Sitting of 25 November 1991

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  TRANSPORT

    Bus Deregulation
    Mr. Fraser: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the deregulation of buses in London.
    The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): May I, on behalf of my colleagues, and the House, wish you, Mr. Speaker, a very happy birthday?
    The Government intend to deregulate bus services in London and privatise London Buses Limited as soon as possible in the next Parliament. Free and fair competition is the best way to ensure that bus services are tailored to the needs of passengers.
    Mr. Fraser: Does the Minister acknowledge that even London Transport is alarmed at the way in which—[Interruption.] I use its words—the Government are handling, the deregulation? That alarm is shared by those who believe that deregulation will cause traffic chaos and will put in jeopardy concessionary fares and the travelcard scheme. Why does not the Minister abandon his ideological obsession with breaking up the London bus service and get on with the job of getting transport moving in London?
    Mr. Freeman: I do not recognise the facts as the hon. Gentleman has presented them. First, the senior management of London Transport and the operators of the London bus subsidiaries are in favour of deregulation and privatisation. Secondly, we have no intention of jeopardising the concessionary fares and the travelcard, which are two essential forms of travel subsidy not only for the disabled and pensioners, but for those who want to use different modes of transport.
    Mr. Evennett: Is my hon. Friend aware of the appalling bus service in south-east London and that improvements are necessary to benefit my constituents? I understand that my hon. Friend intends to propose a new London bus executive, which would ensure that socially desirable routes are maintained when deregulation takes place.
    Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has put his finger on the key advantage of deregulation. When privatised, the bus companies, including the London bus subsidiaries, will take the decision on when and where to
    612
    run commercial services, but the London bus executive will, on behalf of the taxpayer, subsidise socially necessary services.
    Mr. Fearn: Would the Minister consider an extension of the franchising of the bus service? At the moment, one third of bus miles are on franchise in London, and that initiative seems to be working. Is not that a better way to proceed than deregulation, which seems to be a shambles?
    Mr. Freeman: I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to tendering, which relates only to operating the service—successful tenderers do not keep the revenue. That initiative, welcome though it has been, has gone as far as it possibly can in benefiting London Transport. The next sensible step is deregulation, which will allow the London bus subsidiaries to run their own services.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are great advantages under the existing system and that tendering and licensing have served people in the peripheral areas of the metropolis, such as my own, very well? We hope that we will be not be exposed too much to the dogma of total deregulation.
    Mr. Freeman: I am sure that my hon. Friend would want to see the private sector extend to the outer-London suburbs and offer a variety of additional services. That must be to the benefit of his constituents.

    South Wales Rail Links
    Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about plans to upgrade rail links to south Wales.
    Mr. Freeman: I understand that British Rail is planning to improve the signalling on the Paddington to south Wales line. That will improve journey times. In the longer term, British Rail will consider electrification when the existing rolling stock needs to be replaced.
    Mr. Hain: The longer term is not good enough. The Government's abysmal failure to upgrade the links with south Wales means that that part of the country is in danger of becoming a forgotten backwater of the new Europe. Does the Minister agree that British Rail should extend the channel tunnel link via Waterloo international terminal not just to Cardiff, but to Swansea and, if necessary, to Fishguard as well?
    Does the Minister further agree that sleeper services to Brussels and Paris must be extended to Swansea, and that a new freight terminal must be built at Swansea so that business and inward investment are given that vital artery to the new Europe from south Wales?
    Mr. Freeman: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to talk down south Wales and the tremendous improvements and achievements in the south Wales economy. As for freight services, the hon. Gentleman will know of British Rail's plan to run channel tunnel freight from Pengam. He should be encouraging industries in south Wales to use that freight terminal, as I have done. If there is justification for another terminal, for example at Swansea, I am sure that British Rail will react positively.
    Mr. Adley: Is not one of the main requirements of south Wales, and indeed south-west England, direct access to the channel tunnel preferably avoiding central London? At the

    613
    risk of being tedious, may I again ask my hon. Friend to ask British Rail to re-examine the option of full utilisation of the Reading-Redhill-Tonbridge line, which was built last century specifically with the channel tunnel in mind?
    Mr. Freeman: Following my hon. Friend's advice I went to Redhill to determine the civil engineering works that would be required to carry freight further westwards, instead of through central London. Although the idea is interesting, it presents major planning and construction problems. However, I shall convey what my hon. Friend has said to British Rail.
    Mr. Wigley: Is not the Minister aware that the quality of rolling stock on the south Wales line is already far from satisfactory? Substandard rolling stock is frequently being used and, partly as a consequence, trains are running late. British Rail needs to invest massively, not only on the line to Swansea, but on the one through to Fishguard to serve Ireland, and likewise on the Crewe to Holyhead line. Will my hon. Friend take up the issue with British Rail?
    Mr. Freeman: British Rail is engaged in its largest investment programme for 30 years, led by Sir Bob Reid, in whom my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and I have total confidence. This year, he and his board are leading an investment programme of £1·1 billion, and it is for them to make judgments about priorities. I recently visited Holyhead and rode on the railway line from Chester. British Rail is taking steps to improve journey times on the north Wales line.

    M4 Widening
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress on the scheme to widen the M4.
    The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Christopher Chope): The three commissions to study the need and options for increasing capacity on the length of the M4 between the M25 and junction 15 are proceeding satisfactorily, so the proposals can be announced next spring.
    Mr. Coombs: My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that that report of good progress will be well received in Swindon and elsewhere along the length of the M4. He will be aware of the fact that seven of my constituents were killed in an horrendous accident on the M4 in the spring of this year. In that context, what can be done to improve road safety on the M4, especially in relation to fog warning signals, motorway lighting and central reservation barriers, which have proved ineffective in preventing cross-over accidents?
    Mr. Chope: I welcome my hon. Friend's endorsement of the Government's strategy to continue to invest heavily in the motorway network and the plans for the M4, which involve expenditure of about £600 million. It is fair to say that the accident on the M4 to which my hon. Friend referred was caused not by a vehicle crossing over the central reservation, but by a vehicle bouncing back off the central reservation. At the inquest it came out clearly that many people involved in the accident were driving too fast and too close together for the prevailing weather conditions. Earlier this month I announced the introduction of motorway matrix signs on the M4 that can
    614
    display a fog legend. I hope that that will further reinforce the message to road users during foggy weather that it is indeed foggy, although that should be self-evident to responsible motorists.
    Dr. Kim Howells: The Minister will be aware that the M4 corridor in South Wales has brought a welcome growth of new industries along it inside Wales, but to transport the manufactured products of Wales from that country, manufacturers have to pay to cross the Severn bridge, and will have to pay even more to cross the new bridge. Why should Welsh industries be penalised when the Government know that the bridge provides an artery to Europe and the great new future which they say companies will find there?
    Mr. Chope: I thought that the hon. Gentleman's party was in favour of everything going by rail. His comments show that he recognises that to have a good road infrastructure is vital to the economy of England and Wales. That is why the Government are committed to investing heavily in that infrastructure.

    Channel Tunnel
    Mr. Dunn: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has any plans to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss the channel tunnel high-speed rail link; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I meet Sir Bob Reid regularly to discuss important railway issues, including the Channel tunnel rail link.
    Mr. Dunn: When my right hon. and learned Friend meets the chairman, will he raise with him the placement of an international railway station in the north of Dartford and the extent to which he expects the private sector to be involved in that important project?
    Mr. Rifkind: On the first point, British Rail will consider the precise provision of stations and other facilities as part of the work that it is currently doing. On the second point, I agree about the desirability of encouraging maximum private sector involvement in the project. I shall soon appoint a merchant bank to advise on private sector finance for the new line.
    Mr. Tony Banks: What progress is being made in starting to run the environmental impact assessment which Mr. Ripa di Meana has ordered the Government to undertake? Is it true that up to 1,000 homes in the Stratford area could be subject to subsidence as a result of tunnel boring? It seems an alarmist story, but I am alarmed because I have one of those homes.
    Mr. Rifkind: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, long before Mr. Ripa di Meana expressed any opinions on the subject, the Government announced that, of course, there would be an environmental impact assessment of the project. It will take place as soon as British Rail's current work on the details of the line is complete. That answer also covers the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question. The matter that he raises is covered by the present detailed examination.
    Mr. Moate: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that while British Rail is working on the details of

    615
    the Arup route, there will be a great danger of a management vacuum in the project? Will British Rail always be the manager of the project? If not, whom will the merchant bank to which he referred advise? Is not it time to give some new management impetus to the programme?
    Mr. Rifkind: I agree with my hon. Friend, and the Government have made it clear that the project should be taken forward as a private sector project. In order that no time is wasted, it is appropriate that British Rail should continue its work on the detailed examination of the line and the environmental impact assessment. In the meantime, the merchant bank that I am soon to appoint will advise on private sector interest in becoming involved in the project. That will ensure that uninterrupted progress can be made.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will hold talks with the chairman of British Rail about the provision of custom-built trains for the channel tunnel from the commencement of its opening.
    Mr. Rifkind: The delivery of passenger trains authorised for channel tunnel services is a contractual matter between British Rail and its continental counterparts and the manufacturers. The chairman of British Rail keeps me informed of developments.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: The Minister will know that he is in grave danger of finding himself opening a tunnel which, from the first day, has no trains to run in it. Trains are already being built before prototypes are finished. The Secretary of State will be aware of all the trouble that that inevitably causes. Is not it farcical that the combination of brilliant minds that are responsible for building the tunnel, all the staff, and all the work that has gone into the project may not succeed in getting trains running until perhaps as much as a year after the tunnel is opened?
    Mr. Rifkind: The Government have given British Rail all the necessary authorisations. For inter-capital services, British Rail ordered the trains way back in 1989. There is a problem, which is the responsibility of the manufacturers, GEC. Alsthom. I and Sir Bob Reid recently saw Lord Weinstock to impress on him that his company is expected to meet its contractual obligations. It will be supremely unfortunate if that company does not supply the trains on time. That has been drawn to Lord Weinstock's attention in the firmest possible way.
    Mrs. Gorman: When my right hon. and learned Friend is considering the tunnel, will he not neglect the impact that it will have on the A13, which runs through my constituency? May I persuade him to meet me one night at the Blind Beggar on the Mile End road, where I will be pleased to show him some of the most appalling congestion on this two-lane trunk road—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. But is it on the railway line?
    Mrs. Gorman: It is related to it, Sir, because the railway line impinges on it.
    Mr. Rifkind: I shall be happy to meet my hon. Friend at the Blind Beggar or elsewhere. I am sure that she will be able to convey to me any implications for her constituents of the channel tunnel provisions.
    Mr. David Marshall: Will the Secretary of State confirm that British Rail has not even ordered the trains or the new
    616
    sleeper coaches for the services through the tunnel that will go north of London? What hope then is there for any of the through services north of London to be operating when the tunnel opens? Is not that disgraceful, and what does he intend to do to change it?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is being uncharacteristically unfair to British Rail. British Rail is ready to take this forward, but it is not a single-company project. We are in negotiations with both French and Belgium railways because all three companies are involved in the very projects to which he has referred. It is only when agreement is reached on a basis acceptable to all three companies that the trains can be ordered.
    The Government have given all the necessary approvals. I very much hope—and so does British Rail—that the negotiations are brought to an early conclusion so as to allow the necessary contracts to be signed.
    Mr. Fry: In view of my right hon. and learned Friend's reply, will he reflect on the fact that both the French and the Belgium railways are in the public sector? If there is to be this great new European co-operation, is not it time that the railway companies at least got together so that British Rail could order the sleeper trains and thus fulfil the contractual obligations into which it has entered?
    Mr. Rifkind: Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Both companies are in the public sector. When I last met the French Transport Minister, I drew to his attention the importance that we attach to the French Government's doing all within their power to ensure that these matters are accommodated as quickly and as conveniently as possible.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: Is the Secretary of State aware of how disgraceful his answer was? Everywhere north of Watford will be denied proper access to the tunnel, yet he stands up and tells Parliament that the Government have no role in that. He should get off his backside and get the companies together to ensure that we have the engines and coaches to allow the north of England and Scotland to benefit fully from the tunnel.
    Mr. Rifkind: The Government certainly have a role to play and I have never suggested otherwise. That is why we have provided all the necessary resources that will go towards the £1·4 billion of investment that British Rail is already incurring in respect of these matters. I also met Lord Weinstock on two occasions in the past few months to impress on him the importance of his company's fulfilling its contractual obligations to British Rail and others involved in these projects.

    Tilbury Port
    Mr. Janman: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has taken place under the Ports Act 1991 to privatise the port of Tilbury.
    The Minister for Shipping (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): I am pleased to say that the Port of London authority has now advertised the port of Tilbury for sale, and thus begun the bidding process for it. The PLA's aim is to complete the sale of Tilbury by the end of February.
    Mr. Janman: The overwhelming majority of employees at the port, who according to a recent survey said that they supported a management-employee buy-out and would

    617
    buy shares in the newly privatised port, will want to congratulate my hon. Friend on the fast progress being made. Bearing in mind that the overriding priority is to privatise the port as soon as possible, can my hon. Friend assure me that he will give the fullest consideration to the concerns being expressed by the Port of London police authority as privatisation proceeds?
    Mr. McLoughlin: Indeed, the Port of London police authority has made representations through my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). I am urgently considering them and I hope to be able to make an announcement shortly.
    It is quite obvious that the Labour party has been opposed to the privatisation scheme throughout, but the simple fact is that we will give those who work at Tilbury the opportunity to be part of the company. That is a welcome move, which is opposed by the Labour party.
    Mr. Spearing: Can the Minister confirm that there is a major anomaly in the Act and in possible privatisation —the fact that the port of Tilbury is not defined geographically? Therefore, can he confirm that if that port obtains property in central or west London the property will become part of the port? Would not it be anomalous for the existing publicly owned Port of London police authority to become the police of a private company? Will the Minister resolve that as soon as possible?
    Mr. McLoughlin: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman considers what happened to the Merseyside police force when the Mersey docks were privatised, because he will find no anomaly there. As I have said, we are currently considering the broader aspects of the matter. This is another example of the Labour party's total opposition to privatisation and to people playing a part in the company in which they work. It has not changed.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: I hope that the Minister is successful in resolving the serious and real problems faced by the Port of London authority. It will be a major triumph for the Government if they pass an important Act of privatisation while still showing concern for the real needs of people who are affected by it.
    Mr. McLoughlin: I take seriously my hon. Friend's point, which we are currently addressing. Just a few weeks ago my hon. Friend led a delegation to see me and the points raised at that meeting are being investigated.
    Mr. Prescott: Is the Minister aware that the Port of London authority's chief executive, Mr. McNab, who was appointed by the Government and is responsible for the privatisation of the port, was found by a recent employment tribunal to have been untruthful in the evidence and not to have kept truthful board minutes? Does not the Minister accept that such an outright condemnation of the honesty and integrity of Mr. McNab makes him not a fit and proper person to carry out the privatisation of the port of Tilbury? The Minister should use his powers to remove him.
    Mr. McLoughlin: The person who will make the recommendations to the Secretary of State is the chairman of the PLA, Sir Brian Kellnet, and not Dr. McNab as the hon. Gentleman suggests.

    Fishing Vessel Losses
    Dr. Godman: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many United Kingdom-registered fishing vessels have been lost in each of the past three years; and what was the number of fishermen who lost their lives in these founderings of their vessels.
    Mr. McLoughlin: The number of United Kingdom fishing vessels lost in 1988, 1989 and 1990, were 22, 22 and 17 respectively. The number of fishermen who lost their lives as a result of accidents to fishing vessels for those years were 18, 16 and 22 respectively.
    Dr. Godman: I acknowledge that occasionally fishing vessels, even the biggest freezer trawlers, can be overwhelmed by severe weather. Does the Minister agree that some of the sinkings to which he referred have been brought about by scandalously negligent watchkeeping on the merchant ships that have collided with the fishing vessels? That happened in a recent case in the Firth of Clyde because of negligent watchkeeping on a nuclear submarine. Perhaps men would have neither the time nor the opportunity to don survival suits, but will the Minister assure the House that he will support European Commission recommendations on the carriage of survival suits on our fishing vessels? If such a suit saves the life of only one fisherman in the next year, the Commission's recommendation will have been worthwhile.
    Mr. McLoughlin: Any fishing disaster is a tragedy and there have been a number over the years, as hon. Members are sadly aware. Research is under way to establish the most effective type of in-water thermal protection for fishermen when they are working in exposed situations. It is not quite as easy as the hon. Gentleman suggests, because there is the problem of putting on the equipment and the suits in time when an incident occurs. The problem with wearing such equipment all the time is that it can restrict movement. I certainly take on board the serious points made by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. David Martin: May I express upon my hon. Friend the continuing strength of feeling in Portsmouth about the Wilhemina J. tragedy, especially in view of the Zulfikar case in Cyprus? Will my hon. Friend address that with increasing urgency? Will he let me know when he expects to receive the marine accident investigation branch inquiry report on the matter and when its findings will be made known through his Department to the public, the relatives and advisers? Were there observers in Cyprus on behalf of his Department or the branch and, if so, what lessons were learnt from their observations?
    Mr. McLoughlin: I can confirm that an observer from the Department was present at the trial to which my hon. Friend refers. The inspector is in the process of writing his report, which will be submitted to the chief inspector of marine accidents and then, in due course, to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. I am concerned about the length of time that it takes to get such reports published and I have asked the chief inspector and various other people to re-examine the time that is needed for consultation to see whether the bringing of these reports into the public domain can be speeded up. That would be in everybody's interests.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: As reference has already been made to the tragic sinking of the Antares, can the Minister

    619
    tell us what discussions the Department has held with the Ministry of Defence on this issue? Was there any input from the Ministry of Transport, as it has responsibility for safety at sea, and if not, why not?
    Mr. McLoughlin: There have been continuing talks with the Ministry of Defence following the Antares case and a number of suggestions have been made by both departments. I am waiting to publish the report from the marine accident investigation branch.
    Mr. Harris: Is my hon. Friend aware of the deep and justifiable concern felt about the number of fishing boats that have been lost as a result of collisions with merchant vessels? An example of this was the accident involving the Margaret and William II, with the loss of two fishermen, in my constituency. Now that all these accidents are being investigated by the marine accident investigation branch, once my hon. Friend gets its report, will he conduct an overall review to examine root causes of the problem, including what I and many others regard as a defect in international maritime law and the inadequacy of watch keeping on merchant vessels?
    Mr. McLoughlin: Yes. The chief inspector may make recommendations on these matters and if he does so, they will be seriously considered.
    Ms. Walley: Does the Minister agree that the figures for the loss of fishing vessels that have been given to the House show that there is now cause for serious concern about safety implications? Will the Minister examine the competence of the marine accident investigation branch? The families concerned in Portsmouth and the people shocked by the revelations in the "World in Action" programme agree with Labour Members that what is needed is not just investigation of individual accidents, but a complete review of maritime safety and fishing activity in the channel and United Kingdom waters, extending to the whole of international maritime law.
    Mr. McLoughlin: The simple point is that fishing accidents and losses are nothing new. They are tragic whenever they happen, and important lessons can be learnt from them. When we set up the marine accident investigation branch not long ago, the Opposition did not object to it. They did not call into question the competence of the senior officials who administer that organisation and I am sorry that they have started to do so today. When reports are published and recommendations are made, we need to look at them and act on them.

    London Underground
    Mr. Cox: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce the programme for improvements on London Underground following the increased funding announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Freeman: As well as the Jubilee line extension and completion of the Central line modernisation, London Underground's programme is likely to include improvements to stations at the southern end of the Northern line; more refurbished trains starting with the Metropolitan and Piccadilly lines; and the redevelopment of Waterloo underground station.
    Mr. Cox: I note that reply, but is the Minister aware that Londoners want improvements in the foreseeable future? How much of the money that we are told is available will achieve that? What real consultations will there be with the commuters who use London Underground? Will the improvements include some to the disgraceful service on the Northern line which goes through the constituencies of many hon. Members? Specifically, in my constituency, when will the escalators at Tooting Bec station, at last, work?
    Mr. Freeman: As for the level of investment in the existing underground system, the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that the recommendation of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, that about £700 million per annum should be spent on the existing railway, will be met in 1993. That represents a significant increase in investment, and that will help the hon. Gentleman's constituents.
    Mr. Carrington: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is considerable disquiet about those people whose homes are above the proposed route for the east-west crossrail and over the Chelsea-Hackney line? There is concern about the effect of the noise and vibration from the trains that will run through the tunnels. Will my hon. Friend ensure that sufficient money is available in both of the projects to ensure that there is proper environmental protection for those who live above the tunnels?
    Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend will know that each of the three new major tube lines—the Jubilee line, crossrail and Chelsea-Hackney—will be subject to a rigorous environmental impact assessment. I give my hon. Friend the assurance that vibration on the ground is one of the factors that will be taken into account.
    Ms. Ruddock: Is the Minister aware that one of the most frustrating experiences of Londoners travelling on the underground system is to find that lifts and escalators are not working? Is the hon. Gentleman aware also that the programme has been slowed down in the current year, with the consequence that only last month London Underground had to report that one in 10 of its lifts and escalators was out of order? Will he now prioritise the repair and refurbishment programme for London Underground's escalators and lifts? Will he back that priority by ring-fencing the money that is devoted to that programme? Will he also admit that there is no so-called new money for the refurbishment of the Northern line and the carriages on it?
    Mr. Freeman: Over the next three years, the Government will provide London Underground with almost double the amount of grant that it has received for the past three years. That will go a long way to ensuring that the escalator modernisation programme is enhanced and accelerated. That is one of the purposes of the money. The hon. Lady talks about London Underground and makes criticism of it, but the criticisms are not matched by one extra penny being promised for it by the Labour party.

    Rail Services (South-east)
    Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, if he will make a statement about Network SouthEast's achievement of its preformance targets in

    621
    respect of passenger services; and what requests he has received from British Rail for funds for further investment on the London-Dover route.
    Mr. Rifkind: While performance on average for Network SouthEast during the first half of this financial year has shown an improvement over last year, recent performance on the Kent coast lines has not been acceptable. On the Kent coast, an £86 million resignalling scheme is in progress, which should result in significant improvements.
    Mr. Shaw: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer. I assure him that he is correct that performance recently has not been good enough, and that it must be better. It is important that the Networker trains are brought forward and that we see reliable carriages and coaches on the line. My constituents are receiving better services from the public sector in health and education, and from competitive tendering in local authorities. Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that we want to see a better performance in the public sector from British Rail, or we must privatise it as soon as possible?
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend has recognised the proper priorities. The Government have not yet received a formal investment submission from British Rail in repect of the Networkers. I am glad that the £86 million investment in signalling is going ahead. Recent performance deteriorated badly over the past month, and we hope that British Rail will take urgent action to ensure that the deterioration is rectified.
    Mr. Prescott: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the autumn statement promised no new orders for the next three years for Network SouthEast? If new trains can be introduced in other parts of Europe by means of leasing arrangements, why is that system not used here so that there could be new trains instead of spending £50 million to bring up, as it were, old ones but still achieve only a poor standard of service?
    Mr. Rifkind: The main difference between the Government's attitude towards British Rail and that of the Labour Government is that we have been increasing resources for it while the Labour Administration reduced them. As for the autumn statement, it is for British Rail to decide how it uses the resources that we are providing for it. British Rail has more resources now than at any time since before the days of Dr. Beeching, and that is something which the Labour Government could not begin to claim.
    The hon. Gentleman talked about leasing. He should realise that unless the risk is transferred to the private sector the public sector will not be able to bear higher levels of expenditure. If the hon. Gentleman cannot understand that, it shows why he is unfit ever to be Secretary of State for Transport.
    Dame Peggy Fenner: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that despite that extra money for British Rail, the service that it offers the Medway towns is a disgrace? Commuters there know that they are on the worst line in the south-east. Will my right hon. and learned Friend please undertake a special investigation into that worst line?
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend will know that she is in competition with others of my right hon. and hon. Friends
    622
    in making that particular claim. I entirely acknowledge that Network SouthEast, whose rolling stock is an average of 19 years old, is in a more disadvantaged position than almost any other network in the United Kingdom. That is why a substantial proportion of the resources available to British Rail are going towards the refurbishment of Network SouthEast and its very old rolling stock. About half the investment programme is directed at that particular part of the country.

  DUCHY OF LANCASTER

    Duchy Tenants
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he next proposes to visit tenants of the Duchy in the county palatine.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Chris Patten): I recently spent a day visiting tenants on the Duchy's Yorkshire survey, and I was greatly impressed by the efficient and cost-effective running of the estates by Duchy tenants. I very much look forward to my next visit to the county palatine.
    Mr. Pike: While that might be very encouraging, did the Chancellor discuss with tenants and others resident in the county palatine the problems still arising from the poll tax? Will he urge the Government, even now, to waive the 20 per cent. payment for which those living in poverty and at the lower end of the income scale are liable? Will he also give councils discretion to waive payments due, when they can see that there is no possible chance of recovering them?
    Mr. Patten: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the rebates available to community charge payers are much more generous than they were under domestic rating. When I next visit the county palatine, I will certainly take up—on the hon. Gentleman's part, I am sure—the case of all those Labour councillors who still refuse to pay their community charge.
    Mr. Sumberg: If my right hon. Friend had a chance to discuss local government finance when he was last in the county palatine, did he mention the Labour party's proposal to remove all forms of capping on local authority expenditure, which would represent an open cheque book for every left-wing Labour authority, both in the county palatine and outside it?
    Mr. Patten: As my hon. Friend makes clear, under Labour not only would taxes imposed by central Government be much higher but taxes imposed by local government would also be higher. That is why there will not be, thank heavens, a Labour Government.
    Dr. Cunningham: When the Chancellor next visits the Duchy, will he explain to the people of the north-west why it is that Tory Members of Parliament who supported everything that the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) said and did for 12 years are now queueing up at television stations to attack her? Will the right hon. Gentleman set an example, as chairman of the Conservative party, and reaffirm the warm loyalty that he personally showed to that right hon. Lady when he was a member of her Cabinet? Does the Chancellor condemn the

    623
    things that Conservative Members are saying about and doing to the right hon. Member for Finchley now—or is he orchestrating them?
    Mr. Patten: When the hon. Gentleman came to the Dispatch Box, I thought that he was going to say something about the commitment to minimum binding rates of taxation that his party has signed. I will make my position absolutely plain. I agree with what Conservative party leaders have been saying about referendums for the last 15 or 20 years. I am sure that one thing on which everyone in the county palatine and on which public opinion generally is agreed is that after the Leader of the Opposition's miserable little speech in last Wednesday's debate, all should be united in their determination to make sure that the right hon. Gentleman never makes a speech from this side of the House.
    Mr. Mans: When my right hon. Friend next visits the tenants, will he take the opportunity to visit the British Aerospace centre at Warton, and see for himself the extent of the facilities there for military aircraft production? Those facilities would be laid waste if Labour ever governed the country.
    Mr. Patten: Labour's commitment to £6 billion of defence cuts would, of course, have a considerable impact on employment in the defence industries, as well as undermining the defences of the United Kingdom.

    Devolution of Powers
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proposals he has for the devolution of his powers from Whitehall to Lancaster.
    Mr. Chris Patten: I have no such proposals.
    Mr. Hughes: Does that mean that the Chancellor has the same objection to the concept of devolution as he apparently has to the concept of a referendum? Has the stunning success achieved by my hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Stephen) in the recent by-election exerted no influence on the Cabinet, and has it failed to change the Government's attitude to devolution, whether in Scotland, Wales or the regions of England?
    Mr. Patten: I note that—for the time being, at least —the Liberal party seems to have changed its position. Normally, it bases its arguments on its commitment to proportional representation. The hon. Gentleman, however, seems to be basing his arguments about Kincardine and Deeside, and the Liberals' position in the opinion polls, on plurality voting in single-Member constituencies. Liberal party policy changes from one part of the country to another.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend join me in expressing surprise at the temerity of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) in asking a question about my constituency? Does he accept that my constituency has attracted increasing numbers of students and an increasing volume of industry? Any Department of State that had the good fortune to come to us would be very welcome.
    Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is, of course, right. Any constituency represented by a Member of Parliament as diligent as she would also be very fortunate.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

    National Audit Office
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission when he next intends to meet representatives of Her Majesty's Treasury to discuss the estimates of the National Audit Office.
    Sir Peter Hordern (Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission): I have no plans to do so. Section 4 of the National Audit Act 1983 requires the Public Accounts Commission to examine the National Audit Office estimate and to lay it before the House, having regard to any advice received by the Public Accounts Committee and the Treasury. Treasury advice takes the form of a written memorandum. The Commission is due to consider the National Audit Office estimate for 1992–93 on 10 December.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Can the hon. Gentleman imagine what might happen if the National Audit Office were given the right to start crawling over the accounts of the European Community, and perhaps producing the odd value-for-money report? Is it not about time that Members of the European Parliament demanded a far higher level of accountability in regard to taxpayers' money that is being used for the Commission's expenditure programme?
    Sir Peter Hordern: That is a matter for the Comptroller and Auditor General, and I have his views.
    I hope that, at the Maastricht meeting, full consideration will be given to the development of public audit in the Community. The European Court of Audit does useful work, but it is small in relation to the vast task of auditing Commission expenditure. There are also no real, regular arrangements for clear financial reporting, for the court's reports to be debated by the European Parliament, for the Parliament to make clear recommendations to the Commission or for the Commission to publish its response.
    In other words, there is no mechanism similar to ours involving a Public Accounts Committee supported by a National Audit Office. It may take some time to go fully down that path, but I think it important that we move in such a direction with more urgency than has been shown up to now.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Is it not a problem that, although the Court of Audit cannot deal with the whole range of European expenditure, there is no back-up to ensure that the work that it does produce is properly considered—and receives the media attention that would make the 300 million people in the European Community realise where good work is being done in Europe, and where there is frightening waste, inefficiency, corruption and cheating?
    Sir Peter Hordern: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is no mechanism whereby the Commission must account to the European Parliament, and I think that there should be.

  DUCHY OF LANCASTER

    Official Duties
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much time he has spent on his official duties in the last fortnight.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Chris Patten): I spend up to a quarter of my time carrying out my duties as Chancellor of the Duchy.
    Mr. Winnick: They are pretty time consuming, I must say.
    What would the right hon. Gentleman say to his colleagues—or some of them, at least—who feel that he should spend more time carrying out his duties as Chancellor, and less time orchestrating a campaign against the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), who is apparently now being accused of losing the Tories the next election? How many by-elections have been won by the Tories since the right hon. Gentleman has held his present post?
    Mr. Patten: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) will be moved and touched by the hon. Gentleman's support for her views, which has been one of the consistent features of his political career.
    Mr. Cash: Does my right hon. Friend remember recently quoting Randolph Churchill, who said, "We trust the people"? Does he agree that it will be extremely useful and important, irrespective of the question of a referendum, to make sure that any deal that we may strike at Maastricht is backed by a free vote in the House of Commons?
    Mr. Patten: I believe in trusting the people, but I do not believe in either this House or the Government shuffling out of their responsibilities. What we shall be negotiating at Maastricht is a step forward in co-operation. We are not talking about a leap into the unknown. That is what we are attempting to prevent, and it makes my views against a referendum even stronger than they would otherwise be.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Parliamentary Hours
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement on his proposals for changes in parliamentary hours of business.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): As the House knows, I have submitted a memorandum to the Select Committee on Sittings of the House, under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) and also appeared before the Committee to give oral evidence. In so doing, I was expressing my personal views, and not a collective view on behalf of the Government.
    I am sure the whole House looks forward, as I do, with great interest to the Committee's recommendations.
    Mr. Skinner: Is it not outrageous that a senior member of the Government is talking about a four-day week for Members of Parliament and suggesting at the same time a
    626
    48-hour week for miners? A better way to deal with Fridays would be to ensure that 35 Fridays are allocated to private Members' Bills, then some of the people who queue up might have a chance to get those Bills into law. The Minister, on behalf of his colleagues, including the Chancellor of the Exchequer, wants a four-day week to try to shut up those Tory ex-Prime Ministers and others who are criticising the current Prime Minister, but the ex-Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) will keep coming out into the daylight—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has said enough. What is his question? Come on, wind it up.
    Mr. Skinner: The ex-Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley, will keep coming out into the daylight—
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman can express his views about the organisation of the sittings of the House, and whether they should include Fridays, to the Committee. As I have stressed before to him, when I think I carried the vast majority of the House with me, to suggest that we are talking about a four-day week for Members of Parliament, even if we do not meet on some Fridays, is utterly ridiculous. My point was that hon. Members increasingly have constituency engagements to undertake on Fridays that they cannot carry out at weekends. I was trying to take that into account. The hon. Gentleman does the House no service by suggesting that this has anything to do with a four-day week.
    Sir John Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have no wish for a change in parliamentary hours? Will he, however, consider providing more time for very important debates, such as the great debate last Thursday on Europe? I understand that 78 right hon. and hon. Members wanted to speak but only 20 were called. None of us wants our constituents to ask what we are doing here.
    Mr. MacGregor: When a very large number of Members wish to speak in certain debates, it is inevitable that not all of them will be called, but that does not mean that we are not expressing our views to the Government of the day, and that can be said to our constituents. I sympathise with my hon. Friend's point about last week's big debate. That is why we lengthened the first day to midnight. I am sure that we shall have plenty of other opportunities to discuss this matter.

    Procedure Reforms
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Lord President of the Council what proposals he has for reform of the House of Commons procedure.
    Mr. MacGregor: I have put a number of ideas to the Select Committee that is chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling). It is now for the Committee to make recommendations.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is not it quite outrageous that, despite the fact that it has been out for six months, the report of the Select Committee on Members' Interests, which deals with chairmen of Select Committees and their private interests, has not been debated by the House? Is it true that it has not been debated because of pressure from

    627
    Select Committee Chairmen? May we have an assurance that when it is finally debated it will be not on a take-note motion but on substantive resolutions -tabled by the Lord President by which we can make reforms?
    Mr. MacGregor: It is not outrageous because there are often longer periods between the publication of a Select Committee report and the opportunity to debate it in the House. We have had much business to consider. The House has just heard that my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes) would have liked to spend longer on the European debate. There is much pressure on business. I hope to arrange a debate on this matter before too long, but it certainly will not be before Christmas because there is much to do before then. The precise form of the debate has yet to be settled, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that it has nothing to do with pressure from anyone not to have a debate; it is purely a question of pressure on business in the House.
    Mr. Dykes: Does the Lord President agree that neither the procedure nor the constitutional practices of this ancient House would be affected by anything at Maastricht—no domestic constitutional proposals will be affected—so the idea of a referendum is irrelevant?
    Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy made that point about Maastricht. The position of Conservative leaders in recent years on referendums on European issues has been consistent. In expressing his views on Thursday, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was entirely in line with that consistency.
    Mr. Grocott: Is the Lord President aware that many Labour Members would recommend substantial reforms of procedures, not least to try to make them more intelligible to our much wider audience through television? However, a reported view of his that is causing some concern and alarm is that we should get rid of the 10-minute rule procedure. That is one of the most valuable devices for Back Benchers to express views and to introduce legislation that often becomes law. Will he confirm that there is no intention to take away that right?
    Mr. MacGregor: I made a considerable number of proposals to reduce the number of late sittings, and in so doing was trying to strike a balance between the needs of Government, Opposition and Back Benchers. I made a number of recommendations, which the Select Committee can consider, advocating more time in other directions for Back Benchers to put their point of view. The Select Committee will make recommendations and then the House will decide.
    Mr. Butler: Did my right hon. Friend's proposals include an automatic guillotine at midnight?
    Mr. MacGregor: No, they did not, but I hope that the thrust of many of my proposals will lead to fewer late-night sittings, which we have achieved this year because at least 20 measures that formerly would have been considered on the Floor of the House after 10 o'clock have been considered by the European Standing Committees.

    Members Lobby
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will ask the Advisory Committee on Works of Art to make proposals for using the two vacant plinths in the Members Lobby.
    Mr. MagGregor: I have no plans to do so.
    Mr. Banks: What a very dull and unimaginative response that was. Is the Lord President aware of the wonderful opportunity that has been missed? If one of the plinths in the Members Lobby had been occupied by a statue of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), one year ago almost to the day joyous Londoners could have pulled it down, rather like Muscovites toppled the statue of Feliks Dzerzhinsky? If Stalinists in eastern Europe are to have their statues toppled, why did not we have an opportunity to do it to the west's great Stalinist? In view of her good contribution on Europe, may we have a statue out there, provided that she meets the necessary qualification?
    Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman may have been doing his research after all. I was going to accuse him of not having done his research and of frothing at the mouth to no purpose. He will know that, by common consent and usage, there is a 10-year qualification for the plinths. He may have been quite outrageously referring to that in the final part of his question. That is the answer in relation to the question of any others appearing on the plinths.
    Mr. Cormack: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as a distinguished and distinctive member of the Procedure Committee, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) should have known about the 10-year rule? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be for a successor Committee to decide whether my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) should be commemorated and that that Committee may decide that it would be better to have a free vote in the House on that subject rather than a referendum?
    Mr. MacGregor: I have already made plain my view on referendums. I have made it clear that the Government Front Bench is being entirely consistent on the subject of referendums. We have consistently followed the view of Conservative leaders since 1975, when the matter was seriously debated in relation to European issues.
    As for the plinth, my hon. Friend is right to say that that will be a matter for some perhaps long-distant Committee to consider again.

    Disabled People (Access)
    Mr. Cox: To ask the Lord President of the Council when facilities are to be provided to help disabled people enter the Grand Committee Room, Westminster Hall; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. MacGregor: I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the necessary approval has been given to the installation of a stairlift.
    Mr. Cox: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on that reply. When will that work commence? The right hon. Gentleman may be aware, if he has seen what happens, of the agony and difficulty that many disabled people suffer when trying to gain entry to the Grand Committee Room.

    629
    This is a matter of great urgency. If we can spend millions of pounds on office accommodation for Members—that may have been necessary—surely we can spend a similar amount as quickly as possible to give more people access to the Grand Committee Room.
    Mr. MacGregor: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Funds are available and the detailed work can now go ahead. I hope that the stairlift will be installed early in the new year.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Bernie Grant: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of today's decision by the Court of Appeal to allow the appeal by Winston Silcott, may I ask whether you have received a request by the Home Secretary to make a statement on that matter? If you have not, will you use your good offices to nudge the Home Secretary in that direction so that he apologises to Winston Silcott and his family? We need also to know the position of the police officers who forged Winston Silcott's confessions.
Mr. Speaker: I have had no request for a statement, but that is a matter for the Government. The Leader of the House is on the Government Front Bench, and I am sure that he has heard the hon. Gentleman's point.
Rev. Martin Smyth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am aware that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is in the Chamber. Have you had any request, Sir from the Northern Ireland Office to make a statement on last evening's incidents at Crumlin Road prison? It is the Government's duty to protect prisoners. I appreciate that there are segregation problems, but we have asked the Government to do more about separating prisoners for safety purposes and they have ignored our advice.
Mr. Speaker: Again, I have had no request for a statement. I shall give the hon. Member the same reply that I gave previously: this is a matter for the Leader of the House, who is in the Chamber.
Mr. Clive Soley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should welcome your guidance on the use of private notice questions. I do not wish in any way to criticise you, and I appreciate that I applied today to ask such a question—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is just it. I am afraid that we do not discuss in the Chamber applications for private notice questions. If the hon. Member would like to see me privately, I shall give him more information.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant). I am sure that you will agree that there should be a debate on the Court of Appeal system now that three major cases have been overturned in two years after substantial campaigns. That clearly underlines the need for a change in the appeal court system to allow people to have their cases brought before the court without the necessity of a five-year campaign by friends and families. Those people have stood up for justice, despite the abuse that they received from the public.
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a matter of order in the Chamber. The Leader of the House is here and will have heard what has been said.

Orders of the Day

  Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Speaker: I have selected the reasoned amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  3.33 pm
  The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill will authorise the construction of a barrage and associated works across the estuaries of the Rivers Taff and Ely in Cardiff bay. It provides for the acquisition of land and rights associated with these main works. There is also provision for the necessary framework to enable the barrage to be operated in an appropriate manner with regard to water quality, flooding, the protection of fish, and for the management of the lake so created.
  The scheme embodied in the Bill is absolutely vital for the future of Cardiff. It provides an opportunity for the docklands to be redeveloped as a high quality, high density part of the city itself. It will permit the development of a city waterfront that would be an asset to a major city anywhere in the world. It will create an environment in which housing and jobs will be created on a scale which could not be achieved in any other way.
  Before I describe the detailed provisions of the Bill, I would like to remind the House of the background to the scheme and why, sadly, the very many benefits which would arise from the construction of the barrage have, so far, been denied to the people of Cardiff.
  Seldom can the provisions of a Bill coming before this House for a Second Reading have been so thoroughly debated and examined already on the Floor of the House, in Committee and in another place. Many hon. Members will remember that we last debated the provisions of a Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill on 16 April this year. That was a private Bill promoted jointly by the Cardiff Bay development corporation and South Glamorgan county council. It had completed its passage through another place. It had undergone detailed and lengthy examination by a Select Committee of this House. Sadly, however, a few Opposition Members sought to block the Bill as it neared the end of its passage through Parliament.
  For our part, the Government were just not prepared to stand by and see our capital city and its people denied the benefits of this imaginative project. That is why, on 16 April, my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council immediately announced that we would introduce a Government Bill to achieve the main objectives of the private Bill. This Bill fulfils the commitment given by my right hon. Friend.
  Of course, the Cardiff bay barrage proposal goes back much further than that. In November 1985 the then Secretary of State for Wales, Nicholas Edwards, now Lord Crickhowell, commissioned studies into the feasibility, costs and benefits of a barrage between Penarth dock and Cardiff docks. In parallel with the technical feasibility studies, an investment appraisal study was also commissioned. These reports, published in June 1986, suggested that a barrage would not only be technically

  633
  feasible but would be likely to create significant new development opportunities in the Cardiff waterfront area and beyond.
  Further studies on engineering aspects, conservation and investment potential were also commissioned. In December 1986 Lord Crickhowell announced that the plans to transform the Cardiff docklands would be taken forward by an urban development corporation—Cardiff Bay development corporation—established specifically for that task. The corporation was set up in that far-sighted move to stimulate and control the regeneration of the docklands area. In particular, it was to carry forward the engineering and financial planning of a barrage between Penarth head and Queen Alexandra dock.
  Following its formal establishment in April 1987, the development corporation commissioned detailed studies of all aspects of the barrage, including environmental and conservation implications. Together with South Glamorgan county council, it introduced a private Bill into this place in November 1987. This was subsequently withdrawn in order to incorporate provisions enabling the construction of alternative feeding grounds for birds displaced once the barrage was constructed.
  A new private Bill was introduced in November 1988. It completed its passage through another place with very little amendment. Progress through this House took far longer. It was debated no fewer than five times on the Floor of the House and was given long and detailed scrutiny by a Select Committee over 26 days. The Committee heard a great deal of expert evidence from the promoters and petitioners. Local residents were given an opportunity to present evidence at first hand when the Committee sat in Cardiff. The Committee concluded that, subject to some important amendments and undertakings relating to groundwater, the Bill should be allowed to proceed. Unfortunately, a small minority disagreed.
  It is against that background that the Government are introducing the Bill. It falls into five main parts supplemented by seven schedules. Part I provides the necessary powers for the construction of the barrage and associated works. Part II deals with the acquisition of land. Part III deals with the operation of the barrage and the management of the inland bay, the outer harbour and the lagoon which would serve as an alternative feeding ground for wading birds. Part IV makes provision for a scheme of groundwater damage protection, the details of which are set out in schedule 7 to the Bill. Finally, part V covers a range of miscellaneous items.
  The proposed line of the barrage was one of several options considered in the early feasibility studies. It provides the greatest area of enclosed water, retains the operational use of Cardiff dock and provides the greatest opportunity for waterside development and water-related recreational uses. It is a fundamental principle that the design of the barrage authorised by the Bill should impound the estuaries of the Taff and Ely. In doing so, it should not impound the entrance to the operational Cardiff dock, but should enclose the Penarth marina.
  The tidal lagoon would provide alternative feeding grounds for birds displaced from the bay by the impounded lake. It would cover an area of 23 hectares and provide mudflats similar to those which would be permanently covered within the bay area. Discussions with
  634
  the Countryside Council for Wales and other conservation bodies about the best method of achieving wildlife measures are continuing.
  The Bill requires the development corporation to operate the barrage so that the water immediately behind it should be maintained at a level between 4 m and 4·5 m above ordnance datum except in certain circumstances defined in the Bill. That is consistent with the provisions of the former private Bill and with the views of the Select Committee, which recommended that the water level should not go below 4 m. It is a fundamental principle of the Bill that the impounded lake should permanently cover the existing mudflats. We believe that the proposed water level as set out in the Bill strikes an appropriate balance between development needs and the practical considerations after impoundment. It would provide the maximum area of water within the engineering constraints and would be broadly equivalent to mean high water mark.
  As I have already said, the Government believe that the economic case for the barrage is very strong. The attractive new environment created by the barrage will result in 25,000 direct and 7,500 indirect jobs. Private sector investment of well over £1 billion will be attracted into the area and 4,800 homes will be built, of which a quarter will be low-cost social housing.
  Against that background, it is regrettable that the Opposition intend to move to deny the Bill a Second Reading this evening. I very much hope that they will consider their position. I have studied the reasoned amendment carefully and, as far as I can see, all the points covered would be more relevant for discussion in Committee. There are answers to all the points.
  I have just met some colleagues in the House—and I do not dare to name the Opposition Members—who asked me questions about the amendment because there were points that they could not understand or that they had not seen before. I do not know why the amendment has been tabled. Parts of it were not raised with me before today's debate. Somebody quite disgracefully suggested that the amendment was just a fictitious fig leaf which was designed to cover the cracks in the Labour party!
  I very much hope that the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) will be courageous this afternoon. I urge him to stop any move to allow the barrage project to continue to be used as a party political football. I believe that the project is so exciting, innovative and imaginative that it should be approached on an all-party basis. I invite the hon. Gentleman to consider that and to endorse the Bill. I invite him to join me in welcoming this magnificent project, which will do so much for Wales.
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: For a moment I thought that the Secretary of State had reached his peroration. Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the financial consequences of the Bill?
  Mr. Hunt: First, I shall deal with the environmental sensitivities of the project, because, when considering the economic benefits of the project, the Government were fully aware of those sensitivities.
  The Institute of Terrestrial Ecology was commissioned by the Welsh Office to assess the affects of the project on over-wintering shore birds. That study and other environmental studies commissioned by the Cardiff Bay

  635
  development corporation and South Glamorgan county council were brought together in a detailed environmental impact assessment by Liverpool university.
  The House will know that a new Standing Order came into force at the start of this parliamentary Session. It requires Bills authorising certain works to be accompanied by an environmental statement. This Bill is the first to meet that requirement. The environmental assessment prepared for the private Bill has been updated so as to comply with the new Standing Order. Copies of the environmental statement and a non-technical summary of it have been placed in the Vote Office. The House will wish to satisfy itself that any decision to enact the Bill is taken on the basis of a full consideration of that assessment of the Bill's environmental effects.
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that environmental assessments, or statements, that accompany private or hybrid Bills may take two forms? Annex 1 environmental impact assessments must be referred to the appropriate regulatory agency, such as the National Rivers Authority should it deal with water quality or, especially in this case, the local environmental health office of the city council in respect of water use. The other type of assessment may comply with schedule 2 to the original environmental impact assessment directive from the European Community and it does not have to be referred to the appropriate regulatory agency. The environmental impact assessment prepared for the Bill is an example of the latter type as no reference has been made to the NRA or to the environmental health department of Cardiff city council. Why did the right hon. Gentleman not decide to have a higher grade environmental impact assessment?
  Mr. Hunt: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has had an opportunity to get a copy of the environmental impact assessment from the Vote Office and to read it. I am advised that it more than fulfils the requirements of the Standing Order, which is the basis on which I have proposed that the environmental impact assessment should proceed. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will make some further reference to that assessment in his speech, and I look forward to that.
  The guidance on the production of environmental assessments says that the promoters should consult those bodies with relevant information before preparing their statement. I understand that Cardiff Bay development corporation and my officials have consulted a wide range of interested bodies, including the NRA, Cardiff city council and the Countryside Council for Wales. It would have been a pointless duplication for the authors of the environmental statement to have consulted separately.
  Mr. Ron Davies: The problem is that the Secretary of State second-guesses the advice that he receives from his advisers. Will he confirm that the Government's statutory adviser on nature conservation is the Countryside Council for Wales?. Will he also confirm that it recommended that Cardiff bay should be included in the Severn estuary special protection area? Will he tell the House why he decided to override that advice?
  Mr. Hunt: I have placed in the Library a copy of the letter that I wrote explaining the issues in great detail.
  An inevitable and regrettable consequence of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill is the loss of the Taff-Ely site of
  636
  special scientific interest. We have never denied that there would be environmental costs—I hope that the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) recognises that. Those costs had to be weighed against the economic, environmental and other benefits. Clearly, the barrage and the type of development associated with it would be incompatible with the SSSI. It is a fundamental principle of the Bill that it would enable the impoundment of a fresh water lake in place of the existing salt water tidal area. It follows that the existing site of special scientific interest could no longer be sustained.
  From earlier debates, the House will know that the Nature Conservancy Council had proposed that the lower Severn estuary, of which Cardiff bay is a part, should be a special protection area under the European Community directive on the conservation of wild birds. On 1 November, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and I announced our decision—to which the hon. Member for Caerphilly referred—to exclude the area of the inland bay as defined in the Bill from further consideration as part of the area proposed as a special protection area. The reasons underlying that decision and the factors that my right hon. Friend and I took into account are fully set out in the letter of 1 November to the chairman of the Countryside Council for Wales, copies of which have been placed in the Library.
  There have been understandable worries about the possible effects on houses of rises in groundwater levels once the barrage is built. The former private Bill contained detailed protective provisions in respect of groundwater. I should like to make it clear that the provisions of the Government Bill will provide householders with the same level of protection as that which existed under the private Bill, and they are set out fully in schedule 7.
  I have done my best to understand and respond to the desire of people in Cardiff that the scheme should be set out in the Bill so that Parliament can consider it. However, by its very nature, the scheme is complex, and we cannot guarantee that minor difficulties may not emerge when we put it into practice. Therefore, the Bill contains a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations to amend the scheme of protection.
  The reasoned amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) and other Opposition Members seeks to make the point that the provisions would enable the Secretary of State to weaken the protection, which, I suppose, goes alongside the need for provisions to strengthen the protection. I wish to make it clear that I have no intention of using that power at present, but I would be prepared to use it if it emerged that individuals' interests were not being properly protected by the scheme in practice. If I decided to act in that way, any regulation to amend the scheme would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Therefore, the House would have the opportunity of debating any proposed changes to the scheme.
  An enormous amount of detailed technical evidence on groundwater was presented during consideration of the earlier Bill. The Select Committee that examined the Bill took a very close interest in and sought several undertakings about groundwater. One such was that further detailed studies of the possible effects should be undertaken over a 12-month period. The results of those studies were published on 25 September, and on the same day I announced the start of a three-month public consultation period during which interested parties could

  637
  make written representations to me on the contents of the reports produced by Hydrotechnica. The public consultation exercise ends on 31 December. The documents are technical, and I have arranged for them to be placed in all public libraries in Cardiff, and notices to that effect have been placed in local newspapers.
  I gave the Select Committee an undertaking that I would consider the Hydrotechnica studies and the commentary produced by Cardiff Bay development corporation, and I shall do so. I shall also consider any representations received during the consultation period. I have appointed an eminent expert, Mr. Roy Stoner, the director of the Institute of Irrigation Studies at Southampton university, as my specialist groundwater adviser. Once the consultation period is over, I shall consider all the evidence.
  Only if I am satisfied that the economic, safety and technical criteria relating to groundwater can be met will public funding be made available for construction of the barrage. That is the undertaking that I gave to the Select Committee. Subject to that undertaking, I am pleased to announce today that I have increased the funding planned by the corporation by £22 million, bringing provision for the next three years to £130 million. I do that in the context of the proposals in the Bill, which I believe are vital for the future of Cardiff. Accordingly, I commend the Bill to the House.
  3.55 pm
  Mr. Barry Jones: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill because of the inadequacy of the groundwater protection provisions in that the powers granted to the Secretary of State in the Bill would enable him to weaken the protections specified in the schedule, because the public consultation on the Hydrotechnica report is not yet concluded, because that consultation process has allowed no mechanism for public discussion of the report, and because the Bill makes no provision for an independent final arbiter on matters concerning the quality of the water environment in the inland bay.
  There can be no doubt about the need for urban regeneration in the Cardiff docklands. The docks of Cardiff were at the centre of the coal-based prosperity of south Wales. Coal from the valleys of south Wales made Cardiff the world's leading coal-exporting port. The decline of the docks has mirrored the decline of the south Wales coal industry. Now, with fewer than 2,000 workers in our pits, Cardiff docklands must find a new identity and a new prosperity.
  Cardiff has already begun a brighter future. South Glamorgan county council and Cardiff city council have sought to bring new industries and new jobs to the area. Like other responsible, Labour-controlled local authorities in Wales, they have worked in partnership with the Welsh Office, the Welsh Development Agency, the European Commission and in this case the development corporation.
  Our criticism is not of the economic regeneration. Our criticism of the Bill rests on some of the ways in which the Government have approached the project, or failed to provide adequate safeguards. Indeed, the Government tried to rush a Bill through in July of this year, but the
  638
  Select Committee on Procedure said no. I have been unable to find anyone who wishes to praise the private Bill procedure; it is an anachronism. Indeed, the Transport and Works Bill which will come before the House next week reflects anxiety about the operation of the private Bill system.
  Our reasoned amendment centres on three clear propositions. Each relates to safeguards and protections on issues which we all agree are serious for the project. The first is groundwater. The groundwater protection provisions are inadequate in that the powers granted to the Secretary of State in the Bill would enable him to weaken the protections specified in the schedule. I refer to clause 21, which is supposed to be about reassurance. What reassurance does it give to people who might suffer damage due to a change in groundwater level when the Bill permits the Secretary of State to weaken the groundwater provisions? The Bill gives protection with one hand and takes it away with the other.
  We welcome the fact that provisions have been put in the Bill. In July it was intended that they should be contained in regulations. By agreeing to their inclusion in the Bill the Secretary of State has responded to the anxieties of my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), and of South Glamorgan county council, Cardiff city council and many other bodies.
  However, by retaining his flexibility of action the Secretary of State has drafted the Bill so as to allow him to weaken the necessary protections. That is unacceptable; we detect the Treasury's fingerprints in this. That is why we ask the right hon. Gentleman to give a categorical assurance to the House that at some later date cash limits will not be imposed on deserving claims for compensation. As the legislation stands and under the powers contained in clause 21(2), the Secretary of State could alter the rights of householders to cover only compensation instead of remedial work, as specified in schedule 7. He could also shorten the period in which residents could make a claim for compensation and alter the cost of a survey of buildings outside the protected property area. These are not peripheral issues; they are key issues to individuals, families and local communities.
  Public consultation is our second major point of contention. On the results of the Hydrotechnica report—
  Mr. Chris Butler: The hon. Gentleman supported the previous private Bill. Does he want a Cardiff bay barrage to be built? Why is he trying to stop this Bill instead of amending it in Committee?
  Mr. Jones: I shall state my position and that of the Opposition in my speech. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will find my remarks persuasive. He should not put words in my mouth, however, or make false assumptions. I know that his intervention was well meant and had not a whit of political mischief about it. Knowing him very well, I know that he would not rise just to dissemble.
  As for public consultation—
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Bennett)rose—
  Mr. Jones: I want to get on. The Under-Secretary will have a chance to catch Mr. Speaker's eye later, no doubt.

  639
  I was saying that the second major point of contention has to do with public consultation on the results of the Hydrotechnica report. As we debate the Bill, the period of public consultation is only halfway through. Surely arrangements should have been made to allow the Secretary of State to report to the House on the outcome of the consultations and on the advice of his expert, Mr. Roy Stoner of Southampton university, about the objections voiced during the consultation period.
  The consultation period ends on 31 December and only then will the Secretary of State's consultant start to prepare his final report. We do not even know whether the Stoner report will be available to the Select Committee when it begins to sit. In any event, it is surely wrong, for the sake of a few weeks, to decide on the principle of the Bill by giving it a Second Reading while hon. Members still do not have the Stoner report.
  There has been concern about and criticism of the manner in which public consultation has been undertaken. It has not allowed for public discussion or exchanges in which people can ask questions and receive answers from those who undertook the research. I agree with the Secretary of State that the matters involved are highly technical and that the Hydrotechnica report deals with matters that have been at the heart of the controversy. People want a chance to discuss the report, and the lack of debate is a serious flaw in the procedures that have been followed.
  The third major element of our amendment relates to the quality of the water environment in the inland bay. Many points made during the passage of the previous, private Bill require to be considered. Not least are the problems of sewage discharge, the pollution of rivers flowing into the bay, leachate from the Ferry road tip, algal growth and fish protection. We have real reservations about the role of the Secretary of State for Wales as the final arbiter in any dispute between the National Rivers Authority and the development corporation. In that context I refer to clause 12.
  The corporation may argue that a direction given to it by the National Rivers Authority to improve water is unreasonable. If that happens, the Secretary of State will be called on to adjudicate, and there is a suspicion that he would be inclined to side with the development corporation which, of course, is his creation, his creature.
  Dr. Kim Howells: The rivers that are to be dammed, the Taff and the Ely, flow through my constituency. My hon. Friend knows that the NR A has done sterling work to clean up those rivers. However, its task is made much more difficult by the fact that derogations granted to the Welsh water authority allow it to pump raw sewage into both those rivers. If a lake is built behind the barrage, it will be nothing more than a sewage pit. How does the Secretary of State propose to tackle that problem?
  Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend's point is central to the debate and I am sure that the matter will be pressed hard in Committee.
  It would be unwise to allow even the possibility of criticism on a matter as important as adjudication. Therefore, there should be expert, independent adjudication in any such dispute, either by arbitration or by an appropriate expert body. That would mean that even if the
  640
  final decision rested with the Secretary of State he would be seen by all concerned parties to be basing his judgment on neutral, expert scientific advice.
  Not only is there a lack of independence in determining the quality of the water environment but the Bill ignores the statutory role of Cardiff city council as public health authority or port health authority. Clause 70 of the previous Bill required the undertakers to install monitoring apparatus to monitor water level and quality for infectious diseases. All records were to be available to Cardiff city council to allow it to discharge its statutory responsibilities. The Bill disregards the statutory role of local authorities with regard to impounded water and that can only be to the detriment of local people.
  Not the least of our criticisms of the Government's approach relates to the Cardiff Bay development corporation, which is unelected and unaccountable and has too often been insensitive to the concerns of local communities. It is a creature of the Secretary of State for Wales and the right hon. Gentleman has shown that its first responsibility is to him and not to the local community. We saw that only a few months ago when the right hon. Gentleman vetoed the appointment of a Labour city councillor in favour of the appointment of his Tory placeman. The imposition of councillor Jeff Sainsbury says much about the right hon. Gentleman and about the unrepresentative character of the development corporation.
  The appointment also says much about quango politics in Conservative Wales. A man who knows more than most about quangos is the chairman of the development corporation. It is surely unique in Britain for a failed Conservative candidate to be chairman of not one but two quangos. I do not blame those involved in the development corporation, particularly the five council members who are in a minority on the board. At least they have won an election for their seats on the council. The development corporation is a creature of the Conservative Government, who clearly do not trust democracy in operation in Wales. They claim to support democracy in other parts of the world, but in Wales local communities cannot choose how best to regenerate their local economies.
  That there was no need for this artificial regeneration is shown by the successful regenerations of central Cardiff, spearheaded by Cardiff city council, and of the Atlantic wharf area, spearheaded by South Glamorgan county council. Both were achieved in partnership with other public agencies and the public itself.
  Mr. David Hunt: I sensed that the hon. Gentleman was coming to the conclusion of his speech. He has not yet come off the fence and told us whether he supports the barrage project.
  Mr. Jones: The detail of my speech made it far more informative than that of the Secretary of State. The right hon. Gentleman is in a feeble position. He has had to come to the House with the Bill because he was unable to deliver. I understand that he wrote to all members of the Cabinet asking them to turn up and support him in the votes after previous debates on this project. However, he was not able to get enough Cabinet members to support him. He has a lot of ground to make up before he can criticise the Opposition.

