-seater (c) a 50-seater and (d) a 60-seater coach.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 18 November 1991]: The information requested is not available for all member countries. Not all countries use seating capacity as a basis for calculating VED rates. Many use gross vehicle weight instead. Accurate comparisons between the two systems are difficult to make as there is no direct correlation between seating capacity and weight.

  The current yearly rates applicable in those countries for which information is available are as follows

  United Kingdom VED rates for buses and coaches are calculated according to seating capacity

  Seating capacity

  12 month rate £

  Up to 8

  100·00

  9–16

  130·00

  17–35

  200·00

  36–60

  300·00

  61 and over

  450·00

  Germany

  Buses and coaches are taxed according to their net maximum weight and the number of axles. The current yearly rates are as follows:

  241

  Maximum weight (kg)

  12 month VED rate (sterling equivalent)

  2 axles £

  2 axles plus £

  14,000

  806

  755

  15,000

  959

  870

  16,000

  1,172

  1,017

  17,000

  1,396

  1,172

  18,000

  1,630

  1,334

  19,000

  1,874

  1,506

  20,000

  2,129

  1,678

  Greece

  Tax on private coaches is charged at £3·86 per seat. Yearly rates for a range of coaches (rounded to the nearest £) are as follows:

  Sealing capacity

  12 month rate (sterling equivalent) £

  30

  116

  40

  154

  50

  193

  60

  232

  Ireland

  Coaches are taxed according to seating capacity. The current yearly rates are as follows:

  Seating capacity

  12 month VED rate (sterling equivalent) £

  9–20

  94

  21–40

  150

  41–60

  207

  61 and over

  263

  Luxembourg

  Coaches are taxed according to the net weight of the vehicle. Tax rates increase for every 200 kg. Current rates for a range of coaches are as follows:

  Net weight (kg)

  12-month VED rate (sterling equivalent) (£)

  14,000

  30

  15,000

  32

  16,000

  34

  17,000

  35

  18,000

  37

  19,000

  39

  Netherlands

  Coaches are taxed according to the net weight of the vehicle and the type of fuel used. There are small differences in taxation depending on the province in which the coach is registered. Rates increase for every 100 kg. Current rates for a range of coaches in the province of Zuid-Holland are as follows:
  242

  Net weight (kg)

  12-month VED rate (sterling equivalent)

  Benzine or diesel (£)

  Other fuel (£)

  14,000

  1,375

  4,597

  15,000

  1,456

  4,917

  16,000

  1,538

  5,237

  17,000

  1,620

  5,556

  18,000

  1,701

  5,876

  19,000

  1,783

  6,196

  20,000

  1,864

  6,515

  F

  Spain

  Coaches are taxed according to seating capacity. The current yearly charges are as follows:

  Seating capacity

  12-month VED rate (sterling equivalent) (£)

  21–50

  103

  50 or over

  128

  A1 (Bypasses)
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many towns along the route of the A1 have been bypassed; how many towns are planned for bypasses to be constructed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr Chope
  [holding answer 19 November 1991]: The provision of bypasses for towns and villages is a continuing feature of the trunk road programme. Since the early 1960s some 26 towns have been bypassed as a result of realignment of the A1 Our current plans to upgrade the Al to motorway largely follow the corridor of the existing A1.

  Thornbridge Viaduct
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when work is expected to finish on the Thornbridge viaduct of the M6 motorway in Birmingham; and what are the reasons for, and costs of, the delays in completion.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 19 November 1991]: The Thornbridge viaduct contract south of Thornbridge avenue is on programme for completion in March 1992. No delays are expected on this contract.

  Traffic Forecasts
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what account he has taken of the recent report by the Association of County Councils into increased traffic forecasts when considering the future of his roads programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 20 November 1991]: My right hon. Friend welcomes the Association of County Councils' report "Towards a Sustainable Transport Policy" as a contribution to the important debate on how we should respond to the continuing growth in demand for travel, both in urban areas and between them. A range of measures is needed, including investment in roads, and in public transport, traffic management, and attention to land use planning. The Department's road traffic demand

  243
  forecasts are not a target; the programme of investment in inter-urban road improvements strikes a balance between the economic benefits from avoiding future congestion, which are recognised in the report, safety benefits, and environmental and other considerations.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many sites of special scientific interest are within 100 m of options for alternative trunk routes currently under consideration by his Department; and if he will name each site of special scientific interest and proposed route;

  (2) how many sites of special scientific interest are within 100 m of currently proposed routes for trunk road improvements; and if he will name each site of special scientific interest and the name of the proposed route.

  Mr. Chope
  The information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. One tenth of land in England is covered by over 4,000 sites of special scientific interest.

  The Department consults widely at many stages in a scheme's development. Where proposed schemes may affect sites of special scientific interest, the Department consults English Nature.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Polly Peck
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the position of Her Majesty's Government on the question of state immunity being used in the case of Polly Peck in connection with the unrecognised state of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The Government do not recognise the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" as a state. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman, which is sub judice.

  Parking Fines
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretry of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many unpaid parking fines there are attributable to British missions in European Community countries; and if he will make a statement about reciprocal arrangements for the payment of parking fines.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We are not aware of any unpaid parking fines. We instruct staff at all British missions overseas to pay any parking fines promptly. There are no reciprocal arrangements.

  European Community Draft Directives
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on each European Community country's procedures for considering draft directives before their consideration by the Council of Ministers.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  A European Parliament publication "Bodies within National Parliaments specialising in 244
  European Community affairs", a copy of which is available in the Library of the House, gives information on national scrutiny arrangements. Each member state has its own procedures for considering proposals with national administrations, and consulting outside parties.

  Visas
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the visa for Sabia Begum will be issued by the high commission in Dhaka, ref. BEG/A2627, as authorised on 10 September 1991.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  In accordance with the guidelines on the handling of representations by Members of Parliament in immigration cases, issued to Members on 14 December 1988, I have referred the question to the correspondence unit of the migration and visa department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The hon. Member will receive a reply from the unit as soon as possible.

  Romania
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent action he has taken to assist in the strengthening of democracy in Romania.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We take every opportunity to encourage the Romanian Government to adhere to their programme of political and economic reform, most recently during the visit of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to Romania on 18 to 20 November.

  Under the know-how fund, which was extended to Romania in May this year, and other programmes, we are assisting with the establishment of democratic institutions by, for example, providing training programmes for government officials, journalists, and radio and television personnel; and supporting visits in both directions by parliamentarians and members of political parties. We have also paid for two legal experts to visit Romania to advise on drafting the new constitution.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Road Safety
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals the Department of Environment for Northern Ireland roads service has to improve safety at Pound street and Circular road/Harbour highway road junctions, Lame, Co. Antrim; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  In the light of the tragic accident on 23 October a further examination of these junctions is under way to identify whether any additional improvements are necessary.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many fatalities there have been as a result of accidents at(a) the Circular road/Harbour highway junction, Lame and (b) the Pound street/Harbour highway junction, Lame, since their construction.

  Mr. Needham
  Since 1976 when these two junctions were constructed the number of fatalities as a result of accidents at each has been(a)(b)

  Parking
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will introduce legislation for Northern Ireland which would enable residents to obtain parking permits from the Department of Environment (NI) Roads Service, allowing them to park outside their own premises under a resident parking scheme.

  Mr. Needham
  Residents parking schemes are being considered for inclusion in future primary legislation.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if Rathlin island will achieve designation as environmentally sensitive;

  (2) if he will name parts of Fermanagh as environmentally sensitive.

  Mr. Hanley
  I announced on 20 November that both Rathlin island and other parts of Antrim, and parts of Fermanagh, are presently being considered for designation as environmentally sensitive areas. Details are being completed and interested parties will be consulted in due course. A copy of the press release has been placed in the Library.

  Carrickfergus
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the increase in(a) population and (b) unemployment in the borough of Carrickfergus, Co. Antrim, in the last three years; and what consideration he has given to the establishment of a job club in Carrickfergus.

  Mr. Needham
  Mid-year population estimates for June 1990, the latest available, for the Carrickfergus district council area show an increase of 1,700 in the population over the three-year period from 30 June 1987. Over the same period unemployment in the area decreased by 630.

  Between October 1988 and October 1991 unemployment fell by 275.

  In considering locations for job clubs the Training and Employment Agency takes into account the relative numbers of long-term unemployed in the area and the availability of other job clubs within a reasonable travelling distance. It is not proposed to establish a job club in Carrickfergus.

  Unlawful Killings
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the number of Catholics and the number of Protestants who have been killed in Northern Ireland in the current year to the latest available date.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 20 November 1991]: Information on the religious affiliation of those who have died in Northern Ireland this year as a result of the security situation is not available. Overall statistics for such fatalities are, however, set out as follows:

  11991

  Civilians2

  66

  RUC

  6

  Regular Army

  5

  UDR

  7

  246
  1As at 19 November 1991.

  2Category includes suspect terrorists.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on unlawful killings in the Province since his oral answers of 14 November.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 20 November 1991]: Three civilians were killed in an incident near Craigavon on the evening of 14 November in what appears to have been a sectarian attack on workers making their way home.

  The RUC investigation into these and other recent killings is being vigorously pursued. Measures have been taken to enhance the security force presence in areas believed to be most at risk.

  Terrorism
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many civilians have been killed, and how many wounded, by terrorist action since 1969; and of these how many were children aged under 10 years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 14 November 1991]: Since 1969, a total of 1,713 civilians have been killed and more than 22,000 civilians have been injured as a direct result of terrorist action in Northern Ireland. Of those killed, 24 were children under the age of 10 years. Information is not available on how many children have been injured.

ENVIRONMENT

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the payment of management fees to housing associations by local authorities following the decision of the district auditor in relation to the payment of such fees by Hammersmith and Fulham council.

  Mr. Yeo
  I understand the borough of Hammersmith and Fulham is considering the legal implications of certain payments made to housing associations as management fees. My Department is in touch with the borough on this issue.

  Public Rights of Way
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the planning inspection handbook dealing with public rights of way will be revised to take into account the Court of Appeal decision in the Rubinstein case mentioned in paragraphs D8. 33.

  Mr. Yeo
  The section of the planning inspectors handbook dealing with public rights of way is currently under revision and is being amended to take account of the effect of the Court of Appeal decision on the Rubinstein case. At present it is not possible to give a firm date when the updated section will be finalised. However, guidance on the implications of the Court of Appeal judgment affecting the Rubinstein decision is set out in Department of the Environment circular 18/90 which was issued to inspectors shortly after its publication. They are therefore already aware of the most recent guidance and are able to take it into account where applicable.

  Pollution and Wastes Directorate
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when each of the six extra staff recently added to his Department's pollution control and wastes directorate took up their posts; what will be their duties; what grades they are employed at; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The information is:

  Post created

  Grades

  Tasks

  1 September

  1 Grade 6 and 1 Personal Secretary

  Work on setting up local authority waste disposal companies.

  1 October

  1 Grade 7

  Secretary of Radioactive Waste Management

  1 October

  1 HEO

  Advisory Committee International waste management policy work.

  1 October

  1 Administration trainee

  Assistance to Advisory Committee on Business and the Environment.

  1 October

  1 Divisional Secretary

  General assistance of environment protection and industry division.

  Refuse Collection
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when his Department proposes to issue new guidelines for charging for collection of refuse from mixed hereditaments.

  Mr. Baldry
  We intend to implement those provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 relating to the collection of waste, along with other provisions of part II of the Act, on 1 April 1992. Implementation of these provisions requires us to revise the Collection and Disposal of Waste Regulations 1988. The circular which will accompany the revised regulations will provide guidance on charging for the collection of waste from mixed (composite) hereditaments. The Department will consult the local authority associations and others on a draft of the regulations and circular.

  Toxic Waste
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information Her Majesty's Government provided to the European Commission under article 13 of Council directive 84/631/EEC on the transfrontier shipment of toxic and hazardous waste; whether this information is publicly available; and what information he has regarding submissions under article 13 by the other EC member states.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Commission has said that member states will be invited to report on a number of directives concerning waste, including 84/631/EEC, on the basis of a single standardised questionnaire which is in preparation. The United Kingdom will therefore make its report under article 13 of this directive through the questionnaire.

  Wild-caught Birds (Imports)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the proportion of imported wild-caught birds which are destined for(a) high street pet shops, (b) aviculturalists and (c) conservation, research and zoos.

  Mr. Baldry
  This information is not available in the form requested. Since September, my Department has issued licences to import about 60,000 birds covered by conservation legislation. Some 98 per cent. of these birds were required for commercial purposes and the remaining 2 per cent. for personal, breeding or scientific purposes.

  UN Environment Conference
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what decisions were agreed on the transfrontier transport of toxic materials at working group 11 of the third preparatory committee meeting of the United Nations conference on environment and development in August and September 1991.

  Mr. Baldry
  The United Nations conference on the environment and development working group considered proposals relating to the transfrontier transport of toxic materials for the UNCED action plan (agenda 21). These will now be revised for consideration by the preparatory committee at its fourth session in March 1992. The Government believe the conference can give further impetus to international moves to greater self-sufficiency in waste disposal and improved waste management, including the needs of developing countries.

  Harrogate Borough Council
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the latest estimate received by his Department of the total expenditure by Harrogate borough council for the present financial year.

  Mr. Key
  Harrogate borough council's budget estimate of net revenue expenditure for 1991–92 is £14·5 million.

  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the number of council dwellings sold in the current financial year by Harrogate borough council.

  Mr. Yeo
  During the first six months of the current financial year, Harrogate borough council received £743,000 from the sale of fixed assets, including £558,000 from the sale of houses and flats. The total receipts figure may include receipts from the sale of land as well as property.

  Orimulsion
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether his Department has studied the environmental implications of burning Orimulsion for the generation of electricity; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution is closely monitoring the current trials for burning Orimulsion at two power stations—Ince and Richborough. The environmental impacts of emissions from power stations are taken into consideration by
  249
  HMIP when determining authorisations under part 1 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. HMIP is required to include in any such authorisations conditions to ensure that best available techniques not entailing excessive cost —BATNEEC—will be used to prevent or minimise harmful emissions.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will issue a revised code of guidance to local authorities on homelessness which specifically addresses the issue of how to interpret those in mortgage arrears.

  Mr. Yeo
  My Department published a revised third edition of the homelessness code of guidance for local authorities on 14 August, and copies are available in the Library. This gives detailed advice to local authorities on their homelessness functions, including matters that should be taken into account when considering the cases of applicants who are homeless as a result of mortgage arrears. Local authorities are required to have regard to this guidance; but in deciding whether to accept responsibility to secure accommodation for any applicant, authorities must consider the circumstances of each individual case. I do not consider further guidance to be necessary.

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what communications he has received from the European Commission over the last five years regarding the 1980 drinking water quality directive; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  There are frequent communications between the Department and the European Commission, formal and informal, about various aspects of this and other directives. The most significant of those relating to the drinking water directive over the last five years have been as follows.

  The Commission has pursued infraction proceedings against the United Kingdom alleging failure to incorporate the directive into legislation in Scotland and Northern Ireland, to apply it to water for food production, and to comply in certain respects with the directive's requirements in relation to lead and nitrate. I firmly believe that, following a hearing later this month, the European Court of Justice should recognise that we have in fact taken all practicable steps to meet the requirements of the directive.

  The Environment Commissioner wrote to the then Minister for Housing, Environment and Countryside in May 1989 expressing himself satisfied that provisions in what is now the Water Act 1989, and statements made in another place during the debates on it, showed that the United Kingdom intended
  "to rectify any deficiencies in water supplies as quickly as possible taking certain practicalities into account".

  We have since sent the Commission detailed information about the compliance programme which is now in place in all parts of the United Kingdom. As we have told the Commission, we believe this clearly
  250
  demonstrates that we are implementing the drinking water directive successfully and effectively. Indeed, we do not know of any other member state which has a comparable compliance programme firmly committed and fully funded. We have also sent the Commission the first report of the drinking water inspectorate covering 1990, which is also unique in the Community as a published and comprehensive record of drinking water quality. The chief drinking water inspector will be making a presentation about the report to staff of the Commission in Brussels next month.

  Water Act 1989
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the cases which have been referred to the Countryside Commission under section 152 of the Water Act 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  This information is commercially sensitive and is provided to the Secretary of State on the understanding that it will not be made public without the agreement of the water companies.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those water companies which have been successfully prosecuted and which are currently in the process of being prosecuted under the Water Act 1989.

  Mr. Baldry
  The drinking water inspectorate is investigating a number of incidents which may have had an adverse effect on drinking water quality. When their investigations are concluded they will advise me whether to prosecute the companies concerned.

  Water Disconnections
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the number of water supply disconnections over the last available period of 12 consecutive months for each water company in England and Wales.

  Mr. Baldry
  This is a matter for the Director General of Water Services. Companies are required under their licence to report the number of domestic disconnections to the area customer service committee of Ofwat every six months. By agreement non-domestic disconnections are also reported. The director general published on 17 July figures for the year ending on 31 March.

  Council House Sales
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list by district authorities in Yorkshire and Humberside all capital receipts from the sale of council houses received each year since the introduction of the right to buy.

  Mr. Yeo
  The total discounted values of all sales of houses and flats for each year from 1980–81, as reported by local authorities, are in the table. Actual cash receipts in any year will depend on the extent to which the sales were financed by loans from the authorities.
  251

  Yorkshire and Humberside Region1 Discounted value of all sales (£'000)

  Local Authority

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Beverley

  981

  1,443

  2,200

  2,170

  1,062

  1,159

  1,136

  1,429

  2,966

  3,049

  1,420

  Boothferry

  2,107

  2,154

  1,518

  882

  829

  623

  952

  914

  1,620

  2,275

  809

  Cleethorpes

  71

  2,669

  954

  569

  410

  560

  912

  845

  1,667

  1,661

  572

  East Yorkshire

  716

  2,018

  1,116

  n/a

  714

  883

  690

  1,436

  1,969

  n/a

  1,314

  Glanford

  910

  1,236

  774

  725

  936

  770

  474

  829

  1,201

  1,237

  613

  Great Grimsby

  64

  1,128

  2,300

  956

  1,093

  893

  1,288

  1,380

  2,535

  3,105

  n/a

  Holderness

  478

  995

  880

  715

  581

  472

  590

  613

  1,371

  1,165

  495

  Kingston upon Hull

  0

  5,927

  6,284

  6,472

  6,069

  4,915

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Scunthorpe

  0

  2,702

  4,736

  1,779

  1,199

  1,067

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Craven

  475

  531

  603

  914

  469

  466

  659

  n/a

  1,280

  1,406

  517

  Hambleton

  16

  1,801

  2,236

  2,008

  1,084

  815

  n/a

  n/a

  3,265

  2,508

  1,178

  Harrogate

  1,470

  1,987

  3,917

  1,782

  1,009

  1,347

  1,534

  2,313

  3,828

  3,192

  1,408

  Richmondshire

  3

  1,601

  1,236

  911

  920

  432

  675

  1,027

  1,381

  2,127

  820

  Ryedale

  882

  1,029

  1,376

  1,028

  792

  733

  1,264

  1,352

  2,868

  2,661

  29,157

  Scarborough

  10

  887

  n/a

  n/a

  903

  487

  n/a

  1,705

  3,002

  4,734

  2,340

  Selby

  936

  2,833

  2,227

  1,451

  873

  1,171

  1,342

  1,791

  2,660

  3,207

  1,949

  York

  708

  2,829

  3,219

  3,309

  2,557

  2,473

  n/a

  2,993

  6,058

  4,435

  2,118

  Barnsley

  0

  4,040

  18,573

  4,565

  2,515

  2,601

  3,445

  4,165

  5,013

  9,147

  8,213

  Doncaster

  491

  10,750

  23,783

  n/a

  4,753

  3,869

  3,447

  5,131

  7,819

  19,752

  8,183

  Rotherham

  48

  12,564

  18,937

  9,500

  4,786

  4,219

  4,664

  5,323

  5,881

  11,603

  8,105

  Sheffield

  192

  3,979

  16,141

  7,937

  6,727

  8,594

  8,893

  16,394

  23,959

  42,893

  20,724

  Bradford

  7,630

  3,243

  4,448

  3,520

  3,155

  3,105

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  15,756

  11,580

  Calderdale

  3,310

  2,388

  1,493

  1,255

  1,568

  1,469

  1,567

  1,753

  3,128

  3,694

  2,741

  Kirklees

  4,171

  3,647

  3,614

  1,782

  2,596

  3,048

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  12,808

  15,209

  Leeds

  3,671

  4,974

  n/a

  9,546

  8,495

  8,203

  n/a

  n/a

  16,505

  38,669

  28,559

  Wakefield

  2

  8,497

  13,119

  5,150

  4,168

  4,112

  5,004

  5,837

  9,852

  17,861

  10,670

  1 Figures shown are as reported by individual authorities.

  n/a indicates that no data is available.

  Multiple Occupation
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received following the publication of his Department's consultative document, "Draft guidance on the fitness standards for houses in multiple occupation."

  Mr. Yeo
  The Department has received 16 responses, nine of which were from individual local housing authorities, with the remainder from landlords' or tenants' organisations, professional bodies and others. The responses are all broadly supportive of the line taken by the Department and points of detail are being taken into account in preparing the final version.

  Council House Sales
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the total figure held by each district authority in Yorkshire and Humberside in capital receipts from the sale of council houses for(a) 1990 and (b) the total held at the end of the first financial quarter for the current year.

  Mr. Yeo
  The total of usable capital receipts held by each authority at 31 March 1991 is given in the table. Capital receipts held from the sale of council houses are not separately identifiable. Data on the stock of receipts are collected on an annual basis only.

  Usuable receipts held at 31 March 19911

  Thousands

  Barnsley

  0

  Doncaster

  0

  Rotherham

  6,641

  Sheffield

  44

  Bradford

  4,306

  Calderdale

  2

  Kirklees

  348

  Leeds

  0

  252

  Thousands

  Wakefield

  493

  Beverley

  514

  Boothferry

  2,676

  Cleethorpes

  1,128

  Glanford

  0

  Great Grimsby

  1,069

  Holderness

  754

  Kingston-upon-Hull

  12,785

  East Yorkshire

  2,125

  Scunthorpe

  3,962

  Craven

  1,155

  Hambleton

  0

  Harrogate

  3,193

  Richmondshire

  376

  Ryedale

  7,200

  Scarborough

  0

  Selby

  2,115

  York

  2,604

  1 Latest available information.

  Caravan Sites
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce a decision on the application by South Cambridgeshire district council for designated status under the Caravan Sites Act 1968.

  Mr. Yeo
  I am considering the application very carefully. I hope to announce the decision shortly and will write to my hon. Friend.

  Homosexuality
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all legal actions that have been taken against local authorities under section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988.

  Mr. Key
  I am not aware of any legal actions that have been taken against local authorities under section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988.
  253
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action his Department is taking to monitor the effect on local government practices of section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988.

  Mr. Key
  While maintaining an overview of how local government legislation operates, my Department does not specifically monitor the effect of section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988. I have no plans to amend the section.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received concerning section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988.

  Mr. Key
  Since section 28 came into force my Department has received some 126 representations about the section.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will bring forward proposals to amend section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988.

  Mr. Key
  No.

  River Ribble (Radioactive Contamination)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measurements are made of radioactive contamination of the River Ribble in Preston; and what have been the most recent measurements.

  Mr. Baldry
  Levels of radioactivity in the River Ribble are monitored by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, by my Department, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and British Nuclear Fuels plc. The most recent results are published in the inspectorate's "Environmental Monitoring Programme Report for 1989 on the environmental impact of authorised discharges of radioactive wastes in England and Wales" and the Ministry's "Aquatic Environment Monitoring Report Number 23, Radioactivity in Surface and Coastal Waters of the British Isles, 1989", both of which are available in the Library of the House. British Nuclear Fuels also publishes results in an annual report entitled "Radioactive Discharges and Monitoring of the Environment", the most recent of which is for 1990.

  East Thames Corridor
  Mr. Shore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many civil servants from his Department are deployed on work relating to the East Thames corridor project.

  Sir George Young
  A core team of eight civil servants is being established to deal with work related to the East Thames corridor and the Department's interests in the channel tunnel rail link. They will be supported by consultants, who will be appointed shortly. Staff in relevant policy divisions and in the London, Eastern and South Eastern regional offices of the Department will also contribute part of their time to this work.

  Whale (Export)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment under what circumstances his Department recently authorised the export of an orcinus orca, known as Winnie, from Windsor safari park to Seaworld, Orlando, Florida.
  254
  Mr. Baldry
  My Department permitted export in accordance with the provisions of EC regulation 3626/82, which implements the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora within the European Community.

  The joint Nature Conservation Committee confirmed that export would not be detrimental to the survival of the species and we were satisfied that the other conditions specified in article III of the convention had been met.

  City Challenge
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give details of the total bids received from local authorities under the city challenge initiative; and what criteria he uses to make choices on the distribution of resources.

  Mr. Key
  In May 1991 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment invited 15 local authorities to bid for resources under the first, pilot round of the city challenge initiative: Barnsley, Birmingham, Bradford, Bristol, Lewisham, Liverpool, Manchester, Middlesbrough, Newcastle, Nottingham, Salford, Sheffield, Tower Hamlets, Wirral and Wolverhampton. Barnsley was invited to work together with Doncaster and Rotherham in the preparation of a joint bid covering the Dearne Valley. In addition to the 15 invited authorities, six others submitted bids: Coventry, Newham, Sandwell, St. Helen's, Stockton and Sunderland.

  In July 1991 the Secretary of State announced that 11 authorities would be invited to work up their bids into five-year action plans for their areas: Bradford, Barnsley (with Doncaster and Rotherham), Lewisham, Liverpool, Manchester, Middlesbrough, Newcastle, Nottingham, Tower Hamlets, Wirral and Wolverhampton.

  Subject to the preparation of satisfactory action plans and the availability of resources, the Government intend to commit £82·5 million in resources to these areas over five years starting in 1992–93.

  The criteria used in making choices on the distribution of resources include assessments of the needs of urban areas and their potential for regeneration, the quality of the bids received, the subsequent preparation of satisfactory action plans and the capacity of local authorities and their partners in city challenge effectively to implement the action plans.

  Community Charge (Refugees)
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make an estimate of the cost to individual community charge payers in the London borough of Hillingdon of administration, accommodation and all other related expenses arising from the care of refugees arriving in the borough during the current financial year.

  Mr. Key
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to take account of expenditure by local authorities, including major ports of entry within their area, on administration, accommodation and all other related expenditure arising from the care of refugees.
  255
  Mr. Key
  It is my right hon. Friend's policy, in making the annual local authority finance settlement, to take account of all expenditure by local authorities which is notified to him.

  London Docklands Development Corporation
  Mr. Shore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many civil servants from his Department are seconded to the London Docklands development corporation.

  Mr. Portillo
  Two.

  Local Council Meetings
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will use his powers under section 20 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 to ensure that local authority members have the right to have their votes recorded at the conclusion of meetings.

  Mr. Key
  It is important that members should be able to put on record their support, or otherwise, for questions decided at meetings.

  My Department is today consulting the English and Welsh local authority associations on draft regulations which will include a requirement for all county, district and London borough councils to adopt a standing order giving any member the right to have their votes recorded in the minutes at the conclusion of meetings.

  My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities announced on 22 May that these regulations will also provide for compulsory standing orders on the appointment and dismissal of chief officers and a number of minor procedural matters.

  Sir Peter Levene
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the amount of remuneration and other benefits offered to Sir Peter Levene (i) as special adviser to his Department and (ii) as chairman of the docklands light railway.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 20 November 1991]: Sir Peter Levene receives no remuneration or other benefits as my special adviser. He has been appointed chairman of the docklands light railway by the board of London Regional Transport whose responsibility it is to agree his remuneration.

  Endangered Species
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what notice was given to United Kingdom importers of species covered by CITES on each of the last three occasions when the import of such species was banned in the EC;

  (2) when he expects to receive the up-to-date list of CITES appendix C2 species detailing the range states for each species and the current EC position with regard to import; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) when and by what means British importers of reptile species from Indonesia were informed of the decision by the EC CITES committee to instigate a ban on imports of such species; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 20 November 1991]: We give general information to importers about changes as
  256
  quickly as possible. Whenever individual traders have been identified, they have been notified in advance of the issue of general notification. General notification has been by way of a revised list, produced by the European Commission, of all species subject to restrictions of this kind. Such revisions were sent to all known United Kingdom traders on 30 April and 26 September. My Department will circulate a further revision reflecting the decisions taken at the meeting on 23 and 24 September as soon as is available. I understand that this is likely to he after the December meeting of the EC CITES committee. Given this delay, we proposed to notify all known traders of the changes made in September within the next few days.

  Written notification of the restrictions on trade with Indonesia was sent to one company in October, in response to a related inquiry. Departmental officials have since met representatives of the British Leather Confederation and the principal importers.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those species covered by CITES whose import is banned into the EC only; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 20 November 1991]: I will write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to press for a worldwide ban on exports from Indonesia of reptile species listed in appendix C2 of CITES; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 20 November 1991]: Future action will depend on how constructively the Indonesian authorities respond to the EC CITES committee's decision to impose a temporary ban on the import of annex C2 species into the European Community.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) which officials represented the United Kingdom at the EC CITES committee meeting on 23 and 24 September 1991; at what civil service grades they are each employed; how long each has been working in the policy area concerned with CITES; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will place in the Library a copy of the minutes from the EC CITES committee meeting which took place on 23 and 24 September 1991;

  (3) what procedure has been agreed by member states governing the confidentiality of the minutes of the EC CITES committee.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 20 November 1991]: The United Kingdom was represented by: one grade 6 official from my Department; one grade 7 from Her Majesty's Customs and Excise; a senior scientific officer from the Joint Nature Conservation Committee; and a higher scientific officer from the royal botanical gardens. All members of the United Kingdom team have had extensive experience of CITES.

  The commission does not produce a detailed record of the discussions at EC committee meetings. A summary of the main decisions reached is circulated to member states, but these summaries are not public documents, and are regarded by the Commission as confidential.

PRIME MINISTER

  Cyprus
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Prime Minister which Government Ministers have made an official visit to Cyprus since June 1987.

  The Prime Minister
  There have been no bilateral ministerial visits to Cyprus in the period specified.

  Perisher Submarines
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will intervene to stop the Perisher submarine exercise scheduled for 22 to 27 November in the Clyde following fishermen's organisations warnings.

  The Prime Minister
  I understand the sensitivity of the anniversary of the Antares sinking on 22 November. In recognition of this, no submarines on the essential Perisher exercise will enter inshore waters until Saturday 23 November when no fishing activity will be taking place.

  Official Entertainment
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the total cost of official entertainment associated with the office of Prime Minister in the financial year 1990–91.

  The Prime Minister
  The cost of official entertainment associated with my office during 1990–91, including entertainment overseas, was £23,830.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 21 November.

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

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Parents Charter
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what methods are being used to distribute a copy of the parents charter to every parent; what is the estimated cost of(a) preparing the text, (b) printing and (c) distributing the charter; how many copies have been printed; by what process commercial firms used to distribute the charter were selected; which companies were appointed; and at what cost to public funds.

  Mr. Eggar
  Schools have been asked, on a voluntary basis, to distribute the charter to parents. Copies are also available in main libraries and post offices, and could he ordered via a freepost address or freephone number which were advertised in the national press and magazines in September and October.

  The cost of preparing the text for publication was some £21,000. Printing costs have so far amounted to £446,000, and distribution costs to £550,000. Nearly 6·8 million copies of the charter have been printed, including 281,000 translated into eight ethnic minority languages. The
  258
  Central Office of Information was commissioned to manage the distribution arrangements, at a cost to date of nearly £4,000. It selected the mailing house, Mail Marketing (Bristol) Ltd., and telephone agency, Merit Direct Ltd., from an approved list of contractors.

  Adult Education
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the component for adult education included in the standard spending assessment for each local education authority for the years 1988–89, 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Eggar
  Standard spending assessments replaced grant-related expenditure—(GRE)—assessments from April 1990. GRE components for adult education for each local education authority for 1988–89 and 1989–90 are listed in "Technical Handbook of Grant-Related Expenditure" for the relevant year published by the Department of the Environment. Copies are available in the Library. Standard spending assessments do not contain a separate component for adult education.

ENERGY

  Nuclear Electricity
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the value expressed in real terms from a 1991 base of the plutonium credit (per kilogram) for the plutonium produced as a by-product of the production of nuclear electricity in the years 1991, 1990, 1985, 1980, 1975, 1970, 1965 and 1961.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  As with other nuclear fuels held in stock, it is for each owner of plutonium to attach a value to the material in drawing up its accounts and to justify that value to its auditors. The precise figures are therefore commercial matters for Nuclear Electric plc, Scottish Nuclear Ltd., British Nuclear Fuels plc and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority.

  Home Energy Efficiency Scheme
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has yet received any recommendations from the Energy Action Grants Agency with regard to the future operation of the home energy efficiency scheme in Scottish area 14; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Following consultation with interested bodies, the Energy Action Grants Agency—EAGA—made recommendations to me that network installer area 14 in Scotland should be divided into four smaller areas. These are: Highlands, Orkney, Shetland, Western Isles, the boundaries being those of the relevant local authorities. I understand that the present network installer for the area agreed to step down in order that a new bidding process could take place. In September the EAGA placed advertisements inviting bids by 1 November for registration as network installers in these areas. A total of 11 bids were received, and these are currently being assessed with the aim of enabling successful bidders to be registered before the end of December.

  Orimulsion
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether his Department has any policy guidelines on the burning of Orimulsion for the generation of electricity; what information he has on its current use; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The type and quantity of fuel used by the electricity generators is an operational matter for the companies concerned, subject to emission limits imposed by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution—HMIP—under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Orimulsion is currently being burnt by PowerGen plc, with the agreement of HMIP under SI 318, at its Ince and Richborough power stations on a long-term trial basis.

  Thermal Efficiency
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has about the relative thermal efficiency of(a) combined cycle gas power plants and (b) combined heat and power plants; and if he will publish a table showing the approximate range of thermal efficiency achieved by plants using both types of power generators.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Modern combined cycle gas turbine electricity generating stations of the type planned currently have a thermal efficiency of about 48 per cent., although future plants are expected to offer improvements on this, possibly reaching 54 per cent. in the next five years.

  Combined heat and power plants are usualy tailored to meet the particular combination of heat and electricity loads of individual customers, and can be almost any size and combination of type of equipment and fuel. Therefore

  Department of Energy RD and D Expenditure on Renewable Energy

  £ million

  Programme

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Wind

  0·6

  0·8

  0·9

  2·5

  2·5

  4·8

  5·4

  3·7

  4

  3·9

  4·8

  4·5

  6·2

  Wave

  3

  3·3

  4·4

  3·1

  1

  0·4

  0·4

  0·1

  0·2

  0·1

  0·1

  0·4

  0·5

  Geothermal Aquifers

  1·3

  1·7

  2·6

  1·5

  1·8

  1·1

  0·3

  0·1

  0

  0·1

  0·2

  0

  0·1

  Geothermal HDR

  0

  0·6

  5·6

  3

  2·9

  4·6

  3·5

  3·5

  3·6

  3·5

  3·3

  2·6

  1·8

  Solar

  1·2

  0·9

  0·7

  1·4

  0·9

  0·5

  0·7

  0·9

  1·1

  1·4

  1·9

  2·1

  2·3

  Biomass1

  0·1

  0·4

  0·4

  1·2

  0·7

  1·1

  0·8

  1·3

  2·2

  1·5

  1·4

  1·8

  2·3

  Tide

  0·6

  1·4

  0·4

  0

  0

  0·3

  0·1

  0·1

  1·4

  1·2

  1·1

  1·9

  2·0

  Hydro/General Studies

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·8

  0·8

  0·8

  1·0

  1·5

  Technology Transfer/ Promotion

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·7

  1

  1·6

  2·7

  3·0

  ETSU Services

  1·4

  2·2

  2·3

  2

  1·9

  2·1

  2

  2·3

  2·3

  2·5

  2·7

  3·8

  4·3

  Total

  8·2

  11·3

  17·3

  14·7

  11·7

  14·9

  13·2

  12·0

  16·3

  16

  17·9

  20·8

  24·0

  1 Includes expenditure on "Waste as a Fuel" projects under the Energy Efficiency Office demonstration scheme

  Notes:

  Up to 1986–87 the total for R&D also includes expenditure on Low Head Hydro and General Studies to 1986–87. These are separately identified

  for 1987–88 and include work carried out by the Chief Scientist Group, ETSU.

  Department of Energy RD and D Expenditure on Renewable Energy (1991–92 prices)

  £ million

  Programme

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Wind

  1·4

  1·6

  1·6

  4·2

  4·0

  7·4

  7·8

  5·2

  5·3

  4·8

  5·6

  4·8

  6·2

  Wave

  7·0

  6·5

  7·9

  5·2

  1·6

  0·6

  0·6

  0·1

  0·3

  0·1

  0·1

  0·4

  0·5

  Geothermal Aquifers

  3·0

  3·3

  4·7

  2·5

  2·9

  1·7

  0·4

  0·1

  0·0

  0·1

  0·2

  0·0

  0·1

  Geothermal HDR

  0·0

  1·2

  10·0

  5·0

  4·6

  7·0

  5·0

  4·9

  4·8

  4·3

  3·8

  2·8

  1·8

  Solar

  2·8

  1·8

  1·3

  2·3

  1·4

  0·7

  1·0

  1·3

  1·5

  1·7

  2·2

  2·3

  2·3

  Biomass1

  0·2

  0·8

  0·7

  2·0

  11

  1·7

  1·2

  1·8

  2·9

  1·9

  1·6

  1·9

  2·3

  Tide

  1·4

  2·7

  0·7

  0·0

  0·0

  0·4

  0·1

  0·1

  1·9

  1·5

  1·3

  20

  2·0

  Hydro/General Studies/ CSG

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1·0

  1·0

  0·9

  1·1

  1·5

  260
  it is not possible to generalise but efficiencies are normally in the range of 70 to 80 per cent. but can be as high as 90 per cent.

  Ratcliffe Power Station
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has on the amount of limestone which will be required for the flue gas desulphurisation programme at Ratcliffe power station.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  In the environmental statement which accompanied PowerGen plc's application for consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 the company stated that the flue gas desulphurisation plant at Ratcliffe would use some 306,000 tonnes of limestone annually.

  Research Expenditure
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give for each year from 1979–80 to 1992–93 inclusive the spending or proposed spending on renewables research funded by his Department breaking the figures down into type of renewable technology and expressing all the figures in (i) money terms and (ii) 1991–92 real terms.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Outturn expenditure from 1979–80 on my Department's renewable energy research, development and demonstration programme is set out in tables. Expenditure for the current year is estimated. Proposed expenditure on renewables in 1992–93 is £24·3 million; a breakdown of this figure by type of renewable technology is not yet available.
  261

  Programme

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Technology Transfer/ Promotion

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·9

  1·2

  2·0

  2·9

  3·0

  ETSU Services

  3·3

  4·3

  4·1

  3·3

  3·0

  3·2

  2·9

  3·2

  3·0

  3·1

  3·1

  4·0

  4·3

  Total

  19·1

  22·2

  31·0

  24·5

  18·6

  22·7

  19·0

  16·7

  21·6

  19·7

  20·8

  22·2

  24·0

  1 Includes expenditure on "Waste as a Fuel" projects under the EEO's demonstration scheme

  Notes:

  CSG = Chief Scientist's Group

  Up to 1986–87 the total for R&D includes expenditure on Low Head Hydro and General Studies

  IAEA Inspection
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list all the countries currently subject to International Atomic Energy Agency inspection.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The International Atomic Energy Agency is entitled to inspect the declared facilities of a country with which it has concluded a safeguards agreement. A list of those agreements, as of 31 December 1990, is contained in the agency's annual report for 1990, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Offshore Supplies Office
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what changes he expects to make in the future operation of the Offshore Supplies Office.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have reviewed the future role of the Offshore Supplies Office—OSO—in the light of the present stage of development of the offshore supplies industry and the challenges facing it in the 1990s. The OSO's principal tasks will remain unchanged—promotion of fair commercial opportunity in all oil and gas markets, support for the development of the latest technologies and promotion of United Kingdom exports. It will have a major role in supporting EC initiatives for the creation of open and commercially fair markets. Open and commercially fair markets are crucial to the continued success of the United Kingdom offshore oil and gas field supplies industry. That industry is now mature, however, and firmly established at home. I take the view, therefore, that the detailed monitoring of orders for the United Kingdom continental shelf is no longer necessary and that the OSO should no longer be charged with this task. I shall continue to report

  Unaccompanied1 minors2 seeking asylum on their arrival in the United Kingdom, and granted temporary admission, by nationality

  1990

  1991

  November

  December

  January

  February

  March

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  October

  Afghanistan

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  Angola

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Bangladesh

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Ethiopia

  4

  3

  —

  2

  1

  1

  2

  3

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Ghana

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Somalia

  2

  —

  2

  2

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  4

  —

  4

  Sri Lanka

  7

  1

  8

  2

  2

  6

  9

  4

  4

  4

  9

  9

  Turkey

  —

  —

  1

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Uganda

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yugoslavia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —.

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Zaire

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL

  16

  5

  12

  8

  3

  10

  15

  8

  8

  12

  10

  15

  1 Unaccompanied at the point of their arrival.

  2 Aged 16 or under.

  262
  to Parliament, in my annual report on the development of the oil and gas resources of the United Kingdom, on the progress of the supplies industry. But I plan to give new emphasis to its success in overseas markets, in place of the present analysis of orders placed for the United Kingdom Continental Shelf.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Child Refugees
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many child refugees under the age of 17 years have been admitted to the United Kingdom during each of the past 12 months; if he will provide a table showing their country or origin; and what financial support the Home Offfice provides for the care and resettlement of child refugees in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to unaccompanied children seeking asylum in the United Kingdom who are granted temporary admission pending consideration of their application. The available information is on those cases who were unaccompanied at the point of their arrival, and is given in the table.

  In addition to providing grants to certain voluntary organisations to assist with refugee resettlement, the Home Office makes a grant—about £600,000 in 1991—to the refugees arrivals project which provides emergency assistance to newly arrived destitute asylum seekers, including unaccompanied minors. I understand that under the Children Act 1989 local authorities are responsible for arranging the care of unaccompanied child refugees or asylum seekers.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of crimes committed in each police area in 1979 and in 1990 with the percentage change given in each case.

  Mr. John Patten
  This information is published annually in chapter 2 of the Command Paper "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales" the latest edition of which, Cm 1322, contains 1989 statistics. 1990 figures were published in "Home Office Statistical Bulletin No. 4/91" in March 1991. Both publications have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Brixton Prison
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what information the governor of Brixton prison was given about Staffordshire police operations in Brixton prison during 1990 and 1991;

  (2) what consultations took place in 1990 between the Prison Department, the Metropolitan police and the Staffordshire police about police operations in Brixton prison.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  As I indicated in my statement of 5 August following the report of the inquiry by Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons into the escape. information became available to Prison Service headquarters and to Brixton prison from the police in February 1991 that the prisoners were seeking to escape, that they had identified the Sunday chapel service as an opportunity and that they were seeking to acquire a firearm. This information was not passed to Ministers.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if the last governor of Brixton prison will be given the opportunity to answer charges made directly or indirectly against him;

  (2) if any employees at the Prison Department will be disciplined following investigations into the Brixton prison escape in July of two IRA suspects.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I announced on 5 August that. Mr. Ralph Shulfrey CB has been asked to advise the principal establishment officer of the Home Office and the Director General of the Prison Service on whether there were any grounds for taking disciplinary action against any member of staff in connection with the escape from Brixton prison on 7 July. Mr. Shuffrey, who was assisted by Mr. John Richardson OBE, subsequently advised that there were such grounds in relation to the then head of DOC1 division in Prison Service headquarters, the then governor of Brixton and four prison officers who were on duty at the time.

  Because of his retirement, the question of disciplinary action against the then governor of Brixton did not arise and no charges were laid against him. The position was explained to him and he was told that it was open to him to write to the director of personnel and finance of the Prison Service with his comments. A disciplinary charge was laid against the then head of DOC1 division. The disciplinary proceedings found that there had been errors of judgment and failures of procedure, but the charge was not sustained and was dismissed. In the case of the prison officers, an investigation was conducted under the code of
  264
  discipline for prison officers, in the light of which the governor of Brixton decided that no charges should be laid.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in apprehending the two IRA suspects who escaped from Her Majesty's prison, Brixton last July; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that investigations are continuing.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how a loaded 2·5 calibre pistol was smuggled into Brixton gaol between February and July 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  These matters were inquired into by Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons, parts of whose report on the escape of two prisoners from Brixton prison on 7 July were published on 5 August. Copies were placed in the Library along with copies of my statement of the same date. In his report Her Majesty's chief inspector said that most probably the gun was sent in by post, in the cut-out soles of a pair of shoes, the body of the gun in one shoe, the magazine in the other.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Staffordshire about Staffordshire police operations in Brixton prison during 1990 and 1991.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I called for a report from the chief constable of Staffordshire on 6 August after I had received the report of Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons into the Brixton escape on 7 July. The chief constable's report was submitted on 13 August, and a supplementary report on 5 September. The chief constable has arranged for a further investigation by Mr. Colin Bailey, the deputy chief constable of Nottinghamshire, as announced yesterday into allegations made in the "Thames Reports" programme broadcast on 19 November.

  Mrs. Jamila Sadiq
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will take a decision over the application of Mrs. Jamila Sadiq (Ref. IMP 5767465(S)) (GV100/12157) to join her husband in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The entry clearance officer in Islamabad was notified on 20 November of the decision to refuse the application. I regret the delay in dealing with this application, which was first referred to the Home Office in April 1991.

  "As Safe as Houses"
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he has taken on the recommendations of the Fire Brigades Union report, "As Safe as Houses", a copy of which has been sent to him; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The discussion document was submitted for consideration to the Central Fire Brigades
  265
  Advisory Council at its meeting of 20 November. The Home Office will consider its response to the document in the light of advice from that forum.

  Vagrancy Act 1824
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will undertake to bring forward proposals to repeal the Vagrancy Act 1824.

  Mr. John Patten
  No. The Vagrancy Act 1824 has been much amended over the years and in its present form provides power to deal with a number of nuisances, including indecent exposure.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has had in connection with the number of homeless persons arrested under the Vagrancy Act 1824.

  Mr. John Patten
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to a question by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) on 13 November 1991 at column 537.

  Prison Security
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the recent prison security audit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend recently received the final report of the prison security audit conducted by Mr. Hadfield and Mr. Lakes and is still considering it.

  Fire Safety
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when section 3 of the Fire Precautions Act 1971 will be enacted; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  There are no plans to bring section 3 of the Fire Precautions Act 1971 into force.

  Private living accommodation is a matter best left to local housing authorities. They have a duty at least once a year to consider the housing conditions in their district with a view to determining what action to take in performance of their functions.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to protect elderly persons from fire risks.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Home Office provides specific advice on fire safety for elderly people in the form of written and video material. That material provides general guidance on fire prevention and fire safety measures in the home and is targeted to the elderly age group.

  In addition, the Home Office targeted its 1990–91 national television advertising campaign on smoke alarms at the elderly. The main target group for the 1991–92 campaign will again be the elderly.

  There is legislation in place in respect of types of accommodation housing elderly people which, among other things, makes provision for fire precautions. Such legislation is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

  Special Branch
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has authorised any special branch operations in British gaols since he took office; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  It is not the practice to disclose such information.

  Drugs
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of drugs seized in the United Kingdom are seized at the frontier; and what percentage comes from other member states of the European Community.

  Mr. John Patten
  About 65 per cent. by weight of drugs seized in 1990 were seized at ports by HM Customs and some 60 per cent. by weight of all customs seizures came through other member states of the European Community.

  Terrorist Offences
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the present number of Irish(a) men and (b) women being held in prisons for terrorist activities committed in the United Kingdom;

  (2) what is the prison category of Irish (a) men and (b) women being held in prisons in England and Wales for terrorist activities.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  As at 19 November 1991, the numbers of men and women held in prisons in England and Wales for terrorist-related offences committed in the United Kingdom who have given the Irish Republic as their place of birth were nine and one respectively. All these prisoners are in category A.

  Prison Escapes
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department of the inmates who have escaped from prisons in the United Kingdom during the current year, how many escaped from(a) closed establishments and (b) open establishments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  From 1 January 1991 to 18 November 1991 a total of 270 prisoners escaped from closed prison establishments in England and Wales. In the same period, two prisoners escaped from open establishments in England and Wales. Prison matters elsewhere in the United Kingdom are the responsibility of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Northern Ireland.

  A further 279 prisoners absconded from closed establishments and 1,022 from open establishments in England and Wales during the same period. Absconding in this context means unlawfully gaining liberty by abusing trust without having to overcome a security barrier or specific supervision.

  Prison Officers (Shifts)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent change in prison officers' shift patterns have taken place at Castington youth training
  267
  centre; what changes there have been to visiting on Mondays and Fridays; and what effect the new shift patterns have had on the number of meals taken in cells.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  New shift systems, designed to make more efficient use of staff resources, were introduced on 13 October 1991. As a general rule visits are not now held on Mondays and Fridays, because neither day was popular with visitors. Inmates dine in association, but breakfast and tea meals are now taken in cells. This has enabled an earlier start to evening association, which is preferred by inmates.

  Animal Rights
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the animal rights national index; how many names are contained in this index; and in what year it was created.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The animal rights national index—ARNI—was created in 1986 and it holds about 21,000 names. The data held by ARNI are used to assist the police in their investigations into acts of animal extremism and also to provide advice and guidance to those who may be at risk from such acts.

  Electoral Registration
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list those newspapers, magazines and periodicals in which the Government have placed advertisements aimed at encouraging electoral registration in the last year; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will publish a table showing what the Government have spent in the last year promoting the use of postal and proxy voting in each parliamentary constituency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The annual electoral registration advertising campaign in England and Wales this year used national poster sites only; no advertisements were placed in newspapers, magazines or periodicals. In a smaller, separate campaign designed to help teachers to encourage young people to register, advertisements were placed in The Times Educational Supplement, Educational Guardian, Telegraph Education and Teachers Weekly.

  A total of £14,500 has been spent in England and Wales on a leaflet and poster on absent voting. It is not possible to break this figure down by parliamentary constituency.