  641
  The Opposition always deal with the arguments. We shall press to a vote our reasoned amendment, which will redress three important issues. I urge the Secretary of State to accept the validity of the argument set out in the amendment.
  4.15 pm
  Dr. Kim Howells: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), I support the redevelopment of Cardiff docks. The area has made a unique contribution to Welsh commerce and to Welsh culture, not least because it produced Shirley Bassey, among others. It would be churlish if I or anyone else were to say that the area should not receive whatever funds are needed to redevelop it.
  We are, however, debating the wisdom of building a barrage. I do not think that there is anyone in the Chamber who would deny that the area of Cardiff docks needs redevelopment; the question is whether there should be redevelopment by means of impounding the Rivers Taff and Ely. Cardiff bay has a great deal to offer Wales in the way of prestige projects, for example. It is directly to the south of the hub of administrative Wales—the capital city of the Principality. There are already several institutions of which we can be proud, and I understand that Cardiff may have a centre for the performing arts in the form of a new opera house. I am sure that we would all be proud of that. I hope that such a project will be a centre for other arts, too.
  At Pierhead there is a science centre called Techniquest, which attracts about 100,000 people a year. Those who are involved with it want to move to larger premises. They have plans to incorporate a science park in an area of about 135,000 sq ft. We have seen Welsh industry change. There has been a transformation in the economy of Wales, which is now as much electronics and science based as it is steel and coal based. The science project to which I have referred could be a great flagship for Welsh industry, for Welsh commerce and for British science generally.
  Why does not the Secretary of State for Wales wave the flag for Pierhead and say that the new project could become a great science centre? I understand that others will try to grab it. Apparently Bradford is interested in having it and Bristol has also made noises about it. There is already a wonderful location for a new science centre to be developed. I should like to see the new Techniquest look out across a natural estuary that has seen the tide rise and fall for a million years. I should like to see the rivers that flow into the estuary—and indeed the entire Bristol channel—cleaned. Those are monumental tasks, but they are imaginative ones.
  It seems that we would be much better off if we spent money not on constructing a barrage but on cleaning up the various sewage works that I have castigated over the years. It would be well worth spending money on such a project. We would be giving future generations an inheritance of which we could be proud, and which we would surely be proud to pass on. I am worried that, instead, we shall be handing over a barrage that will do little apart from create what is hoped to be an aesthetically pleasing impounded area of water. Such projects were popular constructions in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and I am worried that once again the Welsh Office is trying
  642
  to catch up with a fashion or a phase that has passed. Instead, we should be in tune with what is happening environmentally in the most progressive countries in Europe and throughout the world.
  We should give thought to cleaning up the environment generally. We could be proud of such an achievement because the tide could flow in and out, the natural environment would be enhanced, and the flora and fauna would flourish close to the heart of our great capital city. Instead, it seems that money is to be spent in an almost futile attempt to attract to the bay, at a time of recession, companies and start-up projects that, by rights, should be located elsewhere.
  I refer, for example, to the Welsh health common services authority which, under the leadership of Brigadier Peter Crawley, decided that it would locate in the bay rather than at Merthyr Tydfil or some other place along the A470—or even at the refurbished BBC studios building at Gabalfa, which is where we all thought that authority would go. Instead, there was an announcement, accompanied by a great hoo-hah, that the authority and its 800 jobs would be moving to the bay.
  I am not saying that that had anything to do with the fact that Brigadier Crawley was in the same regiment as Lieutenant-Colonel Inkin, who is the chairman of the Cardiff Bay development corporation. On inquiring about the matter, I was told that the health common services authority had decided to move to the bay because it had been told by an independent property consultancy that it was a much better choice of location than anywhere else.
  It turns out that the independent property consultancy was none other than a subsidiary of the national ports authority, which is a major shareholder in the Cardiff Bay development corporation. The Secretary of State has a duty to tell the House why that decision was made. Did it come as a sudden revelation and a flash of light to Brigadier Crawley, or was it that the development corporation, with its vast capital expenditure, needed a prestige project to give it credence in the eyes of the commercial world?
  This is not the politics of jealousy from those of us who worry about such matters. We are glad to see the bay being redeveloped, and hope that it will be a great success.
  Mr. Gwilym Jones: Before the hon. Gentleman moves on from his point about the proposal to locate the health common services authority in the old BBC offices at Gabalfa, perhaps I may take some credit for that not having come to pass. There was great resentment among my constituents on the Three Horseshoes estate at that suggestion, which they feared would dramatically worsen the quality of their lives. Apart from the traffic implications in grid-locking the roads of Caerphilly, up Manor way, it might even have had repercussions for the hon. Gentleman's constituents. I certainly lobbied against the authority making that move, and if I played any part in influencing its choice of the bay instead, I am very pleased at that outcome.
  Dr. Howells: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his helpful intervention. I am sure that that proposal would have affected the lives of my constituents. More of them would have obtained jobs. There is still planning permission for the Gabalfa office development, so someone will move there. It would have been nice if the health common services authority had sone so—and created 800 jobs. I

  643
  would rather have seen it move to Merthyr Tydfil, Brecon, or anywhere else, because it is an authority for 'Wales. According to the Secretary of State, companies are queuing up to move to the bay, but there seems to be no proof of that.
  I concede that the current recession and the Government's mismanagement of the economy have a part to play in the fact that prestige projects are not lining up to locate in the bay. My concern is why the health common services authority, with its 800 valuable jobs, should suddenly decide to change direction and head for the bay. That seems to be a face-saving exercise rather than one that makes any sense in administrative or traffic terms —as the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) said.
  As that hon. Gentleman knows, journeying to and from the bay at the moment is appalling. One has to travel through the middle of Cardiff, or through a curious maze that takes one off the western approaches, along the new dockland link road. It may be that in future the bay area's traffic needs will be better served. I have no doubt that they will. I also hope that the hon. Gentleman will press for better traffic arrangements for the rest of us, on the A470 and everywhere else.
  Mr. Rowlands: I had not realised that other sites had been considered, including Merthyr. Does my hon. Friend know the comparative costs involved?
  Dr. Howells: As most Cardiff property developers know, in the docklands the average annual rent is about £14·50 per sq ft, while it is under £10 in Merthyr. I am worried about other costs, such as the cost of fitting out offices. Whence came the inducements for the move down to the docks? I fear that they will eventually prove to have come from the Welsh Office, via the Cardiff Bay development corporation. Who will provide the £1 million or £2 million for the offices to be fitted out? I understand that they have not even been built yet.
  Many of us are keen for the bay to be redeveloped, and are glad to note that low-cost housing is being provided there. We are still worried about the groundwater mystery, however. I shall not attempt to express an opinion, but I well remember a very good party that was held in our front room in Portmanmoor road, Splott, back in 1970. About 50 paisley-shirted individuals suddenly found themselves up to their knees in wet mud. The floor had collapsed—people danced a good deal harder in those days, as the Secretary of State will no doubt remember.
  Cardiff was, of course, built on mud flats, and nature takes a long time to change. Problems will be caused by sewage flowing down the Taff and the Ely into the bay. At least I know something about such problems; they were my original reason for opposing the scheme, and I have not changed my mind in the slightest. Ultimately, the people of Cardiff must decide, but they have good representatives in the House who are capable of making the right decision.
  Many of us who represent the valleys would like the same amount of money to be spent on matters other than the bay, which has no God-given right to it. Although I am pleased to note that the money is designed to prime the pump of private capital, I see no evidence of that as yet. I hope that the House will support the reasoned amendment, and that the whole project can be examined properly and thoroughly.
  4.27 pm
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: As the Secretary of State has said, today's debate is to some extent a re-run of the debate that took place on 16 April, and we shall be deploying some of the same arguments. As on 16 April, we shall be voting at 7 o'clock, but this time it will be 7 pm rather than 7 am.
  This could be described as a hybrid Bill and, in a sense, we are considering two questions at the same time. The first is whether the barrage should be given funds, and the second is whether, if someone else's money and ideas were involved, the development should be given permission to proceed. If the decisions were being made by a planning inquiry and we were the planning inspectors, would we give permission for the spending of someone else's money on such as project? Has it proved itself sufficiently?
  We shall vote against the Government's proposals. Our reason for doing that is stated in the amendment: there are still a large number of unanswered questions.
  It is difficult for Opposition Members to say that there is no problem and that money can be spent because the general tide of expert opinion is in the Government's favour. In fact, the general tide of expert opinion is deeply divided. Geologists and civil engineers who have worked for the Cardiff Bay development corporation as consultants have in general been willing to give the green light to the package. We do not know, however, what other experts will say. They have not yet reported. The Secretary of State's own consultant, Mr. Roy Stoner, the head of the Institute of Irrigation Studies at Southampton university, has not yet reported and we do not know what he will say. I noted that the Secretary of State omitted to refer to the date when he will be able to tell the House about Mr. Stoner's opinion.
  I had imagined that if the Secretary of State was interested in doing his job properly he would have said to us, "Mr. Stoner's opinion will be made available to the first meeting of the Select Committee." I do not know whether the Under-Secretary of State for Wales will tell us when Mr. Stoner's report will be made available.
  There are also the geologists and civil engineers who gave evidence for Cardiff residents against the barrage during the Select Committee stage of the proceedings on the private Bill in February, April and May of last year. One of them—Dr. John Miles from the civil engineering department of the University college Cardiff—stated that there was a danger that parts of low-lying Cardiff could be turned into an urban slum. That somewhat chilling prediction was made in the presence of the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Sir G. Neale), who was here to listen to the opening speeches but who is not here now. When a highly qualified professional makes such a dire prediction, one has to sit up and take notice. If the geologists are divided, it is not surprising that the politicians will also be divided.
  The Select Committee's recommendations have been complied with, in that a further 12 months of groundwater studies have been carried out. The firm that carried out those studies was designated by the Select Committee—Hydrotechnica—but there has been much dispute about the way in which the 12 months' study was carried out. It was understood on both sides of the geological and civil engineering argument that the 12-month period was the absolute minimum and that what was required was a full 12-month reading of the boreholes on a four-seasons basis.

  645
  The borehole readings were very sporadic. Most of them were not sunk in the first three months, let alone at the beginning of the 12-month period so that a full set of four seasons rainfall readings could be obtained in order to work out exactly how the groundwater flows under the low-lying areas of Cardiff that would be affected. A model could then have been constructed to show what would happen during periods of heavy rainfall after the construction of the barrage.
  While the geological experts are still arguing among themselves, the Secretary of State should not be too surprised that Opposition politicians are unwilling to give the scheme the green light. He cannot expect us to say, "We know that some geologists and civil engineers still oppose the scheme, but it does not matter whether they are right or wrong, so long as some geologists and some civil engineers are willing to give it the greeen light." The Opposition's job is to scrutinise critically the Government's proposals. We are waiting, therefore, for the geologists and civil engineers who have studied the scheme closely to come to a unanimous opinion and say that they are prepared to give the barrage the green light. That has not yet happened.
  May I mention the water budget for the development? Some hon. Members may wonder what a water budget is and may not think that that question is worthy of the Secretary of State's attention, but it is critical because the Rivers Taff and Ely are flashy. The difference between their minimum and maximum flows is greater than that of any other river. Water runs straight off the coalfield plateau into the Ely and off the Brecon Beacons into the slightly longer Taff. A flow in a dry summer of 3 cu m per second and in flood conditions of 8 or 9 cu m per second leads to a staggering difference between the constituents of the water entering the lake. Somehow, the system must encompass the high flows in January and February or severe rain storms and the low flows when both rivers reduce almost to a trickle in dry August.
  The water budget becomes critical because the fish pass must be operated to the satisfaction of the National Rivers Authority, the sluices must allow salmon to remigrate to head waters for spawning purposes, the boat lock must allow people to get into the Bristol channel, the sluices must flush out salt water that entered the lake while the boat lock was in operation and, finally—this is the major fly in the ointment—Associated British Ports has the right to abstract 4 cu m per second at Blackweir.
  Has the Secretary of State negotiated a deal with Associated British Ports whereby it gives up some of its rights to abstract water at Blackweir, which it uses to top up the commercial dock? Associated British Ports inherited the Marquis of Bute's legacy and has the right to abstract virtually all the water that flows down the Taff in the summer. Unless it gives up those rights, insufficient water will enter the lake to operate the fish pass, the boat lock and salt water flushing.
  I am aware that the Secretary of State has given the NRA an assurance that before the Bill is enacted the Government will get ABP to sacrifice some of its abstraction rights at Blackweir, but the right hon. Gentleman has not yet persuaded or paid Associated British Ports the sum required to reduce those rights. Therefore, he is not in a position to tell the House that
  646
  water quality in the bay can be assured. Without ABP's right to abstract water being reduced from 4 cu m per second to, say, 1 cu m per second, the fish pass will not be operated to the satisfaction of the NRA and the boat lock will not be operated to the satisfaction of members of Cardiff yacht club. In a dry summer, everybody will want to sail in the Bristol channel, but the NRA will tell Cardiff bay development corporation, "You cannot use the boat lock because we need the water for the fish pass."
  Will the Secretary of State assure the House that that job has been done? Perhaps the Under-Secretary—I see that some negotiations are going on—will tell us something about that; so far we have heard nothing. I was rather disappointed that the Secretary of State did not deal with that point.
  The other important general principle that we are asking about, which the Secretary of State did not mention, is the development proposals that he expects for Cardiff bay—with or without a barrage. The proposition that he is putting to the House is that, without a barrage, there will be little or no development, but with a barrage there will be intensive development and many jobs. The only development that we heard about today was from my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), who referred to the new office development by the Welsh health common services authority at the Roath basin. That decision was made recently. Some 800 people will be accommodated when the office block is built. Perhaps that is part of the deal with ABP, making it give up some of its water abstraction rights in return for being the landlord through its subsidiary, Grosvenor Waterside. I hope that we will be given more details about that development.
  Much more important, the Secretary of State failed to mention Cardiff university's proposals to occupy a semi-derelict site adjoining the new county hall, between Bute street and the city centre. Are such developments dependent on the barrage? Could development go ahead anyway, but without some of the risks inherent in a barrage?
  I should like the Under-Secretary to comment on the university's proposals to relocate Cardiff business school and the economics faculty as well as 12 student halls of residence and about 400 houses for graduate students and married students. If that development went ahead, it would make a colossal difference to whether a barrage is needed to bring about development and to whether the most speedy and most job-productive way of developing Cardiff bay is by developing from the city centre southwards or from the barrage north towards the city centre. Many developers in Cardiff believe that there should be development from the city centre southwards, through Tarmac's South crescent proposal, linked with the university's proposals.
  Universities will expand massively in the future. I think that the hon. Members for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) and for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist) would agree that a developer is unlikely to find the land necessary for expansion of the university anywhere north of the city centre. South of the centre may well be the most appropriate place. We need more information. We do not want an information vacuum in the House when we are deciding on the principle of such a major proposal. I am disappointed that the Secretary of State did not touch on those questions.
  I should like also to criticise the use to which Cardiff Bay development corporation has put its massive

  647
  advertising budget. Given that the House of Commons is about to make a major decision and that the public are being consulted in Cardiff, we do not believe that it is democratic for the development corporation to launch into a massive advertising campaign costing £2 million.
  The development corporation initially said that that money would be spent in key signboard areas such as Swindon, along the M4, at Bristol Parkway station, in Paddington and elsewhere in London. I am not against advertising "Come to Cardiff", but half the advertising budget seems to be spent in Cardiff. That raises the question whether the purpose of the advertising budget is to bias debate. Money is being splashed all over prominent advertising sites in Cardiff while there is public consultation to try to ensure that the development corporation is seen in a more positive light.
  One does not attract inward investment to Cardiff in the city itself; one attracts it from Bristol, London or elsewhere. It appears that much of the advertising budget is used in an anti-democratic fashion to bias public debate in Cardiff. That is a completely inappropriate use of money. The Secretary of State is probably aware that the Advertising Standards Authority has been asked to rule on whether it is an offence massively to advertise a development that is to be debated in the House of Commons. Perhaps the Under-Secretary, whose idea it may have been to advertise on this flash basis before this debate, can tell us whether this beloved anti-democratic procedure is one of his wizard wheezes.
  Mr. Irvine Patnick: Does the hon. Gentleman like it?
  Mr. Morgan: It is a matter not of whether I like it but of whether Pembroke constituents like it.
  Seven questions remain unanswered, and that is why I shall enthusiastically go into the Division Lobby in support of the reasoned amendment. Those questions should have been answered before Second Reading.
  First, does the Secretary of State believe that the geologists and civil engineers, Dr. John Miles, Dr. Stewart Noake and Dr. Gordon Saunders, are wrong in their urban swamp thesis?
  Secondly, will the Government encourage the university developments in the central section, linking the city centre and Pierhead?
  Thirdly, what is the verdict of the Secretary of State and of Cardiff Bay development corporation on the Ferry road tip being removed or remaining in place? The right hon. Gentlemen did not say anything about that. First the tip was to be moved, then half was to be moved and then none was to be moved. Will it be moved? The Secretary of State will be aware of the massive consequences that has in terms of potential pollution of the water and the economic case for redevelopment of the western side of Cardiff bay.
  Fourthly, has ABP agreed to give up some of its rights to water abstraction in Cardiff bay? If not, how will ABP satisfy the NRA that there is a scheme to manage water supplies during dry summers?
  Fifthly, why did the Secretary of State allow an environmental impact assessment to be carried out by Liverpool university's environmental associates without any reference to the NRA and to Cardiff city council's environmental health office? When I intervened, the right hon. Gentleman gave an unsatisfactory reply. The matter is in his hands. If he says that an environmental impact
  648
  assessment should be carried out under the principles of annex 1, the matter must be referred to the appropriate regulatory agencies. It is not adequate to say that the matter was referred to Cardiff Bay development corporation and that it had spoken to the NRA and the city council's environmental health office. If the Secretary of State had said that an environmental impact assessment had to be carried out under the principles of annex 1, so it had to be referred to the regulatory agencies, that would have been done. The right hon. Gentleman must not shirk his responsibility.
  My sixth question was raised in an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies). What will happen if there is a judicial review or a review via the European Commission, and possibly the European Court of Justice, of the exclusion of the Cardiff bay site of special scientific interest from the special protection area of the lower Severn estuary? If that is not an important issue, the Secretary of State should tell us why he made such a fuss about sending a posse of lawyers to observe the Leybucht bay case in Luxembourg last year. A lot of public money was spent to send those lawyers there. If the verdict did not matter, the right hon. Gentleman should repay that money to the National Audit Office. I shall ensure that the NAO investigates whether that was wholly improper expenditure incurred in observing a case which had no influence on the proceedings of the House and whose findings he intended anyway to spirit away with a wave of his magic wand. If the matter is important, the Secretary of State should explain whether this major legal issue remains to be settled.
  The seventh question was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd. The Secretary of State has not referred to the development possibilities for the opera house at Pierhead. He made a statement to the press saying that he was organising a major engineering and feasibility study of the proposal. I should have thought that it was appropriate to say something about what progress has been made—about whether engineering problems have been discovered or whether the right hon. Gentleman is jibbing because he cannot get any private sector support and industry will not back the proposal. This matter is material to the development prospects in the area.
  Mr. David Hunt: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's seven questions. I counted 21 questions, but I shall try to deal with seven. I shall respond in detail in writing and place a copy of my letter before the House. In return, will the hon. Gentleman answer my questions: in principle, is he in favour of the Cardiff bay barrage and will he seek to oppose Second Reading once the reasoned amendment has been disposed of?
  Mr. Morgan: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for asking that question. However, the question does not arise, as we do not yet know what the Government will do about our reasoned amendment. The Secretary of State is in a similar position to us. He must remember that he cannot approve a Second Reading if it means giving immediate approval to the barrage. He must wait until he receives the Stoner report. He said that until he received that report he was unable to give the go-ahead to the barrage. Therefore, I do not know why he is attempting to come the raw prawn with the House as if he knew what he was going to do but nobody else did. That gives a biased view and is a complete misstatement of the facts. He

  649
  cannot put the House right and say that if we all agree with him the barrage can be started straight away. He is not in a position to do that, which is why the debate should be held in late January when we would have the advantage of having read the Stoner report. Without it, there is every reason for all hon. Members to join us and to back our reasoned amendment.
  4.50 pm
  Mr. Richard Livsey: The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) made a number of valid points at the end of his speech about why now is the wrong time to debate this issue. Cardiff bay could be a huge opportunity or an environmental disaster; it could be an employment haven or it could be anti-community; it could mean houses being flooded or it could result in sparkling new skyscrapers. There are many different scenarios.
  Mr Alun Michael: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Livsey: I shall not give way at this early stage.
  There must be a way through for a scheme to revitalise the docks area of Cardiff but I am sad to say that it appears that this version of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill—the reasoned amendment points out some of its weaknesses—is not it. The Bill is short and it appears that the safeguards that it contains are not entirely adequate. Indeed, it does not carry sufficient groundwater guarantees.
  We do not oppose the barrage in principle but we are unhappy about many aspects of the issue. For some reason, the fashion in barrages is adversely affecting my constituency. There is a barrage on the River Tawe at Swansea. That river flows out of my constituency. There is a barrage proposed for the River Taff which also flows out of my constituency. There might be a barrage on the River Usk, which is also a major river flowing out of my constituency. It appears that only the River Wye will have an open flow into the Severn estuary.
  Dr. Kim Howells: Give it time.
  Mr. Livsey: Indeed, give it time. Eventually that may also be blocked.
  Whether we want all of these barrages is an important environmental issue for the whole of south Wales to consider. The costs and on costs of a barrage across the Taff—or certainly the maintenance costs—could amount to £150 million a year according to some of the more pessimistic views. If that is the case, one could say that the £150 million would be better spent in attracting more business to Cardiff without a barrage but possibly with better transport systems or other similar ideas.
  The present barrage proposal might not necessarily be essential for the redevelopment of Cardiff bay, which was the point made by the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells). Perhaps a little mud will not put people off investing in the area and that money could still flow in.
  There is also a strong environmental factor. The Government agency—the Cardiff Bay development corporation—may be the first body to destroy a site of special scientific interest. That is worth serious consideration. The main objections at the moment involve
  650
  groundwater. The report by Hydrotechnica has not been available long enough to receive proper consideration. That is an important point because there are other reports in the pipeline which have not yet been published but without which the House cannot give proper consideration to the background of scientific information which could perhaps make us more able to take objective decisions.
  Mr. Michael: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way because at the beginning of his speech he made some rather outrageous remarks about the dangers of flooding. We must be very careful and responsible in the House about the way in which we deal with such issues. If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence to support what he said, I hope that he will give us the benefit of it. While doing so perhaps he will tell us whether in raising such a range of objections he is speaking for his party. Some of his colleagues have previously been helpful and supportive of the Bill and we thought that the one or two people in Grangetown who came out against the barrage during the local elections were an aberration among the Liberal Democrats. Indeed, they did very badly as a result of coming out against the barrage at that time. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will enlighten us.
  Mr. Livsey: I shall certainly not give a diatribe about the internal politics of Cardiff but I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is a 65 in. rainfall in the Brecon Beacons which might have some impact on flooding around Cardiff bay. That is evidence which one ignores at one's peril.
  The bases of sewers in the Cardiff bay area is a serious issue. The fact that large parts of Cardiff were built on made ground in the Grangetown and Riverside area makes analysis difficult and, for the purposes of modelling, very difficult. Some residents are worried that at present there does not appear to be allowance for compensation for damage to property in areas outside the designated area. Many elderly people living in such areas may have to take precautionary measures such as putting damp courses in their houses.
  Issues surrounding the Hydrotechnica report need careful analysis. The report has so far failed to produce a model that represents the historical behaviour in terms of time variant water level movement and flows. It seems that most of Hydrotechnica's efforts have been directed towards solving the computer problems that it has met in the modelling. That gives rise to some fears about the report.
  One factor causing unease at present and which the Secretary of State must take into account is that, from evidence given to it, the Select Committee stressed in its recommendations that a year was the minimum time necessary to study the impact of a one-year cycle of groundwater. Unfortunately, despite the statements made to the Select Committee and subsequently to the various meetings held by the Cardiff Bay development corporation and others, the attempts during the 12-month period to collect data have been half hearted. From the evidence, it appears that sewer flow data are available only for a very short period, from February 1991 to early April. That is a total of about five weeks out of a possible 52 recommended for the study. Similarly, the approach to understanding the made ground was tardy and data were collected for only

  651
  one month in July 1991. For those reasons, one must have reservations about whether we have sufficient data to make an objective judgment on the Cardiff bay barrage.
  Water quality and pollution are also serious worries in terms of the Taff and of the Ely. The probability of algae blooms occurring and the possibility of that creating a health hazard must be taken into account. The National Rivers Authority's computer model suggests that there will be a bad algal problem—possibly the worst in Britain—in the inland water behind the barrage. That could preclude water sports and could create a serious midge problem and it may be necessary to deploy anti-midge chemicals to control the problem.
  I am naturally concerned about the efficacy of the fish passes on the Taff. Salmon, of course, find it difficult to arrive in one piece after going up the valleys because they face many hazards there. None the less, it would be a good idea to give them a chance. The fish pass is an important aspect and it must be properly designed. I trust that the NRA is studying the matter carefully. The provisions concerning bird life in the bay area have had close analysis and do not seem to be entirely adequate.
  It would be better to debate the Bill next year because a debate then would be better informed. The idea of the barrage could be good, but we must be certain that all safeguards are in place. It would be better to have a proper, informed debate when all the reports are on the table, when we can all read those reports and when we can come to some conclusions as a result.
  5.2 pm
  Mr. Ron Davies: My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) reassured our hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) that those of us who represent Cardiff constituencies fully supported the redevelopment of Cardiff. I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth that I wish Cardiff city council and the development corporation well in their attempts to rejuvenate Cardiff and to provide employment and housing in the derelict area of Cardiff. There is no question of reservations on our part about the necessity of the work being done for the redevelopment of Cardiff.
  However, we have some reservations—I have three—about the way in which the work is being conducted. First, I am sad that a development corporation is in place. I would far rather that the decisions were taken by people who were accountable to the public under a proper system of democracy. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) made clear his reservations about the way in which the corporation works.
  Secondly, I have reservations about the fact that the development corporation seems to have an endless pit from which to draw resources. We know that money is being splashed about in a variety of ways. I do not begrudge Cardiff that expenditure, but I begrudge the fact that my constituency is denied such largesse, and does not have a fair dip in the pool.
  Thirdly, I regret the way in which the Welsh Office's spending priorities have been distorted by its fanaticism about putting all the resources into south Cardiff. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd mentioned the way in which Welsh Office expenditure on the national health service had been twisted. I am conscious of the way in which transport expenditure has been skewed towards
  652
  South Glamorgan. I do not begrudge South Glamorgan receiving that money, but I begrudge the fact that South Glamorgan is receiving the money whereas my county of Mid Glamorgan is not. Over the past four or five years, on the basis of per capita comparisons, Mid Glamorgan has done badly.
  With the rundown of basic industries in Mid Glamorgan, we need a proper transport system and a proper infrastructure. We are being doubly disadvantaged by being denied access to reasonable investment in transport and by having to compete with South Glamorgan, which has all the advantages in terms of investment. That makes life difficult for us in the valley communities.
  The Secretary of State said that the Bill replaces the private Bill which fell in the previous Session. He rather unkindly implied that there was something undemocratic about the defeat of the private Bill.
  Mr. David Hunt indicated dissent.
  Mr. Davies: I am glad to see the Secretary of State shaking his head. I presume that he is denying that he implied that there was anything undemocratic. However, he said on two or three occasions that the private Bill was killed off by a minority—
  Mr. Hunt: Blocked.
  Mr. Davies: Blocked. The implication is that we somehow subverted the democratic process. I am glad that the Secretary of State is not making that allegation. What point was he trying to make when he emhasised that a "minority" had stopped the Bill proceeding through the House?
  Mr. Hunt: I was objecting to the fact that Opposition Members, who were comparatively few in number, had used the democratic process to block the Bill.
  Mr. Davies: I fail to see what point the right hon. Gentleman is trying to make. The defeat of the private Bill showed that the Secretary of State carries little clout in the Cabinet. We all know that he tried diligently to get Conservative Members to be present that night so that the Bill would go through. We all know that a three-line Whip operated—[HON MEMBERS: "It did not."] The evidence is in the report of the debate on that April night. I will not rehearse the arguments now.
  The hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones), who was so pious in his condemnation of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd, could not manage to get his act together and vote in a crucial Division. The hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler), who challenged my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), could not be bothered to vote on that night. The hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) could not be bothered to vote. Before the Secretary of State throws around allegations about minorities, he should ask where his hon. Friends were that night when the Government's failure to deliver a majority caused the Bill to be defeated.
  Mr. Allan Rogers: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Davies: I will give way, although I want to make progress because other hon. Friends wish to speak.
  Mr. Rogers: I hope that my hon. Friend will carry on.
  Mr. Davies: The private Bill procedure is inadequate. I am glad that the Secretary of State acknowledged that we used the democratic process. There can be no criticism of us for that. It was abundantly clear from the time when the Bill was introduced that several of us had deep-rooted objections. It was proper for us to use the procedures of the House to achieve the outcome that we wanted.
  The Secretary of State mentioned that the process will be reviewed. I hope that the lesson of the Cardiff bay barrage does not result in a new system which is equally at fault being imposed on us. There is a grave danger that a system will be introduced under which private Bills—and we all understand the purpose of private Bills and the fact that they serve a private financial interest—will be pushed through the House at the behest of the Government. That should concern us all, regardless of where we stand in the debate on the Cardiff bay barrage.
  We know that, over the years, the Government have subverted the private Bill procedure for their own purposes. One valid parallel with today's proceedings is the great battle—if I can use that expression—that took place in the previous Parliament on the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill, which was presented to Parliament in 1985. Between 1985 and 1988, that Bill was subject to fierce rearguard action by hon. Members who represent the mining group and those of us who are in the conservation lobby. The Bill was designed to destroy a site of special scientific interest on the Orwell estuary known as the Fagbury flats, which were home to about 15,000 waders. It was an extremely important international site for wildlife.
  The Felixstowe Docks and Railway Company presented the Bill to override the protection given to the SSSI by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. It wanted to extend the docks up the Orwell, which would destroy that site. The Secretary of State of the time approved the scheme—we did not have to have an environmental impact assessment—on the basis of his assertion that the benefits to the national economy outweighed the damage to an internationally important wildlife site. That is precisely the same argument as was put to us by the Secretary of State today.
  The Felixstowe docks were subject to certain exemptions at the time of the Bill. They were not subject to the normal restrictive practices that operated in the docks and it was not part of the national dock labour scheme—[Interruption.] I shall explain the importance of that to the Secretary of State in a moment. Those exemptions gave temporary advantages to the docks. However, the judgment of the then Secretary of State was based on the need to allow those docks to expand to benefit from those advantages.
  The Government then removed the advantages that the Felixstowe docks once had. They got rid of the national dock labour scheme and, shortly after the Bill was enacted, the docks started to lose their commercial advantage. By the time the SSSI was destroyed, Felixstowe had lost all such advantages. What happened? the port started to lose trade and all the major operators transferred their services from Felixstowe. More than 100 jobs at the port were lost.
  The Bill destroyed an SSSI that was an internationally important wildlife site. That private Bill had been whipped through on the champagne vote when—[Interruption.] The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State was not in the House at the time of those votes, so I do not know what he is laughing about. I can assure him that champagne
  654
  parties were held across the road from the Chamber at 8 o'clock in the morning to ensure that his colleagues voted on Report.
  The Government subverted the democratic process in the 1980s and today's Bill is a direct parallel of their previous behaviour. The Secretary of State cannot have it both ways and he must accept the lessons from the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill.
  Sir Anthony Meyer (Clwyd, North-Wales): I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that the dock labour scheme so effectively sabotaged all the other ports in the country—as my colleagues and I consistently said—that Felixstowe derived immense benefit from being out of it. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, once that scheme was abolished in other ports, Felixstowe lost its unique advantage.
  Mr. Davies: I am sorry that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman if that is the best that he can make of the argument. The hon. Gentleman knows that the rationale behind that Bill was to capitalise on the special advantages Felixstowe gained because it was outwith the national dock labour scheme. Of course, when the Government abolished that scheme, Felixstowe lost that advantage, but by that time the damage had been done. The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that.
  Mr. Rogers: My hon. Friend has mentioned the parallels with Felixstowe. Does he agree with me that one can also detect the hand of Associated British Ports in the Bill before us? Part of the objection to the Cardiff bay barrage development is the huge financial benefits that Associated British Ports, a private company, will receive as a result of the expenditure of an enormous amount of public money. Besides being a large contributor to the Conservative party, that company has had its hand in many tills. Its chairman, a former Secretary of State for Wales, set the ball rolling some years ago so that the company could maximise its land holdings in the city of Cardiff to the detriment of the residents.
  Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend is a far better student than I of the intricacies of Associated British Ports and and his intervention establishes the case beyond doubt.
  The Secretary of State has claimed that a balance must be struck between the economic gains to be had from any proposed development and the environmental losses. I accept that; it is at the heart of the debate about Cardiff bay. We must decide whether we attach greater importance to the perceived economic gains or to the need to protect a fragile environment. It is a pity that the case must be determined by assertion. The Secretary of State has asserted that the economic case outweighs the environmental case. However, if we are to benefit from past four years' debates on Cardiff bay and avoid this sort of wrangle in the future, we must have a mechanism to provide a better evaluation of the relative merits of economic gain as opposed to environmental loss. It is a pity that we have not developed that mechanism.
  We no longer have a national strategy for the protection of our environment. Following the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, there was a bipartisan agreement on the way in which our environment should be protected. In the past two years, however, that agreement has been reneged on by the Government. They cynically destroyed

  655
  that agreement when they decided that the Nature Conservancy Council, the Government's advisory body, was to be broken up and put under political control.
  However, the Secretary of State has got the tiger by the tail. He set up the Countryside Council for Wales, which was charged with the responsibility of giving him objective scientific advice, but now that he sees fit not to accept that objective scientific advice, he sets it to one side. Earlier, I challenged the Secretary of State to justify that act. It appears that the right hon. Gentleman does not understand the importance of his decision. He does not appreciate that he has set a precedent by setting aside the objective scientific guidance provided by the Countryside Council for Wales.
  It is important to put on record the view of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. It wrote to the Secretary of State after he had overridden the advice of the Countryside Council and it set out its objections. The Secretary of State announced his decision about the special protection area at Cardiff bay on 1 November in a press release and the RSPB sent a letter in response which stated:
  "First, your letter dwells on the relative number of birds occurring in Cardiff Bay compared to the Severn as a whole, and on the relative areas involved. Estuarine ecosystems, such as those making up the Severn are not discrete and separate: each component part is integral to the interest of the whole. Birds 'displaced' by destruction of the Taff/Ely estuary cannot simply be accommodated elsewhere in the Severn: food supply and competition factors would prevent this…It was the view put formally to your Department by NCC in March 1990 when they advised that Cardiff Bay was (and is) an integral part of the area which should be designated as SPA. A view subsequently confirmed by the JnCC … Secondly, the Leybucht judgment is cited. We consider that the way it is prayed in aid of this decision subverts the intent of the Directive, which is to safeguard a sufficiency of sites (SPA's) so as to maintain bird numbers. It is not tenable to react by seeking to justify refusal to designate sites or parts of sites by changing the accepted scientific approach to site selection, simply because they are controversial. The RSPB fears that this attitude will blight conservation action on a significant part of the UK's internationally important wildlife resources in future."
  It is worth spending a moment to consider the logic of the Secretary of State's decision. More than 10 years ago Cardiff bay was selected as a part of the generally important Severn estuary that deserved special protection due to its over-wintering wildlife. On that basis it was designated an SSSI. In 1990, the Government's advisers recommended that, not only should Cardiff bay be protected but, due to its general importance, the whole of the Severn estuary should be included as a special protection area.
  Now, the Secretary of State has turned logic on its head. He has said that the estuary as a whole will be an SPA, but the specific district that merited special protection 10 or 12 years ago should be excluded from the overall protection offered the estuary. If that decision is not challenged in the courts, I do not know what will be. The Secretary of State has done himself a disservice. It would have been better if he had accepted the case for designation, but said that he still believed that the economic case was overwhelming and, on that basis, the Government were prepared to make an environmental sacrifice. However, the Secretary of State seems to be trying to cheat on the rules.
  I shall now consider the latest development at a European level to standardise protection. At the Hague, between 19 and 21 November, there was a conference on
  656
  European coastal conservation. The Government were represented at the conference and were signatories to its three major conclusions. The first stated:
  "that there is an urgent need to adopt and implement a European strategy for integrated planning and management of all European coastal zones based on the principles of sustainability and sound ecological and environmental practice".
  There can be no conceivable circumstances in which the development proposed for Cardiff bay meets any of those criteria.
  The conclusions continue:
  "that conservation and sustainable use of coastal zones is one of the fundamental aspects of such a strategy and that accordingly high priority should be given to specific action to implement this".
  The conference was saying that a high priority should be given to designating areas deserving of protection—in complete contradiction to the decision announced 20 days before by the Secretary of State for Wales.
  The third conclusion was:
  "that this strategy should he applied to the coast as a single coherent system including the coastal waters and estuaries and the land directly or indirectly influenced by and influencing the coastal zone".
  That argument, that the strategy should apply to a single coherent system, lies at the heart of the matter. All the conservation organisations that have opposed the measure have done so on the basis that we cannot set aside and sacrifice a specific district and expect that to have no impact on the greater whole.
  The British Government attended that conference and were signatories to its conclusions, as were 20 or 30 of their European partners, organisations including the Council of Europe, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the European Commission. It is difficult to conceive of a more bizarre occurrence. Last week, the Government were putting their name to a declaration that enshrined the principle of the protection of our fragile eco-systems; today—a week later—they present a Bill to the House that is at complete variance with the principles to which they put their name a week earlier.
  We need a clear and consistent policy from the Government showing their approach to the protection of our fragile ecosystems if we are not to have increasing conflict between development groups and conservation pressures. I do not believe that debates such as this provide the proper way to reconcile such conflicts, which we must take out of the political arena. One week a certain pressure might be given priority and the next week another one could be given priority. We need a consistent set of policies to protect the environment and ensure that beleaguered communities such as mine in the valleys and those in Cardiff know precisely how they can develop. The Government would do us all—certainly the electors of Cardiff—a great favour if they were to remove the uncertainty about such developments and lay before the House a system for reconciling the conflicts.
  If there is one lesson to be learnt from the five Bills presented on the development of the Cardiff bay barrage it is that there are contradictory pressures and almost overwhelming forces on both sides of the argument. Political debates such as this are not the proper way to resolve those conflicts.
  5.26 pm
  Mr. Gwilym Jones: I fear that the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) allowed his fertile imagination to run away with him and to ignore the facts. He hurled out charges that my hon. Friends the Members for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) and for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler) and I had not had the courtesy to stay to vote in all the Divisions when we last debated the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill. Since he made that charge, I have looked at the records and can assure him of my presence at each of the Divisions at 9.13 pm, 9.29 pm, 10 pm, 12.52 am and 4.11 am. The hon. Gentleman may have missed the fact that for three of those Divisions I acted as a teller.
  Mr. Ron Davies: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. I have a copy of the Division list now; I made a mistake and I offer my unreserved apologies. He was recorded as a teller. I should have known better and checked the voting list. As a teller, he did not vote, and I offer him my apologies.
  Mr. Jones: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and normal relations are restored. I look forward to his future career as Chief Whip of the Labour party.
  I shall make my contribution fairly brief because I have a sense of deja vu, or, put more simply, here we go again. Although I do not speak for my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist), who, because of other parliamentary pressures, greatly regrets that he cannot be here, I am sure that I echo his thoughts when I say that the sense of "here we go again" is very much abroad in Cardiff.
  I disagree with the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) that now is the wrong time to be debating the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill. It is certainly not too early to be doing so. In Cardiff I am frequently asked why the measure is not yet on the statute book after so much time has been spent on it. I say that as strongly as possible. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor did not wish to indulge in a diatribe on the politics of Cardiff because that city is, I think, foreign to him. Were he to spend more time in Cardiff, he would realise the importance that many of its citizens attach to the rapid progress of this and many other important measures.
  Mr. Livsey: I said that in the context of the fact that not all the reports are out, which means that we cannot have an objective analysis of the issue. In that context, the debate is too early. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will accept that I know much about Cardiff as my grandfather lived there for 50 years.
  Mr. Jones: I fear that, like many a good Liberal, the hon. Gentleman is 50 years out of date.
  The people of Cardiff want the measure to progress, and the hon. Gentleman would be at variance with that sentiment were he to say otherwise. There is great frustration among the people that a handful—on looking at the voting list I found that it was at most 29—of hon. Members sought to thwart the progress of the previous Bill. That handful dwindled between 9.13 pm and 9.29 pm. The number continued to drop until by the last Division only eight Members were left in the No Lobby, trying to stop the measure progressing for the capital city of Wales.
  Mr. Ron Davies: That is correct. But will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the failure of the promoters of the Bill to find 100 Members to close the debate led to the downfall of the measure?
  Mr. Jones: I suggest that a moral and intellectual bankruptcy on the hon. Gentleman's side failed to produce any impressive vote against the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill. Although we did not make sufficient progress that night on mere technicalities, there was a clear, even at times a large, majority in favour of the Bill. I accept that we did not have enough Members to satisfy the rules of the House. That is why the proponents of the measure were at the greater disadvantage. I do not count it as a great loss to be defeated by a mere eight.
  Mr. Michael: In the spirit of amity in the Chamber tonight, does the hon. Gentleman accept that one thing on which we can all agree is that the private Bill system caused disadvantage to all, whether for or against the barrage? Does he agree that the procedure created many of the disagreements and problems that underlay the arguments which persisted throughout the process until that date?
  Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, but we have moved on and the measure is now a Government Bill. We have the problems of the private Bill behind us and I hope that we can make progress. On behalf of my city and as representative for Cardiff, North, I inform the House that there is great regret that so much has been done which will have to be done again. We are having only our first debate on the Bill—the Second Reading debate—tonight.
  The delays which have come to pass so far will pale into insignificance when eventually we can look back on the successful creation of the barrage in Cardiff and the regeneration of the area. It is no short project. It will take a long time to come to pass. The time that we have wasted and the hours that we have spent through the nights will pale into insignificance when it has all happened.
  However, I would be failing in my duty if I did not tell my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that there is continuing anxiety about a further point. It is feared that the general election will intervene to frustrate progress on the Cardiff bay barrage. The Opposition have tabled an amendment described as a reasoned amendment which refers to groundwater, consultation and water quality. The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) spoke at great length about the various points in his reasoned amendment, including his reservations that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State might be the arbiter in matters of water quality. He said that he would prefer an independent arbiter. Yet on the whole the hon. Gentleman's speech was lightweight. He made points which essentially were not Second Reading points but points which deserve to be properly considered in Committee. I am sure that they will be considered in Committee.
  I was amazed that the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside, who occupies the position of shadow Secretary of State for Wales, could waffle on for so long saying nothing. Even when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asked whether he supported the central principle in the Bill, and whether he was in favour of the Cardiff bay barrage, he was never prepared to come off the fence and answer the question. He refused to say. He waffled and simply would not come to the point. That was not

  659
  untypical of his hon. Friends. Perhaps with more credence, they advanced their reservations about parts of the Bill. But in their turn they avoided the central principle of the Bill.
  Surely the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside and other Opposition Members cannot be blind to the advantages that the Cardiff bay barrage will bring and the comparative disadvantages that would occur if the barrage was not built. Opposition Members must have researched the matter, but if they have not I remind them that in January 1990 a definitive planning update and economic appraisal statement was published by a group of development consultants. The consultants were Roger Tym and Partners, Conran Roche, Chesterton, and Peat Marwick McClintock. A major part of the study compared the likely outcome of the Cardiff Bay development corporation project with and without the barrage. The analysis of their conclusions is worth recalling.
  The study said that there would be 24,850 permanent jobs with the barrage but only 12,700 jobs without it. There would be 24,000 man-years of construction jobs with the barrage but only 11,000 without it. It is calculated that the project will generate 4,774 new homes with the barrage but only 2,543 new homes without it.
  Mr. Rogers: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman says. The views of the valley Members have been badly misrepresented in the debate. It has been suggested that we are selfish and that we do not want the development in Cardiff. That is untrue. I will vote to give Cardiff Bay development corporation any powers, but I do not see how the expenditure of about £400 million of public money will increase economic development in the Cardiff area. That is why I am interested in the report to which the hon. Gentleman refers. Perhaps he will disabuse me if I am ignorant of the advantages, but I understand that the barrage will create an area of water in which people can park boats and which people will be able to see from their houses. It will not add one square inch of land.
  I am interested to know how the barrage will create more jobs. Is it expected that people will build factories in Cardiff if their workers can go out fishing at lunchtime or park their boats in the bay? I genuinely want to be converted.
  Mr. Jones: I fear that the hon. Gentleman has not done any real research. He cannont have read any of the reports, such as the appraisal statement to which I have referred. How can anyone doubt that the Cardiff bay barrage and the freshwater lake that it would create would result in a total transformation and regeneration of the south Cardiff area? Without the barrage the area will be exactly as the advertisements to which the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) referred suggest. In various places we have seen the two pictures. One shows a stagnant landscape and the other shows a transformed, vibrant landscape. That transformed vibrancy would provide a real incentive to the development. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that if he studies the matter he will realise that that real incentive and that transformation will encourage people to build and expand their horizons. That is where all the extra growth will come from.
  I reiterate the figures. I invite the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) to study the report produced by the development consultants. They estimate that there will
  660
  be 7,440 million sq ft of commercial space with the barrage but only 3,991 million sq ft without it and that the project will achieve £125·55 million of capital investment with the barrage but only £54·2 million without it.
  Most interestingly, private sector leverage would occur at a ratio of 7:1 with the barrage but at only 3·5:1 without it. Those effects of transforming our waterside in Cardiff will be brought about only by the barrage. Compared with a barrage-less development, the barrage will bring 49 per cent. extra permanent jobs to Cardiff bay, 47 per cent. extra houses, 54 per cent. extra construction jobs, 46 per cent. extra commercial space and 50 per cent. extra private sector leverage on investment.
  Dr. Kim Howells: I am intrigued by the extraordinary exactitude of the hon. Gentleman's figures. Why does the Conservative party appear to have a sexual obsession with damming and impounding flowing water, and why does it see stagnant water as a magnet that will attract jobs?
  Mr. Jones: That was a fascinating selection of adjectives, but if the hon. Gentleman wants to go into sexual fetishes I refuse to follow him.
  The research has been thorough and it has been carried out by development consultants and others. What it describes will come to pass; the essential catalyst will be the construction of the barrage. Obviously, construction jobs depend on that, but there will also be a transformation of the landscape. I invite Opposition Members quietly to reflect on the pictures in the advertisements of the Cardiff bay development corporation. They show the difference between stagnation and a vibrant landscape. The figures are not mine; they have been excellently researched by the consultants.
  Mr. Morgan: I find the hon. Gentleman's touching faith in the veracity of the advertising breathtaking. He reminds me of the old lady who was once discovered wandering disconsolately around a supermarket, unsure of what to buy. The supermarket manager asked her why she did not know what to buy. She replied that her telly was broken, so she had seen no advertisements. The hon. Gentleman similarly seems to think that what advertisements say must be true. As a Member of Parliament, he should involve himself in discovering whether these advertisements mean anything and whether the consultants' reports mean anything.
  We have all seen consultants' reports commissioned in our time. The consultants always ask the person paying for the reports what he wants them to say. If they are paid for saying that, they will say it, as they have done on this occasion. The hon. Gentleman must use his independent judgment to put a value on the consultants' figures, which have been dreamt up out of thin air.
  Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman brought a smile to my face then. For a moment I detected a return to the old good humour that used to typify his contributions—he approached every fresh problem with a fresh joke.
  Mr. Rogers: It was not a very good one.
  Mr. Jones: I agree. It is just that I was pleased to hear a note of humour that has been absent for too long returning to the hon. Gentleman.
  The hon. Member for Cardiff, West should raise his sights above his cynicism. Certainly there is a place for cynicism and we should all be critical from time to time,

  661
  but this project has been so well researched that the time for cynicism has passed. Now is the time for a grand vision of what can be brought about in Cardiff bay. It can only come about if the barrage is built. The case for it deserves better than the cynical examination to which it has been subjected.
  As I was saying, the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside refused to get off the fence. I can recall times when the hon. Gentleman voted with me in favour of the former Bill. We were almost appreciative of his support, which was offered in the true bipartisan spirit that has characterised this measure.
  What has happened to the Leader of the Opposition, whose name is among those heading the amendment? I can remember him saying at the Dispatch Box that if other business had not kept him away he would have supported the Bill in the Lobbies.
  Sir Anthony Meyer: Would my hon. Friend concede that the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) are following that excellent precept for leadership—"I must follow them because I am their leader"?
  Mr. Jones: I cannot top that.
  Where is the consistency of the Leader of the Opposition on this matter, important as it is to the capital city of Wales and to south Wales? The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside padded out his remarks with artificial indignation about the lord mayor of the capital city of Wales, councillor Jeffrey Sainsbury, having been appointed by my right hon. Friend as a director of the Cardiff Bay development corporation. The hon. Gentleman tried to suggest that that was wrong. I believe that it struck the right balance. There are positions for five local councillors on the development corporation—two from Cardiff, two from South Glamorgan and one from Vale of Glamorgan council—
  Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman will not help his right hon. Friend by pursuing that. I was chief whip of the city Labour group when the arrangements were made, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that his suggestion is way out of order. Before the 1987 election an arrangement was made for the period following that election, so the suggestion of evenhandedness means that the decisions of the voters of Cardiff can be disregarded. That is not a sound argument, and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman will draw his right hon. Friend into deeper waters by pursuing it.
  Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman does not anticipate me very well; that is not the point that I was trying to make, which is that the Labour party sought after elections this year to take not just two, three or four but every one of the local council seats on the Cardiff Bay development corporation. How did that constitute a balanced approach? My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made the right contribution by maintaining the bipartisan approach, after taking advice from the council. He appointed one Conservative and one Labour member from the Cardiff city council while accepting the three Labour nominations from the other two councils.
  Mr. Michael: If the hon. Gentleman reads the speech by the Secretary of State's predecessor, he will find that he
  662
  promised that five places would be set aside to be decided by the local authorities. Those local authorities contain the number of Labour members that serve on them due to the choice of the electorate. Again I suggest that this line of argument is unsound. The hon. Gentleman is not helping his right hon. Friend: he is making matters worse.
  Mr. Jones: I do not accept that line of argument from the hon. Gentleman. My right hon. Friend can choose to appoint whomsoever he thinks fit. Naturally, he listens to recommendations from the local councils, as he clearly did on this occasion, but he was absolutely right not to adopt all their suggestions.
  The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside cited the example of Cardiff city centre's redevelopment around the St. David's centre. He mentioned that as an example of partnership. The person who should be given the credit as the father of the redevelopment of the city centre and of the fine St. David's centre was the late councillor Ron Watkiss. It was his place on the development corporation that fell vacant because of his untimely death before the local elections, and the appointment of the lord mayor followed on naturally from that. The advantages accruing from the redevelopment of the city centre, as cited by the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside, have been maintained by upholding councillor Watkiss' guiding spirit.
  Mr. Michael: In that case, will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether the occupancy of the development corporation board place will change when the occupancy of the lord mayor's seat changes?
  Mr. Jones: That will depend on what happens when the incumbent's term expires—as the hon. Gentleman knows full well.
  Mr. Rogers: Should not the more important issue of the large salaries being paid to these local authority members be looked at? Does not the hon. Gentleman think it wrong in principle that elected councillors should be paid such salaries on these corporation bodies? These duties are merely an extension of their usual council duties. It is fair enough for the councillors to claim the normal allowances, but the hon. Gentleman's proposition would give them a biased view of what is in the interests of their citizens. If they are receiving thousands of pounds as members of Cardiff Bay development corporation, they are unlikely to look dispassionately at the interests of their wards. In all fairness, they would be under a great deal of pressure.
  Mr. Jones: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's fear. I am confident that councillors such as John Philips, Lord Brookes and Paddy Kitson will do their duty as members of the corporation and as local councillors. I do not know the name of the other Labour nomination for the Vale of Glamorgan council, but I know of Jeff Sainsbury. The small salaries that they would be paid as directors of the corporation will not sway them. The work is not merely an extension of the work that they already do. They will be expected to put a great deal of time into their offices and deserve to be compensated.
  The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside spoke about co-operation. Co-operation is not always evident in Cardiff. South Glamorgan council is seeking to usurp the planning authority that is normally the preserve of Cardiff city council. An example is the medicentre at the University Hospital of Wales. The Labour-controlled South Glamorgan council is trying to set up a commercial

  663
  development on a national health centre site and wants to be judge and jury in its own court. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside is not in his place. If he were, I would ask him to try to persuade South Glamorgan council away from the fait accompli that is threatened. Developments such as the medicentre should be situated in Cardiff bay. That would be better than further intensifying the use of the University Hospital of Wales site, with all the consequences for my constituents who live nearby.
  I had an exchange with the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) about the old BBC offices. He was right to remind us about the granting of planning permission. I apologise to no one for doing all that I can to frustrate office development on that site. The most obvious place for that development is Cardiff bay. However, I am happy for claims to be advanced by Merthyr, Pontypridd or Rhondda, or by anyone else. I shall continue to oppose over-intensive use of the site because that has grave traffic implications. Conservative councillors and I managed to persuade Labour-dominated Cardiff city council to turn down the scheme. The issue went to appeal and the Welsh Office found that as the site was already in office use it should remain in such use. I am sorry that the Secretary of State could not have reached a different conclusion.
  South Glamorgan council offered to facilitate the development by providing a new junction at Caerphilly road and Manor way where there was potential for grid-locking traffic in north Cardiff into the constituency of Pontypridd and possibly Caerphilly. I agreed with the hon. Member for Cardiff, West when he suggested that future expansion of University College, Cardiff was unlikely to be able to proceed in the north of the city. That is right, and I rushed to agree with the hon. Gentleman. I should like to see a statutory green belt policy applied in the north of Cardiff, possibly using the line of the M4. Other areas south of the M4 should also be protected by a statutory green belt. South Glamorgan council persists in trying to develop green fields and should be stopped by a green belt policy.
  It has been suggested that the Opposition amendment is merely a cosmetic exercise to cover the cracks in the Opposition. It is felt that Labour's approach to the Bill and to other matters will prove embarrassing at the election and could cost Labour votes in the marginals in south Wales. Where does Labour stand on this issue? Perhaps in his winding-up speech the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) will tell us.
  It was thought that there was a bipartisan approach because the previous Bill was promoted not only by the development corporation but by Labour-controlled South Glamorgan council. It is perhaps germane to recall the words of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who said, "If we can change our policies to win, we can change them back just as quickly afterwards." The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside previously supported the Bill, and the Leader of the Opposition has said that he would have supported it if he could have been here.
  It will be interesting to see how Opposition Members vote on Second Reading. There is already a tendency in south Wales for the Opposition to be identified as Luddites. The leftward shift of Cardiff city council means that it is now moving to oppose the Bill, and I understand that the council will petition against it. It brought out a long-winded summons which concludes that the council will oppose the Bill. However, it is a summons for a
  664
  meeting of the council at 8 am. What opposition is the council trying to avoid by calling a meeting at that time? Suggestions of cosmetic exercises and Luddites could be very much to our political advantage. We could have another London factor leading to votes for Conservatives in south Wales.
  I hope that we can put all that behind us. The Bill presents a tremendous opportunity for regeneration and transformation of the capital city of Wales. It will lead to many jobs and new homes and environmental improvements. Not least, it will improve the flood defences of our city. Cardiff grew dramatically in the last century because of coal, the railways and the port. That has been reversed since the 1920s because coal has not been exported in such quantity and the tendency has been for coal to be imported through the port of Cardiff. The Bill is an opportunity for a 21st century rebirth of our capital city through 25,000 new permanent jobs and new housing. A quarter of that housing will be social housing, which is necessary for that part of our capital city and for south Wales generally. The jobs will benefit not only Cardiff because their impact will be felt over a much wider area.
  It has been overwhelmingly proved that the Bill will be of tremendous advantage to Cardiff. We must grasp the opportunity. All the problems are envisaged or are being tackled. Now is the time for vision, not cynicism. Let us put behind us all the time-wasting of the past.
  5.59 pm
  Mr. Alun Michael: I was looking forward to saying what a good-tempered debate we were having, but then the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) was mischievous at the end of his speech. I am sure that, deep down under that mischievous surface, he appreciates that to support a reasoned amendment is to make a reasoned argument. He knows the enthusiasm with which I have supported the barrage project since its earliest days. He will not succeed in dividing the Labour party. He did not help his case by accusing Labour Members of being Luddites when all of us know the tremendous work that has been done by Labour members of local authorities to encourage inward investment and the redevelopment of south Wales. That is true not only of Cardiff city council and South Glamorgan county council but of other Labour-controlled county councils in south Wales.
  When I spoke at the end of the debate on the private Bill, in response to the comments of a number of my hon. Friends, I pledged my support for the needs of the valleys. I appealed to my hon. Friends not to deny Cardiff the development associated with the barrage and said that in return I would support, with every possible effort, the redevelopment of the valleys. Despite the efforts to bring jobs into Cardiff, unemployment is very high there. Cardiff, Central is the constituency with the highest unemployment in Wales while Cardiff, South and Penarth and Cardiff, West are among the 10 constituencies with the most unemployment. There is a considerable unemployment problem to be overcome, and the regeneration of Cardiff is as essential as the regeneration of the valley communities represented by my hon. Friends.
  Our amendment states three important principles. The first is that nothing should be done to weaken the protections available to any who might—I stress "might"—be adversely affected by groundwater. Secondly, it says

  665
  that the results of the public consultation on the Secretary of State's expert advice should be available to the House at this stage, but that the exercise is not yet finished. Thirdly, it says that there should be independent scrutiny involved in the event of any disagreement between the National Rivers Authority and the Cardiff Bay development corporation over water quality. Other issues have been touched on in the debate, but are not part of the reasoned amendment and I want to ensure that the House is not misled and that the voice of my constituents does not go unheard on these points.
  I welcome the Secretary of State's reference to additional finance. We have been worried by the impact of the recession at a time when there is a danger that the development might be distorted because of the need to keep moving and to retain confidence.
  Three issues have not yet been fully dealt with. The first is housing. The development corporation has given an undertaking that 25 per cent. of the housing constructed will be social housing for rent. That percentage does not include student housing, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), or sheltered housing for the elderly for sale. That undertaking is important because it gives the existing community an undertaking that its children and grandchildren will have the opportunity to stay in south Cardiff. In view of the housing crisis in Cardiff, that contribution is not insignificant, although many of us would like the proportion to be even higher.
  The second issue is training. People living in the area, especially young people, should be given the opportunity to have the training necessary to give them the chance to get the jobs that will result from the redevelopment. An important start has been made through work between the development corporation and the private sector employers; it is a fragile start, but it should be encouraged and placed at the forefront of people's minds as the development proceeds.
  The third issue is relocation of existing businesses. That has been particularly difficult, because many businesses in older areas where the rental levels and the value of the land are low are having problems because of the impact of the recession. I hope that the Secretary of State will take to his Cabinet colleagues the experience of Cardiff and suggest that there be a change in compensation legislation. In France, for example, compensation for a public development is value plus 20 per cent., which allows an element of flexibility to encourage movement when that is in the greater public interest.
  The civil servants in the Welsh Office, the people working in the Cardiff Bay development corporation, and those in local authorities who have helped firms to relocate without the loss of jobs have been in difficulties because of the system that we have. A change is necessary, and I hope that we learn from this. Because of existing legislation, the Secretary of State cannot be more flexible, but I hope that he will continue to be as positive as he can and will encourage his civil servants to be as positive as they can on all these issues.
  Hon. Members have spoken about representation on the development corporation. The Labour party has always said that there is no need for a development corporation. We redeveloped the centre of Cardiff on a
  666
  cross-party basis and in co-operation with the private sector. The hon. Member for Cardiff, North was, like me, a member of the council during that important time. It is sad that the undertaking given by a previous Secretary of State, Lord Crickhowell—to provide five places to be decided by the local authorities—should be cast in doubt. I had not intended to touch on this matter today, but I must correct the hon. Member for Cardiff, North. It may have been a mistake by the then Secretary of State, but he gave a promise and I hope that, when the opportunity arises, the hon. Member for Cardiff, North will recognise the benefit that the councillor who was not accepted, councillor Geoff Mungham, would have brought to the operation of the development corporation. I am sure that it was not a personal decision, but it was a mistake.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) referred to the advertising budget. The main criticism of the Cardiff Bay development corporation is that it has not made its case locally as sensitively as it might have done, and has left it up to me, the county councils and others to do so. It is that rather than the spending of money in the area that is open to criticism.
  My hon. Friend made a number of telling points. I understand his point about the location of the Welsh health common services authority. I would hardly not welcome jobs coming to my constituency, but I recognise the validity of his case. I remind him that I have given an undertaking that I will work hard in co-operation with him and other colleagues to regenerate the economy of the whole area.
  Dr. Kim Howells: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend's latter remarks, and I hope that the common services authority will flourish in the bay and will bring more employment to the area. However, my observations were directed at the way in which the decision was arrived at by, among other people, the Welsh Office.
  Mr. Michael: I accept the validity of my hon. Friend's point, which he made well.
  My hon. Friend also referred to Techniquest. I had the pleasure the other week of visiting the science centre in Toronto and seeing examples of equipment from Techniquest. I saw its logo used in that centre. The Secretary of State has taken an interest in this. It is now moving into such sectors as chemistry, in which it is difficult to arouse public interest. I hope that it will be encouraged to develop naturally, in the way and the character that it assumed when it was developing under the innovative approach of Professor Beetlestone and his colleagues.
  I am sure that we want the project to be ambitious and a world leader and that everyone would unite in that aspiration. The problem is that we need the cash to develop the project, and that is where the relevance of the barrage comes into the equation in terms of development in south Cardiff.
  I agree also with my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Pontypridd on the importance of the centre for the performing arts. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), who has a love of opera, might agree with that, as long as the benefit of Welsh National Opera is retained and developed in south Wales and is of benefit to all parts of Wales and not only of the capital. It is important, of course, that other performing arts are involved.

  667
  When we consider the leverage figures on the options, with or without the barrage, there can be no doubt of the importance of the barrage, even if that is discounted by a percentage. Let us say that the leverage of private sector investment is 3·5:1 without the barrage and 7:1 with it. There would be 12,700 net jobs without the barrage and 24,850 with it. There would be a net value of minus £166 million without the barrage and a positive net value of £301 million with it. These figures are telling. With the barrage, there is an opportunity to secure the major investment, the major draw of jobs to the area and the major positive changes in the environment, in housing and in benefit to my constituents that we want to see. I recognise now that my hon. Friends who represent valley constituencies do not wish to obstruct those opportunities, although there have been occasions in the past when I have had momentary doubts about that. However, those times have past.
  As the percentage of the development has been discussed, it is surely right to refer to the courage that has been shown by those who have supported it from the beginning. The hon. Member for Cardiff, North mentioned councillor Ron Watkiss. I have spoken on previous occasions about the involvement of councillor John Reynolds, to whom I pay tribute. It is sad that neither of those cross-party colleagues is present to see their efforts come to fruition.
  I pay tribute also to the courage of South Glamorgan county council in creating a flagship at the heart of the development in south Wales. It is interesting that the county council can claim to have saved nearly £2·5 million already as a result of the development in south Cardiff. As it disposed of the former county headquarters to an inward investor, about 500 jobs have come to the city. Basically, and more importantly, the county council showed leadership and confidence in going forward into the development. As a result, others—especially in the private sector—shared the authority's confidence and went in behind it.
  I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) made a lightweight contribution to the debate. I asked him to substantiate his outrageous and unsupported suggestion that houses would be in danger of being flooded, and he failed to do so. I asked him to tell us whether he was speaking for his party, and he failed to do so. A common misapprehension of those who have not gone into these matters seriously is that the construction of a physical barrage across Cardiff bay will prevent flow out of the rivers. The barrage will, of course, be fitted with sluices to pass river flow when tide levels permit. It is not always realised that flow out of the rivers does not occur at high tides in present circumstances due to the presence of the mass of tidal water in the Bristol channel.
  It is clear, therefore—this was not in dispute when these issues were considered by the Select Committee—that the main beneficial effect of the barrage will be in excluding the high tide levels in the bay and the rivers. The barrage has a generally neutral effect on levels due to high river discharges. There is, however, a considerable question mark over the flood levels and what will be needed to deal with them in the event of global warming and the continuing rise of sea levels. In such circumstances we might thank our lucky stars for the existence of the
  668
  barrage, which would provide protection. Alternative investment would have to be massive to protect Cardiff from the danger of flooding.
  During the Select Committee's deliberations the danger of groundwater was at issue, not flooding. When I questioned the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor about that, he told the House that 65 in of rain falls in the Brecon Beacons. That was less than helpful. It is clear that the hon. Gentleman has not researched the danger of groundwater before coming to the Chamber to pontificate about it. It is clear also that he does not understand flooding issues generally.
  I have been concerned from the beginning whether the building of the barrage will give my constituents a better chance of a job, will increase their chance of a decent home, will improve their environment and will offer training opportunities. At the same time, it is necessary to consider the drawbacks. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West and I have always considered groundwater to be of crucial importance. I am not sure whether it is wise to use expressions such as "urban squalor" when they are not justified by scientific evidence. I recognise that that was a quote from one of the individuals on whom the campaigners against the barrage have placed great store. It is important to scrutinise all the evidence, and equally it is important not to worry people living in areas of Cardiff where there is no threat of a rise in groundwater. For that reason, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd was wise not to enter into the groundwater argument.
  That is why I sought the independent advice of Glyn Jones—now Professor Glyn Jones—and provided him with a brief, which was to be as searching and critical as possible in his study, the results of which would be made public, irrespective of whether they damaged the case for the barrage. The brief was provided also on the condition that the Cardiff Bay development corporation, and Hydrotechnica subsequently, would make available all reports and raw data required by him in preparing his advice to me.
  In his original report, Professor Glyn Jones stated that the consultants had built in a generous safety factor that had improved confidence in the calculations used for predictive purposes. He added that people living in the affected area could be considerably more assured than had previously been possible about the likely effect of the proposed barrage on groundwater conditions. Since then we have had the Hydrotechnica report, on which opponents placed such considerable emphasis.
  There are a couple of factors that Professor Glyn Jones as an independent adviser has drawn to my attention. They should be considered in addition to the reassurance that has already come from Hydrotechnica, as well as from Professor Lloyd, who scrutinised the report for Cardiff city council. This will be prior to the detailed scrutiny that the Secretary of State's adviser will be undertaking. It will be important for us to read his findings and I regret that they are not before us for the debate.
  Professor Glyn Jones says, first, that the terms of reference were agreed between the expert technical advisers to the corporation and the petitioners. Secondly, he observes that Hydrotechnica was free to include such work as it considered necessary over as large an area as it deemed appropriate. In short, the terms of reference were to be interpreted as guidelines and not as a straitjacket.