  Police Statistics
  Mr. McWilliam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by police authority in England(a) the number of police officers who would have been lost to force establishments if the 1991–92 budget reductions had fallen entirely on manpower and (b) the actual number of police officers it is planned to reduce the force establishments by in that year.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  It is for police authorities to set force budgets and determine police strength. I am aware that some authorities set budgets for 1991–92 on a basis likely to result in the strength of the police force falling below the establishment which I had approved: Merseyside by 100 officers, Northumbria by 116, West Yorkshire by around 200, and Derbyshire by a cumulative figure of 130.
  268
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will show the marginal cost of every extra 10 police officers in West Yorkshire above the present establishment for the poll tax payers of Leeds, taking into account the impact of charge capping on the West Yorkshire police authority budget.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  This information can be provided only by the West Yorkshire police authority.

  Child Protection
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration his Department has given to the project pilot schemes completed in September on "Protection of Children Disclosure of Criminal Background for the Voluntary Sector", in accordance with his Department's guidelines 58/1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Home Office has received and considered a report from an independent researcher which evaluates the pilot schemes. The report is due to be published by the Volunteer Centre UK early next year. In response to the Home Office scrutiny of criminal records, the Government have announced their intention to publish a consultation paper towards the end of next year outlining their proposals for new arrangements for disclosing information from the criminal record.

  Prisoners (Mail)
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the criteria he uses to determine which penal establishments have outgoing mail from prisoners routinely read; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend announced on publication of the Woolf report that routine reading of prisoners' mail would be abolished save in dispersal prisons and for certain other limited categories of prisoners. A copy of circular instruction CI 10/1991, which gave effect to this, is in the Library. The circular instruction also sets out the circumstances in which the governor may reinstitute routine reading for a temporary period.

  Bail Offenders
  Mr. McWilliam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent studies he has considered of the percentage of crime which is committed by people on bail; if he will fund ongoing national research into this problem; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos) on 13 November 1991 at column 535.

SCOTLAND

  Trunk Roads
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give a breakdown of the planned expenditure on(a) new construction and improvement,

  269
  (b) structural maintenance and (c) current maintenance on trunk roads by his Department for the years 1992–93, 1993–94 and 1994–95.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Decisions on forward spending plans for individual programmes within the Scottish block have still to be finalised. I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as the information is available.

  Housing Statistics
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the amount of(a) sheltered and (b) special needs housing built by (i) district councils, (ii) Scottish Homes or its predecessor, (iii) housing associations and (iv) the private sector, in each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information on housebuilding by user category is not available for the years prior to 1986, and could be extracted only at disproportionate cost. The latest available information on sheltered and special needs housing built by district councils and the private sector is set out in the tables. Information on Scottish Homes, and its predecessor, and on housing associations, is not available in the precise form requested. I will write to the hon. Member about this.

  Sheltered Housing1—Dwellings Completed2 1986–1990

  Numbers

  1986

  Private Sector

  415

  District Councils

  273

  1987

  Private Sector

  744

  District Councils

  321

  1988

  Private Sector

  255

  District Councils

  312

  1989

  Private Sector

  237

  District Councils3

  330

  1990

  Private Sector3

  92

  District Councils3

  207

  1 Includes sheltered wheelchair housing

  2 Excluding housing associations

  3 Returns are incomplete

  Special needs housing1: Dwellings completed2 1986 to 1990

  Numbers

  1986

  Private sector

  —

  District councils

  267

  1987

  Private sector

  36

  District councils

  271

  1988

  Private sector

  4

  District councils

  320

  1989

  Private sector

  17

  District councils3

  168

  1990

  Private sector3

  48

  District councils3

  87

  270
  1 Includes amenity, wheelchair and ambulant disabled housing.

  2 Excluding housing associations.

  3 Returns are incomplete.

  Sewage Sludge
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what alternative means of disposal for sewage sludge in Scotland will be available when dumping at sea ceases.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Disposal options will include agricultural land, forestry, landfill, incineration and composting.

  Water Supply (Lead)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects the water authorities' assessment of lead in water supply zones to be completed; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Water authorities have given undertakings to my right hon. Friend that their assessments of water supply zones where there is a risk that the United Kingdom standard for lead in water may not always be met will be completed by 31 December 1991. Where a need for further treatment to comply with the regulations is identified authorities will be required to undertake the necessary improvements within specified time scales.

  Water Disconnections
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of water supply disconnections over the latest available 12-month period for each regional authority.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Supplies to domestic consumers in Scotland may be disconnected only for short-term operational reasons, for example to undertake repairs, make connections or plumbing alterations. Supplies to non-domestic consumers may also be disconnected for other reasons, including those arising from non-payment of water charges. Information on the
  number of disconnections is not held centrally.

  Cumbernauld High School
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to the reply given to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth on 11 November,Official Report, column 381, when he will publish the follow-up report on Cumbernauld high school undertaken by Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools in January 1991.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 20 November 1991]: At present reports of follow-up inspections are not published although such reports are likely to be published Private sector in future following the implementation of the parents District councils charter.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Libya (Contracts)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assistance he is providing to British businesses to try to obtain contracts in connection with(a) the great manmade river project and (b) the Melita power station in Libya.
  271
  Mr. Lilley
  None. We have neither encouraged nor discouraged British companies which wish to trade with Libya. This has been a matter for their commercial judgment alone.

  Blue Arrow
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) on what date his Department sold copies of his inspector's report on Blue Arrow; and how much money was made as a result of these sales;

  (2) how much it cost his Department to recover copies of the inspector's report on Blue Arrow after they had been sold to members of the public;

  (3) for what reason his Department (a) sold certain copies of the DTI inspector's report on Blue Arrow and (b) decided not to publish the report.

  Mr. Lilley
  My Department supplied copies of the report on 7 and 8 November to a number of people who might be affected by it, against written undertakings of confidentiality from their solicitors. This was done in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act 1985"on request and on payment of the prescribed fee".
  The cost of recovering the reports from recipients was negligible.

  I have discretion to furnish copies of reports to persons who might be affected by it in order to give them an opportunity to make representations to me about publication of the report. In the light of representations made to me, I have decided to delay publication.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consideration was given to the effect on the continuing trial involving the financial advisers of Blue Arrow before the decision was taken to release details of an investigation on one aspect of Blue Arrow's affairs.

  Mr. Lilley
  Full consideration, including the taking of legal advice. Details have been given in confidence only to persons whose interests might be affected by the report.

  Independent Financial Sector
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to encourage the independent financial sector; and if he will make a statement.

  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 marketplace through independent financial advisers and others.

  European Space Agency
  Sir Michael Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the outcome of the European Space Agency's ministerial council meeting held on 18 to 20 November in Munich.

  Mr. Leigh
  The main achievement of the European Space Agency—ESA—council meeting at ministerial level, held in Munich, was to initiate a new ESA programme for the observation of the Earth and its environment from polar orbit, known as the first polar mission.

  Ministers also agreed to continue development of ESA's Columbus programme, of the Hermes manned
  272
  spaceplane, and of a data relay satellite, within a slightly reduced budget, during 1992. They will meet again late in 1992 to review the future direction of the programmes approved at Munich.

  The new Earth observation programme will develop advanced instruments in support of climate research and the monitoring of global climate. It will also support the flight of operational meteorological instruments and will carry forward radar-based remote sensing using synthetic aperture radar. In addition, the programme will address the necessary facilities for data reception and distribution on the ground.

  The instruments are scheduled to be flown in 1998 on the polar platform, which is under development within ESA's Columbus programme. The United Kingdom played a prominent role at the council in urging ESA member states to give a decisive impetus to this new Earth observation and environment programme. The programme represents a positive European contribution to worldwide efforts to understand the global environment. This is a matter of central importance to current international discussions and negotiations including the forthcoming United Nations conference on environment and development, in Rio de Janiero next year.

  Manufacturing Output
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will show the value of output per hour in the manufacturing sector(a) at 1991 prices and (b) the percentage change year on year from 1961.

  Mr. Mellor
  I have been asked to reply.

  This information is not available in the form requested. Estimates of output per hour in the manufacturing sector are available, in index numbers at constant 1985 prices, for years from 1970. These are held as series DMBH on the Central Statistical Office database which can he accessed by the House of Commons Library.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Cardiff Airport
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what is the level of Customs and Excise personnel at Cardiff international airport;

  (2) how many full-time customs officers were deployed at Cardiff international airport in each year since 1985; and how many are deployed now;

  (3) what level of centrally funded resources is deployed at Cardiff international airport to deter and detect drug smuggling; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Resources are centrally funded to individual executive units, but the allocation of those resources is a matter for the head of the executive unit. In the allocation process full account is taken of the varying degrees of risk that occur in the ports and airports within the boundaries of the executive unit.

  Since 1985 the following numbers of full-time customs officers have been deployed at Cardiff international airport:

  273

  Number

  1985

  16

  1986–87

  16

  1988

  17

  1989–90

  17

  The numbers include staff employed on both anti-smuggling and fiscal work. They also reflect additional staff years to cover peak seasonal periods as well as the perceived need, at that time, to staff on a continuous basis rather than effort being targeted according to risk.

  Following the national review of anti-smuggling controls which has taken place within the Customs and Excise Department, improvements are being made which involve a shift away from predictable static controls to a more mobile, flexible effort directed at areas of greatest risk as perceived at any given time. These risks are assessed within the executive unit on a wider base than Cardiff international airport alone.

  As part of the process of greater flexibility, customs staff for the locality are now concentrated in premises at Barry docks and cover Cardiff and Barry docks as well as the airport. There is a total of 20 full-time anti-smuggling staff available and these can be supplemented by additional resources from elsewhere in the executive unit as the need arises. In addition 16 full-time staff are employed on customs fiscal work in the locality.

  Car Allowances
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the conditions under which(a) volunteer hospital drivers and (b) hon. Members are taxed on notional profits on car allowances.

  Mr. Maude
  The position in law is that motor mileage allowances paid to individuals, whether employees or office holders, or volunteer hospital drivers, are liable to income tax if the allowances exceed the costs of running and maintaining the car for use for work or office, or for use for driving for a hospital car service. The tax liability arises under schedule E, employees and office holders, and schedule D, volunteer hospital drivers.

  Hon. Members, like other office holders or employees, may use a simplified administrative arrangement, known as the fixed profit car scheme, under which "tax free" rates calculated by the Inland Revenue to reflect typical motoring costs can be set against motor mileage allowances received in order to calculate the taxable profit element. Alternatively, hon. Members can choose to keep detailed records of the actual motoring expenses incurred and the precise parliamentary, constituency and private mileage travelled to enable them to make their own claims for relief.

  Volunteer hospital drivers may use simple tables drawn up by the Inland Revenue based on the FPCS arrangements, which are available for employees and office holders, to work out if there is any taxable profit element of their motor mileage allowances. The Revenue has compared the rates of mileage allowances paid by the various health authorities with the "tax free" FPCS rates; the tables show a profit figure where the mileage allowances exceed the FPCS rates. Alternatively, volunteer hospital drivers can choose to keep detailed
  274
  records of the mileage allowances received, the actual motoring expenses incurred, and the mileage driven privately and for the hospital car service.

  Taxpayers Charter
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the omission of a statement informing taxpayers that they will be presumed to have dealt with their tax affairs honestly unless there is reason to believe otherwise, which was contained in the taxpayers charter of 1986. from the taxpayers charter of 1991 constitutes a change in policy: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Francis Maude
  Taxpayers will continue to be presumed to have dealt with their tax affairs honestly unless there is reason to believe otherwise. The omission of a statement to that effect from the 1991 taxpayers charter does not constitute a change of policy in this regard.

  Hospital Car Service
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to reply to letters of 20 September, 8 October and 24 October from the hon. Member for South Hams about the taxation of the hospital car service mileage allowance.

  Mr. Maude
  Letters on this subject were delayed while the Inland Revenue gave consideration to the tax treatment of these allowances. I have now set out the tax treatment and I will reply shortly.

  Civil Service Relocation
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will increase his efforts to ensure civil service relocation is speeded up; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Government's relocation policy is not centrally directed. Departments are required to review the location of their work regularly and systematically in accordance with clear guidelines. Between 1988 and June 1990 Departments identified nearly 23,000 posts for location or relocation away from the south-east. I hope to update the House shortly on the progress made by the end of June 1991.

  Multilateral Surveillance
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he intends to submit the United Kingdom medium-term economic plan to the European Council of Finance Ministers for consideration by the Council in its programme of multilateral surveillance.

  Mr. Maude
  The Government have submitted the United Kingdom's medium-term convergence programme, based on the medium-term financial strategy and the autumn statement, to the Community. It will be considered by ECOFIN in due course. A copy of the programme has been placed in the Library of the House.

  PSBR
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the Treasury rules which determine the construction of, and accounting conventions governing, the public sector borrowing requirement.
  275
  Mr. Mellor
  The notes to table 2·5 in the Financial Statistics Explanatory Handbook, July 1990 edition, describe how the public sector borrowing requirement is defined and measured. More details are available from further references listed there.

  Taxpayers Charter
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many taxpayers in the United Kingdom fall within the ambit of the taxpayers charter.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 18 November 1991]: The taxpayers charter covers taxpayers dealt with by the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise. The Inland Revenue deal with over 30 million taxpayers, including individuals, partnerships, companies and trusts. Customs and Excise deal with around 1·8 million VAT traders, 35,000 excise and inland customs traders and international travellers (some 60 million each year). Some people fall under more than one of these categories.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the total cost to the Exchequer of raising child benefit to £15 for every child during a full financial year and the gains in taxation revenues made if(a) the additional married couple's allowance had not been raised at the last Budget and (b) the additional married couple's allowance—additional to single person's allowance—at the last Budget had been reduced by half.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 19 November 1991]: The additional social security expenditure arising from paying child benefit at £15 per week throughout 1991–92 would be about £3·2 billion. The married couple's allowance for those aged under 65 was not changed in the last Budget. The direct revenue yield of reducing the additional allowance by half is estimated to be about £2·3 billion at 1991–92 income levels.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Free School Meals
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many children will lose their entitlement to free school meals under the Social Security (Unemployment, Sickness and Invalidity Benefit) Amendment Regulations 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  The amendment to the Social Security (Unemployment. Sickness and Invalidity) Regulations 1983 will not now be made and the current definition of employment will remain unchanged. Consequently those refusing work of up to 24 hours a week will not lose I heir entitlement to unemployment benefit or income support. Thus for those on income support with children, included in this category, there will be no loss of free school meals.

  Disabled People
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any plans to improve benefits payable to disabled people in employment who have a reduced work capacity because of their disability; and if he will make a statement.
  276
  Mr. Scott
  In April 1992 the Government will introduce the new disability working allowance. This will be the first benefit in this country specifically intended to help disabled people to work even if their earning capacity is reduced.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action he is taking on the actuary's report on the level of the rebate to be paid over the next five-year period on national insurance contributions for those contracting out of the state earnings-related pension scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 15 November 1991 at column 685.

  Health Screening
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list those companies which tendered for the contract for the Department of Social Security health screening programme; what is the cost to public funds; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Disclosure of the names of the companies invited to tender for the Department of Social Security health screening programme could cause commercial damage to the unsuccessful tenderers and jeopardise the Department's future relationships with its suppliers. The cost of the three-year contract at current prices and depending upon take-up is estimated to be £4 million.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the BUPA health screening service will visit the Coventry offices of his Department; for how long; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  BUPA mobile screening units will be visiting Department of Social Security offices in Coventry early in December for a period of one or two weeks depending upon take-up.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what were the criteria which led to the selection of BUPA to provide a health screening programme for his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  BUPA was chosen following a competitive tendering exercise to assess the ability of leading health-care providers to deliver the Department's requirements, having particular regard to company infrastructure; financial stability; mechanisms for ensuring quality and integrity of service; logistical planning; standard of mobile screening units; experience of comparable screening programmes; capacity to meet the Department's specification; and overall value for money within available budget.

  Young Persons (Benefits)
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many persons aged 16 and 17 years, respectively, received(a) unemployment benefit and (b) income support in each year after 1987.

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  277

  May

  Aged

  Number of claimants in receipt of Income Support

  Number of claimants in receipt of Unemployment Benefit

  1988

  16

  32,000

  1,000

  17

  69,000

  6,000

  1989

  16

  5,000

  —

  17

  13,000

  —

  1990

  16

  4,000

  —

  17

  17,000

  —

  Figures are not yet available for Income Support for 1991.

  Notes:

  1. Some cases may be receiving both Income Support and Unemployment Benefit.

  2. All figures are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  3. From October 1988 Unemployment Benefit was no longer payable to a 16 or 17 year old.

  Source: annual statistical enquiry 1988, 1989 and 1990 half-yearly analysis of unemployment claimants (grossed up from a 5 per cent. sample).

  Mortgage Support
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what information he has on the current level of mortgage support expenditure; and what was the comparable situation 12 months previously.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Help with mortgage interest is given through income support. Estimates of the amounts included in income support assessments for mortgage interest in 1989 and 1990, the latest year for which information is available, are as follows:

  £ million

  1989

  355

  1990

  555

  Note: Estimates arc rounded to the nearest £5 million.

  Source: Income support annual statistical enquiries, May 1989 and 1990.

  Community Charge Benefit
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the cost of increasing benefits to cover the 20 per cent. of the poll tax in 1989–90 and 1990–91 and the estimate for 1991–92; and how many people in each year were helped.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 18 November 1991]: The information requested is as follows:

  Year

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Estimated cost of increasing income-related benefits to cover the 20 per cent, contribution to the community charge (£ million)

  £500

  £520

  £580

  Number of income-related benefit cases (million)

  7·7

  7·5

  7·7

  Sources: Sources of the caseload information are the housing benefit/community charge benefit management information system, the income support annual statistical enquiry, and the family credit statistical system.

  The figures relate to May of each year for income support and housing benefit, and April for family credit. The average caseload for the year may be different due to fluctuations during the year; the caseload and expenditure figures cannot be compared directly because each is derived differently.

WALES

  Dental Health
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has now completed his consideration of implementing a new management information system for the community dental service.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The development of management information systems for the community dental service is a matter for district health authorities. The Welsh Office has fully funded authorities to purchase equipment for capturing data which will meet the information requirements agreed with chief administrative dental officers and notified to district general managers in February 1991.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a list of those hospitals providing paediatric emergency dental services staffed by the community dental service.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information his Department holds on the relationship between the incidence of dental caries and social deprivation.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Information about the incidence of dental caries in households of different social class is collected and published decennially by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. The latest published information is from the 1988 adult dental health survey and the 1983 child dental health survey.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place in the Library the reports by district health authorities in Wales of the assessment of local dental health needs in their area.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  I will arrange for copies of the reports of directors of dental public health to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action his Department is taking to reduce the incidence of cross-infection in general dental surgeries.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The incidence of cross-infection in general dental practice surgeries is determined by the quality of hygienic practices undertaken in those surgeries and is the responsibility of the individual general dental practitioners. Where a family health service authority has reason to believe that appropriate infection control is not practised, it may seek an independent inspection and report from an officer of the dental reference service. Many family health service authorities also operate a voluntary inspection for all new practices.

  In 1988, with the aid of family health service authorities and the dental profession in Wales, all practices were surveyed by questionnaire on the quality of their infection control arrangements. Where identified as necessary, counselling of practitioners was given by the profession locally.

  To ensure appropriate practitioner training in cross-infection and understanding of practice responsibilities:

  279
  Guidance has been issued to the profession. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave him on 10 July 1991;
  Funding was allocated for equipment to facilitate improved undergraduate and postgraduate training (£605,000 in 1988–89–90 and 1990–91 and £900,000 in 1991–92);
  A video on hygienic practice was issued to all general practitioners in Wales in 1989.

  In order to pump-prime appropriate equipment purchases in 1989 by general dental practitioners, the

  Percentage of school children1 inspected by Community dental Service

  Clwyd

  Dyfed

  Gwent

  Gwynedd

  Mid Glamorgan

  Powys

  South Glamorgan

  West Glamorgan

  1976

  41

  49

  64

  57

  41

  65

  45

  33

  1977

  41

  58

  62

  60

  55

  77

  44

  60

  1978

  43

  67

  85

  44

  63

  74

  42

  56

  1979

  45

  62

  65

  41

  61

  65

  58

  57

  1980

  61

  73

  77

  34

  73

  77

  55

  59

  1981

  78

  77

  77

  24

  84

  94

  59

  59

  1982

  87

  72

  68

  23

  78

  78

  60

  61

  1983

  77

  77

  n/a

  26

  73

  88

  63

  60

  1984

  70

  75

  78

  46

  80

  88

  60

  70

  1985

  67

  74

  82

  50

  73

  92

  62

  79

  1986–87

  67

  89

  73

  45

  69

  98

  59

  89

  1987–88

  73

  73

  85

  37

  64

  91

  63

  86

  1988–89

  50

  63

  66

  40

  63

  88

  65

  90

  1989–90

  47

  59

  48

  50

  62

  69

  69

  90

  1990–91

  50

  67

  40

  64

  52

  59

  54

  79

  1 School children aged over 5 in maintained schools.

  The following footnote was omitted from the answer I gave on 22 July (Hansard Vol 195. Col 382) to a similar question from the hon. Gentleman:
  "Percentages for the years 1971 to 1975 include re-inspections"

  Oro-facial Cancer
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has now received the report of the Welsh Dental Committee working party on oro-facial cancer.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  No.

  Assisted places scheme: Payment to schools financial years 1984–85 to 1990–91

  School

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Christ College, Brecon

  48,289·45

  62,116·51

  95,473·37

  131,470·78

  155,404·79

  189,933·43

  244,081·45

  Howell's School, Denbigh

  96,971·98

  132,971·98

  179,033·86

  225,465·70

  243,740·40

  237,474·63

  231,442·31

  Howell's School, Llandaff

  144,940·27

  209,858·38

  274,274·74

  314,274·85

  243,740·40

  334,290·42

  358,798·97

  Llandovery College

  31,013·22

  38,279·65

  454,407·00

  55,732·49

  75,308·91

  92,650·75

  140,381·50

  Monmouth School (for Boys)

  134,170·47

  181,642·40

  233,684·75

  307,291·19

  277,352·49

  323,194·26

  303,951·04

  Monmouth School (for Girls)

  52,598·51

  68,760·75

  90,225·23

  109,297·62

  114,422·49

  128,010·24

  140,618·97

  Penrhos College, Colwyn Bay

  62,843·75

  81,089·97

  99,399·15

  140,459·21

  136,944·07

  156,617·49

  183,500·70

  Rydal School, Colwyn Bay

  56,864·75

  67,768·75

  93,274·00

  110,254·91

  112,767·80

  128,121·05

  153,508·72

  Total

  626,876·45

  842,488·19

  1,519,772·10

  1,394,246·75

  1,359,681·35

  1,589,392·27

  1,756,283·66

  Sewage Treatment Works, Llanfaes
  Mr. leuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will outline his reasons for refusing to exercise his powers under the planning Acts to call in for determination a planning application by Welsh Water to construct a sewage treatment works at Llanfaes, Ynys Mon, Gwynedd.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  On the information available to him, my right hon. Friend concluded that this application
  280
  forecast outturn for each general dental practitioner in the United Kingdom was uplifted by approximately £1,000 additional to the usual refund of expenses.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of school children aged over five years is maintained schools were inspected by the community dental service in each family health service authority area in Wales in each year since 1971.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Information on an individual FHSA basis is not available prior to 1976. The available data are given in the following table:

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what amount of money he has given(a) annually and (b) by school to the assisted places scheme in each of the years 1984 to 1991.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Payments made to independent schools for fee remissions under the assisted places scheme from 1984–85 to 1991 are shown in the table:

  did not involve planning issues of more than local importance and should be determined by the local planning authority.

  Nebulisers
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will contact the Welsh health authorities on payments for nebulisers and other health requisites.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Our officials have already contacted Welsh district health authorities asking them to
  281
  examine their existing policies and practices for the provision of equipment such as nebulisers. In addition, the authorities have been asked to investigate and report on individual cases that have been notified.

  Paediatrics
  Mr. Allan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many new senior registrar posts in paediatrics have been created in Wales this year; at which hospitals they are based; and what arrangements exist for rotation with other areas.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Three new senior registrar posts in paediatrics have been created this year in Wales; two in community paediatrics and one in the regional perinatal intensive care service. All three are located in South Glamorgan hospitals. The rotations involved were decided on the advice of the speciality standing advisory committee and the specialty training committee.

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the amount of toxic waste imported into the ports of Wales for the years(a) 1988, (b) 1989, (c) 1990 and for the first three quarters of 1991 giving the place of origin of the toxins.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Returns on the importation of hazardous waste into the United Kingdom are available only for the period since the introduction of the Transfrontier Shipment of Hazardous Waste Regulations in October 1988.

  On the basis of information currently available the information requested is as follows:

  Date and port with country of origin

  Waste imported

  Total disposed of in Wales

  Tonnes

  Tonnes

  Percentage

  October 1988—31 March 1989

  Newport

  43·0

  Ireland

  Total

  43·0

  Nil

  0

  1 April 1989—31 March 1990

  Holyhead

  Ireland

  156·2

  Newport

  Austria

  73·7

  Germany

  108·0

  Ireland

  483·2

  Spain

  238·5

  Switzerland

  423·7

  Swansea

  Greece

  5·2

  Total

  1,488·5

  754·9

  51

  Session

  Title of Report

  HC Number

  Principal recommendation not yet put to the House for decision

  1985–86 (Second)

  Allocation of time to Government Bills in

  324

  (a) Proceedings in Standing Committee should not continue beyond 10 pm.

  Standing Committee

  (b) Business Sub-Committees to be established for each Standing Committee on a Government Bill, to meet after sixth sitting of Standing Committee to consider progress of Bill and, if necessary, propose timetable for remainder of clauses.

  1986–87 (First)

  A Parliamentary Calendar

  157

  (a) Greater predictability of Recess timings and lengths.

  (b) Firmer dates for Christmas Recess (House to rise no later than 22 December and return no earlier than 7 January).

  282

  Date and port with country of origin

  Waste imported

  Total disposed of in Wales

  Tonnes

  Tonnes

  Percentage

  1 April 1990—31 March 1991

  Holyhead

  Ireland

  815·9

  Newport

  Austria

  1,914·7

  Germany

  167·2

  Finland

  10·7

  Ireland

  1,547·1

  Switzerland

  877·6

  Swansea

  Ireland

  10·1

  TOTAL

  5,343·3

  585·3

  11

  1 April 1991—30 September 1991

  Holyhead

  Ireland

  128·3

  Newport

  Austria

  109·3

  Germany

  80·7

  Finland

  14·4

  Ireland

  279·4

  Switzerland

  108·0

  TOTAL

  720·1

  N/a

  N/a

  N/a—Not available.

  Nominated Bodies
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the total number of(a) male and (b) female members of nominated bodies in Wales in 1979 and 1990.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information requested is as follows:

  1990

  Female members of nominated bodies in Wales

  282

  Male members of nominated bodies in Wales

  1,397

  Information for 1979 was not collected and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Procedure Committee
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will list the outstanding recommendations of the Procedure Committee which have not yet been put before the House for decision.

  Mr.MacGregor
  The following are the principal recommendations Procedure Committee since 1983–84 which have not yet been put to the House for decision on a substantive motion:
  283

  Session

  Title of Report

  HC Number

  Principal recommendation not yet put to the House for decision

  (c) Easter and Whitsun Recesses to last at least one week.

  (d) Summer Recess to start no later then 21 July and end no earlier than 15 October.

  (e) Motions specifying Recess dates should not be taken on the same day as back-bench Adjournment debates following Third Reading of Consolidated Fund Bill.

  1986–87 (Second)

  Use of Time on the Floor

  350

  (a) Greater use of Special Standing Committees.

  of the House

  (b) Debate on Statutory Instrument to be normally limited to 1½ hours, whenever started.

  (c) Motions to approve Statutory Instruments to stand automatically referred to a Standing Committee, subject to the ability of 20 Members (or a Minister) to table a Motion to the effect that the Instrument be debated on the Floor of the House.

  (d) No entrenchment of 10 pm rule.

  (e) No adoption of morning sittings.

  (f) No new procedure for deferred divisions.

  (g) Private Members should not be empowered to move Motion at 2.30 pm on Fridays to prolong proceedings on Private Members' Bills or Motions.

  (h) On four Fridays devoted to Private Members' Motions, debate on the first Motion should lapse at 12.30 pm

  (i) On Tuesdays and Wednesdays, on an experimental basis, an additional 20 minute Adjournment debate should be introduced.

  1988–89 (First)

  Conduct of Members in the Chamber and the Alleged

  290

  (a) No blanket increase in lengths of suspension laid down in Standing Order No. 43.

  Abuse of Parliamentary

  (b) Suspension not to be accompanied by loss of salary.

  Privilege

  (c) Uncompleted periods of suspension to be carried over from one Session to the next.

  (d) Period of suspension incurred under Standing Order No. 43 to take account of any previous suspensions both in current and preceding Session.

  (e) Question on Motion to suspend Member named by Chair to be put forthwith, without formal moving by Leader of House (or another Minister).

  (f) No need for new rules of order to deal with alleged abuses of parliamentary privilege.

  (g) No case for formalised right of reply for persons claiming to have been harmed by unfounded allegations made under protection of privilege.

  1988–89 (Third)

  The System for Determining Precedence for the Introduction of Ten Minute Rule Bills

  352

  (a) For an experimental period, system of queueing for Ten Minute Rule Bill 'slots' to be replaced by ballot.

  1989–90 (Second)

  The Working of the Select Committee System

  19-I

  (a) Establishment of Sub-Committee of Liaison Committee to scrutinise bids for overseas travel by Select Committee.

  (b) Amendment of Standing Order No. 116 to permit embargoed copies of Select Committee Reports to be circulated two sitting days ahead of publication (rather than 48 hours).

  (c) Financial Secretary to the Treasury to cease to be member of Public Accounts Committee.

  (d) Changes in procedure for electing Select Committee Chairmen; senior Member to take Chair instead of Clerk; seniority to be defined as for election of Speaker.

  1990–91 (Third)

  Parliamentary Questions

  178

  (a) Period of Notice for Oral Questions to be reduced from 10 to 5 sitting days.

  (b) No ration on number of written questions tabled by a Members any one day.

  (c) Various changes in rules of order governing admissibility of Parliamentary Questions.

  (d) Abolition of 'blocks' system.

  (e) Answers to Parliamentary Questions about executive agencies to appear in Official Report, preceded by introductory form of words by the relevant Minister.

  (f) Speaker to instruct Editor of Official Report not to print 'pursuant' answers in certain circumstances.

  1990–91 (Fourth)

  Short Speeches

  569

  (a) Speaker to have free hand in deciding when to impose 10 minute limit on speeches "for the convenience of the House", after the opening speeches from the Government and from the main Opposition parties.

  (b) Front bench spokesmen to aim to speak, as a matter of normal practice, for no more than 20 minutes, excluding interruptions.

  284 285
  Note: It should be noted, however, that a number of the recommendations listed have been either the subject of, or relevant to, occasional general procedure debates, usually on Motions for the Adjournment of the House. Moreover, so far as the Procedure Committee's recommendations on Recess dates are concerned, the Hon. Member will know that in my Business Statement on 7 November, I repeated last year's innovation of giving much longer notice than usual of the likely dates of the Christmas and Easter Recesses. Equally, many of the Committee's outstanding recommendations about hours of sitting and the use of time on the floor of the House are directly relevant to the matters currently being considered by the Select Committee on Sittings of the House, and I understand that the Committee has access to all the relevant Procedure Committee Reports and Minutes of Evidence. Finally, I should point out that the Government has not yet replied formally to the Committee's two most recent Reports on Parliamentary Questions and Short Speeches and it is not the normal practice to ask the House to reach specific conclusions in those circumstances. So far as the Report on Short Speeches is concerned, I indicated in my recent oral evidence to the Sittings of the House Committee that I hoped they would feel able to endorse the Procedure Committee's recommendations in their own eventual Report to the House.

  Parliamentary Television
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council when the Parliamentary Works Office study on supplying the live television feed to hon. Members' offices is expected to report; and whether hon. Members are permitted to make their own arrangements to receive the feed, at their own expense, in the interval.

  Mr. MacGregor
  A preliminary examination of the technical feasibility of providing both data and video links to Members' offices is currently being undertaken by the House authorities. It is hoped that its conclusions will be submitted to the appropriate domestic Committee in the near future. If a decision were taken to proceed further with the project, the next step would be a detailed physical survey of the House and its outbuildings by the Parliamentary Works Office, or its successor organisation under the Ibbs reforms. It is too early to speculate on the timing of any such further study. In the meantime, it would not be appropriate for individual right hon. or hon. Members to seek to pre-empt the conclusions of those studies and their consideration by the relevant domestic Committees by making their own separate arrangements, whether or not at their own expense.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if hon. Members are permitted to receive the United Artists local cable services live television feed from the Chamber(a) at their homes and (b) in their Commons office.

  Mr. MacGregor
  On the first part of the hon. Member's question, what cable services right hon. and hon. Members choose to subscribe to at their own homes is entirely a matter for them. Access to a dedicated parliamentary channel, however delivered, in Members' offices in the House or its outbuildings would be no different, for practical purposes, from the provision of a clean feed direct from the Chamber, so the approval of both the Broadcasting Committee and the relevant post-Ibbs domestic Committee would be necessary.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if there is a live television feed from the Chamber to his Office(a) in the House and (b) in his departmental offices in Whitehall.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I do not have a live television feed in my House of Commons office, but my Whitehall office is connected by spur to the Prime Minister's television feed.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council when and from whom Mr. Speaker received permission to receive the clean television feed from the Chamber.

  Mr. MacGregor
  This facility was originally approved by the then Select Committee on the Televising of Proceedings of the House as part of the arrangements for the experiment in televising the House's proceedings, which began in November 1989.
  286
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will list those Government Departments which have arranged through the Central Office of Information to take the clean television feed from the Chamber; how many television sets can receive the pictures in each department; and where in each department each of the sets is located.

  Mr. MacGregor
  A clean television feed from the House of Commons is supplied by the Central Office of
  Information to the following Departments:

  Department of Employment

  Department of Energy

  Department of the Environment

  Department of Health

  Prime Minister's Office

  Scottish Office

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Department of Transport

  Her Majesty's Treasury

  Welsh Office

  The number and location of television sets is a matter for Ministers in the Departments listed.

  GAYE
  Sir Barney Hayhoe
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many hon. Members are participating in the give-as-you-earn scheme of charitable giving so far as their parliamentary salary is concerned.

  Mr. MacGregor
  There are currently 56 Members who have authorised deductions from their parliamentary salaries under the payroll-giving scheme.

  Members' Pensions
  Sir Barney Hayhoe
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what additional retirement pension would be earned by an hon. Member who had 10 years' service as(a) a junior Minister, (b) a Minister of State and (c) a Cabinet Minister.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Under the terms of the governing Acts of the parliamentary contributory pension fund Ministers and paid office-holders have the option of whether or not to join the supplementary scheme in addition to the basic scheme which is available to all Members. The rate of supplementary pension payable from the fund is based on the contributions paid on the amount of the Ministers' or office-holders' total remuneration which is in excess of Members' pensionable salary during the period of office. Since these salary and contribution levels are not constant, the pension figures set out have been calculated on current levels as if they were to pertain throughout the 10-year period. They also assume that the 10-year period ends at age 65.
  287

  Percentage of ordinary Members salary as supplementary pension

  On supplementary pension calculated on current salary rate £

  Ten years service as a

  Cabinet Minister

  21

  6,200·00

  Minister of State

  14

  3,969·00

  Parliamentary Secretary

  9

  2,665·00

  Members' Staff (Contracts)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many hon. Members have not yet given any of their staff a contract of employment; how many individual staff do not have contracts; what action he is taking to ensure contracts are provided; what sanction he has against hon. Members who refuse to issue contracts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  As at 31 October 1991, 35 Members had not sent contracts of employment in respect of any of their staff to the Fees Office. As at the same date, 195 staff of hon. Members were without contracts of employment lodged with the Fees Office. This figure includes both part-time staff for whom contracts may not be required and staff only recently engaged.

  In those cases where a contract of employment has not been lodged with the Fees Office all hon. Members. other than those with recently engaged staff, have been contacted. As no hon. Member has refused to issue a contract the question of sanctions has not arisen.

  Given that the Top Salaries Review Body is currently conducting a review of the office costs allowance, I have nothing further to add at this stage.

EMPLOYMENT

  TECs
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment why he decided not to accept the recommendation of the Select Committee on Employment's fifth report of Session 1990–91 that there should be only one auditor for each training and enterprise council; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  This is fully set out in the Government's response to the Committee's report, a copy of which is available in the Library. The current audit arrangements are necessary to ensure the proper stewardship of public money and to comply with the Companies Act. These do not affect the TECs' ability to operate in a flexible and enterprising way.

  Training Places
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how many training and enterprise councils have(a) more than 1,000 and (b) between 500 and 999 young people awaiting offers of training places;

  (2) how many young people in the Leeds training and enterprise council area are still awaiting an offer of a training place.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information requested is not available.
  288
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will make a statement on the provision by training and enterprise councils of work experience for young people in youth training.

  Mr. Jackson
  Training opportunities are dependent on employers' participation in the training programme. With our support, TECs are actively promoting the need for employers to maintain their investment in training. The Government are committed to ensuring the availability of suitable training for young people under the terms of their youth training guarantee.

  Training Credits
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the cost of implementing training credits.

  Mr. Jackson
  The training credits initiative is a partnership involving expenditure from many different sources, including employers. In 1990–91, the cost to the Department of developing the training credits pilot schemes was £4·8 million. Planned provision for the 11 pilot schemes in the first full year of operation, 1991–92, is £122 million. This does not take account of administrative costs incurred by the Department and the training and enterprise councils and local enterprise company delivering training credits.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what sums have been spent on advertising training credits(a) to employers and (b) to trainees.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Department has incurred no expenditure on advertising training credits.

  NVQs
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which areas of employment now have recognised NVQ qualifications; and when remaining areas will be finalised.

  Mr. Jackson
  A detailed listing of accredited NVQs is provided in the booket "The NVQ Framework", which is published by the National Council for Vocational Qualifications and updated on a quarterly basis. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  "The NVQ Framework" covers all major occupational areas and is sub-divided into 11 main categories, the first 10 of which already have a number of NVQs in place. These are:

  (1) Tending animals, plants and land.

  (2) Extracting and providing natural resources.

  (3) Constructing.

  (4) Engineering.

  (5) Manufacturing.

  (6) Transporting.

  (7) Providing goods and services.

  (8) Providing health, social care and protective services.

  (9) Providing business services.

  (10) Communicating and entertaining.

  (11) Developing and extending knowledge and skill.

  Ultimately, the aim is to ensure that all 11 categories are fully covered in all five NVQ levels within the framework. However, the immediate target is to have sufficient NVQs accredited by 31 December 1992 to cover 80 per cent. of the employed work force at NVQ levels 1 to 4. This will ensure all major occupations are covered.
  289
  Good progress continues to be made, with currently 322 NVQs accredited, covering some 40 per cent. of the employed work force at levels I to 4.

  "The NVQ Framework" booklet includes a timetable for the submission of NVQs for accreditation over the ensuing 18 months.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment for the latest period for which figures are available how much has been spent on marketing NVQ's to employers.

  Mr. Jackson
  The main responsibility for marketing NVQs rests with the employers in the sector concerned, and with the awarding bodies offering the NVQs.

  The Government offer marketing support through the National Council for Vocational Qualifications and the Department of Employment's standards programme. To date this support has been concentrated on the development of NVQs. Marketing activities have included seminars, exhibitions and conferences. Some £400,000 was spent on these activities in 1990–91.

  Over the next 18 months, the Government's focus will move increasingly to the implementation of NVQs. The NCVQ communications strategy will take forward the enhanced marketing of NVQs to employers. This commits £800,000 in 1991–92 and proposes further substantial investment in the following two years.

  Job Vacancies
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will issue notices at all jobcentres warning people of the potential costs of responding to advertisements from purported employers offering vacancies through 0898 telephone numbers.

  Mr. Jackson
  Questions on operational matters in the Employment Service executive agency are the responsibility of Mike Fogden, the agency's chief executive, to whom I have referred this question for reply.

  Company Directors' Reports
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what conclusions he has drawn from recent employee involvement statements in company directors' reports in accordance with section 235 and schedule 7, part V, of the Companies Act 1985.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has today placed in the Library a survey of a sample of recent company reports. It shows a continuing improvement in the level and variety of employee involvement practices reported.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Yugoslavia
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether any consideration has been given to giving aid to Hungary to help with the Yugoslav refugees either bilaterally from the United Kingdom or from the European Community.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We are carefully monitoring the situation of Yugoslav refugees in Hungary and have 290
  contributed via the European Community, which has so far provided 360,000 ecu for refugee relief in Hungary to be distributed via the International Red Cross and non-governmental organisations.

  The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, to which we are also a major contributor, has set aside a budget this year of US$3·1 million for these refugees. The number of refugees is currently estimated at 35,000.

  We have no aid programme for Hungary, although it is able to benefit from the know-how fund for eastern European countries.

  Dubrovnik
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give consideration to joining the French and Italian Governments in the provision of humanitarian aid to the besieged people of Dubrovnik; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We are urgently considering with all other member states of the European Community and with agencies of the United Nations and the International Red Cross movement options for co-ordinated humanitarian aid to the people of Dubrovnik, as well as to other parts of Yugoslavia affected by the recent fighting.

  Ministers of the member countries of the Western European Union agreed on 18 November to examine the possibility of helping the Red Cross by the use of naval units in the area. We have already responded to Red Cross requests by providing 425,000 blankets and a cash grant of £250,000, together valued at £.1·75 million, for the victims of the fighting. Consignments of these blankets have gone direct to Dubrovnik.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to improve animal welfare standards throughout Europe.

  Mr. Maclean
  We continue to press for the highest standards of animal welfare to be adopted throughout the Community and have now achieved our key objectives on the protection on animal transport including horses.

  We will continue to strive for adoption of United Kingdom standards, including those for calf and pig farming, throughout the EC.

  Farm Woodland Premium Scheme
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement about the proposed farm woodland premium scheme.

  Mr. Gummer
  This week we published our consultation document on our proposed new farm woodland premium scheme and a copy is in the Library of the House.

  CAP
  Sir Patrick Duffy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions he has had with his European counterparts on the reform of the common agricultural policy.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a
  291
  statement on the MacSharry proposals for reform of the common agricultural policy outlining the latest position in their consideration by the Council of Ministers.

  Mr. Gummer
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham).

  Mrs Currie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress is being made in reducing subsidies to agriculture in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer to the reply I have just given to the hon. Members for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Sir P. Duffy) and for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams). The Government aim to secure, through reform of the common agricultural policy, lower levels of agricultural support throughout the European Community.

  Mesh Sizes
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what position he intends to take on the French call for a reduction in minimum mesh sizes in the southern North sea.

  Mr. Curry
  We reject this and it was not included in the package of technical conservation measures recently agreed by the Council of Fisheries Ministers.

  Fish Stocks
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with his European counterparts on the implementation of measures to conserve fish stocks in the European Community.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter) on 6 November following the EC Council of Fisheries Ministers on 28 October 1991. At that meeting, we secured a package of important measures to improve the conservation of fish stocks; these will be implemented from 1 June 1992.

  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken recently to improve the conservation of fish stocks.

  Mr. Curry
  In July the United Kingdom introduced a unilateral requirement for square mesh panels in certain nets to reduce the catch and discard of immature fish. At the October Fisheries Council we secured an important package of EC measures which will greatly improve the conservation of fish stocks.

  Countryside Stewardship Scheme
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects his Department to take over responsibility for the countryside stewardship scheme.

  Mr. Curry
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and I will review the position when the Countryside Commission is able to provide an evaluation of the scheme based on its achievements.

  Fishing, Northumberland
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will undertake a visit to Northumberland fishing ports to study the future of the fishing industry in the area.

  Mr. Curry
  I have no plans to do so at present.

  Food From Britain
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what promotional activities Food From Britain has organised to draw attention to British products.

  Mr. Curry
  Food From Britain promotes British food and drink both at home and abroad. Its activities include British displays at all the major food trade fairs, tastings and other forms of catering and retail promotion, introductions of British suppliers to potential customers, and comprehensive guides to the availability of British foods, newsletters and other forms of printed publicity.

  Scientific Whaling
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has made to those countries engaged in scientific whaling.

  Mr. Gummer
  Programmes for scientific whaling were again fully discussed at the last meeting of the International Whaling Commission in May. The United Kingdom successfully co-sponsored resolutions calling upon both Japan and the USSR to reconsider their position.

  Horses and Ponies
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the welfare of horses and ponies subject to export after 1992.

  Mr. Gummer
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler).

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what time limit has been set on the derogation to Britain of the ban on the export of live horses to the continent for slaughter; if he will make a statement on the conditions relating to the agreement; and when he envisages the matter being raised again in Community negotiations.

  Mr. Maclean
  The directive concerning the welfare of animals during transport provides for national arrangements on horses to continue without specifying a time limit. It also establishes that the Council, acting on proposals from the commission, will adopt additional conditions for all transport of horses in the Community in order to safeguard their welfare. No timetable is set for these additional rules and it is not known when the Community will address the issue.

  Animals (Transport)
  Mr. Ashby
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to improve the transport of animals within the European Community.
  293
  Mr. Gummer
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington).

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement on the recent agreement in the Farm Council on the transport of horses and other animals.

  Mr. Maclean
  The directive on protection of animals during transport has now been adopted formally by the Council and will be published shortly. The agreement reflects the deep public concern in this country over the transport of horses and other animals and the Government are grateful to all those who gave support in the negotiations by making their views known to the Commission and throughout the Community.

  Fishing Grounds (Pollution)
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures are being taken to safeguard fishing grounds from pollution originating offshore.

  Mr. Curry
  This Ministry works closely with other Departments in operating a comprehensive range of measures under the Prevention of Oil Pollution Act 1971 and the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 to protect fisheries, and the marine environment generally, from pollution originating offshore.

  State Veterinary Service
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the British Veterinary Association to discuss the future of the state veterinary service.

  Mr. Maclean
  My right hon. Friend the Minister has not met the British Veterinary Association specifically to discuss the future of the state veterinary service.

  However, Ministers and officials have regular contact with the association and its representatives on a wide range of issues.

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Agriculture Council held on 18 and 19 November.

  Mr. Gummer
  I represented the United Kingdom at this meeting of the Council together with my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), Parliamentary Secretary in my Department.

  There was a discussion of the significant progress that has been made recently in the discussions towards an agricultural agreement in GATT. I stressed that genuine reform required reductions in support over time whatever form such support took, with only genuine environmental and similar measures being exempted from the process of reduction. I urged the Commissioner to negotiate accordingly. Unfortunately he seems to take the view at present that only direct price support need be subject to reduction and in particular that any compensation for such reductions need not be reduced. We shall continue to press our view.
  294
  There were detailed discussions on the arable, tobacco and sheepmeat dossiers included in the proposed reforms of the common agricultural policy. On the arable dossier I stressed that payments on set-aside land must not discriminate against larger producers. On tobacco we urged the need to scale down support significantly consistent with the Community's position on health issues. On sheepmeat, I said that the proposed reductions in headage limits—maximum payments per producer—were unacceptable to the United Kingdom and urged that savings be made instead by price cuts or other means. Discussion will resume at the next meeting on 11–12 December.

  Veterinary Products
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the technical competence of the Veterinary Products Committee and of the EC Veterinary Products Committee to judge the safety and human health aspects of the use of veterinary products.

  Mr. Gummer
  Members of the Veterinary Products Committee are expert in a number of scientific disciplines relevant to the consideration of the safety, quality and efficacy of veterinary medicines. When aspects falling outside their specific fields of expertise arise, they take advice from the Department of Health and other suitably qualified experts. Apart from the Medicines Commission, we are satisfied that no other body of equivalent competence exists in this country.

  Members of the EC Committee on Veterinary Medicinal Products are officials from member states. They are not required to have personal scientific expertise in the same way as VPC members, but draw on expertise available in all the member states, including that of the Veterinary Products Committee.

  Poultry (Rare Breeds)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will amend the poultry regulations to ensure that rare breeds, housed and kept separately for breeding purposes, are defined as individual flocks.

  Mr. Curry
  I have no plans to do so.

  Milk Production
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his latest estimate of the total volume of United Kingdom milk production last year; and what proportion this represents of total EC milk production.

  Mr. Curry
  Total United Kingdom milk production, including milk fed directly to calves, was estimated at 15,212,000 tonnes during 1990, 13 per cent. of the EC total. Deliveries to dairies amounted to 14,574,000 tonnes, 13·75 per cent. of the EC total.

  Animals and Birds (Imports)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken in the light of recommendations by the Joint Nature Conservation
  295
  Committee to restrict the number of United Kingdom ports through which live animals and birds may be imported.

  Mr. Maclean
  The recommendation to consider restricting the number of ports through which live animals may be imported was one of a number of recommendations made by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee in its recent report on trade in wildlife. As the wildlife trade raises many complex issues which do not affect the United Kingdom alone, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment and I wrote recently to the European Commissioners for agriculture and the environment drawing the JNCC report to their attention and pressing for stricter Community-wide controls over international trade in wildlife. A Commission proposal for a new regulation on the wildlife trade is expected to be published soon and we shall take full account of the JNCC advice in the subsequent discussions.

  Bovine Somatotropin
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what tests have been carried out by his Ministry concerning the safety of bovine somatotropin and food products derived from it for humans; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  It is for licence applicants to undertake, in accordance with internationally accepted rules of good laboratory practice, all tests which are considered necessary to satisfy the licensing authority.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many applications for the use of bovine somatotropin he has received in each of the last three years and to date in 1991; if he will indicate in each case whether the applications have been refused, and how many are going through appeal; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  No product licence applications were received during this period. One application for an animal test certificate was received in 1988: that application is currently the subject of an appeal to the Veterinary Products Committee which is minded to advise that it should not be granted.

  In addition, applications to renew ATCs granted before 1988 were received in each of the years identified, and were granted. Applications to vary these ATCs were received in 1988, two; 1989, nine; 1990 seven; and 1991 to date, four; and have been granted.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the discussions in the EC about the continuation of the moratorium on the use of bovine somatotropin after 31 December; and when he expects a decision to be taken about its continuation.

  Mr. Gummer
  Progress made by the Commission with its report on the future use of BST was raised under other business at the Agriculture Council on 18–19 November. The Commission indicated that it expects to report to the Council within the next few weeks.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the research that has been 296
  considered by the Veterinary Products Committee concerning the effect of food produced by the use of bovine somatotropin on human health; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Committee has seen the results of research into the composition of milk from treated and untreated cows which identified minute differences in the average content of lipids, biotin, IGFI and BST. It has also seen the results of research into the effect of these four substances on humans and has taken advice from nutritional experts. It is satisfied that the widespread use of BST to increase milk yields would not adversely affect the health of consumers.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy on the possible extension of the present EC ban on bovine somatotropin; and when he expects the matter to be further discussed at the Council of Ministers.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Commission has made no proposals for arrangements to apply after the current moratorium on the use of BST expires. If it does, my right hon. Friend will determine his policy according to the merit of the proposals. Progress made by the Commission with its report on the future use of BST was raised under other business at the Argiculture Council on 18–19 November. The Commission indicated that it expected to report to the Council within the next few weeks.

  Fishing Vessels
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will state the number of draft proposals he has received from sea fisheries committees to regulate the use of fixed engines and the number he rejected in respect of the last 12 months for which data are available.

  Mr. Curry
  Ministerial confirmation has been sought for three byelaws made by sea fisheries committees to regulate the placing or use of fixed engines. One needs to be re-advertised and we are in active correspondence with the relevant SFC on the other two on drafting and procedural points respectively. None has been rejected.

  "Our Farming Future"
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how he intends to distribute copies of "Our Farming Future" to individual farmers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Copies of "Our Farming Future" are available to farmers on request from the Ministry, particularly through its regional and divisional offices. Copies have also been provided to the National Farmers Union.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he intends to publish the follow-up to "Our Farming Future"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Decisions on any future statements of Government policy on agriculture will be taken in the light of the outcome of negotiations on CAP reform and on the Uruguay round.

  Environmental Health
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will meet the Institution of Environmental Health Officers to discuss whether meat inspection should remain a local authority function.

  Mr. Maclean
  Our officials and those of the Department of Health are in regular contact with representatives of the institution, and have on a number of occasions discussed with them the future arrangements for meat hygiene enforcement. In addition, the institution has submitted written evidence to the review of meat hygiene enforcement in Great Britain and was represented on the review consultative panel. The views of the institution will be taken fully into account by the Agriculture and Health Ministers when a decision is reached on future meat hygiene enforcement arrangements.

  Dairy Industry
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the present state of the dairy industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Dairy farming remains a relatively profitable sector of United Kingdom agriculture, sustained by support prices substantially above world market levels. Despite the existence of quotas limiting production, more than 20 per cent. of EC milk production in 1990 required subsidised disposal. It remains our long-term aim to return to a more market-oriented system in the dairy sector, including the eventual removal of production quotas. In the meantime we are convinced of the need to change United Kingdom milk marketing arrangements to enable the industry to meet the challenge of the single market.

  Tobacco
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to reduce the cost to the Exchequer of the common agricultural policy tobacco regime.

  Mr. Curry
  The EC Commission has tabled proposals for the reform of the tobacco regime which, it estimates, would result in budgetary savings of some 418 million ECU(B)—£291 million—a year when fully implemented. In discussion of these proposals the Government are pressing for the most radical reform negotiable.

  Beef Imports
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of live cattle and the tonnage of beef imported into Great Britain for human consumption from the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland respectively for each year since 1985.

  Mr. Curry
  [holding answer 11 November 1991]: Imports from the Republic of Ireland, since 1985, are as follows:

  Beef (tonnes)

  Cattle (Number of head)

  1985

  84,000

  220,000

  1986

  122,000

  232,000

  1987

  123,000

  151,000

  298

  Beef (tonnes)

  Cattle (Number of head)

  1988

  112,000

  175,000

  1989

  84,000

  115,000

  1990

  78,000

  121,000

  Note: Figures to nearest '000 tonnes.

  Source: Her Majesty's Customs and Excise.

  We are unable to provide figures for imports from Northern Ireland as these statistics are not collected by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise.

  Pollution
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what contribution has been made to date by his Department to Her Majesty's Government's submission on control and reduction of aquatic pollution to the preparatory committee meetings for the United Nations conference on environment and development in Brazil in 1992; and what proposals he expects to be submitted on oceanic and marine pollution by Her Majesty's Government to the UNCED from the present day to June 1992.

  Mr. Curry
  The Ministry has been involved in the normal way in the Government's collective consideration of aquatic pollution matters arising in the preparatory committee meetings for the United Nations conference on environment and development. A very wide range of proposals is already under discussion at those meetings.

DEFENCE

  Reserve Forces Act 1980
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he intends to propose amendments to the Reserve Forces Act 1980 in the light of the Gulf war experiences.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Studies into the role and size of the reserve forces are currently being undertaken as a result of both the "Options for Change" exercise and our Gulf war experiences. In the light of the conclusions of these studies we will, of course, consider whether a review of our existing reserves legislation will be required.

  Medical Services
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to review the present level of medical services for the armed forces; and when he expects to announce the results.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A review is in progress to consider the future requirement for medical support to the armed forces, the outcome of which will in part be reliant upon other changes in the armed forces. It is too early to say when the review will be complete.

  Ministry Houses, Fife
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many houses are owned by the Ministry of Defence in Fife, North-East; and what is the current occupancy rate.
  299
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As at 30 September 1991, the latest date for which figures are available, the Ministry of Defence owned 726 houses and flats in the Fife, North-East constituency, of which 633 were occupied representing 87 per cent. of the total stock. Many of the unoccupied properties were either undergoing or awaiting major maintenance work or modernisation or were already allotted to service families who were due to move in shortly. In addition, two properties were in the process of being sold.

  Date

  Vessel

  Area

  Incident

  28 June 1989

  FV Huntress

  Clyde

  Submarine snagged nets

  12 September 1989

  FV Contester

  Irish Sea

  Submarine communications buoy became caught in nets

  13 November 1989

  FV Scotia

  Off Lewis

  Submarine snagged nets

  22 November 1990

  FV Antares

  Clyde

  Submarine snagged nets and as a result the fishing vessel capsized and sank

  Over the same period, there were also two incidents involving United States submarines in United Kingdom waters, neither of which involved the loss of life.

  There have been no changes in the arrangements for reporting incidents between Royal Navy ships and civilian craft.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all compensation payments(a) already made and (b) outstanding to owners of fishing boats for damage caused by submarine activity in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The following list relates solely to damage caused or alleged to be caused by Royal Navy submarines:

  Number of claims and compensation paid

  1979

  Number of claims made

  4

  Number refuted

  1

  Number settled

  3

  Amount of compensation paid

  £1,008·00

  1980

  Number of claims made

  1

  Number settled

  1

  Amount of compensation paid

  £2,900·00

  1981

  Number of claims made

  1

  Number settled

  1

  Amount of compensation paid

  £2,80000

  1982

  Number of claims made

  2

  Number settled

  2

  Amount of compensation paid

  £451,00000

  1983

  Number of claims made

  4

  Number refuted

  3

  Number settled

  1

  Amount of compensation paid

  £24,273·96

  1984

  Number of claims

  1

  Number settled

  1

  Amount of compensation paid

  £8,013·54

  1985

  No incidents

  Fishing Vessels (Accidents)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has about all types of incidents leading to damage or loss of life involving fishing boats and submarines in(a) 1989, (b) 1990 and (c) 1991 to date; and if he has made any arrangements to alter the method of notification of such incidents.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information requested for Royal Navy submarines is as follows:

  Number of claims and compensation paid

  1986

  Number of claims

  2

  Number refuted

  2

  1987

  Number of claims

  2

  Number refuted

  1

  Number settled

  1

  Amount of compensation paid

  £9,611·00

  1988

  Number of claims

  4

  Number refuted

  1

  Number settled

  3

  Amount of compensation paid

  £19,000·00

  1989

  Number of claims

  4

  Number refuted

  2

  Number outstanding

  1

  Number settled

  1

  Amount of compensation paid

  £18,963·41

  1990

  Number of claims

  1

  Number outstanding

  1

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what inquiry reports his Department has received from the Marine Accident Investigation Branch since 1979 of losses of, or damage to, fishing vessels; what action has been taken in each case; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Department currently holds reports of the marine accident investigation branch investigations into incidents between submarines and the fishing vessels Huntress and Scotia. These reports were taken into account when formulating current operating instructions. Reports into incidents involving the fishing vessels Mhari-L, Inspire and Moray Adventurer are also held. There was no Royal Navy involvement in these incidents and therefore no need for any subsequent follow-up action by this Department.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list for each of the last three years the number of occasions the Royal Navy air-sea rescue has been called out to deal with incidents involving fishing vessels at sea; and if he will make a statement.
  301
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The following table provides details of call-outs of both Royal Navy and Royal Air Force search-and-rescue helicopters to incidents involving fishing vessels at sea during 1988, 1989, 1990 and to 31 August 1991:

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Royal Navy

  42

  59

  47

  46

  Royal Air Force

  179

  185

  145

  81

  Total number of people recovered

  116

  166

  114

  108

  MFV Inspire
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has regarding the verdict of the jury in relation to the sinking of the Inspire and the possibility of submarine involvement; what information he has concerning activities of(a) United Kingdom, (b) NATO and (c) other countries' submarines in the area at the date and time in question; what action he proposes to take; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I understand that the jury at the inquest returned a verdict of death by unlawful killing. As was made clear in the evidence given, there were no Royal Navy or NATO submarines in Cardigan bay or the Irish sea on the day in question. Nor, to the best of our knowledge, were there any submarines belonging to other nations in the area at the time. I therefore see no need for the Ministry of Defence to take any action as a result of the inquest.

  Exercise Cockfight
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what surface and submarine vessels will be involved in Exercise Cockfight in the firth of Clyde later this month; what is the total duration of the exercise; what will be the extent of submarine activity and during which periods; what representations he has received expressing concern at the dangers to fishing activity in the area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  One Royal Navy and one Royal Netherlands Navy submarine, together with HMS Brave, His Belgian Majesty's naval ship Wielingen, HMS Sentinel and support craft of the Royal Maritime Auxiliary Service are taking part in the inshore phase of Exercise Cockfight, which lasts from 23 to 28 November. During this period, both submarines will conduct dived operations in the Firth of Clyde on each day. The Clyde fishermen's associations have been given full details of planned submarine movements, which will also be notified under the subfacts arrangements. Representations on this exercise have been received from a number of hon. Members, representatives of Scottish fishing interests and others.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to pay the annual bounty to Territorial soldiers who served in the Gulf, although they have not served the statutory 15-day period camp or course.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We are considering a number of claims in the light of individual circumstances.
  302
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Scottish Territorial soldiers have not received the annual bounty this year after serving in the Gulf with 205 Scottish general hospital.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  This information is not immediately available, but I will write to the hon. Member shortly.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his reply of 14 November,Official Report, column 672, if he will name the sergeant who died in Zimbabwe in September 1990; in which part of the country the accident took place; what were the circumstances of the accident; if there was an inquest; and what were the duties in Zimbabwe of the noncommissioned officer in question.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The service man in question was Sergeant Sibajang Rai, of the 7th Gurkha Rifles. Sergeant Rai was part of the British military advisory team. The road traffic accident occurred in the eastern highlands of Zimbabwe in the Nyanga area, on the Dombo road leading from the village of Nyanga to the Mozambique training team border camp. Sergeant Rai was killed when his vehicle overturned on the winding dirt road. No United Kingdom inquest was held as Sergeant Rai's body was repatriated to Hong Kong and therefore did not come under the jurisdiction of a United Kingdom coroner. Although a local post-mortem was conducted, the district administrative office in Nyanga did not require an inquest. Sergeant Rai's duties were as a platoon sergeant instructor of Mozambique recruits.

  Ballistic Missiles
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all those countries assessed as possessing ballistic missiles.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The following countries are assessed as possessing ballistic missiles: Afghanistan, Belgium, Bulgaria, China (PRC), Czechoslovakia, Egypt, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Japan, Kuwait, Libya, Netherlands, North Korea, Pakistan, Poland. Romania, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Syria, USSR, United States of America, United Kingdom and Yemen.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) Army service personnel, (b) Royal Air Force service personnel and (c) Royal Navy personnel have applied for voluntary redundancy; and whether he has any plans to make further offers of voluntary redundancy.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  [pursuant to his reply, 8 November col. 296]: A reduction of 8,000 in total Royal Navy numbers is planned by 1995. Most of these will be achieved by natural turnover, reduced recruiting and by the application of certain manpower regulators. However, there will he a need for a limited redundancy programme, phased over two or three years. In 1992–93 this will affect about 80 captains and commanders and 320 warrant officers and chief and petty officers. It is hoped that this target will he achieved by voluntary means, but some

  303
  compulsory measures cannot be ruled out in order to achieve the correct seniority spread within the ranks and specialisations. Personnel will be selected from categories in surplus, bearing in mind the need to maintain a balance of skills and experience. It will be necessary to include in the programme officers and ratings with significant time to serve as well as those within a few years of retirement/discharge.

  The same financial terms will apply as in all such service schemes since 1975. These provide for an immediate pension for those with 12 or more years service—instead of the normal 16 years for an officer and 22 for a rating—together with a tax-free capital payment of up to 18 months' pay in addition to the pension benefits. The detailed terms will shortly be promulgated to the Navy and applications will be invited to take effect in 1992–93.

  All those selected are eligible for the full facilities of the resettlement programme, including counselling and up to 28 days' training to assist them in utilising their skills in the civilian job market. Help with job finding will be available from the employment liaison officer, Navy, the Officers Association or the Regular Forces Employment Association, both of which receive funding from the Department. Full details of these and other agencies will be covered in resettlement interviews. Advice is also included on how to set about finding housing and how to put special capital payment and pensions to best use for this purpose. It is expected that most naval personnel leaving on this basis will have made, or will be able to make, suitable arrangements for their housing needs. Where this is not the case we are currently studying a number of options in order to assist in both the short and long term.

  In the case of the Army, we have received applications from 4,492 soldiers and 801 officers for the scheme in 1992–93. I am pleased therefore to say that all the reduction of 2,500 soldiers and the large majority of the reduction of 850 officers in 1992–93 will be from those who asked to be considered. It will, however, be necessary to select about 160 officers of middle and more senior rank who have not put their names forward for consideration. Selection boards are now sitting and everyone will be notified on 26 February 1992.

  Number of deaths, and rates per million population, for which hypothermia1 was stated as the underlying cause of death in England 1979–90

  Year

  Age at death

  All ages2

  Under 12

  1–4

  5–9

  10–14

  15–19

  20–24

  25–29

  30–34

  35–39

  1979

  Number

  404

  7

  1

  —

  —

  3

  —

  2

  6

  4

  Rate

  8·7

  12·0

  0·5

  —

  —

  0·8

  —

  0·6

  1·7

  1·4

  1980

  Number

  245

  3

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  2

  Rate

  5·2

  5·0

  —

  —

  0·3

  0·3

  0·3

  0·3

  0·6

  0·7

  1981

  Number

  250

  2

  2

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  2

  2

  Rate

  5·3

  3·3

  0·9

  —

  —

  0·3

  —

  0·6

  0·6

  0·7

  1982

  Number

  301

  2

  —

  —

  1

  2

  4

  —

  —

  1

  Rate

  6·4

  3·4

  —

  —

  0·3

  0·5

  1·1

  —

  —

  0·3

  1983

  Number

  209

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  1

  5

  Rate

  4·5

  3·4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·3

  0·6

  0·3

  1·5

  304
  In the RAF, the need for redundancies remains under consideration.

  Royal Navy Ships
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) why, pursuant to his answer of 7 November,Official Report, column 253, he has reversed his decision announced on 21 October, Official Report, column 446, to place HMS Humber in reserve; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) when, pursuant to his answer of 7 November, Official Report, column 253, it was decided to place HMS Ribble in reserve; to which Royal Naval Reserve sea training centre it was allocated; and where those Royal Naval Reserve personnel affected will now have access to sea training.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The decision to place two River class minesweepers in reserve was taken earlier this year as part of our annual review of the forward equipment programme. Originally HMS Humber and HMS Helmsdale were identified. It was decided subsequently that HMS Ribble should be placed in reserve rather than HMS Humber which was in better condition. HMS Ribble had been allocated to HMS Eaglet in Liverpool; HMS Humber will replace HMS Ribble there, and will continue to provide access to sea training for Royal Naval Reserve personnel.

HEALTH

  Hypothermia
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. Dorrell
  The information is given in the following tables:
  305

  Year

  Age at death

  All ages2

  Under 12

  1–4

  5–9

  10–14

  15–19

  20–24

  25–29

  30–34

  35–39

  1984

  Number

  249

  2

  —

  1

  —

  3

  1

  1

  1

  3

  Rate

  5·3

  3·4

  —

  0·4

  —

  0·8

  0·3

  0·3

  0·3

  0·9

  1985

  Number

  407

  2

  1

  1

  —

  1

  2

  2

  3

  6

  Rate

  8·7

  3·3

  0·4

  —

  —

  0·3

  0·5

  0·6

  1·0

  1·7

  1986

  Number

  411

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  3

  4

  2

  2

  Rate

  8·7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·5

  0·7

  1·1

  0·6

  0·6

  1987

  Number

  249

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  10

  Rate

  5·3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·3

  0·3

  0·3

  3·0

  1988

  Number

  181

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  4

  1

  Rate

  3·8

  —

  0·8

  —

  —

  —

  0·3

  —

  1·2

  0·3

  1989

  Number

  156

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Rate

  3·3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·3

  —

  —

  —

  1990

  Number

  143

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  1

  —

  Rate

  3·0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·5

  0·3

  0·3

  —

  Year

  40 to 44

  45 to 49

  50 to 54

  55 to 59

  60 to 64

  65 to 69

  70 to 74

  75 to 79

  80 to 84

  85 and over

  1979

  Number

  8

  4

  9

  20

  32

  24

  49

  60

  79

  96

  Rate

  3·0

  1·5

  3·3

  6·8

  14·1

  10·1

  24·8

  43·6

  104·3

  197·3

  1980

  Number

  3

  5

  8

  13

  12

  23

  25

  57

  41

  47

  Rate

  1·1

  1·9

  3·0

  4·6

  5·1

  9·7

  12·5

  40·5

  52·3

  94·0

  1981

  Number

  5

  6

  8

  7

  11

  14

  22

  54

  43

  69

  Rate

  1·9

  2·3

  3·0

  2·6

  4·5

  6·0

  11·0

  37·6

  52·8

  135·0

  1982

  Number

  4

  7

  13

  14

  11

  32

  38

  41

  54

  77

  Rate

  1·5

  2·7

  5·0

  5·3

  4·3

  14·1

  18·9

  28·1

  64·0

  146·0

  1983

  Number

  3

  6

  3

  6

  11

  14

  25

  39

  41

  50

  Rate

  1·1

  2·3

  1·2

  2·3

  4·1

  6·5

  12·4

  26·2

  46·7

  92·5

  1984

  Number

  1

  8

  7

  6

  15

  15

  42

  43

  44

  56

  Rate

  0·4

  3·0

  2·7

  2·3

  5·5

  7·4

  20·8

  28·3

  48·3

  100·3

  1985

  Number

  4

  7

  9

  9

  19

  23

  41

  96

  74

  108

  Rate

  1·4

  2·6

  3·6

  3·5

  7·2

  10·8

  20·4

  62·5

  79·1

  185·9

  1986

  Number

  6

  7

  6

  17

  26

  26

  34

  64

  90

  122

  Rate

  2·0

  2·7

  2·4

  6·7

  10·2

  11·8

  17·1

  41·4

  94·1

  202·2

  1987

  Number

  6

  7

  5

  13

  16

  21

  25

  36

  48

  59

  Rate

  1·8

  2·7

  2·0

  5·1

  6·4

  9·1

  13·0

  23·1

  48·7

  91·0

  1988

  Number

  5

  S

  4

  6

  16

  16

  14

  18

  42

  50

  Rate

  1·5

  3·0

  1·6

  2·4

  4·1

  6·7

  7·7

  11·5

  41·6

  73·7

  1989

  Number

  4

  2

  3

  4

  8

  11

  23

  20

  26

  54

  Rate

  1·2

  0·7

  1·2

  1·6

  3·3

  4·4

  13·4

  12·7

  25·1

  75·8

  306

  307

  Year

  40 to 44

  45 to 49

  50 to 54

  55 to 59

  60 to 64

  65 to 69

  70 to 74

  75 to 79

  80 to 84

  85 and over

  1990

  Number

  6

  3

  1

  2

  11

  12

  13

  27

  25

  39

  Rate

  1·7

  1·1

  0·4

  0·8

  4·6

  5·0

  7·2

  17·1

  23·8

  52·7

  1 International Classification of Diseases (ICD) 9th revision codes 778·3 and 991·6.

  2 Excluding deaths at ages under 28 days for the years 1986 to 1990.

  Number of deaths with mention of hypothermia on the death certificate in England and Wales, 1979–1990

  Year

  Number of deaths

  1979

  863

  1980

  596

  1981

  685

  1982

  664

  1983

  538

  1984

  555

  1985

  827

  1986

  837

  1987

  559

  1988

  440

  1989

  368

  1990

  370

  Mental and Psychiatric Illness
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of hospital in-patient admissions on grounds of mental or psychiatric illness in each regional health authority area for each quarterly period from 1 April 1989.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Provisional figures for the financial year 1989–90 are shown in the table. It is not possible to produce a quarterly breakdown of these figures without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Estimated Admissions, under the care of a Mental Illness Consultant, to National Health Service hospitals and units, by Regional Health Authority during 1989–90.

  Regional Health Authority

  Admissions

  Northern

  14,100

  Yorkshire

  15,200

  Trent

  13,900

  East Anglian

  7,300

  North West Thames

  13,700

  North East Thames

  17,000

  South East Thames

  14,700

  South West Thames

  12,900

  Wessex

  12,800

  Oxford

  8,000

  South Western

  17,200

  West Midlands

  17,200

  Mersey

  10,000

  North Western

  18,700

  SHAs

  1,700

  England

  194,500

  Note: Figures may not add due to rounding.

  Lancashire Ambulance Service
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on how many occasions in each of the last five years ambulances of the Lancashire ambulance service have been used to convey private patients.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information is not available in the form requested.
  308
  The table shows the number of patient journeys carried out by the Lancashire ambulance service for each year from 1986 to 1990–91 for which a charge was made. Patients charged for include those moved on behalf of social services or other departments of local authorities, organisations on repayment, and private individuals.

  Patient transport services: summary of patient journeys Lancashire Ambulance Authority

  Year

  Total number of patients charged for

  1986

  15

  11987–88

  104

  1988–89

  69

  21989–90

  33

  1990–91

  90

  1 From 1987 collection of data changed from years ending 31 December to years ending 31 March.

  2 The industrial action during 1989 has affected data quality and completeness.

  Youth Treatment Centres
  Sir Robert McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has made appointments to his special group on youth treatment centres; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  On 1 October 1991 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health established a special group of outside people to provide independent advice about the youth treatment centres. Chaired by Mrs. Winifred Tumim, the group consists of: Dr. Zarrina Kurtz, assistant regional medical officer in South West Thames regional health authority; Mr. Tom White CBE, chief executive of the National Children's Homes; Mr. Harry Cayton, director of the Alzheimers Disease Society; and Dr. Michael Lindsay, from 1987 children's rights officer for Leicestershire social services department. Their responsibility is to provide an independent perspective on care and practice in the youth treatment service, with particular regard to ensuring that children's rights are properly safeguarded, and to advise the Secretary of State on these matters. Their periodic reports will be published.

  The social services inspectorate remains the principal monitoring arm for detailed scrutiny of the standard of care, control, education and rehabilitation programmes provided in the centres. Medical and nursing experts and HMIs will form part of this evaluation. There will be a full inspection every three years and reports will be published.

  On 1 April 1992, the service will be managed by a chief executive accountable to the Secretary of State for the facilities provided under section 82(5) of the Children Act 1989. After open competition Mr. Eugene Ostapuik, the director of Glenthorne YTC, has been appointed chief executive for the whole service. He will be chief executive designate with effect from 1 December 1991 and will take up post next April, initially for a three-year term. He will

  309
  be supported by an advisory committee, which will help him to keep the service abreast of child care practice. A service specification for the new organisation will be published in the new year. The Secretary of State's special group is being consulted at the drafting stage. Meanwhile, regulations and guidance on secure accommodation, which came into effect on 14 October 1991 under the Children Act 1989, have been applied administratively to the Glenthorne and St. Charles youth treatment centres.

  On 24 June my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced temporary management changes at the St. Charles YTC following an inquiry into complaints about treatment at that centre, Official Report, Volume 193, col. 687–93. The disciplinary inquiry into the conduct of some members of staff at St. Charles YTC is continuing. My right hon. Friend also announced a review to ensure that the headquarters of the Department of Health had pursued with proper vigour and judgment the recommendations of the inspection by the social services inspectorate in 1988. He asked Sir Ewen Broadbent to consider the circumstances, and I am placing a copy of Sir Ewen's report in the Library. Sir Ewen concluded, broadly, that those parts of the Department closely concerned with the SSI inspection report acted with efficiency and vigour.

  The YTCs cater for the country's most difficult adolescents. The work is always demanding, often stressful and the many achievements go largely unnoticed. The new management structure will promote better integration of care practice and standards as well as improved value for money.

  Pimozide
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by year the numbers of reports of(a) cardiac arrhythmias (fatal and non-fatal) and (b) other fatalities associated with pimozide which were reported to the licensing authority since it was first licensed; and indicate in all those cases the dose of pimozide used and types and doses of other anti-psychotic medicines which were taken at the same time as pimozide.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There have been 29 yellow card reports of cardiac arrhythmias associated with the drug pimozide, of which 14 were fatal. The breakdown by year is as follows:

  Year of Report

  Reports

  Fatalities

  1971

  2

  —

  1980

  1

  —

  1984

  1

  —

  1988

  2

  1

  1989

  2

  1

  1990

  14

  8

  1991

  7

  4

  There have been seven other fatalities associated with pimozide as follows:

  Year of Report

  Fatalities

  1972

  1

  1978

  1

  1980

  3

  1984

  1

  1986

  1

  310
  The daily dose of pimozide and concurrent use of neuroleptic agents in the fatal reports is summarised as follows:

  Daily dose (mg)

  Total

  Concurrent Neuroleptics

  <10

  5

  2

  11–20

  2

  2

  21–30

  2

  —

  31–40

  5

  4

  41–50

  2

  1

  51–60

  2

  2

  61 +

  3

  2

  I will write to the right hon. Member with full details of dose and other anti-psychotic medicines taken.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when doctors in the United Kingdom were recommended to reduce the maximum dosage of pimozide to 20 mg; and when he first became aware of the United States recommendation on this matter.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In August 1990, the Committee on Safety of Medicines advised that a maximum daily dose of 20 mg should not be exceeded for the drug pimozide. This information was communicated to all doctors in the United Kingdom in issue No. 29 of the CSM bulletin "Current Problems", a copy of which is available in the Library. The company marketing the drug wrote to all doctors in October 1990 enclosing a copy of the revised data sheet and emphasising the change in prescribing information and the maximum recommended dose of 20 mg per day.

  Revised dose recommendations made in the United States in 1988 related to use in a different medical condition, commonly prevalent in children, and not to use in schizophrenia and other psychoses, the main indication in the United Kingdom.

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will detail the research proposals on myalgic encephalomyelitis that have been(a) accepted and (b) rejected for funding by his Department and the Medical Research Council over the last three years, stating in relation to rejected proposals the reasons for rejection in each case.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Department has not accepted any research proposals on myalgic encephalomyelitis. Such proposals would normally be referred to the Medical Research Council, which is the main agency through which the Government support biomedical and clinical research in the United Kingdom. The MRC is an independent body which receives its grant-in-aid from the Department of Education and Science. It decides what research to support on its own expert judgment.

  The MRC is not currently funding research specifically into ME. It is, however, funding one study at the Institute of Psychiatry, which is to investigate chronic fatigue in general practitioner attenders. Five other research applications in this area were received over the last three years, which the MRC rejected because they were not of high enough scientific quality, given the funds available. The council also supports work on immune responses to

  311
  the muscle, nerve cells and related structures which may have some relevance to the understanding and treatment of this condition.

  Social Work (International Centre)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what response he has made to the recent feasibility study by the National Institute of Social Work concerning a proposed international centre, a copy of which has been sent to him.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have not as yet received a copy of the feasibility study which I understand is shortly to be put out for consultation. We are, however, providing the National Institute of Social Work with a grant of £100,000 in 1992–93 for work to promote the international exchange of social services staff.

  Autistic Children
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any assessment of the number of autistic children in England and Wales; and if he will give the total number of places in residential schools for autistic children.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The most reliable estimates indicate that the prevalence of autism is between four to five per 10,000 population. The number of places in residential schools for autistic children is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.

  National Health Service Leaflet (Cost)
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the cost of the production and distribution of the leaflet, "Your NHS, Our Pledge", which was produced by South West Thames regional health authority.

  Mr. Dorrell
  A total of 7,000 copies of the leaflet "Your NHS, Our Pledge" were produced and distributed by South West Thames regional health authority at a cost of £2,181. Its purpose is to demonstrate the firm commitment of chairmen in that region to improving patient care through the charter.

  National Health Service (Information Strategy)
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish the information strategy for the national health service; how much it will cost to implement: and whether additional funds will be made available to the national health service to cover the cost of implementation.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The national health service management executive is discussing the development of information systems within the national health service. Information systems must support the provision of high—quality, cost-effective health services. The scope, costs and funding of information systems depend on the outcome of these discussions.

  Child Refugees
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many child refugees have been taken into care by each London local authority during each of the last 12 months; what information he has on their country of origin; and what is the estimated cost of care to each local authority.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Nursery Places (Crown Premises)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what basis a Department of Health press release, dated 11 June, identified an increase of 75 per cent. in nursery places on Crown premises; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The figure was derived from the Department's statistics on day care services in "Children's Day Care Facilities at 31 March 1990 England (A/F 90/6)", a copy of which is available in the Library. Tables 1 and 2, which contain historical data on the number of day care places and premises, include information on facilities which were not required to register with the local authority. Between 1988 and 1990, the number of places in such facilities grew from 1,034 to 1,810. Facilities on Crown premises are likely to he the most significant category exempt from the requirement to register.

  Child Workers
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what action he will take to regularise child working conditions across the United Kingdom, in terms of hours worked, daytime work periods, nature of work and working conditions; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what studies have been carried out by his Department dealing with the number of children working in the United Kingdom; and what are his current estimates for the number of children working in Great Britain.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There are no plans to introduce changes to the present provisions.

  Section 1(1) of the Employment of Women, Young Persons and Children Act 1920 prohibits the employment of any person under school leaving age in an industrial undertaking. This legislation, which is applicable to Great Britain, is enforced by Health and Safety Executive inspectors.

  In England, the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 sets out general restrictions governing the part-time employment of children under school leaving age. Local authority byelaws made under the Act set out further restrictions while responding to local employment conditions.

  The Department has not carried out any recent studies concerning the employment of children in England. Information is not collected centrally on the number of children employed in England.

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

Hospital Trusts: Membership
Baroness Fisher of Rednal Baroness Fisher of Rednal asked Her Majesty's Government:
The total number of persons who have been appointed to hospital trusts and how many women are included in that number.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, there are 900 chairmen and non-executive directors of the National Health Service trusts appointed by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health and of these, 291, or 32 per cent., are women.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. I was hoping he would say that 50 per cent. were women. That would be in accordance with the Prime Minister's Opportunity 2000. Can the Minister give the House an assurance that the representatives who are appointed—I call them "representatives" at this stage—are representatives of a broad spectrum of the community?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we would certainly like to see more women on the trusts. We have announced various initiatives to increase the number of women who are appointed to them. We have made chairmen aware of their responsibility to look for suitable women for appointment to the trusts. I would not want to advocate going for merely 50 per cent. as a form of tokenism. We want to see the best possible people appointed for the best possible reasons. We should also like to see recruited people from all walks of life so long as they are suitable candidates for the job.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is unlikely that any company in the private sector has five women on its policy board, as is the case at the Department of Health, or a special unit to release the potential of its female workforce? Moreover, does the Minister agree that there may be a relationship between the good housekeeping at Guy's which has allowed it to treat 10 per cent. more patients than planned while taking £5 million off its labour costs and the fact that the general manager of the trust is a woman?
Lord Henley: My Lords, obviously I cannot confirm my noble friend's figures about the private sector. However, I can confirm what she said about the National Health Service policy board. As regards my noble friend's remarks about Guy's, I agree that the fact that there are women on the board and that it
1010
is chaired by a woman may have a great deal to do with its success, just as the presence of my noble friend Lord McColl may also have added to that success.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the Minister referred to community involvement. Is he aware of the widely held belief that there should be proper local authority and community care involvement in trust boards? Besides increasing the genuine involvement of local people, does the Minister agree that successful implementation of the community care plans in April 1993 will be greatly helped by appropriate involvement in that type of hospital service operated by the trusts? There is a feeling that sometimes the National Health Service is just a hospital service: it is much more than that.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord is going beyond the Question on the Order Paper. I can confirm that we would welcome any suggestions from local authorities, particularly if they can suggest suitable women for the boards of the trusts. We shall certainly take note of any suggestions they make.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that in the Guy's-Lewisham trust the percentage of women executive members of the board is 36 per cent., including for the first time in 25 years, a matron? Does he further agree that that is very much better than the corresponding figure for the local council where the percentage of lady executive members is very much less?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I shall take my noble friend's figures on trust. I can certainly confirm what he said about the Guy's-Lewisham trust. I am sure that those figures, as well as my noble friend's involvement, contribute to the success of that trust.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, in contrast with the success story highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, in her supplementary question, is the Minister aware that some of the first trusts to he formed are already seriously in debt? I refer to Manchester and the Christie cancer hospital. If that situation persists, are the Government prepared to bail them out, or will they allow them to go to the wall?
Lord Henley: My Lords, that is a completely different question. The Question is about the appointment of women to the trust boards.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the local authority, which has Guy's Hospital in its area, has a female chief executive?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that comment.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, will the noble Lord inquire of his noble friend whether, if this trend continues at the hospital, it will change its name from Guy's to Doll's?
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that I believe that the best possible women should be appointed? However, does he agree that there are other hospital trusts in the country

1011
besides Guy's? Does the Minister also agree that it is important that the best possible women know how to put their names forward? They do not always have husbands who wear the old school tie and so forth. Can the noble Lord tell the House how women in other parts of the country can put their names forward so that they are considered as the best possible women in their localities?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I hope that the publicity that the noble Baroness's Question generates will alert a great number of women to the fact that they can apply to go on the boards. As I said, we have advised chairmen that they must recognise that women have very different CVs to men because they have had a very different career structure. Therefore the chairmen should be looking in particular for women and, in seeking suitable candidates, should take account of the problems that women have had to face in developing their careers.

Net Book Agreement
3.14 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy towards the net book agreement.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the operation of the net book agreement is essentially a commercial matter between publishers and booksellers.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the agreement, which rests on the judgment of a court nearly 30 years ago, is one which actually stops booksellers, almost alone in our trading community, being able to offer discounts to their customers in order to price them into their shops? Does he not believe that there has been a material change in circumstances in that some of our leading publishing houses have now withdrawn from the agreement? Reed is one example and there are famous names such as Heinemann, Secker, Hamlyn, Octopus, Methuen and a number of others. Does that not show that this outdated agreement ought to be scrapped? In the light of all this information, will he encourage the Director General of Fair Trading to refer the matter back to the court?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, as recently as 1989 the Director General of Fair Trading carried out an extensive investigation into the book trade. He concluded that, despite the many changes in the book industry, there was no strong basis to justify his making an application to the court to re-open the case. However, Section 4 of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act provides for the court to review its decision on an application from the Director General of Fair Trading or from the Publishers Association or any individual publisher. Leave for such an application must first be obtained from the court and may be granted if there
1012
is evidence of a material change in the circumstances relevant to the reasoning of the court's original finding.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that the net book agreement is supported by the Publishers Association, the Booksellers Association and many book shops throughout the country? Is he further aware that it is opposed by one chain, which comprises most of the book shops mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin? Will the Government therefore be very careful before deciding to make changes that will mean the demise of many small country book shops?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the net book agreement is a voluntary arrangement by which publishers agree to enforce common pricing rules. Virtually all United Kingdom publishers are party to the arrangement. Under the net book agreement each publisher is free to decide which of his books are to be net books. He can alter the net price of a book at any time and convert any net books into non-net books whenever he chooses.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the net book agreement is a restrictive practice and is wholly inconsistent with the Citizen's Charter, which sets out to espouse consumer rights? The consumer is very important in this matter.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, there is a good deal of disagreement about whether the net book agreement improves the lot of the consumer or of the publisher. People have different views on whether it is fair, whether it encourages more books to be published or whether indeed it affects the consumer by making him pay higher prices. There are two sides to the argument.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that if the net book agreement is abandoned the likely consequence is that the price of books, except for best sellers, will rise, the choice to the consumer will be reduced, the number of small book shops will be reduced and the result for the consumer will he generally retrograde, whatever the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, may think?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, that is one of the views on one side of the argument on the net book agreement. There is also an alternative view that book prices would come down, enabling the consumer to buy more books and publishers to print more books to sell to the consumer.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, was it not precisely because the net book agreement is avowedly a restrictive practice that justified the original reference to the court? Having regard to the fact that several noble Lords have already expressed a differing view from the judgment of that court, is it not open to any one of them, by leave of the court, to make a re-reference on the same subject to the court rather than trying to ventilate the issue in this House?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble and learned friend is correct regarding the Restrictive Trade Practices Act. However, I understand that only those who were signatories to the original agreement may apply to the court and so it has to be someone from the Publishers Association or any individual publisher.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the consumers of books are those who read them? Their interest must surely come first. The experience of the United States, where there are massive discounts, shows that it is almost impossible to buy a particular book in any book shop other than a recent best seller. Do we really want to go down the road of encouraging mass illiteracy?
Viscount Astor: No, my Lords, I do not think that we want to go down that road. I must point out to my noble friend that last year books to the value of more than £1 billion were sold. The British Library accumulates some five miles of newly published books every year. That shows that the book industry is in a healthy state.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, can the noble Viscount tell the House whether there have been any applications to the court, which was set up specially under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act for the purpose of passing such judgments, on the net book agreement since the original judgment? If so, can he say by whom the application was made and whether the court gave leave?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am not aware of any specific application. However, I shall look into the matter and, if I am wrong, I shall write to the noble Lord. I can say that a decision of the European Commission was adopted in December 1988 which found that the net book agreement infringed the prohibition on restrictive agreements under Article 85. The Publishers Association has appealed to the European Court of Justice against that decision. The court's judgment is likely to be delivered next year; but it only affects inter-state trade of books.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that those who argue that ending the agreement would mean the end of small bookshops are very wide of the mark? When a similar agreement was ended in America the number of bookshops rose over the past few years from around 10,000 to about 17,000 at present. Is my noble friend also aware that in Australia the number of bookshops is about the same now as it was when the agreement was in force? That argument no longer carries any weight.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. However, I must point out that, under the net book agreement, any publisher is free to decide which of his books he wishes to be net books and which should be non-net books. If he so wishes, a publisher can decide that none of the books he publishes need belong to the net book agreement.

Sub-strategic Nuclear Weapons
3.22 p.m.
Lord Mayhew Lord Mayhew asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the operational requirement for new sub-strategic nuclear weapons.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, as the NATO defence Ministers have recently affirmed, sub-strategic forces are required to provide the necessary political and military link between conventional and strategic nuclear forces. To perform this function they need to be kept effective and up to date.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is there really a NATO requirement for a British sub-strategic nuclear weapon system? Is there really some country which might not be deterred by the American, British and French strategic deterrent and by the French and American sub-strategic deterrent but which might be deterred if, in addition, there was a British sub-strategic nuclear weapon system? Is that scenario really credible? It does not seem credible to me.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the Government believe that the requirement is very necessary and credible. The noble Lord should bear in mind the great reduction that we and NATO are making in other nuclear weapon systems. For example, NATO is scrapping its nuclear artillery and Lance missiles and cutting the number of its nuclear bombs. That means an 80 per cent. overall reduction in the sub-strategic stockpile. In this country we are cutting the RAF nuclear strike squadrons from 11 to eight, giving up nuclear artillery and Lance, reducing substantially the stockpile of WE-177 nuclear bombs and in normal circumstances removing tactical nuclear weapons from Royal Navy ships.
The Earl of Kimberley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the whole essence of any government, especially in this country, is that they should be responsible for defending the country and that, therefore, any steps taken which are deemed essential to secure a nuclear deterrent, whether sub or not, are indeed necessary?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I strongly agree with my noble friend.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that if the enemy has disappeared there is not much point in keeping weapons which are specifically designed for a particular situation which no longer exists? Are the Government prepared to reconsider their defence policy in light of the changes in the international situation?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I thought that I made clear yesterday to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, that we have considered our defence policy in the light of recent changes. We still consider it absolutely vital to have both strategic and sub-strategic capability.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, can my noble friend enlighten me as to what is the strict definition of a sub-strategic nuclear weapon? I believe that I understand the meaning of the words "strategic" and "tactical", but what does sub-strategic mean?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I hope that I can help my noble and learned friend on that point. In practice it means that, while an aggressor might discount the likelihood of NATO or the UK independently resorting to use of full strategic force, the existence of effective sub-strategic capability demonstrates that no one can hope to get away with successful aggression at conventional level without risking nuclear retaliation.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, if the Minister's noble and learned friend can understand that, I believe he can understand anything. Indeed, I now see that a great mind is at work. However, given that the United States has cancelled its own short-range attack missile, which was the Government's choice for—if I may use the expression—a tactical missile, what are the options now available to Her Majesty's Government?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, we are looking at several options including TASM, but we are also looking at additional options. The way forward is not yet totally known. Until the way forward is clearly known, we shall continue to use our WE-177 bombs, which will probably become obsolete towards the end of the century.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, does the noble Earl's explanation of "sub-strategic" help us to understand what the way forward is?
The Earl of Arran: Undoubtedly, my Lords.

Gibraltar and EC External Frontiers
3.27 p.m.
Lord Merrivale Lord Merrivale asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the present position of Gibraltar in relation to the provisions of the draft convention between the member states of the European Communities on the crossing of their external frontiers.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, Article 30.5 of the draft External Frontiers Convention text makes it clear that the convention, once in force, would apply to Gibraltar, as to every other territory which enjoys the Community's provisions on the free movement of persons. Spain, however, has refused to sign the convention on this basis and is negotiating with us to resolve the issue. We shall continue to argue for Gibraltar's inclusion in the convention.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, can he allay the fears expressed in the House of Assembly in Gibraltar last week by giving an assurance that, in any agreement with Spain, the terms of inclusion in the convention for Gibraltar will not in any way lessen its present standing within the Community? Full membership is crucial to the future of Gibraltar.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I accept fully what my noble friend says about full inclusion being essential. I am aware of the motion put down by Dr. Valarino on 31st October. I can tell my noble friend that that will be debated in the House of Assembly on 4th December. We are determined to see that Gibraltar is included within the convention.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does the noble Lord's initial reply mean that Her Majesty's Government will not sign the convention unless it is clear that Gibraltar is included on the same terms as everyone else? Can he say when Her Majesty's Government last discussed the matter with the Spanish Government?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I can foresee no circumstances in which we could envisage Gibraltar's exclusion. As I said, we are determined to secure Gibraltar's inclusion as is its right. Discussions with the Spaniards continue. Indeed, I believe there was a meeting only yesterday.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the Spanish Government continue to maintain their ban on the ferry service from Algeciras to Gibraltar?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not have the answer. The Question before the House concerns the,
"draft convention between the member states of the European Communities on the crossing of their external frontiers."
However, if my noble friend cares to table a Question on the matter, I shall be happy to answer it.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, as this question is intimately bound up with the airport situation, can the noble Lord say whether, as a result of a recent visit by the Minister of State to Gibraltar, that issue is anywhere near resolution?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the air liberalisation directive issue is a separate one. It does not concern the matter under discussion. It would be a mistake to try to combine them.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that any difficulties over Gibraltar in our discussions with Spain should not in any way impede the ever-increasing trade with the latter since it joined the Community?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I cannot give any guarantees, but I hope that we do nothing to discourage trade between our two countries.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, while I hope that the convention will soon be signed and that Gibraltar will he a full member of the Community, does my noble friend agree that there are many provisions in the convention which are of importance to Gibraltar? In particular, does he agree that the provisions contained in Article 8 of the draft convention are important to Gibraltar in the context of developing business visits and tourism as those provisions enable non-EC nationals lawfully resident in the Community to make short visits without having to obtain a visa?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I am not familiar with that article. I shall have to write to my noble friend. I recognise the force of his arguments and the significance of what he says.

Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Bill [H.L.]
3.31 p m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Hooper, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clause 1,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 2 to 16,

Schedules 2 and 3.—(Lord Cavendish of Furness.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This is the first of three Bills in my name on the Order Paper. If I may, I shall speak to all three together in moving the first and then move the other two formally.
These Bills between them represent the first consolidation for many years of all the Northern Ireland statute law on social security. They are similar in many respects to the social security consolidation Bills for the rest of the United Kingdom that came before your Lordships on Second Reading earlier this week. I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my appreciation to the Northern Ireland draftsman for his outstanding work in producing this present consolidation.
The Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Bill covers all aspects of the management of the social security system and deals with matters such as the payment of benefits, adjudication, enforcement and uprating.
1018
The Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Bill is concerned with the contributions on which certain social security benefits depend, and with the various benefits themselves, both those within the contributory system and those outside it.
The Social Security (Consequential Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Bill contains repeals and consequential and transitional provisions arising out of the other two Bills.
These Bills contain a number of corrections and minor improvements to the existing law which are needed in order to facilitate this consolidation. These are contained in a Memorandum which I laid before Parliament earlier this month pursuant to the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act 1949. This Memorandum, which will be considered by the Joint Committee, is similar in purpose to the reports of the Law Commissions, which often recommend minor amendments to the existing law in order to achieve a satisfactory consolidation. However, since the present consolidation deals with matters that are "transferred" for the purposes of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, the minor improvements have to be dealt with by Memorandum under the 1949 Act rather than be included in a Law Commission report.
I beg to move that the first of the three Bills be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time —(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, from these Benches I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for having explained the purpose of the Bill. We too congratulate the Northern Ireland draftsman on the quality of his work.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his observations.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Social Security (Consequential Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, that the Bill be now read a second time —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a second time.

Social Security (Consequential Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
There is a special Motion on the Order Paper relating partly to this Northern Ireland consolidation and partly to the social security consolidation for the remainder of the United Kingdom that came before your Lordships earlier this week. The Social Security (Consequential Provisions) Bill and the Social Security (Consequential Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Bill form an essential part of their respective consolidations but they are not themselves strictly consolidation Bills. They are most conveniently dealt with, along with the other consolidation Bills, by the Joint Committee, but the Rules of the House require that the House refer them to the Joint Committee specifically. That is the purpose of the Motion.
Moved, that the Social Security (Consequential Provisions) Bill and the Social Security (Consequential Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Bill be referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons desiring their agreement thereto.