  669
  In the time available, I cannot go into the detail of Professor Glyn Jones's comments. I am merely saying that it is reassuring to those of us who have been looking forward to the Hydrotechnica results to give us a sound foundation on which to pass judgment on the groundwater issue. He tells me that the report showed the geological succession identified from previous investigations was confirmed as being fundamentally correct. He considers that the greatest advance has been made in the additional work on made ground. It is significant that about one third of the boreholes drilled into the made ground were dry and that the others showed only a thin saturated zone. All the evidence points to rapid vertical recharge and equally rapid horizontal drainage.
  It was Professor Glyn Jones's conclusions that Hydrotechnica had fulfilled the requirements of the agreed terms of reference without conceding any independence of action, that it had confirmed the general understanding of the hydrogeology of the area that was presented in previous works and added considerably to knowledge of the response of the made ground to natural and artificial inputs, that it had identified and quantified all but a few of the separate elements that make up the complex integrated system and demonstrated a functional water balance of flow through this system in support of its conceptual version of the model. The professor said:
  "One can be satisfied that in their numerical model the consultants have incorporated as much relevant information as is practicable, and that this model provides as reasonable a simulation of the prevailing conditions as is likely to he obtained."
  He concluded:
  "In their most probable version, the predicted rises in the critical areas of less than 0·1 metre should cause no concern, and are less than those predicted in the WEP report. Inclusion of the extreme cases as a safety factor results in no significant difference, except for a few identifiable localities where land drainage works would be advisable to allay any concern among residents."
  That is an extremely important reassurance, and when we have the observations of the Secretary of State's adviser, it should help to allay the considerable fears that were aroused during the debates on the Bill.
  As to environmental matters and sites of special scientific interest, I believe that a mistake was made in characterising the Leybucht bay case as being relevant to Cardiff bay, because it dealt with construction works in a special protection area already designated under the EEC birds directive, which establishes a strict regime of development and control within such areas.
  In the case of other areas, such as Cardiff bay and the Severn estuary—which together may be being considered for designation as special protection areas—the Leybucht judgment made it clear that member states have a discretion to take various factors into account, including economic considerations of benefit to local people. As my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) emphasised, the Leybucht finding was important, but it is not relevant to the Cardiff bay argument.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly for his support today and for recognising that arguments must be balanced. I acknowledge his great concern about the impact of development on estuaries and on wildlife generally. It is a question of disagreeing over the analysis of the impact of developing the bay area. In
  670
  my view, from all the evidence I have seen, the Secretary of State was right not to include Cardiff bay in the Severn estuary for European designation.
  The precedent argument, made by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds in particular, does not in itself make a strong case, for there was no real interest in protection prior to the barrage development. Secondly, as to the SSSI defence, I studied the paperwork that was involved at the time of the SSSI designation, and discovered that there was no consultation with local authorities. There was simply an instant decision. There was no process of debate of the kind that my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly rightly said there ought to be when such matters are being discussed.
  It is sad that the Cardiff bay development has become a political football between warring factions. I am at one with my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly in his assertion that there is a need to take such issues out of the party political scene, and out of the scene as between those who want to see development and those who value environmental protection.
  The Opposition's amendment asks the House to acknowledge that the existing Secretary of State for Wales, or any future Secretary of State, should not have the power to weaken the protection afforded to anyone who might —and I emphasise "might"—be affected detrimentally by any rise in groundwater. That reassurance should not be taken away from people.
  We also regret that we do not know the outcome of the consultation or the conclusions of the Secretary of State's adviser and his comments on the work undertaken by Hydrotechnica. Reference has been made to the lack of public debate. Perhaps that is due to fears of a Select Committee among those who would have to give evidence. One of the Clerks told me that lawyers tend to regard the members of Select Committees as remote gods to be propitiated rather than as right hon. and hon. Members requiring to be persuaded. Perhaps it is that which has made Hydrotechnica and others reluctant to provide answers that would be helpful to the public.
  As for water quality, it is important that there should be independent verification of water standards. The National Rivers Authority is unsatisfactory, and the Cardiff Bay development corporation is unaccountable and is the creature of the Secretary of State. There should be independent verification of water quality to guide the Secretary of State, or to adjudicate. The Secretary of State said that those four issues could be addressed. Let him tell the House that they will be addressed by the House, because they are all important in enabling us to unite in supporting this important development for south Cardiff.
  6.24 pm
  Mr. Paul Murphy: This afternoon's short debate has highlighted a number of issues regarding the development of Cardiff, and in particular the Bill's major defects. As was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), the Bill has been both hastily and badly drafted. It is also ill-thought-out, and as a consequence it is deeply flawed.
  Despite the fact that there have been four private or public Bills relating to the Cardiff bay barrage area, the enormous controversy that the issue has aroused in Cardiff, the House, and the whole of Wales, and that, quite properly, feelings have run high on both sides of the

  671
  argument, the Bill is so sloppy and so obviously the work of the dead hand of the Treasury that it is a legislative clanger.
  The Bill provides insufficient and inadequate safeguards against groundwater flooding; fails to ensure proper water quality; allows the Secretary of State despite his earlier remarks—to overrule proper and necessasry protection against the risk of flooding; and gives only the most cursory attention to public consultation with those Cardiff residents who will be most affected. Given everything that has occurred over the past few months and years, the Bill is so inept and clumsy that I wonder about the judgment and common sense of all those who have been involved in the bay project or in the Cardiff Bay development corporation.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Caerphilly, for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), and for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) commented that the role played by the corporation in the past few months has been less than exemplary. Perhaps that is inevitable, because the corporation is accountable to no one. If it had been, the latest and most disastrous attempt at public consultation would not have put the whole project in some jeopardy, as it has done.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) referred to the development corporation's poor attempt—backed as it is by the Welsh Office—to secure some degree of public consultation on groundwater flooding and other matters over the past few months. My hon. Friend said that the corporation has a public relations budget of millions of pounds, but there is no doubt in my mind that it has fluffed it.
  Even the local Conservative party made a better attempt at trying to persuade the people of Cardiff to become involved in some form of consultation in respect of the bay development. I have a copy of a leaflet that the Conservative party in the constituency of the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist) published. It states:
  "Your Conservative MP Ian Grist wants to know your views on the proposed Cardiff Bay Barrage. If you want to comment please fill out the questionnaire on the back page."
  I am bound to say that that questionnaire is a little inept and certainly very partial. The reader is asked to tick one or more of the boxes shown against four statements. The first is,
  "I am in favour of the barrage."
  The second is,
  "I am against the barrage."
  The third is, "I don't know"; and the fourth is,
  "I am interested in joining the Conservative Party. Please send me further details."
  At least that represents some sort of attempt to persuade the people of Cardiff to express their views on the groundwater problems.
  As many of my hon. Friends have rightly pointed out, the development of south Cardiff should have been placed in the hands of South Glamorgan and Cardiff city councils. St. David's hall is one of the finest concert halls not only in the United Kingdom, but in Europe. It was built because the city council—it does not matter whether it was Conservative or Labour—was responsible for the creation of the town centre and the St. David's centre. Similarly, county hall and Atlantic wharf were created by South Glamorgan county council.
  Those two councils have provided excellent examples of the way in which local authorities, working together, and
  672
  working with the public and private sectors and the Welsh Office, were able to develop Cardiff as the Cardiff Bay development corporation will never be able to do. With all its money, its experts, its public relations budget and its colonels and generals, the corporation has failed to reassure residents about flooding, or to gain the confidence of the people of Cardiff.
  Judging by what I have heard today, so many senior officers—colonels, brigadiers and generals—are now running various bodies in Wales that I suspect that, despite the best efforts of the Secretary of State for Defence, we shall have an extra regiment there. We could, perhaps, call it the Royal Quango Regiment of Wales; that would accord with the impression gained by many who are involved in public affairs in the Principality.
  None of it comes as a surprise to me. For many years Cwmbran, which I represent, was run by a development corporation. Towards the end of its life, the corporation became increasingly out of touch with the people of the area. I do not want to wish that experience on the people of Cardiff. Labour has pledged to phase out the Cardiff Bay development corporation, and to return its functions and resources to our two local authorities in South Glamorgan. That does not mean that the south of Cardiff should not be developed; it means that the work will be carried out with much more sensitivity and accountability.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) rightly mentioned the industry that is being introduced to the area. We must not forget, however, that unemployment is worse in the Welsh capital than it is in many of the south Wales valleys—worse, certainly, than it is in my constituency. Butetown has a 22 per cent. unemployment rate. In Adamstown, 700 are out of work; in Grangetown, 650; in Splott, 600; and, in Rumney, over 1,200. In the whole of Cardiff, at least 15,000 are jobless and—that does not take into account the 30 fiddles that the Government have introduced into the unemployment figures over the past few years.
  South Cardiff needs manufacturing jobs—well-paid, full-time jobs. It needs companies that are not afraid of trade unions. We need more than pretty, cosmetic jobs that fit the Cardiff bay image.
  Housing should be another key priority. Thousands of people are lingering on Cardiff's housing waiting lists; there are hundreds of homeless in our capital. We need much more rented and low-cost housing in the Cardiff bay area than the Bill would allow. The 25 per cent. proportion about which the Secretary of State has boasted was included only because the corporation's Labour representatives were anxious to ensure a proper allocation of resources. The last thing that that part of Cardiff needs is more of the expensive yuppie houses that have been built in the London docklands, at the expense of many residents. However, the housing allocation conferred by the Bill simply is not good enough.
  Notwithstanding what I have said, the essence of our reasoned amendment does not concern housing or manufacturing jobs, important though both those aspects are. It concerns the environment. A good deal of criticism has been thrown at our councils, but they would never have been responsible for the miscalculation and mismanagement that we observe not only in this fourth Bill, but in the actions of the development corporation.
  We must provide the strongest possible safeguards against the historic problems of flooding in parts of Cardiff. As my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly has

  673
  pointed out, we must adopt a sensitive and sympathetic attitude to the birds and other wildlife in the bay; we must also pay close attention to water quality in the bay and the rivers that flow into it, not only now but later. All those principles underlie our reasoned—and reasonable—amendment.
  Ultimately, of course, Cardiff will become a capital city that is both prosperous and the cultural, administrative and political centre of Wales—a city that is no longer divided between north and south—only if our economy is strong, our people are decently housed, our education and training policies are as good as any in Europe and our concern for the environment is genuine. I believe, along with my right hon. and hon. Friends, that the people of Cardiff, and those of Wales as a whole, realise that all that will be possible only with the return of a Labour Government. I urge the House to vote for the amendment.
  6.36 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Bennett): Let me begin by wishing the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) a very happy 43rd birthday. I can think of better ways of spending a birthday than defending the impossible, as the hon. Gentleman has just done from the Dispatch Box.
  This has been an interesting debate. Interesting speeches have been made not only by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), but by the hon. Members for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey), for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) and for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), and by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones).
  I am sure that we were all surprised when the hon. Member for Torfaen said that only a "cursory look" had been given to the Bill. Some of us had to sit here for thirteen and a half hours on 16 April to debate just two amendments to the private Bill; the House of Lords debated Second Reading of a previous Bill for two hours, and Third Reading for 50 minutes. A House of Lords Select Committee sat for 14 days, and a House of Commons Select Committee for 27. Since November 1989, a total of 25·5 hours has been spent in the House of Commons on this Bill and the private Bills that preceded it. I do not think that anyone else would describe that as cursory.
  Mr. Murphy: I thank the Minister for his good wishes. His statistics are impressive, but, when I used the word "cursory", I was referring specifically to the lack of public consultation about groundwater flooding, rather than the number of hours devoted to the four Bills that we have been considering.
  Mr. Bennett: A three-month consultation on the Hydrotechnica report is now taking place, and will conclude at the end of the year. There will be ample opportunity for the people of Cardiff to examine the entire consultation document—or summaries of it—and to take part in the consultation. We shall welcome their views, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will encourage them to write to us. It is important that we hear all kinds of views.
  674
  The barrage scheme is one of the largest civil engineering projects in Europe. Only the channel tunnel project is larger. It would produce a freshwater lake of some 500 acres and more than eight miles of waterfront. As the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth said, it would produce between 25,000 and 30,000 new jobs in the area and regenerate a large part of one of our greatest capital cities. On those grounds alone, we are right to support the Bill.
  I intend to deal briefly, in the short time available to me, with some of the points that were made during the debate by Opposition Members. I shall ensure that the major points raised by hon. Members that I am unable to answer now are dealt with in correspondence. Copies will be placed in the Library.
  The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside referred to clause 21(2). He said that the Secretary of State will be able to weaken its provisions. We have no intention of weakening the powers provided for in clause 21 concerning groundwater protection. We intend to ensure that the protection that has been given by way of assurance will be given. The important point is that the House will have the opportunity, by means of affirmative resolution, to consider the regulations that are made.
  Mr. Barry Jones rose—
  Mr. Bennett: I see that the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside wants to intervene. I shall give way to him, though he was not prepared to give way to me during his speech.
  Mr. Jones: Why should we believe the Under-Secretary of State and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales? They both said that they believed in the virtues of the poll tax. Now they denounce it.
  Mr. Bennett: I do not intend to enter into a debate about that. However, the hon. Gentleman opposed the rates in July 1974 when he stood at this Dispatch Box. Now he wants to return to the rates. That is not a very productive road down which to travel. We have said at the Dispatch Box that there will be no weakening of the assurances given on groundwater.
  Mr. Michael rose—
  Mr. Morgan rose—
  Mr. Bennett: I have only 19 minutes left in which to deal with detailed points and have already given way twice, but I shall give way again, first to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth and then to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West. They will be the last interventions that I shall allow.
  Mr. Michael: Does the Minister not accept that he cannot bind his successors? It may be his intention, as well as the intention of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, not to exercise the power to weaken the groundwater protection, but it would be possible for their successors so to do, during the brief period between now and the general election, were there to be another Secretary of State for Wales. Does he agree that people need to be reassured? That was the point raised both by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West and by me. We have sought the best possible reassurance for inclusion in the Bill.
  Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that any Conservative Secretary of State for Wales will honour

  675
  the pledge that I have given. In the unlikely event of a Labour Government coming to office, I suggest that he should put pressure on whoever fills the position of Secretary of State for Wales. Both this and the next Conservative Government will guarantee the pledges that are given from this Dispatch Box. The important point about not including such a provision in the Bill is that circumstances may change. We may need to strengthen the groundwater protection, due to circumstances that cannot now be anticipated.
  Mr. Morgan: I hope that the Under-Secretary of State understands why we are pressing him on this point. As soon as I read the clause I went to the Clerk's Department and asked whether it would be possible for the Secretary of State to bind himself in such a way that any amendment he might make to the subsection would lead to an increase in, not to a weakening of, the groundwater protection. I was told that it would be perfectly possible for him to do that. I have come to the conclusion that, for some strange reason, that has not been done. My hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) referred to the Treasury's "fingerprints"—to the fact that it had decided to reserve to itself the power either to strengthen or to weaken that provision. The Secretary of State could have bound himself to increase the groundwater protection, but he did not. As this is the fourth Bill that the House is considering, why on earth cannot the Government get the groundwater protection clause right?
  Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman should know that it is impossible to guarantee that any scheme will be 100 per cent. right. It is absolutely right that we should have the power to strengthen, if necessary, the groundwater protection. The hon. Gentleman does not appear to follow the point. I repeat the assurance that I gave a few minutes ago—the Secretary of State for Wales and the Government have no intention of weakening that protection. The only reason for its exclusion from the Bill is that there may be a case in future for strengthening it. We cannot bind any future Administration. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not accept that assurance.
  It has also been argued that it is inappropriate to consider the Bill before a decision on groundwater has been reached. The parliamentary timetable will allow the Secretary of State's decision to be announced well before Royal Assent. The Select Committee that considered the private Bill requested this consultation and was content that the additional groundwater work and the proceedings on the private Bill should proceed in parallel. To wait until the consultation was over would have meant that a new Bill could not he introduced until next November. We have already had far too much delay over this important legislation for Cardiff.
  The hon. Members for Alyn and Deeside and for Cardiff, West asked whether the Stoner report would be available to the Select Committee. That depends on the response to the consultation. It would be wrong to fix a date for my right hon. Friend's decision. He will make it only when he is satisfied that he has all the information and advice that he needs.
  The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside also asked whether cash limits would be imposed on compensation. I am happy to reassure the House that there is no possibility of cash limits being imposed on the groundwater protection scheme compensation.
  676
  The hon. Gentleman asked about water quality, which is dealt with in clause 12. The Secretary of State can overrule the National Rivers Authority only when he considers its decision to be unreasonable. That is all that the Bill allows. He may not overrule the National Rivers Authority just because he would prefer a different decision. The conditions are clearly set out in clause 12. The courts would not allow my right hon. Friend to overrule a decision unless he was able to show that the National Rivers Authority had acted unreasonably.
  The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside said that the Bill disregarded local authorities' powers in respect of impounded water. That is not true. The Bill removes none of the local authorities' powers—for example, their powers as environmental health authorities. The corporation has undertaken to provide to the city council any information that it needs.
  In what, for him, was an unusually short speech after our experience in April, the hon. Member for Cardiff, West asked a number of questions. I shall not have time to answer all of them now. He said that there were seven. My right hon. Friend counted 21. I shall, however, deal with just two. The hon. Gentleman asked us whether we had taken fully into account the Leybucht judgment in coming to our decision on the Bill. We did. We referred to it specifically in the special protection area decision letter, written to Mr. Griffiths, which has been placed in the Library. We were aware that it could be open to judicial review. My right hon. Friend would not have made his decision if he had not believed it to be the correct one.
  As for the 12-month readings of the boreholes—another question put to me by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West—we have made it clear that Hydrotechnica concluded that it had sufficient data to reach its conclusion. Hydrotechnica's report is out for consultation. Both we and Mr. Stoner will consider the responses and reach a view on whether that is so. We shall continue to monitor the boreholes.
  The hon. Member for Caerphilly asked a number of interesting questions. He started with a question that has been asked on a number of occasions by valley Members: whether, in some way, the work that is being done in Cardiff bay will he at the expense of the valleys. It is nonsense to say that. May I remind the House of what is being done in the south Wales valleys. Resources are not being diverted. During the five years of the valleys initiative programme we expect to spend about £800 million. The achievements of the programme and future plans include 650 hectares of derelict land being cleared by the Welsh Development Agency, with 525 hectares planned to be reclaimed up to 1992. Nearly 7,000 homes have been improved under enveloping and block repair schemes. A whole range of new and exciting projects has been undertaken throughout the south Wales valleys during the past few years. Only last Friday both I and the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) were at Ysbyty George Thomas for the opening of that hospital by Lord Tonypandy, half of the money for which came from my right hon. Friend's valleys initiative. One can say without fear of contradiction that, far from Cardiff grabbing money that should have gone to the valleys, the valleys have been getting a fair share of the initiative that my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) introduced in 1987.
  Mr. Rogers: Will the Minister give way? He has mentioned me.
  Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman asks me to give way because I mentioned his name. The mention of his name was a compliment, not a criticism. I cannot believe that his attending the opening of a hospital with me last Friday is a matter of controversy, unless he wishes to deny that he shared my company. I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I have only 10 minutes left.
  Mr. Rogers: I shall not criticise the Minister.
  Mr. Bennett: Then I cannot resist giving way.
  Mr. Rogers: The Minister carried out his duties last Friday in an exemplary fashion. That is rather strange but true. As I have said many times, hon. Members who represent valley constituencies feel no resentment about the development in Cardiff. The area desperately needs development. My objection as the Member of Parliament for Rhondda is that I do not see the value of spending hundreds of millions of pounds on creating a lake that does not add one square inch of land for industrial development. If I could be convinced otherwise, I would support the Bill. I support everything in the Bill except the construction of a barrage.
  Mr. Bennett: That is interesting. The hon. Gentleman is perhaps the most honest Opposition Member. He said that he opposes the central purpose of the Bill—he does not want the barrage. In a minute, he will support a Labour amendment that tries to pretend that Labour is in favour of the Bill and is concerned only about minor points. He has been honest and I am sorry that he is being misguided. He has posited much of his opposition on the argument that more money should go to the valleys and that the Bill is detrimental to the valleys.
  The hon. Member for Caerphilly mentioned the private Bill and the Government Bill. The fact that we are considering a Government Bill in this Session is an example of the enormous clout that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has in Cabinet. Far from him not having influence, we have the Bill because he and the Lord President determined that the people of Cardiff should have it.
  Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Bennett: No. The hon. Gentleman has only just come into the debate. He should have been here since 3.30 pm.
  The hon. Member for Caerphilly mentioned birds. We carefully considered the Leybucht judgment, which made it clear that member states enjoy a margin of discretion in selecting the most suitable territories to be classified as special protection areas. It made it clear that after classification the only development that is permitted is development that relates to the public interest greater than the ecological interest covered by the directive—for example, the protection of human life from flooding.
  Cardiff bay is located near the heart of the city in an area surrounded by poor environment and dereliction. We believe that there is a clear and urgent public interest in the much-needed regeneration of the area. In those circumstances, it would not have been right to place an
  678
  SPA on the Cardiff bay area. Under the Leybucht judgment, we have the right to ensure that such an SPA is not imposed.
  Mr. Ron Davies rose—
  Mr. Bennett: I said that I would not give way to the hon. Gentleman again. I gave way to the hon. Member for Rhondda in a moment of weakness. I have given way about six times in the past 10 minutes.
  In April, the hon. Member for Cardiff, West said a lot about birds. I have discovered that he has not been wholly consistent. In the autumn 1988 edition of Rural Wales, which is published for the Council for the Protection of Rural Wales, he noted:
  "Of course there would be severe management problems in handling the environmental consequences"—
  this is on the question of Hinkley point power station and in favour of the Severn bridge—
  "of migratory birds and fish and filtering out the sewage but perhaps a small risk to take."
  The hon. Gentleman is prepared to put the environment second where he sees a benefit to the public, but on Cardiff bay we have been witnessing a complete turn around—
  Mr. Morgan: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Bennett: No. I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman has already made a speech. I cannot give way to him every time I mention him. If the hon. Gentleman is challenging what I have read, he can tell me afterwards.
  Mr. Morgan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When a speaker wrongly accuses a Member of hypocritically representing himself as being in favour of the environment and then quotes a document that he does not understand because it refers to a barrage where the tide still goes in and out half as far as before, is not he seriously misleading and misusing the procedures of the House?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Mr. Bennett.
  Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman has made his point but he is incorrect. He argues against the Cardiff bay barrage on the ground of putting the environment and birds before the public interest, as we perceive it, of the regeneration of Cardiff bay, yet on the Severn barrage he was prepared to put other interests before those of migratory birds. We are entitled to reach certain judgments from that.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to Labour's amendment as a fictitious fig-leaf. I refer to the so-called reasoned amendment as the Sellotape amendment because it is transparent—one can see straight through it to the divisions within the Labour party on this issue. It has tabled a reasoned amendment—so-called—that is not a reasoned amendment but a series of debating points for Committee. It has not opposed the principle of the Bill.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I just heard the Minister challenge, I presume, Mr. Speaker, because he said that the amendment was not a reasoned amendment and therefore should not appear on the Order Paper. It has been accepted. He should withdraw those remarks.
  Mr. Bennett: It certainly is not a reasonable amendment. Labour has tabled nit-picking amendments

  679
  but it does not have the courage to tell us that the real reason for doing so is to cover Labour's divisions. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler) asked the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside whether he favoured the principle of the Cardiff bay barrage—yes or no. The hon. Gentleman did not answer. I attempted to intervene, but the hon. Gentleman would not give way. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asked whether the hon. Gentleman was in favour of the barrage, but he would not answer. Despite the 19-minute speech by the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside, we were not able to discover the Labour party's position on the barrage. The simple fact is that the Labour party is divided on the issue.
  Several Labour Members have continually voted against the Bill. We know the real reason why the so-called reasoned amendment has been tabled. The Western Mail of 15 November reported that
  "Labour Party managers now hope that anti-barrage MPs will unite behind a compromise amendment and not vote against the Government Bill when it is debated in the commons on November 25th."
  In the Western Mail on 19 April, after the debacle of the all-night sitting that the hon. Member for Cardiff, West and his friends arranged, the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), the Leader of the Opposition, was challenged, having sat on the fence for a long time, and said:
  "I share the concern relating to the rising tidal level but since that is so all efforts are being made to protect the community and where necessary compensate for the effects. If I had been here, I would have voted for the Bill."
  I am sorry that the Opposition oppose a Bill that will regenerate one of our greatest capital cities. It will create 49 per cent. more permanent jobs in the bay, 47 per cent. more houses, 54 per cent. more construction jobs, 46 per cent. more commercial space and 50 per cent. extra private sector leverage on investment. A run-down part of Cardiff will be regenerated for the benefit not only of the people of Cardiff and of Wales but of the United Kingdom. I therefore ask the House to oppose Labour's bogus amendment and support the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House proceeded to a Division
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before hon. Members go through the Division Lobbies, I must inform them that I have been told that there is a bomb scare at Bridge street, as a consequence of which the area has been sealed off and hon. Members may be inhibited from getting into the House. In the light of that information, and pending further information, I intend to take a relaxed view about the time of locking of the doors.
  The House having divided: Ayes 130, Noes 278.

  Division No. 16]

  [7 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Allen, Graham

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Alton, David

  Blunkett, David

  Anderson, Donald

  Caborn, Richard

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Callaghan, Jim

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Barron, Kevin

  Clelland, David

  Battle, John

  Cohen, Harry

  Beith, A. J.

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Cox, Tom

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

  Cryer, Bob

  Benton, Joseph

  Cummings, John

  680

  Darling, Alistair

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Martlew, Eric

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Maxton, John

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

  Meale, Alan

  Dixon, Don

  Michael, Alun

  Dobson, Frank

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Doran, Frank

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Eadie, Alexander

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Enright, Derek

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Murphy, Paul

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  O'Brien, William

  Fearn, Ronald

  O'Hara, Edward

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Patchett, Terry

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

  Pike, Peter L.

  Fisher, Mark

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Flannery, Martin

  Prescott, John

  Flynn, Paul

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Foster, Derek

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Foulkes, George

  Radice, Giles

  Fraser, John

  Redmond, Martin

  George, Bruce

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Robertson, George

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Rogers, Allan

  Gordon, Mildred

  Rooney, Terence

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Grocott, Bruce

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Hain, Peter

  Skinner, Dennis

  Haynes, Frank

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

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

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Snape, Peter

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Soley, Clive

  Ingram, Adam

  Spearing, Nigel

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Strang, Gavin

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Vaz, Keith

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Warden, Gareth (Gower)

  Leighton, Ron

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Litherland, Robert

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Livsey, Richard

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  McKelvey, William

  Worthington, Tony

  McMaster, Gordon

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Madden, Max

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Mr. Robert N. Wareing and Mr. Ken Eastham.

  Marek, Dr John

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Alexander, Richard

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Boswell, Tim

  Allason, Rupert

  Bottomley, Peter

  Amess, David

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Amos, Alan

  Bowis, John

  Arbuthnot, James

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Arnold, Sir Thomas

  Brazier, Julian

  Ashby, David

  Bright, Graham

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

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

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Baldry, Tony

  Butcher, John

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Butler, Chris

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Butterfill, John

  Batiste, Spencer

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Carrington, Matthew

  Bellingham, Henry

  Carttiss, Michael

  Bendall, Vivian

  Cash, William

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Benyon, W.

  Chapman, Sydney

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Chope, Christopher

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

  681

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

  Irvine, Michael

  Colvin, Michael

  Jackson, Robert

  Conway, Derek

  Janman, Tim

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Jessel, Toby

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Cormack, Patrick

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Couchman, James

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Cran, James

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Curry, David

  Key, Robert

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

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Day, Stephen

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Devlin, Tim

  Knapman, Roger

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Dicks, Terry

  Knowles, Michael

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Knox, David

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Dover, Den

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Dunn, Bob

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Eggar, Tim

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Lord, Michael

  Evennett, David

  Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

  Fallon, Michael

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Farr, Sir John

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Favell, Tony

  Maclean, David

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Mans, Keith

  Forman, Nigel

  Maples, John

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Marlow, Tony

  Forth, Eric

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Freeman, Roger

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  French, Douglas

  Mates, Michael

  Fry, Peter

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Gale, Roger

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Gill, Christopher

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Mills, Iain

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Moate, Roger

  Gorst, John

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Gregory, Conal

  Moss, Malcolm

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Grylls, Michael

  Mudd, David

  Hague, William

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hannam, John

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

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

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Norris, Steve

  Harris, David

  Page, Richard

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hayward, Robert

  Pawsey, James

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Portillo, Michael

  Hill, James

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Price, Sir David

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Redwood, John

  Hunt, Rt Hon David

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Rhodes James, Sir Robert

  682

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Thorne, Neil

  Rost, Peter

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Rowe, Andrew

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Tracey, Richard

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Tredinnick, David

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Trippier, David

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Viggers, Peter

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Shelton, Sir William

  Walden, George

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Shersby, Michael

  Waller, Gary

  Sims, Roger

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Ward, John

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Watts, John

  Speller, Tony

  Wells, Bowen

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Squire, Robin

  Whitney, Ray

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Steen, Anthony

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Stern, Michael

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Stevens, Lewis

  Wolfson, Mark

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Wood, Timothy

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Yeo, Tim

  Stokes, Sir John

  Sumberg, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. John M. Taylor.

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 60 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordi-ngly read a Second time.
  Ordered,
  That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of seven Members, four to be nominated by the House and three by the Committee of Selection.
  That there shall stand referred to the Select Committee—

  (a) any Petition against the Bill presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office at any time not later than the fourteenth day after this day, and

  (b) any Petition which has been presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office and in which the Petitioners complain of any amendment as proposed in the filled-up Bill or of any matter which has arisen during the progress of the Bill before the Select Committee,

  being a Petition in which the Petitioners pray to be heard by themselves, their Counsel or Agents.
  That if no such Petition as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) above is presented, or if all such Petitions are withdrawn before the meeting of the Select Committee, the order for the committal of the Bill to a Select Committee shall be discharged and the Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
  That any Petitioner whose Petition stands referred to the Select Committee shall, subject to the Rules and Orders of the House and to the Prayer of his Petition, be entitled to be heard by himself, his Counsel or Agents upon his Petition provided that it is prepared and signed in conformity with the Rules and Orders of the House, and the Member in charge of the Bill shall be entitled to be heard by his Counsel or Agents in favour of the Bill against that Petition.
  That the Select Committee have power to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom and to report from day to day the Minutes of Evidence taken before it.
  That three be the Quorum of the Select Committee.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

  King's Cross Railways Bill
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That the Promoters of the King's Cross Railways Bill may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session; and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with;
  That the Bill shall be presented to the House not later than the seventh day after this day;
  That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the last Session;
  That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall he read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and, having been amended by the Committee in the last Session, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table.
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the last Session.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  7.14 pm
  Mr. Gary Waller: The House will recall that the Bill seeks powers for works in the area of King's Cross and St. Pancras stations to increase capacity for British Rail and, indeed, for underground customers and to provide new rail services across London using Thameslink. It will also give London its second international station for trains via the channel tunnel, whether they finish their journey in London or continue to the midlands, to the north of England or to Scotland.
  There have been some important developments since the Bill was last debated in the House almost a year ago. Provided that the motion is passed tonight, there will, I hope, be a further opportunity to debate the scheme in more detail before long.
  Mr. Tim Devlin: Is my hon. Friend worried—as I am—that the Bill will perhaps not get through to the next stage given the fact that this morning the Northern Region Councils Association—a Labour-dominated body—wrote to every Member of Parliament in the northern region asking them to be present for this important debate? As he can see, I am the only Member of Parliament from the northern region who is here apart from, I think, one Labour Member of Parliament who is a Whip. Is not that a disgraceful state of affairs?
  Mr. Waller: It demonstrates how assiduously my hon. Friend serves his constituents, and I am delighted to see him here. He is a most welcome supporter of the Bill
  It would be helpful if I brought the House up to date on what has happened during the past year, so that hon. Members can take recent developments into account when making up their minds if and when they vote later.
  On 8 May this year the Committee debating the Bill met for the 53rd and final day under the chairmanship—on that occasion—of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns). It was to examine the amendments and the additional provisions that were required in the Committee's report which, the House will recall, was published in June of last year. The provisions were accepted and the Bill has returned to the House for consideration.
  684
  Concern has been expressed about the letter sent to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport by Senor Carlo Ripa di Meana. The letter refers to King's Cross and the channel tunnel rail link. It is essentially a matter for the Government and I believe that they will be able to demonstrate that the Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988, which, it will be recalled, they introduced to meet European Community directive No. 85337, conform to that requirement. I also believe that the manner of Senor di Meana's intervention demonstrated to the full that the Government are right to stress the principle of subsidiarity which holds that the Commission should not become involved in matters that can more effectively be dealt with by member states. However, I do not wish to stray too far from the motion.
  The last time the Bill was debated in the House I assured the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith)—whom I am delighted to see here —that a revised environmental statement on the project proposals would be available before the Bill was debated again. That environmental statement has now been published to conform to the Committee's requirements. Also, in May this year, British Rail submitted to the Secretary of State for his approval route proposals for a high-speed link from the channel tunnel to central London and a comparative analysis of other routes. After careful deliberation my right hon. and learned Friend made a statement on 9 October to the effect that he intended to ask British Rail to refine Ove Arup's proposed eastern approach to London sufficiently to allow public consultation to take place on that route and, indeed, for it to be safeguarded. At the time of that announcement, the Secretary of State also made clear his support for a King's Cross terminal, which he described as
  "essential not only to meet the need of the travellers within London, but…also crucial to serve the requirements of those who live elsewhere in Britain".
  We come back to that point again and again. The new King's Cross scheme is vital as a national project, and for commuters and people living in the capital.
  Dr. Keith Hampson: I am sure that my hon. Friend accepts that there is no mutual inconsistency in the two schemes. I fear that people in the north have been somewhat misled by the Yorkshire Post and by others. It has been suggested that the decision to go east of London to Stratford will be detrimental to people in the north. Far from being the case, that scheme is vital for freight traffic and the King's Cross delevopment links intimately and properly into that scheme.
  Mr. Waller: My hon. Friend is right. There has been some misunderstanding about the position. From the words of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, it is clear that he regards it as vital that King's Cross should go ahead as an essential part of the entire project. It would be wrong not to move in that direction.
  Mr. William O'Brien: It is important for the north of England that King's Cross is allowed to proceed. One of the concerns of people in the north is whether sufficient finances will be provided to ensure that the project about which the Secretary of State spoke a few months ago will be allowed to continue. Can the hon. Gentleman prevail on his right hon. and learned Friend to

  685
  give us the assurance that there will be funds—public funds if necessary—to ensure that the King's Cross scheme goes ahead?
  Mr. Waller: My hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport may say a few words about funding if he feels that it is appropriate.
  I stress that King's Cross would offer advantages even if no rail link were built. It will offer advantages to international and to domestic travellers. When we debated the matter last year, some hon. Members opposed the Bill on the ground that they opposed the then route for the rail link. The fact that we are here again, just as keen to see the King's Cross project coming into being, demonstrates clearly that the two schemes are and always have been separate. As long as the Bill goes through Committee and receives a Third Reading, the King's Cross project will go ahead regardless of the timing of the link between the channel tunnel and London. It stands independently as a valuable scheme.
  Mr. Frank Dobson: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that since the decision by the Secretary of State on the channel tunnel route to London, British Rail has appointed consultants to advise on the possibility of building the Eurostation above ground, rather than building it underground as proposed in the Bill?
  Mr. Waller: Is the hon. Gentleman thinking about the Alan Baxter scheme? British Rail did not appoint Alan Baxter to advise on that matter; the company was a consultant to British Rail on a different matter. British Rail had no knowledge that the company would produce an alternative scheme for an international terminal above ground. I will come to that matter a little later, as the hon. Gentleman will hear.
  Mr. Dobson: It would help other hon. Members to know whether British Rail has asked consultants to advise on whether it would be possible to build a satisfactory station above ground rather than underground, as proposed in the Bill.
  Mr. Waller: To the best of my knowledge, there has been no such request by British Rail. I am sure that British Rail has considered all the options and it may have asked the consultants to study alternatives. I am clear that the proposal that we are discussing, which involves a two-level station, is the best for Londoners and the best for travellers, whether international or domestic. Let there be no mistake about that.
  The needs of international and of domestic travellers dovetail at King's Cross. It is easily accessible by train, by tube, by bus and by taxi. As a result, most passengers arriving for international trains are expected to do so by public transport rather than by car, thus avoiding congestion on local roads. I know that such congestion has been a major concern among hon. Members.
  The changes include longer platforms so that longer trains can be run, offering more capacity, and a new passenger concourse building to link the two stations. The other significant development is the new connections and platforms for Thameslink, allowing Network SouthEast to introduce trains from Peterborough and Cambridge across
  686
  London to Gatwick airport, to Kent and to Sussex. That will give London its first express route across the capital and it will be a boon to many travellers.
  From the north of England and Scotland, the proposals provide for through and connecting international trains. They will also cut journey times to Gatwick and to the south coast. A first-class interchange at King's Cross is also important for passengers from the west midlands, from the north-west of England, from north Wales and from the west of Scotland using existing rail services at Euston. British Rail has decided to have a dedicated, high-quality link between the stations and is examining a number of options effectively to make Euston part of the international terminal complex.
  Mr. Dobson: Exactly how will British Rail connect Euston and King's Cross stations? The British Library sinks seven storeys below ground on the other side of St. Pancras station. How can British Rail have an adequate link? During the previous debate, it was said that trains would be able to proceed from the north-west, with a bit of dodging about in Hampstead, to King's Cross. An arrangement allegedly involving Euston, King's Cross and St. Pancras was not mentioned. The stations are a long way apart.
  Mr. Waller: I will come to the hon. Gentleman's final point shortly. All that I can say on the fixed link between Euston and the new complex—because I mentioned that a number of options are still being considered—is that it will be a dedicated link. Some of the roads in the vicinity which are owned by British Rail, for example, may be used and a bus may travel on a dedicated route or on a dedicated track. At this stage, I cannot say what the link will be, although I can say that it will be a dedicated, high-quality link.
  Mr. Dobson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Waller: I ask the hon. Gentleman to let me continue at this stage. I am sure that he will seek to make his own speech in the debate.
  I will respond to the hon. Gentleman's other point. Interchange by the Euston-King's Cross link will complement the through international train services that British Rail plans to run from the north-west and the west midlands to Paris and Brussels. Initially, the services will operate through existing routes through west London. They will be diverted to run through the King's Cross low-level station when it opens using the proposed West Hampstead chord line for which British Rail seeks powers in the British Railways (No. 3) Bill.
  A recent development that the House will wish to take into account is represented by the publication last month of a so-called "alternative strategy" document produced by consulting civil and structural engineers Alan Baxter and Associates. It might be considered surprising that the firm refused to supply British Rail with a copy of its report prior to publication, even though much of the information it used was obtained in its capacity as consulting engineers to the BR board in relation to a planning appeal for a location to the north end of the King's Cross site. One may ask what account the firm took of the duties it owed of confidentiality and good faith, bearing in mind that, far from inquiring whether the BR board would object, it did not even say what it was doing.

  687
  A detailed study of the strategic document reveals why it is not difficult to understand that there was some unwillingness to have it subjected to detailed transport analysis. If hon. Members plan to refer to that document, it would be helpful if they addressed its basic flaws. Unfortunately, they were neglected, except in passing, in the full-page feature article in The Independent by Gavin Stamp and Jonathan Glancey on 20 November. Those journalists may know something about environmental issues, but if they understand transport issues, they were jolly well doing their best to conceal the fact.
  An overwhelming difficulty with the Baxter proposals for King's Cross is that they make no provision for any improvement to Network SouthEast's Thameslink cross-London services, which is an essential element of the British Rail plan. The position for the international station chosen by Baxter would make it impossible to provide any route between Thameslink and the east coast main line. It is only by placing the new station beneath the existing one that all the required rail connections can be made. Baxter, rather weakly, tried to find a virtue in separating the express and local services. In truth the main justification for the scheme is utterly dissipated.
  The Baxter plan does not permit the operation of international trains to King's Cross before the completion of a new rail link from the channel tunnel. The completion date for the rail link is uncertain. Therefore, it is obvious that one of the most important features of the scheme—the fact that the rail link and the international station can be considered independently—would be lost. The disruption of train services during the work would be on a much greater scale than under the British Rail plan.
  Major problems would also be caused to the high proportion of international passengers at King's Cross —perhaps they would represent as many as three quarters of the total of such passengers. They would be expected to interchange at King's Cross with London Underground and other BR services. However, the need for some form of travolator or form of fixed link would involve an extra change, which is avoidable and would be provided at the expense of convenience and journey time.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): There is a risk of a misleading illusion being formed and I know that my hon. Friend would wish to avoid that. My hon. Friend said that the Baxter station would prevent the arrival of international trains at King's Cross before the creation of a rail link. He then said that about three quarters of all international passengers will end up at King's Cross. However, are we not talking about two propositions divided by a considerable number of years?
  Mr. Waller: It is impossible to know. However, my hon. Friend may have misunderstood me. I said that three quarters of the total number of international passengers are expected to interchange at King's Cross with London Underground and other BR services.
  Mr. O'Brien: Reference has been made to services to King's Cross for passengers who will travel from the north and other parts of England and from the continent. There is no InterCity link between London King's Cross and the Stratford terminal. Therefore, the link between Stratford and King's Cross is of great importance. Will the hon. Gentleman persuade the Secretary of State of the necessity
  688
  of that InterCity link going ahead, because it is important to the entire system? If the proposed scheme is to succeed, we must have that InterCity link.
  Mr. Waller: My right hon. and learned Friend has said as clearly as possible that he regards the second London terminal at King's Cross as an intrinsic part of the scheme.
  It may be of significance to hon. Members with constituencies in the King's Cross vicinity that, at the very least, the alternative Baxter scheme will be no less disruptive to homes, highways and places of work than the BR proposals. It is clear from an examination of the Baxter proposals in depth that many of the disadvantages have not been addressed seriously. I shall be interested to hear any arguments in favour of that proposal, for it would be easy to knock them down. I do not regard the Baxter alternative as a serious proposition.
  Mr. Dobson: I understand from the hon. Gentleman that the station provided for in the Bill is intended to serve trains coming initially along a different route—not from Stratford—to the Euroterminal. Will that station then be fit, without any redesign or rejigging, to take trains that have come via Stratford?
  Mr. Waller: That is an important question. The alignment of the station does not have to change at all to take account of the new east route into London in favour of which my right hon. and learned Friend has declared himself. There should be no misunderstanding about that. On previous occasions, hon. Members have opposed the Bill for that very reason, as they thought that, by bringing the Bill forward, it represented a commitment to the southern approach to London. That is not the case.
  The Bill has been before the House for three Sessions. It has been debated on several occasions and it had its Second Reading in May 1989 when it was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young). In two previous debates similar to this one, it has enjoyed a substantial majority in support.
  The Select Committee, under the expert chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), considered the proposals in detail over 53 days. That was the longest time given to any private Bill since the Great Western Railway Bill of 1835.
  The scheme is of strategic, national importance. The House has given a great deal of detailed attention to the Bill, and the promoters and the petitioners have devoted a great deal of time and effort to the case. Surely it would be right for the House to consider the Committee's amendments as soon as possible in this Session. That requires the Bill to be revived tonight so that it can continue its progress.
  I commend the motion.
  7.37 pm
  Mr. Chris Smith: I oppose the carry-over motion for the Bill, as I did when we debated it a year ago.
  The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) referred to the length of time and the detailed scrutiny that the Committee gave to the Bill. The Committee gave British Rail a ferocious roasting over the way in which it had introduced the Bill and prosecuted its case. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand if some of us treat with a certain amount of scepticism some of the assurances that BR has subsequently given.

  689
  Perhaps it is worth reminding ourselves what this Bill does. It gobbles up 17 acres of land and property in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) to create a low-level box that will include platforms and railway lines serving the channel tunnel traffic, Thameslink and other commuter traffic. It involves the loss of 83 homes and the displacement of 326 residents, the demolition of four listed buildings and the loss of 168 work places providing 1,620 jobs. It will mean the loss of 58 shops, 38 of which provide key services to local people. It will result in the destruction of Camley street natural park, which is used by thousands of local school children. It will necessitate six years of construction work for 24 hours, seven days a week, which will render many of the homes in that district uninhabitable for substantial periods. It will also mean the diversion of two major traffic arteries over temporary roadways for three years.
  Therefore, in the light of those consequences, it behoves the House to assure itself that there is no conceivable alternative to the British Rail proposals and that they will achieve the aim that we all want—the ability of channel tunnel traffic to serve the whole country, not just London. I do not believe that British Rail has got it right. I argue the same case this year as I did last year, but with greater justification.
  A number of factors relating to the King's Cross proposals have changed. Last Wednesday the London Underground (King's Cross) Bill received its Third Reading. That Bill extracted from the King's Cross Railways Bill those items of work relating to safety improvements at the London underground station at King's Cross following the Fennell report on the King's Cross fire. London Underground correctly realised that it would be better for it to make its proposals as a separate Bill, which it has done, and the Bill has now passed through the House. Therefore, that section of the King's Cross Railways Bill relating to those works is effectively redundant and the relevant clauses will have to be removed.
  In addition, the Secretary of State has recently made an announcement on the decision to bring the high-speed link in from the east via Stratford rather than from the south. It is extremely important to the case for assessing whether we should proceed with the King's Cross proposals as currently enshrined in the Bill.
  The European Commissioner for the environment has said that he believes that there has been a failure to carry out a proper environmental impact assessment. That is also important.
  Mr. O'Brien: I am following my hon. Friend's contribution closely and I appreciate his concern as a constituency Member. He referred to the European Commissioner's comments on the environmental assessment. Is the environmental assessment to which my hon. Friend referred the same one as that referred to by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) who I understood to mean the King's Cross project, while my hon. Friend was referring to the high-speed link? Will my hon. Friend clarify that?
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend has identified an extremely important point. The European Commission's principal
  690
  complaint is that, in order to be properly conducted, an environmental assessment should consider not only the station, but the high-speed link—the two should be considered together. British Rail has so far totally failed to do so.
  There has also been a High Court decision on the rights of the trustees of St. Bartholomew's hospital in relation to a substantial portion of British Rail land at King's Cross. That decision found in favour of St. Bartholomew's and against British Rail, and has thrown some of British Rail's funding calculations into a degree of confusion.
  In addition to all those new factors, several alternative proposals—including some involving King's Cross—have emerged. The hon. Member for Keighley mentioned the Baxter scheme. I hold no specific brief for the Baxter scheme, but it has attempted to demonstrate that alternative schemes could be produced that would retain the Government's proposal for a terminus—an inter-change—at King's Cross, but states that the plan would be more satisfactory if it were achieved without creating an enormous hole in the ground which British Rail proposes, with all the consequent destruction of homes, jobs and local neighbourhood.
  My argument remains principally that King's Cross cannot cope with the proposed doubling of passengers at peak hours. Even if the Government and Opposition spokesmen are wedded to the idea of having King's Cross as an interchange for the channel tunnel, they do not have to use the scheme proposed in the Bill. I believe that we should not proceed with the Bill. British Rail should go back to the drawing board, look at the line and the station together, and produce a new, properly worked out Bill that addresses both the line and the station. In his article 169 letter, the European Commissioner stated that it was important that the rail link and the station should be considered together in terms of the environmental impact assessment if the European Community directive, signed by the Government and agreed to by this country, were to be met.
  One of my constituents was in touch with my colleague, the European Member of Parliament, Ken Collins, who chairs the European Parliament's Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection, to seek his advice on what the European Commissioner had done and the reasons behind his action. Mr. Collins's letter to my constituent, which is extremely clear, states:
  "In the case of the rail link, there would have been no proposal to build a terminal, were it not for the need to provide one for the Channel Tunnel rail link. The Commission is of the view that by dividing the project into two, the requirements of the directive are circumvented … there will be no environmental impact assessment of the project as a whole, taking into account the direct and indirect effects of the rail link and terminal."
  The letter stresses that we breach the European directive in that we fail to consider the environmental impact of the station and the high-speed link together, as a whole, with all the direct and indirect consequences.
  Mr. O'Brien: We could be accused of confusing the issue of environmental assessments. Such assessments must follow the planning application. As there are two separate applications—one for the King's Cross project and one for the high-speed link—it is difficult to see how the two environmental assessments can be taken together. My hon. Friend should consider that point carefully because people may be misled, as his constituent was.
  Mr. Smith: The problem is precisely that the two applications, which will be the subject of two separate Bills, are being considered separately. It has long been my view, and I have argued consistently, that the two applications should be considered together. That would be preferable to the ridiculous procedure of considering a station in one Bill and a high-speed link in another. The sensible thing would be to examine the project in its entirety. If we did that, there would be much less of a problem and we would not be in such deep water with the European Commission.
  Mr. Peter Snape rose—
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is dying to intervene.
  Mr. Snape: I merely seek clarification. I am following carefully what my hon. Friend says and, like my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), I am aware of the deep personal and constituency interest that he has in the matter. How would it be possible to take the two applications together when, thanks to the Government's incompetence, there is not yet a scheme to run trains to King's Cross? All that the Government have decided so far is to cancel the scheme which British Rail spent hundreds of millions of pounds of our money developing. Returning to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, those of us who have constituencies north of London are anxious to ensure that when the channel tunnel opens in 1993—that is the only certainty in the project—at least some attempt has been made to provide the essential services without which areas north of London will receive no benefit from this enormous project.
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend identifies precisely the problem with which we have been landed by the Government and British Rail. They have made proposals for a station which are unattached to any proposals for a means of getting there. I should have thought that it was much more sensible to make proposals from the start for both a station and a link. If we allow the King's Cross Railways Bill to proceed and in the end no high-speed link or underground link between Stratford and King's Cross is built, we shall be left with an enormous white elephant at King's Cross with no means of getting to it from the channel tunnel. It is important to consider the link and the station together, and British Rail and the Government should have done so from the word go.
  Mr. Snape: There is a small matter which I should draw to my hon. Friend's attention. I am sure that he saw the depressing report in The Sunday Telegraph that, with its customary foresight and thoughtfulness, the Treasury had decided to reject the Thameslink project. However, if that project goes ahead, we shall have some way, if not a particularly adequate one, of getting trains from the midlands and the north of England to the south of England, provided that the Hampstead chord line is also built. Temporarily for a few years trains could use that Thameslink line.
  Mr. Smith: In theory my hon. Friend is correct. The same could be said of the routes around the west of London. Through trains from the north could be taken round that way. I shall come to through services in a moment. My hon. Friend must also recognise that the
  692
  Thameslink lines under central London would not be capable of taking the proposed high-speed trains which will come across from the channel tunnel.
  The environmental impact assessment has earned the ire of the European Commissioner because it divorces the station from the link. But we must also recognise that the assessment which British Rail has carried out is deeply inadequate. There was no contact or consultation with local residents who would be affected. In assessing the impact on homes, British Rail completely missed out an entire family whose home in Caledonian road would be destroyed. It carried out a survey of the noise and vibration likely to be caused by the construction of the project and concluded that noise and vibration would be
  "unlikely to have a major impact."
  Yet British Rail says that it will have to offer temporary rehousing for an extended period to many people who will be next door to the works because of the extent and nature of the noise and vibration that they will experience. How can an environmental impact assessment state that there will be no likely impact when British Rail has to admit that people will have to be temporarily rehoused? That demonstrates the inadequacy of the environmental impact work that has been done so far.
  The first principal reason for not proceeding with the Bill at this stage is that the European Commissioner rightly identified serious failures in the environmental impact assessment work which should have been carried out. The second principal reason is that the Government's announcement of the route from the east via Stratford throws the scheme into question. British Rail asserts, and the hon. Member for Keighley said so again tonight, that in physical terms the planned exit of the lines from King's Cross at the south-eastern corner of the new proposed station is such that lines could go to Stratford just as easily as they could have gone southwards. I remain to be convinced. Let us remember that that assurance comes from British Rail, who, it was discovered in Committee proceedings on the Bill, designed platforms that were too short to take the trains that would come in to them. I wait to see conclusive proof that it is possible in physical and geographical terms to bring the lines from Stratford into the proposed station at King's Cross without making any changes whatever to the Bill. I will believe it when I see it.
  Perhaps more importantly, the Stratford decision must throw the entire financing of the King's Cross station completely out of kilter. Neither the Government nor British Rail have told us exactly what the status of the Stratford station will be. Will it be a major interchange? How many passengers is it envisaged will get on or off the trains at Stratford? The answers to those questions are crucial to King's Cross. If passengers join or leave the trains at Stratford rather than King's Cross, fewer passengers will use the King's Cross interchange than was previously anticipated, so the cost per passenger that British Rail will have to pay to construct the station at King's Cross will increase.
  Mr. Gerald Bowden: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, particularly because I was not here at the beginning of his speech.
  Those of us who live in south-east London not three miles from King's Cross know that if we were taking our children to meet a continental train, or if we were taking elderly parents or grandparents to meet the train, we would not take them to King's Cross, because we could

  693
  not park there or get them near the platforms. We would look for a station where we could park, say goodbye and then go home. King's Cross is not the right place for that sort of departure.
  Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is right, and for once he is on all fours with British Rail. British Rail has long argued that most passengers travelling to and from King's Cross will do so by public transport. That is an important point in respect of the public transport congestion that will ensue around King's Cross. The hon. Gentleman's point was valid; many people will choose to use Stratford in preference to King's Cross. That in turn will have an impact on the financial calculations that British Rail will need to do for the construction of the new station at King's Cross.
  We are talking about an expensive operation. In May this year, British Rail estimated that the cost of King's Cross would be £610 million for the channel tunnel part of the project, £220 million for the Thameslink part and £570 million for the other works, a total of £1·4 billion for the construction of the interchange. If inflation continues at the same rate as it has maintained over the past couple of years, the estimate by the end of next year will be £2·2 billion for that construction.
  Unless the Government start being rather more generous than they have hitherto said they will be, British Rail will not be able to secure the private sector funding that it would want, given the reduced passenger flows at King's Cross which it must anticipate.
  Mr. O'Brien: I can see that this debate is developing into a north-south divide. The hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) says that he wants to use Stratford interchange because of its better parking, but we from the north would find Stratford very inconvenient. We would want to use King's Cross. The channel tunnel is being developed supposedly to benefit the whole country, but I fear that a "them and us" problem is beginning here. I hope that hon. Members will view the issue objectively and constructively from now on.
  Mr. Smith: That too is a valid point, but my hon. Friend anticipated me: I was about to discuss through services to the north, which are extremely important.
  It seems to me that the choice of the eastern route—the decision to locate a major interchange of some sort at Stratford—means that fewer passengers will come through King's Cross, so financing it will be more difficult since a great deal of money is involved.
  Mr. Snape: Although some of my hon. Friend's figures are valid, those of us with constituencies north of London objected to this proposal at the time because of the impossibility of getting from Stratford to anywhere north of London. My hon. Friend glibly says that many people will de-train at Stratford. Perhaps he will tell us where they will go and how they will get there.
  Mr. Smith: Is my hon. Friend saying that the Government are wrong to have identified Stratford as the location for a major interchange? Does he wish to remove the possibility of industrial and economic regeneration in the east end of London—the whole purpose behind the campaign of the borough of Newham for the choice of
  694
  Stratford as a terminal? Even the Secretary of State for the Environment has claimed regeneration as one of the principal reasons behind the Government's decision.
  Mr. Snape: If my hon. Friend wants to line up with the Secretary of State for the Environment, I consider that he chooses his enemies even more recklessly than his friends. It is obvious from the railway geography of Stratford that it will be impossible, without billions of pounds' worth of public expenditure on the railways, to get anywhere from there. Surely it is not the function of a transport planner to locate an interchange at Stratford just because there is a vacant space there. The function of transport planning is to enable the rest of us to move around the country as best we can. We will certainly not be able to do that from Stratford, which is why my hon. Friends and I are determined to have a proper terminal at King's Cross from which we and our constituents can benefit.
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend goes too far in attempting to write off his agenda the possibility of a major interchange at Stratford. I remind him that he and I strongly support the construction of the east-west crossrail under central London, to link Stratford and east London with west London and to provide thereby the possibility of direct links from Stratford to the west and to lines running out of Paddington. My hon. Friend is wrong to say that Stratford will never lead anywhere; it can become an important interchange.
  Of course I appreciate that some of my hon. Friends passionately believe these things because they believe what British Rail has told them—that King's Cross is the only possible way of achieving links through to the north. I do not necessarily accept that view, although I understand why some people may.
  It is perhaps worth examining what British Rail has said in the past few years about through services from the north to the channel tunnel. It has always claimed that one of the main advantages of its plan for King's Cross is that it offers—I quote the briefing material handed out at British Rail stands at the party conferences this year —
  "the ability to handle through trains to continental Europe from the midlands, the north and Scotland."
  The Channel Tunnel Act 1987 places an obligation on British Rail to provide such services. Section 40 requires British Rail to prepare by the end of 1989 a plan stating measures it proposes to take to secure
  "the provision … of international through services serving various part of the United Kingdom, and an increase in the proportion of passengers and goods … carried by international through services."
  British Rail produced its plan as required in a report entitled "International Rail Services for the United Kingdom" published in December 1989. The report said that from the opening of the channel tunnel British Rail planned to run four through trains during the day from Manchester, Wolverhampton, Leeds and Edinburgh and four during the night from Swansea, Plymouth, Edinburgh and Glasgow. Before the station at King's Cross was built, the trains would run on lines through south-west London. When the station is completed all services, except those from Swansea and Plymouth, would run through King's Cross.
  After meeting the requirements of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 with those somewhat confident promises, British Rail published papers in June on the routes review, and they were strangely non-committal about through services.