Further and Higher Education Bill [H.L.]
3.35 p.m.
The Paymaster General (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Since the Government took office, we have introduced a substantial programme of educational reforms with the resolve of achieving yet higher standards throughout the education service. The Parent's Charter spells out the Government's aim in particular to widen choice and to strengthen the partnership between parents and schools. The national curriculum is greatly increasing the motivation of young people in schools. For those leaving school, a new and clearer system of vocational qualifications is beginning to open up new opportunities. The Bill is an integral part of our programme to try to raise standards and increase choice.
The Bill is also the latest in a line of reforms designed to improve management and devolve responsibility to those who are in the business of running schools and teaching in schools. The Government's education management reforms have their roots in the Education Act 1986 which provided for the greater involvement of parents and expanded the role of parents on school governing bodies. That set the framework for the next step in the Education Reform Act 1988; namely, the introduction, through local management, of devolved budgeting in primary
1020
and secondary schools. That Act also took the logical end point along the road of greater devolution: the self-managed status of grant-maintained schools, operating independently from local authorities but still within the state sector. That is a sector which is growing steadily as more and more schools feel ready to take that final step of self-determination.
In a parallel move to the reforms taking place in schools, the Education Reform Act also introduced local management of colleges to allow the FE institutions more freedom of devolved management. The Act took the final step of taking the polytechnics and higher education institutions out of local authority control, giving them freedom within the new PCFC sector. We believe that the time has now come to take that same step for the FE colleges. So the Bill builds on the changes introduced by the Education Reform Act. When I say that, I am referring to Part I.
The Bill provides a legislative framework for the reforms set out in the further and higher education White Papers launched by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on 20th May. They are far reaching reforms designed to provide a better deal for young people and adults and to increase still further participation in further and higher education.
Education up to 16 provides the essential foundation for subsequent study and for employment; but what happens after 16 is critical to ensuring a well-prepared and adaptable generation with up-to-date skills and knowledge appropriate to the next century. The reforms embodied in the Bill will establish a new statutory framework for further education and give it a new coherence. They will transform post-school education and training and give it the recognition that it deserves. By doing so, the Bill will increase participation by young people and adults at that critical level of education.
I would not stand before your Lordships today and say that participation rates in further education after the age of 16 are entirely as they should be. But there has been a continuing and dramatic rise in the numbers of young people staying on in full-time education and training. Sixty per cent. of 16 year-olds in England did so last year. Twelve years ago it was 41 per cent. I am glad to say that participation has increased by four percentage points in each of the last three years and the evidence suggests that there has been a further increase this year. In addition, 30 per cent. or so of 16 year-olds take part in some form of part-time education or training.
In higher education, the Government's policies and the efforts of universities, polytechnics and colleges have succeeded in achieving efficient expansion alongside improvements in quality. There are now more students in higher education than ever before. Participation of one in eight of the relevant age group a decade ago is now close to one in four. Alongside traditional courses there is now a much greater diversity of courses and greater flexibility of attendance.
Our policies for further and higher education are aimed at continuing those advances, as well as

1021
attracting more adults back into education. Indeed, participation must continue to rise if our young people and adult citizens are to develop to their full potential and if we are to be truly competitive in world markets. That poses a great challenge as well as an opportunity for the education system.
Our reforms of further education are designed to enable colleges to respond with even greater flexibility and speed to changing demands from students and to the needs of the labour market. The Education Reform Act gave colleges greater managerial autonomy and they are recruiting more students. But they lack the full freedom which we gave to the polytechnics and higher education colleges in 1989 to respond to the demands of students and of the labour market. We are therefore proposing in the Bill to take further education and sixth form colleges out of local authority control and transfer them to a new sector which will be funded directly by new further education funding councils in England and Wales. Our aim is to give colleges much greater freedom to manage their own affairs and, through the funding regime, a powerful financial incentive to recruit additional students and thereby expand participation. It is significant that those changes have been widely welcomed by the colleges.
We have resolved to set up the new further education funding councils as soon as possible after the passage of the Bill so that they can prepare for the transfer of colleges out of local authority control on 1st April 1993. We are determined to build on the achievements of the past few years in further education and to release the potential that exists to provide more and better quality education. The reforms are directed not only at structures but also at qualifications. We are in the process of creating a comprehensive and coherent national framework of vocational qualifications. We aim to establish parity of esteem between the academic and vocational route so that young people and adults can pursue the kind of education that best suits their needs.
While under the Bill sixth form colleges will transfer to the new sector, school sixth forms will remain where they ire at present, whether under local authority control, assisted by local authorities or in the grant-maintained sector. The Government are resolved to see good sixth forms continue and to encourage choice between schools and colleges wherever possible. Moreover, under the Bill school governors will be able to admit part-time students over 16 and full-time students aged 19 or over so long as they are not taught alongside pupils of compulsory school age.
The new sector will embrace many different kinds of colleges. The Government see strength in diversity and fully intend that colleges should be able to preserve their particular characteristics so long as there is continuing demand for what they offer.
The new further education funding councils will be responsible for securing adequate provision of many kinds of courses, including courses leading to academic and vocational qualifications, courses enabling adults to gain access to higher education, return to learn courses and basic skills courses. Those
1022
courses will not only be provided in the FE colleges themselves but may be supported through the colleges in a wide range of locations, including LEA adult education centres and schools. Local education authorities will retain their duties for all kinds of further education for adults which do not fall to the duty of the funding councils; and those courses—I emphasise this—will continue to be supported from public funds.
The aims of our further education reforms in Part I of the Bill can be summarised briefly: more and better education for 16 to 18 year-olds and for adults; increased participation and increased levels of attainment by young people and throughout the population.
When your Lordships debated the higher education White Paper earlier this year, there was widespread agreement with the Government's view that the formal distinctions between the universities on the one hand and polytechnics and colleges on the other have become increasingly artificial and are an obstacle to further progress. The higher education reforms in Part II of the Bill effectively end what we now know as the higher education binary line.
The Bill introduces a single funding structure for universities, polytechnics and colleges of higher education through the establishment of separate higher education funding councils for England and Wales. Perhaps I may add that the funding councils in both sectors will be appointed by the relevant Secretaries of State. A Scottish council is proposed in the parallel Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill. The councils will be responsible for distributing public funds for both teaching and research among all higher education institutions in their areas. A new responsibility for the councils announced in the higher education White Paper will be that of providing for quality assessment in those institutions that they fund.
The Government intend to set up the higher education funding councils as soon as possible after the passage of the Bill to enable them to prepare a methodology for allocating funds to institutions for 1993–94 and to bring together other aspects of the work of the present funding councils. The new councils will take over this role from April 1993. The UFC and PCFC have prepared a comprehensive and carefully thought-out action plan for managing the transition to the new arrangements and are publishing it today. I am pleased to announce that Sir Ron Dearing, currently chairman of both the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council and the Universities Funding Council, has been appointed chairman designate of the Higher Education Funding Council for England for an initial period up to 1st April 1994. His appointment will provide continuity and help to ensure that the transition is managed as smoothly as possible.
Implementing other significant proposals in the White Paper in Part II the Bill provides also for higher education institutions other than the present universities to be granted degree awarding powers by order of the Secretary of State and to adopt a university title with the approval of the Privy Council. The higher education White Paper announced that

1023
that new flexibility would extend to all polytechnics and possibly to some other institutions. The Department of Education and Science issued a consultation paper at the end of October proposing separate criteria for the extension of degree awarding powers and university titles beyond the present polytechnics.
I should like to pay tribute to the achievements of the Council for National Academic Awards over the past 25 years. It has succeeded in bringing the polytechnics and colleges sector to a position where degree awarding powers can be extended and where the Government can with confidence look to institutions to propose their own arrangements for auditing institutional quality controls. Accordingly, the time has come to wind up the council; and the Bill provides for its dissolution.
This reform is about enabling all higher education institutions to build on their distinctive strengths. It is about paving the way for the further expansion of high quality higher education, benefiting both individuals and the country alike.
I turn now to the Bill itself. Part I deals with the further education reforms, Part II with the higher education reforms and Part III with some miscellaneous and general provisions.
Clauses 1 to 11 deal with the new structure of responsibilities for further education. Clause 1 and Schedule 1 establish the further education funding councils for England and for Wales which will be responsible for funding the new further education sector. The funding council for England will have a number of regional committees which will advise the council on local needs.
The new funding councils will have a duty to secure provision for full-time education of 16 to 18 year-olds. This is set out in Clause 2. They will also have a duty under Clause 3 to secure provision for part-time education for those aged 16 and over and full-time education for those aged 19 and over of a kind which falls within the categories set out in Schedule 2 to the Bill. These include courses leading to vocational and academic qualifications and certain other types of course. The duty to secure provision for courses which do not fall within the scope of the schedule and for the youth service will remain with local education authorities under Clause 11.
The new funding councils will have responsibility for funding full-time provision and other eligible courses of the kind I have just described in institutions within the new further education sector. There are two ways in which institutions can come into the new sector. The first is by a process of incorporation, which is dealt with in Clauses 15 to 19. This means that the colleges will be legal entities in their own right, independent of local education authorities, with the power to employ their own staff, to enter into contracts on their own behalf and to manage assets and resources. They will be eligible for incorporation if they satisfy certain qualifying criteria in respect of the proportion of their work that is eligible for funding by the new funding councils.
1024
The second route of entry to the new further education sector is through designation by the Secretary of State by order. The institutions to be designated as eligible to receive funding from the funding councils will be voluntary aided sixth form colleges and certain other bodies, including the long-term residential colleges for adults, four adult colleges in London which have a regional role and the Workers' Educational Association.
I have not yet mentioned the position of young people with learning difficulties. Clause 4 is the key clause here. It requires the new funding councils in fulfilling their duties to have regard to the requirements of persons who have learning difficulties. Where the duty to provide further education is not transferred to the funding councils, local education authorities, like the councils, will be required to have regard to the needs of persons who have learning difficulties in making provision. The existing duties towards these students are thus continued.
Clause 48 requires the governing bodies of colleges in the new sector to publish information about educational provision made or proposed for their students, educational achievements, including examination results, and the careers of their students after completing any course or leaving the institution. The Government intend that this information should be published in a form which facilitates comparisons between colleges.
I come now to the higher education clauses of the Bill. Clauses 58 to 60 provide for the new higher education funding councils for England and Wales to take over from the Universities Funding Council and the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council. Clauses 61 to 66 set out the main responsibilities of the councils. The majority of these provisions replicate those already in the Education Reform Act 1988 in respect of the UFC and the PCFC. I should note two extensions. First, Clause 61 provides that the Open University may be funded by both councils. In practice the university will probably receive its general funding from the higher education funding council for England. However, your Lordships may wish to discuss that matter in Committee. Secondly, Clause 62 requires the councils to have regard to the desirability of maintaining the denominational and the distinctive characteristics of the institutions they fund. That provision was not included in the Education Reform Act.
Clause 64 and the related Clause 77 define the Secretary of State's condition and direction-making powers in respect of the new councils. The new clauses do no more than retain the careful balance of responsibility between the Secretary of State, the funding councils and institutions which your Lordships debated extensively during the passage of the 1988 Act. However, I am aware of the sensitivities which surround Clause 77. The prime consideration must be that the Government retain a reserve power over public funds for higher education in exceptional circumstances. Those funds are enormous. It is not easy to envisage how the clause could be amended in such a way as to retain that provision. Nevertheless I give your Lordships an assurance that I shall listen

1025
carefully to the speeches made today. The Goverment are prepared to consider the views of noble Lords not only today but as regards any amendments that may be proposed at later stages of the Bill.
Clause 65 places a duty and confers a power on the councils to provide information or offer advice to the Secretary of State. Clause 66 provides for the quality assessment arrangements announced in the higher education White Paper. Clauses 67, 69 and 71 provide for the Privy Council to take over the present responsibilities of the Secretary of State in respect of the instruments and articles of government of existing polytechnics and colleges. The Bill removes the automatic right of local education authorities, staff and students to be represented on governing bodies, while leaving it open to each individual governing body to include members with these backgrounds if it wishes. Clauses 72 and 73 give effect to the policy on extending degree awarding powers and university titles to which I have already referred.
Clause 76 empowers the Secretary of State, by order, to provide for the dissolution of the CNAA. Clause 78 includes the reserve power for the Secretary of State, signalled in the higher education White Paper, to ensure there are new quality audit arrangements in higher education. It is not a power which he expects to have to use, following initial proposals which he has received from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, the Committee of Directors of Polytechnics and the Standing Conference of Principals. These proposals deal with how a new quality assurance unit, owned by higher education institutions collectively, might help to support and enhance quality in institutions.
There is a number of complex clauses in this Bill, to put it mildly. When we examine them in Committee, I ask noble Lords not to forget the general principles underlying the clauses. The new framework set out in this Bill will enable institutions to offer more opportunities for young people and adults to develop their potential. The reforms will equip more people with stronger basic skills and more high level skills. They will help to bridge the traditional academic and vocational divide. That will bring benefits to the individuals who study, to their employers and to the economy and our society as a whole.
The removal of barriers in both further and higher education will enable both sectors better to face the challenges of providing high quality education and training for young people and adults so that they in turn can help the country to meet the challenges facing us as we move towards the 21st century. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Belstead.)
4 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by saying how much I am looking forward to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Perry. She is a great expert on the subject before us today and we shall all benefit from what she has to say.
1026
Education after the end of school is an increasingly important part of the system for educating our people. Thirty years ago only a small proportion of the population received any post-school education and only a tiny minority went into higher education. Today the position is different. There has been a large expansion of further and higher education over the past three decades and there is now a clear recognition across the political spectrum that a large further expansion is needed, both to allow our people to achieve their potential and to improve our economic performance.
The recognition of that fact by the government side has come a little late. Amazingly, 10 years ago the then Conservative Secretary of State for Education was busily cutting back numbers in higher education. However, we can now all agree that we must try to catch up with our competitors in Europe and elsewhere by giving far more people the opportunity to continue their education after they have left school and to return to it later in their lives as adults.
The Bill we have before us today is therefore of great importance because it will provide the legislative framework which shapes the expansion of our system of post-school education in the years ahead. If we create structures today which are inadequate for the task ahead we shall undermine the achievement of the central goal on which we all agree—that we must have a better educated and trained population.
Let me say immediately that there are substantial parts of this Bill which are welcome. Indeed, some parts of the Bill will implement what has been Labour Party policy for some time. We are delighted to see that the Government have recognised that their previous thinking was wrong and come round to our point of view.
I refer in particular to the decision to remove the binary line between polytechnics and universities and to create single funding councils for higher education in England and Wales. Some of your Lordships may remember that we on this side of the House put down amendments to the Education Reform Bill to achieve that, but at that time the Government failed to see the value of such change. We are pleased that in this Bill the Government recognise that polytechnics are academically mature institutions meriting the title of university although having a different and distinctive mission from that of existing universities. That will lead to some redefinition and broadening of the idea of the university in British higher education, but that is something which we also welcome.
We further welcome the opportunity that it gives to plan higher education across the binary line, region by region. A unified system of higher education should be better placed to meet the great challenges which expansion poses at the same time as allowing diversity within the new structure.
I now turn to further education, on which unfortunately we are unable to support the changes the Government propose. When the White Paper which preceded the Bill was published we made it clear on this side of the House that we considered that the decision to remove FE from local government was little more than a cynical way of taking over £2 billion

1027
out of local government expenditure to help the Government over their problems with the poll tax. I repeat today that that was unquestionably the Government's main motivation in introducing that change.
Desperately trying to justify the change, the Government have used the analogy of the polytechnics being taken out of LEA control by the 1988 Act. That is a false analogy. The polytechnics are large, national institutions. Some are now considerably larger than many universities. They draw a substantial proportion of their students from all over the country and increasing numbers from abroad. By contrast the FE colleges are local institutions. Their 16 to 19 year-old students mainly live at home; their part-time adult students are in local employment; and their married women students who are returning to study are also locally based. Thus the colleges serve a local population and, with respect to their training needs, local employers.
When the polytechnics were removed from local authority control there was a substantial period of time during which the national advisory body on higher education helped to prepare them for their new status and establish a common funding basis. The further education sector will not have the advantage of that experience. The new funding councils will instead have to start from scratch, devising new funding mechanisms for well over 500 local institutions. No, my Lords, the comparison with the polytechnics is spurious, and it is time the Government stopped using it.
It would also be more honest if Ministers stopped suggesting that the polytechnics have suddenly been set free to expand, thereby meeting the nation's need for higher education places. The truth is that the polytechnics expanded greatly and developed many exciting new courses under LEA control. The Government will not admit that because they are pursuing a vendetta against local government and want to go on eroding its powers and reducing its functions. That, rather than good educational reasons, is why the Government are taking further education away from the local authorities.
Conservative councillors all over the country are increasingly disillusioned by what is happening. Replies to the consultation document from Tory local authorities were not just critical, they were angry. Perhaps that is why the Secretary of State has refused to make available the responses to the White Paper. Reasons of national security cannot explain why the normal practice of placing replies to consultative documents in the House of Commons Library has been ignored. We can only deduce that the Government do not want us to know the consensus on the proposals—or is there some other reason that we have missed?
No one would dispute the need for further education colleges to get on with their job without petty interference or unnecessary restrictions on their day-to-day management. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has said, under the Government's own proposals for local financial management colleges
1028
governing bodies already have considerable autonomy. They could be given somewhat more autonomy by being granted corporate status. We intend to do that after consultation with the colleges and LEAs on how to effect it. But to reorganise the whole system in order to allow colleges to manage their own affairs is a classic case of sledgehammers being used to crack nuts. It will result in serious disruption in the short term and the loss of the capacity to plan this stage of education. Moreover, the centralisation proposed is a complete repudiation of the concept of local democratic accountability for what is, and should be, a local service meeting local needs.
It also means that extensive local knowledge, experience and expertise will be squandered in favour of an unaccountable central bureaucracy with an ill-defined regional structure involving the invention of further bureaucracy. The Secretaries of State for Education and for Wales will increase their powers yet again under the Bill. There are countless examples running through the Bill where that happens. They are also to choose the members of the funding councils and the regional committees, extending patronage at the expense of electing people on a democratic basis.
There is currently no provision for either LEA representation or TEC representation on the funding councils. Surely that is needed. A great deal of time and expense will have to be devoted to establishing, staffing and financing those quangos at national and regional levels to carry out tasks which at present are perfectly adequately undertaken by local government. That is inefficient and uneconomic. The transitional costs are £28 million and the running costs £32 million, quite apart from unspecified extra costs in the colleges.
The proposals also threaten to destroy local coherence, with responsibility for education and training for those over 16 being divided between a number of bodies.
I turn first to the divorce which is being introduced between the sixth forms in schools on the one hand and the sixth form colleges and FE colleges on the other. The inclusion of the sixth form colleges in the new sector is particularly perverse. They are small institutions which are legally schools rather than FE colleges and are seen as such by parents and students. It seems unlikely that they will survive in the new sector, but perhaps that is the Government's intention. However, not only is their future threatened; so also is the future of the sixth forms in schools.
Transferring the duty to provide sufficient full-time education for all 16 to 18 year-olds to the new councils is causing great anxiety in local authorities and in 11-to-18 schools about the future of the sixth forms. Will they receive the funding necessary to maintain them, or is it the Government's intention that they should eventually wither away? If they are to continue, will the Government say how they intend to avoid duplication between sixth forms under the LEAs and FE or sixth form colleges under the councils and how they intend to ensure that the

1029
necessary links are forged, both to avoid duplication and to facilitate the sensible transfer of students from one sector to the other?
The second split involves the TECs. There has been increasing co-operation between them and the LEAs with sensible links being forged. Is it not a great pity that that growing co-operation will now become irrelevant? The TECs are bound to feel frustrated at having to start again with a new network of regional councils or with a somewhat remote national council.
Finally, on the subject of links, will the Minister explain why local authority representatives are to be left of governing bodies as well as the funding councils? No reason is given for that change in the law. It looks like petty discrimination. The Minister has already said that they can be co-opted, but surely it would be desirable to have them there by right as representatives of the local community and to provide a link into the LEA school system. Why be so dismissive about people with a useful background and a wish to contribute? May we also have some explanation as to why students are also to be left off both the FE governing bodies and the higher education corporations? The Government claim to be interested in the rights of the consumer and they keep producing citizen's charters of one kind or another. Surely it is completely inconsistent with their philosophy to change the law on student representation.
One of the principles to which LEAs have attached importance is that FE colleges should provide free, full-time education for their students in the same age range as those still at school, although that judgment does not derive from primary legislation. Unfortunately, unless the Government change their mind and amend the Bill to preclude charging for full-time 16 to 18 year-olds in colleges there will be a risk that, when funds are short, some institutions will see charges as a way out of their problems.
We are also somewhat anxious about new provisions in the Bill to allow schools to charge for part-time students over the age of 16 and full-time students over the age of 19. We are sorry that the principle of free education in secondary schools is being abandoned. Many people will be worried by what looks like creeping privatisation.
I am sure that everyone in your Lordships' House will agree that there should be a proper system for monitoring standards in our post-school institutions—a subject on which I shall dwell further when I deal with the higher education parts of the Bill. With respect to further education, the provisions are extremely vague and it is unclear how they will work. The great advantage of FE colleges being under local authority control is that they are on the spot to intervene when there are problems with respect to both quality and standards. It is also noteworthy that HMI has been satisfied with the way that LEAs have carried out their duties in that respect.
There are many other details in the first part of the Bill about which we are unhappy and on which we shall wish to move amendments in Committee. For example, we are anxious about the transfer of capital assets From the LEAs to governing bodies and the fact
1030
that any debt relating to those assets will be left with the local authorities, although the asset has been transferred. We are worried about the terms on which staff will be transferred. We are immensely surprised about the omission of any reference to prison education. We are worried about provision for young people with special needs, a subject which my noble friend Lady David will cover in her speech today. We are also worried that the statutory obligation to provide youth services appears to be diminished by the Bill.
There are just two more issues to which I want to refer in a little more detail before moving on to the subject of higher education. The White Paper devoted considerable space to the need to reform the system of qualifications for 16 to 19 year-olds, yet there is nothing in the Bill to provide a statutory framework for a reformed system. The Government tell us that they are committed to the provision of an ordinary and advanced diploma, yet at present that commitment looks like little more than a name tagged on to the incoherent system of post-16 qualifications that currently exists. I find it distressing to keep on repeating myself in this House on our low participation rates in further education and on the low level of qualifications in our population. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said that they are improving. They are, but too slowly. In this House earlier this week I was accused by the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, of being gloomy. I am not gloomy. I am simply reporting the unfortunate facts that our improvement is much slower than that of our competitors. While only 54 per cent. of 16 year-olds and only 37 per cent. of 17 year-olds stay on in full-time education, we should probably be rather gloomy anyway. There is certainly no cause for complacency.
No amount of restructuring of further education with new funding councils and new paraphernalia for delivering the service will deal with our problems of low participation unless we can provide a sensible system of qualifications which, among other things, ends the divide between academic and vocational study. That is what we on this side intend to do when we win the election. In spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said, the Bill makes no attempt to develop a statutory framework to achieve that. It is a regrettable omission.
Turning to adult education—a subject dear to the hearts of many of your Lordships on all sides of the House—we had hoped that the public outcry when the White Paper was published would have led to some new thinking in the Bill which would allay people's worries. Unfortunately, there is little sign of it. Adult education as such has no statutory basis and is entirely subsumed within the general definition of further education. However, continuing education for adults has a real existence which the Bill as drafted does not recognise and even threatens to disrupt. The unworkable distinction between leisure courses to be provided by LEAs and vocational and academic courses to be provided by the FE councils remains. There is a widespread fear that, under those arrangements, the cost to the student of so-called

1031
leisure courses will inevitably rise, having an especially adverse effect on the elderly for whom they are often an important lifeline.
Although much will depend on the adequacy of the funding available to both LEAs and funding councils, the fragmenting of adult education between two distinct funding and planning bodies seems destined to make it much more difficult to offer a coherent service on the ground. Adult education is an important part of national life, yet it is to undergo restructuring on the tail of proposals for the 16 to 19 age group, not as a result of an assessment of its own needs. I hope that the Government will think again.
I want now to move to Part II of the Bill. There is today a great deal of anxiety about the level of resources being made available to expand higher education. My noble friend Lord Peston will say more about the issues of funding for both further and higher education, but every year higher education is squeezed harder. The latest Autumn Statement provides no grounds for optimism that the Government are willing to support our universities and polytechnics in such a way that quality can be maintained. I make that point because, however welcome the proposal to create a unified system of higher education may be, it will be of little value if we are not prepared to fund that vital part of our education system properly.
Although I welcome the proposals for higher education in general, there are two respects in which the Bill alarms us. The first relates to Clauses 64 and 77 which have been justifiably described as a charter for ministerial interference. The second concerns the proposals for assessing quality. Vice-chancellors and polytechnic directors are taken aback by the new powers which the Bill gives to Ministers because they were not proposed in the White Paper nor have they been flagged up in any ministerial announcement. Quite the contrary. As recently at 31st October the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for higher education said on a radio programme:
"I think it would be quite impractical for politicians and officials in the Department of Education and Science to make judgments as to where money should be allocated within the university education system".
He went on to say that he is a strong believer in the arm's length system. I suspect that we all share his sentiments.
Given what he said so recently, it is surprising to see Clause 66 of the Bill granting power to the Secretary of State to intervene in specified institutions. Noble Lords no doubt will remember that when a similar power was proposed in the Education Reform Bill, it was amended during the passage of the Bill in this House when fears were expressed that it could be used for political purposes and could threaten academic freedom. The amendment confined the Secretary of State to making general conditions. It is unclear why that is now being reversed and why the Bill gives the Secretary of State wide powers to intervene in individual institutions. Those powers, it seems to us, go beyond his legitimate concern to safeguard public funds. Why do the Government need such powers if they are to be used only in the last resort when earlier
1032
they conceded that they could do without them? I hope that the Minister will be able to answer that question.
The second cause for alarm is the Bill's provision for the assessment of quality. In our view it is inadequate. It is left entirely in the hands of the funding councils, so that there is a real danger that quality will be sacrificed to crude considerations of cost. The Bill does not even mention the quality assurance role of the institutions themselves, which the Secretary of State described as an important feature of the Government's proposals.
Where is the provision for institutions to set up the United Kingdom-wide quality audit unit on which the White Paper expounds so freely. We believe that there should be an independent transbinary higher education standards council to oversee quality. The Bill gives no clear definition of what quality assessment involves. The Government apparently are not concerned with such details. It seems that quality can be relegated to a single brief clause tacked on to the end of the section concerned with funding.
The country is crying out for a high quality, efficient, well resourced system of further and higher education which is responsive to local and national needs and which creates new opportunities for people to continue their education. Regrettably, the Bill fails to do the job that is needed to achieve that—either, as the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, claims, by providing a better deal for students or by improving participation and standards. There are too many important omissions, some fundamentally unnecessary changes motivated by short-term political advantage, an undesirable further increase in the powers of the Secretary of State and a depressing lack of vision about the nation's educational needs for both young people and adults.
4.23 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I hope that I always try to make the best of a bad job. Today I should like to start by saying that I can certainly applaud the Government's decision to get rid of the binary divide. There has been widespread feeling around the country—certainly reflected in my own party—for a very long time that the binary divide is outdated and should go. We are therefore very glad that the Government have decided accordingly. Obviously, it will very much facilitate the extension of tertiary education to a much wider range of people who will feel that they are free to choose the courses which are most suitable to their particular interests and needs regardless of the name attached to the institution. That is certainly a clear gain.
Having said that, there are a great many items in this legislation with which we on these Benches cannot possibly agree. I see that there are 38 names on today's list of speakers. I had not proposed in any case to deal today—if I had so proposed, I should have changed my mind in view of the list—with the detail of our criticism of the legislation. We shall do so ad nauseam in amendments as we go through what I fear will be long, stuffy nights trying to improve the Bill.

1033
I propose instead to draw your Lordships' attention to what I believe are the basic fault lines on which this legislation is based. When the foundations are wrong, it is not surprising if the structure is full of defects. The first fault line is not perhaps immediately connected with education but has to do with the Government's inability to understand, which comes out in Act after Act, that a pluralist democracy requires not only a democratically elected government—for once I leave on one side whether that is what in fact we have—but also strong free-standing institutions with a maximum of self-government, able to run their own concern and not interfered with by central government. That is as important as an elected democratic government.
Little by little, either through intention or because they dc not understand what a pluralist democracy is all about, the Government have been whittling down the power, authority and independence of those essential institutions. One of them undoubtedly is the universities. I find it horrifying that this Bill includes the possibility of direct interference in particular institutions—I repeat, in particular institutions. The Government cannot believe that they have the benefit of eternal life. Have they not thought of what might take their place and the kind of intervention that might come from other people either of the extreme Right or the extreme Left?
Be that as it may and leaving aside the nature of the government, it is the very fact that the Government have taken it upon themselves to intervene in what goes on in individual institutions that is so totally unacceptable. It offends the principle of pluralism. It is also indefensible; for how do the Government, the Secretary of State and the civil servants in the DES, who presumably ultimately will be responsible for such interference, know what is best? I know that there are among Ministers, ex-Ministers and civil servants a small number who would have made very good academics. But there are not very many. How many of them are able to intervene effectively to improve the standards of higher education in this country? Yet that is what is planned.
There may be a Secretary of State, who, backed by a civil servant, believes for some reason—there may have been moments when I shared the same view—that sociology is not a good subject. There have been sociologists who positively incited that view. But to go on from that to say, as this Bill would, that it would be possible to tell Institution X that it must stop teaching sociology is intolerable.
The Government believe in the market. If courses are so awful, the number of students will dwindle. Students, parents and schools are not totally blind and unaware of what goes on in colleges. One observes that some departments receive fewer applications than their predecessors or their competitors. That works through and it is a much safer way. A market oriented government should be the first to agree that the customers, as we all have to be called now—the potential students in the schools which prepare them—are the best people to decide what changes ought to take place together with the experts who run the courses.
1034
That is my first basic objection to the failure to understand the importance of maintaining freestanding universities, which have been a triumph in this country. Some have had defects, of course. I should like to quote from my old boss at the LSE, Ralf Dahrendorf. Asked why on earth lie had come to the LSE, because to some of us it seemed a rather strange decision—I see the noble Lord, Lord Peston, looks very disapproving—he replied that it was because he had such admiration for the British university system as it then was. If the Government have their way with the Bill, I very much doubt whether such as he will make that statement in a few years' time.
There is the same failure to understand the importance of free-standing institutions, of spreading power and of allowing other organisations as well as government to make important decisions. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, raised the issue of the constant whittling away of the powers of local authorities. We all supported the movement of the polytechnics away from local authorities because they are national and international institutions. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said, colleges are not. The colleges deal with local matters, which is pre-eminently a job that should be handled by locally elected representatives.
Why have the Government got it in so much for local authorities? They have been bemused by the People's Republic of Lambeth. Living there, I sympathise with them. However, the People's Republic of Lambeth is by no means typical of local government in this country. We may have to put up with such places as the People's Republic of Lambeth if we wish to maintain the independence of self-governing elected authorities in the locality dealing with matters of the very greatest importance to people living in the area such as the local colleges. Why take them away and hand them over to another funding body with powers to intervene? That body will be appointed to suit the government of the day, as such councils always are, by whatever government are in power. So much for the failure to understand the importance of leaving those self-governing organisations alone.
The next fault-line to which I wish to draw attention runs through the Bill and also through other educational developments that the Government have spawned. It is their determination to make a sharp distinction between what they call vocational and non-vocational studies. It is a false distinction. That cannot be said too often. What matters is the way that any subject is taught, as any good teacher will confirm. One can teach a traditional academic subject in a totally non-educational way. A so-called vocational subject can be taught in an extremely educational way if the teacher knows how to do so.
What does the distinction mean? As I said in another context earlier this week, what is mathematics? Mathematics is surely in many people's eyes the queen of genuine educational subjects. A great deal of university education throughout the centuries has been based on it. But if one is to be an engineer, it is a highly vocational subject. Does that make it a less respectable subject to be taught because it may be

1035
taught with a more applied bias to engineers than to non-engineers? What about English? Is that a vocational or a non-vocational subject? People regard English Literature as a highly academic subject. However, everyone says that the power of communication is a core skill—what a horrible expression for studying the language—that everyone ought to have. It is certainly true that there are few jobs of which one can make much success unless one is able to express oneself reasonably plainly in Queen's English.
Where do we stand therefore? Modern languages are another example. We need more teaching of modern languages than at present for straight vocational reasons. No one will say that the study of modern languages is not also in the traditional sense a highly academic subject. Why must we have this absurd division which governs so much of government thinking?
I refer to the new alternatives to A-levels—they do not appear in the Bill—which will give access to the new institutions which are coming on stream and will develop. What is proposed at present—I referred to it in an Unstarred Question recently—is an alternative which has no academic respectability and which will defeat the objective of the Government in trying to attain a second respectable academic line into higher education.
Such thinking stems from the Government's belief that there is this sharp distinction between vocational and non-vocational studies. That attitude affects their approach to adult education. Throughout the country there is the greatest anxiety about the future of the adult education colleges. I must declare an interest as chairman of Morley College. In some ways that college represents a slightly different issue about which I do not wish to speak today. The Richmond Adult and Community College is deeply anxious about its future. As a result of the outcry, the Government made some modification of the White Paper which referred to what they patronisingly called "leisure activities". Those leisure activities include music, art, philosophy, history and classical studies. They are studied in adult education colleges. Those are to be regarded as leisure activities not supported by the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council but to be financed by fees.
As a result of the outcry the Government have said that local authorities may fund such courses. But "may" is not "must". They give them the power but no requirement to do so. That has always been a problem regarding funding of adult education. With local authorities so strapped for cash as they are at present—and there is no indication that the Government will provide extra funds in order that they can take on those extra responsibilities—what chance is there that the adult education colleges will obtain the money that they need? Who will suffer? The answer is that a great many people will. Again we have the false divide between the vocational and the non-vocational.
Noble Lords may be surprised at the vocational consequences for many individuals who have taken courses which appear to be totally non-vocational. I can give examples of people who have come to Morley
1036
College. They take an art class. They have never had a job previously. They have no confidence in themselves and they thought that they were no good. But they found that they were good at something and that gave them the confidence to go out and get a job. Even flower arranging at adult colleges—people jeer at it; it is in no way typical of what goes on at the present time—can be vocational. One can set up a florist's shop and do it very well.
One after another of the so-called leisure activities can have vocational application or achieve vocational developments. It is surprising to find what subjects prove to be a good base for unexpected careers. Recently I was told that computer people were particularly good if they had studied modern languages. I do not know why; but that was a serious finding. I do not believe that anyone ever anticipated that that would be so. I also understand that many businesses have found philosophy graduates exceptionally good for training for management positions. That shows what nonsense it is to make those clear-cut divisions. We cannot make government understand that it is a false distinction and bedevils what they seek to do.
Another fault-line is the Government's failure to understand that education is an investment. My party is the only party which has said that it would be prepared to put up taxation in order to pay for decent education because a good education cannot be achieved on the cheap. Running through the Bill are signs that the Treasury's sticky fingers have been on it. It is preventing developments and the level of generosity necessary to provide the standard of education that will help to develop a truly civilised society. After all, education is about building a truly civilised society, which includes people with the competence to earn their living and to be successful in the economy. That is important but it is not, never has been and never should be the primary purpose of education.
4.40 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, earlier this week I commented on the Local Government Bill. I spoke with what I hoped was a cool enthusiasm. I respond to this Bill with what I can describe only as enthusiastic coolness. Its undoubted achievement is that it recognises polytechnics as full partners in the higher education system. However, I must express four areas of anxiety which relate in some measure to the speeches already made.
I said earlier this week—and the point was powerfully developed by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff—that to remove further education and sixth-form colleges from local education supervision and pass them over to appointed regional councils was an erosion of local democracy. It makes the institutions less accountable locally. There may be short-term financial gain for the further education colleges but to separate responsibility for sixth-form colleges from school sixth forms fragments the provision of education for 16 to 18 year-olds just at the time when we need to draw it together and enhance it. The White Paper sought to enhance vocational training and to

1037
integrate it with the academic. My fear is that the proposals risk splitting them wide apart, which would be educationally damaging.
A more particular point relates to religious education. One effect of taking sixth-form colleges out of the schools regulations is to remove the requirement for those students to participate in religious education and worship. I ask the Minister whether that is the intention. Clarification will also be necessary in respect of aided and controlled sixth-form colleges so that there is no conflict between the new arrangements and their trustees. Surely we need a developed pattern of education for 16 to 18 year-olds with a width of choice to suit varied abilities. The educational provision should be under unified supervision and locally accountable. I suggest that at this point the Bill moves in the wrong direction.
There is an equal risk of fragmentation as regards adult education. The emphasis on certificated adult education to be provided through the further education funding councils is in its way admirable. We need people of all ages to discover their capacity to learn and to become qualified. However, for many people that is a stony path and they tiptoe along it, particularly in the early stages. They often start unconvinced that they can ever qualify. Yet the experience of learning gives them a confidence and a courage to move on. To separate certificated adult education from so-called leisure adult education is to create a division which is often not in the mind of the mature student and runs the risk of limiting access to certificated adult education at just the time when we want to open up access to all in education.
Our experience is that some of the people who embark cautiously on adult education are looking for a new direction in life or wanting to turn a corner. There are, for example, ex-prisoners; people who have a handicapped person in the family for whom they must care; older people wishing to find a new purpose for their declining years; and people who have suffered a disorientating loss. Such people need to be given encouragement to start on adult education without later hiving to jump an entirely artificial barrier which has been created needlessly by legislation.
The Government have determined on league tables for schools so that parents can assess performance. Similarly, the Government are providing for league tables showing the performance of local government. Should not we also have league tables showing the effective and efficient provision of adult education in any given locality?
The churches are proud of the pioneering work done by many devoted Christians in the early days of the British adult education movement. One thinks of people such as Archbishop William Temple. Our concern in that field continues.
I turn to higher education. I wish at once to welcome the provisions in Clause 62 of the Bill to which the Minister referred. The White Paper made no specific reference to the part played by the church colleges in higher education. Therefore, it is gratifying to find that the Government have included in the clause reference to the denominational colleges. The funding council is to have regard to what appears to
1038
it to be an appropriate balance in the support between institutions which are of a denominational character and other institutions. That is most welcome.
Equally, we were much reassured by the Under-Secretary of State responsible for higher education, Mr. Howarth, when a few months ago he said to the Standing Conference of Principals:
"A key factor underlying the remarkable growth in higher education in the past decade has been the diversity of the provision on offer; the variety of institutions providing courses and differing missions serving different needs".
He went on to give the assurance that the new funding arrangements,
"will need to relate to, and safeguard, the best of the distinctive missions of institutions".
If there is to be that choice and diversity of institutions it must be backed up by ensuring that the colleges, including church colleges, should be, and should he seen to be, full partners in the higher educational provision with the opportunity to develop, adapt and take initiatives in their own right.
Unfortunately, the criteria proposed in the Department of Education and Science circular referred to by the Minister makes the requirement that colleges should reach 4,000 students before they can qualify for certain benefits. That virtually precludes the development followed by many of our present universities and polytechnics which began with student numbers well below 2,000. Some of our universities, including Southampton, Exeter, Leicester and Nottingham, began as colleges. They were established as university colleges with only a few hundred students and developed into universities with student numbers below 2,000.
Most colleges of higher education have student numbers rising towards 2,000. Surely, in a time of rapid expansion, when the Government are rightly seeking flexibility, diversity and choice, we need comparable opportunities for growth. The requirement of 4,000 students destroys conventions that have served us well in the past and closes the door to the vital process of institutional development just when we need to encourage it. There is a danger of re-opening the binary divide in which the colleges will be seen as second-grade institutions dependent on universities in their development and vulnerable to them in times of financial constraint.
Quality in higher education is more significant than size. Some of the church colleges have pioneered work in coupling vocational training with academic rigour. Their contribution to widening higher education needs to be recognised. For instance, four colleges have founded the Urban Learning Foundation in East London which provides teachers in training with direct experience of the inner city and its communities. That is the sort of imaginative venture which smaller colleges are often better equipped to undertake than larger ones.
The Government have indicated that they wish to sustain and improve quality and to secure choice. The church colleges of higher education and similar colleges have a vital part to play in achieving those goals. The colleges have proved their adaptability and their speed of response, already identifying and meeting new and important targets; for example,

1039
nurse education and the inner cities. They are vital to the process of widening the range and form of higher educational training. However, to play that role they must be given a realistic opportunity to take initiatives, to develop in their own way, and to gain degree granting powers and access to the title of university or university college. Otherwise, the admirable initiatives of Clause 62 may not be possible to fulfil.
Finally, I comment on the abolition of the CNAA and express anxiety in two respects, although I recognise that many noble Lords can speak with much greater authority on this aspect of the Bill. First, I hope that we shall have some assurance that the students who have embarked on CNAA degrees will be allowed to complete their courses. In particular, there is anxiety about the 500 or so CNAA research students.
Secondly, there is a more general anxiety that by abolishing the CNAA we shall lose a pioneering development which has added a new dimension to academic work. The students, particularly research students, are often mid-career people studying part-time, some living and working abroad. Their experience enriches the research process and their jobs often pay for the costs. The flexibility of using qualified supervisors from within and beyond the academic world in this country and abroad creates an important bridge between the academic world and the world of business, industry and social care.
It is not clear that the existing university departments, or even the new ones, will be able to provide enough internal supervisors to validate degrees of that sort of unusual student. It would be reassuring to hear from the Minister that thought is being given to that aspect of education and that there is in mind provision to ensure its continuity. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on that aspect.
As I said, there are some welcome improvements in the Bill but I hope that the anxieties which I and the two previous speakers have expressed will be taken extremely seriously by the Government.
4.52 p.m.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, I am very pleased indeed to speak on a Bill which represents such a major step forward for the provision of education in this country. In my short time as a Member of this House, I have found it a great privilege to hear the scholarly and expert tone of the debates, and, therefore, feel all the more diffident at making a contribution myself. Only my deep convictions on the matter with which the Bill is concerned, and my experience of your Lordships' generosity, give me the courage to speak.
As the Minister indicated, the Bill is designed to increase participation in post-compulsory education. It also strengthens and enhances the status of technical and vocational education within both the further and higher education phase. The needs of the national economy can only be met if the objectives of the Bill are accepted and attained.
1040
Although I wish to address myself to the second part of the Bill dealing with the higher education aspects, I should like to reassure your Lordships that the experience of the polytechnics in being released from local authority control by the Education Reform Act 1988 can only give confidence and hope for the future of the further education colleges when they are similarly made independent. There is an organic dynamic within institutions which enables and encourages them to service the needs of their community and the nation far better than any external planning can hope to do.
As regards the higher education aspects of the Bill, I must declare a personal interest. As the head of one of the English polytechnics, South Bank here in London, I have a strong motive for warmly welcoming the proposals for higher education in the Bill. Together with my colleagues in other polytechnics, I look forward to the time when the 15,000 students in my institution together with nearly 2,000 staff, will be studying and working in a university. My marketing department looks forward to recruiting at home and overseas with the title of university, and my industry liaison unit will be pleased to offer to our many industrial partners the status of collaboration with a university instead of a polytechnic.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, for her kind words about the polytechnics. Other speakers have been similarly kind. Nevertheless, some Members of the House may still have some reservations and, indeed, anxieties at the proposal to grant to polytechnics their own degree-awarding powers, together with the right to the university title. That is understandable, if the phenomenal growth and achievements of the polytechnics over the past 22 years are not yet well known to all noble Lords.
From their beginnings in 1969, the polytechnics have grown from eight in number, providing education for around 40,000 students, to their present number of 34 providing higher education for well over 350,000 students. Since the Education Reform Act 1988 made polytechnics and some higher education colleges in England into corporate bodies (the polytechnics in London, including my own, were already companies limited by guarantee) they have demonstrated not only their educational value, but also their ability to run their own affairs as large and well managed businesses.
The special contribution of the polytechnics to the national range of higher education offerings has been in the highly vocational nature of their courses, providing professional and technological degrees ranging from the traditional fields of law, architecture and engineering, to the more recent developments; for example, electronic control systems, intelligent management systems, or European business management. Their close links with industry and commerce are preserved in a variety of ways. In pursuit of the education and training of highly qualified professionals, the polytechnics provide a wide range of sandwich degrees, giving substantial work experience in this country or abroad to students during their under-graduate experience. People from industry and business are brought in to help in the planning,

1041
validation and review of courses. Research activity in the polytechnics is predominantly applied, largely sponsored directly by industry and commerce, as are many of our doctoral students who are released by their employers to conduct research of value to the company. At South Bank, for example, we have almost £15 million worth of external contracts for research and consultancy from industrial sponsors.
It is the polytechnics, too, which have offered higher education opportunities to a much greater range of students than was traditional in the universities. Eighty per cent. of all mature students in the UK study at polytechnics, many of them on a part-time basis. Perhaps because of that pattern, the polytechnics have been successful in attracting and keeping highly intelligent students from social classes three, four and five and from the ethnic minority population —an important task.
No country can afford to regard higher education of this nature as second class. And yet by the continuation of the binary line, separating universities from polytechnics, we are explicitly saying to our customers at home and our competitors abroad that the young people who choose to graduate through a polytechnic are somehow inferior to those who study on more traditional degrees in universities. Not only is that an unjustifiable handicap for the graduates themselves but, more important, it is a serious hindrance to the development and success of the United Kingdom economy. Our graduates include those who have the training and skill most needed to take the economy forward; and they need every scrap of advantage in establishing a competitive position with their counterparts in Europe and other advanced countries.
The Other great advanced economies of Japan, the United States, Scandinavia and Western Europe offer university education to a third or more of their population. In contrast, only 10 per cent. are so privileged in this country. Those countries have long understood that the definition of a university is wider than a place of pure academic study, but must embrace also the education and training of the highly skilled and qualified workforce which any country needs if it is to survive. The Bill proposes a similar widening of the definition of a university, to include all that the polytechnics do and have done.
Nothing can detract from the excellence of our great universities with their long and proud historic traditions. As in every other European country, the great names will continue to command the international respect which is rightly their due. They will attract the academically able in their staff and their students and will continue to conduct pure research of world class standing. But they alone could never t e sufficient to fuel the needs of a modern industrial economy.
In a totally different and diverse way, the polytechnic tradition of vocational degrees and applied research has its own form of excellence. It has served UK plc well in the past and will continue to do so in the future. The Bill will allow it to do so without the handicap of second-class status. The Government's proper recognition of the importance
1042
of this form of higher education is one which the country must embrace if our economy is to remain competitive and, indeed, if our national standards are to survive.
5.1 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I was a little nervous when I saw the list of speakers this afternoon. It is not since 1985, when I made my maiden speech, that I have spoken so high in the list, and it is the first occasion on which I have had to follow a maiden speaker. I must admit that it is a great pleasure and a pleasant duty to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, because of her very nice contribution this afternoon. She brings to the House an impressive record of achievement and experience, particularly in the field of education. I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I say that we all look forward to hearing her contributions in the future.
I had personal pleasure in listening to her contribution this afternoon, because she expanded so well on the triumphs of the Labour Government of 1964 to 1970 with their introduction of the polytechnics into the higher education field. That gave me personal pleasure because I was a product of one of those polytechnics. I shall elaborate a little on that later.
This Bill is yet another government Bill that erodes democracy, centralises decision making, disturbs established institutions, will lead in some cases to underfunding, and also increases fragmentation. The one little ray of sunshine contained within the Bill is, put baldly, the university status for polytechnics, which I am sure we all welcome. Unfortunately, although I suppose one could say that that ray of sunshine comes from a bright blue sky, there are some dark clouds there as well.
As a member of a local education authority your Lordships will appreciate that I follow my Front Bench speaker, my noble friend Lady Blackstone, in opposing as strongly as I can the further education elements of this Bill. It is an act of vandalism in educational terms. It has already created a number of problems, and will make them worse. The fairly separate nature of the polytechnics from the other activities of local education authorities has already been alluded to, but in this case we are talking about education provision that is keyed in, tied in, to the education provided in schools. One of the problems is the fragmentation of what should be a close relationship between schools and further education.
There are obviously some specific problems and questions to which the LEAs will want answers. The first, of course, is on the basis that LEAs, by virtue of their involvement with schools, will have to have a relationship, an involvement, with the further education sector. It is not clear as to how we are going to be involved. We desperately need some clarification from the Government.
The second point relates to the transition arrangements. A sum of money has been mentioned as being earmarked for the transition of the colleges, but because of the integrated and involved relationship with the LEAs in this field there will be transition costs

1043
for the local education authorities. My hope is that the Government will consult the LEAs and consider providing some help to them for their transitional arrangements.
There is a lack of clarity about the future financial arrangements. Again, there is a need for the Government to consult widely, particularly with the LEAs and obviously the colleges, and to publish the financial arrangements for both as early as possible. Other speakers have spoken about the conflicts between further and adult education and between vocational and recreational education or work or leisure. I do not want to elaborate on those. I am sure that many other speakers tonight will speak on those subjects.
I should like to spend a few moments on the higher education side. As I said, I think we can all welcome the elevation—I am not sure that that is the right word—or the assimilation of the polytechnic sector into the university sector. We can see that that is the product of developments over a period of time where the institutions have had the chance to prove themselves and to take their place alongside the universities. But one of the difficulties we are faced with in this Bill is that we are not just talking about enabling virtually free-standing institutions to assume a change of name and status, which they virtually have already. We are talking about empowering the Secretary of State, a government Minister, to be able to say, "Yes, that organisation can confer a degree; this institution can be called a university", and, under Clause 77, to require higher education councils to comply with his directions. These are centralising powers. They are powers that we would hesitate to give to an institution comprised of learned academics. It is quite another thing to give those powers to the Secretary of State.
One last word about the Council for National Academic Awards. I have to declare an interest in that I have a CNAA degree, and I am proud of that. I think that I received as good an education—and in some cases I would argue a better education—to degree standard, undergraduate level, from Portsmouth Polytechnic under the Council of National Academic Awards than perhaps some of my peer groups in established universities. I am not sure that effectively abolishing the CNAA is going to be a progressive step.
This Bill has drawn a long list of speakers. I could speak for literally hours on the subject. Your Lordships will be glad to hear that I am not going to. I am tempted to, but I shall not. I have probably spoken enough already, bearing in mind the long list of illustrious speakers who, I am sure, will support and echo some of the queries that I have raised and also raise others that I do not have time to deal with this afternoon.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Kirkwood: My Lords, I too would like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Perry of Southwark, on an excellent and well informed maiden speech. I look forward to many contributions from her in the future. The noble Baroness, Lady
1044
Blackstone, and my noble friend Lady Seear have expressed—and I am sure many Members of your Lordships' House who have yet to speak will express—their anxieties about the powers that the Bill gives to the Secretary of State to interfere in the business of universities, not only in funding in a general way, where it might be argued that he has a responsibility to Parliament, but apparently also in academic matters and in specific institutions, which offends the principle of university autonomy. I shall add my voice to those of other noble Lords without repeating their arguments.
The need for quality assurance in universities is not disputed. The CVCP has already established an academic audit unit for that purpose. No doubt some similar body will take its place answerable to the newly enlarged CVCP. That body will ensure that the mechanisms exist within higher education institutes for the quality control of courses and teaching. What is the function of a quality assurance committee reporting to the funding council and not directly to the universities? The Government must make clear exactly what its duties are and the boundaries within which it should operate.
In Schedule 3 to the Bill a table is given for the calculation of enrolment numbers at an institution taking into account various part-time students by the use of a multiplier. It will be interesting to know how those multipliers were obtained and whether their use is to be restricted to determining whether an institution joins the higher education sector or whether the table is intended to be employed for other uses as well.
Finally, there is the question of the titles to be adopted by the new universities. The Bill states that in granting consent the Privy Council will pay regard to the need for avoiding names which may be confusing. There is genuine concern felt by the existing universities about the confusion that might be caused not only in the UK but more particularly by applicants and employers overseas who are not familiar with our higher education system. It would be prudent to give greater direction to the Privy Council as to what will cause confusion. We must not have an Oxford City University as well as an Oxford University, wherever it is.
5.13 p.m.
Lord Dainton: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, on her maiden speech. It is a great pleasure to me, since I was one of the founder trustees of one of the polytechnics, to hear someone who knows as much about the polytechnics as should be known.
I shall confine myself to Part II of the Bill. I remind noble Lords that about three and a half years ago the Second Reading of the Education Reform Bill took place in your Lordships' House. In that debate I began by welcoming the principle, which was given substance in that Bill, that polytechnics should become higher education corporations. In this, the Second Reading of the Further and Higher Education Bill, I should like to be equally welcoming to what I

1045
have always seen as the next logical step in the evolution of Government funding mechanisms for higher education institutions of all kinds.
Indeed, I recall that as long ago as the mid-1970s I submitted a personal letter to the chairman of the Oakes Committee, which was considering these things at that time, arguing that the binary line should be abolished. I also welcome the news of the appointment of Sir Ron Dearing as chairman of the council for England. I wish him well in what I am sure is going to be a difficult and very interesting task.
That said, I am now somewhat dismayed to see the responsibility for funding partitioned into separate councils for England, Scotland and Wales. I say that because my experience of higher education, and, I believe. also that of many others who have been similarly involved, is that the rate of spread of successful innovations throughout higher education depends in some considerable measure on competition for resources. In the past English universities have benefited from emulating and adapting successful new developments in Scottish universities and vice versa. In both cases that happened the more rapidly because all were competing for the esteem—and perhaps more importantly, the money that went with it—of the same funding body. That incentive will now be lost.
To some degree that adverse effect will be mitigated because, by including the polytechnics in common funding systems with the universities, each system in England, Scotland and Wales will be larger than it otherwise would have been. That brings me to my second point; namely, that each council should aim to encourage diversity of institutions and their missions rather than uniformity. The history of UK higher education contains far too many instances of the deleterious effects of academic social pressure—or snobbery, call it what you will—which caused newer institutions to strive for what is sometimes called upward mobility (in my view wholly misconceived) and to do so by aping the methods of the older and more established institutions. It is essential that the primary vocational role of the polytechnics be properly sustained and nurtured. If it is not, the losers will be initially the school-leavers and later the country itself. I also hope that when the new funding councils are established the Secretary of State will make that point clear to all their members.
I further hope that the retention of this important special objective will be seen as a matter of distinctive pride by the members of the polytechnics themselves so that, even though the word "university" may become an accessible appellation (as the Bill states) they will not be seduced into abandoning words in their title which express this special mission. As a former professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology I would encourage them to retain in their titles such terms as "polytechnic", "institute of technology" or "technological institute". I recognise that at the end of the day it will be for the Privy Council to decide whether it can give its consent to a proposed change of name. But I hope that it will bear these considerations in mind.
I would now like to turn seriatim to some of the principles that seem to lie behind some of the clauses
1046
of the Bill which give me great cause for concern. The first relates to the competence of the councils to discharge their duties. Clause 58(4) instructs the Secretary of State, when he is appointing members of a council, to have regard to the desirability of including,
"persons who appear to him to have experience of, and have shown capacity in, the provision of higher education or to have held, and to have shown capacity in, any position carrying responsibility for the provision of higher education".
That is in very marked contrast to the corresponding Section 131(3) (b) in the Education Reform Act 1988 where it is stated that no fewer than six and no more than nine of the 15 members of the UFC should be,
"currently engaged in the provision of higher education".
For reasons too obviously relevant to the competence of the funding councils, I regard that phrase in the existing Act as absolutely essential. I hope that the Government will be prepared to retain the phrase and ensure that the experience of those who have living communion with the work of the universities and the polytechnics today rather than those who have had the experience will not be neglected.
From the inception 102 years ago of government aid to universities and university colleges in England, successive governments have for very good reasons which have stood the test of time accepted the arm's length principle—that is to say, they have appointed a committee to allocate resources to individual institutions from funds allotted to it by government. Your Lordships will remember—and we have already been reminded of it—that in the first draft of the Education Reform Bill this principle was abandoned and the Bill contained a clause giving the Secretary of State power to intervene in the process as it affected any individual institution. In the event wiser counsels prevailed and the Act was splendidly explicit. Section 134(7) states categorically:
"The conditions subject to which grants are made by the Secretary of State to either of the Funding Councils shall not relate to the making of grants or other payments by the Council to any specified institution".
It is a clear negative. In marked contrast, Clause 64 of the Bill now before us gives the Secretary of State power to impose requirements to be complied with in respect of each institution. That is a clear breach of the arm's length principle.
Lest there be any doubt of the desire of the Secretary of State to have absolute power over the councils to direct them to do precisely as he wishes, the point is made again in Clause 77, the final clause of Part II of the Bill. It is interesting to see that it does not appear in the Bill relating to Scotland. I am puzzled over that. Evidently the Government think that such intervention in university, polytechnic or central institution affairs in Scotland is not called for. Why not, I wonder. Is it that the ghost of Adam Smith is having some influence on Scotland as he has had on the party in government? What has caused this volte-face so far as concerns England? What evidence is there that such power in the hands of the Secretary of State is necessary? I can see no possible justification for this retrogressive move. I urge the Secretary of State to abandon it and to restore the phrase in the Act which I have quoted.

1047
In moving now to Clause 65, it is good to see that the councils can proffer to the Secretary of State,
"information or advice…as they think fit".
But then a restriction is placed on this power by insisting that it is in,
"such manner as the Secretary of State may from time to time determine".
Why fetter the councils in this way? Surely the manner must be that best adapted to the purpose, and in any case the Secretary of State will not know what any proffered advice is about until he receives it, so he will be in no position to predetermine the manner of its presentation. A simple rewording here would gain what we all want, which is the free flow of information and advice between the Secretary of State and the funding councils.
I turn now to quality, to which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, rightly attached importance. A duty is placed on a council to assess the quality of education provided by any institution it funds. We can all applaud that intention. However, the clause also prescribes the means; namely, a quality assessment committee. This is a vitally important task which cannot possibly be carried out in that way. What is needed is not one but many committees, each one covering a cluster of related subjects; for example, physical sciences, a subject with which I am familiar. The members of such sub-committees, being acknowledged experts, will know from visits to all the higher education institutions where these subjects are offered the quality of those offerings. They are qualified to put into their proper and secondary place those pseudo-objective but flawed arithmetical criteria of quality, like citation indices, recently so fashionable.
In addition, the Secretary of State would under Clause 78 be given power to direct "two or more councils" to appoint someone to assess the arrangements which all institutions in the whole of Great Britain make to maintain academic standards. That is the clearest possible intrusion into academic affairs. There should be no need for this if the quality assessment work is done in the thorough and proper manner I have suggested. In any case we have, although it seems to have been forgotten, the external examiner system which ensures that any inadequacy of standards is quickly brought to light. It would do so far more rapidly than any monstrous single committee which had no stated competence.
The final clause to which I wish to refer is Clause 79. It empowers a council to appoint a person to inquire into the actual running of any institution. Clearly it is reasonable for a council to have the means of satisfying itself that an institution is using the council's grant to produce the desired outcome with the minimum of waste, but it must he equally true and clear that the council's jurisdiction must not trespass on areas of activity funded from sources other than its own.
While there is much in the Bill and its underlying purpose which is acceptable, there yet remain many substantial points, on only a few of which I have had time to touch, which in my view require modification if the right balance is to be struck between
1048
accountability for the use of public money and institutional autonomy, so that the higher education systems in England, Scotland and Wales are efficient, flexible and of the high quality that we all desire.
5.26 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I begin by congratulating my noble friend Lady Perry on an excellent maiden speech. It was a great pleasure to listen to her speaking so clearly and with such authority on her own subject. I am sure that we are all delighted that she is taking part in the Second Reading debate of this Bill. We look forward to her later contributions on it.
I also thank my noble friend Lord Belstead for introducing the Bill and, unlike almost every other speaker so far, I shall start by giving it a warm welcome. It puts into legislative form the Government's commitment to the expansion of access to and participation in further and higher education and implements the policies set out in the two White Papers published earlier this year.
There is a general consensus that far more needs to be done to get an increased proportion of 16 to 19 year-olds into education and training. It is much to the credit of the Government that this ratio has improved. I was pleased with the figures given by my noble friend. However, we still lag behind a number of our competitors; in particular, Germany and Japan. In a highly competitive world, that must be put right not only for the sake of the country but equally for the young people who will be left without training and qualifications and will be, in effect, unemployable.
I therefore welcome the proposals for further education. The proposal to take responsibility for further education away from local education authorities—a point on which I was interested to hear the views of my noble friend Lady Perry—provides an opportunity to follow up the successful experience of the polytechnics. I believe that we shall see increased participation rates and the independence of institutions will allow them to manage their own resources more effectively. Free standing colleges will be able to develop their own programmes and courses, develop links with industry and take full advantage of the new vocational qualifications. I am very pleased that the proposal has the support of the colleges and of the National Association of Head Teachers.
Many criticisms of this proposal have been aired this afternoon. Perhaps I may point out that every education reform brought forward by the Government in the past few years was initially greatly criticised, even though many are now accepted. I have in mind the introduction of the national curriculum, testing and assessment. Even opting out is proving to be extremely popular and very successful. I have no doubt that we shall see much more of it. Underlying the proposal to remove colleges of further education and sixth form colleges from local education authority control has not been a wish to attack the local authorities but a real concern about standards of education, particularly for the average and less average child, which have proved to be considerably

1049
lower than those of our competitors, and a determination to raise those standards while at the same time increasing participation.
Having said that, it would be very helpful if my noble friend could say more in his concluding speech about how the funding councils will work. After all, there are enormous differences between the institutions. Colleges of further education have up to 5,000 or 10,000 students but sixth form colleges are much smaller, with the biggest having not much more than 1,500; indeed, some are very small with only 400 to 600 students. It is important that those varying institutions should be fully prepared for their new work. At the same time, and as part of all these changes, I understand that schools will be able to take part-time and mature students into their sixth forms. That is certainly in keeping with the needs of the times. I hope that offering such a wide variety of opportunities really will increase participation rates.
I believe that all speakers have agreed on the ending of the binary line. The polytechnics have been a great success story and enrolments have increased by 50 per cent. since 1979. They have flourished particularly since they have been free from local education authorities. I am glad to see that they will now be able to award their own degrees.
In his opening speech, my noble friend gave encouraging figures about the numbers of students going into higher education. I believe that in 1979 one in eight went into higher education and that by 1991 that figure had risen to one in five. The number of graduates we produce each year is about the same as that for Germany and France. The fact is that nearly everyone who enters a university in this country obtains a degree because of the high entry requirements, unlike other countries.
What is particularly pleasing to me is that much of the increase in the number of students is in fact an increase in the number of women going to university. There is also a welcome increase of 55 per cent. in the number of mature students. The Government's objective to double the number of students in higher education in the next 25 years and to increase access, especially for those groups which are currently under-represented, seems to be one which must be in the interests of the whole country, let alone all the individuals concerned.
Much has been said—and, I have no doubt, will be said—about higher education. I shall leave that to those who are experts in the field. I hope that my noble friend understands that there is great concern both in the university world and in the polytechnics over Clause 64(2) and Clause 77. As the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, clearly explained, in Clause 64(2) a new specific power has been added to those given to the Secretary of State under the Education Reform Act. After the very extensive debates on the subject during the passage of that Act, I am puzzled that the Government should want to alter it. I listened with great care to what my noble friend said, but I very much hope that he will consider bringing forward an amendment in that respect at a later stage of the Bill.
1050
I have no doubt that others will put down an amendment, but it would be better if it came from the Government.
There are many other points, but I believe that most of them can be dealt with in Committee. With so many speakers on today's list I do not want to take up too much of the time of the House. However, I have two brief points to make. First, there is concern about the powers of the Privy Council to consent to the use of the word "university"—not that anyone is objecting to the use of the word, but because it could cause confusion. I believe it is only right that we should know a little more about how the Government see this working out in practice. It is especially important that we should be clear on what we are talking about, from the point of view of the application of a potential student from home and, almost more important, that of an overseas student. I share the universities' concern, expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, about the representation on the funding council and the roles that academics can play.
I greatly welcome the Bill. I believe that it is extremely important for the future of this country that we should increase access to and participation in further and higher education. Of course, at the end of the day what really matters is what is taught. I hope that we shall not get into a long and rather fruitless debate about vocational and non-vocational education. It always seems to me important, in both aspects, that what is offered is very good and that nothing is offered which is not valuable to the student in afterlife and, of itself, a standard of excellence.
Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear—who I see is not now in her place—very much criticised the Government on the question of funding. The increased resources that have gone into education over the past 12 years show that the Government are prepared to back changes with money. As a result, I very much hope that those areas of our national life which have been subject to great criticism will now be put right, that we shall see greater participation, especially of 16 to 19 year-olds, and a great increase in the number of students in higher education. That would be for the good of the country and the individuals concerned.
5.37 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I shall confine my remarks to Part I of the Bill and speak of adult and further education. I am very glad that the outcry and indignation which greeted the provisions for adult education in the White Paper and which were aired in a debate in this House in July caused the Secretary of State to think again and give some reassurance in September that the LEAs would retain their statutory duty to provide leisure and recreational classes. That appears in Clause 11 of the Bill and is in substitution for Section 41 of the 1944 Act. When he replies, can the Minister state categorically that this imposes a statutory duty on LEAs to provide adult education'? We are worried as to whether the Bill will safeguard adult education, which will depend very much on the funding provided for it by the Government. We want to see adult education given a firm statutory basis.

1051
There remains the artificial distinction between leisure and vocational classes. I do not apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for mentioning this aspect. It shows such a total failure to understand the ethos of adult education and how it works—how one so-called leisure class may lead ultimately to a vocational course, a qualification and a job. There must be the chance for progression. In July, I quoted one case from Spring Grove Adult Education College in Hounslow. Michael was made redundant. He joined a life drawing class and he went on to take A-level art, gained a grade A and has now been trained as a teacher. Thousands more have followed that pattern. It is quite impossible to make the clear-cut divide. If the first so-called leisure classes were not available locally at a reasonable cost or free, this progression—often in the same building; and that is important—would not happen.
The other point I should like to make is that people starting up again, or who start from scratch if they have missed out on earlier opportunities, need confidence. Small beginnings can create the confidence to go on to bigger things. We have to get rid of this artificial and unreliable distinction in the Bill. Can the Minister give us a definition of a leisure class? We do not have one and we need it.
The White Paper opened with the statement that it,
"contains the Government's plans to improve and develop the education and training system for 16 to 19 year olds".
That is admirable. But Ministers seemed unaware of the fact that about half the business of an FE college is with adults outside that age range. In addition, courses for adults are provided by adult education colleges, community schools and colleges and voluntary bodies. It is local provision.
The Bill seeks to define the respective responsibility for adult education of the new funding council and the LEAs. To do that, it has created new categorisations which seem bound to make difficulties in practice, as I have explained. Those categorisations leave significant grey areas, since it will often be the motivation of the student rather than the design of the course that is significant. A language class may include some students with an exam objective (whether or not for vocational reasons) and some merely studying for private purposes. In what category would that class be put?
It is important that there should be effective strategic planning across the whole of further education. We believe that a fundamental reason for the transfer of FE colleges from local government was the Government's need to resolve their difficulties over the poll tax. It has nothing to do with the aims set out in Volume 1 of the White Paper which contains proposals for unifying academic and vocational training. LEAs do a good job with their FE colleges. There is great flexibility. People who have failed in the school system succeed in a different environment. There are close connections with local business and industry.
The Bill proposes the removal of post-16 institutions from LEA control, without residual representation on governing bodies. That will
1052
squander a vast accumulation of local knowledge and expertise and will remove democratic accountability and effective overall strategic planning from a key service to local people.
The Bill will split the new FE sector away from school sixth forms and damage the coherent provision of 16 to 19 education. The inclusion of sixth form colleges in the new post-16 sector is perverse as those institutions are legally (and in the eyes of parents) schools rather than FE colleges. Their small size and historically more generous funding is likely to lead to the dilution or total loss of that distinctive form of provision. What possible good can that change in structure do in improving educational provision?
There is then the time factor. All this is to be in place by April 1993. How can it be done? It is a date midway through the academic year. Plans would have to be ready six months earlier—September 1992—only six months after the passing of the Act. What will happen to the governing bodies? At the sixth form college where I am a governor, all that would remain of the old governing body would be two people who had filled casual vacancies. Who will support the principal during the sixth months between September and April? The whole question of funding will he immensely complicated. No wonder the Association of Principals of Sixth Form Colleges is against the change. Sixth form colleges are different from FE colleges. They have a more integrated set of courses. It is a different institutional framework. I hope that we will persuade the Committee to reverse that mad plan.
Planned provision to meet local needs in the light of relevant factors—industrial development, population change and so on—will be replaced by direction from a remote national council; and if the regional councils are set up, why should they be more effective than the LEA, with its wealth and background of knowledge? The cost of setting up those new bodies is most unlikely to be contained within the estimated £30 million per annum given in the explanation of the Bill's financial effects.
Another point relates to the burden of responsibility to be put on the governing bodies. Experience of LMS suggests that it will he too great in some cases, especially with no experienced LEA members and no LEA support. Spectacular failures will inevitably be more likely. At what cost to the students?
I turn now to the rather different matter of residential colleges, currently grant-aided. Coleg Harlech, through the Welsh Office, Ruskin and four others, through the DES, will receive financial support on the basis of student numbers. In that market model, growth will be demand led, and successful colleges which attract more students will receive more financial support. But, despite being in that system, the residential colleges will not be able to increase their student numbers, nor have courses of longer than one year. In those circumstances, and without safeguards, the colleges will be subject to unfair funding criteria and will inevitably find more and more of the funds available going to the FE colleges. They are therefore threatened with gradual run down and eventual extinction, despite the recent DES/Welsh Office review which commended them for their work and gave them

1053
a new role in developing courses for access to higher education. They provide courses for a different type of student from those attending other establishments, and are immensely flexible.
To avoid that situation, the Secretaries of State, in their letters of guidance to the respective funding councils, should make explicit the exceptional limitations imposed upon the residential colleges and require the councils to safeguard the financial support given to them. An amendment to Clause 7 could bring that about. I hope that the Minister will comment upon the position of residential colleges in his reply. There is strong feeling on the subject.
I turn now to special needs. The interests of those with special needs are threatened by the proposals contained in the Bill. The Bill requires the funding council and the LEAs to have regard to the requirements of persons having learning difficulties. That requirement is contained in Clauses 4(1) and 11(8). However, that is a weaker formulation than the existing duties of LEAs under the 1981 Act and the 1986 disabled persons legislation.
There is no provision for an independent review of the requirements of individuals or for rights of appeal against the level or quality of support for students with special educational needs. The duty, as it stands, extends to full-timers in the 16 to 18 age group only. There is apparently no guarantee for older or part-time students with learning difficulties. I hope that we can amend the Bill to change that, and I ask the Minister to comment. At present the 1981 Act requires LEAs to provide assessments and statements of special needs for pupils in schools and sixth form colleges but not FE colleges. The Bill proposes that that requirement should not apply to sixth form college students. It seems totally wrong that all in that age group should not be treated alike.
Where a young person is covered by a statement there is a duty upon the authority to make the educational provision specified in the statement. We are worried that the Bill weakens that protection for a vulnerable group of people. We wish to see an extension of the provision for all young people age 16 to 19 and some more positive action to help those over 19 who at that age will not suddenly be different from what they were the year before and may need more time to develop and gain some qualification.
The ACC has recently surveyed its members on the issue of training provision for young people with special needs. There is substantial anxiety that developments in the funding and organisation of training, coupled with rising unemployment, are creating a lattice-work of provision through which some young people will fall. Considering the results of that survey, the association's education committee resolved that, were it to be adequately funded, an extension of the entitlement of the 1981 Act to youth trainees might provide an answer.
The fragmentation of post-16 education echoes the type of problems emerging in the training sector. A consistent entitlement for all 16 to 19s, whether in schools or colleges, would act as a considerable safeguard. That must, as experience in the schools sector shows, be coupled with adequate funding if it is
1054
to be successful. The LEA can support young people in its own institutions or elsewhere. Training and enterprise councils may provide within the employment and training programme. That might seem to be a healthy range of options, but there is a risk that when budgets are tight each agency may be tempted to leave its responsibility to another.
Such problems have already arisen between health authorities and education authorities in the case of services such as speech therapy. There is a clear need for a single authority to have responsibility for counselling and supporting young people with special needs, and agreeing with them and their families on the most appropriate provision to be made. It should then be the duty of the appropriate provider to honour what is required. The funding responsibility for additional costs associated with those needs should preferably rest in one place.
I shall conclude by mentioning two serious omissions from the Bill. One is the youth service. The statutory basis for that service will be weakened and we shall be tabling amendments in that regard. The other is the prison service. I do not have the time to expand on those matters but I hazard a guess that they will take up a considerable amount of time at the Committee stage as we attempt to make up for some of the inadequacies of the Bill.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, preceding speakers, including the noble Baroness, Lady David, and the right reverend Prelate, covered with much greater authority than I can command the problems of further education. I wish simply to reiterate what I said earlier this week in regard to the Local Government Bill. I find no educational argument for separating further education colleges, still less sixth form colleges, from the secondary education system in which they are embedded and from which they draw their students.
As people will realise, I hate giving comfort to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. But I must confirm what she said. Far from that portion of the Bill being universally popular, or resented only by Left wing authorities, the local authority of the impeccably Tory region of East Sussex is wholly opposed to losing its colleges, both for further and sixth form education. From what I gather, that is true also of many other Conservative-controlled authorities. It is not a party matter. It is a matter of educational principle. Where does one divide? Surely the age of 16 is not the point at which a division should be made between what is local and what is national.
As many noble Lords will regretfully be aware, I am chiefly concerned with Part II of the Bill. I regard it with total amazement and I shall explain why. If one were to ask any member of Her Majesty's Government, from the Prime Minister down to the lowliest Parliamentary Under-Secretary, "What is the great internal enemy facing this country?", the answer would always be, "Inflation". Yet the programme of higher education on which the Government appear to be embarking is essentially inflationary. Everything is

1055
to be sacrificed, and much is being sacrificed, to increasing the numbers of students at institutions of higher education.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, pointed out, there is no great need in this country—many needs in education take priority—to increase the number of graduates. As compared with our competitors—we are always being compared with them—the number of graduates in the population is much the same. It is true that other countries have enormous numbers of people who are half, quarter or partly in institutions of higher education. There are probably more students registered in some way, if they can get through the doors to do so, at the University of Rome than there are students in the entire United Kingdom. However, we know also that most of those students never graduate, in many cases never intend to graduate, and are indeed a drain on the resources, academic and financial, of those countries.
Although one may welcome a gradual increase in the number of those who have access to higher education, I believe that our welcome should be tempered by the knowledge that that means additional resources—not merely pro rata, but to a greater extent. The more one extends the range of people who can be admitted to higher education—different routes, different qualifications, different family backgrounds— the more important it becomes to give them the intensive teaching which has been the glory of British universities. The Government appear to have got it into their head that we can actually lower unit costs whereas the price of expansion must in many respects be to raise the unit costs, otherwise we are offering the next generation of students a false prospectus. We are saying that they will receive what their fathers and grandfathers received—those fortunate enough to go to university—but in fact we will not provide it.
That relates to what everyone so warmly welcomed, particularly in the presence of my noble friend Lady Perry —the abolition of the binary line. I wish I could think as well of the motives of those who are abolishing the binary line as I do of that conclusion. Whereas it is argued that it is an additional respect for the important place that technology and industry have in our affairs, it seems to me that it is nothing of the kind. In a sense it is the reverse. We are saying that we are so hidebound in our social snobbery that we only recognise the value of a place that is called a "university".
Occasionally, practical considerations have been advanced in favour of the change to university nomenclature—for example, that foreign students do not recognise or understand the idea of a polytechnic. I am afraid that that is nonsense. I met recently a senior member of the academic and governing staff of the Zurich polytechnic. It has no problem whatever about being called an école polytechnique. It draws students with great facility from all over the world. When one visits a French academic at a university, what does one find him doing? He is telephoning Paris to see whether he can get his hopeful offspring into the école polytechnique. His own university will not be enough for his bright boy!
1056
The polytechnic notion is internationally understood. Mention has been made of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Why should we be ashamed of calling institutions, which have an enormously important but different vocation, by a name which indicates that vocation. I believe my noble friend Lord Dainton made the same point. It is a pity; it is a misunderstanding, but it is not the worst.
That brings me back to my notion of inflation. Not only is there a certain inflationary flavour about extending the term "university" not merely to the polytechnics—each of them individually, if they so wish, may be considered to have earned it—but also, we understand, to other institutions designated by the Secretary of State without any objective criteria in the Bill as to what they are to be. One cannot raise standards by changing nomenclature. The right reverend Prelate will correct me if I am wrong, but I suspect that it would be possible for the archbishop to say that as from next week every parish church in England will call itself a cathedral. I do not believe that it would either increase the size of the congregation or the acceptability of the services.
Therefore, there is an inflation, but it is worse than that. I feel the polytechnics believe—it is difficult to disabuse them—that the universities have an untapped source of revenue. The polytechnics believe that once they are called universities they will receive a great deal of money from the research councils, or some other source, which they are at present denied. I must inform the committee of directors, through the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, that there is no pot of gold at the end of that particular rainbow. What is much more the case is that a uniform funding council for all these categories of institution will have the effect of lowering the costs of some of them. That explains much of the extraordinary language about assessment, efficiency and other such matters which figures in the Bill.
This matter relates to my view that the priority of expansion which governs the Government's thinking —that is to say, the expansion in the number of students, not the number of graduates—is a mistaken one unless the Government are prepared to contemplate the serious implications in terms of resources. One must consider what we normally mean by the term "efficiency". British universities and polytechnics as they now stand must be among the most efficient institutions in this country. Apparently they are to be judged by businessmen who run some of the less efficient institutions of this country, as our trade figures frequently remind us. Our polytechnics and universities are efficient because, as I said, our young people who study at those institutions normally receive the tuition and instruction necessary for them to earn degrees, barring accident. Those degrees which are normally awarded after a three-year period of study are accepted throughout the world as the equivalent of degrees which, often, have been attained after longer periods of study. I cannot imagine how one can view that process as anything but an efficient one.
I do not understand how the Secretary of State can declare that we need efficiency audits, assessments and

1057
other such provisions. I sometimes wonder whether the Secretary of State would recognise a university if it came round the corner and banged him over the head. That is perhaps going a little too far. However, it is no good tackling any of the problems we have in front of us—I include here the often mentioned power given to the Secretary of State to intervene in particular institutions—by denying autonomy. That violates a pledge which this House and another place received from the Secretary of State's predecessor.
Whether we like it or not everything in this Bill revolves round the question of the matching of resources to programmes. If the resources are not available, the area to concentrate on is the 16 to 19 year-old age group. It is in that age group that we really suffer in relation to our Continental competitors. When our students in that age group attain the levels of their Continental counterparts, perhaps we shall have the resources to expand more rapidly the institutions of higher education.
6.4 p.m.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, this Bill does not give me any confidence in the stability of the Government's policy towards higher education, coming as it does after other Bills and debates, much of whose contents appear simply to consist of water over a dam which has been dispersed. The Universities Funding Council is now a thing of the past. Were it not that we face a general election which may save us from the danger posed by this measure, I should be rather afraid of education being invaded by the kind of bureaucratic Saint Vitus's Dance resulting from the introduction of annual Bills which has done such immense harm in local government.
At university I was taught that if one wishes to reform anything, one must before making any changes examine what is wrong with the existing structure. The first thing that universities themselves think is wrong is their lack of finance. The Bill does nothing to help them in the matter of finance. The universities also consider that their independence is already threatened. This Bill will make that threat much more acute—at least in England. The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, asked why certain provisions did not apply to Scotland. The answer is easy. At last, through painful experience in by-elections, the Government have learnt to avoid gratuitously annoying the Scots any more. However, the English are still open to such abuse.
It must be obvious to everyone that universities must be free to conduct their own affairs and to undertake their own teaching and research. They must in particular be free of government intervention. One only has to look at Clause 77 to appreciate how that principle has been violated in this Bill. Universities may be threatened by governments directly and should be free to criticise them if they feel that that is right. In this country today there seems to be a coalition between government and big business. They should keep out of the orbit of the universities. The universities ought to be free to criticise industry if they feel that that is necessary and they should be free to
1058
conduct their research and their teaching in ways which may annoy industry or at least may seem irrelevant to industry.
However, it is essential that universities keep in close touch with industry and business. That is the case at present, but it should be a free partnership. The position should not be one of client and paymaster. The universities should not have to look to industry or business to provide the major part of their finance.
The universities are at present overburdened with administration. They are bedevilled by committees, forms and returns on every side. Some noble Lords may recall that the late lamented Lord Swann drew attention to the form filling that was imposed on those conducting any serious programme of research. Are the Government taking any steps to relieve universities of that burden, which diverts some of the best brains in the country from their proper business of knowledge and obliges them to run committees and fill in forms?
That leads me to the term "accountability". It is a popular term, but what kind of accountability are we discussing? The Government admit that the research and teaching that are carried on in the universities and the polytechnics are of a high order. Presumably those institutions do not need to be made any more accountable as regards their main functions.
It may be said that the universities and polytechnics are unnecessarily extravagant. It is true to say that in some ways the provision made for students and for staff in this country is more generous than is the case in some European universities. However, it is rather comical for the House of Lords to insist upon accountability when it must be the least accountable Chamber in the whole world.
There is also something rather odd about the Government insisting upon good housekeeping. A few years ago I calculated that the total cost of running the House of Lords amounted to roughly half the expenditure of the University of Kent. The polytechnics are notoriously more efficient at running their affairs than the Government. The polytechnics could initiate some classes with the aim of improving the efficiency of the Government's administration. After all, this Government recently perpetrated an extravagant cock-up —unrivalled in democratic society for many years—the poll tax. Now they inform the universities and the polytechnics that they may be inefficient and that they must be made responsible and cost effective. That is rather curious.
Clause 66 lays a duty on the new councils to establish quality committees. It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, and probably inappropriate to try to assess the quality of higher education as though it were a product in a supermarket, by some rule of thumb or some external criterion. Of the teachers from whom I benefited at university at least three would certainly have failed any examination on orthodox teaching; it was the unorthodoxy of their teaching which was so effective. One may set up simple tests such as how many engineers a university or polytechnic produces or how many firsts its honours schools obtain but the benefit to the country and to individuals is unquantifiable and should remain so. A

1059
university cannot be assessed like a business. Universities must be left largely to make their own decisions as to whether they are achieving the right standards and to look to their reputation among their fellows and in the country in general.
In attempting to quantify universities' performance there is a risk of making them second rate. The virtues of a university—the opportunities for unusual thought, or genius—must go hand in hand with its vices. If one wants to provide opportunities for geniuses one must accept that one may also get idle people and eccentric people, and one may well get drunk people, who are not necessarily the worst. We must be careful about attempting to quantify quality and about setting standards for quality in the universities.
I turn lastly to the most serious handicap under which I believe higher education suffers today. It is that the powers that be do not seem to appreciate the importance of what is the distinguishing mark of a university. Newman wrote that:
"The true and adequate end of intellectual training and of a university is not learning or its acquiral, rather it is thought and reason exercised upon knowledge".
A university should certainly gather, extend and disperse knowledge, but that is not all. It must also help people to use their imagination, to achieve happiness and to exercise judgment. To do that it must embrace not only science but at least history, philosophy, literature and ethics. Few things, I believe, are more useful in the world today than some knowledge of the relevant ideals of Greece and of Christianity.
Like many in this House I have lived through four of the greatest man-made disasters from which mankind has ever suffered: two world wars and the Nazi and Communist tyrannies. None was due simply to poverty or lack of practical training. They were all largely the fault of governments, of greed, of the pursuit of prestige, of mistaken values and of personal instability. It is in those areas that today we look to universities to give us help and advice.
I hope that in allowing other institutions to call themselves universities we keep that in mind. I trust that the inflation of which the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, spoke has not spread still further into our language. Already it is widespread. Every Minister calls himself either Secretary of State or ambassador, all secretaries call themselves executives, every rat-catcher calls himself a rodent officer. If that is all that we are doing to the polytechnics we are doing them no good at all. But if we provide them with the resources and acknowledge that they can perform what I believe to be the primary duty of universities that will be a very different matter.
I trust, too, as has also been said by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, that we shall provide them with the resources to discharge their new functions. I also hope that by elevating them we shall not denigrate technical education. It is vitally important, but it is different from university education. The best I experienced was in the Army.
Today, when the Churches are weak and morality is singularly weak, more than ever we need universities
1060
to advise us on the wise use of knowledge. The problems of the environment, genetic controls, world poverty, inflation, nuclear developments, nuclear war and violence more than ever call for consideration by independent institutions embracing the wide spread of human knowledge and able, without fear of being unprejudiced by the desire for power or money, to advise us how we should handle our new knowledge. The only such institutions which we now have at our disposal are the universities, and we had better look after them.
6.16 p.m.
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff: My Lords, it is my pleasure to be able to support a number of the proposals put forward in the Bill which the Minister introduced this afternoon. In particular, I support the proposal for the abolition of the binary line between universities and polytechnics, the granting of degree-awarding powers to polytechnics and some colleges, the establishment of the single funding councils for higher education in England, Scotland and Wales, and the establishment of a new national quality audit unit and quality assessment committees in the funding council. There are, however, as your Lordships would imagine, a number of matters to which I should like to return at Committee stage, particularly in respect of Clauses 64(2) and 77(2) dealing with the powers of the Secretary of State.
At this Second Reading, in the interests of time, I shall limit my remarks to the implications of Clause 76 under which the Secretary of State may, by order, provide for the dissolution of the Council for National Academic Awards. I do so because while for the last 17 years of my working life I was working in the university sector I was appointed by the Secretary of State to the Council for National Academic Awards. I have worked with its academic affairs committee, its teacher education committee and, in the council's early days, with its health committee. The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, is now chairman of that committee and will speak with far greater authority on its work.
Having had that experience both in the university sector and with the Council for National Academic Awards, I have to applaud the way in which that council has met the terms of its charter over the years. It was given the brief to approve degrees that were consistent and comparable in standard with awards granted and conferred throughout higher education in the United Kingdom, including the universities. It has been my experience that it has more than abundantly fulfilled the terms of its charter.
We owe much of the excellent standards of quality in the polytechnics to its work. Indeed, it is under the council's aegis that so many of the polytechnics have matured into institutions which now have accredited status. In other words, it has delegated authority to confer awards including, in some cases, research degrees. It is because of that work that we now have a cadre of institutions that can well take their place alongside universities. However, there are associated

1061
institutions—in some cases smaller colleges—which do not have that delegation of authority. I should like to deal with that aspect in a moment.
The Council for National Academic Awards is supportive of the Bill and does not wish to oppose the clause for its dissolution, but that should not be taken as an unconditional surrender. In its strategic plan it has stated that it wishes to ensure a smooth transition of as much as possible of the council's philosophy and practices; to transfer as far as possible its human and physical resources to the new system; to influence the new arrangements for quality assurance arising from the legislation; and to fulfil its existing obligations until the new arrangements are introduced. There is therefore a determination to see through its responsibilities until the new era is with us.
I want to cite four worries that I have about the dissolution of the CNAA while supporting that object in principle. The first is the fate of the smaller colleges which have not been delegated degree-awarding status and may not he able to achieve that. I understand that there are 70 such institutions. They are faced at present with the imminent demise of the CNAA with no one to validate their degrees and awards. It is essential that we have assurances as to how that work will be carried into the future. It has been rather loosely stated that they can find partners in either universities or polytechnics to validate their awards for them. That is not always easy and I should like to see some assurance given on that ground.
There is a particular group of independent colleges about which a number of us here are worried. We were delighted with Clause 62, to which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford referred, and the mention of church colleges in that, but there are a number of independent theological colleges. I belong to an organisation called TARSC—the Theological and Religious Studies Consortium. That group includes colleges with proud traditions such as Trinity College. Bristol, Spurgeons, the London Bible College, Oak Hill, St. John's, and All Nations Christian College. Leo Baeck College has observer status.
When they first read Clause 72 those colleges expressed grave anxiety about their future because their awards had been validated by the CNAA and they had grown to trust it. At present they see no good way of having their work validated in the future. The time-scale proposed for the demise of the CNAA militates; against any effective take-over of that work. I was surprised to hear that the proposed time-scale for the dissolution of the CNAA is now in the new academic year, in October 1992. That gives little time for the smaller and independent colleges to have their courses validated.
That brings me to my second worry; namely, that the proposed time-scale affects the interests of students. at smaller and independent institutions. I understand that about 40,000 students are presently enrolled in those colleges and by next September the validation of their degrees will not be undertaken by the CNAA. We want some assurances as to how the interests. of those students will be catered for in the future. In addition, the colleges are now enrolling
1062
students for next September and many of them cannot guarantee what kind of degree programme they will come into. Again, it is right that the interests of those students and institutions should be safeguarded.
Thirdly, the proposed time-scale gravely affects the council's human resources. I was surprised to find that redundancy notices would be issued from the time of publication of the Bill; yet, as I understand it, the time-scale for the dissolution of the CNAA is not a firm one. There are so many uncertainties facing the very expert staff at CNAA, whom we should guard.
Fourthly, I am anxious about the proposed quality assurance and peer review methods. The language in that area is unclear and again I seek clarification. I share many of the reservations expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and by the noble Lord Lord Dainton.
In summary, therefore, although we support the dissolution of the CNAA—one could say that no organisation has worked more assiduously and with greater effect for its own dissolution—we must protect what is happening. I am interested to see that in Clause 76 there is provision for property rights, liabilities and duties, but no provision for the interests of organisations, students and staff who may be left without guidance in the future.
Writing about those matters, the Principal of the London Bible College said:
"It is the intention of the government to establish a Quality Assurance Unit, charged with the task of monitoring the quality of tertiary level courses, and to add to that unit a second dealing with a system of credit accumulation and transfer. These are two residual functions of the CNAA. In fact, as other informed academics have commented, it begins to look very much as though having abolished the CNAA the government is reinventing it. And it is difficult to resist the conclusion that the government should add to these two units a third which could continue to validate degrees in those small institutions which can never hope to gain accreditation".
I see the logic of that argument. I do not wish to see the rump of a weakened CNAA left, but we need an assurance that its work will be carried forward and not lost.
6.28 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I am pleased to welcome the Bill very warmly and to pay tributes to the Government for introducing this significant legislation and to the higher and further education institutions which have worked so hard to merit the recognition and autonomy that the Bill will grant to them.
I should also like to pay a warm tribute to my noble friend Lady Perry for her excellent maiden speech and to say what a delight it is because I have pleaded for so long that there should be a senior representative of the polytechnic sector in your Lordships' House. Therefore to have my noble friend here as director of South Bank Polytechnic is a very great delight. I know that all her contributions now and in future will be warmly welcomed.
As your Lordships' House is fortunate to have so many representatives of the universities, I shall not dwell on issues raised by those with far greater university experience than I can offer. Instead I shall

1063
confine myself to matters concerning those institutions of higher and further education in the non-university sector. In so doing I must declare an interest in four instances. I have the privilege of being a governor of Bournemouth Polytechnic, visiting professor of Anglia Polytechnic, chairman of the CNAA Health Studies Committee and, since Tuesday, I am pleased to say, together with the noble Earl, Lord Longford, honorary fellow of the Polytechnic of Central London.
The advantage of those connections is that I have had an opportunity to discuss these measures with some of the representatives of those institutions. I am pleased to report that there is very widespread appreciation of many of the proposals in the Bill, particularly the proposals to remove the binary line in funding provisions and to enable polytechnics to use the title of university. Those provisions will enable them to operate on a level playing field with the universities and to prove their worth on academic merit and on their appeal to students in the quality and perceived relevance of their courses.
Polytechnics are rightly proud of their distinctive tradition, but the academic attainment, which the award of degrees under the aegis of the CNAA was intended to confer, has not always been translated into the reality of student perceptions in their choice of courses, or perceived by employers of their students after graduating. Here I disagree with my noble friend Lord Beloff because that has been a very real problem for polytechnics and their students. It has meant that too often polytechnics have been a second choice, not necessarily because of the quality of the courses, but because of the perceived difference in status and subsequent job opportunities, especially abroad, where the value of a polytechnic degree has not always been appreciated. Therefore the dissolution of the binary line and the freedom for polytechnics to compete on more equal terms in the academic marketplace are warmly to be welcomed.
I also wish to echo the widespread appreciation expressed in the FE sector for proposals to transfer FE colleges out of local authority control. While the contribution which many local education authorities have made to the development of further education has been appreciated, and always will he a very historic part of their tradition, it is now felt by many that the time is ripe for the benefits which autonomy will bring. Those institutions of higher education previously under local authority control which have already achieved such autonomy now rejoice in the freedom to operate in a streamlined way, with the efficiency and quick responsiveness which autonomy brings.
For example, during the past week I have heard great delight expressed by the director of one higher education institution and by the head of a secondary school, both of which recently gained autonomy from local authority control. They expressed delight at the speed with which they can take decisions and at the freedom to take those decisions which they, in their direct experience, believe to be in the best interests of their students. They expressed delight to such an
1064
extent that they said that that autonomy has resulted in giving them the most rewarding time in their entire professional careers.
I also welcome warmly the provision for schools to admit part-time and adult students to sixth forms. That can provide a more flexible provision for the 16 to 18 year age group, a significant increase in access to education for adults of all ages, a cost-effective use of teaching expertise and capital assets and a rewarding and stimulating educational experience for both teachers and students.
It is clear that I warmly welcome the great majority of significant, radical and indeed historic measures in the Bill. I have just two reservations which have already been mentioned by other noble Lords. The first is the proposed hasty shutdown of the CNAA with serious implications for a number of colleges and their students. The second refers to the issue of quality control.
With regard to the CNAA, on previous occasions my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has applauded the CNAA for its sterling work over the past 27 years, which has enabled so many polytechnics and other colleges to reach the maturity which justifies the provisions of the Bill. However, there are a number of matters relating to the implementation of the proposed changes which are causing grave concern to those 70 institutions which will not be eligible for degree-awarding powers and for their 40,000 students. This concern has already been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane.
In particular, the accelerated timetable for the proposed dissolution of the CNAA is causing confusion and serious difficulties. I believe that there may be a difference between the formal proposed dissolution date of April 1993 and the likely effective down-tools date, which I understand is likely to be next September. But even April 1993 is a nonsense for institutions not accredited to award their own degrees because they will have to have made alternative arrangements by that date. I suggest that that is untenable for three reasons.
First, the time constraints mean that colleges may be pressurised into accepting relationships with other academic institutions—relationships which are unfavourable academically and financially. For example, those well respected independent theological colleges to which the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, referred, are of international repute but they are in a virtually impossible position at the moment. Linkage with universities which have faculties of theology mean that they will be entering into direct competition for students, but linkage with other institutions means that they will become subject to academic boards or senates which may not have expertise in or sympathy for theology.
There is also a problem of costs, not only for those independent theological colleges but for all the colleges caught in this trap, including professional colleges such as the British School of Osteopathy. The CNAA existed to facilitate high academic standards. It looked for no financial advantage in its relationship with colleges. The work undertaken by members of its committees is voluntary. Its registration fee for

1065
students is a mere £50. However, universities currently validating courses in non-degree awarding colleges are already asking six times that figure and more, which for those colleges will mean an increase of registration fees from £50 to £350 or more.
Universities and polytechnics will inevitably look for some advantage in their association with those colleges which are being pushed into a forced marriage. The need to provide a financial dowry could cripple some of those colleges. I suggest that their loss would also be a loss for the nation. The increase in registration fees could also act as a deterrent for many of their students.
There are two other problems for those colleges apart from costs. The first refers to the failure to honour commitments already given to students. Surely the spirit of the proposed Citizen's Charter require; students to be given a fair deal. But those 40,000 students in the non-degree awarding institutions who have already registered for CNAA degrees will not be given a CNAA award after next summer. They will have no choice but to accept an award from whatever validating body their college can find. Students applying for courses in 1992 have no idea what awards they will receive.
That puts the colleges and students in an impossible predicament and could constitute a breach of contract for students who have enrolled on courses which they believed would yield a CNAA award. I have been informed in discussion with many of these students that the possible alternative arrangements currently under discussion would not be seen by many of them as satisfactory, especially those students from abroad, where the CNAA has gained a very high reputation.
Finally, there is a small but important category of students who seem to have been entirely forgotten by the Government at the moment. I refer to the 500 research degree students registered by the CNAA through non-educational establishments, such as industrial and commercial organisations, research laboratories and hospitals. I therefore ask my noble friend the Minister whether he will give an undertaking to reconsider the problems of academic validation in that small but very significant part of higher education.
Perhaps I may urge that the CNAA, with its rich resources of expertise and experience, may be given a prolonged remit to complete those important residual functions. It seems somewhat ridiculous to create havoc and to cause intense anxiety to people undertaking excellent work by setting up unsatisfactory or uncertain new arrangements in great haste when there is already an existing body of proven worth capable of completing its valuable service in an appropriate timescale.
The only remaining issue I wish to raise is quality control. I understand and respect the concerns expressed by noble Lords over interference with academic freedom. I am a passionate believer in academic freedom. However, I am also aware that there is a need for some mechanism to ensure academic standards. In my experience in both the university and polytechnic sectors I have been deeply impressed by most of the work that I have
1066
encountered. But I must confess that there have been times when I have been disturbed by examples of less than adequate academic work in both teaching and research. I have had the temerity to criticise some work publicly as academically disreputable. This not only gives students academic short change but it also abuses precious and finite resources. I shall therefore listen with great interest to the forthcoming debates on how a compromise may be reached to achieve quality assurance while preserving that fundamental principle of academic freedom.
With that anticipation of subsequent stages of the Bill, I conclude by warmly welcoming the Bill and expressing a sincere hope that the problems to which I have referred will be resolved satisfactorily so that the Bill may make its way on to the statute book with all speed and bring in the immensely valuable benefits that it is designed to give to further and higher education in this country.
6.41 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, perhaps we all underestimate the extent to which poor quality teaching and insufficient and poor research may arise from a factor which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Grimond. It is the amount of time that university and polytechnic teachers and others have to give up to fund-raising. Through my experience with the parliamentary and scientific committee, I believe that it would not be irresponsible or flippant to attribute part of the relative decline in technology and science —it is relative compared with others—to the fact that it is always the top man appointed to the top job who has to argue the claim for money from the private sector. Even the most understanding and broadminded of private sector donors seem always to insist on seeing the top man. Therefore he is taken away from education and research.
The top man may be tempted to hire a fund-raiser to relieve him of the burden of that work. However, it is only too likely that that person will say, "I'm sorry, they want to see you", and the expenditure on his salary may be totally wasted. I make that general remark.
The Minister said that the Bill was part of a programme of reforms designed to devolve responsibility in our education system. That is double-speak. I considered at first whether that word was too harsh; perhaps, I thought, I should call it one-and-a-third-speak or 1.9-speak. But it is a fully fledged example of double-speak. Insofar as the Bill affects devolution or centralisation, it is a 100 per cent. centralising Bill. It proposes to remove more than one class of colleges from decentralised and devolved local government and place them under the direct control of a body set up by central government. For the first time a Minister of the Government is given direct control of the affairs not only of polytechnics and colleges but of universities too.
The Minister stated that the Government aimed to establish parity of esteem between one class of educational institution and another. My thoughts were, "Here we go again". I remember that argument from 45 years ago. In those days discussion may have

1067
involved comprehensive and grammar schools or state and public schools. I forget which; it does not matter. The government of the day—it was a Labour Government—was seeking to establish parity of esteem between two types of schools. Our Government are now seeking to do the same with two types of further and higher education establishment. If "esteem" means esteem in the opinion of the people, then it is wrong for the Government to seek to establish such a change. It is manipulation of public opinion. On the other hand, if it refers to esteem in the eyes of one of the regulating bodies, the funding councils, which are to be set up, then it is their duty to define that further. Esteem in what respect? How are the different categories of education institutions to seek to attain higher esteem in the opinion of those funding bodies? One must consider that. The concept is out of place in a democracy and in particular in the education sector of a democracy.
I have two questions relating to the Privy Council and the names. They are the questions of a naive outsider. First, what are the qualifications that make privy counsellors better judges of the matter than others in the country? What advice will they be able to draw on to make up any deficiencies from which a given set of privy counsellors may suffer? It is not clear to me.
Let us take London as an example. If a polytechnic is judged worthy of the name university—which by tradition is supposed to be a superior name—is it automatic that that polytechnic must be set up as a new university? Should it not become part of the nearest established university? There may be reasons against that, but I believe that it would be worth considering them. In London there is one great sprawling university, Brunel University and others. There are a large number of polytechnics. Is it a rational division to have one huge sprawling university, several smaller universities and several still smaller, more recent universities dotted about here and there? I urge the Government to consider that.
The intervention of the Secretary of State in the affairs of certain institutions has been decried and abhorred by many noble Lords. I shall not go into the arguments again. Such intervention goes against the entire fabric of a free education system. Governments are always trying to achieve that. It is about the third time that an attempt has been made in my lifetime. Such attempts are always fought off without too much difficulty, as I imagine will occur again. It would be a dangerous day for this country if that did not happen.
Why does the issue matter so much? I am reminded of the words of Michael Oakeshott, a professor of political philosophy at the London School of Economics, at one time broadly accepted throughout the Conservative Party as an acceptable guide to the modern world. He said that a university is not a dinghy that can be joggled about to catch every passing breath of wind. The desire of the Secretary of State to have the power directly to tell this or that university what it ought to do in this or that case is equivalent to the statement that a university is a dinghy and that the Secretary of State may seize its
1068
tiller whenever he feels like it. Some Secretaries of State may go down in history as being grand tillermen. Others may be recorded as somewhat incompetent tillermen. This is a category mistake. It is clear that universities create governments; governments do not create universities in the human and intellectual sense. That which is created by a given class of social institution has no right to joggle that class of institutions about. Governments have an ontological duty towards the independence of universities because they are the creatures of the universities, though 40 years later.
6.51 p.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, in the words of H. G. Wells:
"Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe".
It is with some satisfaction, therefore, that one sees the Government embracing the former option and thus aiming for a 50 per cent. increase in the number of home students in higher education in this country from 1989 to the year 2000. This is strategic planning on a grand and ambitious scale, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Belstead for presenting the picture so clearly in his introductory speech. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lady Perry for her splendid maiden speech which has contributed so much to the debate.
The abolition of the binary line, if it means greater access to university education for students from all social backgrounds, is warmly to be welcomed. As a university professor I shall restrict my remarks today to higher education. While applauding this splendid initiative it is perhaps necessary to examine more closely what it means in practice and to invite Ministers to be wary of the several pitfalls which lie ahead, some of them not altogether avoided in the White Paper which preceded the present Bill.
Although the Bill transforms at a stroke the nation's polytechnics into universities, nowhere, so far as I can see, does it define what is meant by a university, nor indeed a polytechnic. Nor does it establish exactly what is achieved by the transformation. Surely more is implied here than the assertion:
"That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet".
To be persuaded that the change is beneficial we shall need to feel confident that the former polytechnics are improved by this change and that the existing universities are not suffering: that this is a case of levelling up rather than levelling down; that it is a case of abolishing the binary line rather than perhaps raising it.
My own college within the University of Cambridge is defined in paragraph 1 of its statute 1 as:
"a place of education, religion, learning and research".
In my remarks I wish to emphasise and define three essential elements: first, research interacting with teaching; secondly, academic independence; and, thirdly, the resources necessary to ensure high quality.
Knowledge and the practical power which knowledge brings is advanced by research. I can conceive of no university in which research is not encouraged and facilitated. In particular, in most