  695
  The six-page memorandum by the British Railways Board made only three brief references to services for passengers north of London. Paragraph 22 states:
  "While it remains the Board's intention to run certain through trains the majority of passengers from the Midlands, the North and Scotland will travel on connecting intercity trains via London rather than through trains."
  Paragraph 31.6 states:
  "There remains uncertainly about the through services from and to the Midlands, the North and Scotland."
  In July and August this year the reason for the note of caution became clear. It emerged that the specification on which British Rail had been working for splitting trains to serve Wolverhampton as well as Manchester on the west coast main line and Leeds as well as Edinburgh on the east coast main line had proved unworkable because costs had risen far above the original estimate of £150 million. As a result, British Rail is now examining the feasibility of running shorter, non-splitting trains on the two lines. It seems that, far from fulfilling the requirement of the Channel Tunnel Act to increase the proportion of international passengers carried by through services, British Rail has embarked on an exercise which will reduce the proportion of through services from the north.
  Mr. Waller: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be convenient for most international travellers from the north to seek an interchange at Doncaster or King's Cross? As there will be only two trains per day serving west Yorkshire, the majority of people would choose other trains and look for an interchange. Therefore, a first-class interchange of the kind outlined in the Bill is essential.
  Mr. Smith: I am coming to that. British Rail appears to be reducing through services from the north. It should provide much more frequent through services from the north directly to the tunnel and the trains should not necessarily stop in the middle of London. Proper opportunities must be provided for people in the north and in Scotland. British Rail takes refuge in saying that people can come to King's Cross and interchange there. The importance of the interchange facilities then becomes crucial.
  Mr. Richard Caborn (Sheffield, Central): What would happen to trains that left Sheffield on the midland main line? The line starts at Sheffield, which means that we shall get no through trains. However, we want an effective interchange. Will my hon. Friend answer the question posed by many industrialists in the north, especially in south Yorkshire? My hon. Friend spoke about impact studies. Economic impact studies carried out on our behalf clearly show that, unless decisions are made soon, investment that would come to the north of England will not come because of uncertainty. Decisions about interchanges at King's Cross and Stratford could lead to some stability about investment. That is important in terms of employment, the role of the channel tunnel and the through trains.
  Mr. David Tredinnick: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At the current rate of progress there will be time for only three more speeches. Are you able to impose the 10-minute rule.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Unfortunately, I cannot, and so far I have not heard
  696
  anything out of order. I hope that hon. Members, and especially those who seek to intervene, will bear in mind the point that has just been made.
  Mr. Smith: I have been extremely courteous in giving way to everyone who has sought to intervene. I wish to make some other important points on behalf of my constituents, who are directly affected by the Bill. I trust that the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) will not seek to deny me the opportunity to speak on behalf of my constituents.
  As I have said, interchange facilities are crucial. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) was right to draw attention to the economic impact of channel tunnel traffic. However, the Bill does not propose, nor does British Rail or the Government, that freight should come through King's Cross. It is even more important to get right the distribution of freight through the tunnel than it is to get right the movement of passengers to and from the tunnel. The Bill does not affect that one way or the other.
  British Rail has repeatedly claimed that one of the great advantages of its proposal for a low-level station at King's Cross is that it will provide easy interchange facilities for passengers using Euston as well as King's Cross and St. Pancras. I accept that King's Cross and St. Pancras and the lines that serve those stations will be able to provide an interchange facility of a kind. However, British Rail also claims that passengers coming to or going from Euston will be able to use King's Cross as an interchange. Those stations are approximately 1km apart, and even on British Rail's estimate the proposed travolator between King's Cross and Euston would take 20 minutes for the journey. That assumes that the travolator will be built because, as we have heard, between St. Pancras and Euston is the six-storey basement of the new British Library.
  When the British Railways Board member responsible for this issue gave evidence on the matter to the Committee in July 1989, he could only say that the engineering feasibility of a travolator was being investigated. He said:
  "I very much hope that before this Committee finishes its deliberations we will be in a position to be more positive about it, and I personally hope we find it can be done, and for a reasonable price."
  The Committee finished its deliberations a year and a half ago and there is still no news about how it will be possible to interchange between King's Cross and Euston. The King's Cross projects office was approached by one of my constituents last week and he was told that the engineers were still assessing possibilities. We are entitled to ask how on earth there can be good, proper, efficient interchange between Euston and King's Cross when, after two and a half years, British Rail has still been unable to come up with any detailed explanation of how it will be achieved.
  Even if the interchange facilities operate well, there will be an impact on congestion at King's Cross itself. In 1987, the Piccadilly line westbound at peak hours was 10 per cent. over its maximum acceptable capacity. The Victoria and the Northern lines southbound from King's Cross and the Metropolitan and Circle lines eastbound from King's Cross were all very near to capacity. At that time, 19,900 passengers were arriving each day at King's Cross and St. Pancras between 7 and 10 o'clock in the morning. British Rail's expectation is that, with the new station being built at King's Cross, an additional 15,208 passengers will use

  697
  the facilities during that period. That is almost double the number of people trying to force themselves on to an already overcrowded underground network.
  Above ground, the congestion is likely to be as bad. British Rail's original traffic estimate—that there would be no perceptible impact—was risible. Even the Department of Transport is now recognising that people will come in taxis, buses or cars to meet people arriving at King's Cross. It is proposing a six-lane highway up Pentonville road to replace the existing Pentonville road, but rather than solving the problem that will only maintain the slow-moving traffic status quo.
  Mr. Brian Wilson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Smith: I will, but it must be for the last time.
  Mr. Wilson: Is there not another side to the coin? The huge numbers of people arriving at King's Cross and Euston and wishing to travel on to the continent will create a fair amount of additional and unnecessary congestion if they all have to find a way to get out to the alternative that my hon. Friend seems to support.
  Mr. Smith: I am not sure what point my hon. Friend is making. If a passenger comes to King's Cross to transfer immediately to the channel tunnel train, there is no question of having to go out to Stratford.
  The problem is one of traffic and congestion impact, which will spread well beyond the immediate environment of King's Cross. Therefore, it is important that British Rail goes back to the drawing board and thinks again. There is a possible breach of European Community law if the station is proceeded with without any recognition of the environmental impact of the high-speed link leading to it. The financial viability of the King's Cross project must be in serious question now that the decision to create an additional station at Stratford has been taken.
  As yet, there are no answers from the Government or British Rail about the status, size and impact of Stratford. It is possible that the potentially £1·5 billion project at King's Cross will pre-empt other important expenditure on which British Rail should be embarking, and that will have serious implications. There are no guarantees of frequent through services from the north and Scotland. We have no information on what will happen to freight. There is an expectation of serious congestion at King's Cross and there is a real possibility that, even if King's Cross is chosen for the location for channel tunnel traffic, rather than being in the precise location and form set out in the Bill, the station could be located elsewhere at King's Cross.
  For all these reasons, the House should not proceed, at this stage, with the Bill in its present form.
  8.24 pm
  Mr. Norman Miscampbell (Blackpool, North): It is my intention once again, as I have so often in other debates on this subject, to put down parameters and markers for those who come from the north. When I say "the north", I do not mean only 250 miles north but 50 miles up from King's Cross. The problems are the same no matter how far up the country one comes from.
  698
  This matter first came to my notice under your Chairmanship, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the Court of Referees. We had an entertaining three or four days with the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) who has a deep interest in the matter. We looked at the back ends of King's Cross and found wildlife in abandoned nooks and crannies, and discovered that double, if not treble, the number of people that the British Waterways Association thought were living on the canal actually did so. It was a fascinating hearing of the court.
  We are debating a matter of deep importance to the north.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Dobson: The hon. Lady always agrees with the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  Mr. Miscampbell: Let us be fair. My hon. Friend agrees with me on most occasions.
  It has been said that this is a matter of them and us, but it is not. It is them, but it is not us. We are speaking for the whole country and for a far bigger constituency than that of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. We can hardly overestimate the importance to the north of the decision that we are making. If there is to be a high-speed link, it must come through to King's Cross and it ought to come through—so that we start at both ends together, so that we know that it is there. The Bill will allow that to happen. Nothing needs to be changed to allow that to be done.
  However, this is basically a decision for the Government. It is most desirable that we have a clear and unequivocal decision. As has been said, if the link terminates at King's Cross, all is not lost. We may be able to have the Stratford complex as well as King's Cross, but this will all cost money. I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) will agree with me when I say this. The Labour party may be saying it anyway, but we must also say that money must come from the Government. We cannot get it from private enterprise, and there is no way round that. It should be made clear that if the north is to be looked after, money must come from the Government.
  Mr. Barry Porter: My hon. and learned Friend will have retired by then.
  Mr. Miscampbell: It may be that if the money does not come from the Government, others will retire as well.
  Mr. Dobson: Although King's Cross station is in my constituency, I have always believed that it was right to have the Eurostation at King's Cross. However, I am extremely dubious about the underground proposals that are before us. If British Rail were confident in its assertion that it can deliver an adequate service to the north through its proposals, why did it advise the original promoter of the Bill not to accept my instruction to the Committee that it should assure itself that this proposal would guarantee a fast, frequent and reliable service to the north and Scotland?
  Mr. Miscampbell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I shall not take up the content of it, because I am not in a position to comment on the burning constituency problems of the hon. Members for Islington, South and Finsbury and for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). We all, of course, understand the arguments that

  699
  they advance, but surely an overall decision must be taken. I accept that that will cause great trouble in Islington, and on that basis there may be potent arguments for an overground or underground system. It is not for me to interpose my views on that matter at this moment. I am merely saying that we need the development.
  The truth is that Stratford is no substitute for King's Cross. Indeed, it can be only an adjunct to it. At the end of the day, it is King's Cross that will let us through into the entire network.
  It is surely relevant to embrace in our consideration the area 50 miles up country and areas beyond all the way up to Glasgow. It is relevant also to consider what has happened in the north of England over the years. For example, about 100 years ago Liverpool was as large a port as New York, and had a far better dock system. In the context of the Bill, I am not all that fussed about passengers. After all, passengers can put themselves on a travolator, if necessary. I am more interested in the fact that the high-speed link will extend from King's Cross to both sides of the country, where millions live. It will extend to the manufacturing heart of the country.
  I return to Liverpool, which is the first western port. It will never return to its days of glory, but I feel that it 'would double, treble or perhaps even quadruple its present throughput if were known that freight could be handled more efficiently at the docks. The problems with Liverpool have been largely cured and the complaints have been met. Liverpool is all right in its docklands; it is not too bad at all.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: There is the dock labour board.
  Mr. Miscampbell: I shall not argue that matter now. I merely say that Liverpool is able to take its chance internationally. If the goods came into Liverpool and were able to enter the system by means of high-speed lorries, there would be beneficial consequences for us all. As I have said, there would be a transformation of the area 50 miles north of London. That is what we should be considering.
  8.32 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: I shall be brief because I know that others wish to speak. I support the carry-over motion. I appreciate the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and I congratulate him on the way in which he has argued the interests of his constituents. I am sure that he will not be surprised, however, if I lake a different view.
  We must consider the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury along with the interests of many other people. Whenever there is a controversial development we find that there are many who want it, but not in their back yards. That is often the position in my constituency, and I am sure that many hon. Members have shared the experience.
  King's Cross must be London's second international passenger terminal, but construction there is not yet secure because of the decision to route the high-speed rail link via Stratford. I am sure that the entire House appreciates that. It is crucial that the Bill continues on its way if we are to enable the development at King's Cross to take place.
  What is the importance of King's Cross? It will be a nationally important facility for international passenger
  700
  services to the north of England, to regions beyond London and to London itself. I shall quote some information that has been sent to Members representing northern areas over the past few days by the North of England Regional Consortium, which states:
  "King's Cross will be the key terminal to link the North of England to the Channel Tunnel, allowing international trains to run directly along the Key Main lines beyond London.
  King's Cross will provide an excellent interchange for passengers from the North of England, the Midlands, Scotland, Wales and Ireland wishing to catch high-frequency London Channel Tunnel trains.
  King's Cross could be operational for significantly faster Channel Tunnel services providing a much-needed north-south link (via Thameslink line) as soon as the terminal is constructed—it does not have to wait for the HSRL to be built."
  That is extremely important in this context. The consortium continues:
  "King's Cross could be implemented with minimum delay because powers for its construction are being dealt with now.
  King's Cross will provide excellent access to London itself."
  In October, when the Government announced their decision on the high-speed rail link route, the British Rail-preferred route direct to King's Cross—the best for the north—was rejected in favour of a longer route via Stratford. All of us in the north were disappointed when that decision was made, but that is what happened. The announcement committed the high-speed rail link to terminate at King's Cross. On that basis, the passage of the Bill is the immediate test of the Government's commitment to secure a terminal development at King's Cross. We hope that the Government are sincere and that they intend pushing forward the Bill, which will meet channel tunnel demands.
  The consortium believes that notwithstanding the commitment the Government's decision creates a real risk that the high-speed rail link will terminate at Stratford, and that because of the extra costs involved the project at King's Cross will never be built. To prevent that happening, three main objectives must be achieved. First, I take up one of the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), which the consortium puts in this way:
  "King's Cross international must be developed at the earliest possible opportunity. The … Bill does not need alteration in view of the HSRL route decision and should now receive a swift and uncontroversial passage through its remaining stages."
  I sincerely hope that it will. The consortium continues:
  "Public money should be put into the King's Cross to Stratford line because this connection is of national strategic significance, recognising that from a commercial point of view the private sector cannot be expected to share the objective of connecting the HSRL to the rest of the UK network."
  It is essential that public money is forthcoming.
  I shall continue to quote the recommendations of the consortium. The next paragraph reads:
  "Construction of the HSRL should begin at both ends, working towards the same time scale, so the link operates from day one of its completion from King's Cross. The chosen route is expected to cost £750 million more than the BR route and, considering that the original BR funding package of last year was rejected because it did not provide an adequate commercial return for the private sector and for financial reasons alone, is a severe threat to the Stratford to King's Cross Link."
  It is British Rail's view that the link will be needed by 1998, and the Government's announcement suggests a

  701
  possible delay until the year 2005. Early high-speed rail link construction will ease congestion on existing lines while providing much-needed capacity.
  Rail plans for Stratford should be made clear, if there are any. Any passenger facilities at Stratford must not dilute the full development of the King's Cross terminal project as proposed. Likewise, any freight facility at Stratford must not undermine the proposed development of freight facilities in the north. That is a factor which concerns me. In the areas that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton represent, there is delay at a freight station because a planning application has been called in by the Secretary of State. If a Berne gauge high-speed rail link capable of carrying freight to Stratford is proposed, northern firms will use road transport to Stratford—causing further congestion and environmental damage. The full impact of such a proposal on the rest of the United Kingdom must be considered, must be evaluated.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: My hon. Friend spoke cogently and with due emphasis about the importance of the evidence put to the House by the North of England Regional Consortium. He will be aware of my close connections with that organisation since its inception. My hon. Friend has worked hard to stress to right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House how important it is to listen to the authentic voice of the north of England. It cannot be too strongly emphasised that the interests of the north are bound up with the Bill's success. It is a test of representativeness—as to whether, if one comes from the north, one backs the Bill.
  Mr. Lofthouse: I agree with my right hon. Friend. Some northern areas are depending on the King's Cross development. Certain areas of Yorkshire have been devastated by the decline of the mining industry, and hope to attract alternative manufacturing industry. Their success may depend on the King's Cross development.
  Opposition to the Bill runs counter to the objectives of the main political parties. The route decision has already caused longer journey times between the north and continental Europe, additional costs to the high-speed rail link, and further delay and uncertainty. Before that decision was made, proponents of the Stratford scheme argued for further development King's Cross as well as at Stratford. They must not now be allowed to argue that there is no alternative.
  We all recall the argument that Stratford was not an alternative to King's Cross. Having heard some of tonight's speeches, I hope that some people do not have it in mind that the King's Cross development should not go forward and that the main development should be at Stratford.
  8.41 pm
  The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): Perhaps it would be convenient if I addressed the House very briefly at this point. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) on the manner in which he presented his motion and spoke to it so eloquently. The Government support the revival motion, and I find myself in agreement with many of
  702
  tonight's speeches about the importance of King's Cross and of the links, via not only the east and west coast but the midland main lines to the north of England.
  I will comment briefly on five points that, although they do not directly affect the Bill, are relevant to the revival motion. As to the Commission's comments on the environmental assessment procedure, I confirm that the Government and British Rail do not seek in any way to circumvent the Community's requirements in terms of preparing a full environmental assessment. That applies not only to that stretch of the line for the new high-speed rail link between Detling and King's Cross that is under way—British Rail has already completed the work from Detling to Folkestone—but to the work on King's Cross station itself. There is no intention in any way to frustrate or to circumvent the rules. They are clearly understood within the whole Community, and British Rail and London Transport will honour them.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) in his reference to the implications of a station at King's Cross being opened before a high-speed rail link is completed and opened. That matter is for British Rail, but it ought to be possible for trains to run—instead of via the west London line—on Thameslink, through King's Cross, and on to the north.
  That would require engineering work not only in the tunnel but in south London, but it should be possible in railway terms. If the station is ready before the rail link, that would bring an extra benefit.
  The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) referred to the London Underground, and he is right to say that the low-level interchange work is the subject of a separate Bill. I visited those works myself last Friday. However, the major part of London Underground's works at King's Cross are contained in, and depend on, the passage of the Bill before the House. They concern the widening and enlargement of the ticket hall, which is extremely crowded. Even London Underground's low-level interchange work will not solve that particular problem. That is another reason for reviving the passage of the Bill.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell), who is temporarily absent from the Chamber, and several other hon. Members alluded to the scheme's funding. The Government have no specific proposal before them, but I confirm that it will be an extremely expensive project. It will include at least three elements of funding. The first is that portion due for the improvements to London Underground, which will be expensive; I have referred already to the larger ticket hall at King's Cross. Secondly, there will be improvements to Network SouthEast's Thameslink services. Anyone who has visited the Thameslink station at King's Cross knows that it is wholly inadequate. The platforms are small, and the tunnel is too narrow to take intercapital, channel tunnel trains, and is rather winding.
  Network SouthEast will gain some benefit, so our investment appaisal for that portion of the work will follow the normal procedure in respect of new Network SouthEast investment. We will take into account cost-benefit appraisal techniques in assessing Network SouthEast's advantages, the channel tunnel services, and InterCity services. Several different elements of the heavy and underground railway combine in the project, so it will be difficult to appraise. Planning permissions will be

  703
  needed from Parliament, so we will have a clearer idea of what is feasible and possible. The Government will then give applications urgent consideration.
  We are providing British Rail with sufficient funds to ensure that the necessary design and other work necessary to keep the project properly planned and prepared can be undertaken.
  Mr. Dobson: Can the Minister throw any light on what is meant by British Rail's reference to a dedicated link between King's Cross and Euston stations? The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) spoke of a dedicated road, but none exists. The only road between Euston and King's Cross stations is Euston road, which is dedicated to traffic. An underground travolator would have to negotiate the six underground storeys of the British Library, and five tube lines between the two stations. There are no British Rail-owned roads that could contribute in any way to a dedicated connection between the two stations. Any such line would have to be underground, at ground level, or overground—but British Rail has not come up with any real answers.
  Mr. Freeman: I share to a certain extent the hon. Gentleman's interest in how passengers are to travel between Euston and King's Cross. We must wait to see whether British Rail has in mind an elevated pathway, or something at ground level. Despite the hon. Gentleman's scepticism about the aspect, he must concede that it does not in any way invalidate the importance of a brand new station at King's Cross and St. Pancras—or the fact that those coming down the west coast main line will—through the benefit of the chord for which British Rail is seeking permission in the British Rail (No. 3) Bill—find that their trains can run into King's Cross station.
  The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras makes a valid point, and I am not seeking to make light of it. However, the answer to his question—which is in the gift of British Rail, not me—does not in any way invalidate the Bill's importance and significance.
  Mr. Dobson: The whole route—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I do not believe that the Minister wants to give way.
  Mr. Freeman: I would like to make my fifth and final point, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras will again catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The question of the rail link was raised by the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse). My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport never said that he does not anticipate the completion of work on any high-speed rail link to be in 2005, or that construction will not begin before the year 2000. That was a misunderstanding. My right hon. and learned Friend was referring to the time when capacity would run out on Southern region, according to British Rail. What we have said is that if construction takes five years and planning permission and further work on the environmental assessment of the rail link takes three, the rail link cannot be completed before the end of the decade. We have also said that we want the private sector to be involved as much as possible in the financing of it.
  The Wakefield terminal was not mentioned. I understand that the matter is subject to inquiry, so I am unable to comment, but the nine channel tunnel freight
  704
  terminals are extremely important to British Rail. Stratford, if it were the terminus of a Berne gauge railway, could not possibly be a substitute for them. They are needed to carry freight from the regions, which are also important in passenger terms.
  Mr. O'Brien: Will the Minister give us a commitment that public funds will be made available to ensure that the high-speed link from Stratford to King's Cross goes ahead without any hitches or disappointments? Will he also tell us whether the two environmental assessments will be dealt with together or separately?
  Mr. Freeman: We have made it plain that we do not favour a high-speed rail link that terminates at Stratford. We want the link to run through Stratford, with a station to take trains on to King's Cross. There is no question of passengers being stranded at Stratford—although Stratford is, of course, an important interchange, which will become more important as the years go by. The necessary links are within London—on crossrail, the Jubilee line and the docklands light railway.
  I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley should respond to the question about environmental assessments. As I have said, however, both British Rail and London Regional Transport will comply with both the letter and the spirit of Community law, and will appreciate that the implications of the King's Cross assessment and those of the rail link assessment are inter-related.
  Mr. Tredinnick: Does my hon. Friend plan to say anything about the burning issue of the electrification of the midland main line, which is of great concern to his constituents, among others? He has already written to me, and I am grateful to him for that; but can he now say whether the decongestion benefit that might result from electrification—which was referred to by the midland main line consortium—has any bearing on his current thinking? The question is very pertinent to the spur line link, which is mentioned in the Bill.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the Minister will need some ingenuity if he is to deal with that question while remaining in order.
  Mr. Freeman: I appreciate that my hon. Friends the Members for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) and for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) have long been interested in the prospect of the electrification of the midland main line, but I do not think that it is directly relevant to the Bill. I assure my hon. Friends that I will write to them.
  By the time that the high-speed rail link is completed and is running into King's Cross—the end of the decade —British Rail may well have electrified the line, in which event the trains will run through not only my constituency, but the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth.
  I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will support the revival motion.
  8.54 pm
  Mr. Peter Snape: We are discussing a revival motion. The principles of the Bill were agreed on Second Reading, and it was discussed in detail in Committee. If the House passes the motion, amendments made in Committee can be discussed further, and, no doubt, the Bill will be given a Third Reading.

  705
  There is a degree of cross-party support for the Bill —and, of course, some cross-party opposition. The scheme will benefit domestic as well as international passengers. It is fair to mention the benefits that will be experienced by Londoners, and those living and commuting in the south of England. For example, the longer platforms at King's Cross will allow longer trains to be run, which will relieve the overcrowding problem.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has pointed out that the platforms were originally not long enough to accommodate the trains that are now proposed. Despite what my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) may think, I do not set myself up as an apologist for British Rail; BR did not pay me very well in the days when I worked for it, and now that it does not pay me at all I certainly do not intend to rush to its defence. However, I liked BR's rejoinder—that the trains were longer than originally planned because of the requirements of Customs and immigration in regard to drink. My hon. Friend sniggers. I remind him that a good half coach may be taken up by such provisions, and that, regardless of whether they are essential, they will be included in the through trains if and when they are introduced.
  Mr. Dobson: That was not the reason given by the Committee, in three successive sittings. It argued that the platforms were long enough on the ground of measurements that had already been made.
  Mr. Snape: I leave the House to decide whether the platforms were too short or the trains too long. Certainly British Rail has advanced a number of interesting explanations for the problem.
  The scheme also authorises a link from the east coast main line into St. Pancras to take additional Network SouthEast trains from the Great Northern Line, as well as high-speed trains running between St. Pancras and the Bounds Green depot. It allows an enlargement of the underground station to meet the recommendations of the Fennell report; and, perhaps most important, it allows the extension of the Thameslink network. I hope that all of us who take an interest in railway matters will see the significance of that.
  At present, the northern and southern railways, and those running through London, are constrained by capacity problems. The new station would allow two 12-car Thameslink platforms to replace the present cramped eight-car King's Cross Thameslink station, to which the Minister of State has just referred. Two weeks ago I visited that station for the first time. The fact that so many additional trains could go from Peterborough, Huntingdon, King's Lynn and Cambridge in the north to —[Interruption.] In the case of Huntingdon, I am not sure whether there would be cut-price fares on that line to Thameslink, but that is one of the places where services would be improved by the scheme. Trains would run through to many points in the south. The scheme would also allow more cross-London local services to serve other inner London areas.
  In a speech that was as relevant as it was comprehensive my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said that he thought that Stratford was a suitable alternative terminus. I made my disagreement plain during
  706
  my hon. Friend's speech. I do so again now. It is inconceivable that through passenger trains could run to Birmingham, or to other places in the midlands and the north, via Stratford. My hon. Friend mentioned the east-west crossrail and suggested that that would be the way for our constituents to complete their journeys. The purpose of the east-west crossrail is the alleviation of congestion on the underground and on roads in London. It is neither fair nor reasonable for my hon. Friend to suggest to those of us who represent constituencies north of London that our constituents should leave a trans-Europe train at Stratford and make their way, via the east-west crossrail, to the London terminus from which they wish to continue their journey. That is hardly the benefit that many of us envisaged when we supported the channel tunnel project.
  Mr. Chris Smith: The east-west crossrail provides the potential for direct links from Stratford through to Paddington, Reading, Bristol, Cardiff and the west. That is not possible from King's Cross. If we were to accept my hon. Friend's argument and agreed that King's Cross should be a location for channel tunnel traffic because of its potential for links to the north, does he agree that it would not necessarily have to be this exact scheme at King's Cross? Does he agree that it is not the only possible option for a terminus there?
  Mr. Snape: This is the only scheme that is before us. I have been in this place long enough to know that if one wants to knock a project on the head one merely produces on the back of an envelope—or, in the case of British Rail, through tracing paper on the kitchen table—a scheme that guarantees that there will be years of controversy to follow. Unacceptable though this scheme may, in part, be to my hon. Friend, it is the only one that provides us with any reasonable degree of security that there will be any service at all north of London after 1993 when the channel tunnel opens.
  Sir John Farr: The hon. Gentleman is busily telling the House what we ought to be doing. Can he tell the House what he would do, if he were in Government, about electrifying the midland main line north of London?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have to tell the hon. Member, as I said to the Minister for Public Transport, that he will find if very difficult to keep in order in answering that question.
  Mr. Snape: In that case, Mr. Deputy Speaker, perhaps I may use the same ingenuity as did the Minister for Public Transport. It is important that the hon. Gentleman's constituents and all the people who live alongside the midland main line should benefit from the project. I agree that they could best do so through electrification. Given, however, that all the signalling on the midland main line would need to be immunised prior to electrification and that all British Rail's signalling resources appear to be devoted to improving boat train routes Nos 1 and 2 in the south of England, we are still some way off that happy time when electrification could take place. I support the hon. Gentleman's demand, but it does not look as though electrification could take place without detailed preliminary work that would take a considerable time to complete.
  Proper and direct Government involvement from the first day would have been the ideal solution in the case of

  707
  this vexed project. This is the greatest civil engineering project in the United Kingdom this century. It is, I am sad to say, typical of the Government that every detailed question that is put to Ministers receives virtually the same answer—"these are matters for British Rail." They shuffle off responsibility and deprive the people whom they blame of the resources to do the job. That makes many of us despair of the Government and their transport policy—to dignify the present shambles with such a name. It is no good the Minister shaking his head. He is as guilty as other Ministers. We would not be in the current mess if the Government had accepted their responsibilities from day one.
  Although the motion is far from ideal, it is the only way forward. Responsibility for the mess should be placed fairly and squarely on transport Ministers and on the mandarins and Ministers at the Treasury who work the glove puppets to whom all too often one listens and who have got this country's transport infrastructure into the mess that it is in today—a mess that only the election of a Labour Government will go some way to turning around.
  9.5 pm
  Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): I shall be very brief.
  The last time that I spoke in the House, I said that, although I had not always been as charitable towards British Rail as I could be, the time had come to pass on beyond my complaints and to bury the hatchet.Hansard recorded that without the word "beyond", so it appeared as to pass on complaints about British Rail. We must make as positive a contribution as we can. In that spirit, I suggest that if it could come to an accommodation with the British Library for a travolator to pass through the basement, there would be amazing possibilities for improving the literacy of a whole number of passengers since the speed at which the train would be allowed to proceed would be unquestionably quite slow.
  Since the Bill was last before the House, we have had several changes. If we confine ourselves to the high-speed rail link alone, we find that whereas before it was not to be of European gauge it is now to be of UIC gauge. Before, it was lamentable to imagine that it would go to Stratford; now, it is going I o Stratford. Before, as the former Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo) said, it was highly unlikely that freight would use the new line; now, it is to be worked up for freight—changes that I greatly welcome and are absolutely sound. I congratulate the Government on having been persuaded, after a great deal of time, that we were not as daft as we appeared.
  Mr. Dobson: All that has happened is that it has been decided that the route will not go through south London; no firm decision has been made that it will go to Stratford or anywhere else.
  Mr. Rowe: My understanding is that there is a firm decision that it is going to Stratford. How it will get there is as opaque as it always has been.
  That brings me to another point that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller), who temporarily is not in the Chamber, made about the Baxter scheme for King's Cross. He said that it has no less impact on houses, buildings and the environment than the present scheme. My understanding of the Baxter scheme is that, apart from anything else, it would have preserved the Great Northern
  708
  hotel. Whether that is germane or not, if that is so, it shows clearly one of British Rail's continuing weaknesses—that it has an extraordinary inability to count the number of buildings that will be affected or to identify them. British Rail persuaded the Government that a change to the safeguarded part of the route would not have any consequences for any listed building. It is wrong. If the final freight route is one of a number of highly likely routes, the change required in the corridor passing through my constituency will directly affect a listed building. If British Rail wishes to carry conviction in this place, it must be much more accurate.
  We have been informed that the project will cost £1·4 billion. The new high-speed rail link—we are not sure where it will go—will cost about £4·2 billion for 55 miles of new line. I understand that the Germans can build a new railway for about £20 million a mile. My point is that, even after all this time, there is little certainty about any of British Rail's cost predictions. When there is, the projects seem to be very expensive. There should be a much closer look at the costs, both of the King's Cross terminal and of the line to it.
  Given the fluid situation and the fact that nothing is the same as when the Bill was first presented, we should compare the costs of the present scheme with those that Kent, for example, will have to pay. There is a danger that there will be no international station at Ashford, which would be absurd. I took some comfort from my hon. Friend the Minister when he said that it was manifestly a benefit to have a station before a line was built. That is true for Ashford as for King's Cross.
  My hon. Friend the Minister could do a lot worse than turn British Rail's attention to the new buildings that Kent county council's education authority has commissioned for schools. Such buildings have an estimated life of 60 to 70 years, but they can easily be uprooted and moved elsewhere. They can be clad so that they fit into almost any environment. I was impressed by the quality of those buildings and by the fact that they can be moved. Given that British Rail is always uncertain about where its stations will be, it may find that buildings that can be moved around the country are of great benefit.
  Mr. James Couchman (Gillingham): I am grateful to my hon. Friend and neighbour for giving way. He makes an extremely good point about fluidity with regard to the channel tunnel rail link and particularly the need for the King's Cross terminal. Would not British Rail be better served investing money in the appalling service that it provides in north Kent which causes our constituents such inconvenience and discomfort? Our constituents have been asked to pay about 8 per cent. more for their season tickets next year, taking the cost of, for example, a Chatham ticket to more than £1,700. They have been told that they must invest for the future—for what future, that of King's Cross or that of the north Kent line?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that, in responding to that intervention, the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) will direct his remarks to the Bill and the revival motion.
  Mr. Rowe: As I understand it, the Bill is to be revived because of the intention to proceed without delay to the building of the station. We contend that, in the highly fluid situation in which British Rail finds itself, it would be much better off attacking the problems endured by

  709
  commuters in our part of the country than building a railway station, the line to which has not yet been designed or put out to tender. That is a powerful argument. If building were postponed, it would enable a certain amount of relief to be given to Kent.
  The new national road transport forecasts had a high-growth and a low-growth scenario for Kent. The high-growth forecast has already been exceeded and traffic growth in Kent is almost double that predicted in 1984's national forecast. Before British Rail embarks on an enormously expensive and only partially designed chimera, we should give the unfortunate travellers of Kent a number of benefits, some of which could be easily provided.
  First, there should be modern communications technology in the trains. There are no phones in the cabs, but there is no reason why drivers should not have portable phones. It is bizarre in this day and age that when trains break down—as they frequently do because of leaves on the line—the driver must stop the train and get out to ring up. Secondly——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but he must direct his remarks to this Bill and in particular to the revival motion. It is not in order to discuss another Bill which he might like to see before the House.
  Mr. Rowe: I understand what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I do not think that what I am proposing requires a Bill. If the Bill were not revived, the money that it is intended to spend would be made available to be spent on what I seek. However, I accept your correction.
  Another change has been that the property market has collapsed. I understood that one of the reasons why the King's Cross station project was suggested was that British Rail expected to make a killing on the land that it would be able to develop as a result of its improvements to the railway station. That is known as making a more aggressive use of assets, as Mr. Chris Green wrote recently in the Financial Times. My concern is that under an aggressive use of assets one of his policies for Network SouthEast is to cut the back-up for trains to such a low level that should anything go wrong with a train—and our trains are the oldest on the network and are more likely to break down than any others—there will be no back-up provided.
  When British Rail considers its assets, it would do well to wait to build the King's Cross station until it knows what it wants and what lines it must serve and until the property market has recovered. It should also spend the money that it proposes to spend on improving the travel-to-work life of many commuters, especially those in Kent, who are paying over the odds for a lousy service.
  9.17 pm
  Mr. Brian Wilson: I shall not detain the House for more than a few minutes, but it is important to stress that this is not a parochial debate and far less a debate about the merits or otherwise of local lines in Kent. The issue of a channel tunnel should be a great national debate and should have been a great national project. The tragedy of the past few years is that it has not worked out that way.
  710
  Having initiated the tremendous engineering project which we all admire and look forward to seeing come to fruition, the Government appear to have left it at that and the question of how the rest of the country is to be served by and benefit from that project has received pitifully little consideration.
  The alternatives do not stand still or have benefits for all parts of the country. The alternatives are the positive approach which I advocated and the approach that ensures that all parts of Britain benefit from the channel tunnel. Otherwise, there will be a relative loss to the rest of the United Kingdom as more and more trade and commerce is drawn to the south-east by the lure of the channel tunnel. However belatedly, we must get out of the rut and begin—as a Labour Government will certainly do —to treat this as a huge national project to be undertaken seriously.
  The motion is crucial for those of us who come from points north of London. It surprises me that no other Scottish party is represented on Conservative or on Opposition Benches—
  Mr. Gordon McMaster: It is.
  Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend is in the same party as I am, as far as I understand. No other Scottish party is represented on Conservative or on Opposition Benches. I am delighted to be joined by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster).
  The project is of immense importance to Scotland. If one looks across the channel, as some of us have, and sees the way in which the matter is approached there, it is humiliating to consider what has gone on in Britain over the past few years. Around Calais, construction work will create a massive new rail terminal and a road system to lead to the tunnel at Calais. Where is the comparative development in Britain? Huge development is taking place in the centre of Lille to create a rail hub for the whole of northern Europe. Where is the comparative thinking in Britain?
  We are struggling tonight to achieve the first tentative step in Britain's planning, not for two or three years hence, but for the better part of a decade hence, and to achieve at King's Cross the equivalent of what has been under construction for several years at Lille. We are struggling for a terminal at which trains can come in from all parts of the country, at which there can be an interchange for the continent and at which people can move on relatively quickly.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) has said, it would be better to have more direct trains to the continent. I hope that that will evolve in the fullness of time, but it will do so only when the electrification programme is extended to all parts of the country. For many years to come, there will be greater dependence on a good interchange than there can be on the prospect of direct services between Scotland, the north of England and Wales, and the channel tunnel and beyond. We must have the interchange.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) said, it is true that better schemes may be available. The King's Cross scheme may not be perfect and I respect the views of local Members who say that it is far from perfect. However, it is the only scheme on the table. If the project does not get into gear now and if we go back to the drawing board, it will be decades before we get

  711
  another scheme that is worked through to the present level. In the meantime, all the benefits of the channel tunnel will be lost to my part of the country and to many others.
  Let us get on with the scheme because there is no reason for further delay. My hon Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, when he argues against the disruption of his own constituency, is on stronger ground than when he tries to prove that King's Cross is not the best available option for an interchange. I will elaborate on the point that I made about the disruption that may be caused when additional tens of thousands of people are brought into the area, if the development at King's Cross goes ahead. Surely the best answer is to get most of them out again as quickly as possible. My hon. Friend conjured up images of people coming out of taxis and meeting friends. The best alternative is for people to cross the platform and to get away to where they want. That is the most efficient way.
  I am not prepared to accept for the rest of the country the idea that, from now until the year dot, either everyone will have to struggle across London to get to Waterloo, which is how things will start, or worse, under the new madness that has been conjured up, everyone will have to struggle out to Stratford to catch the connections for the continent. Where is Stratford? That is an unreasonable expectation.
  I regret that the link will not come through south London. I have no wish to tread on the toes of col leagues who have legitimate local interests, but from the national standpoint, I think that it is regrettable that the link will not take that route. Half the decision has already been taken and it seems that the link will come to Stratford. The moment that that was decided, however, the fear was that we would never hear anything again about the link between Stratford and King's Cross. That would be a disaster for the rest of the country. That must not be allowed to happen.
  We must have this Bill as it is the only one before us. It is absurd that we have to be tied up in private Bill procedure in order to allow railway developments of the type that we are discussing tonight. If the Government want such a project, they should be able to make a strategic, infrastructural decision. They should not have to rely upon the private Bill procedure, because the issue is too important. The whole thing is anachronistic.
  If the channel tunnel is ever to be a genuine national undertaking that brings benefit to all parts of the United Kingdom, and if that is to be achieved within our lifetime, it is important that the Bill goes ahead. I hope that the first step towards that will be taken tonight.
  9.25 pm
  Mr. Roger Gale: I will be brief, but I must take issue with the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson). A comparison between the north part of the Calais region and central London is ludicrous. If the hon. Gentleman had ever been there, he would know that the Calais region is like the surface of the moon. One could build not only a railway terminal there, but the fifth London airport and no one would notice. We are talking about a terminus in the heart of a great city and some proper consideration should be given to that.
  Mr. Wilson rose—
  Mr. Gale: No, I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) suggested that, because this is the only Bill on the table, we should settle for it or we will not get anything. That is an equally ludicrous suggestion.
  I listened with great care to the lengthy argument put forward by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). I do not rebuke the hon. Gentleman for the length of his speech, as he is defending and promoting the interests of his constituents fiercely and properly. The environmental arguments that the hon. Gentleman has set out are also extremely valid. I not only listened to the hon. Gentleman's arguments tonight, but I have read the other speeches that he has made throughout the passage of the Bill. I studied his arguments at great length over the weekend and I have come to the conclusion that much of the hon. Gentleman's argument is extremely valid and needs a great deal of further consideration.
  I shall not cover the ground already dealt with by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury; instead, I shall consider the credibility of the promoter of the Bill, British Rail. The House will recall that during the passage of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987, British Rail stated that there was no need for a high-speed line. Apparently it was convenient for BR to say that, because, had there been such a high-speed line included in the Channel Tunnel Bill, it is possible that that Bill would have fallen.
  Now we are told that BR must have a high-speed line. Those of us who serve Kent constituencies agree with that. I believe that a London terminus of the right kind must be established to provide the right links to the north and the rest of England. Above all, it must be built in the right place.
  On Second Reading on 8 May 1989, at column 617, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) was asked why British Rail had changed its mind about the need for a high-speed rail link. He said simply: "Forecasts have been revised". Tonight we are entitled to ask how many more times those forecasts will be revised and in which direction.
  It has already been suggested that if a terminus were built at Stratford East, it would have a major impact on the financial viability of the terminus at King's Cross. I want to know the answers to the questions. It is not good enough for my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr.Waller), who is the sponsor of the Bill, to come here without those answers. That has continually happened when other hon. Members have sought to move the carry-over motion.
  The most recent edition of the Kent county council's "Railing Update" ran the headline
  "KCC to help sort out shambles".
  The first line of the article stated:
  "Kent County Council has pledged to help sort out the shambles surrounding the International Rail Link."
  The leader of the county council, Tony Hart, is reported as saying:
  "at the moment it appears to be little more than a line on the map, and a pretty thick and crude one."
  If that is true, further consideration needs to be given to precisely where the London terminus will be located. In an earlier debate, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) suggested that if the terminus were built at Stratford, East, it could save as much as £1 billion on the project. I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will consider it in order if I state precisely what that £1 billion

  713
  could mean to those or us who live in the Network SouthEast region. We are continually being told by British Rail that how it spends its money depends on priorities. The priority for those of us who live along and use the north Kent line is that line itself, and the £1 billion saved on the project would go a devil of a long way to sorting out the line.
  I have a piece of paper listing one traveller's journeys during the first fortnight of this month. Of the 20 trains travelled on from north-east Kent—Herne Bay, in my constituency to Cannon Street—two arrived on time, 17 were late and one was cancelled because no crew were available due to a clerical error in the rostering. That shows the standard of the management that we are being asked to endorse if we pass the Bill. I do not believe that the current management at British Rail is capable of building the project, although I believe that it needs building. We have a right to say that, if such a major project is to go ahead, we should not—as the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) said earlier—settle for whatever is on the table, but should ensure that it is the right project and that the correct amount of money and no more should be spent on it. The rest of the money that British Rail has available should be spent on projects that are desperately needed to provide jam today, not tomorrow, for the commuters who are paying British Rail for the services it offers today.
  Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman has for some time been against the original fast rail link through Kent and south London, and we have learnt tonight that he is against the current project, apparently because he believes that all British Rail's money should be spent on saving his neck by improving the lousy commuter service that his constituents have had to tolerate for 13 years of Tory misrule—to use a well-known phrase from a couple of decades back. Which projects should British Rail propose and where will it find the money to pay for them?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) will resist the temptation to depart from the Bill under discussion.
  Mr. Gale: I certainly will, but I shall correct one error of fact in the statement of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East. I have never opposed the fast link from Kent, which does not run through my constituency. Those of us who live in north-east Kent have always believed that there should be a fast link, and we have been perfectly happy for it to go through south London, to where our constituents who will benefit from the link wish to travel. I am on record as having said that on many occasions in the House—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East spent more time listening and less time intervening from a sedentary position, he might hear what Conservative Members have to say, some of which is not entirely contradictory to what he wants.
  I want the link to be built and the priorities to be right. A couple of years ago, British Rail spent millions of pounds building a link between London and Stansted airport that currently carries virtually no passengers. I am not saying that that link is not necessary or will not be necessary at some time in the future, but the-priority must be to serve the passengers who are paying now. I believe that the money should be spent now on the services used
  714
  now, and we must ensure that the planning is right so that the terminus is built in the right place. If that place proves to be Stratford East, that is where the terminus should go. But it should not be built somewhere simply because a Bill is lying on the table. The arguments of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury carry much weight and the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East would do well to give them slightly more attention.
  9.38 pm
  Mr. William O'Brien: The hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) referred to the issue of management and targeted his criticism at the management of British Rail. I am not in a position to defend British Rail, but when we analyse the problems with commuter services in the south-east and the problems that British Rail faces in general, we must remember that they are caused because the Government will not allow British Rail to introduce the schemes that it wants, including electrification of other lines, in order to improve services. The position with the Bill is similar.
  One of the reasons why I pressed the Minister to give an assurance about the link between Stratford and King's Cross is that it is feared that money will not be available to build the link. Several hon. Members have said that £1·25 billion has to be found for the King's Cross development and that other resources must be found for other British Rail projects connected with the channel tunnel. When we examine cost, I remind the House that it is not 12 months since we heard a statement from the Dispatch Box that the Government had found £4·5 billion to prop them up on the poll tax. So money can be found when the Government feel that it is necessary for them to sustain their vote throughout the country.
  If the Government are sincere about the Bill, they should not hesitate to give assurances to the House and the country that the money will be found to ensure that a link will be provided and that services will be available to the communities in the regions, and particularly the north, from the channel tunnel.
  When the Secretary of State announced in August this year the route that would be followed by the high-speed link, it was a tremendous disappointment to the local authorities and consortiums in the north of England that the link would come from the east through Stratford to King's Cross. That decision created tremendous doubt about whether facilities will be made available to service the regions north of London. Such doubts exist in Yorkshire and Humberside, which I know best, and in other northern and western areas.
  I do not apologise for raising the matter on more than one occasion in interventions and again in my own speech. We want assurances from the Government. I said earlier that the debate seemed to be developing into a north-south divide. I understand why my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) made the comments that he did. The Bill affects many of his constituents. Other hon. Members intervened and I thought that the debate was developing along "them and us" or north-south lines. I hope that the decision taken tonight will be to the benefit of the whole nation.
  In the north we consider that King's Cross is needed nationally. It is an important facility for international passenger services to the north of England and the other regions beyond London. I sometimes feel that north of

  715
  Watford does not matter in debates in the House. Several hon. Members from the north have stressed tonight, with all the determination that we can bring to bear, the need for the northern region to be considered in this development.
  The Bill should be accepted by the House because King's Cross will be the key terminal linking the north of England with the channel tunnel. We would prefer, of course, a direct link from the towns and cities of the north straight through to the channel tunnel, but that cannot be achieved. The best alternative is the King's Cross terminal.
  We plead with the House to allow the Bill to take its course and reach the statute book. It would allow international trains to run directly into the key main lines beyond London. We are pleased with the services from west Yorkshire and south Yorkshire which terminate at King's Cross. This Bill will directly link such services to the channel tunnel and on to Europe.
  The development at King's Cross will provide an excellent interchange for passengers from the north and the regions beyond London. The north of England, the midlands, Scotland, Wales and Ireland will be served well by the facilities at the new interchange.
  We want a fast link between the north and south of this country. If the construction at King's Cross goes ahead with the fast lines from the north meeting the high-speed link to the channel tunnel, that will be ideal.
  Given a fair wind the development could go ahead with minimum delay. The powers allowing the construction are being dealt with already and, as I have said, King's Cross will provide excellent access to London.
  I offer my wholehearted support to the desire of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury for accuratge environmental assessments. They must be correct down to the last detail, in the interests of those who will be affected and in the interests of the project. People need to be satisfied that the environmental assessments for King's Cross and the high-speed link are accurate.
  Mr. Gale: The hon. Gentleman said that he suppports the wish of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) for a good environmental assessment. If such an assessment demonstrates that the site is not suitable, will he still support his hon. Friend?
  Mr. O'Brien: The environmental assessment will be submitted along with the planning application. It is up to the people considering the planning application to deliver a judgment on the assessment. I consider the hon. Gentleman's remarks a little premature. He may oppose this measure but he should not pre-empt the results of the environmental assessment. Environmental assessments are important and they should be truthful and comprehensive. I feel sure that we shall get such an assessment.
  The Government must be pressed to accept the British Rail view that the link is needed within the next six or seven years. The Government's announcement suggested a possible date beyond 2000 and said that it could be delayed up to 2005. That is totally unsatisfactory. The Government must co-operate with British Rail and should give the programme full support because it is important to every region in the country.
  Given the right resources and planning, the King's Cross project in association with Thameslink 2000 will improve rail links between Kent, Sussex and Hampshire
  716
  and the north-east of England and will allow travellers from one region to visit the other with only a single change at King's Cross. The development will allow passengers from Yorkshire, Humberside, the north-east and Scotland to travel to the south-east and to Europe with one change at King's Cross. Because of its importance for passenger services and the economic development of the northern region, we ask the House to support the project.
  9.46 pm
  Mr. Kenneth Hind: I support the motion and I bring to the House the support of the North-West Channel Tunnel Group, which consists of a vast range of north-west commercial interests, and of the North of England Regional Consortium, which consists of many local authorities from the north of England. We say that the proposed second international passenger terminal at King's Cross is essential to the development of the north-west of England. It avoids peripherality and is essential for major passenger contact with the mainland of Europe.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) that if the fast link goes through the east of Kent it should not finish at Stratford; it must come to King's Cross. Through services must be provided via King's Cross to the west coast main line to serve the north-west of England. In that way fast passenger links to the north-west will be available shortly after the tunnel is opened. We look forward to the arrival of trains from Europe which will stop at King's Cross and then travel to termini in the north-west at Manchester or Liverpool. Those trains will travel on to Glasgow and, we hope, beyond.
  I strongly emphasise the importance of the scheme to people in the north-west. I have pressed for better freight links, which is another argument, but we must start with a reasonably fast passenger link to Europe. The rival proposals for Stratford are totally unacceptable. The first problem is that Stratford is totally dependent upon the construction of the fast link to the tunnel via the east coast and Kent. If that is not built, Stratford will be useless. In the short term, King's Cross is already there and the links to it exist so that, from the start of the operation of the tunnel, people from the north can go into Europe, stopping at King's Cross, changing trains without difficulty.
  Stratford is also badly connected to the United Kingdom's railway geography, with inferior capability for through international trains to the north-west and other regions beyond London. It has no existing direct links to the tunnel and could not function until a high-speed rail link was built, and that could be as late as the next century. Stratford is a total non-starter.
  Mr. Dobson: Is it not the case that the connections to the tunnel will be in existence long before the scheme before the House can be completed or, knowing the way British Rail manages to cock things up, probably before it starts digging any of the soil?
  Mr. Hind: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. He must bear in mind that, for the north-west, the interim proposal of Waterloo is not acceptable either. The sooner that the terminal at King's Cross is built, the better for the

  717
  north-west. Even before the main fast link to the tunnel, via Stratford has been built, the proposals in the Bill will have been implemented.
  The Stratford terminal serves London poorly. King's Cross is in a central position with easy access to the centre of London. People from Europe will want to come directly to the centre, so King's Cross would bring greater benefits from tourism.
  I commend the Bill to the House. It will bring the north-west of England major advantages. We must have the proposals in it, so I hope that all my hon. Friends will support the motion.
  9.52 pm
  Mr. David Tredinnick: I support the carry-over motion, as does the midland main line consortium, which is made up of Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Northamptonshire, Nottinghamshire county councils and Sheffield city council. They believe, as I believe, that if the Bill goes ahead, it will give much stronger grounds for electrification. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) and I tabled an amendment linking the motion to the electrification of the main line from St. Pancras to Sheffield.
  My short contribution will centre on the spur link set out as work No. 5 of schedule 1, between the midland main line and the old Great Northern line, and on the importance of speedy electrification of that line.
  The evidence from the consortium that supports the Bill is that electrification would meet the 8 per cent. return on investment requirement of British Rail immediately. Given the importance to the region of such a project, and the facts that 90 per cent. of businesses in the region use the line and that it would take seven years to electrify from the date of commitment, it is essential that this project is linked into the Bill.
  I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his hint of a commitment to electrify the line within the next 10 years. I draw his attention to the fact that a private consortium, the Central Railway Group, is proposing to build a private line on the old great central railway from the channel tunnel up through Buckinghamshire to Leicester. If it can raise a vast amount of capital— £1·8 billion—and believes that it is worth while to do so, surely it is possible for British Rail to commit the £100 million that is needed to electrify the main line. I say to my hon. Friend—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. Member is trying to keep in order, but he must direct his remarks to the Bill and the revival motion.
  Mr. Tredinnick: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The last thing that I want to do is stray out of order. May I draw your attention, however, to work No. 5, which is about
  "a railway commencing in the London borough of Islington by a junction with the Great Northern Railway at a point immediately below the southern portal of the western bore of Copenhagen tunnel"?
  That is the very point to which I am referring. If electrification is linked to the spur line, it will not be necessary for me to do what my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) had to do only recently, which was to get the chairman of British Rail to
  718
  attend another terminus in London and to make quite a row in order for some action to be taken. I am beginning to wonder whether it will be necessary to get the chairman to come to St. Pancras before we can elicit the funds for the project. A few days after the action that was taken by my right hon. Friend, a magic wand was waved and somehow money was found to improve the Southend line.
  Finally, I draw the attention of the House to the arguments that have been deployed against the reopening of the Snow Hill tunnel. That is the Thameslink line, which is a part of the Bill and which has been referred to this evening. British Rail argued long and hard that it was not possible to open it. When it was opened, British Rail argued that it was important because it would not be necessary to improve the lines around London. British Rail should consider again the arguments for electrification of the midland main line. If it goes ahead with the project, it will find that it has a reward for the investment that exceeds its wildest dreams.
  9.57 pm
  Mr. Waller: With the leave of the House, I wish to say a few words in reply.
  I have listened carefully to the arguments that have been advanced both for and against the revival of the Bill. Despite the length of one or two of the contributions of Labour Members, I do not think that they matched the significance of other speeches. I have heard strong arguments from hon. Members on both sides of the House for continuing with the Bill, in the interests of Londoners and in the national interest. If we are talking about a rail infrastructure that is suitable for the next century, we must have in mind the sort of measure that is the subject of the debate. I am confident that the House will support the motion. I ask it to do so to enable the Bill to be revived in the form——
  Mr. Dobson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Waller: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I ask the House to support the motion.
  9.59 pm
  Mr. Dobson: I had not intended to contribute to the debate but the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller), who introduced the motion, was asked several questions during his introductory speech and he failed stoically to produce any answers. We wanted to know—
  Mr. Waller rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to
  Question put accordingly and agreed to.
  Ordered,
  That the Promoters of the King's Cross Railways Bill may notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session; and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with;
  That the Bill shall be presented to the House not later than the seventh day after this day;
  That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the last Session;
  That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting

  719
  of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and, having been amended by the Committee in the last Session, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table.
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the last Session.
  To be communicated to the Lords and their concurrence desired thereto.

  Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill [Money]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

  (a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of increases attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of such money under any other enactment; and

  (b) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund. —[Mr. David Hunt.]

  10 pm
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: I rise to draw to the attention of the House the considerable significant public expenditure consequences of the Bill. For a long time and in so many previous debates, it has been difficult to obtain information on that aspect from any source, but particularly from Government sources. The money resolution provides a good opportunity to explore in some detail what will be the financial consequences of allowing the Bill to proceed.
  I welcome the public Bill in one narrow, specific respect. It at least makes an honest instrument of the last Bill. The private Bill that has been promoted for the last two to three years could not be considered private legislation when it came to the question of its financial consequences. It had significant public expenditure consequences, but because it was introduced as a private Bill, almost no one took responsibility to explain to the House in any detail, or with any certainty, its public expenditure consequences.
  Given that the Government have adopted the Bill now before the House, and given that the name of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury appears on it, I had hoped that we would receive a detailed explanation of its public expenditure consequences. Earlier, I interrupted the Secretary of State for Wales in the hope that he would be able to provide the House with such an explanation. We heard only one perfunctory sentence at the end of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, to the effect that he would give more money to the development corporation— £22 million, making £130 million over three years. That is the sum total of the right hon. Gentleman's explanation of a Bill that has significant public expenditure consequences.
  I do not believe that the House should let the money resolution go through without endeavouring to explore further the Bill's financial implications. It is even more astonishing that we should be asked to approve this money resolution, when one realises that the carry-over motion that has just been passed touched on the channel tunnel—which involves two major Bills that the Government said would have no public expenditure implications.
  Whatever may be the merits or demerits of the channel tunnel, it represents a huge item of public infrastructure of international consequences. The Bill that made it possible forbade any public expenditure to arise from that project. The King's Cross Railways Bill, part of the debate on which I just heard by accident, also has attached to it Government statements to the effect that it will have no public expenditure consequences.
  Yet a large sum of public money is to be devoted to a high-class private project comprising a marina incorporating high-class residential and commercial accommodation. Many of my hon. Friends could have an interesting discussion about the merits of the barrage if it were the

  721
  subject of a private Bill. It is anything but private, in that it will be wholly dependent upon public expenditure to make it work.
  It is a curious fact that some of the driest support in terms of the people who trooped through the Lobby, and the Under-Secretary of State for Wales—who is not renowned for his "wet" views in the spectrum of the Conservative party—will also be supporting a Bill that will have public expenditure consequences of the kind and character that I seek to clarify. If nothing else, we should know the Bill's financial consequences before agreeing to the money resolution. We have not received such an explanation yet—certainly not from the Secretary of State this evening.
  Apart from the money attached to the Bill, and the reference in the Bill to the money that will flow from it, we know of the broader public expenditure involved—what is known as the barrage-related public expenditure. We know, for example, that 1·5 miles of a road that is an intrinsic part of the scheme will cost more than £90 million. It will go down in history as one of the most expensive roads in Britain, but it is part and parcel of the Butetown link. It is not envy, surely, that prompts me to compare the cost with that of building the Conwy tunnel.
  We have been given some amazing figures relating to jobs. The hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) must be the most gullible Member in the House; like the Under-Secretary of State, he trotted out the figures for what must have been propaganda reasons. I do not think that the Under-Secretary of State accepts the truth of those figures, but if the experts can actually forecast to a square metre—almost to a job—the consequences of investment in the scheme, the Government should immediately employ them in the Welsh Development Agency, the Welsh Industrial Development Advisory Board and the Welsh Office. They appear to be better at the job than the National Audit Office.
  Mr. Alun Michael: As local authorities have discovered over the years, presenting precise job creation figures requires some care.
  My hon. Friend has referred to the importance of the road. I have worked in the Butetown area through which the road passes. Butetown is one of the most deprived areas in Wales, by any criterion. Does my hon. Friend accept that the decision to make the road a cut and cover road, thus ensuring that the two halves of Butetown will be united rather than divided, is one of the most positive community decisions that could have been made, regardless of the cost?
  Mr. Rowlands: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right, but I feel that we should acquaint the House with the enormous expenditure consequences. The expenditure may indeed be justifiable, but many roads divide many communities, and many such developments may be environmentally sensitive. I do not think that expenditure of £60 million a mile has been involved before. I do not quarrel with my hon. Friend; I am merely explaining the physical cost of carrying out such an important piece of social engineering.
  Mr. Michael: I accept what my hon. Friend has said. I think that we agree about the importance of such roads, whether they are in Cardiff, in the valleys or in rural
  722
  communities. My point is that such road building, although it may have a positive result, is not relevant to or dependent on the development of the barrage. The calculations of the House and the Treasury lead to the inclusion of the money in the financial memorandum; in fact, it is not related to either the barrage or the developments that are dependent on it.
  Mr. Rowlands: My hon. Friend continues to educate me on a host of issues. However, whatever the money relates to, and however it is accounted for, it adds up to £60 million a mile, which is a lot to spend on road building in any community. If expenditure involves the language of priorities, we must consider the consequences of building a road at that cost. We need a public expenditure remit. When the Bill is considered in Committee, we need to know the expenditure commitments.
  What is the grand total of barrage-related expenditure? In earlier debates, the Cardiff bay barrage-related expenditure was agreed to be £547 million, the Welsh Office share being £335 million. That figure was agreed in February of this year. We have been told that this expenditure will create very many jobs. Earlier I made the point that the sooner we have these advisers, if they are so good, in the Welsh Office, the Welsh Industrial Development Advisory Board and elsewhere, the better.
  I did not intend to deride WIDAB or Welsh Office estimates, but when selective financial assistance and investment grants are given it is almost impossible to attach the number of jobs created to such sums of money. The National Audit Office told us only what we already knew—that there is a great difference between job creation figures and investment. I accept that; it has been part and parcel of our lives for the last 20 or 30 years and more. I do not wish to rub noses in it, but a great deal of the National Audit Office's analysis is fairly superficial. I do not therefore rest my case on that basis. We ought not, however, to be gullible and accept figures down to the last square metre and the last office worker job that will be created. We should not accept them as conclusive proof that all sense of financial accountability must be abandoned.
  I hope that the Secretary of State will tell us whether we are still talking about barrage-related development amounting to £547 million. Furthermore, will £335 million of the £547 million fall on the Welsh Office vote? When we last debated the matter, we were told that the Cardiff bay barrage costs amounted to £125·55 million. When the Bill was originally published, that figure was about £82 million. I accept that additional expenditure has been added to it as a result of arguments that have been put forward both in the House and elsewhere. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the figure is still £125·55 million? If so, how does that figure square with the financial effects listed in the Bill?
  Three figures are referred to in the explanatory and financial memorandum: £113 million for the cost of constructing the barrage, £2·5 million for acquisition of land and rights, and £37 million for groundwater and water quality protective provisions. That amounts to a total of £152 million. Is that figure equivalent to the quoted figure of £125 million? I see that the Minister nods his head. In other words, since we last discussed the Bill, costs have increased by £25 million. When we debate the Bill in, say, July, will the figure have increased again? Should we consider merely inflation, or will additional

  723
  costs be incurred? What are we buying under the money resolution? We have witnessed fantastic increases under a Government who are supposed to be prudent. They do not want to spend a penny on the channel tunnel or on the King's Cross Railways Bill, yet they have happily agreed to a further £25 million being spent on the Bill.
  The Secretary of State did not explain the financial consequences of the Bill. I am a good amateur historian —one needs to be with this Bill because it has a good historical pedigree. If I remember rightly—my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) will correct me if I do not—the original net operating loss of the barrage was estimated to be about £400,000 a year. After all the yachtsmen had paid their fees and moored their boats, after houses had been built and after this wonderful scheme was operating, lo and behold there would be an operational loss of £400,000. I remember the debate vividly because my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth told me that that was nothing compared with how much we spent on maintaining parks in Cardiff.
  Mr. Michael: Will my hon. Friend define "loss"?.
  Mr. Rowlands: The "Financial effects" section of the Bill states that
  "the annual cost of operating the barrage … will be a net £1·6 million a year."
  Mr. Michael: Does my hon. Friend accept that the word "loss" contains an element of criticism and that public expenditure on something that is worthwhile should not be defined as a loss?
  Mr. Rowlands: Will my hon. Friend accept the word "deficit"? If the word "loss' is loaded, I shall use "deficit".
  We originally debated the £400,000 deficit that would be borne by the Cardiff Bay development corporation and then, presumably, by the poll tax payers of the city. We were then told that the operational deficit was £1·3 million. The "Financial effects" of the Bill mention a net deficit of £1·6 million. We have moved from a net deficit of £400,000 a year to one of £1·6 million a year. It is reasonable for me to say—this is riot the politics of envy—that the deficit was originally estimated at £400,000 a year, then £1·3 million a year and now it is £1·6 million a year. If the bill were borne by the people of Cardiff, it would be up to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth and others who represent Cardiff to come to terms with their electorates. It is not for me to quarrel with an operating deficit of £1·6 million if it is to be paid by the people of Cardiff. The Bill states:
  "These costs will be borne by the Secretary of State."
  The costs will be borne not by the people of Cardiff but by the Welsh Office, presumably through a grant to Cardiff Bay development corporation. The money will come from the Treasury.
  The Bill does not say that the costs will be borne for one, five or 10 years, there is an indefintie commitment. There are rumours that the period could be 20 years. We are asked to endorse in principle expenditure by the Welsh Office of £335 million out of £546 million, another £152 million through Cardiff Bay development corporation and a net operating deficit of £1·6 million for an indefinte period.
  Leaving aside the Bill's principles, objectives and merits, Welsh Members, who often have arguments with
  724
  the Welsh Office about various kinds of public expenditure, have a right to ask questions and to confirm figures, as I am trying to do.
  Mr. Allan Rogers: Will my hon. Friend help me? He gave a long list of the charges that will eventually be borne by the taxpayer or the Treasury, but he did not mention the other side of the equation—the income that will accrue to the development corporation and other interested organisations such as Associated British Ports.
  The hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) gave a long list of the benefits that will result from building the barrage as opposed to not building it. One benefit is the enhanced finance that will accrue to the interested parties —the development corporation and ABP, who are extensive landowners in the area. My hon. Friend is saying that, if there is a deficit, the costs will fall on the taxpayer. Let us suppose that there is a profit. What will happen to it? Will ABP pay anything towards the costs which my hon. Friend mentioned?
  Mr. Rowlands: My hon. Friend has put his finger on an important issue. In a previous debate, I asked whether repayments would be made to the Welsh Office if enormous profits were made. At the moment, I am interested in a narrower point to which the financial resolution binds us. Are we to accept a scheme leading to a £1·6 million deficit which will be borne by the Welsh Office year in, year out if the deficit continues as expected?
  Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) raised an important issue in relation to Associated British Ports. Am I right in saying that, when we were dealing with a private Bill, ABP could say, "As petitioners, we will do what we can to delay the Bill unless our requirements are met"? Therefore, if there is a benefit for Associated British Ports—and there is—the fault lies not with ABP for seeing the opportunities but with the private Bill system which has, in effect, held the city of Cardiff as well as the Welsh Office to ransom because the development could not proceed without the agreement of the petitioners at that time. It is one of the ironies that my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) is raising some important issues, but had we not had to go through the private Bill procedure but been able to deal straight away with the hybrid Bill that we are now debating, such issues would have been on the surface. Instead, they have been dealt with and decided during the course of the private Bill procedure.
  Mr. Rowlands: My hon. Friend raises some profound questions, but I suspect that if I pursued them I might go beyond the financial resolution that we are now debating.
  I am concerned merely to identify the public expenditure consequences of the Bill as we are being asked to agree to the financial resolution. I have drawn to the House's attention what I believe to be interesting and fascinating circumstances. They are not unique because there are precedents and I am sure that the Minister will have a stack of them. He had better, because I want chapter and verse. How many other schemes in Wales is the Welsh Office currently financing with an unlimited commitment on an operational deficit, year in and year out? I should love to know.
  I know a great deal about and understand the capital expenditure grants that Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney

  725
  receives through the agency for its land clearance schemes. I understand the modest amounts that we receive under three-year urban aid schemes. There are often tens of thousands stretched over three years and they are accompanied by the strict notion that any costs, burdens and deficits of the society, community, organisation, community centre or swimming pool, or whatever, will at the end of that period be borne by the community's tax payers, not by the Welsh Office.
  I want to ask the Parliamentary Under-Secretary a specific question before we approve the resolution. Will he list the other schemes for which the Welsh Office has committed itself to such an operational deficit in expenditure every year? I should be grateful for that information. As I said, I have examples on my own patch. We understand capital expenditure extremely well and we know that it is funded from the Welsh Office. That involves a one-off, large-scale investment to transform the infrastructure of our society and our community.
  I thought that this Government, more than any other, were never willing to commit themselves for any length of time to covering operational deficits. I thought that operational deficits were dirty words to them, whatever we think about them. I thought that they were dirty words according to the Government's philosophy, but the financial effects of the Bill, which many Conservatives have trooped in to support, would involve a £1·6 million operational deficit. The tab will be picked up not by the yachtsmen who moor their boats in the area or by the developers whose investments will increase, and not even by the people of Cardiff who, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth said, keep their parks and recreation areas well, but by the taxpayers of Wales, by the Treasury and the Welsh Office.
  How many more schemes can we introduce which will allow operational deficits to be carried indefinitely by the Secretary of State? That is an extremely serious and interesting consequence. Why should the Secretary of State bear the operational deficits of such a scheme? Why from the start did not the Government take the line that if we wanted to build a barrage to create the marina and the rest, and if the scheme was so good, the cost should be raised by the private sector? The public infrastructure of much of the docklands redevelopment should be a mixture of private and public investment. That is the equivalent of what Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney are doing with land reclamation schemes.
  If we came along with such a fanciful scheme, expected large capital expenditure and said that the consequence would be a £1·6 million deficit every year, what reaction would we have got from a Tory Secretary of State? I am willing to be educated. If the Secretary of State will give us a list of equivalent schemes for which the Welsh Office is financing operational losses of that order for a period that is unknown, I am willing to decide whether we should endorse the expenditure required under the resolution. My questions are more than justifiable when we are asked to pass the money resolution.
  10.30 pm
  Mr. Paul Flynn: May I help my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) by giving one example of a scheme which will
  726
  never run into profit, but which will be financed out of public funds? It is the London docklands light railway extension—[Interruption.] Let me finish. We were told by the Secretary of State that it would be financed by the Treasury. I have spent the past few painful months chairing the Committee on the London Docklands Railway (Lewisham etc.) Bill. The scheme is going forward and it will not, in the foreseeable future, make a profit.
  I am not as surprised by the way in which the Thatcherite philosophy seems to be expounded by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney as I am by the more enlightened philosophy coming through, which says that one does not have to make a profit on each scheme. To talk about deficits or profits on a scheme such as the Cardiff bay barrage is like asking people to make a profit on the library service, on opera or on art. We do not believe that society should be organised with profit as the prime virtue. That was the grave error of the past 12 dark years of Thatcherism. I am surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney does not accept that some schemes are so important and of such universal benefit—in this case, for the inhabitants of Cardiff and of Wales generally—that they are worth considering as eligible for public money at some point.
  Mr. Rowlands: I accept my hon. Friend's interesting observations, but I will make two points. First, the Bill is introduced by the Government. Secondly, even my hon. Friend will agree that we must make some comparison between the marina scheme being suggested, and essential developments for libraries and for the culture of our whole community. There is a great deal of difference between the two.
  Mr. Flynn: I remind my hon. Friend that there is celebration in heaven over one sinner doing penance. The Government's act of penitence on the scheme is to be welcomed.
  I can speak with some knowledge of Cardiff because I was born there and I lived in the area for the first 30 years of my life. Some people from outside the area have a false idea of it and of the people who will benefit from the scheme. We have heard talk of the boat owners and the yuppies moving in. There was an area close to where I lived in Cardiff called Madras street and Thomas street which was destroyed in a slum clearance programme. We did not regard them as slums; we thought that it was a vibrant, robust and tough community full of strong personalities. When the area was knocked down, the people were decanted to a block of flats called Channel View at the end of Channel View road. Most of them have stayed there and have not come back to the new and much improved homes that have been built. Those people are definitely not yuppies. They are very much part of Cardiff because they have lived there and have their roots deep in Cardiff, and are part of the tough community in that town.
  The rest of the people who will benefit from the barrage have a magnificent view of the great surging tide that comes in—the second highest tide in Europe—which is a moving cliff of water. It offers great drama and excitement. However, for 18 hours a day all that is provided is an unattractive mudscape. The popular view is that people would prefer to live by an area of reflective water. People find that an attractive sight, as is proved in Baltimore and throughout the world.

  727
  If one analyses how the money will be spent, one discovers that just one fifth of it will be spent on the barrage. I note with great pleasure that £95 million will be spent on environmental improvements, because generations of Cardiffians have treated the area in a disgraceful manner. I used to work at the Esso refinery at Victoria wharf and for many years I worked at steelworks in the Cardiff docks. I used to trudge across the area every morning and it was a slum. It was a mixture of old factories and derelict housing. Cardiff had turned its back on the area and it was despised and shunned. For many years its residents had a poor deal. We now have a chance to rejuvenate the area and to create a vast, attractive lake.
  People must not be negative about the changes. I welcome the large amount of money that will be spent on water treatment. When I was a boy, the Taff, at the height of summer when there was a low flow down river, consisted of nothing but coal slurry and sewage. The Taff was virtually an open sewer; it was a disgrace. Since then, however, it has been cleaned up enormously. One could not impound the water as it is now—it must be subjected to further improvements. We now have sophisticated means of cleaning up water, particularly if it is impounded. One can use different methods, for example, phosphate stripping, to clean, manage and maintain the water.
  A lake in Austria recently won an international award. A few years ago people would not swim in it because of the quality of the water. That water, after expensive treatment, is now fit to drink straight from the lake. We can ensure that the water in the Cardiff bay, which will be at the heart of the system, will be pure.
  Mention has been made of the Butetown link road to Grangetown. That essential road should have been built years ago. It will cross difficult terrain and I am delighted that the Government are to use public money on its construction, as they have on other imaginative schemes in Wales.
  I was sorry to note in the Second Reading debate some of the comments of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey), although he did admit that they were based on the experience of his grandfather, who had lived in Cardiff some years ago. The hon. Gentleman said that he was in favour of the Bill in principle, although I note that he did not say that the entire Liberal party was in favour. However, I have heard murmurs of approval from the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells).
  The Bill is important not just to Cardiff, but to Wales. Cardiff is our capital city and the Bill will transform an area that has long been derelict. The centre of the docks has already been largely metamorphosised, but there is a long way to go. The money for the Bill represents a good investment for Cardiff and Wales.
  10.39 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Bennett): In the six minutes left, I shall try to answer some of the points that have been raised in this interesting money resolution debate.
  The money resolution would authorise the payment, out of money provided by Parliament, of the expenses of the Secretary of State which would arise as a consequence of the Bill, if enacted. It covers both expenses arising directly from the provisions of the Bill and those arising out of any other enactments attributed to the Bill.
  728
  The costs covered by the resolution therefore include the costs of constructing the works set out in schedule I to the Bill, at £113 million; the costs of acquiring land for the project under part II of the Bill and compensating land owners affected by the project, at £2·5 million; the costs of carrying out the surveys of buildings, the remedial work by the development corporation and the payment of compensation in respect of the groundwater protection scheme, at £37 million; and the cost of operating the barrage and managing the inland bay and lagoon at £1·6 million.
  Schedules 2 and 6 allow the Secretary of State to recover from the development corporation costs incurred in relation to the survey or examination of tidal works or sites on which it is proposed to execute tidal works, and expenditure incurred in the repair or removal of the tidal structure where the development corporation has failed to comply with the notice requiring it to carry out such repairs or removals. As those matters are related to navigation, they will be for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
  It will be helpful if I explain how those figures relate to those that arose during earlier debates. The detailed letter that I sent to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) on 13 December 1990 set out fully the earlier figures, and copies of that letter were placed in the Library. The total cost of the construction, land acquisition and protection provisions is £152·5 million. The equivalent figure in my letter to the hon. Gentleman was £125·55 million. The main reason for the difference is an allowance for inflation and design changes in the barrage and lagoon. The figure of £152·5 million is the expenditure that arises directly from the Bill's provisions; it is what Parliament would be approving in passing the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney asked several questions, the first of which related to financial effects and inflation. The money resolution states:

  "(a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of increases attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of such money under any other enactment; and

  "(b) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund."