1069
universities academic staff have a contractual obligation to undertake research as well as to teach and this is a criterion for academic advancement in those institutions. While accepting that there will be differences of emphasis and in the amount of funding available via the research councils, I should like to be assured that all university academic staff will be encouraged to undertake some research.
This need not be a huge drain on funding, for while project work, especially in the sciences, may be funded mainly through the research councils, the crucial resource, especially in the humanities, is time. The dual support system, whatever its present limitations, makes provision for lecturers' time and for libraries, both to be devoted in part towards research. I should be grateful if the Minister would assure us that this will be as true for the new universities as for the old. I see no reason why it should be difficult for him to give that assurance.
Secondly I turn to the issue of academic independence. The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, contrasted Section 134 of the Education Reform Act 1988 with the different provisions set out in Clauses 67(2) and 77(2) of the Bill. They empower the Secretary of State to intervene directly in named and specified universities and their affairs. As yet Ministers have given no explanation of the change which has been deplored by almost every speaker today and applauded by none. It may be appropriate for the Minister to follow the advice given by my noble friend Lady Young and to consider amending the provision. If not, whatever the Minister's eloquence he may have difficulty in persuading Members on this side of the House, let alone the other, in following him.
There must be opportunity for research, academic independence and now, thirdly, resources for excellence. Economies of scale there may be and we can all applaud the Government's determination to run a tight ship. A 50 per cent. increase in student numbers, now all at university and no longer at polytechnic, may not require a 50 per cent. increase in funding in real terms. However, it will need something. I turn again to research funding. The White Paper indicates that in 1989–90 the UK received more than £1,600 million for research against only £70 million for the existing polytechnics. Surely once these polytechnics are universities they will need more than £70 million for research. But can we have some assurance that the provision for the pre-existing universities will not be reduced? This is surely one place where some modest increase in funding must be provided if the great transformation is to be more than a cosmetic change in nomenclature.
Perhaps I may ask Ministers to give consideration to the institution of a humanities research council if research funding is increasingly to be transferred from the funding council to the research councils? In research the humanities are inexpensive; they give good value. But while they may have the income of a Cinderella surely they need not have the formal status of a Cinderella. I have heard a suggestion that a humanities research council might be set up and instantly merged with the Social Sciences Research Council Without discourtesy to my colleagues in the
1070
social sciences, I ask my noble friend to recognise the difference between a Cinderella and an ugly sister. Surely there we have one distinction, one binary line, which need not be abolished.
In conclusion, I stress that these observations are intended to he helpful. They are matters to which further consideration may need to be given if the imaginative and laudable initiatives outlined in the Bill are to achieve the success which we all wish them.
6.58 p.m.
Lord Flowers: My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, because I agreed with so many of his comments. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Young, I have no difficulty with a great deal of the Bill, although I shall address my remarks to the higher education aspect. I too support the final abolition of the binary divide between the universities and the polytechnics. I am happy to make that declaration on the day on which the noble Baroness, Lady Perry of Southwark, has made her maiden speech. I also welcome the intended expansion of both sectors and the emphasis on raising academic standards.
However, I have reservations and I shall mention only three. I agreed with the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, in particular the danger of drawing too sharp a definition between academic and vocational education. I beg the Government not to base their thinking on that distinction because it is false, as the noble Baroness explained so eloquently. My first reservation about the Bill is that the diversity within each of the further and higher education sectors should be encouraged and not eliminated. I very much agree with what my noble friend Lord Dainton said about that.
In the higher sector, I welcome the intention to apply common criteria to the judgment of academic excellence and research achievement. That will itself produce a certain grading structure. However, diversity must be qualitative and not merely quantitative. In future the criteria must allow success to he rewarded across a very wide spectrum of institutions. If teaching is more successful in attaining its objectives in some polytechnics than in some universities, that must be rewarded. Likewise, if applied research and community links are better in some universities than polytechnics, those too must be rewarded. The result may not be to everybody's liking but so be it.
Nevertheless, a broad range of objectives should somehow be maintained. How will that be done? In fact, the Bill says very little about that. Apparently those matters are to be settled in private between the Secretary of State and the new funding councils. To me it seems so important that I am not sure that the matter should be left in that way.
My second reservation concerns the additional powers which the Secretary of State wishes us to confer upon him. When I first read Clause 64, especially subsection (2), I was unclear as to the precise intention. Did he wish to impose specific requirements on individual institutions? When I read Clause 77 there was no longer any doubt. Under subsection (2) he can instruct the funding councils as

1071
to how much money they should give to particular institutions for particular activities. That is monstrous. It totally undermines the general convention whereby the Government do not interfere in the affairs of individual institutions. That is the basis of university autonomy in this country, which is soon to be shared, I have supposed, by the polytechnics. I am glad that Ministers may be prepared to think again about the drafting of that part of the Bill.
Perhaps the solution to the problem lies in distinguishing carefully between the accountability of the institutions to government after the event, so to speak, which we all accept, and the powers of government to instruct institutions what to do academically before the event, which we do not accept and which is unnecessary.
There are also proposed powers whereby the Secretary of State may order an academic audit of an individual institution. Clause 78(2) appears to undermine the Royal Charter or statutes of many, if not all, universities. If the Government persist, I assure them that those matters will attract a great deal of opposition at later stages of the Bill.
However, I am not sure that the desire to increase the powers of the Secretary of State necessarily springs from Ministers, although of course they must take the blame. It has been a constant source of anguish to the civil servants of the Department of Education and Science that their powers to interfere in the internal affairs of universities are so strictly limited, although they never cease to try.
Quite recently a former very senior staff member of the DES —a man whom I otherwise admire and for whom I have much affection—tried to bring pressure on a certain university to correct what he deemed to be a lack of political balance in some of its academic courses. He was probably right but that is not the point; it was not his business. That is why we need academic autonomy.
The same person also tried to interfere very seriously with the internal governance of a university which I know rather well. Of course it must be infuriating sometimes not to be able to take a hand in events, but so far it has been against the custom and the law for civil servants to do so. In our treatment of the Bill, I hope that we shall uphold existing custom and law in those respects.
My remaining worry, which I seem to share with the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, is that the Bill fails to reveal where we are going. Like the Education Reform Act, it is all about mechanisms and not objectives. I remember during the passage of that Bill that Mr. Robert Jackson gave repeated assurances that in spite of the manifest similarities in the provisions for the UFC and the PCFC, the Government had no intention of merging those two bodies or, as he said on one rather less public occasion, at least not until after the next election. Now—and before the next election—we are asked to do just that. With a Government who seem so unsure of their objectives, what are we to believe?
Now the further education funding councils are being set up in the image of the UFC and the PCFC.
1072
Do the Government have in mind before the next election but one, if they win the next one, to merge further education with higher education? There may be some merits as well as difficulties, but we should know what they have in mind. In the meantime, do the Government intend to confer upon further education institutions similar degrees of autonomy to those enjoyed by higher education? I do not quite see the point otherwise, unless it is merely to spite local authorities irrespective of the damage caused to the institutions, because I cannot see how a single body for England, for example, can effectively execute all the managerial functions which at present fall to the English local authorities, however imperfect the latter may be sometimes.
Again, what about curricular matters? We now have a national curriculum in schools, although not without some development pains. Much attention is being given to corresponding arrangements for the 16 to 19 year-old age group and rightly so, otherwise much of the point of the national curriculum would be lost. Consequently, higher education will soon be faced with a different intake: broader in subject coverage, shallower in the depth to which individual studies are taken, and the institutions are trying to increase access in any event.
Meanwhile, the UFC is encouraging the universities to introduce modularity of courses and transferability between institutions which, taken with a national academic audit, already implies a measure of uniformity and co-ordination. Does all that suggest to the Government that in due course there should be a national curriculum for first degrees? If that were so, that would temper many of our thoughts about this Bill's provisions.
I believe it was an American football player who first said, "If you do not know where you are going, you may find yourself some place else". This Bill is about much more than football. I urge the Government to look beyond the mechanisms and the White Paper and to be clearer about how they see the future of further and higher education. They still have an opportunity to do that later this evening.
7.9 p.m.
The Earl of Limerick: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow an academic of such distinction as the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, who has made some powerful points to the House this evening.
I begin with a general and warm welcome for the Bill and with gratitude to my noble friend Lord Belstead for the manner in which he introduced it. The basis of that welcome is explained in part by a declaration of my interest as chairman for the past seven years of the board of governors of an inner London polytechnic. We were liberated by the Education Reform Act 1988, and have benefited—I was going to say immeasurably, but I shall amend that word and say in fact very measurably—from that freedom.
This Bill takes forward a positive trend in polytechnics most obviously, but by no means only, by bringing titles into line with universities. As a graduate myself of an oldish university—I speak of

1073
Oxford—I say robustly that in certain regards I think it is not a case of the polytechnics wanting to be more like the universities, but wondering how long it will take the universities to see the merits of being more like us. I would be in no hurry at all to shed the proud and prestigious—increasingly prestigious—name of polytechnic but for one point already made in the notable maiden speech of my noble friend Lady Perry, and that is marketability; the marketability of our courses overseas, where the word "polytechnic" means many different things, but nowhere, I believe, except in France is the title as prestigious as it is becoming here.
I should, even in his absence, comment on one point on which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, based an argument, and that was about the relative sizes of polytechnics and universities. He implied that even the largest polytechnics were small in relation to the smallest universities. That is simply not the case. My own polytechnic has 15,000 students, many of them of course part time, but that number is greatly in excess of many universities, and indeed our business faculty exceeds in numbers many of the smaller universities.
I had thought that this Bill had a good measure of bipartisan or even tripartisan support, at least in its provisions for the higher education sector. I had thought so until I listened to the noble Baronesses, Lady Blackstone and Lady Seear. It seems that we are in for an interesting Committee stage.
In the brief time that I shall speak I should like to refer to two implications of the Bill and to two of its specific provisions, but without detracting from my general welcome. The first implication is for research funding. Our present understanding is that the quantum of support in real terms will not change significantly, and further that it is likely to continue to he directed to basic research in departments currently being funded. In other words, there will be little change in direction.
In current jargon, if the playing field is bounded to the north by the universities, to the south by the polytechnics, to the west by basic research and to the east by applied research, then there is a bias, in that the heavy funding balls will continue to roll to the north-west corner where basic research and universities meet. The pitch, I believe, needs some levelling. There is a rogue mound in the middle, which I learn is called strategic research, which moves in the direction of applied research, provided, I am told, that it does not lead to specific, marketable products! We all understand and accept the need for seed corn, but I, for one, must question the utility of this limitation. Perhaps the research councils will be more readily persuadable that polytechnics do do research, and that an increasing percentage of it is worthy of support.
The second implication of the Bill is in favour of capital support as opposed to recurrent funding. I make only the simple and general point that the stock of buildings in the condition handed over to polytechnics and HECs by local education authorities in 1988 was desperately substandard. As revealed by the Hunter Report, the cost of the Stage 1 work alone across the 90-odd institutions of the sector—that is,
1074
merely meeting the requirements of the health and safety at work legislation—ran to hundreds of millions of pounds. The allocation that the PCFC was able to make in 1990–91 was £16 million and in 1991–92 was £40 million. A start has been made, but it is still far from moving into the Hunter 2 category; namely, major capital works on what might be termed basic requirements—roofing, for instance. It will take more than this to remedy generations of neglect. The institutions concerned are putting reasoned and costed proposals to the DES and funding councils. This is the most pressing need.
I turn to two specific provisions in the Bill. The first—already widely aired—relates to the powers of the Secretary of State as proposed to be conferred in Clause 64(2) and Clause 77. The comment generally has not been supportive. I ask those who have spoken so eloquently for the universities to accept that the concept of academic freedom is cherished also in polytechnics. That said, I understand why a central government that proposes to disperse £4 billion a year in support of higher education wishes to retain a reserve power over any possible misapplication. Such provisions are found in other Bills governing sectors of major public expenditure. Like others, however, I am inclined to think that Clauses 64 and 77 go rather beyond what is necessary for this purpose, and no doubt some compromise will be sought at a later stage.
My final point concerns Schedule 6 to the Bill. The small print of the rules in that schedule includes some arcane distinctions, neither the purpose nor the arithmetic of which is limpidly clear. Let me concentrate on the underlying intent, which is to reduce the maximum size of the board of directors of a polytechnic from 25 members to 22. Why 22? Apparently this is to be done in the name of "a more executive style", but any real change would have to go beyond tinkering with numbers. Coupled with this is the removal of protected places for staff governors, student governors and representatives of local education authorities. About that I shall say two things. First, I welcome the discretion and, secondly, my board does not intend at present to use it because the members we have in all those categories are helpfully contributory and we should like to retain them.
The general view of polytechnic chairmen—and I had the opportunity to consult many of my colleagues only two days ago—is, first, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"; secondly, if you trust us to preside over boards of independent educational institutions, trust us and our colleagues also to decide on the size and the balance of our boards. The prescription enshrined in Schedule 7 to the 1988 Act was absolutely necessary to break the old mould, but only three years later—and it has taken me three years to get the board I believe we need—is too soon for us to be told that we have to lose any of the members who give their time to make quite individual and distinct contributions. This question will be revisited in Committee. I end where I began: with the minor exception of Schedule 6, I warmly welcome this Bill.
7.18 p.m.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I shall be brief, for I have only one point to make. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, will recall that at the Second Reading of the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions (No.2) Bill last June I said that if the pay of teachers in primary, secondary, and grant-maintained schools was to be determined by an independent statutory review body, it was difficult to see why universities, polytechnics and colleges of higher and further education should not be treated in the same way. The matter fell outside the Long Title of that Bill, and so I could not pursue it at a later stage. As I understand it, the same difficulty does not apply in the case of this Bill, and I am therefore returning to the subject now.
Under the discredited bargaining system applicable to universities the Secretary of State effectively has a veto over settlements reached between vice-chancellors and the Association of University Teachers. In the 1987 White Paper on higher education the Government acknowledged that the current negotiating machinery for university lecturers was defective. However, nothing has been done to improve it. I have some experience because for 10 years until recently I was chairman of a university council. There is a widely perceived unfairness, as the CVCP has said, not only in the way the salaries of university teachers are determined, but in their salary levels.
It is the wish of both the CVCP and the AUT that the pay of university lecturers should be determined by an independent review body. In his statement in another place, giving reasons for the establishment for such a body for school teachers, the Secretary of State said that,
"we want to raise still further the esteem in which the teaching profession is held in society".—[Official Report, Commons, 17/4/91; col. 433.]
Surely that statement should have equal application to teachers in higher and further education and be validated by a policy that enables all teachers to have their pay determined in the same way. For my part I can see no reason why such a policy should not be accommodated within the framework of the further and higher education funding councils proposed in the Bill.
The Government's decision to set up a review body for school teachers was made on the basis that those teachers would not in future take industrial action on matters within the review body's ambit. In my view that principle should have equal application to university and college teachers who have this year rejected industrial action in support of their pay claim.
I could go on, but this is not the time to do so. I do not see the logic of the Government's position in having established a review body for one element in education, namely, school teachers, but declining to do so for others. When I asked a Starred Question in July, I was struck by the extent to which noble Lords in all parts of the House shared my anxiety. If the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, can say anything to help dispel that anxiety, of which he knows, then I hope that he will do so. It is a matter to which I may wish to return in Committee. Unfortunately, I do not
1076
believe that it will be possible for me to hear the noble Lord's response as I have to return to Cheshire tonight. For that I apologise both to him and to the House.
7.23 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I shall try to be very brief about four points in the Bill which are of particular interest to me. I also wish to ask the Government two questions. I refer first to the changes in further education and the Bill's effect on what has been described during the debate in a form of shorthand as non-vocational adult education. The moving of further education colleges out of local authority control, though not welcomed by a number of noble Lords who have spoken during the debate, is in fact widely welcomed by the colleges themselves. I say to my noble friend Lord Beloff that that development is welcomed on educational grounds by the colleges.
It is interesting that the National Association of Head Teachers, which represents head teachers of schools as well as a substantial number of college principals, has sent a brief which is by no means unsupportive of the Bill. It emphasises that the independence of colleges in the FE sector must be genuine. I am absolutely sure it is right about that. As to the effect of the changes on adult education, I cannot see, as several noble Baronesses on the Benches opposite have seen, that local education authorities will find themselves forced by the Bill to spend less on much valued non-vocational courses. My guess is that they might well spend more. They will continue to be funded by central government, who run the courses as they are now. The decision, as now, as to what they spend as well as what charges they make for courses will continue to be entirely a matter for them. The constant pressure that there has always been within local authorities to shift resources out of non-vocational courses into job-related further education will have been removed.
With non-vocational further education now the main adult educational interest of councillors, it seems that it is likely to flourish as never before. As the Association of County Councils points out (and the point is endorsed by the principal of Paignton College) the new practical problems that will arise will be particularly difficult for small local adult education centres which run non-vocational and vocational courses together. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, spoke clearly about that. They will have to seek funding from at least two directions—from the LEA and from a college.
I remember this same anxiety being expressed some years ago when the Manpower Services Commission began funding local authority adult and further education courses. People soon found mechanisms then that worked. Those mechanisms have now been adapted for obtaining funding from TECs. I do not believe that obtaining funding from further education colleges will be any more difficult; it will just be different.
My second area of particular interest has been discussed already by a number of noble Lords and

1077
that is the future of students. That was referred to in particular by the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane of Llandaff. I refer to students in smaller institutions whose degrees have hitherto been validated by the CNAA and who have not, for whatever reason, made their own arrangements for future validation by another institution. That was a problem also mentioned by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford.
It seems essential that whatever arrangement is made, students should be able to gain the CNAA degree for which they registered if they so desire. That is important. As a member of the council of the Open University I am aware that discussions are going on now, at the instigation of the CNAA, about the possibility that that university, which has a locus throughout the United Kingdom, might take on some of the remaining functions of the CNAA and particularly the peer review and degree validating role which several noble Baronesses have referred to as a problem.
I do not know whether the plan will go forward, but should that happen I suggest that it would be helpful for the Privy Council to be asked to consider conveying the charter of the CNAA to the Open University, at any rate in the short term. Existing students would then be able to choose whether the degree they completed should be the CNAA degree for which they registered or an Open University degree. I ask my noble friend whether the Government are looking at that. That provision would be greatly in the interests of many thousands of students who are wondering what is going to happen to them.
I would add that the noble Lord, Lord Perry, who was the first Vice-Chancellor of the Open University, has told me that he considers this plan to be workable. He cannot be here today. Had he been, he would have made a plea for keeping, under another name, the whole apparatus of the CNAA and having statutorily applied peer review for all degree awarding institutions, including universities. Failing that, he feels that the Open University role I have described is a possible way forward for certain students.
My third point concerns the relationship of this Bill to the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill. The setting up of a separate Scottish Funding Council is widely welcomed in Scotland, but it may be that certain aspects of higher education will require to be dealt with United Kingdom wide. Can my noble friend say whether the Bill allows this? I know that it allows all three funding councils to participate, if they so desire, in the funding of the Open University—the Open University welcomes that—but will it also allow for, say, United Kingdom wide quality assessment arrangements or consideration of medical school provision across the whole of the United Kingdom? That latter point has not yet been discussed properly by the Scottish Principals. It is important to ensure that the Bill allows for such treatment of the planning for medical schools.
Lastly, I should like simply to join other noble Lords in welcoming my noble friend's assurance in his opening speech that the Government will have been
1078
listening to comments about Clauses 64 and 77 and will pay great attention to any amendments that are put down.
7.32 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, the noble Baroness will forgive me if I do not follow her into the realms of Scottish education. As it happens, by chance I have six Scottish grandchildren, but that does not qualify me to speak on matters Scottish. Therefore I shall turn to areas more familiar to me.
I was going to confine my remarks to the polytechnics and the WEA but I have been instructed by my acting leader, my noble friend Lady Blackstone, to say a few words about the signal absence of prison education from the Bill. The House may ask whether it is possible for me to make a speech without bringing in prisons. I am reluctant to do so, but my noble friend must be obeyed. I shall therefore deal for a moment with prison education.
When we discuss prison education—and looking around, I see present many noble Lords who have the pleasant sideline of visiting prisons—most of us think of people who receive Open University degrees, which is very notable. One must also think of people at what might be called the other end. I wish to mention one person who, as a young man of not quite 16, shot and killed a policeman. It happened many years ago but the principle is just the same. A boy, a rather older mentally handicapped boy of about 19, was hanged, one of the cruellest miscarriages of justice of all time. Efforts are still being made to rectify that miscarriage of justice. The boy who was nearly 16 was dyslexic. He could not read or write. He came of educated parents but he happened to be dyslexic. It took prison to teach him to read and write. I visited him in the early days when he was illiterate. Yet he acquired quite a good mastery of writing and certainly of reading. That is one example at the bottom end.
Right across the spectrum, whether one thinks of illiterate people receiving a minimal or basic education or of people receiving Open University degrees, there are nearly 50,000 prisoners under our control. I am told that the number has increased by 4,000 this year, having dropped in the previous year. It is for us to say what is done with them. I am sorry that there is no reference to them in the Bill. I take the word of my noble friend Lady Blackstone that there is no reference to them and I am looking to her to rectify the position. I shall give her any support that I can at the next stage.
I turn now to polytechnics. This subject has already been dealt with by some of the best speakers in the House, including my noble friend Lady Blackstone and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. I did not hear the beginning of the noble Baroness's speech so it is perhaps the case that she was too modest to mention the fact that two days ago an honorary fellowship of the Polytechnic of Central London was conferred on her. I am not such a modest type—in old age one becomes less modest. I shall therefore make no secret of the fact that I followed her in receiving that great honour. She has done far more for the polytechnics than I have. At any rate I would be one of the first to

1079
speak up for the polytechnics in this House. I speak in that sense. The polytechnics have not asked me to speak. I cannot remember when anyone actually asked me to speak, but I speak as a great admirer of the polytechnics.
In that sense I welcome what the Government have done in their splendid historical development. I need not say much more than that because it has already been said so well. I do not want people to feel that the polytechnics are ungrateful. However, I do not want people to feel that they are easy in their minds. There is a great anxiety hanging over them—it seems to hang over all the speakers I have heard in this debate—concerning the terrible power given to the Secretary of State to do what he likes with any institution, whether university or polytechnic. I say "university or polytechnic" but polytechnics are to become universities. With any luck the polytechnic that so recently conferred such a great honour on the noble Baroness and myself will re-emerge as the University of Westminster. That is a very happy prospect.
What causes great anxiety to the polytechnics and to everyone else is Clause 77. I had not previously given the Bill the careful scrutiny it deserved but since being guided in that direction I have looked at Clause 77. It is quite astonishing. The civil servant who drafted it was trying it on. He surely could not believe that it would ever pass into law in that form. It is a scandalous piece of work. Perhaps it is a Civil Service idea of a joke. At any rate I am sure that it will he profoundly contested at later stages. Nevertheless, it would be wrong of anyone who in any sense spoke, however indirectly, on behalf of the polytechnics to do other than express a warm welcome for the Bill in general terms.
That is not the situation for anyone who has been approached by the WEA. The House has heard me before describe the story of my engagement to my wife in a waiting room in Stoke-on-Trent when we were both teaching for the WEA. That casts a romantic glow over the whole thing. But that romantic glow is no substitute for adequate funding. The WEA is very worried indeed. It may be that on this occasion the Minister will be able to set our minds a little more at rest then was the case when last we discussed these matters. On that occasion I pointed out that when teaching for the WEA I spent a good deal of the time teaching political theory while my wife taught English Literature. Those subjects would now be called so far as I know—I suggested it then and no one contradicted me—a leisure pursuit.
I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, who knows the education scene so well, will be able to provide any reassurance. I can speak for one section of the WEA. I can assure the House that it views with horror the maintenance of this distinction. On the previous occasion I discussed this matter I gave examples from my own experience, but on this occasion I shall quote one passage from a document the WEA has sent to me:
"Such a distinction means that the extensive work done by the WEA in what might be called role education or citizenship education—for example, school governors courses, courses for other voluntary organisations, courses for community
1080
groups on inner city housing estates … would all be labelled as leisure and recreation courses. As such they would receive less support and might well be lost if either the funding council or the local education authorities withdrew their support".
As there are many speakers on the list, I do not know whether the Minister will have time to deal with all the issues that have been raised in detail. I am not sure that he will be able to give any reassurance on this matter. However, I am sure that we shall hear a great deal more about this before the Bill ever gets near the statute book.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Butterworth: My Lords, I must first apologise to the Minister as I may not be here when he replies to the debate. I have an inescapable commitment tonight which will take me away from the House.
I wholly welcome the Bill, especially Part II which relates to higher education. The creation of a unitary system for higher education by cancelling the binary line is long overdue. Those who have experience of it know that it was thoroughly bad educationally and socially divisive. I believe that we should recall tonight that this development in higher education was introduced by the Labour Party. I feel sensitive about this matter because I was, unwittingly, a catalyst.
We had gone to Coventry to help create the University of Warwick. We began to relate to a marvellous polytechnic, the Lanchester Polytechnic which is now the Coventry Polytechnic. Eventually we came up with the proposal that the polytechnic should be merged into the university. It would become the Faculty of Technology and we would not proceed with our plans to create engineering laboratories. The principal of the polytechnic agreed and the polytechnic itself agreed. Coventry City Council agreed and Warwickshire County Council gave its blessing. Here was the opportunity for a new, bold educational development and, apparently, nothing stood in our way. But then the gnomes persuaded the Secretary of State for Education, Tony Crosland, to deliver his Woolwich speech creating the binary line. I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, wishes to intervene.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. However, I must correct him on his history in the matter. There was already a binary line in existence: there was a binary line between the regional colleges of technology and the universities. The Labour Government of the time, with Tony Crosland as Secretary of State for Education, built up the regional colleges of technology into polytechnics and thereby created the great system of public sector higher education which has served us so well over the past 20 years.
Lord Butterworth: My Lords, I was concerned with the university sector before the Woolwich speech. It had many unitary characteristics. The forced and unnatural constraints which were introduced into the system by the cataclysm of that speech had to be experienced in order to realise how injurious they were.

1081
At this late hour I do not wish to take up too much time of the House. However, much has been said about the powers being given to the Secretary of State to intervene in the responsibilities of the funding councils. I mention that because only a few years ago, in 1987, a committee was set up to review the operation of the University Grants Committee. It was chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Croham, and I was its vice-chairman. After a long review lasting several months the committee unanimously reaffirmed the arm's length principle. It reaffirmed the principle as being the cornerstone of university autonomy: that the national interest is best served in the long run by insulating the distribution of funds intended for universities from immediate political pressures. We have heard tonight how during the passage of the Education Reform Act attempts were made to introduce clauses which would in fact have breached that principle. However, they were successfully challenged and their political damage limited.
One might have thought that the settlement which was reached so recently would have been accepted as the basis for the funding councils to be established under the present Bill. I believe that we should ask why, once a settlement had been reached in Parliament, it now appears that that will not be applied when the new funding councils are established. It has been suggested that a compromise might be sought if the conditions which the Secretary of State can impose, and the directions which he can give, are so limited that they would not apply against an institution or a series of institutions. But that will not be enough. The principle goes much further. The Secretary of State should not be able to intervene in academic matters. In the long run, government will create better institutions by exercising restraint in this area. There is no other safe route for tackling these problems.
Leaving those problems aside, as the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, pointed out the Bill is concerned with machinery: it is setting up machinery. It is silent about the objectives to be achieved. Many of us consider that the most important function of a university is to advance, maintain and keep in repair our national intellectual inheritance. I should add that any institution which aims principally at being a finishing school for democrats will never be a university whether or not the word "university" is contained in its name.
As I said, the Bill is silent upon objectives. There is one important consequence which flows therefrom. The effectiveness of the legislation will depend more than is the case with most legislation on the manner in which it is implemented. After the experience of the Education Reform Act the Government must demonstrate complete good faith on the subject of university autonomy if confidence in this good Bill is to be maintained. The same applies to the funding councils. They can only fulfil their functions successfully if they have the confidence of the public, the universities and the Government. In the circumstances surrounding the development of the present funding council, that may well prove to be an uphill struggle.
7.49 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I intervene only to share the anxieties which have been expressed about the mischievous potential of Clauses 64 and 77—a potential that would permit political interference in the affairs of the institutions of higher education. I do so the more readily because the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, in his distinguished opening speech, showed that the Government's mind was not closed on the matter.
Having heard all the impressive speeches, not least that of the noble Lord, Lord Butterworth, I cannot believe that the Government will not respond. Never more than today is the integrity and independence of universities important. The Government have done much to enlarge the economic liberties of individual citizens. They have done so by enlarging their scope to own property so that they can make decisions themselves as to how their means shall be laid out. They have done it by promoting the market economy so that the individual citizen, in laying out his money, can influence production towards his needs or wishes and thus the whole pattern of production.
All that, however, should not be exaggerated on either side. The Government still spend 40 per cent. of GNP as against a previous 43 per cent. Equally, in recent years there has been a notable resurgence of bureaucracy. That word has been much and valuably used today. One has only to think of the egregious Child Support Act of the previous Session, which contained almost every bureaucratic enormity that could be called to mind. Like the rest of your Lordships, I found the approach of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, instructive: the desirability of interposing between the almighty state and the naked individual, intermediate institutions. The voluntary institutions immediately enlarge the individual's field of choice; but institutions such as the universities, with their independent outlook, can cushion the individual citizen from the pressures of the state. It is of the first importance that we adhere to the arm's length principle established for 150 years or more.
I have heard only two arguments in favour of the Bill's provisions. The first is that they have the same effect as the provisions of the 1988 Act. The second, which is rather difficult to reconcile with the first, is that it is necessary to make it clear that the Minister has a power of intervention in last resort. As to the first—whether there is any difference—if there is no difference, why is there a difference of terminology? Why was different terminology effected into the law of the 1988 Act?
As to the second—the last resort power of intervention of the Secretary of State—there is not a word in the Bill about it being a measure of last resort. We all know the many times that Ministers, perfectly well intentioned, have said how they will operate a measure. The time has come later when another Minister finds it expedient to operate differently. We have absolutely no need to question the good faith of present Ministers, but a time will come when there will be a generation of Ministers who did not know the present Ministers: Sir Humphrey will be succeeded by Sir Bernard. So it is necessary to ensure that if this is

1083
to be intervention as a last resort, that should be written into the statute. The Minister suggested that that would be difficult as a matter of drafting. That surprises me greatly. I cannot believe that the skilled draftsman of the present Bill would find it beyond his capacity to define the scope of the Minister's intervention. I am naturally chary of do-it-yourself instant drafting on the Floor of the House, but it immediately occurs to me that nothing would be easier than to limit the Minister's power of intervention to circumstances where he considered, on reasonable grounds, that there had been a misapplication of public funds.
I can think of another situation where he might wish to intervene. I need not deal with it now. It does not seem to me to be a cogent one, bearing in mind the undesirability of ministerial intervention in this sphere.
I wish to add only one thing under that head. If this is intervention as a matter of last resort, surely it cannot be right to subject the ministerial order to no more than negative resolution procedure. It is likely to be on financial grounds. In any case, it will be exceptional circumstances ex hypothesi which call for it. The affirmative resolution procedure should apply.
I hope that the Government will accept the sage advice of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and themselves bring forward a suitable amendment to allay the justified concern that has been expressed so authoritatively today.
7.58 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I feel humble at having to follow a speech such as that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. Perhaps I may begin by paying a warm tribute to the clear and cogent speech we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Perry of Southwark. I hope that we shall hear many more from her.
I cannot but share some of the disquiet which parts of the Bill must arouse in universities, although I welcome the end of the binary line. Clauses 64(2), 66(1) and 77(2) are naturally particularly disquieting because they all represent further inroads into the autonomy of the universities. I find it difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile the Government's general policy, as I see it, of getting away from bureaucracy and delegating powers as much as possible at a practical level, of identifying and recognising excellence and of operating a cost-effective system with the three proposed clauses.
When in July this year the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, raised the possibility of a pay review body for higher educational staff, the answer he received from the DES included the statement:
"The system constrains management's freedom of action over pay matters and if extended to universities would greatly detract from the autonomy of these institutions".
That is just what we fear the Bill will do; detract from the autonomy of the universities. As has been said earlier in this House, rather similar powers were sought in the Education Reform Act 1988. But the Government listened then and thought better of the
1084
proposal. I hope that they will listen again. I beg the noble Lord the Minister to urge the same wise second thoughts upon the Secretary of State this time.
I was for six years a member of the Hebdomadal Council of the University of Oxford. Incidentally, both undergraduates and graduates sat on that council. I therefore speak from knowledge of only one institution though I should like to record my satisfaction at what the Bill does for polytechnics, since I know and respect the work of the Oxford Polytechnic. From 1981 onwards the university conducted a series of rigorous exercises to review its size and shape. That was the natural outcome of the Franks Report and was influenced by the constraint on student numbers arising from natural pressure by the city, and by the fact that the quality of Oxford University as an institution would be diluted were it to become too large.
Oxford has clearly recognised that no great national institution can afford to become complacent or fail to develop to meet new challenges, and that it is right that questions should be asked and answered. Thus it has accepted that the UFC, when it was founded, also wanted answers to questions, forecasts of numbers and planning statements. However, the proper process of far-ranging and enlightened inquiry initiated by the university and well adapted to giving the necessary strategic answers, can only work if the autonomy of the university in its own well defined area of experience continues to be respected and indeed valued.
The Fellows at my Oxford college used to remind me that I was an administrator and not an academic. It is as an administrator that I am appalled at the potential waste that appears in the Bill. If the Government want a truly cost-effective and efficient system of further and higher education, they must begin to use, rather than attempt to duplicate, the skilled resources already in existence. They must not allow the system to fall into the hands of the enemy of most constructive thought and action—the bureaucratic process. I have a strong feeling that a DES virus has got into the Bill and that is why it differs so greatly from what the Secretary of State says. He stated recently,
"British universities are renowned for the excellence of their teaching and research, and for the quality of their staff. The central issue for the universities in the 1990s will be how to maintain quality while expanding rapidly and economically".
Let the Secretary of State therefore trust the universities to give value for money and maintain quality. I submit that they are infinitely better placed to do so than the most dedicated officials—or perhaps I should say "commissioners"—and they have every interest in maintaining excellence, since it is their raison d'être.
Much money and that most costly item, time, has been spent on such things as research selectivity exercises. There have been two already, in 1985 and 1989, and another is projected for 1992. That is three exercises in seven years. The cost of the 1989 exercise nationwide was broadly estimated at £4 million. In Oxford, where the cost was over £100,000, on each occasion the overwhelming majority of academic units

1085
were rated at Grade 5; that is, excellent by international standards. We must surely resist the idea that many more such exercises could be initiated under the Bill in who knows what areas at the whim of a future Secretary of State. The more time spent on completing forms and returns, the less there is for the real work—both teaching and research. Is it really necessary for established scholars—in some cases, Nobel prize winners —to report in detail every few months how many publications they have produced?
On the question of quality assessment, Clause 66(1), no one could quarrel with the need to ensure that the universities have effective mechanisms in place for assessing quality. But it is essential that the assessment should be carried out by the experts on the ground rather than by visiting teams of quasi-HMIs. I hope that the Secretary of State will stand by his own view that the arrangements for accountability should be such that,
"there is no need for imposition from the centre",
just as he has also said,
"It will continue to be for institutions to determine their own internal allocation of resources".
I was much heartened to hear the Minister say that the Bill is to allow further devolved management and to give the institutions greater freedom to manage their own affairs. I hope that, if the Government will not heed us when we tell them that students have been left without the proper financial support that they need to be able to do their academic work, they will give the academic institutions which are to produce our graduates as much flexibility and autonomy as possible, with the minimum of intervention from outside and direction from above. Students, or, in the language of the market, "the consumers", want choices; the universities want the freedom to provide those choices.
What it all boils down to is that the universities are healthy plants and the ground has been well turned over. But let us have a Bill which does not provide yet more power for the plants to be pulled up to see how they are growing. I hope and believe that the Secretary of State will be too good a gardener to do that.
8.5 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I too welcome many provisions of the Bill. But I would contend that it contains some provisions which have not been adequately thought through and one or two which are frankly misconceived.
The abolition of the binary line is timely. Many polytechnics have functioned for some years like universities, providing courses of a high academic standard and conferring degrees through CNAA which, especially in vocational subjects, stand comparison with those awarded by our established universities. I am glad that the increasingly powerful academic aspirations of the polytechnics will now be fulfilled Nevertheless, I cannot but express concern as to whether all the institutions which will in future be embraced by the Bill's provisions will be adequately funded to enable them to fulfil the academic teaching and research objectives they will wish to achieve and which the country must expect of them.
1086
The fact that sixth form and further education colleges will come within the Bill's ambit will impose upon them new responsibilities for a wide range of activities, including the appointment of personnel, management of assets, provision of services, payroll systems, estates management, accountancy services, legal advice and building programmes which they have not previously been required to fulfil. As the National Association of Head Teachers points out, those new responsibilities will inevitably have resource implications. Transitional funding must therefore be made available to enable those colleges to fulfil their new responsibilities.
Perhaps I may also point out that training for 16 to 18 year-olds, should the Bill go through, will in future be provided in school sixth forms remaining under LEA control, in further education colleges controlled by funding councils, in grant-maintained schools and in city technology colleges. There is a potential recipe for conflict among the various providers unless careful strategic planning and detailed consultation take place among all those involved.
To return to the universities and the polytechnics, it is surely right that a polytechnic should be able to adopt, with Privy Council consent, the title of "university". But I hope, as does the noble Lord, Lord Denton, that many of them will choose titles highlighting their specialised strengths and skills. Rumour has it that some spirited discussions are arising in relation to the names of some of the new proposed universities, particularly those which exist cheek by jowl with long-established ones. But I am confident that the ancient British art of compromise and the wisdom of the Privy Council will resolve those matters without bloodshed.
I do not wish to stress again the points made by many noble Lords in the debate in relation to Clauses 64(2) and 77(2) of the Bill, which I believe to be quite unacceptable in their present form. This is 1991, not 1984. I cannot believe that these Big Brother clauses are justified. Obviously the Secretary of State will appoint to the new funding councils only the great and the good, who must be allowed to discharge their responsibilities in the interests of British people and of our education system without feeling that the Secretary of State is hovering above them with the sword of Damocles. If it is intended that he or she should have a power of last resort in accountability for public money, that must surely be subject to affirmative order rather than requiring a clause in the Bill. I firmly believe therefore, as many other noble Lords said, that Clause 77(2) should be deleted.
I am also somewhat concerned about Clause 66(1) relating to the establishment of quality assessment committees. I have a strong belief in internal and external audit and in performance review. Those provisions are being increasingly introduced into our higher education system, not least in my own profession. However, I do not believe these committees, as defined in the Bill, are necessarily the right way to handle this important function. It is vital that nothing is done through this legislation to

1087
undermine the charters and statutes of the universities which make them responsible for setting their own academic standards.
Clearly no action should be taken which might impair their ability to generate income from non-governmental sources. That income must remain under their total and unfettered control. I cannot but be anxious, too, about prospects for research, especially as £48 million of research infrastructure funding has now been transferred from the universities to the research councils. This may well have the appalling consequence that in medical research the charities and foundations which now provide more money than the Medical Research Council may be required by the universities to pay overheads on their research grants. I believe that will be inevitable unless the universities, both new and old, receive some funding for their research infrastructure under what remains of the dual support system.
Every higher education institution must have a viable research base. Although I greatly favour supporting centres of excellence, in a university one can never tell from which department the rising research stars will emerge. If core funding is to be spread too thinly across the higher education sector, our budding Nobel prize winners may never get off the ground.
Some other clauses are also questionable; namely, Clause 78(2), which relates to assessment by appointed persons, and Clause 79, which allows the funding councils to initiate studies designed to improve economy, efficiency and effectiveness. If accepted, these clauses, too, might seriously erode the cherished principle of academic freedom and flexibility of approach.
The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has expressed other concerns relating to the clarity of government instructions to funding councils; the adequacy of funds allocated nationally and to each institution; the importance of improving access for more students from more diverse backgrounds than hitherto to higher education institutions of all kinds; fairness of competition and, above all, stability of funding. That latter provision would allow universities and all higher education institutions to plan and manage their resources confidently and effectively.
My final point, at the risk of seeming parochial, relates to medical education. Such education in the United Kingdom is regulated, under the medical legislation of 1988, by the education committee of the General Medical Council. That body is responsible for defining the standards required in the qualifying examinations of the UK medical schools and for co-ordinating all stages of medical education. As the ultimate sanction it would have the power, if standards of education and examination were shown to be inadequate, to recommend to the Privy Council that the qualifying examinations of a medical school should no longer be registrable under the medical legislation.
The funding of medical education is exceptionally complex. Funds are allocated by the Universities Funding Council, via the universities, to our medical
1088
and dental schools. In addition, substantial resources are provided by the health departments, both in hospitals and in the community. Under a long established knock-for-knock agreement, the clinical services provided by academic staff who see and treat patients are compensated for by the teaching provided by consultants and junior medical staff employed in the hospitals of the NHS and by general practitioners who are being involved increasingly in teaching.
Advice to the former University Grants Committee and now to the Universities Funding Council on the provision of resources for medical and dental education has been largely the responsibility of a long established medical and dental committee. In this Bill I see no proposal relating to the establishment of a similar committee, nor do I see any requirement that the funding councils should have medical or dental members. That latter point written into the formal constitution of the present Universities Funding Council is of crucial importance, especially when such a high proportion of university spending is disbursed on these subjects.
It would plainly be a mistake to create under each of the three funding councils a medical and dental committee. I trust that medical and dental membership of those councils will be clearly spelt out and that the legislation will provide for the establishment of a medical committee for the entire United Kingdom. Such a committee should include representatives of the funding councils, medical and dental academics from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and independent members as well as assessors from bodies such as the General Medical Council. General Dental Council, Medical Research Council and departments of health which have a crucial interest.
The committee would be required to advise upon the effects of changes in the National Health Service on medical and dental education and to review and co-ordinate the funding and delivery of medical and dental education in our universities. I urge the Minister to consider those points seriously in the hope that he will introduce amendments to correct the serious flaws in the Bill before it is further considered in Committee.
8.16 p.m.
Baroness Brigstocke: My Lords, education and training are interwoven. The more I listen to those concerned with technology training talk about training for the future, the more I hear them asking for trainees who are educated. They ask for trainees who can not only read so as to understand and write so as to be understood—that, of course, means they should be able to write grammatically and accurately—but who can also reflect and analyse. They ask for trainees who can think logically and who can ask questions and solve problems. Finally, they demand trainees who have the spirit and imagination to innovate, to explore and to create.
I give the warmest possible welcome to the Government's Further and Higher Education Bill which seeks to eliminate the thoroughly unnatural division between those two sectors of higher education

1089
—our fine universities and our fine polytechnics. This country has always encouraged individuals. We should allow both kinds of universities to flourish. I hope that we shall not waste time in drawing useless comparisons between universities and polytechnics. I respectfully point out to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff —I am sorry he is not present to hear this—that we in this country are still not fully Europeanised. The word "polytechnic" here has not yet achieved the distinction in the minds of parents and 18 year-old applicants for further education of the French term "école polytechnique".
William Johnson Cory said:
"Every school should make the most of that which is its characteristic".
So let it be with our institutions of higher education. I prefer to call them institutions of learning and training Some higher education institutions will concentrate, properly, on academic subjects. Others will be more practically and vocationally based. Institutions will fulfil different needs according to their different characteristics.
This evening I wish to say a few words about polytechnics. Perhaps that is hardly necessary after the excellent maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Perry. My view is based on my experience in the independent sector of secondary schools, albeit from one in an urban setting whose pupils come from a wider cross-section of the community—and indeed communities—than one might imagine.
St. Paul's Girls' School in Hammersmith sends almost 100 per cent. of its students to institutions of higher education annually. Out of the hundred or so girls in each year group, about three or four a year opt positively for polytechnics. Last year one of our students graduated from Oxford Polytechnic where she was able to combine librarianship and languages in her degree. Brighton Polytechnic is popular for its graphics and arts courses. Law, too, is often superbly taught in polytechnics.
Last week in your Lordships' House I mentioned the imaginative exchange programmes with Germany, carried out under the auspices of the Erasmus scheme, for engineering students at the polytechnic of the South Bank which enable graduates to obtain dual qualifications, having learnt the German language in both Britain and Germany. I noticed with interest a reference in The Times yesterday to a course being run at the City of London Polytechnic for,
"Female high flyers and tentative returners"
—a two-day full-time course on management development for women. I cannot but approve!
An important step towards removing the binary line between polytechnics and universities has already been taken. This year for the first time the girls and boys who are applying for higher education courses in 1992 are making their applications on a single form. No longer do they have to fill in an UCCA form for universities and a PCAS form for polytechnics. They can apply to up to five universities and five polytechnics on that same form. As a matter of course they are applying to both kinds of institution for related courses, such as law, media studies or film studies. They are identifying a specific course which accords with their own interests.
1090
I understand that plans are afoot for a single application form for all institutions offering first degrees, diplomas and similar qualifications. That will bring in the colleges of education, and it should please the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, as it is a simplified form.
Another interesting development exemplifies the way universities and polytechnics are beginning to work together. It is by pursuing the possibility of movement between institutions. There is a new Sussex consortium called Southern Comfort—a consortium of Sussex University, Brighton Polytechnic and Surrey University—which is hoping to make it possible for students at any of the three institutions to take short courses in subjects not offered by their own institution.
Before I conclude I ought perhaps to make it clear that I do not hold shares in any polytechnic. My own experience has been with universities. I am proud to be newly on the governing body of Imperial College. But, universities do not have a monopoly of quality in higher education. The prejudices of the past are now out of date.
I share the reservations about certain aspects of the Bill so eloquently expressed by my noble friend Lady Young. In addition, I should like to ask the Government exactly how they will ensure that 16 to 19 year-olds, and older students, with special educational needs can be assured of their right to enter further education and have the appropriate support. Theirs is indeed a special educational need that must be safeguarded. Like the noble Baroness and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, I hope that my noble friend Lord Belstead will introduce any necessary amendments himself.
Overall, however, I warmly welcome the Bill and believe that it will go a long way towards enhancing the further and higher educational provision in this country and to demonstrate, if the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, will forgive me, the Government's understanding that good education is indeed an investment.
8.24 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, in reading the Bill it seemed to me that the Government's thinking about the meaning of education is confused. As the noble Baroness who has just sat down said, although I do not agree with all her conclusions, education is intended basically to provide the means by which people can use their minds for problem solving and meeting the challenges of today and the future. It is not simply training for specific employment. As the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, so eloquently put it, one of the richest jewels in British history is the heritage of the reputation and achievements of British universities in that respect.
That is not simply a matter of philosophy. It is also a matter of practice today. How many of our young students will have to change their jobs five or six times during their working lives? They will therefore require the basic skills to solve problems and to meet challenges which do not apply simply to a particular

1091
job but which can also be applied to meet the challenges of new employment which they are bound to encounter.
Because the point has been made so many times, I simply associate myself with the criticism which has been expressed from all sides of the House of Clauses 64 and 77, in particular subsection (2) of Clause 77. As the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, said, the Government have broken the promise which they made to the universities in 1988 that they would not interfere with academic freedom. That subsection does interfere with academic freedom because it gives the power to the Secretary of State and future Secretaries of States to bring pressure to bear on specific institutions, including specific parts of those institutions and the work of those institutions. If the Government are given the power to interfere in that way in the academic life of our country the shell of academic freedom has been broken.
I wonder what some Secretaries of State would have done with those powers in the case of a department such as the Department of Peace Studies at the University of Bradford, of which I have been an honorary Fellow for many years. Yet that department has been training students in problem solving at a time when problem solving has never been as important as it is today. The Government have said that the power is a last resort. We all suspect the words "last resort". I associate my own university, the University of East Anglia, with everything that has been said—particularly by my noble friend Lady Blackstone, by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and by the noble Lord, Lord Flowers and others—about Clauses 77 and 64.
I want briefly both to echo what has been said and to introduce some new elements in respect of the question of adult education as it is affected by the Bill. Again, there is division in the Government's thinking between what they regard as academic education and what they regard as vocational education. There should be no division. Education should be geared both to academic understanding and learning and to the problem-solving that is essential in employment. The division made in the Bill between further and adult education is a totally false division between vocational and leisure education in the adult world.
Perhaps I may give one small instance. One of the warmest of my recollections goes back 30-odd years to a young woman student in an adult education extra-mural class just outside London. She was working as a clerk with very few skills. She attended that class for five or six years. She then wanted to go further. She had no understanding or backing from her family, but she secured an adult education scholarship to Cambridge. She went to Newnham, graduated, did a teacher training course, went out to teach in Tanzania for some years and then came back and taught here. Did she receive vocational education or leisure education in that adult education class? It was neither. It was education which gave her a better opportunity of employment, but which also enriched her life. Surely that is the object of education.
Clause 11 must be amended in Committee. The division between the functions and powers of the
1092
funding councils and the local education authorities leaves the adult education world in a complete fog. That situation has been brought to my attention by a number of organisations.
I want to ask the noble Lord, Lord Belstead— perhaps one of his colleagues will make a note for him in his absence—certain questions in order to clarify the situation as the Government see it before we reach the Committee stage. I realise that he cannot answer tonight all the questions that have been asked and I fully understand if he cannot answer my questions. Perhaps he will write to me before the Committee stage. First, is he prepared to alter the word "may" to "shall" in Clause 11? Is he prepared to make it a statutory duty for local education authorities to fund adult education of, as in the words of the Bill, a "leisure-time" character rather than simply give permission?
Secondly, as has been said, a number of adult education organisations are anxious about the effects of the Bill on them. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, mentioned Morley College. Ruskin and Richmond colleges have also been mentioned. Perhaps I may also add Fircroft College. My particular worry is an organisation in my city of Norwich, Wensum Lodge, which does not know where it will be left as a result of the Bill. There will be a splitting into two parts, between adult examination classes and adult basic education activities, of the management and finance of the LEA or, in the case of further education colleges, of a funding council. The further education colleges can contract with the LEA to provide examination and ABE services for them, but they do not have to. There is no guarantee that that will happen: the colleges just do not know where they are. They are now independent of the LEA and, for that matter, of each other. Some may wish to contract and some may wish not to.
If the LEA is left to operate a separate, non-vocational adult education service, we do not know how far government funding will enable it to go. There is therefore a fear that independent, non-vocational adult education looks likely to have to increase student fees substantially or cut its provision. I should like the noble Lord to make the position clear.
Secondly, there is the question of the voluntary organisations, such as the WEA and the women's rural institutes, both of which have made representations to me. Perhaps the noble Lord will answer these questions on behalf of the voluntary sector. What place will the voluntary sector occupy in the proposed legislation? What will be the relationship between the proposed funding council and the voluntary sector? What should be the relationship between local education authorities and the voluntary sector?
The WEA has been told by the Secretary of State that it can rely on funds from the revenue support grant. But that grant is not necessarily used for specific purposes. There is no guarantee that it will be used to fund adult education. Will the Minister assure us that those voluntary organisations will be funded to continue and, we hope, to expand their activities in adult education? The noble Lord, Lord Belstead,

1093
mentioned the WEA in his opening speech, but he did not make it clear where the Government stand as regards the funding of those voluntary organisations in respect of their continued service in adult education.
The noble Lord also mentioned the inclusion of youth services. I can find no reference in the Bill to youth services. Should they not be included along with the provision of adult education? Should they not be included as one of the duties of local education authorities? I ask those questions in order to elicit information which will be valuable to Members on all sides of the House before we reach the Committee stage.
8.37 p.m.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, we should welcome many aspects of the Bill because it provides increased opportunities in further and higher education for both our young people and the older part of our population. As many speakers have said today, it does away with the binary line. As someone who has spent several years overseas in other universities, I have never been able to understand what it was all about in any case. It will bring higher education in the United Kingdom much more into line with the philosophies and practicalities of the situation elsewhere, certainly in the Western world.
Fears have been expressed about undue interference on the Government's part in universities, especially with respect to Clauses 64 and 77, in that they provide a window of political opportunity for interference. I have no need to recite again the anxieties that have been expressed in the House. That fear is real, but I am relieved that my noble friend the Minister is well aware of those anxieties and has indicated that he may be willing to consider amendments. I certainly hope that that will be the case.
With respect to those clauses, there is an obverse to the point made about interference; namely, that there should be some safeguards so that the appropriate funding council may make inquiries where there appears to have been an unwarranted malevolence towards a certain discipline in a given university.
I also welcome Clause 78 in Part III of the Bill, which authorises two or more funding councils to exercise jointly any of their functions. That is particularly relevant to the concept of academic audit (should it come about), which I believe it would be not only unwise but divisive to conduct on a regional rather than a UK basis.
Secondly, still staying in the ambit of this clause, comes the question of the smaller disciplines or those disciplines in which there are other authorities that decide and guide their curricula. Here I believe that there must be an overarching, co-ordinating type of body which will look after certain disciplines. The noble Lord, Lord Walton, referred to the medical and dental areas as an example and perhaps I may be permitted to declare my interest. In veterinary medicine there are only six veterinary schools, two in Scot and and four in England, and it would seem
1094
unwise to have those dealt with by separate authorities. So combining the exercise of joint advice and funding would be appropriate here.
The Minister stated that the aim of this Bill—or rather these Bills—was to produce higher quality higher education. I do not believe that anyone would wish to quarrel with that statement. Its corollary, as stated in Clause 61 is high quality research. That will scotch the concept of "teaching only" universities. I for one cannot envisage a university by name without any research being associated with it.
We are all aware that building a high quality research programme, be it in the sciences, the humanities or any other discipline, is a long-term process. We are also painfully aware that the collapse or destruction of a research programme can be a very short process and can take place over a period of weeks. If we are to sustain higher quality in higher education, we need long-term assurances of resources to sustain quality research. We must retain the outstanding young scholars who have gone through our universities and make sure that they return to this country when they have done post-doctoral work overseas.
With respect to the latter point, there is indeed an organisation of some 2,000 members called British Scientists Abroad. The majority have tenured posts in universities overseas. They have experienced and shared the disappointment of under-resourcing, which led them in the first place to go overseas. Many of those individuals have expressed a desire to return to this country should the promise of higher quality higher education be fulfilled. Let us hope that this Bill, which has much to offer, will indeed provide the basis for new health and vigour in our higher education.
8.43 p.m.
Lord Broadbridge: My Lords, while I broadly welcome this Bill, there are several areas of proposed involvement by the Secretary of State which give me cause for concern, a concern which I know is shared by the United Kingdom Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of Universities and, judging from her opening remarks several hours ago, also by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear.
In Part II, Clause 64(2) provides the Secretary of State with a power to intervene in specified institutions. The wording is:
"The terms and conditions subject to which grants are made by the Secretary of State to either of the councils … may in particular impose requirements to be complied with in respect of each institution".
Such a power was proposed in the 1988 Education Reform Bill but was modified during the passage of that Bill when fears were expressed that it could be used for political purposes in the future. Now it has surfaced again and one wonders why.
I am concerned, first, because the power is unnecessary. The HEFCs will monitor their recipients' expenditure, as also do the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office. At a time when everywhere else this Government is deregulating everyone, surely it is ridiculous and unnecessary to institute such a power. To do so would implement the well known Latin tag Quis custodiet custodies? in the

1095
sense of who is inspecting the inspectors. The three levels of inspection that I have mentioned are surely enough. They should, together with the recipient of government money, be given full responsibility for faithful custody of those funds and that is enough.
There are already far too many people in this country monitoring the effects of everything from opinion polls downwards. We are becoming a nation of nosey parkers. Let no one be in any doubt that extra surveillance will have to he paid for. The Secretary of State will not personally, out of his own salary, conduct the intervention work prescribed in this Bill but rather it will be done by a small army of civil servants.
Secondly, such intervention is insulting both to the academic institutions involved and to the existing monitors which I named. I exhort Her Majesty's Government to delete that section of the Bill. The Secretary of State's powers should, under the new legislation, be no greater than under existing law.
Similarly, after a reenactment of existing law in the preceding Clause 77(1), Clause 77(2) goes further and states that directions made in an order by the Secretary of State may be special, as opposed to general, and may,
"in particular, relate to the provision of financial support … in respect of activities carried on by any particular institution or institutions".
I have been told by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has recently written that,
"the Government attaches very great importance to academic freedom and the power is envisaged only as a power of last resort."
I think, I believe very justifiably, that as drafted the clause provides the Secretary of State with wide powers to intervene in an individual institution and could go well beyond his or her powers of legitimate concern to safeguard public funds. It is not that I particularly distrust the present holder of the office, but if the holders of that appointment were at some time in the future to change as frequently, for example, as those for trade and industry have done in the past decade, heaven knows who might be in charge. Once written into legislation the power is there, probably for years to come. I believe that that power should be redrafted to confine it to a power of last resort to provide only for proper accountability for public money and then only subject to affirmative resolution.
Clause 66(1) places a responsibility on the funding councils to ensure that there is provision in institutions for the assessment of quality of education; and provides that a "Quality Assessment Committee" is established in each council.
Once again, with the second of these provisions we are in the business of being a nation of busybodies. A university or polytechnic (shortly to become a university) stands or falls by its maintenance of academic standards. By statute or Royal Charter it is held to be so responsible. We do not need a kind of academic quango set up to do that. Surely it is significant that Oxford, our oldest university, this year abandoned the publication of a league table named after its founder, Norrington, a former president of
1096
Trinity. How are the councils to assess some of the world's greatest academic institutions with quality assessment committees? Just as arguably we might have one for the Houses of Parliament. I am sure that no noble Lord will wish to be told that he may not speak more than twice in 1992 because the quality assessment committee has decided that he is boring.
In conclusion I turn to Clause 78(2). The clause provides for any two or more funding councils, if directed to do so by the Secretary of State, to institute an assessment by an appointed person,
"of matters relating to the arrangements made by each institution in Great Britain which is within the higher education sector for maintaining … standards in the institution".
That is surely nothing less than a reserve power exercisable at will by the Secretary of State to impose an academic audit on an institution. It is unnecessary and, for the same reasons that I argued earlier, it should be removed.
Academic institutions have every reason to perform well. They are in a highly competitive environment. Never have potential students taken greater care to investigate the quality of what is being offered by each institution before making a decision than at present. My daughter who is studying textile design visited no less than 14 institutions in England, Scotland and Wales last year before making a preference list.
Academic institutions are a self-fulfilling prophecy. Poor standards lead to no students. Nonetheless, I believe that the institutions should be monitored. But provision is already there in the form of the councils, the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office. I believe that the Secretary of State should repose confidence in those bodies and should not become involved in the ways to which I have referred, as would be the case if the Bill as now drafted were passed into law. In short, he should not have a dog—several dogs in fact—and bark himself. I look forward to any comments that the Minister may be kind enough to make in reply to my expressions of anxiety.
8.52 p.m.
Baroness Eccles of Moulton: My Lords, I too should like to add my congratulations to the many already extended to my noble friend Lady Perry on her excellent maiden speech. She speaks from depths of experience and it is reassuring to hear such confidence expressed in the future of higher education. I should also like to say how delighted I am to hear the announcement made by the Minister that Sir Ron Dearing is chairman designate of the new higher education funding council for England.
The removal of the binary line between universities and polytechnics coupled with a rapid expansion in the number of students entering higher education will have as profound an effect on the sector as any proposal we have known since the war, including the implementation of the Robbins Report in the 1960s. It is implicit in the Bill that throughout these changes the quality of academic qualifications is maintained.
What is meant by academic qualifications? A number of definitions have been given in the debate but a further simple answer can be given in two parts.

1097
First, it can be a qualification that has been won through a pursuit of knowledge for its own sake, a furnishing and training of the mind which equips the graduate for further intellectual development in the fields of his choice. Secondly, it can be a qualification with a high vocational content which may or may not be taken straight into the marketplace on graduation. Few academic qualifications of any kind are gained solely by years spent in library or laboratory. The quality of face-to-face teaching, whether in large lecture hall or small tutorial, is vital.
We need therefore to consider the academics themselves, from the most eminent professors to junior lecturers at the start of their careers. What do they need in order to sustain standards of excellence in their teaching? Clearly they need to be properly equipped. But what about research? The answer can range from a belief that all academics must have some component of research incorporated into their work to a view that a teaching-only contract is not incompatible with achieving standards of excellence. It would appear that the system is not designed to make t possible in future for every academic in every university, old and new, to undertake research. If that is so, it will have been accepted that research is not an essential component in every case for quality to be maintained.
Under the new methods of funding, the higher education funding councils will selectively allocate a diminishing amount of funds, the balance being transferred to the research councils, which as a consequence will have an expanding amount with which to respond to bids. It is reassuring to know that once the higher education funding councils have distributed research funds based on each academic department's ability, the institution itself will decide how the funds should be allocated and this does not have to reflect exactly the funding council's assessment.
It is highly important that those funds are productively allocated. The quality audit unit developed by the institutions themselves, and the funding council's quality assessment units, will help to confirm that the right decisions have been made and will give an indication of where there is room for improvement. However, there is a risk that the resources will tend to concentrate in the powerful institutions, which could lead to ossification, and worse.
If there is little or no experimentation and risk taking on the part of the funders, the smaller, aspiring, lightly-funded institutions will find it hard to break out of the deadlock. It could have an unbalancing effect geographically, with activity being concentrated in Oxford, Cambridge and the big civic universities. It could also cause large industrial concerns to base their research centres in a few high profile institutions. There are indications that that is already happening. For instance, Nissan, whose major factory is in Sunderland, has established its research centre in Cranfield.
But over and above all other considerations, it is essential that a close eye is kept on both the unit of
1098
resource and capital investment. If either is allowed to slip too far there will be an inevitable decline in standards.
To end on a cheerful note, I should like to tell noble Lords about two institutions in the North East which are already criss-crossing the binary line, carrying out a plan which was conceived before the removal of the binary line was so much as a twinkle in the Minister's eye. Durham University, with which I have been closely associated for over 10 years, and the Teesside Polytechnic are founding the joint university college on Teesside. This was the largest conurbation without a university presence. The college is being built under the auspices of the Teesside Development Corporation. It is a fine example of interdepartmental co-operation and students are already enrolling for the next academic year.
8.58 p.m.
Lord Crook: My Lords, I speak today as a customer for what has been weirdly described in Clause 11 of the Bill as organised leisure time occupation—in other words, adult education classes. They consist generally of part-time day or evening classes essentially for adults. Their objective is to be a civilising influence on the community. Such classes are not primarily aimed at any economic objective. I am pleased to note that the Government acknowledge that such activities take place and play a part in the life of the community. They are indeed most important.
Frequently those classes bring out the unexpected talents that many of us find we possess when put to the test. Languages and the arts are much in evidence on those courses. They are skills perhaps not given to too many in this country. The thought of more "Brits" being able to speak French is encouraging. Our knowledge of the arts generally is lamentable by comparison with that in most parts of Europe.
On the other hand, these courses can teach manual skills. Motor mechanics for women sounds a rather useful attribute. Physical training helps people to keep fit. The courses have as much to do with social coherence as anything else. Many of the classes to which I have referred provide not only formal instruction but a means whereby people can get to know each other. In many parts of the country that can be difficult, in particular for people of advanced years. Classes in the arts provide a focus for the exchange of ideas and in various ways enhance students' skills and abilities. Therefore, I am pleased to note that, despite the gloomy forecast in the original White Paper, Clause 11 of the Bill provides a role in these matters for local authorities.
However, I am not totally encouraged by past experience. It has shown that when money is tight one of the first budgets that a local authority will try to cut is that for adult education. Frequently in the past that has been less than the standard spending assessment. Money has been diverted from adult education into other causes. Given the diminishing role of the local education authorities in education, that risk may become even worse.
The Bill contains nothing to prevent local education authorities form sub-contracting many of

1099
their duties to some of the local colleges. That could be beneficial in making good use of facilities which were not otherwise utilised. However, that must not be encouraged to the extent that it undermines the essential local character of adult education in many parts of the country. It is largely a question of classes being run in local schools and village halls where courses to suit the local needs can be provided by the local authority. Certainly a distant funding body can have no idea of the subtleties needed and the resources available to run such courses. I hope that the Government will be able to secure more robust support for further education interests.
Adult education might well be allowed to wither on the vine if it is left to uninterested local education authorities. There will be less demand, less quality, followed by even less demand until it dies. I hope that the Government will take a more robust attitude towards the provision of such courses. That will be widely welcomed by the public. Furthermore, I hope that the Government will ensure that money that is supposed to be spent on adult education is so spent.
I hope to be present to hear the winding up speeches. However, if the debate carries on too late I must ask your Lordships' indulgence in allowing me to catch the last train out of Charing Cross.
9.4 p.m.
The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, it is proper that I should first declare an interest. After all, my family publishing business has been involved in producing school and academic works for more than 140 years. However, I almost hesitate to do so as a number of your Lordships have been published by my firm and they may have discovered that this is not the most lucrative or remunerative business for either author or publisher.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Eccles, for the plug that she gave to Durham and Teesside. I agree entirely with her views on the subject.
Beyond that I am also involved with education in a number of other ways. I am a governor of two schools in the London area and one in Middlesbrough. I also have the honour to sit on the London Together working party under the chairmanship of Professor John Ashworth. In my capacity as chairman of the Central London Training and Enterprise Council I have close connections with further education colleges, polytechnics and the education authorities in the London boroughs of Camden, Hammersmith, Kensington and Westminster. Finally, I have three children in full-time education, the eldest having recently taken his GCSE examinations—with considerable success, I am happy to inform your Lordships.
I welcome the broad thrust of the Bill before your Lordships' House, continuing as it does the trend towards the deregulation of education. Although it has to be said that some of the provisions—for example, in Clauses 64, 66, 78 and 79—introduce constraints which smack to me of bureaucratic or ministerial wish to retain powers of interference that are at odds with the stated aims of the legislation.
1100
I was encouraged to hear from my noble friend Lord Belstead that he has reservations about Clause 77(2). In my view it is unnecessary because the Secretary of State has plenty of powers without adding to them with these provisions. I also have anxieties that the central and regional funding councils will be over-cumbersome and that their funding may be top-sliced from local education authorities. I am aware that proper care and control of public expenditure must be exercised. However, the number of people involved and the complication of procedures is redolent of bureaucratic empire building. I should like the Minister to assure the House that the total number of staff in the department at the end of the process will be less than at the beginning. Similarly, I hope that there will be no increase in the number of consultants, advisers and other mythical beasts.
There are detailed matters in both parts of the Bill that will require out attention and improvement in Committee. I refer in particular to those relating to the relationship between secondary education and further and higher education and the role to be played by the training and enterprise councils, which I am surprised to see are not mentioned in the Bill, although I suppose that stemming as they do from an initiative of the Department of Employment I should not find that so surprising. The essential requirement is that flexibility is built into the legislation, for the relationships must be dictated by local requirements and provision. Similarly how sixth form colleges are to operate locally must take into account whether there are secondary schools in the area with sixth forms and what provision for sensible planning is already in place that will also include the voluntary sector.
I hope that the Minister can explain to your Lordships why the local education authority retains a duty to secure 16-plus education when the funding for it is to be transferred to the fund councils? If there is to be a split, it should be a clear one, instead of leaving residual duties and powers to the local education authorities, and indeed to the schools. If the Minister is unable to articulate more clearly who is responsible for what, I fear I must table amendments at a later stage to introduce the necessary clarity of objective and purpose.
I approach this Bill with enthusiasm, which may give the Minister a sinking feeling, but also with an absolute conviction that the creation of a genuinely seamless post-16 education system is the most important legislative proposal to come before your Lordships in this Session, or indeed in many others.
A seamless system is premised on the necessity to create an expansion of 16-plus provision that will enable the citizens of the United Kingdom to pursue further and higher academic and vocational education and professional education and development in a flexible manner throughout their lives. There should be no impediment for a young person who leaves school at 16 and gets a job on a building site as an electrician's mate from progressing via training schemes with appropriate national vocational qualifications, through an FE college, further work experience, a BTec diploma or similar recognised

1101
qualification to a polytechnic or university and coming out with a master's degree in electrical engineering, without a single A-level and without at any point having attended a higher education institution on a full-time basis.
We have in Britain a fine tradition of such routes, going back to night schools and the mechanics institutes and more recently such pioneering organisations as Birkbeck College, London—I am pleased to see the noble Baroness the Master in her place—and especially the Open University, which has taken the tradition of offering a second chance for higher education to those who may have missed it the first time around and has extended it to anyone irrespective of their academic qualifications.
However, those paths to a degree or other qualification are extremely demanding both on the time and initiative of the student compared to those taking, the more conventional full-time undergraduate route. The most important part of a truly seamless system is that proper accreditation be given for all forms of training, education and even personal and professional development to allow the maximum scope for individual progression through the credit accumulation and transfer scheme to properly validated qualifications.
The post-16 record for most of this century is not one of which this country can be proud. Consistently the value of technical and vocational further education has been sacrificed for the twin pressures of a cheap low-grade workforce at one end of the spectrum and the middle-class classical academic tradition at the other. Unlike France, Germany and Japan or even the United States, qualifications in the domains of technical and scientific further and higher education have consistently been regarded as less significant in our society than the greats, history, English, politics, economics or, Heaven help us, sociology and media studies.
I shall not bore your Lordships with the statistics of stay-on rates, technical training schemes, qualifications in engineering, the size of the applied scientific pool or the relative social weighting given to the ingeniere in Italy or Herr Doktor Doktor in Germany. It is a sad catalogue of which your Lordships are only too a ware, for the position has emerged in debates in this House and in another place four or five times in the short time that I have been in Parliament.
Let us trust that we can now put an end to the orgy of navel gazing that has dogged this issue over the years, for in this Bill we have the opportunity to put in place the mechanisms to change once and for all the melancholy state of affairs that has, I believe been one of the root causes of the country's economic decline. The Government are to be congratulated on having tackled the issue. It is up to us to make sure that a cow rehensive and imaginative Bill comes on to the stature book.
9.13 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, on her maiden speech. She brings to the House extensive experience of education in the polytechnics sphere and I look forward to many more speeches from her.
I too declare an interest. Throughout the 26 years which I have spent in this country, I have been engaged as a teacher in higher education. I cannot do anything else; I am stuck with it. Let me say also that when I first arrived the university sector in this country was not only an outstandingly good place to work and proud of its achievements; it was too a highly productive and efficient sector, as the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, emphasised.
In the early 1980s, when the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, was Secretary of State for Education, he commissioned a study from Professor Robin Marris of Birkbeck College about the cost effectiveness of university education. Although Professor Marris did not start out necessarily believing that universities were very efficient, being an honest, good, applied economist he discovered that the rate of return from university education in the United Kingdom was twice as good as the rate of return from manufacturing in the United Kingdom. One can quarrel about numbers, but no matter how he tried to test the figures he found that British university education was one of the most efficient in the world. We ought to recognise that and be proud of it.
However, over the latter half of my career in this country the university sector felt beleaguered. We have had to cut corners and think about money all the time. I have twice as many tutees as I had when I first arrived, 34 instead of 15, and some of my time is spent thinking of which private source of funds I can exploit in the future. That is not the way one should fund education. Economists have recently come back to examining the reasons for the different growth performance of different countries. Professor Robert Lucas of Chicago University, a leading conservative economist, has discovered that education and investment in education explains the splendid growth performance that is found in South Korea and other countries.
While I welcome the end of the binary divide, like the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and some other noble Lords, I fear that we are being levelled down and not up. It is not that polytechnics will become universities, but that we shall all become polytechnics. The rumours are already around that the higher education funding councils, which I welcome, will ultimately lower the unit of resource for teaching, and the margin that has been allowed under dual funding for universities—a good practice, if I may say so—will be hived off and will be made part of another arrangement.
Given what we know about the Treasury over the last 100 years or so, it is unlikely that any such rearrangement would increase the amount of resources available; if anything, resources would be decreased. Of course we shall compete, because competition is the nature of the game. Since it is a game we shall adapt ourselves, but I should much

1103
rather be doing what I am good at—research and teaching—rather than running after money. If I have to run after money, I shall; but it is not the best use of my time or that of my colleagues.
I welcome the end of the binary divide. However, we may be entering an era of further and continuing under-investment in education. I know that numbers will be cited to show that spending on education has increased in real terms and so on, but any examination of universities and polytechnics will reveal the neglect of capital investment, the tremendous crowding in of students, and the things that we have to do. Clearly we are not providing the sort of product that we used to be able to provide.
The product that the universities provide in terms of throughput and the small amount of wastage is an efficient one. I fear that what we shall see more and more is an increasing degree of wastage. Ours and the Continental system will probably converge, with many more students but few actually graduating. I hope that although the machinery has been set up for combined funding arrangements for polytechnics and universities, some thought will be given on a longer term basis than so far to what the nation wants from university education.
I believe that a case can be made for investing more in higher education rather than less. I do not want to detract from the importance of the 16 to 19, or any other, form of education. However, I believe that in terms of salaries, capital investment and unit resources, the higher education sector, although it has adapted and innovated, has had a beating in the last 10 years which it could have done without.
I turn to some specifics. I would like the new HEFCs to resume the splendid practice that the University Grants Committee used to have of quinquennial funding. We have not had any certainty in funding from one year to the next in the university sector for some time now. It would be an immense help if we could be given a projection of what the universities and now the polytechnics can expect as regards funding. What we have been subjected to is not autonomy but detailed quantitative controls such as how many students we can take and how many are home or EC-based students. There have been all kinds of quotas and constraints while we still believe that we are autonomous and have academic freedom. I hope that the Government will re-think Clauses 64 and 77.
The time has come for a new social contract with the higher education sector which will give us some idea of what funds we can expect. We should be allowed to get on with the task of recruiting students. We can do that as long as we are left alone to do so within a reasonable framework of finance both on the capital and the current sides. That is my hope. Perhaps the next election will make conditions more favourable. If not, we should have a tripartite agreement that education is investment and that we should have more of it.
I am surprised to see that the rules on representation on governing bodies are somewhat changed. I have tried to read the clause, which is rather arcane. I am subject to correction, but I note
1104
that employees of polytechnics, local government officials and students can no longer be members of the governing bodies; they can only be co-opted. There is absolutely no reason for that change. We should have more representation from local authority officials and employees, both academic and non-academic staff, as well as students. We would gain from their advice; there is no need to fear it. I believe that co-option is a cop-out. We should have full and proper membership for these people. I wish to hear the reason why that change has been put through.
I turn to the quality assessment unit. I fear the worst because under the name of quality what will be measured is what is called cost effectiveness. We shall go for statistics such as cost per student taught rather than cost per student who has graduated, or any real quality correction. Without being too insular, it is true that in order to judge the quality of higher education one has to consult the people who produce it. It is more true in this case than in many others. I do not see adequate provision in the current Bill for that kind of role for university and polytechnic teachers who alone can set standards by the peer group review.
I fear that if we aim for a simple yardstick of money spent against the equivalent number of full-time students, we shall further impoverish the education system and lose one advantage that we have at that end of the education scale relative to our EC partners. While I welcome the end of the binary divide I wish that the polytechnics had been told that not only can they call themselves universities but that they can also have funding. I wish that they had been told that they too can have contracts for their staff as the universities have had for a number of years. After all, I believe that the universities claim rightly that they make good use of the money. If that is so, then what is to prevent the polytechnic lecturers from doing so? They do as much research as anybody else but under more difficult circumstances. Let us reward them and give them more money for research. It is in the long-term interest of the nation, apart from being a pleasure in itself, that we should have more university education.
9.25 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I should start by declaring an interest in that I have served for eight years on the Council for National Academic Awards, the closure of which is envisaged by the Bill. However, I should emphasise that I am not an academic and did not have the benefit of higher education myself. I am one of the obligatory representatives of commerce and industry on the council.
The Government's intention to remove the binary line is proof of their confidence that the CNAA has done its job well over the past 27 years. All the polytechnics and some of the larger colleges are now judged to be sufficiently mature to validate their own courses, and are soon to be able to award their own degrees. They are therefore to have parity of esteem with the universities, and even in the face of its own resultant closure, the CNAA welcomes this. It is the mark of the CNAA's success.
Having thus stated the CNAA's honourable position, I feel I should now speak personally, from

1105
the lonely vantage point of one who has spent a good deal of time in what used to be called the public sector of higher education, but who has never been part of that system. For what it is worth, I believe that much of what I have to say is shared by colleagues at the CNAA, but I would not want your Lordships to think that I have taken their brief lest any of my more controversial views—controversial, that is, in the world of academe—should be held against them and thus make their life even more difficult than it is at the moment.
I welcome and support this Bill, but three areas worry me, and one of them worries me very much indeed. I start by dealing with the smaller worries, the first of which has nothing to do with the CNAA and its related fields. I wonder whether I may join the noble Baroness, Lady David, in drawing the attention of my noble friend the Minister to Clause 4(2) of the Bill, which provides that the new further education funding councils may secure appropriate provision outside their own institutions for people, over compulsory school age, with learning difficulties if the councils are satisfied that adequate facilities are not available in the institutions under their auspices. It is of course the word "may" which worries me. Perhaps my noble friend would be good enough to look at this word again to see whether the Government could replace the word "may" with the word "shall".
I must declare another interest here in that I make that request as the father of a handicapped child. I should also tell your Lordships that the point was made to me by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, who very much regrets that he is unable to be present this evening to speak to it but who may wish to raise it in Committee. I understand that very few young people would be assisted by the duty which we are suggesting, so I hope that the Government can look favourably on our request.
I come now to the next of my worries about this Bill, for which I cannot believe a satisfactory solution will not be found. Other noble Lords, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, and my noble friend Lady Cox—both of whom have wide CNAA experience—have spoken with considerable expertise on this point so I shall not rehearse all the arguments again. I shall merely refer to the problem faced by the 40,000 students in our 70 non-accredited institutions who do not know what sort of degree they will get because they do not know with whom their institution will be able to link up for validation and degree awarding purposes. We cannot expect these students just to lump whatever comes their way. They have signed lap for a CNAA degree, and they must get a CNAA degree if they want one.
The more difficult part of this problem, as other noble Lords have said, concerns some of the non-accredited institutions themselves which will not find it possible to make alternative validating and degree awarding arrangements in the timescale which now appears to be envisaged by the Bill. I join my noble friend Lady Cox and refer particularly to our theological colleges whose current CNAA degree is much respected worldwide. From the academic viewpoint, they will not find it easy to join any
1106
university or polytechnic that I know of because the academic boards of those institutions do not share the genuinely Christian ethos of our courses. In fact, most of those bodies are, on balance, rather aggressively secular.
Nor will they find it easy to strike a fair bargain financially. What have they got to offer? We must bear in mind that they are competing for students in the same market place as their intended partner. It is also worth recording that the CNAA's validation fee is£50, whereas I understand that the universities charge up to seven times as much as that, at £350. Who will make up the difference?
I am not suggesting that a rump of the CNAA should he kept going to deal with these problems. That solution may not really be practicable in any case, given the numbers of staff who are of course already leaving us because of our impending closure. However, I do suggest that the CNAA's charter should be kept in existence at least until the last students who have signed up for one of our courses have received the degree to which they are entitled. There is no reason why another institution should not administer our charter to that end. I trust that the Government will be able to consider that concept.
I come now to my biggest worry about the Bill, which is whether it will leave enough quality assurance and control in our whole system of higher education in future. My personal view is that the polytechnics are not yet ready for the full academic independence which is now proposed. I say that because only in the past two years has the CNAA granted what we call "accreditation" to all the polytechnics and some of the larger colleges. The idea was that an accredited institution would validate its own courses and largely select its own external examiners, subject to a periodic check-up from the CNAA every five years or so.
The CNAA has not had time to carry out a single re-accreditation visit. I must tell your Lordships that we took much on trust when we granted accreditation in the first place. The recent saga of the very unsatisfactory courses in independent studies at the Polytechnic of East London proves that our trust has not been entirely vindicated. Of course, that cannot be an isolated example. I also wonder whether our cultural studies courses, for example, and most of our media studies courses, are as broad in their academic scope as your Lordships would expect a degree course to be.
I appreciate that by saying that I will be irritating the whole polytechnic sector, which is bad enough. But I am afraid that I would be failing in my duty to your Lordships' House if I did not go further and say that quality assurance in the polytechnic sector is clearly more rigorous than it is in the university sector. No doubt I have now also alienated all the vice-chancellors in your Lordships' House and elsewhere who make up a famously formidable lobby. Therefore, perhaps I may be allowed to give your Lordships two examples of how quality assurance under the CNAA is more rigorous than it is in the university sector.
First, the detail of every course which leads to a CNAA degree has to be published in the form of what

1107
we call a "definitive course document". That is available for students to see before they embark on the course in question and it is lodged in the library at the CNAA where any interested party may inspect it. It contains a week-by-week description of the course and it must include the reading list.
Secondly, the CNAA maintains a register of approved external examiners for all our courses which is open to inspection. During the accreditation process we laid down a system which, if followed by our institutions, will ensure that cosiness in the appointment of external examiners is kept to a minimum. Each of our courses must have two external examiners so appointed.
Before any noble vice-chancellor rises to his feet and berates me for the ignorant insurance broker that I am and tells me that such safeguards are not necessary in our splendid universities, I ask him to think again. Can any vice-chancellor in the land put his hand on his heart and say that there are no courses in his university which would benefit from these sorts of safeguards? Or are there just a few which are not really worth the trouble of tackling? Or are there lots? As things stand at the moment, we may never know. But I am sure that there are more than there ought to be and it is our students and our future which suffer from them. Therefore, I suggest that the proposed new quality audit unit should insist on a public "definitive course document" for all higher education courses which are funded by the taxpayer and that the external examiners for each course should also be made public.
May I also put in a plea, as someone who has spent literally hundreds of hours over the past eight years as the only non-academic at meetings of academics and education experts from the Department of Education and elsewhere—I suspect that is a unique experience—that at least a quarter of the membership of the new quality audit unit should consist of people who are not academics, and who are in fact appointed by the Secretary of State?
May I suggest too, very strongly, that similar membership rules should apply to the new quality assessment units? My worst fears will be confirmed if those are staffed largely by former HMI employees, which I gather is the present intention.
Perhaps I may end by offering my noble friend the Minister a little advice about Clauses 64 and 67, which have drawn so much fire from so many of your Lordships this evening. I will have no difficulty in supporting those clauses, because I know that "academic freedom" is often advanced as the cloak for what is in fact academic self-indulgence, which leads inevitably to poor academic quality. I also understand that the Secretary of State must be ultimately responsible for the £5 billion which we pour into our higher education system every year. If by any chance Clauses 64 and 77 should be, shall we say, tampered with on their passage through your Lordships' House, I hope that my noble friend will remember what I have said about quality assurance. After all, the aim of Clauses 64 and 77 is in no way to interfere with genuine academic freedom, which most of us would die to defend, so much as actually to safeguard it. But,
1108
academic freedom includes a sacred duty to academic quality and if some of the CNAA's safeguards can be extended across the binary line academic freedom and academic quality are more likely to go hand in hand in future.
9.37 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, the final speaker from the Back Benches is in a delicate position. He must not attempt to make a winding up speech on Front Bench lines, but he cannot refrain from referring to what has gone before in a long debate. I shall try to be brief. First, a linguistic point: in Clause 2(5) do we have to incorporate in statute the phrase:
"A council shall discharge their functions"?
We have become accustomed to the Government as a hydra-headed monster taking a plural verb, although I do not like it; but should that apply to a poor, wee council with perhaps 12 to 15 members? So I give notice that I shall put down an amendment to change "their" to "its". I believe it occurs again in Clause 8, where the Bill provides:
"Each council …as they think fit".
I hope that I shall have all-party support for that non-party point when we come to Committee. I am looking at both Front Benches and the Cross Benches.
I do not propose to venture into the subject of higher education. I shall confine my few remarks to Part I. It has been suggested that the Bill is motivated primarily by the political desire further to weaken the influence of LEAs and to transfer another large tranche of funding to central government in the wake of the poll tax. There is an undeniable loss of control by local authorities, but I also note and welcome the decision to lift the ban on local authority councillors becoming eligible to sit on governing bodies on their personal merits. That is a small but welcome piece of evidence of a long overdue thaw in the cold war between the centre and the periphery. I hope that it will be carried further.
In contemplating the creation of the new sector, it is worth recalling that the earlier transfer of polytechnics, as they then were—I dare say most of them are now seeking to pluck the apple of university status—from local authority control was widely welcomed by their directors and boards and has been counted a success. Let us hope that further education and sixth form colleges will benefit similarly from their new freedom. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, thought that that was a spurious analogy. I do not agree with that. However, I do not want to go any further into the institutional debate. We cannot be endlessly wrangling about the interests and demarcations of producers. I want to look at the proposals from the receiving end, from the colleges themselves and their students.
One of the most significant passages in the White Paper was to my mind that which liberated sixth form colleges from school regulations and encouraged them, in paragraph 5.11,
"to review their range of activities and to increase their offering of vocational education".
On a smaller scale, that breaks down almost as important a binary line as that between universities and polytechnics, on which much more attention has

1109
been lavished. Why is it so important? It is presumably one of the objects of the Bill to increase participation by 17 and 18 year-olds in post-compulsory education, and the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, confirmed that in his opening remarks. That may be dictated partly by the recession and the political desirability of limiting the number of unemployed school leavers at 16- plus. That may be one of the Government's motives. But most motives are mixed. The result of abolishing that binary line between FE and sixth form colleges in the new sector could be of far-reaching importance. I am afraid that I must disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, that there is no educational justification for that. I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, though she is not in her place, was of the same opinion as myself.
I speak with a little experience of the matter. When I was a governor of a sixth form college the staying-on rate of 17 and 18 year-olds in an inner city area was raised dramatically by the broadening of the menu to include certain vocational and BTEC courses alongside "A" and "AS" levels. That was essential to the enticement of those who would have run a mile from a straight A-level academy. But it was only achieved by painstaking negotiation with FE interests and, I suspect, by bending the school regulations. That kind or manipulation and rule bending will no longer be necessary for sixth form colleges. For that reason, if for no other, I welcome that part of the Bill.
In case people start grumbling about the dilution of standards or matters of that sort, let us be clear about the numbers we are talking of. There are just over 100 sixth form colleges, with some 75,000 students. The vast majority of sixth formers—238,000—remain in schools, most of which are still controlled by local education authorities. Those that are not are in grant-maintained schools, which are also subject to school regulations. Those schools can still build their ethos round successful sixth forms in a more academic mode. I believe that it encourages a healthy pluralism and I do not oppose it.
However, I believe it is rather silly to insist in Clause 14(6) that a sixth former in a school is still a pupil while his opposite number down the road at a sixth form college is presumably a student. I should have thought that in the post-compulsory world that distinct ion could be counter-productive and I ask the Government to look at it again.
I have one or two slightly more substantial reservations and queries. The White Paper seems to endorse a Robbins-type approach to further education with the words in paragraph 4.6 that one of the councils' main responsibilities will lie in,
"securing enough provision for further education, [and] ensuring that suitable full-time courses are available for all young people who want them".
That suggests that, rightly, the whole sector will be demand-led. After all, it will be post-compulsory education and applicants, armed with market information, must be the only people qualified to decide which courses they should follow.
However, manpower planning soon rears its discredited head. In apparent contradiction to the Robbins approach, the Government retain reserve
1110
manpower-planning powers. In England, according to paragraph 4.4 of the White Paper, the regional arms of the council will,
"work closely with the … TECs, taking account of their views of labour market needs and local vocational and educational training and provision".
Would it not be preferable to give students themselves the benefit of labour market information in their careers advice, rather than imposing central restrictions on the courses available to them?
Additionally, and more importantly, Section 7 of the Bill endows the Secretary of State with great powers over the direction of institutions. That point has already been made in relation to higher education by the noble Lords, Lord Flowers and Lord Walton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. According to Clause 7(1) and (2), grants can be made with any number of strings attached and requirements imposed. While the Secretary of State cannot dictate terms and conditions to a specific college, he is left with significant powers of' direction over small groupings of institutions. That is, in effect, the mirror image of Clauses 64 and 77. Those clauses have been widely deplored. I am afraid I disagree with the views of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. In my submission it would be wrong and against the spirit of a basically liberating Bill if those powers were exercised to buck the market in education and to second-guess where the best interests of the further education student lie.
I have a further point and with it a question. It would be interesting to learn whether the division of funds between grants from the new councils and the money that follows students via the training credits scheme will be relatively fixed once established or whether the proportions will be changed in favour of the latter. What are the Government's intentions here? If training credits are to be a significant part of FE institutions' income, that is another reason for not seeking to deny students the courses of their choice.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said in relation to higher education, a market-oriented government should accept that customers, or consumers—or whatever one wishes to call them—are the best people to decide what ought to be taught. The important question here is whether the Government intend to stand by their commitment to free choice and open access as stated in the White Paper. There remains the question of the funding of increased participation. Almost all noble Lords have mentioned this. It is extraordinary that the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill refers only to the effects of the Bill on public service manpower. There is no reference to the expenses of colleges in converting to independent status, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Walton. There are apparently no other costs. Is it conceivably possible to engineer a significant expansion on a cost neutral basis? Paragraph 6.3 of the White Paper states:
"In setting the level of funds available for distribution each year the Government will take account of the demographic trend, the trend in participation levels and the scope for increased efficiency within the sector".

1111
That suggests to me a Treasury cap. It is a formula for keeping undue expansion in its place and slapping it down. I hope the Minister will be able to assure me that my interpretation of that passage is wrong.
Finally, I am not clear about a further matter. Perhaps I am at fault because I have not read the Bill carefully enough on this matter. To what extent will the further education council be able to support new colleges? I see there is a provision for voluntary aided colleges to opt into the new sector without having to fund the 15 per cent. capital cost they have had to fund hitherto. But what will happen in the case of new colleges which may wish to be born in response to new demands? Will they also have that privilege? Will the council be able to act as a midwife for an increasingly variegated and plural system? We desperately need that to be the case. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response.
9.48 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, as one who is not involved in higher education at all, I have come to the conclusion that it is difficult to be briefed on the subject unless one happens to be my noble friend Lord Kirkwood, who delivered his pertinent contribution in two minutes flat. However, I have found this to be a fascinating debate. Indeed we have heard a notable and knowledgeable contribution in the form of the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Perry. On behalf of these Benches I congratulate the noble Baroness and wish her all the best for the future. We look forward to hearing her contributions in this House.
My overall impression of the debate is that there is more direct criticism expressed of Part I of the Bill and greater scepticism expressed with regard to Part II of the Bill. The most optimistic view of the Bill was taken by the noble Earl, Lord Stockton. I am glad to see he has just resumed his seat. That view was in stark contrast to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, who felt the Government had no overall plan in mind. He felt they had no sense of direction.
Our view on education was eloquently set out by my noble friend Lady Seear at the start of this debate. I was interested in the most challenging speech by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. He is absolutely right to say that the Bill deals simply with structures to enable the country to match resources to programmes. That is all it does. Everybody appears to be in favour of doing away with the binary line between universities and polytechnics, although there is a strong element which regards it as a cosmetic exercise for the years to come rather than anything else.
In basing his main attack on Part II of the Bill on the fear of inflation, the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, may be right. But he might equally have based it on the fear of bureaucracy. A great many young academics today, as well as people in many other spheres in this country, are concerned about the growth of bureaucracy. One sees it even in business. Whereas in their first five years this Government seemed, creditably, to launch an attack on bureaucracy, over the past five or six years we have seen an incredible growth in bureaucracy. I
1112
cannot imagine anything worse for the standards of higher education in this country than for distinguished researchers, heads of department and bright young lecturers to spend much of their time preparing reports on quality and trying to match up their performance to what is expected of them. There is great scope within the Bill for the development of bureaucracy as well as for encouraging inflation.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, that the standard of higher education in this country is extremely good and compares favourably with the Continent, whereas our achievements in respect of the 16 to 19 year-old age group do not compare well. If we have to have priorities, as is sometimes necessary in times of financial stringency whether we like it or not, I agree with the noble Lord that the top priority should be provision for the 16 to 19 year-olds, where we have fallen far behind.
In introducing the debate the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, spoke of the Government's encouragement of institutions which would provide strength in diversity. I agree with him if that will be the result. However, if one is to encourage diversity it is very important to make sure that every polytechnic does not seek to duplicate the work of the universities and every university does not seek to duplicate the work of the polytechnics. There must be some strategic direction here. Who is to give it? Is it simply to be left to institutions to react to funding?
There is a great deal to be said for regional consortia. For example, I believe that in the South of England there is a voluntary consortium made up of three or four universities and four or five polytechnics which co-operate with each other. I think of the University of Wales—it is the only university that I know—which is a federal university and therefore has many advantages. There is a great deal to be said for the federal university providing strategic direction and ensuring that there is no wasteful competition between constituent colleges. Although it might have the word "university" in its title, I should like to see the Polytechnic of Wales, which is the only polytechnic in Wales, become the University of Wales Institute of Technology. Given the prestige of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, it amazes me that we have not developed that concept more in this country. There is a distinguished institute of technology in Manchester, but there is great scope for the different kind of approach offered by an institute of technology compared with a university.
Perhaps I may refer briefly to Clauses 64 and 77. The evil that men do lives after them and it is a great mistake to leave in any Bill a dangerous provision such as we have in Clauses 64 and 77. Of course, one does not anticipate that the present Minister or his immediate successors might use it, but it is a dangerous provision and it might be used. It should not be amended so much as scrapped. I disagreed with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, when he suggested his amendment. He did not take his own sound advice not to seek to draft an amendment on one's feet. The amendment at which he appeared to hint seemed to invite interference by a busybody Secretary of State. The more one spells out such

1113
matters as misuse of public funds, the more likely one is to attract someone to test that out. There is a great deal to be said for scrapping that power.
I should like to mention three points with regard to further education. First, I cannot understand why the Government are so keen to marginalise local education authorities, which have great experience. I am not suggesting that the further education colleges do not want to be free-standing and do not want to be controlled simply by the local educational authorities. I cannot put the case any better than it is put in a hand-out which was sent to me—we have all received so many—and which includes a quotation from the London Borough of Redbridge, which is apparently a Conservative borough. It states:
"It is proposed to remove all LEA representatives from the governing bodies. No good reason is put forward for this and there are strong grounds to continue some representation in order to maintain links with the rest of the local education service, including adult education, schools, careers service and the youth service (and, indeed, also as major employers within the area)".
That is strong common sense and the LEAs should certainly have some representation.
Secondly, I want to express doubt about sixth form colleges. It is wrong for sixth forms in schools to operate on a different basis from sixth form colleges. We should either scrap sixth forms in schools and have sixth form colleges or, alternatively, all sixth form education should come under the local education authority.
My final point relates to adult education, which is so important. Any provision in a Bill which states that an authority may provide services means that in times of financial stringency those services will be the first to go out of the window. There is therefore a good deal to be said for ensuring that the provision of adult education is an absolute must for authorities because it has made such a valuable contribution in this country.
I have already taken 10 minutes and no one will thank me for going on longer at this time of the night.
9.59 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for introducing the Bill. I echo the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, about the interest and quality of all the contributions. There have been many important contributions from all parts of the House. I hope that noble Lords will accept that it is only lack of time and not discourtesy that prevents me from commenting on most of the contributions, either to agree with them or occasionally to put the case against them.
How is a Bill like this to be judged? I can think of two answers to that question. The Government might say—I understand that they are saying—that great educational advance will result from it; or again they might say-and indeed are saying—that at least it will add to efficiency. I am bound to say that so far on neither set of criteria has any convincing case been put forward.
On the matter of efficiency, as so many noble Lords have said, what in fact we are offered is bureaucracy.
1114
We are offered new, centralised bodies in the further education and higher education funding councils. We also have Clauses 64(2) and 77(2) which enable the Secretary of State and his officials—let us not forget that—to poke their noses into matters which do not concern them and where they can do much more harm than good. The only noble Lord who said anything in favour of those clauses was the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. Do not think of a nice man, such as the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, putting them into practice. Think of me putting them into practice and ask what I might do. Then you will know why those clauses should not—here again, the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, is right—remotely appear in the Bill. They should not be amended. They should be taken out. Perhaps I may reflect on the past. The Treasury was once the government department responsible for the universities. When that role was transferred to the Department of Education and Science (about which transfer, let me say, many people were doubtful), the Conservative government of the day pledged that it would not lead to more interference or indeed any interference in the internal affairs of the universities. It was that pledge which convinced Lord Robbins, who was initially opposed to the move to the DES, that it should be accepted. I speak from memory and I could well be wrong but I think that it was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, who was the very first Secretary of State for Education and Science, who gave the pledge. It is sad that Clause 77 appears to be a change in precisely the wrong direction, despite the remarks, which I welcome, of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. But it does give legislative backing to an interfering Secretary of State.
It is worth recalling that the Treasury itself all those years ago did not believe that it needed those powers to ensure that public money was used properly. What has happened since then to change the position? As I said, I do not remotely believe that this part of the Bill needs to be amended. It simply needs to be driven away.
I believe that quality control ought not entirely but chiefly—indeed in practice it must chiefly—be left to individual academics and individual institutions. I, my colleagues and noble friends are not opposed to external audit but much stricter conditions must be laid down to keep interference within strict and explicit limits. It cannot be said too often—this is as true for further and higher education as it is for schools—that the DES, funding councils and, for that matter, the local education authorities educate no one. It is the teachers at all levels who teach. The Bill has nothing at all to say to them.
More generally on this topic of education, I know of no evidence that further education in this country is expensive compared with what is available in the rest of the world. My noble friend Lord Desai mentioned that point. In higher education we are not among the cheapest producers of high quality graduates; we are the cheapest producers of high quality graduates anywhere in, as it were, the serious world. Whether we are discussing 16 to 19 year-olds,

1115
further education more generally or higher education, I am not aware that the record is one of educational failure. Quite the contrary.
Of course there is room for improvement. Far too few young people stay on after 16 and gain qualifications. Far too few young people enter higher education. We need more routes into higher education and the recognition that even if the standard three-year degree (or four- or five-year degree in some cases) is the best way for most students, there are, as the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, pointed out, other ways which are well worth seriously considering and experimenting with. It is also obvious to everybody but the Secretary of State that A-levels are unsatisfactory—there has been little debate about this matter. A broader curriculum which would not mean lowering of standards is what we really need in the post-school area. The Bill does not address that. The notion of A-levels as a goal standard is absurd and becomes more absurd as the years go by. Perhaps I may say à propos the Secretary of State's recent interventions that only an ignoramus could regard course work as an easy option. Only someone who has not tried to get course work from students could believe that that is the simplest way of getting things done.
I reiterate the main points that other noble Lords have made on funding. First, expansion cannot be done on the cheap. I do not blame the Government for not making explicit remarks in the Bill. That is not the way in which legislation is put forward. However, I should have liked to hear more commitment in the Minister's opening remarks to the provision of sufficient funds. Of course we all favour efficiency nowadays but that is not the same as providing no resources; quite the contrary. The danger is that standards will fall. Noble Lords have heard me say that I believe standards have already fallen in some parts of the higher education sector.
The funding councils will be enormously powerful bodies. I support those noble Lords who have said that their decision-making processes must be transparent. We must know their criteria. The criteria for allocating funds must be publicly known. I am concerned that those bodies will simply become creatures of the Secretary of State, justifying the paucity of provision to institutions rather than pressing the Secretary of State for a proper allocation of resources.
I should like an answer regarding fees in further education, especially with regard to sixth form colleges. Do the Government wish fee paying to be extended in that sector and more of the costs of their own education to be placed on to 16 to 19 year-olds? If not, why is the fee-paying factor put so clearly in the Bill?
I make another economics point in relation to funding. Despite the Government's mismanagement, we remain a rich country. The underlying forces of economic growth make us richer all the time. We are certainly richer than we were 25 years ago, when, for example, the Robbins Committee reported. It might be thought that the richer we were the more we could
1116
do for our young people. Further and higher education being a good thing, it might be assumed that we would give expansion in that area the first claim on our funds. Instead, this generation is told that if more students are to receive more education at this level, it can only be done on the cheap. It cannot be achieved unless we find more economic ways to do it. In some cases therefore students will have to accept shorter and more concentrated courses and to attend institutions with fewer facilities; and they must study useful subjects, not necessarily those that interest them—as though anyone can say, as noble Lords have pointed out,a priori what will be useful. I find the argument unconvincing.
I go further than did the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, in her excellent maiden speech. If we are to compete in the more open and highly technological world of the next century, our only hope lies with the quality of our labour force. That means that a great burden will be placed on our further and higher education institutions to provide us with young people possessing managerial, scientific, technological, linguistic and—if they are not genetic—entrepreneurial skills. That is the investment in the future which justifies expansion and a much greater use of resources in education.
I have always been a great supporter of polytechnics. I was a member of the CNAA at the beginning. I was the first chairman of its economic board. It was a pleasure first to welcome the coming of age of the polytechnics as they became independent; and, secondly, the move towards their being able to award their own degrees. I welcome their right—if they so wish, I emphasise—to call themselves universities. It is not obvious to me that they would always find it sensible to exercise that choice but at least they have it. I believe that the polytechnics, encouraged and helped by the CNAA, have been one of the great triumphs of public education in this country.
My whole approach to the polytechnics, in so far as I was able to influence developments in economics and business studies, was to raise the academic standards to those of the universities. That meant that staff should have the time and facilities for research and scholarship. Indeed, I refused to validate degrees that did not provide precisely that kind of time. Students ought to have—but I regret to say that they still do not have—proper facilities for study; notably, first-class libraries. The correct policy was to enhance the polytechnics.
I am totally opposed, therefore, to the development of wholly-teaching institutions in higher education. I take that stance for two reasons. First, since I was a student I have believed that students who are not taught by scholars receive a poorer education. That is the case no matter how efficient the through-put appears to be. In that sense I am extremely conservative in higher education.
The second reason for my opposition is more obvious. I believe that our institutions, in particular the universities, are extremely efficient. They provide the joint products of teaching and research. Depending on which aspect one calls primary we get