  It allows for the figures to increase as the costs increase due to inflation or during the passage of the Bill, perhaps in the Select Committee hearing. No Government who are willing to listen to what is said by the Select Committee and Mr. Roy Stoner and to take account of other factors that affect the Bill as it passes through the House can ignore that part of the resolution.
  The hon. Gentleman also referred to the sum of £547·29 million, which is the total figure for the redevelopment strategy at mid 1989–90 prices, based on the Cardiff bay barrage planning update and economic appraisal statement made in January 1990. It includes £125·5 million for the barrage, £148 million for infrastructure site preparation, £152 million for the improved access, £95·89 million for environmental improvements and £25 million for the people draw facilities—entertainment and leisure facilities that draw people into the district. Of that money, £335 million is the public sector cost to the local authorities and the Cardiff Bay development corporation, and £237 million of that will come from the development

  729
  corporation. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman can see that considerable sums are being provided by the Government towards the provisions of the Bill.
  The hon. Gentleman said that he was worried about the £1·6 million operating cost. That must be seen in context of the total sum that the Government and private industry are providing towards the redevelopment of the Cardiff bay district. The ratio of private to public money spent on the scheme will be 1:7. The total value is between £1·5 billion and £2 billion and the project will provide 25,000 jobs.
  The hon. Gentlemen spent a considerable portion of his speech on the £1·6 million that he alleged would be the deficit on the running costs of Cardiff bay. He should remember what the £1·6 million involves. That figure is currently in the Bill, but we are looking to the corporation to carry out a number of activities that will help to recoup part of that sum. The net operating costs of the inland lake will be met by the development corporation during its lifetime, as will maintenance and capital replacement costs.
  However, the corporation is considering several options to provide revenue to cover the operating costs on a longer-term basis. They include, first, levelling charges on residential and non-residential property in the bay area; secondly, placing property owned by the corporation into
  730
  a managed portfolio designed to provide an annual lease or rent income; thirdly, the transfer of a cash endowment from the corporation into a managed fund designed to provide the necessary annual income and capital growth; and lastly, the possibility of creating a trust fund into which assets and capital growth income can be transferred from the corporation and which will provide an annual income. That last option is currently being discussed with the corporation.
  So there is a clear financial memorandum set out in the Bill. We have £547 million total expenditure on the redevelopment strategy. We have the £335 million which will come from public funds, whether from the Cardiff Bay development corporation or local authorities and the £1·6 million towards the cost of operating the inland lake. Those figures should reassure the House, and I ask the House to accept the money resolution.
  It being a quarter to Eleven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business).
  Question agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

  (a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of increases attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of such money under any other enactment; and

  (b) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.

  Library Charges
  10.45 pm
  The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Tim Renton): I beg to move,
  That the draft Library Charges (England and Wales) Regulations 1991, which were laid before the House on 22nd July, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
  There have been many changes in libraries since the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964. This debate, to which I have been looking forward with keen anticipation, is the result of some of the changes and of the need constantly to improve services. It is a debate not about a good service or a bad service but about how to make a good service even better.
  By removing minor anomalies, the regulations will help to give library authorities greater flexibility, opportunity and possibility to develop new services. It will allow them the freedom to charge for more services, without affecting the basic, free traditional service. In effect, the regulations will help to improve the service to the reader and allow authorities to make better use of their resources.
  Let me give the House a bit of history. Section 8(1) of the 1964 Act prohibits library authorities in England and Wales from charging anyone other than another library authority for library facilities, except as provided for by that section. Section 154 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 amends section 8 of the 1964 Act and empowers the Lord President of the Council and the Secretary of State for Wales to specify in regulations which library facilities provided by library authorities may be charged for. The regulations will replace the limited charging powers that library authorities presently have, which are set out in section 8(2) to section 8(5) of the 1964 Act.
  Before drawing up the regulations, we invited library authorities to let us know which facilities they charged for or might wish to charge for in future. The results showed that services are already provided on library premises which go beyond those which could strictly be defined as library facilities. These include specialised information services, graphic design services, desk-top publishing facilities and translation services.
  Those services fall outside the scope of the prohibition in section 8(1) of the 1964 Act. Thus the regulations, which give exceptions from that prohibition, do not deal with them. That is not to say that those services cannot continue to be provided on library premises. But they are services provided by local authorities under other powers and not as library authorities.
  Mr. Alun Michael: I am interested in the line of the Minister's thoughts. He seems to be about to announce that he intends to give freedom to library authorities to decide the way in which they operate. If the Minister does not mind my saying so, I seem to have heard that before somewhere. Will he make any assumptions as a result of the regulations about how library authorities can generate income when he considers the financial support that they need?
  Mr. Renton: I suppose that I must thank the hon. Gentleman for referring to my argument as a line of thought, but it is not a line of thought: it is a textual explanation of the regulations. I do not intend to make any assumptions about the amount of additional income local
  732
  authorities may raise from these regulations, because it is at their discretion to decide whether to use these powers. These are merely enabling regulations.
  Mr. Michael: Even if the Minister does not make such assumptions, will not Ministers responsible for local government finance make assumptions about the income that can be generated? Will he assure us that his colleagues in the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office will not make assumptions and will leave these matters to be decided freely by local authorities?
  Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman is making a Welsh mountain out of a small molehill. When we looked into this matter, we found that about 80 per cent. of the library authorities that we consulted said that they used the income that they generated from these charges to add to their services in other areas. The money is therefore beneficial to them.
  The regulations have been drawn up to cover only those library facilities made available by the library authorities in the course of carrying out their functions under section 7 of the 1964 Act. In February 1988 my office published the Green Paper "Financing our Public Library Service: Four Subjects for Debate", which, among other things, proposed to remove anomalies and inconsistencies in library authorities' present powers to charge.
  This was followed by a six-month public consultation period. Similarly, the draft regulations were sent out for comment in September 1990 to representatives of those responsible for or with an interest in the administration and operation of the public library service in England and Wales. The final draft was prepared after all the views expressed during the three-month consultation period had been fully considered.
  It was as a result of this consultative process that I decided, for example, to remove the upper limit of £1·50 on reservation charges.
  Mr. Mark Fisher: The Minister says that the changes in the final draft were made after the full period of consultation. Did any of the library authorities—or the Library Association, or the Library Campaign—consulted during that period ask him to remove the £1·50 charge?
  Mr. Renton: I know that the Library Association issued some notes—no doubt the hon. Gentleman will draw on them during his speech—in which it opposed the removal of the limit. But most of the chief librarians whom we consulted, through their association known as FOLACL —the Federation of Local Authority Chief Librarians—felt strongly that authorities should be able too exercise discretion with reservation charges, just as they do for other charges. They therefore favour the abolition of the limit—
  Mr. Fisher: Would the right hon. Gentleman care to name the chief librarians in question, and the authorities that they represent? What he has said will cause great surprise in the library world. If the right hon. Gentleman claims that this view was taken, he should name the people who took it.
  Mr. Renton: I regret that the hon. Gentleman has not done his homework properly. A majority of chief librarians, through their association FOLACL, thought that the maximum charge should not remain.

  733
  I shall in a moment specify the facilities for which library authorities will be empowered to charge, but first I want to remind the House of an important safeguard for free access to the library service which we have built into the provisions of the 1964 Act, as substituted by the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.
  We have excluded from the scope of the enabling power two main elements which are generally regarded as traditional free public library services: the borrowing by any person living, working or studying full time in the area of an English or Welsh library authority of books, journals and pamphlets available in written form within a library or mobile library of that authority; and the use for reference and consultation purposes of all such materials and microform materials, or any catalogue of the authority's own holdings by any person within library premises of that authority.
  This statutory safeguard, which is repeated in the draft regulations, demonstrates our commitment to maintaining the essential, free, traditional public library service. The regulations will replace the limited charging powers presently held by library authorities. They will preserve the existing powers to charge contained in the Act, such as for notification of the availability of a reserved item, for late return of borrowed material and for supplying book catalogues or indexes which become the property of the persons to whom they are supplied.
  The regulations will also correct certain anomalies in the existing legislation. Some existing powers are inconsistent or unhelpfully limited. An authority may charge a user for keeping a book or other library material longer than the allowed period, but not for any damage that he has caused to the item. An authority may charge a user the cost of notifying him that the book or other article is available for borrowing, but not the administrative costs of reserving material. It can charge for telling the customer that the item is ready to be borrowed, but not that it is unobtainable or may be consulted only in the reference library. These anomalies are corrected in the regulations.
  Finally, the regulations will introduce new charging powers. They will give library authorities power to charge for assistance given by library staff, for example, in conducting research for a user among a library's materials. Many authorities are now asked by individuals and organisations to carry out lengthy research, and it seems right that they should pay for that work. The regulations do not allow a library authority to charge for staff time involved in straightforward inquiries concerned with the provision of the traditional library service, such as where to find a book or a simple reference request.
  In addition, the regulations empower charging for assistance or instruction in the use of computers. Since the 1964 Act, computers have played an increasing role in the library service. Libraries use computers to store their catalogues and indexes and process information that is needed for good housekeeping, such as reserving material, recording loans and due dates. The regulations prevent a charge from being made where the computer is required to consult an authority's own catalogues or indexes.
  The current section 8 of the 1964 Act allows a library authority to sell only catalogues and indexes. The regulations place no such restrictions on library authorities and they can sell material which they have researched,
  734
  collated, produced or copied themselves. The regulations also clarify the power to charge for the borrowing of certain non-print materials and the provision of library services off library premises, for example, to old people's homes and to hospitals.
  I repeat that all the powers to charge will, as at present, be discretionary. It will be for each library authority to decide whether to charge for any library facility for which charging is authorised by the regulations. When they do decide to charge, library authorities will be able to decide what they charge and the concessions that they give, taking into account local needs and circumstances. For example, some local authorities may decide not to charge for talking books for those whose sight is impaired, or they may exempt children and the elderly from reservation charges. Such matters will be for local authorities to decide. The draft regulations will provide that any charges which are to be imposed must be displayed on library premises.
  There is no question of the regulations heralding the privatisation of the public library service. This is not so. Under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964, library authorities have a duty to provide public library services, and they will continue to have a duty to provide a comprehensive and efficient library service. I intend to monitor charging levels. All library authorities will be contacted in two years' time so that we can assess the situation. The intention is to bring section 154 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 and these regulations into force on 1 January 1992.
  We recognise the importance and popularity of the public library service. It is valued by all sectors of the community, and these regulations reflect the Government's determination to provide authorities with opportunities to develop and improve their library and information services as they deem fit. They are just one of a series of steps that we have taken to help library authorities. Last year, we published a manual on assessing performance in libraries, and we shall shortly be publishing another on public library objectives. We have continued and improved the public library development incentive scheme, and the first awards in the new scheme were announced two weeks ago. We shall thus continue to take steps to make the library service effective, modern and good value for money. The regulations will help in this process, and I commend them to the House.
  11 pm
  Mr. Mark Fisher: We welcome the regulations. The Minister is right to say that clarification was needed to establish precisely the charging powers of public library authorities and that the anomalies and obscurities in the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 to be tidied up. In his period of consultation, both on the Green Paper and on these regulations, he will have heard that from librarians, and the Library Association made it clear in its meeting with him in February. They were all glad that, when the Minister met the association, some of the changes to the draft regulations that it suggested—for example, the dropping of charging for the librarians' time—were agreed to. The Minister was right to take its advice and drop that proposal.
  Unfortunately, not all the points that professional librarians made to the Minister in consultations have resulted in changes. In spite of what he said, the Library Association feels that the changes in the regulations may

  735
  throw up as many obscurities and uncertainties as the provisions of section 8 of the 1964 Act. As the Minister admitted, he made one significant alteration from the draft regulations against the advice of the Library Association and of most librarians. He gave us the source when he spoke of the majority of chief librarians in their professional association, but he needs to explain that rather more.
  Not many chief librarians or librarians will find it easy to believe that the majority of those advising the Minister said that the maximum charge should be abandoned. I suspect that all the correspondence that he has had, like all the correspondence that I have had, says the opposite—that this is an unhelpful and rather dangerous thing to do, and that the draft regulations were better when there was a clear maximum charge.
  The change that the Minister made is a significant one. He presented it in a reasonable light, saying that it was purely discretionary and that librarians would have freedom to charge. The House will recognise that he is being disingenuous when he presents it in that light. Librarians will be free to charge, but they will be under pressure from the Minister. If they complain about lack of financing and about difficulties, he will have the perfect answer. He will say, "I have given you these powers to increase charges. Do not come to me complaining that you are underfinanced—you have the remedy in your hands. The regulations that I put before Parliament were liberal; they gave you the freedom to solve your own problems. Go away and charge. Don't come wittering to me about not having enough money. You have the remedy in your own hands."
  The "freedom" that the Minister has given to library authorities is not entirely what it may seem. He knows well, especially after the events of the past couple of weeks, that many library authorities are short of money. I suspect that he will not hesitate after 1 January 1992 to advise them they should be raising charges to solve their difficulties.
  The Minister said in answer to a parliamentary question from my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) that the Library Association had said that there was no problem with money and that there was a choice. He will recall that the association's chief executive, George Cunningham, wrote the next day as follows:
  "I must, with respect, make it emphatically clear that the Library Association has said nothing of the kind that could be interpreted in that sense. On the contrary, as you know from exchanges with our President and otherwise, the Association has stressed the need for more resources to be made available for public libraries. That was the very message that we conveyed to you at our meeting in February, and it has been the gist of many statements made by our President since."
  The Minister accepted that he had made a mistake. He answered a question of mine by saying:
  "I am glad to have the opportunity of correcting a slip of the tongue"—
  we all know that such mistakes are easy to make—
  "when I referred to the Library Association. I intended to quote the report 'Libraries' Choice', which said that the key issue was choice rather than money."
  The Minister has admitted his mistake. I suppose that it is easy to confuse a professional association with a magazine. The House may find, however, that it is a rather surreal difficulty of the Minister's not being able to tell the difference between a professional body and a journal. Leaving that aside, it is not clear from the Minister's reply
  736
  whether in his apology or his answer to me he admitted that it was not the Library Association that made the remark or whether he admitted that money is an acute concern of library authorities. I am sure that he will take the opportunity to say that he understands that library authorities throughout the country have grave money difficulties.
  The right hon. Gentleman will have seen the Library Association's survey of April when it examined 78 library authorities, 70 per cent. of which stated that cuts had been made. It is those authorities that will be coming to him and complaining about the financial circumstances that the Government have placed on local authorities, which has led to the cuts.
  I suspect that the Minister will be quoting the regulations to the library authorities. In effect, he will say, "Go away and increase your charges." So when Berkshire comes to him as a shire county and says, "We have had to cut £287,000 from our library authority this year", the Minister will say, "Go away and raise charges." When Warwickshire says that it has had to cut—
  Mr. John Bowis: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Would he preclude charging within the fairly limited range of possibilities that is available within the regulations? Would he restrict the amount to be charged, and if so to what level? If not, will he say precisely what he is complaining about? It appears that he is worried that there will be excessive charges. Is he saying, however, that charges should be possible, and if so to what extent?
  Mr. Fisher: I think that I have made it clear to the House, including the hon. Gentleman, if he has been following my argument, that the Opposition believe that the Minister would have been well advised to take the advice of the Library Association and to adhere to the draft regulations, which provided a maximum limit of £1·50. Library authorities would not then have had to go to the maximum, but they would have known the maximum sum that could be charged. Instead, by removing the maximum charge, the Minister has opened the way for much higher charges. When library authorities, such as Berkshire, that have been compelled to make cuts complain to the Minister, he will tell them, "The answer is in your hands." Warwickshire, which cut 12 per cent. of its book fund, may receive exactly the same answer from the Minister.
  Mr. Alan Meale: I was grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks about the scale of charges. He spoke also of the huge cuts forced on library authorities throughout the United Kingdom. Can he say what those cuts in library services mean in real terms? What kind of books are being cut from the curriculum?
  Mr. Fisher: The kind of books that will not be bought this year will vary from authority to authority. Berkshire's cuts include a 14 per cent. opening reduction in opening hours—so libraries will be open for shorter hours. Warwickshire's cut of 12 per cent. of its book fund means that it will not provide any national newspapers in its libraries, and will reduce the number of periodicals. When Somerset had to cut £155,000 from its book fund, seven further libraries had to close an additional half-day a

  737
  week. Also cut will be the range of books offered—whether to children or young people, or those who have sight problems.
  Not just the three shire counties that I cited will be affected. The Library Association survey showed that 70 per cent. of the 78 authorities that replied are making cuts this year. They include Bedfordshire, Cheshire, Cumbria, Gloucestershire, Lancashire, Nottinghamshire, and metropolitan districts such as Calderdale, Dudley, Kirklees, Oldham, South Tyneside, Wolverhampton and Walsall. There are present in the Chamber hon. Members whose own authorities have made cuts—and if they visit the libraries in their constituencies, they will come to know what those cuts mean on the shelves.
  Mr. Meale: I asked that question of my hon. Friend because I have been contacted by many librarians in the east midlands area, who are fearful that the cuts will affect the provision of children's books and the provision and usage of services to children. I agree with my hon. Friend that such cuts can only lead to fewer services being offered to a group that is most in need.
  Mr. Fisher: Nevertheless, the Minister will be quite within his rights to say to such authorities, "In the light of the regulations, you have the answer. You can do something about it. Raise charges. You make a lot of reservations—why not reinforce your book fund by making a profit on them and notifications. That way, you could solve at least some of your problems."
  What is behind the Minister's thinking? I am glad that the right hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce), the former Minister for the Arts, is present. As I understood the right hon. Gentleman's speeches and everything that he said about his Green Paper, he would not have abolished the maximum. He saw the need for a maximum charge to prevent exactly the circumstances that I described. I recall that he spoke about his Green Paper a great deal throughout the country, and always stressed the importance of the maximum charge, which was left in the regulations that the present Minister inherited. It was not on advice from his predecessors that the current Minister for the Arts made this change—and, in my view, he was not given such advice by professional librarians, such as those who belong to the Library Association, and certainly not by the Library Campaign—though the Minister is saying that some chief librarians advised him to remove the charge.
  Mr. Renton: I am flattered that the hon. Gentleman attributes more Machiavellian spirit to me than to my predecessor, my very old right hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce). However, the hon. Gentleman forgets two things. There are no maximum charges at present. There is none in the present situation. All that my right hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham suggested was that there might be a maximum charge of £1·50 only in respect of reservations. He never suggested that there should be charges for all the things for which we are now introducing, or clarifying, the right to charge. I was strongly advised by FOLACL—the Federation of Local Authority Chief Librarians—the other professional organisation, which is in dispute with the Library Association on this issue, that a maximum was not a good idea. I feared that an established maximum of £1·50 would
  738
  become a minimum, or a norm. I felt that the local authorities should reach their own conclusions on the appropriate figure to charge for reservations. Flattered as I am to be described as Machiavellian, what the hon. Gentleman has said is rather far from the facts.
  Mr. Fisher: I do not know whether that was a slip of the tongue, or whether the Minister is becoming confused, but I do not see how a maximum can become a minimum. I do not think that the Minister meant that. He seems to need some education in basic semantics. It could be a norm, as he suggested; but, by definition, it cannot be a minimum.
  In his draft regulations, the Minister's predecessor referred only to reservations, but in England alone there are nearly 7 million reservations a year. If income is increased from the present low levels, there will be considerable potential for an increase in library authorities' income. The Minister says that, to date, there have been no maximum—
  Mr. Michael Mates: Maxima.
  Mr. Fisher: I am grateful to the hon. and—classically, at least—learned Gentleman.
  The reason why there has been no need for a maximum reservation charge in the past is that, until the present Government came along, library authorities were well funded. Our library system was the envy of the world, but, following the cuts that were carried out throughout the 1980s and are still being made, the pressure on library authorities to seek income generation has increased enormously. The Minister and his predecessors have been telling them, in various documents and speeches, to do that and thus to help themselves.
  The Minister says that he is flattered by being seen as Machiavellian. His motive is not entirely clear. Is it a matter of principle? Does he believe, like one of his predecessors, Lord Gowrie, that people value things more if they are charged for them? In a not very distinguished speech that Lord Gowrie once made in Ealing, he said that library users would appreciate services more if they had to pay. I do not think, however, that this Minister believes in that principle.
  Is it pragmatism? Presumably the Minister did his homework and worked out how many reservations were being made and what income was being generated. A survey carried out last year gave him some idea of the mean income from reservations and he worked out what increased charges might mean for the library authorities. If his reason for abolishing the maximum was the financial benefit for library authorities that he envisaged, he should tell the House about it.
  Anticipating our lines of argument, the Minister has tried to deflect comment on what I suspect lies behind the Government's proposals: the changes introduced by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and the fact that the proposals are part of a process to privatise all or part of public library services. He knows that the Secretary of State for the Environment has added libraries to the list of services that will be considered for compulsory competitive tendering.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Gentleman is going very wide of the matter that is before the House.
  Mr. Fisher: I am trying to establish why there is to be this very significant change. It is important for the House

  739
  to understand the motive. I suspect that the motive, in conjunction with increased competitive tendering, is to move towards privatising the public library service.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That may be in the hon. Gentleman's mind, but I am afraid that for him to address these matters does not come within the Standing Orders.
  Mr. Meale rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must address himself to what is in the motion before the House.
  Mr. Meale: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that my hon. Friend is perfectly correct, because he is replying—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot rise on a point of order and start challenging my ruling.
  Mr. Meale: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is no point of order. The hon. Gentleman must not seek to debate my ruling with me. I very much hope that he is going to resume his seat.
  Mr. Fisher: If I was travelling a little wide, I shall come back within the scope of the regulations. In that the regulations provide the potential for the generation of income, they are related to other Government moves on competitive tendering that will also bring income to the local authorities. All I am doing is responding to what was said by the Minister, who referred to privatisation. I believe that he was correct to raise it as a spectre, but that he was wrong to dismiss it so lightly. I suspect that he did so only because he was embarrassed about it. He knows the dangers of competitive tendering for the public library service. If he has listened to librarians, he probably knows very well that there are no private companies. He told the Library Campaign that he believed that W. H. Smith could probably move in and offer services. I think he knows—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has totally disregarded the advice that I offered to him. I very much hope that he will observe what I said.
  Mr. Fisher: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was replying to the point the Minister made. When he referred to privatisation he was not ruled out of order—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have no recollection of the Minister referring to privatisation. Had I been aware of it I should have ruled him out of order. I very much hope that we can stick to the matter that is before the House.
  Mr. Fisher: Of course I accept your ruling, but when the record is consulted it will show that the Minister referred to privatisation. The hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) shakes his head, but the Minister must acknowledge that he raised the question of privatisation.
  Mr. Renton: It might help if again I put on record what I said. There is no question that the regulations herald the privatisation of the public library service. That is not so. I am delighted to repeat it.
  Mr. Fisher: The Minister did raise the question, but sought to deflect it. I believe that he was a little hasty in doing so. That is a shadow which I suspect is worrying librarians and falling over the public library service.
  An even more significant problem is the fact that the Minister then referred to what is still free in the public library service. He referred to books and to the use of information material. I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate he will take the opportunity to emphasise that, contrary to much of the tone of the Green Paper and contrary to the tone of what the Minister said this evening, the Government recognise that the public library service is not just a book loan service but is a book and information service. The information side of the public library service is every bit as important as book loans. The Minister referred to the free loan of books and also said that the use of information will be free.
  The draft regulations make it clear that charges can be made for research, for collating and for supplying catalogues and library material. The Minister should clear up exactly what is meant by "collating" and "computer", because that is not clear. The regulations mention "apparatus", which is not clearly defined but which will have to be charged for in future.
  There are plenty of issues that the Minister should clear up in his circular. In resolving some difficulties, regulation 3(2) throws the net very wide and includes the use of cubicles, research and instruction, which at present are free. I hope that the Minister will say that he hopes that library authorities will continue to supply such services free. Despite the fact that he has introduced regulations giving them the power to charge for those services, I hope that he will say that he believes that it is good practice to provide instruction in the use of equipment free. Once charges for instruction and for using a cubicle are made, the free public library service will disappear.
  If a person goes into a small branch library to borrow a book for studying which perhaps has a BBC video accompanying it but the library has neither the book nor the video, the Minister knows very well that that person will be charged for getting the book and video, for reserving them, for being shown how to work the video if he is not used to operating it and perhaps for a cubicle in which to look at the film. Those charges are specified in regulation 3(2). Somebody who asks a branch library for something simple such as a book and video to do studying may be charged for four, five or six different items. The Minister should recognise that that is not unlikely and should say whether that is his intention.
  There is a curious omission from charging—activities in libraries. I hope that the Minister will make it clear that they are not covered by the regulations and that they should be provided free. Readings to children, poetry readings, play sessions in holidays, discussions and writers in residences are without the scope of the regulations. I hope that the Minister will make it clear that those imaginative and good services, which the best public libraries offer, are not to be charged for because they are without the regulations and that that is what the Government intend.
  The Government's record on public libraries in the past few years has been nothing short of appalling. Library authorities—I have quoted as many Tory-controlled authorities as Labour authorities—are having to cut their book funds and their opening hours. The Minister is giving himself an out. He is telling them, "Increase your charges.

  741
  I have removed the maximum. You can now increase your income and solve your problems." That is the reality. I suspect that that is the first move in competitive tendering for more areas of the public library service. The hon. Member for Dulwich shakes his head, but competitive tendering is privatising part of the library service. The Secretary of State for the Environment has said that library services will be suitable for competitive tendering.
  Whole parts of the public library service will be privatised. Those services that are not—as covered by the regulations—will be charged for, not up to a maximum amount but to the extent sought by a library authority. A library authority that is pressed will probably have to consider dramatically increasing the prices charged for reserving books and so on to meet its obligations to provide services to the elderly, the disabled and people with poor sight.
  The Government's policies cut the public library service. Under the guise of giving freedom to increase charges, the Government are forcing library authorities to increase charges. That is to the Government's discredit. They have one opportunity left: I hope that the Minister will issue a circular interpreting the regulations. I hope that he will make clear the meaning of such definitions as "computer", "collating" and "notifying" and clear up the issue of library activities. The right hon. Gentleman will not be able to clear up the mess that the Government have made of the public library service over the past 12 years. The sooner the Conservatives are out of office, the better.
  11.31 pm
  Mr. George Walden: I am always happy to work myself up into a great cultural stew, given half the chance. I listened carefully to my right hon. Friend the Minister, hoping that he would give me a chance. I am afraid that I could not find anything objectionable in his speech or in the regulations. Being a fair-minded person and still hoping that I had a chance to get a cultural stew going, I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), but he did not give me a chance either. I am a little stuck. All that I can do is to agree with my hon. Friend the Minister about the regulations and add some comments.
  It is a little coy of us not to be frank. We are talking about books versus videos. It is evasive nonsense to talk about the two together. There is a great problem in terms of people reading books; there is no problem about getting people to look at videos. The problem is not in the library service but in the schools. People are not taught to read books. Only now are we confronting the reality of what goes on in our primary schools, which cannot even teach people to read.
  The animadversions of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central on books and libraries smack a little of romantic cultural trash. The real problem is in the schools. If we get matters right there, people will make far greater use of the extraordinary facilities available in our libraries. I looked at computer print-outs of what people borrowed from our libraries and what is in the libraries. It was a disappointing study.
  Mr. Patrick Thompson: My hon. Friend spoke about the standard of teaching reading in
  742
  primary schools. Does he agree that the main problem is not so much in the schools as in the teacher training colleges? Will my hon. Friend comment on that?
  Mr. Walden: I would, but you would jump on me like a ton of bricks, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I went one step further down that road. You nod, Sir, although you do not have a brick in your hand yet.
  I am trying to cut through the nonsense that I detected in the speech of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central and to get through to the essentials of what is wrong with our libraries.
  Mr. Fisher: The hon. Gentleman seemed to be saying that one of the problems is that people do not borrow enough library books. I presume that he knows of the Government's statistics which show that loans last year amounted to 500 million. I think that that is more per capita than any other European country. The hon. Gentleman is on the wrong tack if he is saying that the problem with our public library service is that it is not valued or used, because it certainly is.
  Mr. Walden: I am sorry but I am going to say something that will shock the hon. Gentleman's egalitarian sentiments to the core. One should examine not only the statistics, which, as he knows, are a pretty crude form of measurement, but what people in fact borrow. This is dangerous territory. The word that I have in mind begins with the letter "e"—does he have it on his lips? The next letter is "1". If the hon. Gentleman examines what people borrow, one discovers that the quality is pretty depressing. Is not it awful that I am making quality judgments? The word begins with the letters "e" and "1" —has he got it? If one breaks down the statistics of the millions of books that are borrowed, one finds that the material is readily available at a cost of about £1·25—perhaps I am exaggerating because it is probably now £1·75—on the station bookstall.
  I now touch on the hon. Gentleman's implied romanticism about libraries being a source for the elevation of public taste, but it is not like that. Let us be frank. I have examined the material and the hon. Gentleman clearly has not. He is talking about figures, but I am talking about the stuff that people buy. The hon. Gentleman's implication that ordinary people are able to have access to the great cultural traditions of this country, to our great literature and so on is technically true, but people do not read it. I shall not indulge in such nonsense because it is not true and the hon. Gentleman knows that. However, he must pretend that it is. He has the word beginning with "e1" on his mind. I had better give him a chance to speak.
  Mr. Fisher: The hon. Gentleman has a justified reputation as someone with a good intellect. He is selling himself very short by such ill-informed and anecdotal nonsense. It would be interesting to know how many hours he has spent this year in public libraries. I suspect that if he is honest he might have spent a maximum of six hours there. Other people know much more about the public library service and do not rely on anecdotes and impressions gained by wandering into a library and saying, "Good Lord, Catherine Cookson has been borrowed a lot, but I don't see people borrowing Bertrand Russell" and concluding that that must mean that people borrow trash. First, that is wrong about Catherine Cookson and,

  743
  secondly, the hon. Gentleman does not understand the wide range of loans in the public library service. I speak as someone who was chairman of a public library authority for a number of years. I think that the hon. Gentleman is talking about anecdotal and wrong information. He is not doing justice to the standards of analysis that he usually sets.
  Mr. Walden: That was a long intervention. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman covered his flank quickly with regard to Catherine Cookson because it was a little boast.
  I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman realises that several years ago authors' and public lending rights were introduced which meant that statistically our knowledge of libraries was greatly improved because we could discover who borrowed what. Instead of judging by the crude statistics of the number of books, which tell us nothing about how libraries were used, we could use computer print-outs.
  Mr. Fisher indicated dissent.
  Mr. Walden: It is no good the hon. Gentleman shaking his head defensively. The Leader of the Opposition tends to do that when he is embarrassed.
  I have computer print-outs from public libraries and I base my judgment partially on them. Otherwise my judgments are based on spending quite a lot of time—slightly more than the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central gratuitously implied—in public libraries. There are 120 villages in my constituency and I go out of my way to champion, where I think it reasonable and sensible, the existence of libraries in those villages. I know what I am talking about.
  I have compared what goes on in our public libraries with what goes on in public libraries in France, in Russia and in China. Perhaps the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central has done that too. Let us hear the benefit of his researches.
  Mr. Fisher: The hon. Gentleman should know that he is on the wrong track when he tries to adduce evidence from the public lending right because it applies only to living authors, who form quite a small amount of the book stocks of libraries. The hon. Gentleman gets only a partial view of the pattern of loans.
  Mr. Walden: The hon. Gentleman raises his most valid point so far, which is not saying a lot. What he says is true because we do not pay dead authors. If we did, Shakespeare would be in a higher class. It is obvious that we have had an important complement of knowledge through the information, which must be put together with other information, about which books by non-20th century authors people borrow. I put those figures together.
  Mr. Rupert Allason: I caution my hon. Friend not to rely on public lending right figures. They relate not only to living authors, but to authors living in the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is all very interesting, but it does not have a great deal to do with the regulations. I hope that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) will return to the regulations.
  Mr. Walden: I obey your instructions, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the
  744
  Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) as another limiting factor, but I insist that the use that is made of libraries should be studied seriously and not talked about as a form of cultural romanticism, as it so often is by the Opposition Front Bench.
  The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central made the particular point that my right hon. Friend the Minister would no doubt use the regulations as an excuse to turn the financial screw on libraries when they ask for more money. First, it is slightly ironic that the representative of the Labour party, which complains so much about centralising power, should complain when my right hon. Friend decentralises power within reason through the regulations and allows local authorities to charge what they want.
  Secondly, I see no difficulty in saying to local authorities, "Yes, there is a limit on money. Yes, we attach importance to what you do in providing books, but you could charge for videos and such like because we know that that is what life is about. We make an exception of books, for the obvious reason that it is rather more difficult to get people to read books. If we were to charge for them, fewer people might read them. By and large—all the arguments are open to a bit of exception—that does not apply to videos or other services. We give you liberty to charge for the other services." If at the back of my right hon. Friend's mind is the thought that some of the income from those services could be used to support book-lending facilities or to extend the range of books, that is an entirely legitimate policy. I do not suggest for a moment that that is his thought, but it is mine.
  The regulations could be said to put village libraries at risk, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central has suggested, through privatisation. If that were to happen, village libraries would collapse because the clientele is too small and the libraries would not be viable. Two things need to be said about that. First, such libraries will not be privatised, because I see nothing in my right hon. Friend's statement to imply that they will. In fact, my right hon. Friend explicitly said the opposite. Secondly, earlier I said that I support all village libraries in my constituency. However, I do not support them if no one is reading their books. Let us be realistic. I have examples in my constituency where I have found it impossible to support a village library because no one has borrowed books from it. What am I supposed to do? I do not want to get into one of those cultural, romantic stews. Therefore, I say that I am sorry, but that if people start borrowing the books, I shall defend their library to the death.
  Mr. Fisher: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman supports his village libraries, but will he tell them that they will be particularly hit by the regulations with the removal of the maximum limit for reservations? By definition, a village library tends to have a small stock. The whole basis of our public library system has involved inter-library loans and the advance reservation of books. Because of the removal of the maximum charge for reservations, the hon. Gentleman's constituents who live in rural communities will be subject to a potentially unlimited charge for reservations. They will be penalised simply because they happen to live in an area with a small library that has a small stock.
  Mr. Walden: I believe that my right hon. Friend is giving scope to local authorities to charge if they wish—

  745
  they are at liberty to do so. If my local authority raises reservation charges to the point where my village libraries are stifled, I shall kick up a fuss.
  I assume that the figures that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central quoted about reservations apply to videos as well as to books——
  Mr. Fisher: There is no dispute about that.
  Mr. Walden: I dispute that in the sense that I make a distinction based on the "el" word—elitist—one should not mention because there would be gasps of horror on both sides of the Chamber. I make a distinction that conforms with reality.
  I do not believe that what the hon. Gentleman has envisaged will happen, because life is not like that and because I have a sensible county council and I do not believe that the regulations will have such an impact on books as the hon. Gentleman has implied. If they did have such an impact, I would make a fuss about it. I am a realist and if I discovered that my right hon. Friend had inadvertently got something wrong, I would not hesitate to draw it to his attention. However, I am so confident about his overall judgment that I doubt whether those circumstances would arise.
  11.47 pm
  Mr. Patrick Thompson: I am grateful for the chance to speak briefly in the debate. I want to talk not about the content of the regulations, but about the manner in which they have been presented to the House. I want to raise a serious and important point.
  Those of us who wish to take part in such debates like to go to the Vote Office to obtain a copy of the draft statutory instrument and to study it briefly. Obviously we turn to the explanatory note and we expect it to explain clearly what the statutory instrument is about. The explanatory note to the regulations must be read many times to be understood.
  When I first arrived in the House in 1983 I raised the issue of gobbledegook. I am sure that my right hon. Friend, who is the Minister responsible for the civil service, would be the first to agree that there has been a great improvement in getting rid of such gobbledegook in documents produced by his colleagues in the civil service.
  I am afraid that there has been a slip in the rate of progress when it comes to the regulations. The explanatory note states that section 8(2) of the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964
  empowers the Lord President of the Council … to make regulations authorising those library authorities to make charges for such library facilities made available by them as may be specified in the regulations and to make provision as regards charges by library authorities for library facilities, other than provision requiring the making of charges, as they think fit."
  I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will agree that intelligent people can, in time and with sufficient research assistants, make sense of all that. However, that is not good enough. Those people in my right hon. Friend's Department with responsibility for writing such nonsense as an explanatory note should be sent back, as from the classroom, to rewrite it in clear language that can be
  746
  understood by Members of Parliament who are too busy to waste hour after hour trying to understand the meaning of one paragraph.
  I hope that I have made my point and that my right hon. Friend will discuss with his colleagues in the Ministry ways in which explanatory notes can be expressed clearly to the advantage of Members of Parliament and democracy.
  11.50 pm
  Mr. Rupert Allason: I declare an interest at the outset: I am an author.
  I read the regulations with great dismay, despite the gobbledegook and my right hon. Friend's assurance that his intention was to clarify existing regulations and bring others up to date. My dismay is centred on the knowledge that the key to any free society has to be access to information. Any obstacle that is placed in the way of our citizens obtaining access to information has to be deplored. I do not want to over-egg the argument, but it is a characteristic of Soviet-style totalitarianism that either the contents of libraries or access to them is controlled. I am worried that my right hon. Friend is placing an obstacle in the way of people's access to library facilities.
  My worry centres on the discretion that my right hon. Friend so enthusiastically offers to local authorities. We have had bitter experience in the past two years of what happens when local authorities are given the slightest discretion—particularly in relation to the community charge and the amount that they charge for second homes. I believe that only one local authority took the option to offer a zero rate for second homes and an overwhelming number of the authorities opted to charge double—the maximum allowed under the legislation. In the light of that, I hope that my right hon. Friend will think carefully before offering such discretion to local authorities.
  I accept that there is a difference between library and information services. I would not advocate not allowing local authorities to charge commercial organisations. I am not saying that the authorities should abuse the service, but they should take advantage of it. I could quite understand if charges were introduced for commercial organisations, but I am bound to say—despite my interest in the subject—that to charge a citizen to enter a library and use its services causes me grave concern. The Government are clearly worried about the issue, otherwise they would not have imposed a three-line Whip on the measure as the time approaches midnight! When the House divides, I shall have to vote against the Government.
  There is a great demand for libraries. In addition to the other libraries in Devon, there is a marvellous central library in Torquay. I pay tribute to the hard work done in those libraries, which cater for a large number of pensioners who live in my constituency, are interested in the past and wish to research various obscure details of history. It is unacceptable that pensioners should be charged for any service that they seek in the library.
  I have the Royal National Institute for the Blind in my constituency, so a high proportion of the population is partially sighted. The services offered by the library to the partially sighted such as large-print books and the talking book service are extremely important. I would deplore any obstacle placed in the way of those individuals.

  747
  I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister will respond by saying that it is all a matter of discretion and local accountability and that in a democracy local authorities should be allowed to make their own decisions on priorities in their area. However, we have had a bitter experience with the community charge. I urge my right hon. Friend to take a page out of the Prime Minister's book and ensure that every library in the country has, not a citizens charter, but a library users charter, available to everyone who goes into the library so that users are aware of exactly what they can accept, what level of service they should receive, where the Government recommend an entirely free service and on which services my right hon. Friend thinks it appropriate to place a small charge—the emphasis being on small.
  The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), made a great deal of the minimum, maximum or norm. But the reality is—he is perfectly right in this—that the so-called maximum will be the norm. My right hon. Friend the Minister must accept that. I hope that he will take the opportunity of incorporating into such a mini citizens charter the exact rights of library users.
  There are so many sacred cows when local authorities are under intense financial pressure, but libraries are the key to a free society, and I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister, even at this late stage, to think again about the draft regulations. I hope that he will not introduce them. I am bound to tell him that I shall certainly vote against them. I urge the dozens of colleagues who have come to support me this evening to follow me through the Opposition Lobby.
  11.57 pm
  Mr. Renton: This has been an interesting short debate. Perhaps I may start by replying to the points just made by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) which, in some measure, take up points made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), speaking from the Opposition Front Bench. Both my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman suffer from a profound misunderstanding. All that we are doing in the regulations is to clarify charges which in almost every case bar the charge for reservations already exist. Library authorities have welcomed that clarification. They welcome the removal of anomalies. We are introducing some small additional charging powers, but they do not apply to the basic provision of books for reading for anyone who lives in the area or to access for people to reference books in library premises. Those services are not being touched.
  Essentially we are clarifying, removing anomalies and giving additional charging powers for such matters as the destruction of a book, for which there is no such charge at present. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay really think it reasonable that there should not be a charge? If someone wishes to reserve a book and there is a cost to the library for doing so, is not it reasonable to give library authorities the right or discretion to charge—which they do not have to use?
  I tell my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central, who, despite his claim that he knew absolutely everything about the library service, seems astonishingly ignorant in some respects, that what we were doing tonight is, by and large, welcomed by the library authorities. It is not welcomed by
  748
  the Library Association—I regret that—but the association, in this and other matters, has taken a different view from that of FOLACL, the other professional body. The Library Association is wrong, in some respects misled, I think, by its chief executive. The Library Association makes two absurd comments in the literature it circulated to all Members, and I shall come to them in a moment.
  I regret that my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay has decided to vote against the regulations. That sits ill with his own position as an author and lover of books. The regulations are designed to help and improve the library service. If I had not given this discretion to local authorities, I would have been criticised by hon. Members on both sides of the House for that, too. My hon. Friend should not forget that library authorities have an overriding statutory duty to provide an efficient and comprehensix service. If they charged so excessively that they ceased to provide such a service, there would be every ground for complaint to me as the Minister with overall responsibility for seeing that local authorities carry out their duties. I would then investigate the complaints, as I am already doing in Derbyshire and Tyneside, where customers—readers—have complained that the authorities are abusing their powers. My hon. Friend's opposition to the regulations is wholly misguided and it does not show his usual perceptiveness in these issues.
  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) for his support and intelligent comments. As for his arrière pensée, perhaps the income from these charges will help library authorities to increase their activities in other areas. The Green Paper brought in by my non-Machiavellian predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Sir R. Luce), suggested that by widening charges for services and increasing existing charges to economic levels public libraries' income could double from about £22 million to £50 million a year—not a large figure. The latest CIPFA figures for 1989–90 show that income stands at just over £34 million. They also show that income is increasing in real terms, and it increased by at least 20 per cent. over the previous year.
  Generally, the publication of the Green Paper on library financing in 1988 made library authorities think much more about increasing income in the very ways suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham. It acted as a catalyst to make them think about what additional services they could provide on top of the basic service of providing books. They began to think about, for instance, charging for damaged books.
  I accept the strictures of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) on the sentence in the explanatory note that he read out. It certainly could have been better drafted. I hope that he will have found the rest of the regulations crystal clear without the help of the explanatory note.
  I must reserve most of my comments for the astonishing speech by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central. He has an amazing capacity to work himself into a lather about issues that do not justify it. Perhaps I misheard him, but I thought that he said that he would not oppose the regulations; that he supported them, in fact. Yet he seemed to find nothing right with them. He said that we were ruining the public library service by introducing them; that I intended to use them as a means of substituting the community charge on local authorities' areas; and so on. It added up to one of the most absurd speeches that I have ever heard.

  749
  The regulations bring light where there is darkness or confusion. That was the aim, and in many respects we have followed the wish of the library authorities.
  Mr. Fisher: The Minister correctly recalls my opening remarks. I said that, in so far as the regulations clarify matters that were obscure in the 1964 Act, we welcomed them. The Library Association and librarians will welcome them for that reason. That is the main aim of the regulations, and the Opposition do not oppose that. I congratulate the Government on that clarification. However, as I tried to explain to the Minister, the Government were wrong to remove from the draft regulations the maximum limit on reservation charges. There are almost 7 million reservations a year, and the Minister has opened up a whole area of charging that will prove extremely onerous for public library users. We oppose that rather than the clarification.
  Mr. Renton: As I said before, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I thought that in his intervention he would make a new point rather than repeat himself. I say again that FOLACL strongly supported the removal of the maximum sum of £1·50. The federation thought that if it were introduced it would become the norm or a minimum and it considered that it was much better to allow library authorities to decide the matter for themselves.
  I spoke about two points in the briefing issued by the Library Association, which opposes the regulations. First, it says that it was obscure of me not to put in a maximum charge of £1·50 but rather to leave the amount to be decided by local authorities. That is a strange view. I do not think that leaving out a figure can in any sense be called obscure.
  Secondly, I am again accused of obscurity because in the definition of a computer I did not agree with the association that the word "electronic" should be inserted to give a definition of a device for storing and processing information. The association suggested that on that definition a card catalogue could be the same as a computer. I have never heard of a card catalogue that had an ability to process information. As has been explained to the association, the word "electronic" was not inserted because in the current local authorities definition it is not used in the definition of a computer. We thought it better to stick to the present definition to avoid confusion.
  The Government have a very good record on the public library service. Some 480 million books were issued last year. That is slightly lower than the figure for the previous year. However, the number of sound video tapes is increasing all the time. In 1989–90, the figure was 20 million, which is a great increase on previous years. At least 29 new, extended or converted library buildings were opened in 1990. Those figures come for the Public Library Journal. Conservatives are wholly committed to the success of the public library service. We realise its great importance, not only for the education of our children, but for the continuing education of adults. In that spirit, and in the belief that the regulations will help library authorities to develop the basic library service, I commend them to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  750
  That the draft Library Charges (England and Wales) Regulations 1991, which were laid before this House on 22nd July, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

  Statutory Instruments, &c.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: (Mr. Harold Walker): With permission, I shall put together the remaining Orders of the Day.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

  COMPANIES
  That the draft Companies Act 1985 (Bank Accounts) Regulations 1991, which were laid before this House on 16th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
  BANKING
  That the draft Bank Accounts Directive (Miscellaneous Banks) Regulations 1991, which were laid before this House on 16th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
  That the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Amendment) Regulations 1991, which were laid before this House on 14th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND)
  That the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1991, which were laid before this House on 16th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
  BUILDING SOCIETIES
  That the draft Building Societies Act 1986 (Modifications) (No. 2) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 22nd October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
  MARINE POLLUTION
  That the draft Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Oil Pollution) (Amendment) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 1st November, be approved.
  INDUSTRIAL ORGANISATION AND DEVELOPMENT
  That the draft Scottish Seed Potato Development Council (Amendment) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 14th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

  NORTHERN IRELAND
  That the draft Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 14th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]
  Question agreed to.

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

  COPYRIGHT AND NEIGHBOURING RIGHTS
  That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 4173/91 relating to copyright and neighbouring rights, 4174/91 relating to accession to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works and the Rome Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organisations and 4175/91 relating to rental right, lending right and certain rights related to copyright; and supports the Government's intention to seek adequate protection for

  751
  copyright owners and performing artists throughout the European Community while having regard to the needs of users of copyright works and of the services of the performers—[Mr. Greg Knight.]
  Question agreed to.

  Marine Simeon Ferrante
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]
  12.9 am
  Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: On 14 August 1989 Royal Marine Simeon Ferrante died from head injuries he received during parachute training at RAF Brize Norton. No one meant him to die, no one wanted him to die. It was an accident, but not necessarily an unavoidable accident. Accidents do happen and often no one individual is to blame. Bad luck, a coincidence of events, momentary inattention, an act of God—any or none of these could be the cause. In the armed services, where training must necessarily be tough and realistic, accidents sometimes result in severe injury or death. This is why in peacetime safety procedures have to be stringent.
  Simeon Ferrante was a green beret Marine and all that that signifies. Young, fit, courageous and keen, he was proud, as a reservist, to have attained the accolade of the distinctive head gear. That pride he shared with his close-knit family and many friends, and when he was selected for parachute training by the royals he could not contain his excitement. On 7 August 1989, his first jump went badly. He landed heavily, and, explaining to his colleagues that he had hit his head on landing, he showed clear signs of cranial injury—lassitude, nausea, headaches, vomiting and lack of concentration. They were all noticed by the students and RAF staff on the course. He attended the sick bay, something that, as many of those present who have served in the armed forces will know, in that young male society is sometimes felt to be an admission of weakness, and therefore undertaken only in extremis.
  Marine Ferrante was seen by a newly qualified RAF doctor, who was one week into his first tour of duty with the RAF. That doctor has said that Simeon did not say that he had sustained a head injury on that day, and I have no reason to doubt his word; and whether his diagnosis and treatment—a viral infection and painkillers—are open to question, I am not qualified to judge. Perhaps a more probing investigation would have saved Simeon's life—I do not know.
  What is also noteworthy is that the RAF instructors took no action over the following two days when Marine Ferrante continued to show the same clear symptoms. Perhaps they did not understand the significance of those symptoms—which would indicate a gap in the training of the trainers—or perhaps they were satisfied that the medical staff were handling it. I do not know, I have no access to their evidence at the board of inquiry. What I do know is that if Simeon Ferrante showed the symptoms that the—as far as I am aware—uncontested evidence says he did, he should not have been allowed to continue jump training. But continue he did, and on the third jump, on 10 August 1989, he again landed heavily, swiftly lapsed into a coma and died.
  Mr. and Mrs. Ferrante understood that their son's death was the result of that last jump, and a tragic, unavoidable accident. They mourned the waste of a life, but raised no queries, for neither the services nor the Ministry had mentioned the earlier heavy landing. This they found out by chance. Then they started to ask questions. What else was being kept from them? Was

  753
  Simeon's death avoidable? What lessons could be learnt that might save others from the same grief that they were experiencing?
  There were queries about safety equipment, the speed of response of the emergency services and medical training for parachute training instructors. There were doubts about the content and quality of evidence offered to the inquest, and real and understandable anger at the inconsiderate attitude of the RAF. The questions were many but the answers inadequate. I regret to say that Simeon's parents found the MOD unhelpful. They had to go to court to force the Ministry to provide answers. They may have to institute compensation proceedings, not for the money—it is clear that the balance of any award after costs will go to the Royal Marine Benevolent Fund—but in order to gain access to the facts.
  Their experiences have led them to distrust the Ministry and that is partly the Ministry's fault, for the understandable climate of secrecy within the MOD is allowed to intrude into areas where it should have no place.
  Of course, there are good reasons why the proceedings of boards of inquiry are classified, and I can think of three now. First, the proceedings may contain militarily sensitive information, but I suggest that that is not so in this case. Secondly, the privacy of proceedings encourages frank testimony, and that is always helpful. Thirdly, the facts that are disclosed at a board of inquiry may at some future date give rise to disciplinary action. However, their secrecy also creates problems. It is the MOD which decides what is disclosed, and by being at times unnecessarily secretive it gives the impression that it has something to hide even when it has not. It feeds the suspicion that secrecy is abused to cover up mistakes rather than keep secrets. That may be an entirely unworthy suspicion, but it is an understandable one, and one which does nothing but damage.
  The families and the friends of those who are killed or injured need the reassurance of frankness to enable them to come to terms with their tragedy. Service men and their families would like the certainty of knowing that the faults that endangered their lives cannot be hidden under the cloak of secrecy and then ignored. There needs to be another way—a clearly independent way—of determining what should be disclosed when a board of inquiry is convened to investigate why a death or injury occurred in peacetime.
  I shall suggest just one way in which that could be done. It could be by the appointment of a senior independent judge. He would comment on the terms of reference when a board was set up to examine a peacetime death or injury. He would be empowered to decide in what form and how much, and to whom, evidence from the board was disclosed. His aim would be the greatest possible frankness consistent with the nation's security and the rights of those who are involved in an inquiry. His recommendations could then be overruled only by a Minister, who in turn would be answerable to Parliament.
  There may be a better way. It may be that tonight my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will suggest a better or different way. It is unlikely, however, that there could be a way more calculated to breed suspicion and thus damage the armed services than the one that we have now.
  754
  I believe that the Ferrante family has a right to the truth, even, or particularly, if it discloses negligence. The services have the right to expect that Ministers will not allow the fear of compensation costs to deter them from exposing those errors that make peacetime training unnecessarily hazardous. We all have the right to expect that those in the MOD or the services who deal with these sad cases have the compassion and sensitivity to put themselves in the position of the bereaved or that of the injured, and then to treat them as they themselves would wish to be treated.
  We all understand that there are times when secrecy is essential. There are times, however, when it is unnecessary, unhelpful and cruel. The Ministry and my right hon. Friend are not unthinking, uncaring or unwilling to change. I hope that the case of Simeon Ferrante, tragically dead before his time, will be the spur that brings that change about.
  12.18 am
  The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) for bringing this case to the attention of the House, thereby affording me the opportunity to allay any fears that the Ministry of Defence is an uncaring and secretive Department.
  Obviously there is nothing that can be said to the families that could alleviate their anguish at the tragic loss of their son. Nevertheless, I want to express to them publicly my sincere sympathy. I should now like to respond to certain of the major criticisms that have been levelled at my Department.
  Simeon Ferrante enlisted in the Royal Marine Reserves on 12 November 1985, and joined a parachuting course for reservist soldiers and marines run by No. I Parachute Training School, RAF Brize Norton, from 30 July to 11 August 1989. He was parachuting at RAF Weston-on-the-Green on 10 August when he landed badly. He died four days later. On the day after the accident, a unit inquiry was convened at RAF Brize Norton and, following his death, a coroner's inquest was held, at which a verdict of accidental death was recorded.
  Since then, my Department has received a considerable number of inquiries from the father and from hon. Members. There have been allegations of obsessive secrecy and that there may have been a cover-up over the circumstances surrounding the incident. There have been specific criticisms to which my hon. Friend referred, and to which I shall respond.
  I will first cover Marine Ferrante's fitness to jump. It has been suggested that he had an accident on 7 August and should not have been allowed to jump on 10 August. It has been alleged that the Ministry of Defence refused to admit that Marine Ferrante had suffered a previous injury prior to that received on 10 August 1989. That is not so. My Department has never disputed the fact that Marine Ferrante was involved in two incidents, and that came out clearly at the coroner's inquest.
  The records show that on 7 August, following a jump, Marine Ferrante vomited at the drop site and was referred to the medical attendant, who instructed him to see the doctor. There was no evidence to suggest that he had landed badly on that occasion. On questioning Marine Ferrante, the doctor was told that he had sustained a slight blow to the head on landing on 4 August 1989, which he

  755
  had not reported previously. The doctor carried out a full neurological examination but could find no evidence of injury, and concluded that he was suffering from a viral infection. Marine Ferrante was told to report back if there was no improvement in his condition or if it should worsen. I think that is important, because we were depending on Marine Ferrante to come back if his condition continued.
  Parachute training instructions tell trainees that they should jump only if fit to do so. As an added safeguard, before leaving the aircraft, trainees have to confirm that they are ready and willing to jump; anyone who is not happy for any reason is not allowed to continue. The doctor had examined Marine Ferrante and found no reason to declare him unfit for duty, but had instructed him to report back to the medical centre if there was no improvement. There is no evidence that he reported back, and it must be presumed that he had regarded himself as being fit to jump on that fateful day.
  I should mention that Marine Ferrante had jumped once already on 10 August, and it was following the second jump on that day that the accident occurred.
  Having received the report of the RAF medical officer who examined Marine Ferrante prior to the jump of 10 August, the pathologist at the coroner's inquest commented that he understood that approximately five days before his acute head injury, Marine Ferrante had received another blow on the head—but there was no evidence of that at the post-mortem examination.
  It has been claimed that the RAF were unhelpful and did not liaise with Mr. Ferrante or his family following the accident and subsequent death. Simeon Ferrante was a Royal Marine Reservist, and as such it is normal practice in an incident of that kind for the welfare support to the injured person and his family to be provided by the parent unit, rather than by the unit where the accident occurred. Obviously, the two services liaised closely, but the Marines took the lead in that regard, with the officers and senior NCOs of Martine Ferrante's parent unit, Royal Marines Reserve, Bristol, becoming actively involved from the outset by contacting the family to identify what support was needed.
  Although a private funeral was held, there was a military attendance. The station commander at RAF Brize Norton wrote to the family expressing his condolences two days after Marine Ferrante had died. He subsequently received a letter from Mr. Ferrante, thanking him for the discreet and sympathetic manner in which he and the RAF had conducted themselves. Not unreasonably, the station commander at RAF Brize Norton concluded that Mr. Ferrante felt that everything had been done that could be done and that: the Royal Marines were providing the necessary follow-on support.
  There followed a series of letters from Mr. Ferrante, seeking details of his son's death. Because the exchange of correspondence appeared not to be helpful to Mr. Ferrante, two senior RAF officers visited Mr. and Mrs. Ferrante in an attempt to answer all Mr. Ferrante's questions, and to allay any misgivings that he might have about the circumstances surrounding the accident. When the officers left Mr. Ferrante, they believed that they had answered his questions fully and satisfactorily; indeed, they subsequently received a telephone call of thanks and a letter from Mr. Ferrante. Mr. Ferrante, however, continued to ask the same questions.
  756
  An inquiry was convened on 11 August 1989 at RAF Brize Norton. Its terms of reference were wide ranging, and designed to establish the full facts. Among the more important considerations was the requirement to determine the cause of the accident and whether anyone had failed in his duties, and to make any appropriate recommendation.
  The inquiry found that Marine Ferrante was injured in the course of the performance of his official duties. There was no question of any negligence on his part; he had exercised reasonable care throughout. The inquiry also found that the staff of No.1 Parachute Training School had taken reasonable care in training Marine Ferrante. After he had completed six parachute descents to a satisfactory standard, they were entitled to believe that Marine Ferrante was capable of safely undertaking his seventh training descent. The seventh descent was properly organised and controlled, and therefore the inquiry found that no member of staff had failed in his duty.
  The inquiry made some recommendations for change —that a servicing schedule should be introduced for all types of parachutists' helmets, that at the start of all courses a check should be made by a safety equipment fitter of each trainee's helmet, that trainees should be instructed in the proper use and care of their helmets—including internal and external serviceability checks—and that standing orders should be reviewed to reflect current procedures for checking helmets.
  The inquiry was completed on 18 September 1989. It was subsequently reopened following a request from the coroner's office that further witnesses be called, and that statements be taken from them to enable the inquiry to determine the date on which Marine Ferrante first received a blow to the head; to resolve any points of difference between existing evidence and the new statements taken from students on the same course as Marine Ferrante; and to clarify any points arising, amending previous findings if necessary.
  All Marine Ferrante's fellow students were asked whether they had witnessed Marine Ferrante receiving any injury on either 4 or 7 August. Statements were taken from those who felt that they could contribute to the investigation. Those witnesses were called to the reopened inquiry. Having considered their statements along with the previous ones, the inquiry considered that its original finding should remain unchanged. It concluded that Marine Ferrante first sustained a blow to the head on 4 August 1989.
  Mr. Ferrante was issued with a summary of the inquiry on 10 July 1990 and, following his successful application for a writ for pre-action discovery of documents, his solicitors have been sent the full report.
  That brings me to one of the crucial areas in which my Department has been criticised—that of excessive secrecy in the refusal to give Mr. Ferrante a full copy of the inquiry report. It may help if I say a few words about the status and purpose of board of inquiry reports.
  The Royal Air Force derives its authority for holding boards of inquiry from the Air Force Act 1955, statutory rules made thereunder and Queen's regulations for the RAF. Boards of inquiry may inquire into all manner of things. Generally, their primary purpose is to investigate and report on the facts about the matter referred to them by the convening authority, and to make recommendations aimed at preventing a recurrence of an accident.

  757
  It is of overriding importance, particularly in cases of injury or death, to establish the facts as quickly as possible. Lives may depend on it. It is essential, therefore, that witnesses appearing before a board of inquiry should give their evidence in a full and frank manner. One must remember that some of the witnesses will be young, or of very junior rank; they may be required to give their evidence in difficult circumstances; they may have to criticise the actions of fellow service men, their close comrades even, or of their senior officers; or they may themselves have made mistakes which contributed to an incident, about which, for the good of the services, we would want them to be completely open and frank. Board of inquiry procedures have, therefore, been designed to do everything possible to encourage witnesses to come forward and to be absolutely candid when giving their evidence to this end.
  Boards of inquiry are conducted as internal investigations. They are not held in public. Section 135(5) of the Air Force Act 1955 provides that evidence given by a witness may not be used against him in any subsequent disciplinary proceedings. The report of the board of inquiry is regarded as confidential to the service and the Department and, unless the courts order otherwise, only those within the service and the Department who need to see it in the course of their duties will see it.
  Equally I must emphasise that it is not the wish of the services to deny those with a genuine and valid interest their right to know what happened in a particular incident. My hon. Friend's constituent clearly had such a right in this case. It is, therefore, my Department's practice to make available on request a narrative summary of the Department's investigations, which contains all the material facts. As I have explained, this procedure was followed in Mr. Ferrante's case. In addition, my Department endeavoured to answer the large number of supplementary questions raised by Mr. Ferrante both through direct correspondence and under cover of correspondence from my hon. Friend. Mr. Ferrante has remained dissatisfied with what I consider to be the very positive response of my Department, and to this end Mr. Ferrante has, in contemplation of taking legal proceedings, obtained an order from the courts for discovery of documents. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on these proceedings. I am, however, satisfied that my Department, through the good offices of the Treasury Solicitor, has made every effort to comply with the terms of the order.
  An inquest into the death of Marine Ferrante was opened and adjourned on 15 August 1989. The inquest was reopened on 6 June 1990 and returned a verdict of accidental death. It has been alleged by Mr. Ferrante that his son suffered a previous head injury which contributed to his death, but, in view of the lack of reliable evidence, the coroner left this point open. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on the findings of the inquest. Mr. Ferrante is not content with this conclusion and wishes to have the inquest reopened. While my Department has no reason to dispute the findings of Her Majesty's coroner for Oxford, it would not object to a reopened inquest if that was considered to be necessary.
  At the inquest, there was some discussion of the condition of the helmets used by trainee parachutists at
  758
  RAF Brize Norton. Following the death of Marine Ferrante, an RAF safety fitter, responsible for examination and servicing of RAF flying helmets rather than the Army parachute helmets used on this course, inspected the Army helmets and considered a large number to be in a poor condition. However, an expert from the stores and clothing research and development establishment told the inquest that the defects were "normal wear" and were not of
  "significance with respect to the impact performance"
  of the helmets. Furthermore, the evidence of the pathologist was that for the particular injury sustained by Marine Ferrante
  "there is no form of helmet than can help."
  It has also been alleged that accident and emergency services provision at Weston-on-the-Green were inadequate and that a specialist ambulance should have been summoned from Frenchay hospital, Bristol. There is always an ambulance with a medical attendant present whenever parachuting is taking place. I have to say that the service ambulance in which Marine Ferrante was taken to the John Radcliffe hospital was equipped to the standard of a crash ambulance on the fire line of an RAF operational flying station. It contained resuscitation equipment and was equipped with a blue light, which was activated in transporting Marine Ferrante to the nearest hospital. The hospital was advised in advance to expect him and I have no doubt provided the highest standard of care, for which it is rightly renowned.
  Another area of concern to Mr. Ferrante is whether training is given to parachute instructors so that they will recognise concussion or other forms of illness that could impair the safety of trainee parachutists and what first aid training is given. All parachute jumping instructors obtain a first-aid certificate during basic training as a physical training instructor. That includes the recognition of concussion. There is no requirement for training to be given in the recognition of any forms of illness, as trainees have immediate access to fully qualified medical officers the moment they feel unwell. During all forms of parachute training, there is a medical attendant and ambulance available at all times. There is always an individual responsibility to report sick if the trainee considers that he is unfit to continue training. That is laid down in Queen's regulations.
  Following the inquest, the Ministry wrote to Mr. Ferrante on 17 August 1990 suggesting that he seek legal advice in respect of submitting a claim against the Ministry. I can assure the House that my Department will not attempt to avoid responsibility should negligence be established.
  I should like to deal with the difficulty that my Department experienced in corresponding with Mr. Ferrante. In the period immediately following this tragic accident, Mr. Ferrante wrote a large number of letters to RAF officers. The recipients of the letters recognised the right of Mr. Ferrante to be given as much information as possible about his son's death, and gave him detailed replies. However, it is not our practice, for the reasons I have described, to disclose verbatim proceedings of boards of inquiry, although we are always prepared to provide an accurate summary to the next of kin.
  Mr. Ferrante was visited by two RAF officers, who sought to explain the situation. Following that meeting, the correspondence continued and was addressed to a wide range of RAF officers and officials throughout my

  759
  Department. The House will understand the dilemma facing those responsible for corresponding with Mr. Ferrante. On the one hand, they wished to give a grieving father the information that he needed to come to terms with the death of his son, and on the other they wished to avoid perpetuating the correspondence. Once all the facts that could have been given had been given, there was little more to be said. My officials considered this matter most carefully and decided in October 1990 to advise Mr. Ferrante that no further letters from him would be answered. That decision was not taken lightly and of course it did not extend to correspondence from hon. Members from whom 12 inquiries have been received and answered. Correspondence has also continued with Mr. Ferrante's legal advisers.
  Mr. Ferrante's legal advisers wrote to the Department in February this year intimating that a claim would be
  760
  made. That was followed by an order for discovery of certain documentation that would allow them to advise their client whether any proceedings brought by him would have reasonable prospects of success.
  I have attempted to explain as fully as possible the background to the public unease surrounding the death of Marine Simeon Ferrante. I have stated that my Department will not try to avoid responsibility should anybody be blamed for this tragic accident. Clearly, in addressing the question of liability, we will need to consider the claim which, I understand, Mr. Ferrante will be presenting. As I have said, we await a statement of claim which, when received, will be considered by my Department in consultation with legal advisers.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes to One o'clock.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Parliamentary Duties
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much time he has spent on parliamentary duties since he last answered oral questions.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The parliamentary aspect of my official duties consists almost entirely of answering oral questions at the Dispatch Box. I have, however, answered six written questions since I last answered oral questions.