1117
one aspect for nothing: we have excellent teaching and the free gift of research or one can say that we carry out excellent research and have the teaching for nothing. I am even more conservative in those terms.
I believe that a degree viewed as an educational experience, which it must be, will be a good deal inferior if crammed into two years than if it is extended over three. That has nothing to do with what is being taught. I have already said that I can teach in a single, concentrated year much of the economics that most of my students need. However, I should never confuse that with the process that I like to call education. I am not against change, although my comments might appear to contradict that statement. I believe that in broad terms what we were doing in higher education remains correct.
The Bill is based on at least two prejudices which almost amount to hatred. The first is against local authorities, whose powers and responsibilities are to be reduced again and which are not even to be guaranteed places on the funding councils. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said that the funding councils would set up regional committees to advise them on local needs. That statement is extremely paradoxical—what do the Government believe that local authorities are for?
Secondly, we again see the Government's antipathy towards the universities. That cannot be purely political. In my experience the political views of university teachers always reflect those of the country as a whole. It simply is not true that they are hotbeds of anti-Conservatism. As was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, we are observing again the Government's apparent uneasiness in the presence of independent thought and criticism. That was not a stupid remark.
I had thought that all that was supposed to change with the advent of a new Prime Minister. He certainly has the advantage, if that is what it is, of not having been scarred by university life. It has been said that all the problems have arisen because of the failure of Oxford University to award a particular right honourable lady an honorary degree. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, is not in his seat but I hope that he will read Hansard. I plead with him and his colleagues in Oxford not to make the same mistake again: please give the Prime Minister an honorary D.Litt. The whole future of higher education may depend upon that.
I wish to ask two or three specific questions. I saw nothing in the Bill about the Open University, although a few remarks have been made about it tonight. Is there any reason why the Open University has been left out? I remain worried in particular about support for part-time students. It has always seemed to me anomalous that what most of us would regard as the most deserving and best motivated group of students is the one group which seems to be totally disqualified from received support. I have asked before why that is so. If it is shortage of funds, could not that group be given priority for the future? I hope that the Minster will say something about that.
Secondly, I am troubled by Clause 4 on persons with learning difficulties. What do the words "shall
1118
have regard to" mean? Do they mean that further education facilities must be provided for people with learning difficulties, including provision of their special requirements? Or is it merely an option to be chosen depending on circumstances, one of those circumstances being whether there are sufficient resources available so that, if they are not, consideration will not be given to it?
Do the Government have a view on the future of sixth forms? One could interpret the Bill as saying that sixth forms are now obsolete, that the Government would like secondary education to end at 16 and that everybody should be in the new colleges and FE institutions. That view was held by the most extreme left wing people in education several years ago and, therefore, that has puzzled me. Do the Government have any words of encouragement for those schools which believe sixth forms to be a good thing?
The Minister was asked a direct question by my noble friend Lady David as to whether there is a statutory obligation in the Bill to provide adult education for so-called leisure courses. I hope that that question can be answered this evening.
Equally, the question of further education in prisons has been raised and that too is not mentioned in the Bill. Perhaps the Minister will take an opportunity, either this evening or in Committee, to tell us how the Government see developments in that area. I declare one of my many interests, in that I am involved with NACRO as a member of its education committee. I am convinced that further education has a serious and useful part to play in the rehabilitation of offenders.
Finally, I must refer to something which my noble friend Lady Blackstone said. She said that the Government have introduced the Bill for short-term political advantage. For once in my life, I must disagree with her. The present Secretary of State for Education and Science in his earlier role as Secretary of State for Health introduced the health legislation which has turned out to be a political disaster for the Government. Obviously he now believes that he must finish the job both as regards his stewardship of education in general and as regards this Bill in particular. As everybody knows, the Conservatives now need a period in opposition and the Secretary of State for Education and Science is determined that they shall have it.
As my noble friend Lady Blackstone said, we look forward to taking over for many reasons but, in the context of today's debate, one reason for a change of government is that there is a real need to provide a more sympathetic environment in which further and higher education can flourish.
10.18 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, we have had a wide-ranging debate today which has covered many aspects of the education service. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, in saying that I am particularly glad that my noble friend Lady Perry chose this debate in which to make her maiden speech. My noble friend has spoken with first-hand knowledge and experience of many of the issues raised by this Bill. As a member

1119
of Her Majesty's inspectorate, she was for many years closely involved in assessing the quality of education at all levels. Currently as director of the Polytechnic of the South Bank, she has committed herself in particular to widening access to the opportunities offered by the polytechnic for young people and adults living in south-east London. Her support for the Bill is very significant and her thoughtful speech helped us to focus on the benefits it will offer to institutions, students, employers and the economy as a whole.
It is important that we do not lose sight of the principles underlying the Bill. The Government's reforms of further and higher education will provide a better deal for young people and adults and will increase participation still further.
I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, does not approve but there has been widespread support for the reforms in Part I from the FE colleges and the sixth form colleges which will transfer to the new sector. Under the local management schemes introduced by the Education Reform Act 1988 they have already tasted the benefits of greater managerial freedom. It is evident that they are ready to take the step towards full independence and they welcome the opportunity to do so. They are willing partners in the changes that we are putting before the House today, and I have every confidence in their ability to rise to the challenge.
It was my noble friend Lord Limerick who spoke warmly of the new independence given to the polytechnics some little while ago. My noble friend Lady Perry spoke of the experience of the polytechnics, showing that newly independent colleges will be able to thrive and achieve significant increases in participation. Do not let us forget also that the funding of the new further education sector through the new further education funding councils will effectively ring-fence for further education those funds that fall within the scope of the funding councils and will ensure that those funds do not leak out into other parts of the service.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Blackstone and Lady Seear, speaking from their Front Benches at the beginning of the debate both talked in critical terms of the effect that the Bill would have, so they both perceived, on the structure of adult education. Further education for adults has always been statutorily part of further education, and there is nothing new about that. It was so in 1944 and in the Education Reform Act 1988. I should like to assure the noble Baronesses, and indeed the noble Baroness, Lady David, and the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, that the Bill continues in full the duty to provide further education for adults. We do not believe that the division of this duty between the funding councils on the one hand and the local education authorities on the other will be in any way unworkable. The councils' duty will relate to courses that need to be secured at national level, while the local education authorities will be responsible for courses of a more local character.
The Government have given a firm commitment that the resources attributable to courses for which LEAs have a duty will remain inside the local
1120
authority stand and spending assessment procedure. A survey of LEAs has been undertaken to help establish the expenditure position, and there will be no good reason for local authorities to raise fees or to close classes. The Bill will in no way reduce funding of further education for adults. Indeed, my noble friend Lady Carnegy was right in thinking that it provides a good deal for adults. It will build on the developments of recent years, which have been impressive. Since 1980 the enrolment of adults on further education courses of all kinds has risen by 27 per cent. In the same period the number of adults enrolling on basic skills courses has more than doubled. This is an excellent record, and the Bill will enhance opportunities and increase participation.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. It is important to get this point clear from what he said. Clause 11 says that the local authorities may provide these facilities for the leisure activities of adult education. Is it "may" or "shall"? It could not be more important. Have they a right to claim it, or have the local education authorities merely the permission to do it? It makes an enormous difference.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, it does. The Bill continues in full the duty to provide further education for adults. Although I perhaps ought to be, I am not looking at the text of the Bill, but I give the noble Baroness that repeated assurance.
Let me now deal briefly with the issue mentioned by practically all noble Lords, and that is Clauses 64 and 77. The Government accept the need to safeguard the essential nature of higher education, and indeed the Bill is not designed in any way to be an attack on academic freedom.
Between them, the further education funding councils and the higher education funding councils will dispose of some £5 billion each year. I say, and my noble friend Lord Limerick also said, that it is difficult to believe that anyone can seriously argue that the government of the day, on behalf of the taxpayer, should have no say at all in how that enormous sum of money is used.
In 1988, when the Education Reform Bill was going through, it is fair to claim that the debates in your Lordships' House were about finding the right balance between the necessary accountability associated with the public funding of higher education and the equally important need to protect the autonomy of institutions providing higher education. Although the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, spoke of the need to scrap the powers in the two clauses to which I have referred, the fact is that in 1988, at the end of very extensive debates, the balance that was achieved was supported in this House.
As regards funding council conditions, the 1988 Act provides that these must not relate to the application by institutions of any funds derived otherwise than from the Universities Funding Council or the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council. Moreover, the councils are required to consult before exercising their discretion to attach terms and conditions to their grant. There are identical

1121
provisions relating to the new councils in the Bill which is before your Lordships. As regards the Secretary of State's powers, the Act recognises that he needs to be able to attach conditions to the funds which he puts at the councils' disposal, but these may not require the funding councils to treat specified institutions in particular ways.
The Secretary of State's power to attach conditions is, I admit quite openly, differently expressed in the new Bill. That is to put beyond doubt that the Secretary of State may attach conditions expressed in the form of objectives to be met, or criteria to be satisfied, before a specified level of grant is distributed. But the Bill retains the proviso that the Secretary of State could not use that power to intervene in the funding of university X or college Y.
Finally, the Education Reform Act recognised the Secretary of State's need for a long-stop power to direct the funding councils to take particular actions. But also, and rightly, in 1988 the Act provided for any such directions to be subject to parliamentary procedure through the negative resolution procedure. I contend that Clause 77, as drafted, does not exceed in scope Parliament's intention in voting through the direction-making power in the 1988 Act. Yes, the power does provide in terms for directions to be institution-specific. But that possibility was the intention in the Education Reform Act. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor made that quite clear to the House three years ago. For example, at Report stage the noble and learned Lord said:
"The amendments moved on Report in another place have made it plain that the Government will not interfere between the Universities Funding Council and particular universities except in extreme circumstances".
The only reason why the new power is expressed differently —in other words, subsection (2) has been added to Clause 77—is that we are now advised that the present one does not allow the Secretary of State to make an institution-specific direction in the way which was explained by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor three years ago.
I am grateful to noble Lords for having allowed me to run over the ground. I repeat that I recognise the sensitivities which surround the issue. I also repeat that the prime consideration for the Government has to be that they retain a reserve power. I also repeat that it is not easy to see how the clause can be amended in such a way as to retain that position. Nevertheless, in that context I repeat also that I have listened carefully to your Lordships today and that the Government will of course consider seriously and genuinely any amendments which might be brought forward on the subject.
Perhaps I may now try quickly to answer some of the points put by your Lordships in the debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, was critical of the relations which there would be as regards planning between the new independent colleges under the Bill, the schools and those responsible for training. It is expected that in fulfilling their responsibilities the new councils will liaise closely with training and enterprise councils, local education authorities and other bodies which have responsibility for complementary provision of services. That function is likely to be carried
1122
out at regional rather than national level. There is also the provision in the Bill for the setting up of regional councils.
The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, were concerned that the funding councils would be too bureaucratic and too centralised. The further education funding councils for England and Wales will employ around 440 staff between them, including staff serving the regional committees in England, but that increase will be offset by a reduction in local authority staff currently involved in the administration of further education.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, asked whether the residential colleges for adults would be jeopardised by the Bill. I believe that the Bill poses no threat to the colleges. The colleges will be funded by the funding councils. The Government are aware of the distinctive characteristics of the colleges and will be making that clear in guidance to the funding councils. The colleges have an important role to play in providing access to education for disadvantaged adults. If I may say so, the intervention of the noble Baroness was important on that matter.
Baroness David: My Lords, I said that I had heard that the colleges would not be allowed to increase their student numbers. Is that correct?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am certainly not aware at the moment that that is correct. I promise to write to the noble Baroness on that point.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and my noble friend Lord Pearson all referred to Clause 4, which relates to young people with learning difficulties. Clauses 4 and 11 reflect the Government's policy that disability should not be a bar on access to education. Clause 11 continues the present duty on local education authorities to have regard to the requirements of people with learning difficulties in securing further education provision. Clause 4 places a similar duty on the new further education funding councils. The definition in Clause 4(3) of learning difficulties is the same as in current legislation. That makes it clear that those with either a physical or mental handicap are included. The Bill thus ensures that the current duties towards young people with learning difficulties are maintained. I think I am right in saying to my noble friend that the use of the word "may" has to be taken in conjunction with the use of the word "must" or "shall" earlier on and that "may" refers to the buying in of services for young people with learning difficulties if the necessary provision cannot be made in a maintained establishment.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, expressed concern about the future of the Workers' Educational Association. From April 1993 the further education funding council for England is to take over that part of the WEA's funding now handled by the DES. That part already transferred to local authorities will remain with them. In Wales, funding will transfer to the council for Wales. There is therefore no question of the Government's proposals reducing the WEA's public subsidy. I can give the noble Earl an assurance

1123
that the funding council will be able to fund all aspects of the WEA's work, not just those courses listed in Schedule 2.
I turn now to higher education. In his speech the noble Lord, Lord Peston, shot some questions at me. He said that the Open University appeared not to be mentioned. It is mentioned in Clause 58(7). I am repeating myself, I know, when I say that the power in the Bill is for the funding to come from the funding councils of England and Wales. We envisage that in practice the funding will come through the English funding council. But I went out of my way to say that this is an aspect we may like to discuss in Committee and that the Government would not want in any way to be hidebound about it.
Several noble Lords, led by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford, expressed concern not about the principle of the dissolution of the CNAA but about the effects it will have and the timing of it. The noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, and my noble friend Lady Cox were among those who mentioned that. I should tell the right reverend Prelate that there is no reason to suppose that the dissolution of the CNAA will affect the ability of existing students to complete their degrees. The students will continue to follow the courses for which they are registered at the institution where they are studying and, on completion of the course, those students on courses at an institution which has become degree awarding will receive that institution's degree. Students at institutions which are not degree awarding will receive the degree of the degree-awarding body which will replace CNAA as that institution's validating body.
Both noble Baronesses stressed strongly that they believe there is a difficulty about the timetable for the dissolution of the CNAA. I know that CNAA officers are in constant touch with institutions about the implications of the council's dissolution. They are also in close touch with the Department of Education and Science. There are over 70 institutions already in a validation arrangement with a university. Therefore, it is not an impossible task. But I shall obviously draw my right honourable friend's attention to the concerns which have been raised today over the timetable. Incidentally, an interesting and ingenious suggestion was made by my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour that the Open University should inherit the CNAA's charter when the council is dissolved. Obviously I cannot respond to that suggestion tonight; but, once again, I promise that we will consider such a proposal.
In all friendliness, I hope that my noble friend Lord Beloff will not mind me saying that I believe he is in the minority by not welcoming the ending of the higher education binary line. As my noble friend Lord Limerick said with some eloquence, polytechnics should have parity of esteem with universities. But I do not think that they do. Our competitors in the world are all expanding their higher education. My noble friend mentioned those whose fathers and grandfathers had been fortunate enough to go to university. However, many students in the past were simply not able to go into higher education no matter how well they were qualified. The Government's
1124
policy of expansion will ensure that this no longer happens. Doing away with the binary line is part and parcel of that process.
There is another major issue with which I think I should deal. It was raised by my noble friend Lady Park and by the noble Lords, Lord Desai and Lord Walton. I refer to the general issue of quality assessment. The purpose of external assessors visiting institutions is, as your Lordships will know better than I do, to provide an informed and objective view of the strengths and weaknesses of an institution's provision. Such assessments carried out by Her Majesty's Inspectorate in the past have been welcomed as being enormously helpful by polytechnics and colleges as an aid to their academic and managerial planning. They have also been of value to the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council in informing its funding methodology.
The noble Lord, Lord Walton, referred to what he perceived as being a danger to academic freedom in this respect. We do not envisage that the assessment units will seek to encroach upon the academic independence of universities. They will work within guidelines to be established with the funding councils. The White Paper expressed the Government's expectation that the councils will consult institutions on the assessment methodology. The councils are also required to establish quality assessment committees to advise them on that. Those committees must have a majority of members with experience in an institution funded by the councils.
Perhaps I may say a brief word to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford, who has sat throughout the whole of today's debate having spoken quite early on. I agree with his remarks about the distinctive and important contribution that the colleges, especially the denominational colleges, make to our higher education. They have flourished under the PCFC, and there is no reason why they should not continue to do so under the new framework.
As to criteria to further development, the Government's proposals are that any institution should be given degree-awarding powers provided that it can demonstrate the necessary rigour in its internal quality assurance. It is true that the proposed criteria for receiving a university title would exclude colleges with fewer than 4,000 students - a point made by the right reverend Prelate. I shall of course draw to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State the points made by him in that respect.
Although he is no longer here - he told me that he had to leave - I should like to record a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, about membership of the funding councils. Clause 58 retains the wording of Section 131 of the Education Reform Act in that it requires the Secretary of State to have regard to the desirability of appointing members to a higher education funding council who have experience of and have shown capacity in the provision of higher education. I have no doubt that my right honourable friend will want to ensure that there is a sensible balance of experience within the membership of the new councils.

1125
That leads me, lastly because of time, to research. My noble friend Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior expressed anxiety that the Bill's effect might be to create a three-tier structure of research, teaching and intermediate universities. I assure my noble friend that that is not the Government's intention. Their policy remains as set out in the White Paper. Funding will be based upon an assessment of individual departments, not institutions. We have no intention of imposing an inflexible structure, but as a result of assessment carried out department by department some institutions will inevitably fare better than others in competition for funds. Some may fare worse than they do now. If that is because funds are being allocated to better effect elsewhere, then I do not see that that is objectionable.
My noble friend Lord Renfrew has also sat tirelessly throughout today, and I say to him that the Government's policy is that there should be selectivity in research in pursuit of excellence, as he said. The new universities will be competing of course with existing universities for that research funding, both from the funding councils and research councils.
If your Lordships will forgive me, I believe that that is probably as much as the House can bear from me. I end by saying that in bringing forward the Bill I believe that the Government demonstrate their commitment to an expanding and diverse system of further and higher education. I believe that the Bill is good news for young people and adults, for institutions and for the economy as a whole.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask him whether he can give the House an assurance tonight that he will clear up the ambiguity which arose from the question put to him by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. It referred to Clause 11(2), which states:
"in respect of education to which section 3(1) of that Act applies a local education authority may".
Should not that word be "shall"? Will he clear that up, not necessarily now but before the Committee stage?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I shall write to the noble Baroness. I apologise for not knowing the answer this evening, and I shall send a copy to the noble Lord.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Azerbaijan: Human Rights
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox rose to ask her Majesty's Government whether they will take any action about human rights violations in Nagorno-Karabakh and the Shaumyan region of Azerbaijan.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am most grateful to have this opportunity to raise the issue of the grave violations of human rights in and around Nagorno-Karabakh. I am also particularly indebted to noble Lords who will be speaking in this short debate, so very late at night, on a subject which is so remote and yet of immense human significance.
Perhaps I may first express my profound sympathy for the people of Azerbaijan in their grief over the
1126
tragedy of the helicopter crash in Nagorno-Karabakh last night, and also my personal sorrow as I believe that I may have had the privilege of knowing some of those on board.
It may be helpful if I set the scene in general terms, and then offer your Lordships an account of the current situation and conclude with a request to Her Majesty's Government to consider ways in which they may be able to assist in the alleviation of suffering and the termination of bloodshed.
Your Lordships will be aware that both man and nature seem to have conspired to inflict agony on the people of Armenia: from the genocide of 1915 to the atrocities of Sumgait and the earthquake in 1988, from which people are still suffering. But that suffering has been compounded in recent months as Armenians living in and around Nagorno-Karabakh have been subjected to brutal assaults and enforced deportations by the Azerbaijani authorities. The region is populated mainly by Armenians, but was transferred by Stalin to Azerbaijan in the early 1920s.
The area has a history of tragic deportations and of conflict. Sometimes the deportations have occurred, and are occurring, in circumstances of great cruelty, sometimes following natural tragedy such as after the earthquake. Conflict has involved both the Armenians and Azeris. I am not attempting to judge history, but as a representative of the Andrei Sakharov International Human Rights Congress, I and my colleagues followed in the footsteps of a man who was always on the side of the victim, and our concern now is for the victims suffering in that area today.
I have visited the area three times in the past six months —twice with the Andrei Sakharov Foundation and on the third occasion with Christian Solidarity International, a non-sectarian human rights and humanitarian organisation. I must emphasise that I and my colleagues went with no prejudice or preconceptions. We were determined to hear both the Armenian and Azerbaijani viewpoints.
I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I offer some details, because it has been so difficult for anyone to obtain the evidence we were able to obtain. Our first visit began in Armenia. We visited 15 different sites and received first-hand evidence from Armenians who had been recently forcibly and brutally deported from their homelands in Azerbaijan—from Getashen and Martunashen, and from the Berdadzor region of Nagorno-Karabakh.
Those deportations were fearsome operations. The pattern was always the same. Vulnerable defenceless mountain villages were surrounded first by heavy military equipment —tanks, armoured personnel carriers and helicopters of the Soviet 4th Army—under the pretext of passport or weapons checks. Then the Azerbaijani Black Beret OMON troops would move in, attack, intimidate and forcibly remove the inhabitants, committing atrocities in the process. I shall never forget talking to an elderly woman whose husband had been paralysed for 10 years. When the OMON ordered him to leave and he could not move, they shot him in the legs, dragged her away, leaving him wounded. Or the young pregnant woman whose husband, when he tried to help her as she was being

1127
beaten by the OMON, was shot in the mouth by a machine gun in front of her. I could give many more examples.
We talked also to desperate Armenians whose relatives had been taken hostage by the Azeris and who were being tortured in prison. We saw the evidence of maltreatment on the bodies of two Armenian doctors who had been taken prisoner by the Azeris while trying to help in Getashen.
As we were committed also to hearing the Azeri viewpoint, we tried on that occasion in May to visit Azerbaijan. That was not made easy. We were refused permission to fly to Stepanakert, the capital of Karabakh. The Azeri authorities said we could only come via Tbilisi; two of our colleagues tried to do so but could not reach Baku. Some of the rest of us in desperation walked across the border, despite the shelling, with a white flag and took evidence from the Azerbaijani OMON and local villagers.
Our conclusions were that there was clearly some two-way fighting, but there was great asymmetry in terms of arms and human rights violations. For example, at the place where I walked over the border —at Voskepar—on the Armenian side, there were no Soviet armed forces, no OMON equivalent and no militia. The Armenian militia had been assassinated or taken hostage in a cross-border attack by the Azeris. The village was completely vulnerable. On the Azeri side, we met well-armed OMON, bristling with machine guns, and saw a Soviet army headquarters and local militia. There is some armed retaliation by Armenians, largely in self-defence or in an attempt to regain lost villages and lost territory. Our unanimous conclusion after the visit in May was that, in terms of human rights violations, in the brutal deportations of innocent villagers from the lands of their ancestors, and in the maltreatment of hostages in prison, the Armenians were certainly the primary victims.
On our visit in July, we began in Azerbaijan, in a determined attempt to do justice to the Azeri viewpoint. We were received by President Mutalibov and given assistance in reaching Stepanakert, for which we are grateful. But we were denied access to the areas we most wanted to visit. My noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch, a member of this delegation, will describe our experiences and conclusions from that visit.
I undertook a third visit in October. This was particularly useful, as I was due the following week to give evidence to a Congressional CSCE human rights hearing in Washington and to the Canadian Government's External Affairs Committee, in Ottawa. On that third visit we especially wished to visit Nagorno Karabakh and the neighbouring Shaumyan region of Azerbaijan to assess human rights violations since the communiqué signed by the presidents of Russia, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and Armenia on 23rd September.
On 16th October we flew from Yerevan to Shaumyan by helicopter to visit the villages of Karachinar, Buzluk and Verishen. Karachinar is a village under repeated attacks. Some 36 people have been killed there in the past month; four died in one
1128
truck on 3rd October. There is daily shelling. The numbers of shells range from two to 280 a day. Many houses are damaged or destroyed. Just four to five days before our visit, an OMON helicopter landed. Two people were killed and three wounded, including a child. Buzluk is a village which had suffered deportation on 13th to 15th July. The village is now virtually a ghost village. In the graveyard tombs have been desecrated, with marble slabs removed and/or defaced. Three reasons were suggested for this: the theft of marble for building materials; the removal of evidence of an Armenian presence and to insult and humiliate the Armenians.
One grave of a newly buried man, killed on the first night of the attack by the Azeris, had been exhumed by the Azeris who removed the new clothes in which the body was dressed and his gold teeth. We spoke to his father who showed us his home which had been stripped of belongings. Virtually all he had left to face the winter was a pile of walnuts and a few apples. He insisted on giving us three of those apples.
The village was retaken by Armenians on 14th September. One family was seen returning, but life will be very difficult for deportees as they have lost virtually everything and have been unable to harvest crops due to constant sniping. They will therefore need a great deal of aid. Verishen is a village attacked by Azeris on 14th July. It was retaken by Armenians on 14th September and is now being rebuilt. In this district, five Armenian villages have suffered brutal deportations. Two have since been retaken by Armenians.
We spent the night in Karachinar, with the sound of constant machine-gun fire. In the morning we visited more homes damaged by artillery shelling from the Azeri area of Shefek, including one house devastated on 10th October. On that night four people died from shelling.
We then flew by helicopter to Stepanakert. We visited the hospital and saw wounded civilians. There were two men both aged 27, who had been stopped by Azeri OMON while driving a tractor and shot; one in the spine, the other in the thigh. Both wounds could have been fatal. We saw an 18 year-old woman from Mardakert region, who, on the night of 1st and 2nd October, when the OMON attacked her village—killing six men and burning houses and wounding many people—fled to the forest and hid for three days. She became very ill and was admitted to hospital. Her baby was dead. She developed brain damage and needed brain surgery but it was impossible to bring in a neurosurgeon from Armenia because Stepanakert airport was closed by the Azeris to flights from Armenia. We also saw a 12 year-old boy, shot through the chest at school in Stepanakert on 9th October.
On 19th October we visited the adjacent Azeri/Armenian villages at Kirkejan, which suffer from frequent sniping. On the Azeri side, a militia major talked about Azeris' love of peace; he gave no evidence of specific attacks by Armenians. On the Armenian side, we met an elderly man who pointed to a tree 80 yards away where two boys had been shot at by Azeris in the past 24 hours. In that village the 12 year-old boy we saw in hospital had also been shot

1129
The Azeris had cut off the water supply so villagers have to go down to the river to collect water, which is dirty. We also talked to the Soviet MVD colonel who seemed sincere about his peace-keeping role, in the last two days he had arrested four armed Azeris and he claims that if fighting starts from either side they counter-attack immediately.
Finally, some of the delegation visited Tuk in the Gadrut region for the tragic funeral of five members of one family, including a 5 year-old child, who had been shot and mutilated with knives in their own home on the night of 16th and 17th October.
I now turn to four conclusions and to a few recommendations. First, the conclusions. The policy of systematic deportations of whole Armenian villages, in combined operations of Soviet Army and Azeri OMON troops, appear recently to have been suspended. There also appears to be a tendency toward s greater neutrality by the Soviet troops, which is to be welcomed. Those are both positive findings. However, there are reports of increased shootings and kidnappings by both sides.
Several hundred Armenians are still in detention in Azeri prisons, where they are denied basic legal rights and subjected to maltreatment, including torture. Families of prisoners are often given no information concerning their whereabouts or health and they are not allowed legal defence. Many of those arrested have disappeared.
Our final conclusion was that Stepanakert airport remained under the control of Azeri troops, reportedly the previous OMON troops renamed "transport police". I understand that it is still closed to flights from Yerevan. The implications are immensely serious in terms of supplies of food and medicine, as well as the free flow of civilian travel.
The first recommendations put forward by our delegation relate to those agreed by the four presidents in their communiqué on 23rd September. We argue that they need to be fulfilled as a matter of great urgency. I refer particularly to the return of deportees to their villages, with suitable protection and assistance to re-establish life in the face of problems associated with the destruction of their homes and the loss of belongings, crops and livestock.
As regards the cease-fire, the activities of all paramilitary groups should cease and the troops of the Soviet Interior Ministry should enforce peace. The third recommendation of the agreed communiqué was that all remaining hostages must be freed and all prisoners must be accorded the full protection of legal rights. Finally, normal functioning of transport and communication systems must be restored as a matter of urgency, especially the reopening of Stepanakert airport to flights from Yerevan and of the road from Goris to Stepanakert.
Our delegation had one or two further recommendations, President Gorbachev should issue a decree to re-establish democratic local government and civil administration in Nagorno-Karabakh. That must come from him because it was President Gorbachev who issued the earlier decree to dissolve the previous democratic administration.
We also recommend that there should he free access to prisons by governmental and independent human rights organisations. We recommend that Western aid should be directed to the republics direct and made conditional on the fulfilment of human rights criteria and that those conditions should be monitored by independent bodies.
We recommend that an international peace-keeping force—for example, a United Nations force—should be deployed. It is worth noting that the President of Armenia himself, whom we had the privilege of meeting, as well as local people, specifically requested this.
Finally, we recommend that aid should be made available directly to Nagorno-Karabakh for both Armenian and Azeri communities.
I conclude by highlighting the fact that the situation in the region is extremely serious, with widespread suffering resulting from human rights violations. While some improvements can be welcomed, other developments are a cause for increasing concern. There is a fear that the situation could deteriorate to wholesale war, which would have repercussions far beyond the region. The need for a constructive initiative is therefore urgent and imperative.
Perhaps I may therefore ask my noble friend the Minister whether the Government can give an assurance that no aid will be given without a clear understanding that the receiving government will protect human rights. Perhaps I may also ask him whether our Government can use their influence to ensure that international recognition, for example in the form of acceptance by the United Nations, is also conditional on fulfilment of fundamental human rights criteria.
With regard to the issues that we are considering here tonight, President Mutalibov should be encouraged to fulfil the recommendations of the communiqué that he has signed. That would help to bring about a cessation of bloodshed of innocent civilians. If Armenia were to engage in military activity beyond that justified by self-defence, similar considerations should apply. However, as I indicated at the outset, and conclude by emphasising, our perception is that at present the Armenians are the major victims. Urgent measures need to be taken to bring about a cessation of human rights violations currently causing incalculable suffering to innocent inhabitants, both Armenian and Azeri, of a beautiful but tragic land.
11 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, as my noble friend Lady Cox mentioned, I was privileged to accompany the second international Sakharov memorial delegation to Azerbaijan, Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia which was led by my noble friend.
The timing of our visit was perhaps fortunate because we asked for visas to visit Nagorno-Karabakh from July 13th to 16th this year when President Gorbachev was in London. It may have been his hopeful presence at the G7 talks here that encouraged

1131
our Soviet and Azerbaijani hosts to let us go into areas of Nagorno-Karabakh where no foreigner had been for 70 years.
Our delegation consisted of members from the United States, Japan, the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom, all of whom were experienced in human rights matters. We concluded unanimously that grave violations of human rights were occurring, particularly through forced deportations of entire Armenian villages in Nagorno-Karabakh, and through the brutal detention of Armenians in Azerbaijani-controlled prisons. We also concluded unanimously that in this terrible work the Azerbaijanis were supported and often led by Soviet troops whose actions appeared to be at least condoned by the Kremlin itself. Indeed, when my noble friend Lady Cox and I saw Chairman Lukianov of the Supreme Soviet on 17th July, he did not attempt to deny that.
Despite the fact that our Azerbaijani hosts prevented us from seeing the villages that we most wanted to see, we were certainly able to see massive Soviet and Azerbaijani forces ranged against the wretched Armenian villages. By contrast, our Armenian hosts went out of their way to show us everything that we asked to see and clearly answered our questions as honestly as they could.
In case anyone should accuse us of Christian bias towards the Armenian cause in this tragic affair, as the Azerbaijanis have in their national press, perhaps I may remind your Lordships that in a recent debate in the House I strongly supported the case for Moslem schools to be given equal status with Christian and other schools in our state system of education. For many other reasons with which I need not trouble your Lordships at this late hour, I really cannot be accused of any pro-Christian or anti-Moslem bias.
Things have changed in the Soviet Union since I was last in Nagorno-Karabakh and it is good to hear my noble friend Lady Cox say that Soviet involvement there is now more even-handed than it was in July. Nevertheless, a large preponderance of Azerbaijani over Armenian armed forces must remain and we must do what we can to ensure that the situation does not escalate to the point where a final solution is imposed on Nagorno-Karabakh by its much stronger neighbour. In that, we are perhaps not as powerless as we may fear. After all, President Mutalibov of Azerbaijan signed a joint communiqué on 23rd September which, among other things, guaranteed human rights in the region. President Mutalibov wants two things from the international community. He wants recognition and he wants aid.
Perhaps I may therefore join my noble friend Lady Cox in suggesting to Her Majesty's Government that our recognition of and aid to Azerbaijan should be dependent upon full respect for human rights in the Nagorno-Karabakh enclave and in the Shaumyan district of Azerbaijan. They should also be conditional upon Azerbaijan re-opening the lines of communication and supply to the enclave, particularly of medical supplies, so that foreign observers may enter more
1132
easily than we could and so that the fast deteriorating standard of life of the villagers may be somewhat alleviated.
I also venture to suggest to the Government that this is an important test case for our aid to other emerging republics in what used to be the Soviet Union, where many other ethnic difficulties are escalating. If they can apply the kind of pressures that we are suggesting, not only will the extraordinary courage shown by my noble friend Lady Cox in leading these dangerous missions not go to waste but the long suffering Armenian people may at least receive some of the justice which they so richly deserve.
11.6 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I wish very briefly to support my noble friend Lady Cox. I honour her and my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch for their courageous investigation of the situation on the ground. She has spoken so eloquently and movingly and from such unique first-hand experience that I shall not attempt to enlarge on the iniquity of what is going on but confine myself to her recommendations for action.
In Africa and the developing world it is already accepted that development aid is indeed linked in the minds of the donor countries with evidence that the client country is working towards good standards for its citizens in terms on the one hand of sound economic practices and on the other of a good record in human rights. It seems to me that those are proper criteria to apply to Azerbaijan also if it wants aid. However, I believe that Azerbaijan, when it applied for international recognition in the shape of membership of the UN, was told that it must secure nomination by a UN country and the support of several others before its entry could be considered.
In my view we should do nothing to encourage any further fissiparous tendencies in the Soviet Union. Azerbaijan is a signatory to the economic treaty. Despite its approaches to Turkey and Iran for recognition and its efforts to secure control over all the armed forces and equipment on its territory, it still remains an integral and important part of the central state. The mission which Boris Yeltsin and the president of Kazakhstan led to Baku in late September to reconcile the two republics, Armenia and Azerbaijan, was a serious attempt to settle a very serious internal border dispute, one of the many deep rooted conflicts which Stalin's policies left behind, to say nothing of the religious confrontation.
I hate and reject the excesses which the central government earlier allowed the Omon and Speznast troops to perpetrate, but I believe that there is a serious effort now on the part of both Bakatin, the new head of the KGB, and Shaposhnikov, the Minister of Defence, to curb the activities of these units and for the army proper to act as a genuine peacekeeper in frontier disputes. We must remember that this is not a familiar role for them.
My noble friend's own observation of the more rational behaviour of the USSR troops seems to support what I have said. I am sure that Mr.

1133
Shevardnadze will also use his influence for peace as far as he can. In those circumstances we should, first, in no way support any bid for international recognition by Azerbaijan on any conditions whatever; and, secondly, give no aid to the republic directly or indirectly without exacting an end to the inhuman behaviour which has characterised Azerbaijan's approach to the people of Nagorno-Karabakh.
I wish that I could argue, as does my noble friend, for a UN peacekeeping force, but I do not believe it to be feasible. The UN's resources are overstretched already and it seems doubtful whether it can even effectively discharge its responsibilities in Iraq. I see no prospect whatever for a UN presence in Azerbaijan, even in the unlikely event that the Russians would invite it. Were it ever to become a serious proposition, it would, I fear, only add one more intolerable straw to break the camel's back of our inadequate defence capability should we be required to contribute to the UN force.
I am in no doubt, however, that we should continue our longstanding and honourable policy of exerting all possible political pressure open to us with the Russian Government and with Mr Gorbachev, expeditiously to settle the serious internal dispute in such a way as to offer effective protection to the suffering population. The way in which they handle this will say much about their ability or otherwise to control internal strife and to provide viable and lasting political solutions to their problems. This was one of the issues which engaged Sakharov himself in his last days. That for me is a powerful argument for the need to use our own undoubted influence for the restoration of human rights in Nagorno-Karabakh.
11.10 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for initiating this debate on a subject which has held our attention for some years, and for her well-informed speech based on her courageous travels throughout the area. She has been well supported by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth.
The clash between Armenia and Azerbaijan, mainly over Nagorno-Karabakh, is one of the consequences of the radical change in the policies and structure of the USSR, now to be called the Union of Sovereign States. The collapse of Communism released latent forces of nationalism in those so-called republics which had been ruled and controlled ruthlessly by Lenin and Stalin and later by Brezhnev for a period of over 70 years. The collapse of centralised power has uncovered the divisions and hostilities which have always existed between some of the old Soviet nations. The new USS has huge and daunting problems to solve and this conflict is not the least of them.
It would be easy to blame President Gorbachev for these dangerous developments, but I refrain from doing so. He is the product of the system which created this awful dilemma, but he introduced glasnost, the catalyst which gives Russia and eastern
1134
Europe the opportunity to create free and democratic countries. There are religious and cultural divisions between Armenia and Azerbaijan—as the two noble Baronesses and the noble Lord pointed out—and when the Communists redrew the boundaries of the old Tsarist empire they did so with total disregard for history, or for the feelings of the people.
Nagorno-Karabakh is the product of that monumental mess-up. The intermittent fighting which has gone on over the years has cost hundreds of lives and led to thousands of refugees seeking asylum. We remember the earthquake in Armenia in December 1988. One would have thought that the disaster would have brought the two peoples together, but sadly it left them as divided as ever and compounded the refugee problem.
The noble Baroness has set the scene and described the current position in some detail. I shall not weary the House at this hour by repeating what she said. The August coup has further complicated matters. Armenia has declared its independence; Azerbaijan's political position is highly explosive, while Nagorno-Karabakh has declared itself an Armenian Republic.
I have read Amnesty International's report about serious breaches of human rights in Azerbaijan over the past few days. The noble Baroness referred to those and has given us some harrowing examples. It calls for an enquiry into the ill-treatment of civilians by law enforcement officers, although they report that criminal proceedings have been instigated against about 64 people. The evidence collected by Amnesty International to support the charges of ill-treatment is impressive and it calls for action to be taken by the authorities.
However, things are moving so rapidly in the former Soviet territories that it is difficult to keep up with events. Furthermore, it appears that President Gorbachev and his Government are no longer in effective control of developments in this area and elsewhere. We know that President Yeltsin and Mr Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan have arranged a meeting between the community leaders in Nagorno-Karabakh. This initiative is to be welcomed as it seems that these are the first direct talks ever held involving the two republics. A peace plan was agreed with a ceasefire, referred to by the noble Baroness, the disarmament of all local militia and their removal from Nagorno by January. There was also a commitment to hold further talks. Unhappily, the fighting has continued unabated. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us about the possibility of further talks. What seems to be essential as a first step is the protection of the Armenian majority in Nagorno and a guarantee of their full civil rights.
We fully support the Government in their call that all parties should refrain from intimidation and violence and to act in accordance with the principles of CSCE. The noble Baroness has made a number of recommendations which the Government will need to consider carefully. There is a limit to what Britain can do alone but there are lessons to be learnt from this and other areas of violence and conflict. The most important lesson is that NATO should be retained as the guarantor and protector of peace in Europe, and

1135
further that CSCE should be strengthened as a mechanism for drawing the countries of Eastern Europe step by step into the European security structure. Does not the Minister agree that the longstanding dispute over Nagorno-Karabakh is one problem which should be referred to the CSCE's Conflict Resolution Centre?
Furthermore, this is a move which should be discussed forthwith with the two presidents; President Gorbachev and President Yeltsin. Whether this is a case for reference to the UN is another matter for consideration in due course. However, it is encouraging to know that the attitude of the USS is more even-handed than it has been for some time.
Finally, I commend the interest shown by the noble Baroness in a number of humanitarian relief programmes to different countries. She has visited this region three times in six months. We are grateful to her for drawing our attention to this particularly sad and intransigent conflict in which so many people have died and suffered. The terrible tragedies that she has described continue. We hope that her appeal tonight will help to ameliorate this grim and unhappy situation.
11.17 p.m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Cox for bringing this important issue before the House. I also thank other noble Lords who even at this late hour have participated in the debate. My noble friends Lady Cox and Lord Pearson have described the situation clearly and poignantly. There is, indeed, serious cause for concern over the continuing human rights violations in Nagorno-Karabakh and the Shaumyan region of Azerbaijan.
The roots of the dispute over Nagorno-Karabakh are deep. The position on the ground today is complicated. Given the remoteness of the area and poor lines of communication, it is difficult to get a full picture of exactly what is happening.
We are, therefore, particularly grateful to my noble friend Lady Cox for briefing us on the results of her three fact-finding missions to the area over the past seven months. These have proved invaluable in focusing public attention on one of the world's lesser-known flashpoints. That is an important service. I express my admiration of her courage in pursuing such missions. All were undertaken at not inconsiderable personal risk. My noble friend Lord Pearson shared those risks on one expedition.
I am sure your Lordships will understand that our room for manoeuvre and our influence over events in this area are extremely limited. Nevertheless, we have been making our concerns known about human rights violations in Nagorno-Karabakh for some time. We have urged repeatedly the Soviet authorities to preserve law and order in an evenhanded way. We have urged both central and republican authorities to refrain from policies of intimidation and violence, to respect the rights of ethnic minorities and to act in accordance with CSCE principles.
We have urged all to resolve the dispute through serious and peaceful negotiations. We shall continue
1136
to do so. Nor have we been idle when suitable opportunities for raising these concerns have presented themselves. In recent months we have taken a number of specific initiatives to draw attention to human rights violations in the region. In July, we and our EC partners activated the CSCE "human dimension mechanism" on the situation in Armenia and Azerbaijan, expressing our anxieties and asking the Soviet authorities for detailed information.
In September at the CSCE Conference on the Human Dimension in Moscow, the leader of the British delegation raised in plenary session the issue of human rights violations in the Transcaucasus. He called for CSCE principles to be upheld, and for the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh to be resolved through dialogue, not violence.
In his speech at the opening of the conference, the Foreign Secretary went out of his way to make clear that the West's dealings with each Soviet republic would depend heavily on their respect for human rights and the rule of law. He referred to the need to ensure the rights of minorities in accordance with the Paris Charter. He spoke very bluntly. He said in so many words that republics which used violence to suppress dissent would find the West's reaction ungenerous and unwelcome.
At short notice, the Armenian President Mr. Ter Petrosian transited at Heathrow last Saturday. He held talks with a senior Foreign Office official at the airport. We used that opportunity to stress our support for the present negotiations, and urged that the Armenians do all they can to facilitate an end to the bloodshed and bring about a peaceful solution.
As my noble friend Lady Cox has reported, violence is continuing in the region. We are encouraged by her observation that Soviet troops, isolated incidents excepted, are now adopting a neutral peace-keeping role, and that apparently the systematic Azerbaijani policy of deportation has ended. We are also encouraged by the decision of the presidents of Russia and Kazakhstan to mediate in this dispute.
We welcome the signing of a joint communiqué between them and the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan in Zheleznovodsk on 23rd September. In brief, the sides agreed the following: an immediate ceasefire; before 1st January 1992 the repeal of all unconstitutional enactments concerning Nagorno-Karabakh, the restoration of constitutional bodies and the withdrawal of all armed forces except Soviet troops; the return of deportees; the release of hostages; bilateral talks between Armenia and Azerbaijan; and a working group of observers including Russian and Kazakh representatives to co-ordinate action and prepare proposals for subsequent stages of conflict settlement.
Some illegal local armed forces have not respected the ceasefire. However, talks have begun, and Russian and Kazakh observers are in place.
At the last meeting on 7th November, there were practical results on paper at least. The two sides signed a seven point protocol identifying the major issues to be resolved. Those included questions of border security, gas supplies and air traffic. It was also agreed

1137
to exchange lists of hostages and missing persons. Delegation leaders assured journalists afterwards that they believe the situation in the conflict zone could be normalised.
Given the emotions involved, we cannot expect the negotiating process to be smooth. However, we do not doubt the commitment of the Russian, Kazakh and Armenian authorities to search for a peaceful settlement to the dispute. It offers a ray of hope for basic human rights and freedoms in this troubled area.
We shall watch closely the progress made towards implementation of the Zheleznovodsk communiqué. In particular we shall pay attention to the recommendations for future action being prepared by the Russian and Kazakh observers. We wish them well in this difficult and important task.
My noble friends Lady Cox, Lord Pearson and Lady Park raised specific questions on whether recognition and aid are dependent on human rights performance. Recognition of the independence of republics depends on whether they meet well-established criteria for recognition. We will consider recognition on a case-by-case basis. However, it would be premature to recognise either Armenia or Azerbaijan as independent while they are still discussing with the centre and other republics the form of their future relationships.
Not to recognise a republic's independence solely on the grounds of its human rights record would deny us an opportunity to press for improvements. But republics should be in no doubt that our relations will depend on their respect for democratic principles, including their human rights performance: independence does not give them a blank cheque.
Our willingness to give political and economic support to republics is naturally influenced by their human rights record. But humanitarian and medical aid may be needed over the winter in all the republics. It would not be in the interests of the needy to delay its provision.
The question of a United Nations peacekeeping force was brought up. I confirm what my noble friend Lady Park said, that the establishment of a UN peacekeeping force is a matter for the UN Security Council. In the case of Nagorno-Karabakh a request would have to come from the Soviet Union, of which the two republics concerned are constituent parts. The Security Council may consider that it should not involve itself in what is essentially at present a domestic matter.
In the light of the report of my noble friend Lady Cox and the Zheleznovodsk communiqué we have asked our embassy to express to the Azerbaijani and Armenian missions in Moscow our support for the present attempts at resolving the dispute and our
1138
continuing concern over human rights violations. Any embassy representatives visiting the region in forthcoming months will take similar action.
With the kind agreement of my noble friend Lady Cox we are sending copies of her excellent report to EC and NATO allies, informing them of the action Britain is taking and encouraging them to do likewise.
There are up to 120 different ethnic groups in the Soviet Union. The potential scope for ethnic rivalry and communal violence across a vast area of the world is immense. The consequences beyond the Soviet Union's borders of spreading conflict within and between Soviet republics would be very serious, to say the least.
At this point I should mention what the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition brought up. He asked about CSCE involvement. The Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe is concerned with human rights issues. The participating states have undertaken to respect the rights of their citizens. As far as the Trans-Caucasus is concerned this commitment has been made by the central Soviet authorities in Moscow. We have already invoked the human dimension mechanism with them, as I have said. Unfortunately the mechanism does not allow us to apply direct pressure on republican authorities.
The recent CSCE decision on the human dimension agreed procedures for states to call on impartial experts to observe respect for human rights and, if need be, to offer advice or good offices in resolving the situation. These procedures are not yet in force. The international panel is still being nominated, and the Soviet Union will be able to invite CSCE observers to Nagorno-Karabakh once the new procedure is up and running.
I must agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, that President Gorbachev cannot be fully blamed for the troubles in Nagorno-Karabakh. It is indeed a problem brought about by historical border delineations. He also read Amnesty International's report on human rights in the area, and we are concerned at the abuses detailed therein.
The disintegration of the old order in the Soviet Union, perhaps the end of the union itself, has so far been achieved with astonishingly little bloodshed. The one really serious exception is the violence in Nagorno-Karabakh. It is setting an entirely undesirable precedent. We intend to do what we can to see this very difficult and worrying problem solved peacefully.

London Docklands Railway Bill
Returned from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes past eleven o'clock.

  BIR ZEIT UNIVERSITY
  BIR ZEIT UNIVERSITY
  UNESCO
  UNESCO
  POLICING AT PUBLIC EVENTS: CHARGES
  POLICING AT PUBLIC EVENTS: CHARGES
  COAL IMPORTS
  COAL IMPORTS
  ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS
  ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS
  FARM WOODLAND SCHEME
  FARM WOODLAND SCHEME
  EUROPEAN SPACE AGENCY MINISTERIAL MEETING, 18th-20th NOVEMBER
  EUROPEAN SPACE AGENCY MINISTERIAL MEETING, 18th-20th NOVEMBER
  FOOTBALL CLUB STEWARDS
  FOOTBALL CLUB STEWARDS
  FOOTBALL CLUBS IN SCOTLAND: POLICE POWERS
  FOOTBALL CLUBS IN SCOTLAND: POLICE POWERS