  EC Issues
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what consideration he has given to European Community issues in his capacity as Chancellor of the Duchy.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The Duchy has several historical links with Europe. For example our coat of arms incorporates the fleurs de lys, sanctioned by Edmund Crouchback on his marriage to the Queen of Nevarre. Today, however, there are no strong links—most have lapsed with the passing of time.

  Official Duties
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he next proposes to visit the Duchy on official business.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he next plans to pay an official visit to the Duchy.

  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he plans to next visit the Duchy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I refer the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friends to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) earlier today.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what assessment he has made of the effect of falling interest rates on small and medium-sized businesses in the Duchy.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I am sure that the fall in interest rates will be of enormous benefit to all businesses in the Duchy.

  Taxation
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the impact of taxation on tenants of the Duchy.
  356
  Mr. Chris Patten
  Like everyone else, Duchy tenants have gained tremendous benefits from the reductions in personal taxation brought about by successive Conservative Governments.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Home Repossessions
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Attorney-General whether he will take steps to ensure that where repossession proceedings are taken in the county court, information on debt counselling and housing advice services will be sent out with the summons.

  The Attorney-General
  The Government are keen to ensure that defendants in county court possession proceedings are informed that counselling and advice is available to them.

  Consultations are taking place with the major advice agencies in order to identify a method of compiling a list of advice agencies that may accompany every county court possession summons.

  Serious Fraud Office
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Attorney-General what percentage of cases brought to court by the Serious Fraud Office have resulted in a successful conviction.

  The Attorney-General
  In the current year from 6 April 1991 there have been 14 concluded trials. Twenty-three defendants have been convicted and six acquitted—a conviction rate of nearly 80 per cent.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Attorney-General how many cases the Serious Fraud Office has brought to the courts in each year since its creation.

  The Attorney-General
  The figures are as follows:—

  Number

  April 1988—April 1989

  9

  April 1989—April 1990

  17

  April 1990—April 1991

  27

  April 1991—to date

  14

  The numbers are based on cases that have been concluded in the court of trial during the relevant period. If currently unconcluded cases are added, the last figure becomes 19.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Performance-related Pay
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, whether the Church Commissioners have considered replacing the minimum stipend by performance-related pay.

  Mr. Alison
  Stipends have traditionally been regarded as remuneration which enables clergy to pursue their ministry and support themselves and their families, rather than rewards or salaries for a job of work. In this sense, stipends are not competitive remuneration for which performance-related pay might be an appropriate mechanism.
  357
  The stipend levels of individual clergy are set by their dioceses within recommendations of the Commissioners, as central stipends authority.

WALES

  Wages Statistics
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many employees in Wales are paid less than £3·40 an hour; and how many of these employees are(a) women, (b) part-time and (c) in manual occupations.

  Mr. David Hunt
  It is estimated that 185,000 employees in employment on adult rates whose pay was not affected by absence earned less than £3·40 per hour in April 1991; 147,000 were women, of whom 103,000 worked part-time. 102,000 persons were employed in manual occupations. Data for part-time male employees are not available.

  Sources: April 1991 New Earnings Survey and Quarterly Estimate Series of Employment, March 1991; Employment Department.

  Welsh Development Agency Bill
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received regarding the Welsh Development Agency Bill.

  Mr. David Hunt
  None.

  Nebulisers
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place a copy in the Library of the guidance he has given to the Welsh health authorities concerning the supply of nebulisers free of charge and on long-term loan to those requiring them.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The NHS Act 1977 clearly sets out the responsibilities of district health authorities. Section 1 of the NHS Act 1977 requires that NHS services provided under the Act to NHS patients must be free of charge, except where the making and recovery of charges is expressly provided for by legislation. Later legislation, including the NHS and Community Care Act 1990, does not alter this position, nor does it enable partial charges to be made to health service patients. Health authorities are fully aware of the position which has recently been confirmed to them.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to effect refunds for those who have proof of payment for nebulisers prescribed by national health service consultants to national health service patients.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Our officials have asked Welsh district health authorities to examine their existing policies and practices for the provision of equipment, including nebulisers. In addition, authorities have been asked to investigate and report on individual cases involving nebulisers that have been notified and to consider appropriate action.

  Pollution
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the levels of pollution from each incinerator operating in Wales; and to what extent they comply with EC legislation.
  358
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Information on levels of pollution from individual incinerators is not held centrally. Current emission limits and controls for waste incineration processes under 1 tonne per hour are set out in process guidance notes PG1–25/5(91) issued by the Secretaries of State for the Environment, for Scotland and for Wales and published by HMSO. Operators of incineration processes over 1 tonne per hour are subject to individual authorisation by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. Emission limits and other control standards are included in the specific authorisation documents. The only incinerators covered by EC legislation at the moment are municipal waste incinerators—and there are none of these in Wales.

  Orimulsion
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what applications have been received by the Welsh Office to test-burn the imported fuel Orimulsion in Wales or to burn that fuel on a commercial basis.

  Mr. David Hunt
  No applications, in either category, have been received by the Welsh Office. The Secretary of State for Energy is currently considering an application from National Power to extend Pembroke power station to enable it to burn orimulsion. The company is also applying to Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution under the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 for authorisation to burn this fuel at Pembroke.

  Health Service Statistics
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will obtain statistics showing the number of midwives, district nurses and health visitors practising within Wales.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  As I indicated in my reply on 18 November, at column 34, to the hon. Gentleman's question on the number of midwives, district nurses and health visitors on 18 November, complete information on staff numbers is not available at present for occupational groups such as these. The Department is working with district health authorities to improve the information on the manpower information system from which detailed breakdowns of nursing and midwifery manpower are derived, and progress is being made. Once we are satisfied that the system is a fully reliable source of occupationally disaggregated information, such as numbers of midwives, district nurses and health visitors, such information will be made available.

  Harbours
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the lengths of long-distance routes approved under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 which pass through harbours regulated under the Harbours Act 1964.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  It is likely that parts of the Pembrokeshire coast path, which runs for 269 km between Amroth and Cardigan, pass through harbours regulated under the Harbours Act 1964. However, detailed information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Wales what is his latest estimate of the amount of money owed in the poll tax in Wales in the last financial year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave him on 17 October 1991, at columns 206–7. No further information is available.

  Offloading Facilities
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what applications have been received by the Welsh Office to refurbish or extend existing facilities or to construct new facilities, for offloading from seagoing vessels(a) bulk oil, (b) natural gas, (c) liquified gas or (d) coal.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has under consideration no applications from harbour authorities in Wales seeking statutory authorisation by means of a harbour order under the Harbour Act 1964 to carry out such works which they do not otherwise have statutory powers to carry out under their local legislation.

ENERGY

  Coal Reserves
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make it his policy to include estimates of United Kingdom coal reserves in the departmental Brown Book; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Under the terms of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946, British Coal is charged with the development of the coal-mining industry and it publishes estimates of total United Kingdom coal reserves in its annual report. My Department does not keep separate figures.

  Onshore Petroleum Licensing
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement about further onshore petroleum licensing.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I have placed in the Libraries of both Houses the text of a notice, which will be published as soon as possible in the Official Gazette, inviting companies to apply for exploration licences in respect of unlicensed areas in Great Britain and certain near shore waters. The notice specifies that applications should be made on Wednesday 19 February, 1992. Application forms and guidance notes will be available from my Department.

  I shall separately be inviting holders of production licences to apply to transfer exploration acreage within their existing licences to the new style exploration licences, subject to agreement being reached on a satisfactory work programme for the area.

  Successful applicants will be offered exploration licences containing the conditions set out in the Petroleum (Production) (Landward Areas) Regulations 1991. The licences will grant rights for a term of six years and entitle the licensee to carry out seismic surveys and deep drilling
  360
  subject to the need to obtain the requisite permission from the appropriate mineral planning authorities and land owners and occupiers.

  Electricity
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his calculation of United Kingdom electricity consumption in each of the next five years; and if he will give his estimate of the generating capacities that will be available from(a) oil, (b) gas, (c) nuclear, (d) coal and (e) renewable sources.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My Department does not routinely forecast electricity consumption. That, and decisions on capacity and fuel choice, are the job of the electricity industry, taking into account the commercial and regulatory environment. When specific needs arise, projections are produced, as, for example, in the UK's submission to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was published as energy paper 58 and is available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects nuclear fusion to be commercially viable for the generation of electricity.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Nuclear fusion is unlikely to be available as an energy source before 2050 at the earliest. Even if fusion were technically available at that date, its economic prospects are uncertain.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police Records
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many national indexes are held by the police or his Department, other than those relating to drugs and football hooliganism.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The Department holds the following national indexes (including all national police indexes):

  Prison service

  Inmate information system (a national register of prison inmates)1

  Category A prisoners1

  Life sentence prisoner index1

  Immigration service

  Suspect index (contains details of people whom it is considered essential to identify at the ports because, for example, they have been deported or are involved in criminal activity, or because they have an adverse immigration history)

  Port precautions index (used in embarkation control to assist in prevention of children being removed in contravention of a court order or against the wishes of one parent)

  Intelligence unit index (contains details of people known or suspected of abuses of the immigration laws and details of suspect documents. It also includes details of people refused leave to enter or refused entry clearance)

  Police department

  Criminal names index (index to the criminal records)

  Index to the national fingerprint collection

  Wanted/missing persons index

  Disqualified drivers index

  Vehicle owners index

  Vehicles reports index (stolen, suspect vehicles)

  Stolen property index (mainly plant, vehicles)

  Obscene publications squad index (persons convicted of offences under the Obscene Publications Act 1959, the Protection of Children Act 1978, the Criminal Justice Act

  361
  1988, the Sexual Offences Act 1956 and the Customs Consolidation Act 1876. The index also includes information regarding persons suspected of being associated with child pornography. The index is held by the Metropolitan police)

  Animal rights national index (collates and disseminates information on animal rights extremism)

  Statistical department

  Offenders index1 (record of offenders convicted of standard list offences recorded since 1963)

  Homicide index (a record of each case of reported homicide)

  Probation index1 (persons subject to supervision by the probation service—including those subject to community service orders)

  Mentally disordered offenders index1 (a record of persons in psychiatric hospitals who are subject to hospital orders with restrictions on discharge or who have been transferred from prison service establishments)

  United Kingdom Passport agency

  United Kingdom passports index (record of all passports issued by the United Kingdom passport offices and by Foreign and Commonwealth Office posts overseas)

  Warning list (to ensure that certain passport applications receive particular attention)

  Others

  Voluntary organisations (those in receipt of Government funding)

  Index of exempted dogs (owners of pit bull terriers and other specified breeds which have their dogs exempted from the controls of the Dangerous Dogs Act (1991)).

  1 Applies only to England and Wales.

  Police (Racial Abuse)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the amount of money paid by way of compensation to ethnic origin members serving with the Metropolitan police force as a result of claims for racial abuse and harassment from fellow police officers.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Since the beginning of 1990, £21,000 has been paid as compensation to ethnic minority officers in the Metropolitan police as a result of claims for racial abuse and harassment in respect of two cases.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussion he has had with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis as to the

  Ethnic minority officers in the Metropolitan Police by area, broken down into rank and gender

  Areas

  Superintendent (all men)

  Chief Inspector (all men)

  Inspector (all men)

  Sergeant

  Police Constable

  Men

  Women

  Men

  Women

  1

  —

  —

  1

  3

  —

  46

  13

  2

  —

  —

  2

  5

  2

  50

  20

  3

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  40

  13

  4

  —

  1

  1

  2

  —

  53

  17

  5

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  14

  4

  6

  —

  1

  1

  4

  1

  54

  11

  7

  1

  —

  1

  5

  —

  43

  14

  8

  —

  —

  2

  3

  —

  44

  14

  Headquarters

  1

  —

  —

  10

  —

  14

  8

  Police training centre

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  21

  7

  Broadcasting
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he plans to exercise his powers under section 8(4) of the Broadcasting Act 1990 to amend rule 21 of the current code of advertising standards in order to fulfil the requirements of the European broadcasting directive—89/552/EEC—and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have no plans to amend the ITC code of advertising standards and practice. Rule 21 states
  362
  allegations of racial abuse followed up by officers in the Metropolitan police force following the case of police constable Franklyn Asumah; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the commissioner that these matters are being investigated by the complaints unit.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on the number of Metropolitan officers dismissed from the service in each of the last five years, for racial abuse to fellow officers.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There have been no Metropolitan police officers dismissed from the service in the last five years for racial abuse to fellow officers.

  Neighbourhood Watch
  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many neighbourhood watch schemes now operate in the East Staffordshire district in the Burton constituency.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information is not available in the form requested. I understand from the Staffordshire police that, in the Burton police subdivision, which includes East Staffordshire district, there were 73 neighbourhood watch schemes at the end of September 1991, covering nearly 17,000 households.

  Police (Ethnic Origin)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of ethnic origin police officers(a) men and (b) women serving in each of the Metropolitan police divisions; and what ranks these officers hold.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information is as follows:

  that no advertisement may encourage behaviour prejudicial to the protection of the environment, in accordance with article 12(e) of the directive, and goes on to give guidance as to how this should be interpreted in practice.

  Prison Statistics
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how expenditure in real terms on prisons has moved since 1980.
  363
  Mrs. Rumbold
  Expenditure on prisons has increased from £744 million in 1980–81 in 1990–91 prices to £1,342 million in 1990–91, an increase of 80 per cent.

  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners, who should have been held in prisons, were held in police cells in each week to date in 1991.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The number of prisoners held in police cells in each week to date in 1991 are as follows:

  1991

  Number

  4 January

  504

  11 January

  557

  18 January

  570

  25 January

  567

  1 February

  604

  8 February

  616

  15 February

  639

  22 February

  672

  1 March

  673

  8 March

  639

  15 March

  762

  22 March

  641

  26 March

  728

  5 April

  633

  12 April

  503

  19 April

  545

  26 April

  487

  3 May

  516

  10 May

  603

  17 May

  661

  24 May

  600

  31 May

  593

  Establishments

  Headquarters

  Officer inmate ratio

  Governor grades inmate ratio

  Other staff inmate ratio

  Total staff inmate ratio

  1 April 1980

  ·32

  ·02

  ·16

  —

  1 April 1981

  ·35

  ·02

  ·17

  —

  1 April 1982

  ·35

  ·02

  ·17

  —

  1 April 1983

  ·35

  ·02

  ·17

  ·04

  1 April 1984

  ·36

  ·02

  ·17

  ·05

  1 April 1985

  ·36

  ·02

  ·17

  ·04

  1 April 1986

  ·36

  ·02

  ·17

  ·04

  1 April 1987

  ·35

  ·02

  ·16

  ·04

  1 April 1988

  ·37

  ·02

  ·16

  ·04

  1 April 1989

  ·40

  ·02

  ·17

  ·04

  1 April 1990

  ·44

  ·02

  ·19

  ·04

  1 April 1991

  ·48

  ·02

  ·21

  ·05

  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many hours were worked on average per inmate by(a) prison officers, (b) governor grades and (c) Prison Department civil servants in each year since 1985.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Governors are an all hours worked grade and information about the actual number of hours worked by them during any particular period is not collected centrally. Similarly, no such information is available for the wide range of grades of staff who work in prison service headquarters. The average prison officer hours worked per inmate is as follows:

  Prison officer hours worked on average per inmate: 1 April 1985 to 1991

  Hours

  1 April 1985

  20·35

  1 April 1986

  20·34

  1 April 1987

  19·76

  364

  1991

  Number

  7 June

  598

  14 June

  609

  21 June

  699

  28 June

  872

  5 July

  1,049

  12 July

  1,080

  19 July

  1,194

  26 July

  1,190

  2 August

  1,165

  9 August

  1,183

  16 August

  1,301

  23 August

  1,557

  30 August

  1,534

  6 September

  1,584

  13 September

  1,647

  20 September

  1,803

  27 September

  1,665

  4 October

  1,624

  11 October

  1,661

  18 October

  1,802

  25 October

  1,807

  1 November

  1,777

  8 November

  1,718

  15 November

  1,640

  22 November

  1,638

  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the ratios of(a) prison officers, (b) governor grades and (c) Prison Department civil servants to prisoners on 1 January and 1 July in each year since 1980.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The available information is as follows:

  Hours

  1 April 1988

  17·30

  1 April 1989

  18·08

  1 April 1990

  18·69

  1 April 1991

  19·72

  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many industrial disputes there are at present in the prison service.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  On 22 November there were registered disputes at 36 of Her Majesty's prisons. Some of these disputes cover more than one issue.

  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current estimate of(a) prisoner numbers and (b) the total certified normal accommodation in the prison estate for each year to 1997.
  365
  Mrs. Rumbold
  On the basis of projections made at the beginning of this year, the projected population and certified normal accommodation (CNA) for prison service establishments in England and Wales in each financial year to 1996–97 were as follows:

  Population

  CNA

  1992–93

  45,669

  49,114

  1993–94

  45,836

  50,862

  1994–95

  46,932

  51,676

  1995–96

  48,587

  51,850

  1996–97

  50,262

  51,727

  The actual prison population is already 1,500 in excess of the figure projected for 1992–93. Until the end of 1994 there will also be temporary reductions in the capacities of those establishments where access is being provided to night sanitation.

  Prison population projections in calendar year form are published in the Home Office Statistical Bulletin, "Projections of long-term trends in the prison population to 1999" issue 10/91, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the monetary value of the food allowance for prisoners has been in real terms in each year since 1980.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The estimated average cost, per prisoner per week (at September 1991 prices), of the normal dietary scales for the 12 months ending in September, 1983–91 was:

  Year1

  Current value 2 3 £

  1983

  7·22

  1984

  7·75

  1985

  7·61

  1986

  7·25

  1987

  7·17

  1988

  7·06

  1989

  6·91

  1990

  47·00

  1991

  46·59

  Notes:

  1Information for the years prior to 1983 is not available.

  2At September 1991 prices. Values adjusted using the retail prices index for all food items.

  3The values include the estimated notional value at published farm gate prices of goods produced on prison farms and gardens.

  4From January 1990, salad items, culinary adjuncts, special provision for prisoners attending court and for medical diets and supplements for dispersal prisons and for Christmas extras have been excluded from the costings. Figures strictly comparable with those for earlier years are not available.

  Improved purchasing has led to steadily reduced costs since 1985 for a basically unchanged dietary scale.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many young offenders were transferred from Hewell Grange to the young offender institution at Prescoed (Usk) during September 1991.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Ten.

  Immigration
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what investigations are taking place into the circumstances in which the United States citizen Mr. Fred Leuchter entered the United Kingdom after being barred from entry on the ground that his presence could not be conducive to the public good, and into the role of Mr. David Irving in procuring his entry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Investigations have shown that Mr. Leuchter was admitted entirely inadvertently. Steps have been taken to avoid a recurrence. He was returned overseas on 16 November.

  Dangerous Dogs
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he proposes to take in respect of those pit bull terrier owners who have been unable to arrange for their dogs to be tattooed by 30 November, in compliance with the requirements of the exemption scheme set up under section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  One of the requirements of the exemption scheme set up under section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 was that the owners of dogs covered by section 1 should have them permanently marked.

  We are aware that there are a number of owners of such dogs, including pit bull terriers, who have been unable to arrange for their dogs to be tattooed by 30 November. It is wrong that those owners who in other respects have taken positive steps to abide by the requirements of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 should not have the opportunity to obtain a certificate of exemption.

  My right hon. Friend has therefore laid the Dangerous Dogs Act Compensation and Exemption Schemes (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 1991 which comes into force today, which gives owners of exempted specially controlled dogs until 1 March 1992 to arrange for their dogs to be tattooed in the approved manner. Certificates of exemption will be issued to owners who have not been able to arrange for their dog to be tattooed with a requirement that the dog is tattooed before 1 March 1992, provided that they have complied with the other requirements of the exemption scheme. If an owner has not provided the index of exempted dogs with satisfactory evidence by 1 March 1992 to show that his dog has been tattooed, the certificate will lapse, the owner will be liable to prosecution and the dog may be seized and destroyed.

  The new order does not change the position for owners who did not notify the police by 12 October of their wish to have their dogs exempted from the provisions of section 1(3) of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, or who have not met other conditions of the certificate of exemption. Those who are in possession of dogs to which section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 applies who have not complied with the requirements of the law by having their dogs exempted will after 30 November be liable to prosecution.

ENVIRONMENT

  SSAs
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will announce his standard spending assessments for local authorities.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend expects to make an announcement shortly.

  Utting Report
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take action to increase to above the national average the standard spending assessment formula for Staffordshire county council to take account of the problems highlighted by pindown and the Utting report.

  Mr. Key
  The standard spending assessment measures the appropriate cost of providing a standard level of service. It is calculated by means of a formula based on each local authority's demographic, social and geographic characteristics. The personal social services element of the formula is applied in the same way to all social services authorities. It would not be appropriate to apply a different approach to the assessment for any individual authority.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether his Department has taken any census of the homeless in Leeds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  My Department has not undertaken a census of homeless people in Leeds. Responsibility for dealing with households accepted as homeless under part III of the Housing Act 1985 rests with local authorities; I understand that Leeds city council accepted 427 households as homeless in the quarter ending June 1991.

  A count of rough sleepers was made as part of the census on the night of 21–22 April 1991; 21 people were counted in Leeds. A copy of the "1991 Census: Supplementary Monitor of People Sleeping Rough", published by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys on 9 July 1991, has been placed in the Library.

  Beaches
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessments his Department has undertaken of progress achieved towards meeting the EC directives on cleaning up beaches by 1992.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) on 12 November at columns 465–66.

  Housing Organisations
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will bring forward legislation to create a legal and financial framework appropriate to consumer owned and controlled housing organisations.

  Mr. Yeo
  A suitable framework is already in place for the promotion and support of ownership co-operatives.368
  Grants are available from the Housing Corporation to assist their development and capital support is provided to registered co-operatives through the Housing Corporation's approved development programme. The Corporation is currently developing a comprehensive new strategy for tenant participation in the housing association sector to include both ownership and management options. Tenant management initiatives in local authority housing are promoted by the Department through an enhanced grant programme.

  Environmental Protection Act
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many commencement orders have been issued to date, pursuant to the Environmental Protection Act 1990; and for what sections of the Act they have been applicable.

  Mr. Baldry
  Nine. They are as follows:

  Sections 128 to 139 (save for the amendments made by ss, 128, 130 and 132), 89(7) to (9) and (11) to (13), 105 (partially), 3, 1, 2, 4 to 28, 100 to 104, 105 (partially), 159 and 162(2) (partially), 86(2), (6) to (8), (11), (14) and (15); 88(5), (7) and (9)(b), 89(4), 90(1), (2) and (7), 94(1) and (2) and 96(2) and (3) and 162(1) (partially), sections 86(1), (4), (5), (9) and (13); 87(1), (2) (3)(a) to (e) and (4) to (6), 88(1) to (4), (6), (8), (9)(a) and (c) to (e) and (10); 98(1), (2) (5) and (6) (England and Wales only).

  The amendments made by sections 128, 130, and 132, 162(2) (partially), 86(3) and (10), 87(7), 89(1)(a) to (f), (2), (3), (5), (6), (10) and (14), 91(1)(a) to (f), (2) to (13), 92(1)(a) to (c), (2) to (10), 93, 94(3) to (9), 95, 96(1), 98(3) and (4), 106(4) and (5), 107(8), 108(1)(b), (3)(b), (5), (7) and (9), 111(1), (2), (4), (5), (7) and (11), 113, 114(1) to (3), 115(4), 122(1) (partially) and (4), 123(7) and (9), 124 to 126, 156, 158, 162(1) and (2) (partially);

  Sections 86(1), (4) (5) and (13), 87(1), (2), (3)(a) to (e) and (4) to (6), 88(1) to (4), (6), (8) (9)(a), (c) and (d) and (10) and 98(1), (5) and (6) (Scotland only).

  Sections 29 to 32, 50, 51, 60 (partially), 68, 71, 72, 75, 77, 147, 162(1) and (2) (partially), 86(12), 87(3)(f), 89(1)(g), 90(3) to (6), 91(1)(g) and 92(1)(d), 152 and 49.

  Housing Action Trusts
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether council employees working in Liverpool's direct labour organisation will be allowed to submit competitive tenders for forthcoming HATS projects.

  Mr. Key
  No. Under section 1 of the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970 local authorities may only enter into agreements with designated public bodies to supply goods, professional services and maintainance work of a minor nature. Although section 89 of the Housing Act 1988 does designate HATS as public bodies for the purposes of the 1970 Act, Liverpool's direct labour organisation would not be able to submit tenders for the major works contracts to be conducted under the HATS projects.

  Harbours Act 1964
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the lengths of long distance routes approved under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 which pass through harbours regulated under the Harbours Act 1964.

  Mr. Baldry
  The majority of long distance paths start or follow significant lengths of the English coast. Some will pass through harbours regulated under the Harbours Act 1964. However, precise information in the form requested is not held centrally and cannot be obtained except at disproportionate cost.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the level of actual applications by local authorities for authorisations under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 Air Pollution Regulations; and what estimate his Department has made of the number of applications which should have been made to date.

  Mr. Baldry
  My Department has not yet received all the quarterly returns for July, August and September from local authorities enforcing part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The figures for the first quarter (April, May and June) were 18 applications for new processes and 70 applications for existing processes. My Department estimated that the first block of processes due to apply for authorisation in the six months ending 30 September would comprise 4,600 to 4,800 processes as well as between 2,000 and 15,000 waste oil burners. It was only to be expected that the great bulk of applications would be received towards the end of this period.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the latest estimate of funds generated from capital receipts obtained through the sale of council houses; and whether he will now allow local authorities to use these receipts for reinvestment in new construction projects.

  Mr. Yeo
  The capital value (net of discount) of sales of dwellings by local authorities in England between April 1979 and June 1991 amounted to nearly £18 billion.

  Since 1 April 1990 local authorities have been free to use 25 per cent. of the receipts from the sale of council dwellings for new capital investment. However, our general policy is to encourage the private sector, including housing associations, rather than local authorities to be the provider of new subsidised housing.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how he proposes to allocate resources in 1992–93 for waste disposal from within the local authority other services block.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I have decided that more investment in waste disposal facilities is needed so as to improve environmental standards. However, this cannot be achieved because local authority investment is necessarily 370
  restricted by public expenditure considerations. I have therefore decided that in future, investment in new facilities or major improvements in existing facilities will be drawn from the private sector unless there are overwhelming arguments to the contrary. To bring into effect these arrangements, I have decided that all capital expenditure resources for waste disposal within the other services block should be allocated by way of supplementary credit approvals (SCAs). These are divided between four main programmes as follows:

  1992–93 £ million

  Landfill gas/contaminated land

  25

  Recycling

  15

  Incinerators

  10

  Waste disposal (main progamme)

  50

  TOTAL

  100

  Furthermore, I have decided that in line with the Government's policy of increasing the role of the private sector in the disposal of municipal waste, main programme waste disposal schemes, and incinerators, will be considered for supplementary credit approvals only if they fall within the following categories:

  (a) expenditure which is contractually committed on 25 November 1991;

  (b) works necessary to make good and maintain sites and facilities which will not be transferred to the private sector;

  (c) essential works necessary to keep sites and facilities operational until they can be transferred to the private sector, or until alternative private sector sites and facilities can be provided;

  (d) investment in existing sites and facilities for which the authority have been unable to attract private sector investment, or secure satisfactory alternative provision from the private sector;

  (e) expenditure related to authorities' regulatory functions.

  These criteria do not affect the requirement under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 for authorities to devolve operational control to a Local Authority Waste Disposal Company (LAWDC), joint venture, or private company.

  My Department will be writing to waste disposal authorities to let them know the detailed arrangements under which these SCAs will be allocated.

  The scope of the current programme of SCAs for landfill gas has been extended to include work on land contaminated by other pollutants.

  Local Government Commission
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to consult local government about the guidance he proposes to issue to the Local Government Commission to be set up under the Local Government Finance Bill.

  Mr. Portillo
  I have issued to the local authority associations and other organisations with an interest, a paper on the guidance we propose to issue to the new Local Government Commission. Copies have been placed in the Library and additional copies are available in the Vote Office.

  Faslane Incident
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will conduct an investigation into the incident at Faslane in which a constituent of the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde was attacked by an unknown assailant during the course of his work as a security guard; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have been asked to reply.

  I understand that the incident in question relates to an altercation between two security guards employed by a private firm working at a contractor's site at the Royal Navy armaments depot, Coulport. The matter has been investigated by the MOD police and I am satisfied that no breach of security has occurred.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Economic Growth
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing the average United Kingdom rate of economic growth since 1973 with comparable data for the previous decade, together with figures for manufacturing output, manufacturing employment and unemployment, and the levels of the real exchange rate in terms of relative export prices.

  Mr. Mellor
  Most of the information can be derived from data available on the Central Statistical Office's database as series CAOP—gross domestic product at constant factor cost; DVIS—index of the output of manufacturing industries; DYAW—employees in manufacturing industries; BCJD—United Kingdom unemployment total, seasonally adjusted; and BQHM—relative export unit value index.

  Data in respect of manufacturing employment and unemployment are available from this source only from 1971. Data for earlier years are available in "British Labour Statistics Historical Abstract 1886–1968" and in "British Labour Statistics Year Books" for 1969 and 1970.

  Copies of these publications are available in the Library of the House.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what estimates he has of the increased yield in VAT in 1992–93 as a result of the change he announced on 21 October for the payment of VAT by larger businesses from a quarterly payment system to a monthly system;

  (2) what estimates he has of the reduction in yield from VAT in 1992–93 as a result of the change he announced on 21 October 1991 in the collection of VAT on imported goods to the system of postponed accounting.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Moving the larger VAT payers from quartely to monthly reporting in the autumn of 1992 will create an estimated once-off cash flow gain to the Exchequer in 1992–93 of about £1½ billion, although the precise effect is difficult to predict since it will depend on larger payers' tax liabilities in 1992–93.

  Requiring traders to account for VAT on EC imports on their normal domestic VAT return from 1 January 1993, instead of monthly at importation as at present, will subsequently produce a once-off cash flow loss to the
  372
  Exchequer in 1992–93 of about £1½ billion. Again, the precise effect is uncertain as it will depend on the pattern and terms of trade in 1992–93.

  Had the Government introduced postponed accounting for EC imports in isolation the cash flow loss to the Exchequer in 1992–93 would have been about £2 billion. The cost would be more because all the VAT on imports would be paid quarterly, but the effect of introducing monthly returns first is that some VAT on imports—that of the largest payers—is paid monthly, rather than quarterly, under postponed accounting.

  Credit
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what was the volume of outstanding credit granted by Finance Houses Association members to consumers in 1989 and 1990;

  (2) what percentage of non-mortgage outstanding credit was accounted for by credit cards in 1989 and 1990; and what are the estimated percentage figures for the current year.

  Mr. Maples
  Information about credit advanced by members of the Finance Houses Association is not available from official statistics, but I understand the figures are published in the Finance Houses Association annual report 1991, a copy of which is in the Library.

  The percentages of non-mortgage outstanding credit to consumers accounted for by bank credit cards were 14·4 and 16·6 at the end of 1989 and 1990 respectively. The latest available figures show that at the end of the third quarter of 1991 the percentage was 17·6 per cent. Information about credit on non-bank credit cards is not available.

  EC Member States
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the national income, 60 per cent. of that figure and the Government debt of each member state in the EC, indicating the differences in accounting treatment where relevant.

  Mr. Maples
  For data on the national income of each member state in the EC, I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to him on 12 November 1991, at columns 506–7.

  Data for the level of Government debt are not yet available on a comparable basis for all EC member states. Following are estimates of the ratio of general Government gross debt, valued in nominal terms, to GDP as at 31 December 1989.

  General Government gross debt, 1989 (per cent. of GDP)

  Per cent.

  United Kingdom1

  37·4

  Belgium

  130·7

  Denmark2

  58·0

  France

  46·6

  Western Germany

  43·4

  Greece2

  76·1

  Ireland3

  125·1

  Italy

  98·8

  Luxembourg

  8·5

  Netherlands

  79·7

  Portugal2

  71·2

  Spain

  43·2

  1 At 31 March 1990.

  2 Central government only.
  373
  3 Per cent. of GNP.

  Source: OECD Economic Outlook No. 49, July 1991; except for Luxembourg and Portugal: from EC Annual Economic Report (revised), May 1991.

  Savings Ratio
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the level of the savings ratio in 1989 and 1990; and what is the estimated level for the current year.

  Mr. Maples
  The personal sector's savings ratio was 7·1 per cent. in 1989 and 9·2 per cent. in 1990. During the first half of 1991 it averaged 10·5 per cent.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the average income of householders in each of the proposed council tax bands, and of the ratio of the average income level in the top band to those in(a) the middle and (b) the lowest band.

  Mr. Maude
  None.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of average earnings is paid in taxation, including income tax, indirect taxes and national insurance contributions, for the average householder in(a) the lowest, (b) the middle and (c) the highest of the proposed council tax bands.

  Mr. Maude
  No such estimates of taxes paid are available.

  Illegal Arms Transfers
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on how many occasions since the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 came into force its powers have been invoked to work with foreign customs services to intercept illegal arms or military equipment transfers; what has been the cost to date of implementing the Act; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 21 November 1991]: Three requests which are arms related have been received by HM Customs. The directly identifiable costs to Customs of handling these requests has been approximately £45,000.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  BBC World Services
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those countries to which the BBC external services broadcast.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The BBC World Service in English is broadcast throughout the world. Broadcasts are also made to relevant countries in the following 35 languages:Arabic, Russian, Spanish (for Latin America), Polish, Mandarin, Cantonese, French, German, Czech, Slovak, Hungarian, Romanian, Portuguese, Hindi, Persian, Bulgarian, Turkish, Serbian, Croatian, Greek, Indonesian, Urdu, Bengali, Hausa, Swahili, Vietnamese, Finnish, Burmese, Pashto, Somali, Thai, Slovene, Tamil, Nepali, Sinhala.

  Democratic People's Republic of Korea
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's planned relations with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), on 16 October at column 156.

  Gibraltar
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how the interests of Gibraltar are represented within the European Community and the European Parliament.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Gibraltar's interests are represented by the British Government in the European Community. In the European Parliament there is an informal arrangement whereby a number of British MEPs take a close and active interest in Gibraltar.

  Ethiopia
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of Ethiopia towards good government.

  Mrs. Chalker
  A broad-based transitional Government was formed in August. Elections to a new national assembly are due within two years. Her Majesty's Government welcome the transitional Government's commitment to respect for human rights, democracy and the liberalisation of the largely state-controlled economy inherited from the Mengistu regime.

  Kenya
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Government of Kenya following the arrest of 20 leading Opposition leaders on 15 November.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer my hon. Friend to the replies I gave the hon. Members for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) on 22 November, at column 323, and for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) on 20 November, at column 266.

  Mozambique
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government will cease providing military aid to Mozambique.

  Mrs. Chalker
  No.

PRIME MINISTER

  EC Foreign Policy
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to reject any proposal for a common EC foreign policy or for foreign policy co-ordination which would impinge on the United Kingdom's relations with other Commonwealth countries or restrict the right of the United Kingdom to work with other Commonwealth countries on any matter of Commonwealth concern.
  375
  The Prime Minister
  We shall not accept any treaty text which would impair our ability to maintain and develop our relations with other Commonwealth countries.

  Livestock Premiums
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to ensure that the Scottish Office, Welsh Office and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food co-ordinate the payment of livestock premiums so that all farmers in Great Britain receive payments at the same time.

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced on 14 May that it was hoped to pay the majority of first advances under the sheep annual premium scheme no later than early autumn. This target was comfortably achieved in all parts of the United Kingdom. Payment of the second advance is already under way. Each agriculture department aims to make payments under the livestock schemes as quickly as possible. Producers' interests would not be best served by co-ordinating payments in the way suggested.

  Traffic, Parliament Square
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the reasons why all traffic was stopped from entering Parliament square at 15.05 hours on 19 November.

  The Prime Minister
  The management of traffic in London is an operational matter for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. I understand however that traffic in Parliament square was held up for a short period at 15.05 hours on 19 November to facilitate the passage of the President of Hungary to the Palace of Westminster.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to co-ordinate the activities of the Department of the Environment in dealing with homeless people and the activities of the Resettlement Agency in funding replacement bed spaces for closed resettlement units.

  The Prime Minister
  Regular discussions are held between Ministers and officials of the Department of the Environment and the Department of Social Security and the Resettlement Agency. At a local level, the agency holds detailed discussions on the provision of replacement beds for resettlement units which have closed or are to close with local authorities and the voluntary organisations in the area concerned.

  Nuclear Testing
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister if, pursuant to the answer of 5 November,Official Report, column 43, he will publish the text of the letter from Her Majesty's ambassador in Washington to the Chief of the Shoshone Nation regarding the continuation of British nuclear testing in Nevada.

  The Prime Minister
  I have arranged for the text of the letter to be placed in the Library of the House.
  376
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister if, pursuant to the reply of 5 November,Official Report, column 43, he will publish the text of the letter on nuclear testing from his Australian counterpart.

  The Prime Minister
  Any decision to publish the text of the letter is one for the Australian Government.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Disabled People
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any plans to introduce a tax-free, non-means tested benefit designed to cover the extra costs incurred by disabled people in their daily lives; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  Disability living allowance, which will be both tax-free and non-income-related, will be introduced in April 1992. For people disabled before the age of 65, it will replace and extend the help with the extra costs of disability currently available through attendance allowance and mobility allowance.

  Income Support
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will undertake to restore the full rate of income support for those aged under 25 years.

  Miss Widdecombe
  There are no plans to remove the differential between the levels of income support personal allowances for those aged up to 24 years and those aged 25 and over.

  Resettlement Units
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many resettlement units outside London have been closed since 1987; and whether dates have been set for closing the remaining units;

  (2) what funding is being made available for resettlement unit replacement bed spaces; and what allowance for inflation is given for both revenue and capital costs;

  (3) what consultation is taking place with housing organisations, local authorities and residents regarding the planned closure of resettlement units outside London;

  (4) when it is expected the Leeds resettlement unit will close; and whether the planned number of replacement bed spaces will cater for the same number of beds as in the existing resettlement unit;

  (5) if he will ensure that proceeds of the sale of land and buildings in the resettlement unit closure programme will be used to fund replacement beds.

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

  Social Fund
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many social fund inspectors were employed on 30 June 1991;
  377
  (2) how many applications for review by a social fund inspector were outstanding for more than one month on 30 June 1991.

  Mr. Scott
  I am informed by the Social Fund Commissioner that on 30 June 1991, there were 54 social fund inspectors employed and 1,666 review applications outstanding for more than one month. Since 30 June 1991 the Social Fund Commissioner has recruited a further 12 inspectors.

  Bed-and-Breakfast Accommodation
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the cost in the current financial year of paying a £10 per week per person allowance for people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation without adequate cooking facilities.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is not available.

  Benefits Uprating
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list any occasions when, in benefit upratings from 1986 onwards, the power to round benefit rates up or down under section 63(5) of the Social Security Act 1986 has not been used to round rates to the nearest 5p indicating by how much and in which direction any rounding diverged from that practice.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 18 November 1991]: The table lists those rates whose increased amounts, from April 1987 to April 1991 upratings inclusive, were not rounded in the manner specified. In each case the rate was rounded up or down to the nearest amount indicated except where otherwise specified. The 1986 uprating order was made before the commencement of the Social Security Act 1986.

  Rates

  Child dependency increases

  Level at which CDIs payable with long-term benefits are affected by earnings of claimant's spouse or partner

  for first child

  £5

  for each subsequent child

  £1

  Earnings rules

  Therapeutic earnings limit

  50p

  Industrial injuries unemployability supplement permitted earnings level (annual amount)

  £1

  Income Support

  Reduction in benefit for strikers

  50p

  Industrial Death Benefit

  Widow's pension (lower rate)

  1p

  Industrial Disablement Pension and Pneumoconiosis, Byssinosis Workman's Compensation Scheme

  18 or over—100 per cent, rate1

  10p

  —lesser rates1

  1p

  Under 18 —lesser rates1

  1p

  Maximum life gratuity1

  £10

  Unemployability Supplement —middle rate

  10p

  Constant Attendance Allowance Normal maximum rate

  10p

  Invalidity Benefit

  Invalidity Allowance —middle rate

  10p

  378

  Rates

  Non-Dependant Deductions (IS/HB)2

  Rent rebates and allowances

  Aged 18 or over and in remunerative work3

  10p above

  Others, aged 18 or over, or on Income Support and over 253

  10p above

  Low earnings threshold

  5p below

  Other deductions (IS) (Pre-1992)

  Deductions for direct payments

  Fuel debt 5 per cent. rate

  5p above

  Fuel debt 10 per cent. rate

  5p above

  Arrears of housing costs

  5p above

  Arrears of water rates

  5p above

  Deductions for arrears of Community Charge (from April 1990)

  Single debtor

  5p above

  Couple debtors both with IS

  5p above

  Retirement Pension

  Additional pension

  1p

  Graduated Retirement Benefit (unit)

  0·01p

  Contracted out deductions (from pre-April 1988 earnings) and graduated retirement benefit

  1p

  Contracted out deductions (CODs) and increments to CODs (from post-April 1988 earnings)

  1p

  Statutory Sick Pay/Statutory Maternity Pay4

  5p below

  Widow's Benefit

  Widow's pension (age related)

  1p

  1 Industrial Disablement Pension only.

  2 New Non-Dependent deductions from April 1992.

  3 Non-Dependent deductions from April 1991 only.

  4 The information for Statutory Sick Pay/Statutory Maternity Pay relates to the 1989 to 1991 upratings. Fron April 1992 rates are to be rounded to the nearest fivepence.

  Benefits
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many income support and unemployment benefit claimants have(a) successfully and (b) unsuccessfully claimed income support under the hardship rule during each quarter from October 1989 onwards in Wales; and how many such claims were in doubt due to (i) not actively seeking work, (ii) refusing suitable employment and (iii) availability for work.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The administration of income support is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Playing Fields
  Ms. Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he has relating to the redevelopment of school and educational playing fields; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  My Department has provided funding for the Sports Council to establish a national register of recreational land, which will enable gains and losses to be monitored. The register will include educational playing fields. Decisions on the disposal of playing fields at local education authority maintained schools are for the
  379
  education authority. However, in view of public concern about the loss of playing fields, we are considering the issue.

  Further Education (Special Needs)
  Mrs. Heal
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what provision has been made for the further education funding councils to consult people and organisations with specialist knowledge of special educational needs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Further and Higher Education Bill currently before Parliament requires the further education funding councils to have regard to the requirements of those with learning difficulties in making provision for further education. The funding councils will be able to determine what consultation is needed to enable them to carry out this duty effectively.

  Mrs. Heal
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to ensure students with special educational needs wishing to pursue courses of

  North Yorkshire local education authority Voluntary aided schools capital programme 1987–88 to 1992–93

  Planned major projects

  Bids for new projects (cash)

  Allocation (cash)

  Allocation (1987–88 prices) £000s

  1987–88

  1. Ermysted Boys Grammar School, Skipton

  661

  —

  —

  2. St. Joseph's RC Primary School, Tadcaster

  207

  —

  —

  3. St. Aelred's RC Primary School, York

  234

  —

  —

  4. St. Peter's RC Primary School, Scarborough

  463

  —

  —

  Planned minor works

  133

  —

  —

  1988–89

  1. Ermysted Boys Grammar School, Skipton

  773

  —

  —

  2. St. Joseph's RC Primary School, Tadcaster

  135

  —

  —

  3. St. Peter's RC Primary School, Scarborough

  504

  —

  —

  4. St. Aidan's CE High School, Harrogate

  747

  —

  —

  5. Manor CE Secondary School, York

  134

  —

  —

  Planned minor works

  442

  100

  93

  1989–90

  1. Ermysted Boys Grammar School, Skipton

  744

  —

  —

  2. St. Peter's RC Primary School, Scarborough

  570

  —

  —

  3. Manor CE Secondary School, York

  144

  —

  —

  Planned minor works

  474

  53

  46

  1990–91

  1. St. Peter's RC Primary School, Scarborough

  666

  123

  19

  2. St. Aidan's CE High School, Harrogate

  891

  117

  13

  3. Manor CE Secondary School, York

  176

  —

  —

  Planned minor works

  532

  37

  25

  1991–92

  1. St. Peter's RC Primary School, Scarborough

  692

  260

  196

  2. St. Aidan's CE High School, Harrogate

  447

  300

  226

  3. St. Wilfred's Primary School, York

  722

  126

  20

  4. Manor CE Secondary School, York

  135

  —

  —

  Planned minor works

  585

  183

  138

  1992–93

  1. St. Wilfred's RC Primary School, York

  515

  n.a.

  n.a.

  Note:

  1Projects on Design List—allocation in respect of design fees only.

  For 1992–93 bids for new minor works invited only in respect of Basic Need or Surplus Place removal. Allocations do not include committed expenditure for projects started in earlier years.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he advised local education authorities that they may no longer apply for resources from the voluntary aided schools capital programme for
  380
  further or adult education are enabled to choose between provision in schools and provision in colleges of further education.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Further and Higher Education Bill currently before Parliament will ensure that a wide range of educational provision continues to be available for students with special educational needs, including provision in schools and in colleges of further education.

  Voluntary Aided Schools
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list all the bids submitted by North Yorkshire local education authority for resources from the voluntary aided schools capital programme and the cash value of these bids in 1987–88 and in each year since then; and if he will list the bids approved and resources allocated in cash terms and at 1987–88 prices.

  Mr. Fallon
  The information requested is as follows:

  schools needing work to remedy accommodation deficiencies or overcrowding; and if he will make a statement.
  381
  Mr. Fallon
  My right hon. and learned Friend has given local education authorities no such advice. They are free to bid for projects at voluntary aided schools needing work to remedy accommodation deficiencies or overcrowding, and many have done so. Decisions on which projects will receive allocations will be announced in December.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he raised the limit for minor works projects funded by the voluntary aided schools capital programme from £120,000 to £250,000; how he consulted local education authorities about this change; what assessment he has made of local education authorities requirement for resources to fund minor works projects costing over £120,000; how much extra money he intends to distribute to local education authorities for funding minor works; and how much of the voluntary aided schools capital programme for 1991–92 was allocated in respect of projects costing between £120,000 and £250,000.

  Mr. Fallon
  The limit for minor works projects funded by the voluntary aided schools capital programme is to be raised from £120,000 to £250,000 with effect from 1992–93 as announced in the Department's letter of 30 May to local education authorities inviting bids for 1992–93 capital expenditure. Local authority associations were consulted in March on the proposed change, and were content. Local education authorities' requirements for resources to fund minor works projects costing over £120,000 have been assessed on the basis of previous years' bids. A decision on how much extra money to distribute to local education authorities for minor works will be announced when allocations for all voluntary aided school projects are announced in December. A total of £1·5 million was allocated in respect of new projects costing between £120,000 and £250,000 in 1991–92.

  Parents Charter
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, in making his request to head teachers that schoolchildren should take copies of the parents charter for distribution to their parents, what advice he took to ensure that this will not contravene section 45 of the Education Act 1986.

  Mr. Eggar
  There is no question of the distribution of the parents charter falling within the scope of sections 44 and 45 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, which relate to political teaching in schools, nor within the scope of section 2 of the Local Government Act 1986 which relates to the distribution of political propaganda.

  The parents charter is addressed not to pupils but to their parents. It sets out in objective terms the rights which parents now have in relation to their children's education, and those changes which the Government propose to introduce if Parliament gives its approval. It fully meets the published guidelines on Government publicity.

  The decision on distribution is one for the governors and head teacher of each school, and not for local education authorities. The majority of schools have already responded positively to my right hon. and learned Friend's invitation to order copies for their parents. Others should follow their example and not be intimidated or misled by inaccurate advice.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give the age participation index figure for higher education in Scotland and in England and Wales, respectively, for each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Separate age participation indices for England and Wales are not calculated.

  The available figures are as follows:

  Academic year

  Great Britain1

  Scotland3

  1981–82

  13·1

  18·1

  1982–83

  13·3

  18·0

  1983–84

  13·1

  18·7

  1984–85

  13·7

  19·4

  1985–86

  13·9

  19·1

  1986–87

  14·0

  19·7

  1987–88

  14·6

  20·9

  1988–89

  15·1

  21·2

  1989–90

  17·1

  24·5

  1990–91

  219·3

  n/a

  1 Defined as the number of under 21 year old United Kingdom domiciled initial entrants expressed as a proportion of the average of the total number of 18 and 19 year olds in the population. Initial entrants are those students entering a course of higher education for the first time. Source: DES.

  2 Provisional.

  3 Defined as the number of Scottish domiciled entrants to full-time higher education anywhere in the United Kingdom who are aged 20 or less, expressed as a percentage of the population of 17 year olds one year previously. Source: SOED.

  n/a = not available.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what percentage of full-time undergraduate and post-graduate students, respectively, attending universities in Great Britain were matriculated at Scottish universities at the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  In the academic year 1990–91, 16·1 and 12 per cent. of full-time undergraduates and post-graduates respectively attending universities in Great Britain were matriculated at Scottish universities.

  Scottish Universities
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what percentage of the recurrent grant distributed by the Universities Funding Council or the University Grants Committee went to Scottish universities in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Scottish universities' share of the recurrent grant allocated to GB universities by the University Grants Committee or the Universities Funding Council was 15 per cent. in academic years 1986–87, 1987–88 and 1988–89 and 14 per cent. in 1989–90 and 1990–91. These percentages are based on the figures issued by the UGC or the UFC in their recurrent grant announcement letters before the beginning of the years in question.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give the percentage of students at Scottish universities who are domiciled in England and abroad, respectively, for the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  In the academic 1990–91, 19·2 per cent. and 13·8 per cent. of students attending Scottish universities were domiciled in England or overseas.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Environmental Issues
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will now update the table on page XV of the Environment Committee's first report on environmental issues in Northern Ireland, of Session 1990–91, providing a list of known legislative commitments for DOE (NI).

  Deaths from hypothermia in Northern Ireland1

  Year

  Disease

  All ages

  Under 1 year

  1–59

  60-

  65-

  70-

  75-

  80-

  85-

  90-

  95 and over

  1979

  Underlying cause

  13

  —

  3

  —

  1

  5

  2

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1980

  Underlying cause

  18

  1

  2

  1

  2

  3

  4

  3

  2

  —

  —

  1981

  Underlying cause

  10

  —

  2

  —

  1

  1

  1

  3

  —

  2

  —

  1982

  Underlying cause

  17

  —

  2

  —

  1

  5

  2

  3

  2

  1

  1

  1983

  Underlying cause

  10

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  2

  3

  2

  —

  —

  19842

  Underlying cause

  11

  —

  1

  1

  2

  1

  —

  4

  2

  —

  —

  1985

  Any mention

  28

  —

  2

  1

  5

  5

  6

  5

  1

  3

  —

  Underlying cause

  16

  —

  1

  1

  5

  2

  3

  3

  1

  —

  —

  1986

  Any mention

  32

  —

  4

  1

  2

  4

  6

  5

  4

  5

  1

  Underlying cause

  14

  —

  2

  —

  1

  3

  3

  1

  1

  3

  —

  1987

  Any mention

  21

  —

  9

  1

  2

  1

  3

  2

  3

  —

  —

  Underlying cause

  7

  —

  3

  —

  2

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1988

  Any mention

  18

  —

  3

  —

  2

  5

  1

  2

  3

  2

  —

  Underlying cause

  7

  —

  2

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  1989

  Any mention

  14

  —

  2

  —

  1

  —

  2

  3

  3

  3

  —

  Underlying cause

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  1

  2

  —

  19903

  Any mention

  13

  —

  3

  1

  4

  2

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Underlying cause

  9

  —

  3

  —

  2

  2

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Notes:

  1 Source: General Register Office.

  2 Prior to 1985 statistics were not collected on cases where hypothermia was shown as an associated cause of death.

  3 Figures for 1990 are provisional.

  Maydown Incinerator
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will now clarify the position regarding the proposal for a toxic-hazardous waste incinerator at Maydown, Londonderry, in the light of the recent statement by the Minister for the Environment in the Republic of Ireland that the Republic would have to construct a toxic waste incinerator in the near future.

  Mr. Needham
  The Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland has not received a planning application for a toxic-hazardous waste incinerator at Maydown, Londonderry. A planning application for a major development involving a hazardous waste incinerator would not be determined without a public inquiry held under the terms of article 31 of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991.

  Unemployed Claimants
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many unemployed claimants have, since April 1990(a) been issued with warning letters for not actively seeking work, (b) had their claim referred to an adjudicating officer for not actively seeking work, (c) had their claims allowed or disallowed for not actively seeking work, (d) had their claim referred to an adjudicating officer for refusing suitable employment and (e) how many of those in (d) have had their benefit (i) disqualified or (ii) not disqualified.
  384
  Mr. Needham
  Copies of the legislative programme prepared by the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland environment service during November 1991 are available in the Library of the House.

  Hypothermia
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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. Hanley
  The information requested is as follows:

  Mr. Hanley
  Social security operational matters are the responsibility of Mr. Alex Wylie, chief executive of the Social Security Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and copies of his reply will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Ethiopia
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the Minister for Overseas Development last visited Ethiopia.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I last visited Ethiopia on 28–29 January this year. Senior officials visited in October and November.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to announce increased levels of aid to Ethiopia.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have provided increasing levels of humanitarian aid to Ethiopia. Since September 1990, we have committed almost £53 million for this purpose, including our share of EC emergency aid. We expect to continue to respond generously to meet emergency needs.

  We are considering the future shape and level of our bilateral development aid programme. Our major contribution to Ethiopia's development, however, will

  385
  continue to be through the multilateral development institutions, particularly the EC. Ethiopia is the largest single recipient of aid under Lomé IV.

  Yemen
  Ms. Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans the Government have to impose cuts in development aid to Yemen.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We keep under continual review the level of aid to all countries in the light of the resources available, of the policies being pursued by the recipient Governments, and of changes in our priorities.

  Simple Truth Appeal
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes),Official

  £000

  Year

  Project aid

  Programme aid

  Technical co-operation

  Disaster relief and food aid

  Total

  1981

  108

  144

  865

  1,324

  2,441

  1982

  586

  —

  906

  1,036

  2,528

  1983

  1,160

  —

  1,241

  86

  2,486

  1984

  555

  —

  1,456

  47

  2,058

  1985

  61

  300

  1,368

  9

  1,737

  1986

  630

  1,377

  1,679

  255

  3,941

  1987

  199

  2,779

  3,882

  433

  7,293

  1988

  3

  1,733

  4,703

  124

  6,614

  1989

  —

  1,597

  3,546

  152

  5,295

  1990

  —

  101

  1,577

  —

  1,678

  So far in 1991 we have committed £5·13 million disaster relief to Somalia, including our share of EC emergency aid. The development aid programme was closed in January 1991 due to the deterioration in security.

  ODA Review
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the Overseas Development Administration will produce its next annual review.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The ODA's annual review was published earlier this month. The publication date for the 1992 review has not yet been decided.

  Know-how Funds
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all those countries currently in receipt of know-how funds, the amounts of money and costs of services provided, and those countries currently being considered for inclusion in the scheme.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The know-how fund currently funds projects in Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, the Baltic states and the Soviet Union. It funded projects in the former GDR from April 1990 until German reunification. We have no plans at present to extend the fund to any additional countries.

  Expenditure under the Fund in 1989–90 and 1990–91, and commitments to date in 1991–92 by country are as follows:
  386
  Report, 11 November, column 352, regarding the £43,210,000 raised overseas for the Simple Truth Appeal, when this was paid into the appeal; and when it was paid out.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Of the £43,210,000 raised overseas by the Simple Truth Appeal, £31,468,000 was contributed by overseas Governments and £11,742,000 by individual and corporate donors. These contributions were made direct to United Nations and Red Cross agencies.

  Somalia
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give details of aid to Somalia for the last 10 years.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Details of United Kingdom bilateral aid to Somalia since 1981 are as follows:

  £ million

  Country

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Poland

  2·3

  10·9

  12·1

  Hungary

  n.a.

  1·6

  5·9

  Czechoslovakia

  n.a.

  2·0

  4·3

  Ex-GDR

  n.a.

  0·5

  n.a.

  Bulgaria

  n.a.

  n.a.

  1·3

  Romania

  n.a.

  n.a.

  1·3

  Baltic states/Soviet Union

  n.a.

  n.a.

  8·8

  The budget for 1991–92 has been increased to £46 million covering all countries.

  The cost of services paid for by the know-how fund depends on the nature of the services and of the project. We have to date committed funds to some 400 projects. The report on the first 1·5 years of the know-how fund gave an idea of the individual costs involved. This is available in the House Library.

EMPLOYMENT

  Autumn Statement
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give details of the programmes and purposes on which the extra cash announced in the autumn statement will be spent.

  Mr. Jackson
  The additional planned resources will go towards helping unemployed people, improving the skills of the work force and assisting small businesses and enterprise. The details of the plans will be announced in the departmental report that will be published early next year.

  Apprenticeships
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the numbers beginning apprenticeship as bricklayers, joiners, electricians, plasterers and plumbers in each year since 1981.

  Mr. Jackson
  Information is not available about apprenticeships according to the year in which they begin.

  Training Credits
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many training credits have been issued in the pilot areas to young people; how many young people have taken them up; what other information he has on the take-up of credits in those areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  As at 13 October 1991, some 27,000 training credits had been issued within the 11 pilot schemes. Over 12,000 of these have already been used by young people to obtain high-quality training of their choice. This number continues to rise. We hope to publish evaluation results from the first nine months of operating training credits in the spring of 1992. Evaluation will, of course, continue well beyond that, to identify the achievements of young people currently beginning training and the impact of credits on young people who leave school in 1992 and subsequently.

  Employment Action
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest information he has about the number of people who have taken up places on employment action; how many have left employment action; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information requested is not yet available. Employment action came into operation only on 1 October, but we are confident that, by the end of March 1992, there will be provision in place to help 30,000 people.

  First Aid Code of Practice
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what action he proposes to take to provide further supplies of the first aid approved code of practice—ISBN 0 11 8855360—in HMSO outlets; what reasons account for the shortfall; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  The Health and Safety Executive has already made arrangements for further supplies of this publication to be made available to HMSO outlets. The reasons for the present shortfall are the unexpectedly high demand for the publication and some small delay in reprinting due to minor changes being made in one of its annexes.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish the level of employment in the Leeds metropolitan district(a) in manufacturing industries, (b) in the service sector and (c) in all industries and services for (i) male and female employees, (ii) full time and (iii) part time; for each year since 1979 both as a number and as a percentage.
  388
  Mr. Jackson
  Information for employees in employment by district is only available from the censuses of employment for 1981, 1984, 1987 and 1989. This can be obtained from the NOMIS database in the Library.

  Low Pay
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish the number and percentage of(a) men and (b) women working full time and part time earning less than (i) £2·00 per hour, (ii) £2·50 per hour, (iii) £3·00 per hour, (iv) £3·50 per hour, (v) £4·00 per hour, (vi) £4·50 per hour and (vii) £5·00 per hour in the (1) Leeds, West constituency and (2) the Leeds metropolitan district.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information available from the 1991 new earnings survey closest to that requested is given in the following tables:

  Metropolitan County of West Yorkshire

  Employees on adult rates whose pay was not affected by absence and whose hourly earnings—excluding overtime—were below the following specified amounts

  April 1991

  Number in sample

  Per cent. of total

  Number in sample

  Per cent. of total

  £2·00

  £2·50

  Full-time men

  16

  0·5

  34

  1·2

  Full-time women

  11

  0·7

  32

  2·0

  Part-time men

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Part-time women

  23

  2·2

  54

  5·2

  £3·00

  £3·40

  Full-time men

  94

  3·2

  204

  6·9

  Full-time women

  150

  9·5

  284

  18·0

  Part-time men

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Part-time women

  209

  20·2

  420

  40·7

  £3·60

  £4·00

  Full-time men

  305

  10·4

  493

  16·8

  Full-time women

  371

  23·6

  523

  33·2

  Part-time men

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Part-time women

  505

  48·9

  663

  64·2

  £4·50

  £4·80

  Full-time men

  753

  25·6

  948

  32·3

  Full-time women

  700

  44·5

  807

  51·3

  Part-time men

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Part-time women

  773

  74·8

  819

  79·3

  £5·40

  Full-time men

  1,305

  44·4

  Full-time women

  965

  61·3

  Part-time men

  1—

  1—

  Part-time women

  877

  84·9

  Source: New Earnings Survey.

  "1—" denotes information not available.

  Training Credits
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on progress towards the planned national extension of training credits for young people.

  Mr. Howard
  I am delighted to be able to announce today the seven training and enterprise councils and two local enterprise companies which will develop training credits schemes to operate from April 1993. These schemes, together with the existing 11 training credits pilots, will mean that some 20 per cent. of the national total of 16 and 17-year-old school leavers will be able to benefit from the increased opportunities offered by
  389
  training credits. It remains the Government's intention to expand training credits progressively, so that by 1996, within the lifetime of the next Parliament, all young people aged 16 or 17 leaving full-time education will have the offer of a training credit.

  The TECs and local enterprise companies that will develop training credits schemes to operate from April 1993:

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  Isle of Wight

  Merseyside

  Northamptonshire

  Staffordshire

  South Thames

  Mid Glamorgan

  Caithness and Sutherland

  Dunbartonshire

HEALTH

  Meat Inspection
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will meet the Institution of Environmental Health Officers to discuss whether meat inspection should remain a local authority function.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food gave to her on 21 November at column 299.

  Hospices
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the total value of extra help provided by the Government for hospices over the last 12 months.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Sir R. Rhodes James) on 18 November at column 43.

  Health Care, London
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the terms of reference and scope of the Tomlinson inquiry into delivery of health care in London; what assistance the inquiry is obtaining from the King's fund study in the same field; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The terms of reference of Sir Bernard Tomlinson's inquiry are:"To advise the Secretaries of State for Health and Education and Science on how the relevant statutory authorities are addressing the provision of health care in inner London, working within the framework of the reformed NHS, including the balance between acute and primary health services; and the organisation and provision of undergraduate medical teaching, postgraduate medical education and research and development; taking account of:

  the health needs of London's resident and day-time population;

  the emerging purchasing plans of health authorities and their likely impact on inner London hospitals;

  future developments in the provision of acute and primary care; and

  390

  the need to maintain high quality patient care and, as a foundation for this, high standards of medical teaching and research and development."

  I understand that Sir Bernard and members of his expert team have already held useful discussions with members of the King's Fund Commission studying health services in London, with a view to future co-operation.

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish a list of those general practitioner fundholding practices in England which have set up private companies for aspects of their patients care.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not held centrally.

  Hospital Security
  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the security arrangements in NHS hospitals.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Security arrangements at NHS hospitals are the responsibility of and can best be determined by local hospital managers, in the light of their knowledge of their premises and the level of access necessary for patients, staff and visitors.

  To help local managers, the National Association of Health Authorities issued the NHS Security Manual to all health authorities in 1984. This is now being revised and updated with the help of a £37,000 grant from the Department.

  The new manual will take account of the most recent developments in security and crime prevention techniques and is being developed in consultation with key experts in the field and other interested private and public sector organisations. It will be available for circulation to health authorities and NHS trusts early next year.

  Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1979
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce changes to the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Bill was introduced in another place on 5 November.

  Pregnancy Terminations
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which EC countries permit the treatment of non-resident women for legal termination of pregnancy.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

  Mifegyne
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many briefing seminars concerning Mifegyne have been held by Roussel UK; where they were held; and approximately how many health personnel attended each seminar.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not collected centrally. My hon. Friend may wish to contact Roussel UK for the information requested.

  Mental Handicap
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on how financial support for the mentally handicapped in residential care is calculated regarding training, education, employment and other day care elements; and how it is planned to be changed after 1 April 1993.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The provision of day care and other personal social services is the responsibility of local authority social services departments. They are responsible for assessing the need for services in individual cases and for deciding how this might appropriately be met. This will not alter after 1 April 1993.

  Midwives
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many student midwives completed training in each of the last four years; and how many new midwives positions were created in that period.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The number of student midwives who completed training in England in the last four years and became eligible for registration is as follows:

  Year (ended 31 March)

  Number

  1988

  2,521

  1989

  2,088

  1990

  2,499

  1991

  2,336

  Note: These figures were provided by the English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting.

  Information regarding the number of new midwifery positions created in the same period is not centrally available.

  Employment of Children
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will bring the outstanding provisions of the Employment of Children Act 1973 into force.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There are no plans to implement the Employment of Children Act 1973.

  The main legislation governing the part-time employment of children under minimum school leaving age is the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. This sets out general restrictions governing hours of work and conditions of employment. Further restrictions are contained in local authority byelaws made under the Act. The provisions of primary legislation and byelaws serve as an effective framework to protect children who work part time.

  Huntington's Chorea
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much his Department spends in research into the cause and cure of Huntington's chorea.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Medical Research Council, which receives its grant-in-aid through this Department, is the main agency for funding medical research in this country. In the last
  392
  financial year (1990–91) the council spent £100,000 on research relevant to Huntington's chorea. The council is always willing to consider for support soundly based new scientific proposals in competition with other applications. The health departments, universities and medical schools may also be funding some research on Huntington's chorea but information on this is not collected centrally.

  Hospitals, Liverpool
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the future of Mossley Hill, hospital.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Mossley Hill hospital has a secure future. Liverpool health authority are currently implementing plans to centralise mental health services on the Mossley Hill site. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. Michael Emberton, the chairman of Liverpool health authority, for further details.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether there are any plans to amalgamate the Royal Liverpool teaching hospital and Broadgreen hospital, or to transfer services from one hospital to the other; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I am not aware of any plan of the Royal Liverpool University Hospitals trust and the Broadgreen Hospital trust to amalgamate as a single trust. Any such proposal would need to be put to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State formally for consideration and would involve the dissolution of the two existing trusts and further public consultation.

  Any transfer of health services is a matter for the providers of those services in consultation with purchasers. This is a matter for local discussion and decision.

  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether he intends to seek tenders for private capital to finance the hotel residential accommodation at the proposed obstetric and gynaecology hospital in Liverpool;

  (2) how many tenders have been put out for the proposed obstetric and gynaecology hospital in Liverpool;

  (3) what is his Department's capital limit on the proposed obstetric and gynaecology hospital in Liverpool;

  (4) if his Department intends to provide funding for the whole of the capital cost of the acute block and the hotel accommodation for the proposed obstetric and gynaecology hospital in Liverpool;

  (5) what are his Department's building cost estimates for the 163-bed acute block and the 100 hotel residential beds of the proposed obstetric and gynaecology hospital in Liverpool; what were the trust application building cost estimates; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 12 November 1991]: Approval in principle was given by the Department in September to a new obstetric and gynaecology hospital in Liverpool. The base costs, for approval in principle purposes, was estimated to be around £16 million. This figure was announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 10 September and was quoted in the trust application document. With additions for fees, equipment and on-costs (infrastructure) the cost is estimated to be £26·46 million to which will be added VAT and inflation.

  Approval in principle does not signal a specific allocation of capital. Any proposal to use private sector

  393
  capital must be demonstrated to represent value for money and would require the approval of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. His approval has not been sought in relation to this scheme.

  Estimates of building costs are made by the relevant health authority, whose responsibility it is to seek tenders. The district health authority has not yet reached that stage.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Public Limited Companies
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish a table showing which completed inspectors' reports relating to public limited companies have not been published over the last 10 years.

  Mr. Redwood
  The table lists all inspections into public companies under sections 432 and 442 of the Companies Act 1985 (or their predecessor sections) where the inspectors have submitted their final report since 1 November 1981 and that report remains unpublished.

  The decision whether to publish the reports marked with an asterisk remains under consideration. Substantial interim reports on Bryanston Finance Limited and Dunlop Holdings Limited were published on 22 March 1983 and 17 February 1981 respectively.

  Date of appointment

  Company Name

  Date of report

  12 May 1975

  Bryanston Finance Ltd. [now Ramor Investments Ltd.]

  27 April 1987

  25 July 1980

  Dunlop Holdings Limited

  12 November 1981

  8 March 1982

  Euroflame Holdings plc

  27 June 1987

  11 March 1983

  British Anzani plc

  *28 November 1986

  25 February 1983

  Hartley Baird plc

  21 December 1983

  9 May 1985

  Hartley Baird plc

  23 May 1986

  26 May 1989

  Blue Arrow plc

  *4 June 1991

  23 June 1989

  The Bestwood plc

  *26 March 1991

  6 February 1990

  BOM Holdings plc

  *2 August 1991

  Supervisory Bodies
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will propose legislation under which no unelected person would be able to sit on the councils of the bodies recognised as supervisory bodies under the Companies Act 1989.

  Mr. Redwood
  No.

  Auditing
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will propose legislation under which auditing firms criticised in the inspectors' report would be required to return the audit fee to the company.

  Mr. Redwood
  No.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will propose legislation under which it would be a criminal offence for the recognised supervisory bodies to recommend passive auditing guidelines.

  Mr. Redwood
  No.

  Caparo Judgment
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will now propose legislation under which the Caparo judgment would be reversed.

  Mr. Redwood
  We have no plans to do so.

  Vehicle Prices
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received about the relative pre-tax pricing of vehicles in the United Kingdom for ordinary car buyers and for fleet buyers and for purchases of the same vehicle on the continent; and what plans he has to introduce legislation or take other steps to safeguard the consumer's interests in this area.

  Mr. Redwood
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations about car prices. A reference relating to the supply of new motor cars was made to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on 9 May 1990. In making the reference the Director General of Fair Trading drew attention to concern about apparent differences between prices in the United Kingdom and other European countries. On 31 October 1991 the Commission delivered their report to the Secretary of State who is currently considering it. The report will be published as soon as is practicable. The contents of all MMC reports remain confidential until publication. If the MMC find no adverse effects the Secretary of State has no power to act. If the MMC have reached any adverse findings he will decide what steps, if any, should be taken to remedy the situation. He will also consider whether or not to announce a period of consultation before reaching his conclusions if the report is adverse.

  Office of Telecommunications
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list for the Office of Telecommunications for each year since it was established(a) staffing levels and (b) its annual cost at both actual and current prices.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 22 November 1991]: The staffing levels and the annual expenditure of OFTEL in each financial year since it was established are as follows:

  Staff level (actual)

  Financial expenditure

  actual £k

  1990–91 prices £k

  1984–85

  53

  1,668

  2,373

  1985–86

  91

  2,792

  3,765

  1986–87

  109

  3,404

  4,444

  1987–88

  115

  3,573

  4,424

  1988–89

  117

  3,825

  4,419

  1989–90

  118

  4,291

  4,655

  1990–91

  130

  6,424

  6,424

  11991–92

  150

  7,375

  6,893

  1 provisional

  Note: OFTEL's expenditure is fully recovered from licence fee income.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give the annual salary of the Director General of Telecommunications for each year since his appointment, giving year-on-year percentage rises.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 22 November 1991]: The figures requested are as follows:

  395

  Year ended 30 June

  Salary £

  Percentage increase

  1985

  50,000

  —

  1986

  55,022

  10·0

  1987

  60,224

  9·5

  1988

  62,903

  4·4

  1989

  66,341

  5·5

  1990

  71,780

  8·2

  1991

  81,915

  14·1

  1992

  87,805

  7·2

  Trade Statistics
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will state the total exports and imports of the United Kingdom with the other countries of the European Community for the years 1989 and 1990 and the first six months of 1991 together with the export to import ratio for each period.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 22 November 1991]: Information on United Kingdom visible trade is regularly published in "Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom", which is available in the Library of the House.

  European Co-operative Statute
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the United Kingdom Government's policy on the draft European co-operative statute.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 18 November 1991]: The Draft European Co-operative Statute is still at a draft stage. Should a formal proposal emerge from the Commission, the Government will consult widely among interested organisations, as is the normal practice.

TRANSPORT

  Overloaded Lorries
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what new proposals he has to reduce the problem caused by overloaded lorries.

  Mr. Chope
  About twice as many vehicles will be weighed by the vehicle inspectorate this year as five years ago.

  Manchester Airport (Rail Link)
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about a rail link to Manchester airport from the south.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The main market is to and from Manchester and other points to the north of the airport. That will be well served by the link which is currently under construction. I understand British Rail has no plans to build a southern spur to the rail link to Manchester airport at present.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to improve the rail connections between the channel tunnel and north-west England in time for the opening of the tunnel.
  396
  Mr. Rifkind
  British Rail plans to invest over £1·4 billion in channel tunnel services. The north-west will have through passenger services and freight terminals at Trafford Park and Liverpool.

  Mr. Robert Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about British Rail's proposals for the location of rail freight depots to serve European destinations via the channel tunnel, with specific reference to the needs of south-west England.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail has announced the locations of all nine of its proposed channel tunnel freight terminals. Initially the terminal at Cardiff will serve south Wales and the south-west of England. British Rail is exploring the prospect of a terminal at Avonmouth.

  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a further statement on the establishment of freight terminals in the north-west of England for ongoing carriage of trade through the channel tunnel.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail has announced that there will be channel tunnel freight terminals in Trafford Park (Manchester) and Seaforth (Merseyside) to link industry in the north-west with the channel tunnel. Both terminals are due to open in 1993.

  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on environmental protection and compensation for residents of north-west Kent along the line of the recently-announced route for the channel tunnel high-speed rail link.

  Mr. Freeman
  There will be full public consultation on environmental protection measures, and voluntary purchase will be offered for homes required for, or seriously affected by, the construction and operation of the rail link. Neither the protection measures, nor the purchase scheme, can be adequately defined until the preferred route has been engineered in greater detail.

  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans there are to improve British Rail freight links between Southampton and the channel tunnel.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The planning and running of its international freight services is a commercial matter for British Rail. Freight from Southampton through the channel tunnel will be routed through the freight terminal at Willesden.

  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what marketing strategy is to be used by British Rail in disposing of the residential properties they have bought in the Warwick gardens area of Dulwich in anticipation of the channel tunnel rail link going through south-east London.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail will seek to minimise any disruption of the local housing market by operating a carefully controlled sales programme.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with the chairman of British Rail concerning the passenger and freight railway services proposed between south Wales and the channel tunnel.
  397
  Mr. Freeman
  On 25 October I visited the site of the planned channel tunnel freight terminal in Cardiff.

  Transport Expenditure
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will provide a geographical breakdown by United Kingdom nation and region for the additional projected increase in transport expenditure for 1992–93 and 1993–94; and if he will make a statement;

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will provide a geographical breakdown by United Kingdom nation and region of the additional projected increase in transport expenditure for 1992–93 and 1993–94; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  British Rail's spending will include projects that benefit the whole of the United Kingdom; but its investment programme for the two years is not yet settled, and so no geographical analysis can be made.

  Road Pricing
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent calculations his Department has made as to the impact that road pricing would have on traffic flows in Greater London and the south-east.

  Mr. Chope
  We are now beginning detailed research to establish whether road pricing could become a practicable option for London and what its many effects would be. This assessment will include the likely impact on traffic flows.

  A10
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects completion of the dualling of the A10 between Cambridge and Ely.

  Mr. Chope
  Announcement of a preferred route following consultation is expected in spring 1994. Later progress will depend upon progress with statutory procedures and resources available for the roads programme.

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency has to use its data base for commercial marketing purposes.

  Mr. Chope
  The DVLA's intention to explore the commercial use of its databases is included in its 1991–92 business plan, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Network SouthEast
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with British Rail about further investment in rolling stock by Network SouthEast; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Around 800 passenger vehicles are currently on order for Network SouthEast which will significantly improve the quality of service for many passengers. These are as follows:398

  Network SouthEast new trains on order

  Route

  Number of Vehicles

  Class

  End delivery

  Chiltern lines

  89

  165/0

  March 1992

  Thames lines

  91

  165/1

  Summer 1992

  Kent link

  400

  465

  Spring 1993

  Waterloo and City

  20

  482

  Late 1992

  Kent link

  86

  466

  Spring 1993

  Thames express

  63

  166

  Summer 1993

  West of England (Waterloo-Exeter line)

  63

  159

  Summer 1992

  Rail Safety
  Mr. John P. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss safety.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. and learned Friend has regular meetings with Sir Bob Reid, the British Rail chairman, to discuss a variety of railway issues. Safety remains the top priority for both the Government and British Rail.

  Road Schemes
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has had referring to environmental aspects of proposed road schemes.

  Mr. Chope
  I received many representations on various aspects of the roads programme.

  London Underground
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet the chairman of London Transport to discuss improvements to the underground network.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. and learned Friend and I meet the chairman of London Transport regularly to discuss a variety of issues, including improvements to the underground network. The increase in grant announced in the Chancellor's autumn statement means that the Underground will have the resources that it needs to provide London with a system described by the chairman as a "decently modern metro".

  Road Traffic (East London)
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on traffic conditions at the intersection of the Mile End road—A11—and Cambridge Heath road in London E1.

  Mr. Chope
  Traffic conditions at the junction of the A11 and Cambridge Heath road are a matter for the highway authority, the London borough of Tower Hamlets. I understand that the police increased enforcement activities in the area while work was in progress to repair a gas main on the nearby A13.

  London Regional Transport Grant
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the proposed increase in grant to London Regional Transport.
  399
  Mr. Freeman
  The chairman of London Transport has welcomed the increased funding announced in the autumn statement.

  Tube Stations (Refurbishment)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much he expects London Underground Ltd. to invest in the refurbishment of the Elephant and Castle and Rotherhithe tube stations during(a) 1991–92 and (b) 1992–93.

  Mr. Freeman
  Following the recent announcement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer of a record £3·8 billion grant for London Transport over the next three years, London Underground Limited (LUL) is currently reassessing its future investment programme. Although this work is not yet complete, I understand from LUL that work on the £6 million refurbishment of Elephant and Castle is likely to restart in 1992–93.

  I understand that LUL does not have any firm date for refurbishment works at Rotherhithe, but the station may be included in a general refurbishment programme which will benefit several stations over the next few years.

  Rail Freight Services
  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans there are to improve British Rail freight services between Southampton and other major cities and ports.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  This is a commercial matter for the British Railways Board. However, I understand that Railfreight Distribution is at present considering the potential for expansion at Southampton.

  M271
  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans there are to extend the M271 direct into the Western docks area of Southampton; and what is the time scale.

  Mr. Chope
  My Department has no such proposals, and I am not aware of any by Hampshire county council.

  M27
  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans there are to complete the transportation links between Dover/Folkestone to Devon using the existing M27; and what is the time scale.

  Mr. Chope
  The national roads programme includes 21 schemes for improvements to sections of the A20, A259 and A27 between Dover and the M27 motorway, and another 16 schemes for sections of the A31, A35 and A30 westwards from the M27 to Exeter, collectively valued at some £438 million at November 1987 prices. Some of these are now under construction and the others are at various stages of preparation. Subject to satisfactory completion of the statutory procedures and continuing availability of funds, we would expect all to be completed by the end of the decade.

  The needs of the trunk road network are kept under constant review, and it is possible that further schemes along the south coast route might be added to the programme from time to time.

  M3
  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate is now foreseen for the completion of the missing link of the M3 motorway.

  Mr. Chope
  The Compton to Bassett section of the M3 is due for completion by the end of the year. The final section of the M3 around Winchester is programmed for completion by the end of 1994. This will complete the motorway route from London to Southampton.

  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport for what period a class I certificate for a heavy goods vehicle licence, DL 923, normally remains valid; if there are any circumstances in which this period can be extended; and whether he has any plans to seek to amend these arrangements.

  Mr. Chope
  Heavy goods vehicle test pass certificates (DLG23) were issued prior to 1 April of this year and are valid for five years. If drivers do not claim their full entitlement within the five year period the validity of the test pass certificate lapses.

  From 1 April, drivers issued with large goods vehicle (LGV) or passenger carrying vehicle (PCV) test pass certificates must claim full entitlement within two years of passing the test.

  The period is laid out in regulations and there is no current plan to change them.

  Transport, London
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set out in tabular form the proportion of(a) inner London and (b) central London residents who used each of the following modes of transport for non-work trips for 1989 and 1990, respectively: (a) the Underground, (b) bus, (c) British Rail, (d) car, as driver, (e) car, as passenger, (f) cycle, (g) motor cycle and (h) pedestrian, respectively.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The figures requested are not available. Data are being collected for 1991 as part of the London area transport survey and results will be available in 1993.

  Harbours Act 1964
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the harbours covered by the Harbours Act 1964 together with the name and address of the harbour authority.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  There are several hundred harbours as defined in section 57 of the 1964 Act. I am sending the hon. Lady a list.

  Driving Licences
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many driving licences were renewed by drivers over the age of 70 years during 1990–91.

  Mr. Chope
  A total of 618,235 licences were renewed by drivers over the age of 70 years during 1990–91.

  British Rail Staff
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people were employed by British Rail in 1979 and in 1990.

  Mr. Freeman
  British rail had 134,361 employees at 31 March 1990. The figure at 31 December 1979 was 244,084.

  Rights of Way
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the footpaths and bridleways through harbours which have been closed in the last 10 years.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Apart from applications (of which no central information is kept) from harbour authorities to the local highway authority for footpath or bridleway closures under the Highways Act 1980 and references in private Acts, provision has been made in two recent harbour revision orders, those for the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company in 1984 and for Blyth in 1989, for the stopping up of specific public rights of way and the provision of alternative public footpaths.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will require all details of footpaths and bridleways through trust ports to be stated in the objectives of the sales.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  No. Objectives of sale agreed between individual ports authorities and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State represent criteria which the authority will take into account when assessing competing bids for the port. It would be inappropriate for them to incorporate details of footpaths and bridleways through the port. The same procedures for the extinguishment of footpaths and bridleways will continue to apply following privatisation as before it.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether there is any requirement for a harbour authority to maintain for public inspection a map of footpaths and bridleways in the area of the harbour.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  No. It is the responsibility of the surveying authority (usually the county highway authority) to provide information about all public footpaths and bridleways in its area.

  Road Casualties
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport by what percentage the number and the rate of each category of fatal and serious road casualties has changed since the target was set of reducing casualties by one third by the year 2000.

  Mr. Chope
  The Government target of reducing casualties by one third by the year 2000 was set in 1987, using the average annual number of casualties in the years from 1981 to 1985 as a baseline. The requested information is as follows:

  Fatal and serious casualties in road injury accidents: Great Britain

  Casualties

  Percentage change

  1981–85 average

  Year to June 19911

  1981–85 to 1991

  Fatal

  5,598

  4,655

  -16·8

  Serious

  74,532

  55,528

  -25·5

  402

  Casualties

  Percentage change

  1981–85 average

  Year to June 19911

  1981–85 to 1991

  Casualty rate per 100 million vehicle kilometres

  Fatal

  1·9

  1·1

  -39·4

  Serious

  25·0

  13·6

  -45·7

  Traffic:2 (hundred million vehicle Kilometres)

  2,983

  4,092

  37·2

  1Casualty and traffic data for 1991 are provisional.

  2Source for traffic data: "Traffic in Great Britain 2nd Quarter 1991" Department of Transport Statistics Bulletin (91)7.

  Traffic Congestion
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the national economic costs of traffic congestion.

  Mr. Chope
  We are taking a wide range of measures to deal with congestion, including substantial investment in public transport, roads and traffic management. There is no precise estimate of the total costs of congestion, but the cost is some billions of pounds each year.

  Road Building and Maintenance
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of the money raised from motor taxation is spent on road building and maintenance; and what comparable information he has for Germany, the USA and Japan, respectively.

  Mr. Chope
  For 1991–92, the amount spent on building, maintaining and policing roads in the United Kingdom will be approximately 40 per cent. of motoring taxation revenue. Comparable information for Germany, the USA and Japan is not readily available.

  A12
  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what were the traffic flows along the A12 between(a) the M25 junction and Margaretting, (b) Boreham and Hatfield Peverel, (c) Feering and Marks Tey, (d) Marks Tey and Stanway and (e) at Four Sisters in 1989, 1990 and 1991, respectively.

  Mr. Chope
  Average daily traffic flows on the A12 were as follows:

  1989

  1990

  1991

  M25-Margaretting

  62,000

  63,000

  67,000

  Boreham-Hatfield Peverel

  62,000

  65,000

  69,000

  Feering-Marks Tey

  53,000

  52,000

  54,000

  Marks Tey-Stanway

  63,000

  63,000

  64,000

  Four Sisters

  32,000

  32,000

  34,000

  Trust Ports
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will amend the objectives of sale under the privatisation process of trust ports which include sites of special scientific interest in their boundaries to require a stated environment objective where one has not been included.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  No. There will be no change in the arrangements for the protection of an SSSI as a result of
  403
  the privatisation of a trust port. There is already a requirement on the local planning authority to consult the relevant conservation agency when dealing with a planning application for a development affecting an SSSI. Similar consultations are undertaken by bodies proposing developments which are permitted developments within the general development order.

  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what level of inspection will be adopted by his Department to ensure that the fitting of heavy goods vehicle speed limiters on existing vehicles by operators has been carried out correctly;

  (2) if he will set out the procedures to be adopted by heavy goods vehicle operators when the fitting of speed-limiting devices on existing vehicles becomes obligatory.

  Mr. Chope
  All new HGVs over 7·5 tonnes maximum gross weight will have to be fitted with speed limiters as from 1 August 1992. It is intended that compliance with the requirement should be checked when vehicles are type-approved, and at subsequent annual roadworthiness tests.

  Regulations covering existing vehicles will be made shortly. They will require limiters to be fitted to the more recently registered of the biggest and heaviest HGVs already in service. Compliance with this requirement will be checked at annual roadworthiness tests.

  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to ensure the wearing of seatbelts by passengers in heavy goods vehicles and vans.

  Mr. Chope
  Passengers travelling in the specified passenger seat are required to use a seat belt where one is fitted. Responsibility for enforcing the law rests with the police. We take every opportunity to stress the benefits of using belts, and of fitting them in vehicles which do not already have them.

  Swale Crossing
  Mr. Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the strategy and timetable for the planning and construction of a second crossing of the Swale to the Isle of Sheppey.

  Mr. Chope
  The proposed A249 Iwade-Queenborough scheme will include a second crossing of the Swale. Investigation of options is in hand and the next step will be public consultation early in 1993. Thereafter, the programme will depend on public reaction and the time needed to complete the detailed design and statutory procedures.

  A1M (Compensation)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will review the case for compensation for those homes close to the A1M in Hertfordshire to be compensated by central Government funds for extra noise and air pollution; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  No. Compensation is already provided for in existing legislation: both for those from whom land is required for road schemes; and for those from whom no 404
  land is taken but whose properties depreciate in value because of such factors as noise, fumes and smoke arising as a direct result of the use of a new or altered highway.

  Vehicle Distancing
  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress is being made to prevent vehicles driving too close to vehicles in front.

  Mr. Chope
  The Department has been conducting an experiment with chevron markings on the M1, to determine whether such markings are effective in reducing the amount of close following. The results of the experiment will be published shortly.

  British Rail
  Mr. Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish a table listing the current and forecast levels of public service obligation grant and external financing limit for British Rail, and the outturn figures since 1975.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested for public service obligation grant and external financing limits for British Rail since 1975 and current forecasts to 1994–95 is as follows:

  PSO grant and EFL 1975–76 to 1994–95

  £ million

  PSO1

  EFL

  Cash

  1991–92 prices

  Cash

  1991–92 prices

  21975–76

  298

  1,157

  —

  —

  1976–77

  299

  1,022

  421

  1,439

  1977–78

  328

  987

  454

  1,365

  1978–79

  389

  1,055

  574

  1,559

  1979–80

  485

  1,128

  715

  1,662

  1980–81

  576

  1,132

  790

  1,552

  1981–82

  749

  1,342

  960

  1,720

  1982–83

  817

  1,367

  848

  1,418

  1983–84

  854

  1,365

  811

  1,296

  31984–85

  1,066

  1,623

  1,045

  1,591

  1985–86

  820

  1,183

  910

  1,313

  1986–87

  690

  964

  777

  1,085

  1987–88

  761

  1,008

  591

  783

  1988–89

  534

  660

  375

  464

  1989–90

  499

  579

  673

  781

  1990–91

  600

  642

  1,016

  1,087

  41991–92

  900

  900

  1,522

  1,522

  51992–93

  —

  —

  2,041

  1,953

  51993–94

  —

  —

  1,361

  1,255

  51994–95

  —

  —

  975

  873

  1 The 1975–83 figures for PSO grant are for the calendar year.

  2 1976–77 was the first year when an EFL was set.

  3 This was a 15-month accounting period for PSO grant. The 12 month equivalent is £853 million (1991–92 prices £1,298 million).

  4 Forecast.

  5 External finance figures are from Autumn Statement. PSO forecasts for grant are not yet available for 1992–93 to 1994–95.

  Iwade Bypass
  Mr. Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce a decision on the A249, Iwade bypass.

  Mr. Chope
  As soon as possible.

  Car Telephones
  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many prosecutions have taken place in the last two years for driving with a hand-held car telephone; what steps he is taking to prevent such driving; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  There are no separate statistics available on the number of prosecutions arising from the use of hand held car telephones. It is not a specific offence to use a car telephone whilst driving. Prosecution would result where the use of such a device leads a driver to drive without due care or without exercising proper control. Advice on the use of car telephones is given in a variety of publications including the highway code.

  European Commission
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library a copy of the article 169 letter he received in mid-October from the European Commission, in respect of EC directive 85/337/EEC.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 14 November 1991]: No. It is an accepted convention that correspondence between the Government and the Commission is confidential.

  River Itchen (Bridge)
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has now invited tenders for bridge works over the River Itchen as part of the M3 Bar End-Compton.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 15 November 1991]: Tenders have been invited for bridge works in advance of the main M3 Bar End Compton contract, but these do not include a bridge over the River Itchen.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the advance works prior to the letting of a contract for bridge works over the River Itchen require an archaeological dig or any other work liable to damage the River Itchen watermeadows site of special scientific interest.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 15 November 1991]: The advance works will affect a small corner of the Itchen

  Scheme

  Consultant(s)

  A1 Alconbury to Peterborough

  W. S. Atkins Planning Consultants (main agent authority for scheme: Cambridge County Council)

  A5 Little Brickhill Bypass

  Kennedy Henderson Ltd.

  A6 Clapham Bypass

  Acer assisted by Acer Environmental and Ash Landscape Architects

  A10 Wadesmill High Cross and Colliers End Bypass

  Mott MacDonald

  A11 Roudham Heath to Attleborough

  G. Maunsell and Partners, assisted by the Landscape Partnership and Alconbury Environmental Consultants

  A11 Besthorpe Wymondham

  Norfolk County Council

  A11 Four Went ways to Newmarket

  Cambridgeshire County Council

  A41 Aston Clinton Bypass

  Buckinghamshire County Council

  406
  Valley water meadows site of special scientific interest (SSSI). Ecological and archaeological work will be carried out in the affected area of the SSSI before any construction starts on that part of the site.

  Environmental Assessments
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library a copy of the correspondence between himself and the European Commission on(a) M3 motorway, reference P/1324/90 dated 26 March 1990 and 23 May 1991, (b) the Hackney Wick to M11 link road, dated 21 June 1990 and 14 August 1990 and (c) the A406 east London river crossing dated 24 October 1989 and 22 December 1989, with copies of any subsequent correspondence in respect of each.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 18 November 1991]: No. It is an accepted convention that correspondence between the Government and the Commission is confidential.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will give a breakdown of the costs to his Department of preparing environment assessments in accordance with the EC directives;

  (2) if he will list those private consultants selected by his Department to carry out environmental assessments in accordance with the EC directive and to which particular assessment they were attached;

  (3) if he will list the schemes for which his Department has prepared an environmental statement as required under the EC directive, with full details of the costs of the preparation of these statements; and which have been prepared, (a) by his staff within the Department of Transport and (b) by outside consultants.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 20 November 1991]: Consultants are appointed to undertake the preparation and supervision of trunk road schemes under the direction of the Department of Tranport's staff. The consultants are responsible for the full range of duties associated with each commission, including an environmental assessment. The preparation of the environmental assessment, including the environmental statement, is not costed separately. Attached is a list of schemes for which an environmental statement in accordance with the EC directive 85/337 as applied by section 105A of the Highway Act 1980 has been published, together with the name of the consultants appointed to carry out the work:
  407

  Scheme

  Consultant(s)

  A47 Walpole Highway to Tilney High End

  Stirling Maynard and Partners assisted by Landscape Design Associates

  A47 East Dereham to North Tuddenham

  Kennedy Henderson Ltd.

  A47 Norwich Southern Bypass (Keswick section and Trowse Newton)

  Trowse Newton—Norfolk County Council; Keswick section—G. Maunsell and Partners

  A140 Scole Bypass

  Trevor Crocker and Partners (now DVH—Burrow Crocker)

  A428 Bedford Southern Bypass

  Brian Colquhoun and Partners assisted by Landscape Partnership

  M1-A1 Link (Re-alignment of Naseby—Sibertoft Supplementary Order)

  Brian Colquhoun and Partners assisted by Percy Thomas Partnership

  M25 Motorway: Junctions 15–16 widening from dual 2–4 lanes

  Sir William Halcrow and Partners assisted by Halcrow Fox and Wyn Thomas and Partners

  M40 Motorway widening: Junctions 4–5 Buckinghamshire

  Sir William Halcrow and Partners assisted by Halcrow Fox and Wyn Thomas and Partners

  A6 Great Glen Bypass

  Bingham Cotterell

  A6 Rushden and Higham Ferrers Bypass

  Northants County Council assisted by Faulkes Perry and Rech Landscape Consultants

  A16 Spalding to Sutterton improvement

  Mott MacDonald (was Husbands)

  A17 Leadenham Bypass

  Trevor Crocker

  A43 Silverstone Bypass

  Northants County Council assisted by Adams Loxton Landscape Consultants

  A46 Leicester Western Bypass

  Travers Morgan

  A564 Stoke-Derby link Derby Southern Bypass

  Scott Wilson Kirkpatrick and Partners

  A564 Foston Hatton Hilton

  Scott Wilson Kirkpatrick and Partners

  A13/A117 junction improvement

  Acer assisted by Chris Blandford Associates

  A13 West of Heathway—Wennington— Mar Dyke

  Acer Freeman Fox Ltd. and W. S. Atkins Consultants Ltd. (joint main consultants)

  A406 ELRC A13–A2016 design changes

  Sir William Halcrow and Partners assisted by Halcrow Fox Associates

  A406 Gunnersbury Avenue improvement

  Howard Humphries and Partners

  A406 Golders Green Road/Brent Street junction improvement

  Gifford Graham and Partners

  A406 Bounds Green to Green Lanes improvement

  G. Maunsell and Partners

  M1 junction 1 improvement

  W. S. Atkins and Partners

  M1 widening: Junction 9 northbound

  Hertfordshire County Council

  M5 motorway widening Warndon— Strensham junctions 6–8

  Howard Humphries and Partners

  A167 Durham Western Bypass

  Roughton and Partners assisted by A. Walker and Partners

  A590 Dalton-in-Furness Bypass

  Babtie Shaw and Morton assisted by Gillespies

  A66 Stainmore to Banksgate

  Cumbria County Council

  A500 Basford/Hough/Shavington

  Veryard and Partners

  M56 widening junctions 4–6

  L. G. Mouchel and Partners

  M6 motorway widening between junctions 20 and 21A

  Pell Frischmann

  M6 widening and improvements junctions 30 to 32

  Rendel Palmer and Tritton

  M62 widening junctions 14–17

  G. Maunsell and Partners

  408 409

  Scheme

  Consultant(s)

  M62 widening junctions 17–18

  G. Maunsell and Partners

  M65 motorway Bamber Bridge— Whitebirk section (Blackburn Southern Bypass)

  Howard Humphries and Partners

  M66 Manchester Outer Ring Road Denton—Middleton (A576–M62)

  L. G. Mouchel and Partners

  M66 Manchester Outer Ring Road Denton—Middleton (M67–A576)

  L. G. Mouchel and Partners

  A3 Milford Bypass

  W. S. Atkins and Partners

  A23 Pease Pottage-Handcross

  Acer

  A27 Crossbush Bypass

  West Sussex County Council

  A27 Patching junction improvement

  Peter Fraenkel and Partners assisted by Chris Blandford Associates

  A27 Westhampnett Bypass

  Gifford Graham and Partners

  A34 Newbury Bypass—Andover Road junction

  Mott MacDonald

  A249 Iwade Bypass

  Kent County Council

  A249 M2—Bobbing improvement

  L. G. Mouchel and Partners assisted by David Huskisson Associates

  A249 Brielle Way

  Kent County Council

  A259 Brookland Diversion

  Kent County Council

  M20 improvement junctions 5–8 (Maidstone Bypass)

  Travers Morgan

  A30 Okehampton—Launceston improvement

  Devon County Council

  A30 Shallowater Hill improvement

  Cornwall County Council assisted by Environmental Advisory Unit (Liverpool University) Ltd.

  A30/A39 Indian Queens, Fraddon and St. Columb Road Bypasses

  Cornwall County Council assisted by Environmental Advisory Unit (Liverpool University) Ltd.

  A31 Ashley Heath Grade separated junction

  Dorset County Council

  A35 Tolpuddle Puddletown

  Frank Graham Consulting Engineers Ltd. assisted by Cooper Partnership and Environmental Advisory Unit (Liverpool University) Ltd.

  A39 Wadebridge Bypass

  Cornwall County Council

  A417 Brock worth Bypass

  Frank Graham Consulting Engineers Ltd. assisted by Cooper Partnership and Environmental Advisory Unit (Liverpool University) Ltd. and Gloucester County Council

  A419 Latton Bypass

  Frank Graham Consulting Engineers Ltd. assisted by Cooper Partnership and Environmental Advisory Unit (Liverpool University) Ltd. and Cotswold Archeological Trust

  Batheaston/Swainswick Bypass A36 link

  Sir Alexander Gibb and Partners assisted by Derek Lovejoy and Partners and Avon County Council

  M5 junction 18 improvement and Avonmouth Relief Road

  Second Severn Crossing Group

  Second Severn Crossing and approach roads

  Second Severn Crossing Group assisted by Environmental Advisory Unit (Liverpool University) Ltd.

  A5 Trunk Road Fazeley/Two Gates/ Wilnecote Bypass

  Staffordshire County Council assisted by R. P. S. Clouston and Dr. Jeff Lewis

  A49 Onibury—Stokesay improvement

  Shropshire County Council assisted by Simon Waldering Associates

  A49/A465 Hereford Bypass

  John Burrow and Partners (now DVH Burrow—Crocker Consulting)

  A50 Blythe Bridge—Queensway Stoke on Trent

  Staffordshire County Council and Scott Wilson Kirkpatrick and Partners assisted by Derek Latham and Co.; R. P. S. Clouston; Scotts Haighton; Accoustical Investigation Research Organisation Ltd.

  410 411

  Scheme

  Consultant(s)

  A435 Norton Lenchwick Bypass

  Dobbie and Partners (now Babtie Dobbie)

  A435 Studley Bypass

  Dobbie and Partners (now Babtie Dobbie)

  A1(M) Walshford to Dishforth

  Bullen and Partners

  A63 Selby Bypass

  North Yorkshire County Council and Anthony Walker and Partners

  A65 Manor Park Improvement

  City of Bradford

  A65 Gargrave Bypass

  Babtie Shaw and Morton

  A65 Hellifield and Long Preston Bypass

  Pell Frischmann

  A65/A660 Burley-in-Wharfedale Bypass

  City of Bradford

  A650 Airedale route section 3 Crossflats—Cottingley Bar

  Babtie Shaw and Morton

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Room Bookings
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what changes he proposes in the arrangements for hon. Members to book rooms in the Palace of Westminster.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I have no such proposals.

  European Standing Committees
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement concerning the modus operandi of European Standing Committee A and B.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Experience so far shows that the two European Standing Committees are working well and have made a real contribution to the improved scrutiny of European legislation. I am currently seeking views from the Select Committee on Procedure as part of a first stage review of the new scrutiny arrangements and will consider carefully any recommendations which the Committee might make.

  Parliamentary Hours
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Lord President of the Council whether he is now in a position to bring forward proposals to reduce the number of late sitting hours in the House of Commons.

  Mr. MacGregor
  This is one of the issues that the Select Committee on Sittings of the House is considering, and we await its recommendations.

  One recent improvement has been that, since they were set up in January, the European Standing Committees have made a significant contribution to reducing the burden of late night debates on the Floor. Some 20 or so of their debates would probably have been held on the Floor after 10 pm under the previous arrangements.

  Disabled People (Access)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what further action he is taking to improve access to all parts of the Palace of Westminster for people with disabilities.
  412
  Mr. MacGregor
  I commissioned consultants earlier in the year to look at means of improving access to the main public areas. Their initial report has been examined and further advice is now being sought.

  Register of Members' Interests
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will initiate a proposal to require hon. Members to declare the amounts of remuneration they received from outside directorships, consultations and all other payments made for outside work in the Register of Members' Interests.

  Mr. MacGregor
  No.

DEFENCE

  Diving Forces
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his assessment of the risk of mining or sabotage in or around British ports by terrorists.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The assessment of this type of threat from terrorists is not the responsibility of the MOD.

  Service Personnel (Deaths)
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the reasons why certain documents, including boards of inquiry reports relating to deaths of service personnel, should remain confidential to his Department.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A board of inquiry aims to establish the facts of an incident and make recommendations to prevent a recurrence. It can help witnesses to speak freely and frankly if their evidence is treated confidentially. Other documents may be confidential for a variety of reasons, such as national security or medical or commercial confidentiality. Where original documents cannot be released the Department makes every effort to provide information to the next of kin of service men in alternative forms.

  Coral Sea Battle
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which Royal Navy vessels are due to take part in the battle of the Coral sea celebrations in April/May 1992.
  413
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No participation by RN ships in the commemoration is planned.

  Glen Parva Barracks
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will be putting into effect plans to centralise army pay and records at Glen Parva barracks, South Wigston.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We currently have no plans to centralise Army pay and records at Glen Parva barracks, South Wigston.

  Exercise Starfish
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which Royal Navy vessels and in which years have taken part in exercises called Starfish.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  HM ships regularly take part in the naval exercise STARFISH which is undertaken by member countries under the five power defence arrangements. Ships involved since 1981 are as follows:

  Year

  Ship(s)

  1981

  Wasperton

  Monkton

  1982

  Ajax

  Beachampton

  Wolverton

  1983

  Avenger

  Wasperton

  Monkton

  1984

  Falmouth

  Monkton

  Wolverton

  1985

  Plover

  Starling

  1986

  Amazon

  Beaver

  Starling

  Swallow

  1987

  Plover

  Starling

  1988

  Sirius

  Peacock

  1989

  Brave

  1990

  Battleaxe

  Plover

  1991

  Manchester

  Peacock

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which Royal Navy vessels are due to take part in Exercise Starfish 92.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is planned that the Royal Navy will take part in Exercise Starfish 92, but details of which ships will be involved are still under consideration.

  Dounreay
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for how long the prototype fast breeder reactor at Dounreay has been supplying electricity to HMS Vulcan; and at what cost.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Since 1957, when the MOD Vulcan facility was established, it has obtained its 414
  electricity from the Scottish Hydroboard via the adjacent Atomic Energy Authority (Technology) establishment at Dounreay. The power consumed by Vulcan is metered and paid for at commercial rates.

  Female Sailors
  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the total added cost of fitting out ships of the Royal Navy to cater for female crew.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The estimated cost of work done to date to provide accommodation and associated facilities on HM ships for female crew is £1·6 million.

  New Zealand
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Royal Navy is currently prepared to send ships to visit New Zealand.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There are no plans for Royal Navy ships to visit New Zealand in the immediate future.

  Navy (Nuclear Weapons)
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are his plans in respect of the removal of tactical nuclear weapons from Royal Navy surface ships.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Steps are being taken to remove tactical nuclear weapons from Royal Navy ships in accordance with the Government's new policy that such weapons will no longer be carried at sea in normal circumstances.

  Staff Cars
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many officers are based in each auditing district; and how many staff cars are provided in each district.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information is not held in the form requested, but the numbers of staff cars and service officers based in the United Kingdom are as follows:

  Officers

  Staff cars

  RN

  7,142

  551

  Army

  10,652

  1,719

  RAF

  12,880

  1,095

  The totals of cars include those held in pools which are available for use by all ranks, service and civilian, for travel on official business where this is the most cost effective option.

  Nuclear Testing
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions Her Majesty's Government have had with the United States Department of Energy about contamination resulting from the testing of United Kingdom nuclear weapons in Nevada.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We have regular discussions with the United States authorities on all aspects of United Kingdom nuclear tests carried out at the Nevada test site.

  Storage Depots
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether arrangements have been made for environmental clean-up at the naval fuel storage depot at(a) Invergordon and (b) Finnart before their closure.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is normal practice for the existence, nature and extent of any contamination to be identified by the MOD prior to the disposal of land. Any decontamination required would either be undertaken by the Department or by the acquiring authority, dependent upon the circumstances of the land disposal.

  "Options for Change"
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make it his policy to review the arrangements for financial assistance for serving officers who are required to change uniforms as a result of the implementation of the "Options for Change" proposals;

  (2) what contribution will be made to officers of each rank who are required to change regiments as a result of the imlementation of the "Options for Change" proposals in order to enable them to meet the cost of the new uniforms which they will require.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The levels of uniform grants payable on the amalgamation of regiments are currently under consideration. In general officers are expected to meet the costs of maintaining and replacing their uniforms, but those involved in amalgamations will receive a grant to assist with the cost of essential changes in uniform when such new items are not usually provided as a free issue. It is our intention to keep changes in uniform to the minimum, and where possible to allow officers to wear out their existing uniforms.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to review the redundancy arrangements for all serving personnel who are made redundant as a result of the implementation of the "Options for Change" proposals.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No, although we are reviewing arrangements for housing and resettlement.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many junior non-commissioned officers and other ranks with under 12 years' service he expects to be made redundant as a result of the implementation of the "Options for Change" proposals;

  (2) if he will give a breakdown by length of service of the average amount of redundancy payment which will be made to junior non-commissioned officers and other ranks made redundant as a result of the implementation of the "Options for Change" proposals before the completion of 12 years' service.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We do not expect that anyone who has served in the Army for less than 12 years will be made redundant in 1992–93.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultation he undertook prior to the setting of the limits upon financial assistance which may be made available to serving officers who are required to change uniforms as a result of the implementation of the "Options for Change" proposals.
  416
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No limits have yet been set on the financial assistance which may be made available to officers required to change uniforms as a result of the implementation of "Options for Change". The new uniforms have yet to be agreed, but once this has been done appropriate allowances will be calculated.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has about the current average cost of the uniforms of officers of each rank in each of the regiments which will exist after the implementation of the "Options for Change" proposals.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The uniforms of many of the regiments which will exist after the implementation of "Options for Change" have yet to be determined. As a guide, however, current allowances payable to newly commissioned officers to meet the costs of those uniform items which they are required to purchase from military tailors are set out in the table. These allowances are based on average prices charged by military tailors and their current levels reflect prices notified to the Ministry of Defence in January 1991.

  Officers initial outfit allowance

  £

  Male officers

  Dismounted officers and career officers except as below

  1,716

  Officers of the Household Cavalry dismounted order

  2,617

  Officers of the Foot Guards

  2,558

  Officers of Lowland Regiments

  1,901

  Officers of Highland Regiments

  2,174

  Officers of The Royal Tank Regiment, Royal Irish Rangers, Parachute Regiment, Army Air Corps, SAS and Intelligence Corps

  1,679

  Officers of the Royal Army Chaplains Department (includes rate for special scarf)

  1,829

  Female officers

  Queen Alexandra's Royal Army Nursing Corps (Nursing Officers)

  1,628

  Non-nursing Officers

  1,416

  Officers of The Women's Royal Army Corps

  1,259

  Female direct entry to the Royal Army Medical Corps and Royal Army Dental Corps

  2,075

  Army Legal Corps

  2,453

  Royal Army Veterinary Corps

  1,985

  Notes:

  1. These figures do not include officers on probation or Royal Army Medical Corps, Royal Army Dental Corps and Royal Army Veterinary Corps Cadets.

  2. Some officers receive an extra £99 for a non-standard pattern Sam Browne/Cross Belt.

  3. Officers of the Household Cavalry and King's Troop Royal Horse Artillery on full Mounted Duty receive a further grant of £2,020 on first posting to that duty.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received concerning the redundancy provisions for junior noncommissioned officers and other ranks made redundant as a result of the implementation of the "Options for Change" proposals.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We have received a number of representations about our general plans for redundancies.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many serving officers of each rank will change regiment as a result of the implementation of the "Options for Change" proposals.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It will be some time before this information is available.

  Korea (Nuclear Weapons)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the People's Republic of China about assistance by that country to the nuclear weapons programme of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  None.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Rabbits
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the legitimate methods available for controlling the rabbit population.

  Mr. Gummer
  In order to prevent or reduce the damage caused by rabbits a wide range of legitimate control methods are available. These include shooting, gassing, trapping and the use of rabbit-proof fencing. My Department also funds a substantial programme of research into ensuring that controls are available which are not only effective but humane and environmentally safe.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has about the increase in myxomatosis in the rabbit population in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  I have no information about the prevalence of myxomatosis in the rabbit population. However, the increasing rabbit population may have led to a greater number of individual rabbits being seen to be affected by the disease, without there necessarily being an increase in the percentage of the population affected.

  Milk
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will make a statement on the future of producer-processors in the Pennine villages whose livelihood comes from selling milk and milk products to their local communities;

  (2) what is his assessment of the impact on communities of the differential levy on producer-processors;

  (3) if he will make a statement on the impact of the levy from the milk marketing board on direct sellers of milk and milk products.

  Mr. Curry
  Under Community law the milk marketing boards have the exclusive right to purchase from producers in their area milk produced and marketed without processing. Producers may, however, with the agreement of the board, sell their milk direct to consumers or retail outlets subject to the payment of a levy.

  The Milk Marketing Board's entitlement to levy producers has been the subject of legal proceedings in which the European Court of Justice confirmed that the board's exclusive rights extended to direct sellers. The High Court subsequently found that the size of the levies was lawful. This judgment is subject to appeal. Change to the present milk marketing arrangements is essential to enable producers and processors to operate more flexibly to meet the needs of consumers and to give full scope to their entrepreneurial talents. The Government are
  418
  therefore looking to the England and Wales Milk Marketing Board to advance rapidly in discussion with the Dairy Trade Federation its proposals for change to voluntary co-operative status. The process of change must however be orderly. Until new arrangements are introduced the proper and reliable operation of the milk marketing scheme must be sustained and producers will have to operate within its rules.

  Set-aside
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will consider introducing a system of nitrogen set-aside, to replace the present arrangement of land set-aside.

  Mr. Curry
  Limiting nitrogen use is not a cost-effective or practical way of addressing the problem of surplus production under the common agricultural policy. However, rules concerning the quantity and timing of nitrogen fertiliser applications will in due course be introduced in nitrate vulnerable zones, in line with the provisions of the nitrate directive agreed at the Environment Council on 14 June.

  Sheep Dips
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has for ending the compulsory dipping of sheep.

  Mr. Curry
  The compulsory dipping period for 1991 ended at the beginning of this month. Arrangements for 1992 will be considered when the results of this year's dip are available.

  Slaughterhouses
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many man years have been used by his staff involved in listing all abattoirs to advise on hygiene and welfare standards in exporting premises for 1990–91 and 1991–92; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Local authorities are responsible for enforcing legislation on hygiene and welfare at abattoirs. Officers of my Department visit all abattoirs to advise on hygiene and welfare standards and, in relation to export-approved red meat premises, to ensure that Community requirements are observed. The manpower involved amounted to 60 man years in 1990–91; the figure for 1991–92 is expected to show an increase over this figure to reflect increased demand for advice on single market requirements.

SCOTLAND

  Dogs (Poisoning)
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about recent incidents of poisoning of dogs caused by agricultural pesticides in East Lothian.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  On 12 November The Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department (SOAFD) learnt that a number of pet dogs had died or been taken ill apparently after eating blue coloured pellets in Niddrie walkway, Muckletts road, Musselburgh. The total number of reported deaths is seven.
  419
  Analysis of the stomach contents of three of the dogs carried out by the Department's scientific staff indicates that they died from metaldehyde poisoning.

  The police cordoned off the main extrances to the walkway and warning notices were posted by the environmental health department of East Lothian District Council. SOAFD also issued a notice of requirement under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 directing the farmer concerned to search for and remove molluscicides from the area and its adjacent boundaries.

  A full report on the incident leading to the deaths of the dogs is being prepared and will be submitted shortly to the procurator fiscal.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the estimate of the funding needed to repair, and bring up to 1990 standards, the fabric and building services of the further education and central institutions in Scotland; and how many of them are now regarded as being in a poor state of repair.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The condition of buildings in the further education sector is a matter for the relevant education authority and in the grant-aided colleges for the board of governors of the college concerned. The Scottish Office Education Department in its allocation of capital expenditure resource to the grant-aided colleges gives priority to proposals aimed at maintaining the physical condition of buildings and services.

  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his policy towards mergers between higher education institutions in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  The Universities Funding Council will publish later today a report to me by its Scottish Committee entitled "Criteria for Assessing Merger Proposals from Institutions of Higher Education". In my foreword to the report, I have said:"I am most grateful to Professor Shaw, members of his sub-group and the Scottish Committee of the Universities Funding Council for the very thorough and careful consideration that has gone into their report. I also appreciate the contribution made by the many contributors to the consultation exercise carried out by the Committee.
  The report is a valuable and timely landmark in a period of very rapid change in higher education resulting from publication of our White Paper in the Spring and the introduction of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill earlier this month. In our White Paper, we set out our commitment to continued expansion of higher education to meet the growing demand from all those able to benefit from it. In recent years Scottish higher education institutions have responded very well to the changing demands of students for more courses, delivered in different ways to suit the more diverse nature of the modern student population. In doing so, they have achieved exactly the sort of efficient expansion to which our White Paper referred. There is still scope for yet more such innovation in teaching and administration, and collaboration or even closer association up to and including full institutional merger has a contribution to make to this process.
  This report provides an excellent analysis of the factors which higher education managements, staff and students should take into account when considering mergers. It provides what I am certain will become a key reference for all those committed to enhancing and developing further the achievements of Scottish higher education. I commend this report to all those involved who share our commitment to meeting the needs of future generations of students.
  420
  I would therefore expect institutions to assess any proposals for merger against the principles and criteria set out in the report; and in considering such proposals I shall look for evidence that this has been done."

  A copy of the report will be placed in the House Library.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the number of students following degree courses in universities and central institutions in Scotland for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Lang
  The number of students following first degree courses in universities and central institutions is given in the table:

  Number of students

  Year

  Universities

  Central Institutions

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  1986–87

  40,541

  2,285

  14,675

  717

  1987–88

  41,579

  2,194

  15,278

  909

  1988–89

  42,055

  1,814

  16,516

  1,180

  1989–90

  44,094

  1,655

  17,936

  1,792

  1990–91

  46,417

  1,277

  20,147

  2,235

  New Legislation
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the proposals in the citizens charter and in the documents the parents charter, the patients charter and the courts charter published by his Department for which new legislation will be required.

  Mr. Lang
  The following proposals which fall within my responsibilities will require new legislation:

  Citizens Charter

  (a) to ensure fair competition and extend compulsory competitive tendering to a wider range of local authority services;

  (b) to enable the Commission for Local Authority Accounts to require local authorities to publish common standards of performance; and

  (c) to require local authorities to consider and respond publicly to auditors reports.

  Provisions covering these three proposals are included in the Local Government Bill which was introduced to Parliament on 4 November.

  Parents Charter

  (i) to publish comparable information about schools in a standard format relating to public examination results, truancy rates, the destination of school leavers and school running costs; and

  (ii) to provide for the new pupil report card.

  Provisions covering these proposals are included in the Education (Schools) Bill which was introduced to Parliament on 6 November.

  School Meals Census
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the results of the annual census of school meals in Scotland held in January 1991; and what were the corresponding 1990 results.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is set out in the table. The number of pupils taking school meals has continued to increase, despite a fall in the number of pupils present on census day. Almost half the pupils present on census day took school meals with an estimated 17 per cent. bringing their own food to school. Free meals formed 31 per cent. of the total meals provided. Cafeteria style
  421
  meals remain more popular than two course fixed meals although the uptake dropped slightly from 69 per cent. to 67 per cent. of the meals taken.

  Education authority schools (including nursery and special schools)

  1991

  1990

  Number

  As percentage of pupils present

  Number

  As percentage of pupils present

  Pupils present on census day

  698,554

  704,357

  Pupils taking school meals

  —on payment

  230,378

  33·0

  230,410

  32·7

  —free

  101,915

  14·6

  99,303

  14·1

  —total

  332,293

  47·6

  329,713

  46·8

  Pupils bringing own food on school premises1

  106,110

  16·9

  100,469

  16·0

  1 Excluding Grampian.

  A detailed statement of the returns from education authorities from which these national figures are derived is being placed in the Library.

  The following table shows, as a percentage of pupils attending their respective sectors, those primary and secondary pupils taking meals or bringing their own food.

  1991

  1990

  Paid

  Free

  Total

  Percentage of pupils present

  Paid

  Free

  Total

  Percentage of pupils present

  Pupils taking fixed meals

  76,252

  33,849

  110,101

  15·8

  71,819

  30,019

  101,838

  14·5

  Pupils taking cafeteria meals

  154,126

  68,066

  222,192

  31·8

  158,591

  69,284

  227,875

  32·4

  Recycling
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many outlets there are in Scotland which deal with the recycling of organic effluents for agricultural land.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Scottish Office is not aware of any industrial operations in Scotland, of a significant size, which recycle such effluents for agricultural use. However, the direct application of such effluents to land, for the purpose of fertilising or otherwise beneficially conditioning the land, is a common agricultural practice which might be considered to be a form of recycling.

  Hip Replacements
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give figures showing the current waiting lists for hip replacements for each health board.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information on waiting lists for hip replacement surgery is not collected centrally, but arrangements are in hand to collect this in future in order to monitor the commitments of the patients charter.

  Urban Programme
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total of direct grants to voluntary organisations paid by his Department in the latest year for which figures are available together with other payments to voluntary organisations under the urban programme and through other Government agencies.
  422

  Primary

  Secondary

  1991 per cent.

  1990 per cent.

  1991 per cent.

  1990 per cent.

  Pupils taking school meals

  52·9

  52·7

  44·2

  42·2

  Pupils bringing own food1

  25·0

  20·6

  6·5

  6·1

  1 Excluding Grampian.

  Sixty seven per cent. of all meals are of cafeteria style.

  Mr. Lang
  The latest figures available for the total of direct grants to voluntary organisations paid by the Scottish Office including the urban programme and agencies were announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 22 March 1991 at columns 237–38.

  Citizens Charter
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total amount of planned expenditure funded by his Department for the production, promotion and advertising of the four documents being published in Scotland in connection with the citizens charter.

  Mr. Lang
  Expenditure on the production, promotion and advertising of the four documents published in Scotland in connection with the citizens charter is estimated at £320,000.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what responsibility the citizens charter advisory panel chaired by Sir James Blyth has for the application of the citizens charter in Scotland; and if Scottish hon. Members will be appointed to that Committee.

  Mr. Lang
  The citizens charter advisory panel has been appointed by the Prime Minister to advise on the development and application of the citizens charter principles to public services throughout Great Britain. Two of the seven members are Scots. The panel members are appointed on the basis of their professional expertise rather than to represent particular sectional interests.

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

Landfill Gas: Utilisation
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress is being made in the use of methane gas from landfill rubbish dumps as a source of energy.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, very considerable progress is being made. Currently 37 schemes utilising landfill gas are in operation in this country and this number is expected to rise to around 70 within two or three years. Fifty-three projects, totalling 83.5 megawatts, have contracts under the non-fossil fuel obligation, which has given a major boost to the exploitation of this important energy resource.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply. The Government deserve credit for supporting research in this field, but cannot more be done to publicise the advantages of this gas as an economical fuel, bearing in mind that if it is left untapped it becomes a nuisance and can be dangerous? Indeed, it has already caused some explosions.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his acknowledgement of the work we are doing. The Government do a great deal to publicise the opportunities for and give advice on the commercial exploitation of landfill gas. We produced a video aimed at raising general awareness. We place articles in journals, including the one which we produce and distribute widely ourselves. We organise a major international conference every two years. We publish reports and fact sheets on successful projects and distribute these at conferences and exhibitions and we publish a landfill gas news sheet twice a year. More generally, the opportunities for all the renewables to participate in the NFFO was widely publicised, including a mailshot of 13,000. The Government spend about 10 per cent. of their renewables budget on promotional activities. This proportion is expected to increase as the renewables get closer to commercialisation.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, the harnessing of methane from landfill sites is important both in terms of controlling emissions and of creating energy saving opportunities. The Government have made some positive statements of late but can the noble Lord tell us about action? When will the environmental agency that will have overall control in this area begin to function? How much is being spent in the current year on research into bio-gases, of which methane is one;
1140
and what are the Government doing to encourage the privatised electricity utilities to give long-term contracts for the combined heat and power units which operate in this area? Without long-term contracts the economics of these projects do not add up.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I shall have to write to the noble Lord with regard to his question on the environmental agency. My understanding is that it is a combination of a number of existing agencies. I am not aware of the exact date when it will start to function. The noble Lord referred to landfill. I am not aware of any CHP enterprises under that heading. The noble Lord also referred to general expenditure. Government expenditure in this area is currently in excess of £4 million per annum and rising.
Lord Cochrane of Cults: My Lords, I understand that two regulatory bodies are involved with landfill gas. As regards sites producing less than 2 million therms a year the Office of Gas Supply is involved. Can my noble friend tell me the difference between the terms of licences granted by his department and those granted by the Office of Gas Supply in relation to the duration of permission to use landfill gas?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, landfill gas sites do not as such require a licence from the Department of Energy to operate. As my noble friend said, in cases where sites export less than 2 million therms of gas a year, a Section 8 authorisation may be required. The length of time an authorisation is valid has recently been extended from three years to five years. However, it may be helpful for my noble friend to know that the whole operation of Section 8 continues to be under review.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, referred in his supplementary question to some unfortunate incidents. Those incidents, which have involved methane explosions, have taken place mainly on housing developments. Is enough advice available when housing sites are being developed to prevent these unforeseen and sometimes tragic incidents?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, we are aware of the dangers referred to by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy. I cannot guarantee that there will not be further accidents, but the safety angle is taken extremely seriously.

Remand Prisoners
2.42 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Chester The Lord Bishop of Chester asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many remand prisoners, male and female, were held in police cells and magistrates' courts cells on the latest date available and what measures they are taking to allow access by prisoners held in such conditions to a minister of religion or minister of the appropriate faith to the prisoner.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, today there were 1,631 prisoners held in police cells who should properly have been held in prison. Of those five were female.
Prison Service chaplains visit prisoners in police cells and encourage local ministers to make visits.
The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware of the intolerable strain that is being placed on the police force by the number of prisoners being held in police cells? Last May the figure was 516, so the number has almost trebled.
One of the major police forces in my area has asked me to bring this matter to your Lordships' notice. The police are constantly losing days off in order to cope with the problem. The strain has reached such proportions that they feel that radical action must be taken soon. Will it be possible to act to ensure access to prisoners by ministers of religion? It is not happening in all cases. In fact the situation is patchy. In some places it is possible for ministers of religion to get access to police cells when they are requested to go; in others it is not. In London the only way in which it is possible is for ministers of religion to register as lay visitors; and then they can ask only about the cleanliness and hygiene of the cells and the conditions under which prisoners are kept. They cannot minister to the soul. Will he also consider—
Noble Lords: Too long!
The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, I apologise to noble Lords for not knowing the courtesies of the House. Perhaps I may ask one further question. Will the noble Viscount consider the use of army camps, as the police themselves have suggested, which would allow less squalid conditions, fresh air and the visitation of relatives and ministers of religion?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I must pay tribute to the most valuable work carried out by the prison service chaplains in very difficult circumstances. There are 119 full-time and 254 part-time chaplains. As the arrangements for helping prisoners in police cells are informal, my noble friend the Minister of State has now asked officials to consider how best to ensure that all prisoners in police cells have access to ministers of religion. We shall also be issuing guidance in this respect.
In regard to the other points made by the right reverend Prelate, we feel that military camps are a last resort. They are not particularly useful for remand prisoners. They are, perhaps, not safe enough. On the subject of the police, liaison governors are available seven days a week to provide advice to the police on all aspects of treatment of prisoners in police cells.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that any man or woman who is arrested and awaiting trial in custody is entitled to proper access to a lawyer, a doctor and a priest? Is he also aware that the right reverend Prelate is perfectly right in what he said? All of us have heard of instances where, under this lamentable system of pushing remand prisoners into police cells, it is made almost impossible for any of these things to be properly done.
1142
Perhaps the the noble Viscount should agree with the suggestion regarding the use of military camps. My noble friend Lord Cocks, who sits next to me, said in the police debate last week that that was a proper solution. Moreover, in 1980, my noble friend Lord Hutchinson made a similar suggestion. However, the situation has been allowed to continue for 11 years. Is the noble Viscount perhaps now of the opinion that the present practice should be discontinued and that it should do so as the result of real action by the Government?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the police do their very best to ensure that prisoners in police cells are able to receive visits from solicitors, doctors, ministers of religion and their relations. Indeed, they do a very good job in difficult circumstances. Prisoners have been held in police cells on and off for a number of years. Hence the importance of building and refurbishing prisons. We very much hope that the new accommodation to come on course during 1992 will have a major impact on the number of prisoners held in police cells.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is not the present situation exacerbated by the fact that Strangeways is still only partly in use? Further, can the Minister tell the House whether the completion date for the rebuilt Strangeways prison will be on schedule? When the rebuilding is complete, will that not go a long way towards resolving the situation?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I cannot tell the noble Lord the exact date when the work at Strangeways will be completed. Of course, there are many reasons for prisoners being held in police cells. For example, we lost accommodation in the 1990 disturbances and also a significant amount of accommodation is temporarily out of use as a result of refurbishment. Further, industrial disputes have also contributed to the problem. However, I am pleased to say that disputes at Pentonville and Cardiff are now resolved. Most significantly, there has been a serious surge in the size of the prison population; it is now nearly 3,000 above the level expected for this time of year.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, in view of the very high number of remand prisoners held in police cells announced by the Minister today, can he tell the House what progress and provision have been made to increase the number of bail hostels? Can he also say how many places there are in bail hostels at present which would enable visits to be made by ministers of religion as well as relatives?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I should point out that that is slightly wide of the Question which appears on the Order Paper. Those figures are not available today.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, am I right in thinking that the figures which the noble Viscount gave are limited to England and Wales, in accordance with normal Home Office practice? Further, can he say whether this problem arises in Scotland?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I have to say that I do not have the answer to the latter question. However, I suspect that to some degree it does.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, the Minister said that the use of army camps would be the last resort. Do the Government realise that the situation is now serious and that last-resort measures are required? Any new provision of prison places will be more than mopped up by the increase in offenders. So far as security is concerned, when I was in the Royal Navy land-based establishments were extremely secure. Perhaps standards are lower in the other services.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, army camps are built with fences to keep people out, not to keep people in. That is the difference. It is a serious problem. The Government are spending a large amount of money on the prison service to do all that is necessary to enable prisons to accommodate more prisoners.

Manufacturing Industry and the Economy
2.50
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will enter into talks with the CBI and the TUC with a view to increasing manufacturing output to aid economic recovery.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon): My Lords, Ministers attend regular meetings of the National Economic Development Council I to discuss the performance of the UK economy. Representatives of the CBI and the TUC also attend council meetings.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving that reply. Is he aware that there have been recent reports of sensible liaison between Sir John Banham of the CBI and Norman Willis of the TUC? They have been meeting to try to resolve the climate of low confidence and high unemployment. Should not the Government invite the CBI and the TUC to meet them to contribute towards finding a solution which would be of benefit to everyone in the country?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, one of course applauds the sentiments expressed in the first part of the noble Lord's question. The NEDC, having as it does representatives from government, the CBI the TUC and independents, provides a forum for the type of discussion the noble Lord has suggested in his question.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that since 1979 manufacturing employment has slumped from 7 million people to 5 million people and that manufacturing investment today is lower than it was in 1979, having fallen by 19 per cent. in the past 18 months? Is he further aware that from 1979 to 1991 Britain was the only country within the EC, except Greece, to see a decline in manufacturing investment? There has been a decline of 16 per cent. over that period, while Germany's grew by 63 per cent and
1144
France's by 57 per cent. With those figures, it must be a constant embarrassment for the Government to talk to anyone.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we are not embarrassed to talk to anyone. Employment in manufacturing has of course been decreasing for years—long before 1979. Since 1979 we have seen considerable improvements in productivity and manufacturing output. Our share of world trade in manufacturers has risen for the past three years. That is the first time that has happened for decades.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, did my noble friend share my dismay when he heard that the Ford Motor Company, which is currently losing millions of pounds, has once again made a wage agreement for this year and next year which is well above the rate of inflation? Does he agree that slow, commercial suicide by a large, though admittedly weakly managed company such as Ford, will do absolutely nothing to underwrite employment or economic recovery in this country?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the Government believe that pay should be settled between the parties directly involved, according to their own circumstances. Settlements should be based on the need to recruit, retain and motivate staff within affordable limits and by reference to prevailing market conditions.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in answer to the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, the Minister referred to the NEDC. Is the Government's position with regard to the NEDC positive, because at a certain period it was felt that the Government considered that the NEDC role was less important than it had been in the past? Will he refer, in particular, to the role of the "little neddies"?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as the noble Lord will be aware, my right honourable friend the then Chancellor of the Exchequer initiated a major reorganisation of the NEDC and the NEDO in July 1987. He then wished to see a slimmer, more efficient organisation concentrating upon micro-economic issues. That, I believe, has been achieved.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is an urgent need to increase manufacturing investment and to get the economy going again? Is he aware that what is constraining the economy from expanding are record high real interest rates? Irrespective of the fact that the Government are constrained within the ERM, will they take immediate action, as demanded by the CBI and others, to lower real interest rates to a level where industry can invest and once again expand?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I shall not speculate about future interest rates. They will be set to maintain our commitment within the ERM and to bear down on inflation. Our real interest rates are in the middle of the G7 range. They are below those of France and Canada; the same as those of Italy; but above those of Germany, Japan and the United States.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many people do not know who forms the NEDC, and that sometimes people, such as the two I mentioned, can be frustrated? They must be the most vital people on the NEDC. Should not just those two be seen together from time to time with government representatives.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, both the gentleman mentioned by the noble Lord are on the NEDC. They meet four times a year within the forum of the NEDC.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the Minister seems to have few friends in the House today. Has he studied what Sir Clifford Chetwood, the chairman of Wimpeys, said to the Building Employers' Confederation this morning: that 5,000 companies in the industry will go bust this year; the industry is shockingly depressed; and things are getting worse? Will he concede the case put forward by my noble friend Lord Molloy, that it is time for the Government to invite the CBI and the TUC to serious talks on how to get the economy back on the road again?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the role of government is to create a climate in which the economy can thrive. To do that, we have brought inflation right down to 3.7 per cent.—much lower than it has been for a long time. We have a low-tax economy, and from those circumstances we expect to see the recovery continue.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving that reply, but has he studied the words of Sir Clifford Chetwood, who is not a member of the Labour Party but chairman of Wimpeys? He is talking about a major manufacturing industry in this country. What are the Minister and his government going to do about it?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we outlined what we are doing about it in debates on the Autumn Statement and the humble Address. I have not yet seen Sir Clifford Chetwood's remarks. No doubt I shall do so in due course.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the Minister said that the recovery would continue. Will he tell us when it started?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, technically, we came out of recession with the publication of the latest quarterly figures.
Lord Morris: My Lords, with regard to the reference to the absence of friends made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, does my noble friend agree that there is a great deal more to friendship than asking questions?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, obviously, and I am grateful to my noble friend for his support.

East Timor
2.58 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will raise the issue of East Timor with the United Nations Security Council, and whether they will make urgent representations to the Indonesian Government in relation to their treatment of the East Timor people.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, representations were made to the Indonesian Ambassador on 13th November, and the European Community issued a statement the same day on recent incidents in East Timor. There are no plans to raise that issue with the UN Secretary-General.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, universal horror has been expressed at national and international level at the murder of innocent mourners at Dili. That incident is in line with a succession of brutalities committed by the Indonesians in East Timor since the illegal occupation in 1975. Will the Government support the Portuguese Government's proposal for an international, independent investigation? Will the Minister also say whether Her Majesty's Government will continue to trade arms to this brutal and repressive regime?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we believe that the best policy is the one which we are pursuing and that is to support the United Nations Secretary-General in his efforts to encourage Indonesia and Portugal to resolve their differences. We wish to see how the commission of inquiry which the Indonesian Government have set up develops. I also say to the noble Baroness that we understand clearly and are horrified by what has happened in the past. But our paramount concern is to deter any repetition in the future.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, has Indonesia, either by law or history, the slightest claim to the lands of Timor?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am sorry, I missed the first part of my noble friend's question because other people were speaking.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I repeat: does the noble Earl agree that the Indonesians have no claim either at law or through history to the lands of Timor?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I confirm that we have not recognised the incorporation of East Timor into Indonesia, de jure. But I must point out to the House that, among others, the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand have done so.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, may we have an adequate answer to the question which has already been put from both sides of the House? Does the Minister agree that Britain has become one of the principal suppliers of arms since the invasion took place in 1975? It is intolerable that we are now in a sense conniving at the

1147
terrible events that have occurred in East Timor. Will the Government take a firmer position than they have so far taken?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I certainly dispute the first point raised by the noble Lord about the answers that I have given. As he will be fully aware, all countries have a sovereign right under the United Nations charter to secure the means of their own defence. Applications to export British defence equipment are carefully scrutinised on a case by case basis. It is important to remember that we do not allow the export of arms and equipment likely to be used for repressive purposes against civil populations.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that while the Indonesian Government masquerade as a democracy, we read in all our substantial newspapers of the appalling, horrible crimes being committed in the name of democracy? When one examines it in detail, the crimes make Pol Pot look like a disillusioned boy scout. While we are discussing the subject this afternoon, probably 30 to 40 people during every hour for the next six months will be destroyed or brutally murdered by one of the most horrendous governments on earth.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness, My Lords, if the noble Lord can justify his figures, I shall have a look at them.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that last week Stephen Cox, the photographer who was present in Dili during the massacre of 12th November, was in this House and met some of us? Has he met representatives of the Foreign Office? If so, what action will the Foreign Office take about the assaults to which he was subjected over a period of two to three hours when he was confined to a cellar during the massacre? Following that, he was assaulted by the Indonesian defence forces.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, Stephen Cox has not asked to see me but I can assure the noble Lord that I discussed all questions of human rights with the Indonesian Ambassador on 13th November. During my visit to Indonesia in May I discussed the subject with five different people.
Lord Rea: My Lords, as my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs said, this is only the end of a long line of terrible atrocities against the people of East Timor. I visited that country in 1989 as a member of an IPU delegation. In view of the latest atrocity, is it not time for Her Majesty's Government to take a more active role through the Security Council by imposing sanctions if necessary on, in particular, as other noble Lords have said, the sale of arms to Indonesia? Such action would be taken in order to persuade the Indonesians to comply with the two United Nations resolutions, Resolutions Nos. 384 and 389, which require Indonesia to withdraw its forces from East Timor, pending a plebiscite under international supervision to determine that country's future.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I seriously contest the allegation that the Government have done nothing. If the noble Lord has listened to me, he will
1148
have heard me say that we took action immediately, the following day, with our European partners. As I have already said in a previous answer, we fully support the United Nations Secretary-General in his efforts to try to get Portugal and Indonesia to resolve their differences.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Earl answer my question? What action is the Foreign Office taking in view of the assault on a British citizen?
Lord Gridley: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether there are other nations in that area, including Malaysia and Australia, who belong to the South East Asia Treaty Organisation, who have every conceivable interest in what is going on? Of course, Her Majesty's Government have to take the interests of those parties into account.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend's question. All of us take a great interest in what is going on in Indonesia and we are appalled and horrified by the actions that took place on 12th November. My noble friend is quite right in saying that Australia recognises the incorporation of East Timor into Indonesia. It is an important country and we should take note of its views.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Earl now answer my question? What action are the Foreign Office and the Government taking in view of the deliberate assaults made on a British citizen, Stephen Cox, on 12th November in Dili?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I have already answered that question: I said that I had spoken to the Indonesian Ambassador about it.

European Council, Maastricht
3.6 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington)The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington) rose to move, That this House takes note of the forthcoming negotiations at the European Council at Maastricht.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, two weeks from now the European Council will meet in Maastricht, a meeting which is set to decide issues crucial to the future of the European Community and for Britain's role in it.
Before looking to the future, it is worth reminding ourselves how far we have come. For a host of reasons—historical, geographical, political—we in Britain were slow to see the value of the Community or at least our membership of it and, even when we did, admittance was denied to us. I know that a number of noble Lords have strong views on British policy in those early years of the Community's existence. There is perhaps not a great deal of point in raking over that ground again now. But the fact of the matter is that when we did join the Community, after intensive negotiations in which my noble friend Lord Rippon played a distinguished part, it was an organisation which certainly had not been framed by its original members in order to suit us. This inevitably meant that in the early years of our membership repeated attempts were made to modernise the structure and

1149
the workings of the Community in a way that would accommodate the United Kingdom and the other two new members.
At first we were faced with having to pay a disproportionate contribution to the budget but eventually an equitable budget arrangement was secured. We wanted reform of the common agriculture policy and that has become a central item on the Community's agenda. We wanted to improve the efficiency, the effectiveness and the financial accountability of the Community and now we see proposals to that effect in the IGC winning wide support. We are beginning to fashion a Community more in accordance with our own ways of working; and the call for pragmatism may be a prosaic rallying call but it is one which the Community is now heeding in the knowledge that not only Britain but the whole Community stands to gain.
The Community has indeed come a long way since we joined in 1972. One milestone undoubtedly was the Single European Act of 1986 which broadened and deepened co-operation on a number of fronts. Most importantly, under the guiding hand of our then British Commissioner, my noble friend Lord Cockfield, it set a deadline for the completion of the single market and introduced a substantial extension of qualified majority voting in order to ensure that this could be achieved. It gave substantial new legislative power to the European Parliament, then beginning to adapt to its new status as a directly elected forum. In European Political Co-operation (EPC) it laid the foundations for closer co-ordination of foreign policies and the habit of working together in this area which we hope to build upon at Maastricht.
A number of our European partners believe that the changes brought about by the Single European Act set us irrevocably on a pre-determined path leading to political, economic and monetary integration within a federal Europe. That is not the case. Political union is an evolving process not a goal, and the Community is a developing organism, the ultimate form of which none of us can confidently predict. We cannot set the final shape of Europe now. The most we can do is ensure that each step we take, each institutional change, is useful and workable in itself. We must consider the amendments proposed at Maastricht in this light: an end in themselves, not simply a means to a more distant goal.
It is with this overriding consideration in mind that we have set out our objectives for the political union negotiations. First, as I have already said, we must increase the efficiency and the effectiveness of the Community as it is now. That means above all strengthening the rule of law within the Community and tightening up its financial practices.
Britain's record in implementing and enforcing Community law is among the best. Others who are not as punctilious should be discouraged from signing up to directives in Brussels which they have no intention of enforcing at home. We have proposed formal declarations in the IGC which will commit member states to making greater efforts to implement legislation and to ensuring that the mechanisms exist
1150
for the enforcement of that legislation once it is enacted. We have also won wide support for a treaty article giving a new power to the European Court of Justice to fine a member state for non-compliance with EC legislation.
We have also led the way in proposing a package of measures designed to ensure the Community's financial probity and improve accountability. I know this is a subject particularly dear to the heart of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. He will be glad to know that it is now proposed that the European Parliament should play a more detailed role in the budget discharge process; that it should examine the Community's accounts and should have the right to call the Commission to account for its expenditure and to report on financial control. There is a draft treaty provision to encourage member states to protect the financial interests of the Community against fraud. The Commission will be required to provide an assurance of sufficient resources to accompany any new legislative proposal put forward. We hope the conference will adopt a declaration on the structure of the Court of Auditors, committing member states to a review of the court's structure in order to increase its effectiveness.
All of these proposals have won wide support and, if confirmed at Maastricht, will represent not only a great success for the United Kingdom but a genuine long-term benefit for the efficiency and effectiveness of the Community. At the same time, we wish to reform the institutional structure of the Community as it relates to the Commission. Although the Council of Ministers remains the decision-making centre of the Community, the Commission has substantial influence and impact on the Community's citizens. That influence, if I may say so, was wielded with considerable skill and constructiveness by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, during his period as President of the Commission. It is right that the Commission's activities should be subjected to closer democratic scrutiny; a scrutiny that national parliaments alone are unable to apply. Proposals in the current draft treaty will help to fill that omission.
There is a clear role here for the European Parliament of which four noble Lords are Members. One of those Members, my noble friend Lord Plumb was president of that body. I am glad that my noble friend Lord Bethel] will speak today. The Parliament already has the right to force the resignation of the Commission as a whole following a vote of censure. To that it is proposed to add a formal role for the European Parliament in the appointment of the Commission, thus increasing its democratic accountability while preserving member states' right to nominate their own Commissioners and preserving the Commission's essential independence.
There are other proposals which will also allow the European Parliament to monitor more closely the activities of the Commission. For example, the European Parliament will be able to establish temporary committees of inquiry; it will be able to receive petitions from those with complaints about how the Community's activities have affected them; and the European Parliament will be able to appoint

1151
an ombudsman to investigate cases of maladministration in the activities of the Community institutions or bodies. These reforms in the Community's institutional structure are welcome: they will increase the Community's effectiveness and accountability while leaving the basic institutional balance intact.
This last is an important point, and relates to what I have said earlier about the need for a pragmatic and prudent approach to the Community's development. We have made clear that we believe the best way forward for the Community is to build on the existing range and forms of co-operation. That includes both co-operation as a Community under the Treaty of Rome and inter-governmental co-operation outside it, with the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and the Commission's sole right of initiative excluded.
We should like to see this latter form of co-operation in foreign and security policy and interior justice issues. We recognise as well as anyone the need for us all to develop the habit of working together in these areas. But we do not believe that they are areas where Community competence should apply; nor would it be right to decide substantive issues of foreign policy by majority vote.
Consensus is the only workable basis for a successful and influential common foreign policy. Qualified majority voting, European Court of Justice jurisdiction and a Commission sole right of initiative—the trappings of Community competence—will in no way strengthen or promote a common policy where no common will exists. There is no escaping that fact. I must stress a point I made earlier. We should not at Maastricht be looking for a possible model for co-operation far in the future, but for practical arrangements which improve co-operation now.
The same goes for interior justice issues. No one doubts that this is an area where co-operation with our European partners is particularly necessary. International crime, the drugs trade, terrorism and illegal immigration are problems we all share and the answer to these problems lies in strengthened co-operation and the development of a common will to tackle them, not in the extension of Community competence.
There are other areas, too, where we are far from convinced that there is a case for extending more broadly the Community's competence. There is clearly a case for co-operation and policy co-ordination where issues transcend national boundaries. But we do not see that the world has changed so much since 1986 that the Treaty of Rome now needs further substantial amendment to add to the range of Community common policies.
In practice the Community has never been prevented from taking action when it has been necessary. Necessity must remain the test for the future. The Community should respect the principle of subsidiarity, there being no need for Community action where the objective can be achieved by member states acting alone.
Where extensions of competence are proposed, as they are in a broad range of areas in the draft treaty text, the Government will negotiate forcefully to ensure that they should not permit the introduction of
1152
unnecessary or inappropriate measures of harmonisation. Nor should they impose excessive financial costs, either on the British taxpayer or on the British economy. We shall continue to examine and negotiate on the proposals before the IGC with those practical considerations very much in mind.
Finally, I should like to make clear the Government's position on extending the legislative powers of the European Parliament. Nobody denies that the European Parliament has an important role to play in the Community and in its future development. That role has developed gradually over the years, notably with the introduction of the co-operation procedure under the Single European Act. It is not apparent to us that a further step change in the Parliament's legislative powers is called for at this stage. For that reason, and in order to preserve an institutional balance which works well, we have argued strongly against introducing a "co-decision" procedure giving the Parliament an equal right in decision-making with the Council of Ministers. The proposals now included in the Dutch presidency's draft treaty text are for a more modest procedure, amounting to an ultimate right for the Parliament to reject Council decisions in certain areas at a third reading. We have indicated our willingness to consider introducing this procedure into the Community's decision making, provided that the scope of its application is strictly limited. Scope is obviously still a matter for negotiation, and we shall want to ensure that anything that is agreed at Maastricht will conform to our overall objective that any changes should be workable, should build on existing practice, and should not push the Community too far, too fast.
We must not neglect the role that our own Parliament, and other national parliaments, can play in the Community's affairs. As your Lordships know, we have tabled a declaration in the IGC calling for the closer involvement of national parliaments, due regard for national parliamentary scrutiny, and in particular closer relations—better information, more meetings—with Members of the European Parliament. I know that that is something for which this House in particular has often expressed its support. We hope that the adoption of a conference declaration will provide the stimulus for greater contacts of that kind throughout the Community.
Those are all important issues, and it should come as no surprise that the Government's views are not shared by all our partners. We all have our own interests, our own histories and our own particular concerns. It is the presidency's task at Maastricht to weigh those differing opinions, to reconcile them, and to assess how large a step forward is possible now. We should certainly not expect Maastricht to settle the final shape of Europe for all time. But it can, and we hope it will, reach a satisfactory conclusion to the current negotiations.
The world cannot wait for the Community to agonise forever over its internal procedures. Next year the Community will be facing new challenges: the reform of the common agricultural policy, a review of the structural funds, the completion of the single

1153
market and necessary preparations for the enlargement of the Community. The British Government are not seeking agreement at any price, but we want to see Maastricht succeed. We believe that Britain's place is at the heart of Europe and that the Community's best interests lie in reaching an agreement which will satisfy all of its members. That means give and take on all sides and good will. We are confident that it will be forthcoming.
Moved, That this House takes note of the forthcoming negotiations at the European Council at Maastricht.—(Lord Waddington.)
3.25 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for setting the scene for the debate and for his comprehensive speech in which he explained some aspects of the Government's policy.
A two-day debate on the importance and implications of the Maastricht Summit was held in another place last week. We all followed that discussion with great interest. Today we have the opportunity to express our views on what is without doubt a historic milestone in the history of the Community.
There are differences of view on a number of issues between the parties, and within the parties, in this country, as was made very plain in last week's debate in the House of Commons. However, there is overwhelming agreement on one central point; namely, that as a member of the European Community it is our duty in this country to work for solutions which are in the best interests of our people and of the Community as a whole. We must be clear about how we want to see the Community develop and we must work to ensure that Britain is in a position to influence the objectives which we support.
There is little doubt that the Community will expand still further. Sweden and Austria are seeking membership and the other EFTA countries will follow, as may two or three Eastern European countries in due course. It is an exciting prospect but it will be an attractive one only if we can ensure that the new association will be democratic and that there will be accountability as between the various levels of administration within the Community—a point upon which the noble Lord expanded.
Economic, monetary and political union for Europe is an ambitious concept and a complex and intricate one. The noble Lord said that we cannot set the final shape of Europe now, and I agree with him. It is for that reason that we should tackle each stage of the development with realism and common sense. We know that there have been arguments on a range of issues and we do not know, even at this late stage, whether they will be resolved before the Maastricht Summit takes place.
The noble Lord also said that Maastricht will not settle the fate of Europe now. Here again I agree with him. I suggested in the debate on the Address that we should seek to negotiate a package upon which we could all agree at Maastricht while other matters on
1154
which agreement is clearly impossible should be reserved for further consideration. That must be preferable to a pointless and acrimonious haggle there. The impression has been created that Maastricht is a make or break summit. That is a great mistake for it has been plain from the start that there are issues on which total agreement may well be impossible, at least at this stage.
As the noble Lord has said, every country in the Community has its own history, ethos, culture and national memory and its policies inevitably reflect that. That has its dangers, as we know all too well. Yugoslavia demonstrates that in an extreme way at this moment. We can thank heaven that the Community came into existence primarily to ensure that the wars which had devastated Europe would never happen again.
It is very much to the credit of this House that over the past two years or so it has gone to very great lengths to study and debate the problems implicit in Maastricht.
In October 1990 and in July this year our Select Committee on the European Communities, which is presided over by my noble friend Lady Serota, published excellent reports which we debated here at some length. The committee made important recommendations which are very relevant to our debate today. For example, it stressed that the communities must take steps to meet the requirements of democratic principles and that Community institutions must be, and must be seen to be, democratically accountable. It is for that reason that the Commission as at present constituted poses a problem. I must put the question to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, who is to reply to the debate: why should not the Commission be more accountable to the European Parliament? That is one of the key issues to be resolved at this time.
The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, described some reforms which we listened to with interest. We support those proposals, but we should go further. The European Parliament has some limited powers and there is a strong case for extending them as, otherwise, it could develop into an expensive talking shop and nothing else. Its powers should complement but not replace those of national parliaments and it should share some powers to institute legislation with the Commission. A further step in accountability would be to give the Parliament rights of confirmation after hearings for each member of the Commission with, possibly, a right of recall. Such a process would strengthen Community democracy without impairing the power of national parliaments. That is well worth considering.
As to the Council itself, we must remember that it decides a good deal of legislation affecting the British people. I agree with the report to this House that:
"they have a duty to be far more forthcoming about the intentions and the progress of legislation".
It has been suggested that national parliaments should receive all Commission proposals for legislation by the Council; that they should also be given adequate time to scrutinise the proposals and appropriate opportunity for discussion; and that Council procedures should

1155
provide adequate opportunity for national scrutiny in advance of final decisions. That seems to me to be very reasonable and sensible. I hope that the Prime Minister and his colleagues will support those suggestions and, if necessary, propose them at Maastricht. When he replies to the debate, perhaps the noble Earl will also comment on that point.
Paragraph 115—the last paragraph of our Select Committee's report dated 23rd July of this year—should be borne in mind by us and by the Government at this time. It states:
"The questions which we have discussed in detail relate to the be lance of power—between the Council and the Parliament and between the Community and its Member States. We believe that any shift in the existing balance of power between the institutions and in the balance of power between the Community and the Member States should take place not in pursuit of a vision or a destiny or under pressure to board some imaginary train, but following an informed debate as to the probable consequences".
That seems to me to be a sensible comment relevant to this debate.
Another practical point that tends to be overlooked is that Ministers who are members of the Council are so preoccupied with work in their own departments at home that they do not have the necessary time to apply themselves to Council work which then inevitably falls more and more to civil servants. I have immense respect for our civil servants, but the danger and tendency is for the powers of commissioners and civil servants to grow imperceptibly, unless measures are taken to make them accountable at every stage. It is out duty to ensure that the structure is democratic and not bureaucratic.
I do not believe or accept that the European Community is intended to be a unitary state or that the objective is to build a superstate. That is something that I am unable to contemplate. The use of the word "federal" has confused matters. When we use it, we in this country think of the United States. When our partners use it, they think of a looser form of association. We must try to find a definition on which all can agree. Since its inception, the Community has developed slowly and, although mistakes have been made, its achievements are considerable. The fact that Sweden and other EFTA nations wish to join is proof of that, but Sweden, like this country, wishes to preserve its own national parliament. We must have openness and democracy in decision-making.
The Prime Minister believes in charters. He must go to Maastricht with a charter for democracy and clear proposals for the reform of the Parliament, the Commission and the Council. So far, those have not been clarified and the Government must realise that positive proposals would be better than negative reactions.
We know that Mr. John Major has a difficult task on his hands in achieving a reasonable settlement at Maastricht. For the reasons that I have given, it would not be easy for any British Prime Minister of whatever party, but the task has been made infinitely more difficult for him by the attacks upon him by prominent members of his own party, notably Mrs. Margaret Thatcher, who has described his policy as "arrogant" and "wrong". She was referring mainly to his reaction to the call for a referendum. I have some sympathy for
1156
Mr. Major. During her tenure, Mrs. Thatcher was never a great champion of referenda; she always tended to regard her own pronouncements as the equivalent of a referendum. If she was in power now, would she have held a referendum? I think not.
Nevertheless, the Government have not been able to handle this preparatory period skilfully. They have lurched from hesitation to uncertainty and there is a lack of clarity on several issues, some of which I have mentioned. My noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel will deal with economic and monetary union when he speaks later, but I must say that I am still uncertain about the Government's policy on the currency issue which is of central importance. Will the noble Earl tell us exactly where Britain stands on EMU? Is it the case that Mr. Major will leave this country "wholly free to reject" a commitment to a single currency?
I understand that the Bundesbank is being helpful at this moment, as is the Italian Bank, in sustaining the pound. But we must look to the future, and the possibility that the bankers will control interest rates when neither the Government nor Parliament will have any say in the matter. Many people have asked me to put that point to the noble Earl in the debate. The Times put the matter in a nutshell on 23rd November when it said:
"The whole enterprise is fraught with risk. An unelected oligarchy of bankers would sooner or later clash with elected politicians … The political conflict might well be aggravated by the fact that the central bankers might no longer be 'ours'. A constitutional impasse over monetary policy could even precipitate the collapse of the Community as a whole".
I want to see a constructive settlement at Maastricht, but I also think that Parliament should be given a clearer explanation of Government policy at this time.
There are further questions that I should like to put to the noble Earl on matters that we on this side regard as important. Will he explain why, in the Government's view, the other 11 member states have no problems in accepting the principles of the Social Charter? Furthermore, if the Government are so obstinately opposed to much of the legislation based on the charter, why did they subscribe the Government's name to Articles 117 to 119 of the Single European Act?
Finally, on the issue of qualified majority voting to which the noble Lord referred, we noted that the Government were in favour of that with regard to measures to facilitate the completion of the single market (Article 100A of the Act). Will the noble Earl tell us what distinction of principle is perceived between that area of policy and those relating to the social dimension and the environment where the Government opposed qualified majority voting? As the House knows, those matters deeply worry my noble friends.
I regret that time does not permit me to deal with other matters of substance, although we discussed many of them in the debate on the Address three weeks ago. For example, I made plain then that we believe that NATO is the best guarantor of peace and security in Europe and that the Western European Union should be built up, not as an alternative to NATO, but as its European pillar. Our aim is to build a democratic Community subject to the rule of law

1157
and the freedom of the individual. We must secure those basic rights and principles in every step we take, in every regulation and in every law that we allow to pass.
I supported the Community from the start, not for reasons of commerce or trade, important though they are, but, as I said earlier, because Europe in our time was devastated by the two most terrible wars that the world has known. In those wars 50 million people were killed, 6 million Jews died in the Holocaust and there is not a family represented in the Chamber this afternoon that did not lose a loved one in those dreadful hostilities. That is why the European Community came into being; that is what Maastricht is about; and that is why Maastricht must not fail.
3.40 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, concluded on such a note, reminding us of the great vision that lies behind the need to create an effective European Community. It is a mistake to believe that there is an inherent contradiction between having that wider vision of the longer term goals of the European Community and seeking practical ways to achieve those goals. I recollect being told by a distinguished Foreign Office official that in Brussels I should learn lessons of pragmatism that I had never learnt in the Fabian Society in this country. It is worth remembering that point.
As the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, said, this debate follows the two-day debate in another place. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, for giving us some detail of the negotiating position that the Government will seek to adopt at Maastricht. The fact is that there is much common ground around on many of the issues aimed at promoting what the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, called a more efficient and effective Community. There is much in what the noble Lord said, and much has been said in detail elsewhere, which may be debatable but about which there is no reason to be dogmatic. However, in the view of these Benches, there is one fundamental aspect of the Government's approach to the Maastricht Summit that is deeply flawed. It undermines the rest of the Government's approach. Let me put it in terms of the Prime Minister's careful and conscientious analysis in another place of his position. He said, and I agree with him:
"There are in truth only three ways of dealing with the Community. We can leave it and no doubt we would survive but we would be diminished in influence and prosperity. We can stay in grudgingly, in which case others will lead it; or we can play a leading role in it and that is the right policy".
However, in my judgment he went on to make it very difficult for Britain to play that leading role by saying on one of the most sensitive aims of Community policy at the Maastricht Summit—the goal of full economic and monetary union with a single currency and single central bank—
"We [the Government] are therefore insisting [on] the right, quite separately from any European Council decision, to decide for ourselves [in 1996] whether or not to [join in] … Nothing in the treaty that I sign now will bind us now to the
1158
decision that we must take then … because at this stage we cannot know what the circumstances then will be". [Official Report, Commons, 20/11/91; col. 272.]
Nor can any of the other 11 member governments know; yet none of them insists on the opt-out/opt-in clause which the Government are so strangely proud of having, in a preliminary way, negotiated in the preparations for Maastricht. Why cannot the Government see that standing in isolation will at the very least deeply undermine the Prime Minister's professed aim of "playing a leading role" in the Community? Why cannot the Government see that it will lead inexorably to the other possibility that the Prime Minister himself spelt out; namely, staying grudgingly in the Community, in which case others will lead it and shape it to suit their interests and not ours.
The reason for the Government's behaviour has little to do with a practical, pragmatic approach to European unity and everything to do with preventing Conservative disunity in the approach to Maastricht. They are not succeeding even in that aim to judge by the reaction of Mrs. Thatcher and those around her, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. Surely Mr. Major, more than most, should have recognised that the lady is not for appeasing.
Unless that approach can be corrected, sadly it will perpetuate Britain's role in the Community as the reluctant member and the odd man out. So far, with the honourable exception of Mr. Edward Heath's administration, the attitude to the Community of successive British governments, Conservative or Labour, has been that of the proud Scottish mother watching her son on the parade ground and saying, "My goodness, everybody is out of step except our Jock". The Government are adopting such a short-sighted attitude in an area of policy—banking and financial services—where Britain has every claim to be pre-eminent.
Our manufacturing industry, battered and bruised by government policy, may have to take second place to that of the Germans; but the Government have always insisted—I think they are right—that the City of London and Britain generally could benefit greatly from being the financial capital of a wider Europe whatever the efforts of Frankfurt and other places to seek to replace the City of London. Britain should have had the strongest claim to be the seat of the proposed European Monetary Institute, the embryo central bank. But what chance is there of that if in advance we decline to commit ourselves to the possibility of being part of such a bank? Are we to have six years of uncertainty over whether we shall be part of a single currency? Why should investors from the rest of the world want to face over those years all the uncertainties of the foreign exchange position in the City of London when, if they go to Frankfurt or elsewhere, they can be part of a large single currency area? What nonsense it is, when we all know that at the end of the day it is much more than probable that, as so often with European Community policies, the Government will go into the single currency—with which the Prime Minister conceded that he agrees in

1159
principle. Even if we do not do so, we shall end up with an insular, national currency shadowing a powerful ecu.
That fundamental flaw at the heart of the Government's approach to Maastricht will diminish our influence in all the other difficult issues which the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, described; namely, the arrangements for political union, striking the right sort of balance between the institutions of the Community and getting right the arrangements for closer cohesion of foreign policy. Those are all very difficult issues and I agree with much of what the noble Lord said about finding solutions.
Without a clear commitment to a single currency as the outcome of bringing about convergence of national economies, the shaping of those developments will be dominated by Germany and France. Britain, instead of taking its proper place at the top of the premier division, will have relegated itself to the second division.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, raised the matter of a referendum. In a very real sense that is secondary to the matters which the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, described, such as the major issue of the currency about which I have spoken. The issue of a referendum is now causing a good deal of public debate and raises the question of how the political system in our country can best take its final decisions over Maastricht once the results of the negotiations have emerged. How major constitutional change should be decided in a country without a constitution is not n easy issue to confront. It is not sufficient for the Government or the official Opposition to say that there is no need for a referendum because we are a parliamentary democracy. If we were a more perfect parliamentary democracy there might indeed be no need for a referendum. But we are far from that. Since the last European referendum in 1975, changes in society and increasing polarisation between the two major parties in domestic politics have greatly reduced the fairness of our electoral system and, as a result, the representative quality of the parliament that emerges from it.
My noble friends on these Benches will know what I mean, when I say that some of us are inclined to feel prisoners of the past with regard to a referendum. I voted against a European referendum in 1972. I have strong reservations about resorting to the referendum device too frequently on major issues. However, having taken a vigorous part in the referendum campaign of 1975, I found that debate across normal party lines a great deal more impressive and I believe more helpful to the British people than that which had taken place in Parliament.
The current debate in another place—I fully exempt debates in your Lordships' House from these remarks—can hardly be said to have risen to the level of the fateful issues at stake. It has been distorted by the divisions within the Conservative Party to which the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, referred, and by the usual two party slanging match seeking to score party points on every single issue. The debate is also
1160
disfigured by using character assassination of the Leader of the Opposition as a substitute for serious argument.
That is the background against which Mr. Paddy Ashdown, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the party to which I now belong, has made his case for a post legislative referendum. His motivation is very different from that of Mrs. Thatcher and her supporters. For them the referendum is the last refuge of losers in an internal party battle. We all know that if Mrs. Thatcher had managed to remain Prime Minister and had been able to handbag her party into acquiescence with her views about the European Community, she would have remained as opposed in principle to a referendum as she had been previously.
However, underneath the froth of the current arguments and the various public opinions polls, I believe that the common sense of the British people tells them that we are in the Community, that it would be folly to seek to come out, and that therefore the sensible thing is to make the best and the most of our membership. In order to see through the many and complex issues described today by the noble Lord, Lard Waddington, the people need a clear lead from their political leaders. If Mr. Major, even at this late stage, were to abandon his escape clauses on EMU and possibly on political union, which were designed to appease Mrs. Thatcher, and were then to lead a cross-party eleven on to the referendum cricket field, I prophesy that he would knock for six the motley team that he would find on the other side. The result would be at least as decisive as that of 1975 and the voice of the Cassandra of Finchley might be effectively silenced on the issue. Alas, Mrs. Thatcher's latest outburst has made such a change of policy even less likely than it was before. We can therefore only fall back on the old fashioned parliamentary method of a change of government. Fortunately, we should not have to wait long for that. On these Benches, with a long, consistent commitment to a truly united Europe, we shall seek to ensure that an alternative government does a great deal better than their sadly divided predecessor.
Perhaps, in conclusion, I may remind your Lordships' House that on 11th December, the day following the end of the Maastricht conference, there is a five-hour debate allocated to these Benches. My noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead will initiate a debate and move a resolution on the results of the Maastricht Summit. That debate will give your Lordships' House the earliest opportunity—perhaps the first opportunity within the Houses of Parliament—to express its views on the results that Her Majesty's Government bring back.
3.55 p.m.
The Duke of Manchester: My Lords, the last time a member of my family spoke in this House was in 1903. My grandfather's speech was on a Question to the House relating to the borders of Northern and Southern Ireland. Today I wish to make a short speech on the constitution and sovereignty of our country.

1161
Our fellow countrymen have fought in two world wars with great loss of life to defend this country, our constitution and our monarchy. At the same time, we have gone to the aid of other countries at great personal sacrifice to our nation. That has enabled those countries to enjoy their freedom with the knowledge that Great Britain has always been there to assist them in the hour of need.
I believe that unless we go to Maastricht with all parties united to maintain our sovereignty and constitution, we shall be giving away what past and present generations have sacrificed themselves for. I fully appreciate that we must not be outside the European pact as we have so much to offer, being the oldest sitting Parliament in Europe. However, the ultimate agreement must be with all nations united in an agreement which does not sacrifice our collective democracies.
I draw your Lordships' attention to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, on 6th September 1990, prior to the Gulf War. He stated:
"I should like to touch on one other matter which, although perhaps not immediately relevant, is something on which the European Community might usefully reflect. This crisis has shown up how far removed the 12 countries are from achieving a closer political association".—[Official Report, 6/9/90; col. 1813.]
Note should be taken of that statement from such an eminent Member of your Lordships' House. I thank noble Lords for giving me the opportunity of making my maiden speech.
3.58 p.m.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, it is my very great pleasure on behalf not only of myself but the whole House to congratulate the noble Duke, the Duke of Manchester, on his maiden speech. It was most interesting and sincere. It is relevant to the problems that face us at present. It was also one of the shortest maiden speeches that I have ever heard. But that increases its value; it does not diminish it. He also sits in the most distinguished company in the Cross-Benches where independent advice can be offered even-handedly to the antagonists on both sides of the House. We look forward to hearing him on many occasions in the future.
I do not propose going into the detail of the negotiations at Maastricht which are to come in less than a fortnight's time. My own views are so well known to your Lordships that it is unnecessary to repeat them today. Both the Prime Minister in another place and my noble friend the Leader of the House, in what I thought was a most valuable tour d'horizon this afternoon, have set out the issues so very clearly. They have enabled us to understand precisely what the Government's negotiating stance is and the reasons for it. If my noble friend will forgive me, I detected a slight degree of greater flexibility on his part than was evident in another place, because he said that we want to see Maastricht succeed and that there must be give and take on both sides. That latter sentiment is something that I may need to come back to at a later stage in my address.
This afternoon I want to concentrate on the risks
1162
involved in failure at Maastricht, and particularly the risks involved so far as this country is concerned. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister said during the debate in the other place,
"there is no better sanction than the market".—[Official Report, Commons, 20/11/91; col. 273.]
The market has now delivered its verdict and I am afraid that verdict is not a very encouraging one. I know that all kinds of explanations will be found for the fall in sterling and the rise in the deutschmark. There will be references to the weakness of the American economy, which is perfectly true; there will be references to speculative movements; there will be references to dissension in the Conservative Party; there will be references to the dangers of a Labour Government and there may be all kinds of other explanations. But at the end of the day what matters is that it was the deutschmark which strengthened and the pound sterling which fell. The real explanation lies in the fear of the market that the Maastricht summit will not succeed. That is why I want to come back to that issue in some detail.
I am going to take separately the two treaties; the one on economic and monetary union and the other on political union. But they are in fact linked, and that is another point that I shall have to come back to. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, to the extent that I should like to see us go into a single currency right from the very beginning. But contrary to the view that he has put, I believe that in this country's circumstances the course taken by the Prime Minister is the best and wisest one available to us at the moment. There are plenty of precedents for it.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, has the enormous honour and prestige of being the originator of the existing EMS. We did not become full participating members until 11 years after its foundation. I hope that in this case no period of time of that kind will elapse nor, as I understand it, is there an intention that it should elapse. The actual form of the special provision for the United Kingdom is well established in the Community and that point needs to be known and understood. On the face of it there was every reason to suppose that the treaty on monetary union would in fact be adopted without any very great further difficulty.
I now come to the treaty on political union. Perhaps I may say from a purely personal point of view that I have no very great enthusiasm for it. When I was in the Commission I resolutely refused to discuss it. My attitude was that we would see economic union in my lifetime and that I would work for it. My view was that we would not see political union in my lifetime, and I would leave that to other people who came after me. I have either underestimated the speed with which events have moved or I have underestimated my own ability to survive. But whatever may be the explanation, this issue is now very much on the agenda.
In his speech the Prime Minister set out a whole range of matters which he said were unacceptable to the United Kingdom. I need not remind your Lordships of them. First, there was the question of the unitary nature of the Community—that is to say,

1163
whether the additional areas of activity come within Community competence or whether they are dealt with outside. The second was the question of majority voting. The third was the question of the powers of the European Parliament. The Prime Minister said that these were all matters on which he and the Government held the strongest possible views and that they were not prepared to accept a treaty which contained provisions of that kind.
The simple truth is that the great majority of our fellow members take a different view from what we do. It is particularly interesting that when from time to time of her countries support us they tend to be what, without any intent to be derogatory, might be described as the peripheral countries—that is to say, the countries which geographically are on the periphery of the Community. I refer to Denmark, Ireland, Portugal and Greece. They do not support us invariably; but where we do get support it tends to come from those countries. They all share one common characteristic; namely, that, like ourselves, they joined the Community late. The Community was already established and fully operational before any of the countries that I have mentioned joined the Community.
So the real problem at Maastricht is going to be over the treaty on political union. There are matters in that treaty with which I do not agree. I am not going to go into the detail of them. I am simply making the point that that is where the crunch will come. At this point we have to go back to the fact that right at the very beginning a decision was taken by the European Council in Rome in December 1990 when it was stated clearly that the two treaties went together and that they were not divisible. You could not have one and not the, other. Consistently throughout, Chancellor Kohl of the Federal Republic of Germany has said that he will not accept the treaty on monetary union unless there is also agreement on the treaty on political union. That view has recently been reinforced in debate in the Bundestag.
There were press reports to the effect that when the Prime Minister saw the Federal Chancellor at the delayed meeting on 10th November, he was going to endeavour to get the Federal Chancellor's agreement to separate the two, but there has been no public confirmation that he succeeded. There is no reason to suppose that he did. It was further reported in the press that when he sees the Federal Chancellor again on Wednesday of this week the Prime Minister will again press him on that particular point.
It is not for me to explain in detail why the German Government take that view. Fundamentally, they take it because they say that they are being asked to give up one of the most precious parts of their sovereignty; namely, the right to control absolutely the deutschmark, which has been the great success story of the German Federal Republic. They say that they can only sell that proposition to their own people if they tell them that all sorts of other people have given up an area of their sovereignty where the German Federal Republic wishes to see advance on those fronts. So far
1164
as we know at present, there is an absolute determination on the part of the German Government to stick to the unitary nature of the two treaties.
What would be the consequences of the failure of the summit? On Friday and, to some extent, today, the financial markets were discounting the failure of the summit. Some people may be inclined to leap to the conclusion that if Maastricht failed, there would be no single European currency. That conclusion would be totally and completely wrong. It is not commonly appreciated in this country that there is already a deutschmark group in the Community. There is Germany itself. France has said that it will never again devalue, and yesterday the French were talking of revaluing, if they had to do anything at all. After the last realignment, the Dutch said that never again would they devalue the guilder compared with the deutschmark. Belgium and Luxembourg have formally linked themselves to the D-mark. Therefore, there is a five country D-mark group already in existence. Austria, Finland and Sweden are already linked, either directly or indirectly, to the D-mark. If the single currency fails, there will be a single currency in the form of the D-mark. We should have no say in that and no influence of any sort. That is the choice which faces us. We must face up to that.
We have a similar problem as regards political union. There is a certain strange hiatus between the first and second part of the Prime Minister's speech. In the first part he said:
"What we could not do is to prevent some or all of the other eleven member states making a separate treaty on their own outside the treaty of Rome. Those who argue that they would not do so are mistaken".—[Official Report, Commons, 20/11/91; col. 273.]
He was there referring to economic and monetary union but the same argument applies also to political union. It is not possible to distinguish between the two. Therefore, even on the political side, we face the risk that if we do not reach agreement—I entirely accept the Prime Minister's view that you do not accept an agreement on any terms but I do not believe it will ever come to that—on political union, we may find that at least a group of the other member states decides to go ahead on its own.
My view, for what it is worth, is that had there never been any enlargement of the Community in 1973 and subsequent years, the six original states of the Community would, by now, have formed a union. Whether one calls it a federal or European union does not matter. I am sure that they would have formed a union. We must be extremely careful that in taking a negative attitude we do not push them back into that situation.
One does not expect, and it would be wrong to expect, the Prime Minister and the Government to modify publicly their negotiating stance before battle is joined at Maastricht. However, I very much hope that when it comes to the detailed negotiations, the Government will adopt the stance which my noble friend the Leader of the House indicated; namely, that there is a need for flexibility on both sides. There is a need for give and take.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, I hope that it will not be thought that I am losing my grip when I say that I agree with much of what the noble Lord the Leader of the House and the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, said. I believe that there is a great deal in common on these issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, illustrated the extremely difficult tactical hand which the Prime Minister must play at Maastricht. I do not believe that that has been made any easier by the histrionics of last week but at least the speeches which have taken place in this debate today have shown that it is possible to discuss calmly and rationally those historic issues which will affect our children and our country's welfare as a whole.
I almost chuckled when I heard Mrs. Thatcher invoking the symbol of the pound as a symbol of stability and sovereignty. It is ironic that, three or four days after her speech, we are relying on the Bundesbank to prop up sterling in order to ensure that it remains inside the European rate mechanism. I simply cannot accept that the pound is a symbol of either stability—its value has declined consistently since the war—or of sovereignty. Indeed, there is no such thing as pure sovereignty, as we all know. To use the pound as a symbol of our independence and the independence of our monetary policies, especially on a day like today, will do everything to convince the Europeans that we are a backward-looking nation wallowing in nostalgia for the past instead of looking forward to what must lie ahead.
I differ from my former noble friend and certainly my personal friend the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, as regards the opt-out clause. He asked why other countries are not insisting on that clause in the way in which we are. If he reflects for a moment he will realise that the situation is different between ourselves and those other countries. Here I make a point with which those on the Government Benches opposite may or may not agree. The difference between us is that the United Kingdom economy is much less capable of standing up to an entry into European monetary union than are most, if not all, the economies of our allies. Indeed it is uncertain whether we shall be able to maintain our position.
I very much hope that we shall be able to do that. However, when I look back over the history of recent years, I see that we have squandered the oil revenues and have decimated British industry. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, that at the depth of a depression we have a balance of payments deficit which has never before been known in our history. Our imports are at their lowest and there is spare capacity in industry which should be taken up in exports—to a minor degree it has been taken up. That deficit has continued not merely for a month or two but over a period of years. I ask myself what will be the position if and when the recession is over not only technically but in reality, when men are being taken on in the factories and workshops and when our industry starts moving upwards again. What will be the shape of our balance of payments deficit then?
1166
Therefore, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, that there is a case for the opt-out clause. I regret that it should be so. But it is important and imperative, when we come to 1996 or 1997, that this country should have the option. To those whom I may call the "Eurosceptics", I say that it will not be a cause for celebration. It will be a symbol of our internal defeat as a nation; a symbol that we shall continually slide more slowly into a state where we cannot sustain the standards of living of our people relative to other countries and where our influence as a country will decline. The opt-out clause is important. What is important also is that we have four or five years in which to put ourselves into a position from which we can face 1997 with the same equanimity as the Bundesbank.
With regard to referenda I say this. I have a history of referenda. During my administration there were two; one went the way the government wanted and the other did not. I cannot say that I am a lover of referenda. One was taken under the influence of the Commons, which was quite right, and the other in order to help the government, which was also right, as I am sure noble Lords opposite will agree. I believe that the results were right. However, where I strongly disagree with Mr. Tebbit is that it would be absurd to hold a referendum after Maastricht, as he proposed. There may or may not be a case—I should want to hear it argued further—for holding a referendum in 1996 or 1997. But we should not hold one immediately after Maastricht when we do not know what the future will hold.
The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, referred to the future development of the Community. Will a Community which was devised for six, could accommodate nine, and is rather straining itself with 12, be able to contain, without a change in its structure or practices, a membership of 20 or 25? Who can tell at this stage what will be the shape of the Community in 1996 when this fateful decision for Britain will need to be taken? No one knows.
We are in a position of considerable speculation in regard to the future. No one really knows what the shape of the Community will be when we finally take up the challenge of economic and monetary union. No one knows whether this country will be in a position—as I fervently trust—to accept the challenge. I say to all those thinking of a referendum, please use some common sense. Let us see what the change will be over the years that lie ahead. We can then take a decision in the light of the knowledge that we possess at that time.
I hope that at the end of the negotiations the Prime Minister is in a position to sign or initial in good faith the single economic and monetary union treaty, with the safeguard of the opt-out clause. As I say, it will be no bed of roses. We shall need to watch the position and the Prime Minister will need to negotiate on a number of issues. There is the whole question of the convergence of our economies to be considered, to which I referred. There is the special position of the regions of Scotland and Wales to take into account. Constitutional possibilities should not be overlooked in relation to either of those two countries and their

1167
relationship with the European Commission. Each may have different thoughts regarding the unity of the United Kingdom in certain circumstances. I do not rule that out. I do not wish to see it come but we are all facing a great many uncertainties in the present situation. Therefore I say to the Prime Minister: sign the treaty in good faith. Work through stage 2 in order to achieve its ends and then through stage 3. However, at the end of the day if we opt out, although it will be a matter of deep regret, at least we will have endeavoured and succeeded in doing what we can.
In regard to political union, I agree with the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield. I do not view the prospect with any enthusiasm at all. However, I disagree with his conclusions for this reason. Germany has taken the concept of political union at too much of a gallop. It has come far too soon. It has not been worked out properly nor thought through properly. The clauses in the treaty—I am sure many noble Lords have read them—are flabby, imprecise and can be interpreted in many ways. Some may argue that that is a case for signing—that we will be able to interpret them in many ways. I am not sure that that is a good way to proceed.
Our Prime Minister should not be frightened by the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, into coming back without an agreement on political union. The arguments that he will hear are the arguments that we have all heard ever since 1949 when the Council of Europe was set up. As a young Member of Parliament I was sent by Mr. Attlee to deputise for Mr. Herbert Morrison—as if such a thing were possible! We divided ourselves at that time into federalists and functionalists. The British, of course, were in the functional camp. The Belgians, the Dutch and the other smaller nations were in the federal camp. As far as I can see, over the past 40 years the arguments have not changed and the line-up remains the same.
I notice one important difference; that is, that the definition of "federal" has begun to change. I see the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, is in his place. He will remember those great debates as I do. There were one or two in which M. Spaak, the prominent federalist, took me to task and rebuked me for not seeing matters in the way that he did. The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, escaped that, although I believe he was really on my side at the time. However, I do not believe we have progressed much further except in the definitions. I do not believe that the Prime Minister should sign a document which contains the word "federal.' because it has a different connotation in this country than elsewhere. It may be that they are right and we are wrong. The plain truth is that it means something different to us. We should therefore not sign at this moment.
A dilemma exists. We are torn between the voiced dislike of many ordinary citizens about what has been seen to be and in reality is the growing centralisation of power, and the revolt against that centralised power, and, conversely, the growing realisation that pure sovereignty is no longer possible; that we are not able to solve our problems by ourselves. Somehow that dilemma must he resolved.
1168
I regret to say that I do not take all the statements made by leaders of other countries immediately prior to the negotiations—and perhaps, indeed, not even those of Mr. John Major—at face value. Whatever the French may say in regard to devaluation, I am not sure that, should the time come, they would not devalue again. I have heard them say it before, as has the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield. General de Gaulle said it in the most stringent terms, yet when the moment came they did.
Although Chancellor Kohl made the suggestion—no doubt in good faith and with the hope of helping the Conservative Party win the election, which would be a poor bet—that the decision be postponed for six months, I do not believe that that is realistic. Nor should we accept such an offer, even if the Prime Minister thought it would bring him victory in the general election. It is too fundamental a problem. Those issues must be worked out much more thoroughly than they have been at the present time.
It may be that the others will go ahead without us. I am not talking about economic and monetary union. I want us to be there, and if the Prime Minister uses the right tactics he will see that he comes to an agreement on that first before they tackle political union. After all, that was on the agenda long before political union. If we get to the point where they go ahead it will be a great disappointment, but it will not necessarily be a catastrophe.
In regard to defence, to try to erect a defence pillar without the assistance of the United Kingdom would be ridiculous. It could not he done. Indeed, as long as NATO continues to exist in its present form it would be otiose. As regards the foreign policy aspects, I agree with the quotation given in his maiden speech by the noble Duke, the Duke of Manchester, from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington; that what was shown by the Gulf situation was our incapacity, when we get into a particular situation, for such a combined foreign policy to be worked out. Therefore, I say that I will be disappointed but that we should not sign up at this stage on a political union that includes defence and foreign policy.
Finally, I agree with those who have said that the powers of the Commission need to be restricted. I agree with the Foreign Secretary about the bureaucratic tendency to peer into every nook and cranny of our national life. It must be made more accountable. I thought that the editor of Dimanche Matin put it very well in the Observer yesterday when he said:
"It is time now to redefine the democratic content of the European Community, to decide on a system of checks and balances in order to counter the technocratic traditions and autocratic temptations of the European Commission."
Many of us will say, "Hear, hear".
Finally, I hope I have made it clear that I want very much to see this closer union of Europe, but that does not mean that the British, in their usual pragmatic way, should not point out the practical difficulties of what is being proposed on certain issues. We should never forget the hold and imaginative concept of the 1940s, which led to the establishment of the European Community; the reconciliation of ancient enemies; a means of harnessing the immense latent power of

1169
Germany, which is now much strengthened so that it is 80 million strong; the establishment of confidence among her smaller neighbours; and the construction of a powerful economic entity. All those benefits have flowed from the setting up of the Community, and Britain has an essential and fundamental role in that. Its success is the best safeguard of the welfare and safety of those who come after us.
4.33 p.m.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, I wish to apologise to the House at once that it may not be possible for me to stay until the end of this debate. I also wish to congratulate the noble Duke, the Duke of Manchester, on his maiden speech. When I was Speaker I loved brief speeches, but when I agreed with every word that was said it made me feel all the better. I want to say to the noble Duke that I hope we shall hear him again.
It is an especial privilege for me to follow my noble friend Lord Callaghan of Cardiff. For nearly 40 years we were neighbours with our constituencies in the capital city of Wales. It was a commonplace for us to be on the same platform, sometimes singing slightly different tunes—as indeed may be possible today—but always understanding the sincerity with which the other spoke. The Leader of the Opposition was also my colleague for I think over three decades as a Member of Parliament from the Principality. Therefore, I follow old friends upon an issue that is as old as Parliament itself.
I put my name down to speak today because of the office that brought me to this place. For 700 years it has been the privilege and the duty of the Speaker to guard the unwritten constitution and to guard the rights and privileges of the Commons at Westminster. I am reminded that when King Charles I filled Westminster Hall with his troops to intimidate the Commons and he himself marched into the Chamber—the last monarch to set foot inside the Commons Chamber—he took the Speaker's chair.
When Charles I looked around for the five Members he wished to arrest and asked the House where they had gone—they had all gone to good schools, so they said—they looked down and would not say anything, and when his Majesty ordered the Speaker to tell him, Mr. Speaker Lenthall said:
"I have eyes to see and tongue to tell only as this House doth command me."
We have to be careful lest future Speakers should reach the position where they will say that they have eyes to see and tongue to tell only as the European Commission will tell them.
As everyone knows, I am not an enthusiast. Perhaps I may say that the debate in the other place caused high passions. It will be a sorry day for Britain when emotion as well as intellect does not play its part in the debates in the House of Commons. I shall be the first one to say a kind word about Mrs. Thatcher, who a year ago was ambushed by the people who now would like to silence her. I believe that everyone has a right to be outspoken on an issue that will concern generations yet unborn belonging to these islands.
1170
We can take action that is irreparable and which has effects long term. We have done it from time to time, and sometimes I have regretted my own votes on matters over the years, because as the years unfold we change our opinion; we see evidence of what we have done. On the two issues of economic union and political union, I believe that it was a mistake to go into the ERM at the figure we did, but it was done. It is too late to alter that. It is now an economic fact of life.
I think that all of us have been prepared to co-operate—we want to co-operate—with Europe, because the high ideal of breaking down barriers between old enemies appeals to everyone with any common sense at all, but especially to our age group who lived through two world wars. However, I share the views of my noble friend Lord Callaghan of Cardiff when he expresses his deep anxiety—forgive me if I am putting in the word "deep"—about political union.
I see in today's edition of The Times the heading:
"Germany admires its own image in mirror of new Europe."
I read it several times with great care. Every one of us in this Chamber knows that within a decade a united Germany will be running Europe and will be the overpowering influence there. We would not be doing our own country justice if we pretended that we were not aware of the growing economic and political strength of Germany in Europe.
What of our friends in Europe? It almost amounts to moral blackmail to be told, "All our colleagues in Europe want to go the other way". Many of those countries in Europe are hanging on because they want German money. They are very much linked to the Bundesbank. Every country is looking after its own interests. I believe in every fibre of my being that, before there is any prospect of political union being agreed, it would be right to hold a referendum.
My noble friend Lord Callaghan of Cardiff reminded us that his Administration wished to give Wales an assembly, a non-legislative assembly, something fiercely opposed by Mr. Kinnock. He was against it—
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: He is now.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, I do not wish to discuss him because I want to remain friends with him. It was considered so important that the Administration said, "This is a constitutional issue affecting the lives of our people in Wales and in Scotland". How can this House decide without knowing the will of the people? When all parties are agreed the people have no opportunity to express their view. If they want on this specific issue to express an opinion there is no alternative to a referendum. If it was right for a Welsh Assembly, surely it will be right if political union threatens 700 years' history in the House of Commons. I believe that Mrs. Thatcher was right to call for a referendum if there is a signature on political union or indeed if other steps are taken at Maastricht which make it impossible for us later to move ground. We have no right to say to tomorrow's world that we shall decide for you on that question.

1171
I have listened with deep interest to every word that has been spoken in the debate and I have agreed with so much of what has been said from both sides of the House. But I know this I heard the expressions of sad anxiety about 1997 and what would poor old Britain do if we were right down in the dumps again. In those circumstances I would rather be the 51st state of the USA than one-twentieth of Europe. I should like it to be clearly known that they share our heritage and our language. We are nearer to them than is Honolulu. There is some logic in that argument but I hope that it does not come to that. I was seeking to apply myself to the argument that Britain can no longer think in terms of independent sovereignty. I hope that our spirit has not gone and that our will has not become so weak that we could look at the world and say, "We cannot stand on our own if it is necessary": I believe that we could.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Joseph: My Lords, it is always a privilege to speak in your Lordships' House but I am particularly glad today to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, and the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy. I share the vision of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, and I am proud to share the historical sense and the understanding of the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, of the importance to the British people of what we are debating today.
My vision, which I share with the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, is compatible with a Europe that is not a federal one. Indeed, I am not the only one in your Lordships' House who has a distaste for the concept of and indeed the word "federalism". I support the Bruges approach—l'Europe des patries: the sovereign nations of the Community consulting and cooperating, as they now do, evolving joint policies when suitable. We in Europe, I believe, are nowhere near ready—if we ever will be—to go further and form a single central government.
We need to be alert to the appetite both of the Commission and of the European Court to extend their jurisdiction. Mrs. Thatcher was right last week to warn us of a conveyor-belt to federalism. Indeed, I agree strongly with what the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, said about the flabby nature—I was going to say o the debate, but the lack of debate on the word "subsidiarity". This is a crucial subject: the division of powers between nation states and any central instrument of government that they might agree to set up. The approach to defining subsidiarity has illustrated either the frivolity or the stealthy ambitions of the federalists.
From the speeches in another place of the Prime Minister and Ministers and from the speech of the noble Lard, Lord Waddington, this afternoon, I judge that the Government are aware of these dangers and are unwilling to sign away at Maastricht any powers crucial ID this country's vital interests. I for my part therefore am content with the Government's stance on political union at Maastricht.
On economic and monetary union, however, I very much regret the Government's apparent readiness to sign a treaty in reliance on an opt-in clause enabling us
1172
or our successors to decide whether to join in a single currency later. I am not a banker, nor a financier, nor an economist. My worries are those of a layman. My main worry is that a single currency with a single central bank would involve a single central government—and our Government reject a single central government.
Your Lordships should be in no doubt that a single currency and a single central bank lead ineluctably to a single central government. My noble friend Lord Cockfield illustrated this thesis by telling us, warning us, and reminding us that the Germans have said that they will not sign an economic and monetary treaty unless they sign a political treaty. They understand very well that a single central government follows from a single currency and a single central bank. Mr. Heath, speaking last week in another place, must have been trying to be brief when he spoke of single trading areas in the United States and in Japan having single currencies. Yes, indeed, they do, but he failed to say—no doubt to save time—that they also have single governments.
A single central bank controlling a single currency would impose such a straitjacket on social and economic conditions in member countries that there would be immense pressure for a single central accountable government or there would be mounting and dangerous nationalist resentments. On this I agree strongly with what Mr. Benn said so eloquently in another place last week. If, therefore, we refuse to sign a political union treaty because we reject a single central government, let us not sign an economic and monetary union treaty that inevitably would involve just such a single central government.
To sign an EMU treaty relying on opt-in reservations would undermine our rejection of a single government. Moreover, as Mr. Ridley pointed out in another place, the EMU treaty we would be signing would bring in the whole apparatus of the Treaty of Rome and of the European Court. In my view we should veto the EMU treaty.
The question that your Lordships will immediately ask is: would we damage ourselves? As my noble friend Lord Cockfield reminded us, our Prime Minister told us that the 11 would probably immediately set up a single currency in a separate treaty outside the Treaty of Rome. I am not seeking to make them parallel in their current authority. But, in the same debate, Mr. Lawson judged that they would not. I repeat that I am no expert on the matter.
An article in The Spectator last week by Tim Congden reminds us of what happened when President Pompidou proclaimed that a single EEC currency would be in force under the Werner Plan a few years later in 1980. What did happen? Nothing happened. Why? Presumably because of the difficulties. However, there is no evidence that those difficulties have been tackled now, let alone overcome. For example, to whom would the single putative central bank lend? Moreover, what would happen to the foreign exchange reserves of Britain and of other member sovereign countries? Will the 11 want to go ahead without any contribution from us—one of the

1173
main contributors of money within the Common Market—towards the heavy subsidies that several member states will be demanding?
I am wistful that stable money, with all the blessings in jobs and earnings that it would bring, which might be hoped for from a single currency controlled by a fiercely monetarist single central bank is not available. It would not, any way, be the Bundesbank in charge but a board containing Greeks, Portuguese and Italians. They are noble peoples in their own way, but not ideal people to put in charge of a single central bank. There is no mockery in what I say because they are indeed noble people. But there are too many grave dangers in EMU—the implication of a single central government, the straitjacket and the nationalist dangers. The truth is that we have to squeeze out inflation and sharpen our economic competitiveness by our own efforts. We can do it.
My noble friend Lord Cockfield and the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, both told us that the Germans will not sign EMU if they do not get EPU. There was a difference between what the two noble Lords said. My noble friend recommended that we should sign EPU but the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, despite the fact that it would destroy the prospect of Germany signing EMU, recommended that we should not sign EPU. I apologise for these neologisms but even if no EMU means no EPU that would be no tragedy. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, that it is far too soon to contemplate a single central government.
Therefore, I still urge our Government not to sign EMU even with its opt-in reservation for Britain. It would only undermine their own robust stance on EPU.
4.55 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I am very conscious of the fact that the House may feel that we are now moving in to the second division in this debate, speaking as I do after six privy councillors and a noble Duke. I do not wish to follow the broad sweep of the argument between the clashing of the Titans which we have heard so far in the debate, but rather to make just a few random reflections as to how I see the situation at present.
I must first apologise in the same way as the noble Lord. Lord Thomson of Monifieth, for the fact that I may not be able to stay in the Chamber to hear the end of the debate. However, I shall be most interested to read the Minister's replies. I should also like to join those who congratulated the noble Duke, the Duke of Manchester, on his maiden speech. I do so not just for the brevity and clarity of it, but also because it reminded us of the long roots of this debate.
I must also congratulate the noble Lord the Leader of the House on the simplicity of the Motion. The Motion may not say very much but we know what it tells us. Indeed, it is much more simple and straightforward than the very complicated Motions put forward both by the Government and the Opposition in another place. I should also like to thank the noble Lord for the fact that he said, if I
1174
understood him correctly, that he had no wish to rake over the ground of the past in the debate. That is the way in which the debate in this House so far has been a significant improvement on the one which took place in another place over a period of two days. In that debate I felt that people were not debating where they were but that they were debating how long they had been there. There was a small number of people who were proud of the fact that they had been pro-Europe before Spaak. There were other people on both sides of the House—and certainly on my side of the House—who said that they were against Europe in 1963, even more against it in 1976 and that they were against it now.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: That is right.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, my noble friend agrees that that is right. I believe that most of us are not in that position. I believe that most of us have changed. It would be rather ridiculous for us in certain respects not to have changed over this very long period.
I began as one who believed that there was an alternative to British membership of what was then called the Common Market. Even now, I think that it is possible that those of us who believe that certain things must and should happen now may wake up in two, three or four years' time believing that things are slightly different. I am very worried about people who use single direction metaphors in this subject; for example, we have been told, "Don't mount the conveyor belt", "Mind you catch the tide", "Don't miss the bus", "It's the wrong train" or "It's the right boat". In other words, there is only one way: you either get on or you do not and that is the end of the story. But, of course, it is never like that. In that sense I remain a Euro-sceptic. But then I was a Commonwealth sceptic and I am a market sceptic—perhaps I am just a sceptic.
If I were looking for a phrase or an analogy to epitomise the way I believe that most of my fellow countrymen feel about the European Community, it is not as a boat, a ship, a saviour, or something which is always good or always bad. It is rather like the internal combustion engine—it is the basis of modern life and it is totally inescapable. Moreover, when we think of what it does sometimes we wish to God that we were back in the days of the horse and buggy. However, we are not back in those days. The belief that I and some of my friends held that we could have an alternative economic policy based upon what we used to call, in those days, "a command economy" with exchange, import, and capital controls—and that wonderful thing we never managed to achieve, a strategic devaluation—is no longer there. It is no longer a viable policy.
It is interesting to note that those on my side of the House, who, as I understand them—I may be wrong and I may not be here when they tell me that I am wrong—still oppose what is in front of us in terms of the EC are not now arguing for us to get out of the EC. There is, in effect, no significant section of political life in this country which is arguing for that. It is obvious why that should be. It is because there is no real

1175
alternative to what we are being asked to accept. There is an alternative at the margin. There are things that can be negotiated.
In my opinion, the most important issue dividing the two sides of the House today is what is to be the definition of "convergence". The Opposition are right in waiting to widen the meaning of the term "convergence". If that means that we shall not have convergence, I can live with it. If it means that it is difficult to imagine a situation in five or 10 years' time in which we have Poland at one end of the Community and Norway and Sweden at the other end, and no one can see how those different economies could possibly significantly converge, I can live with that. But that is not an argument for not discussing the issue and seeking to reach agreement on what is the meaning of "convergence".
If one looks at the EC as one looks at the internal combustion engine, one finds that there are a considerable number of things one can do today, but one cannot do without the car. Even if one does not have a car, one uses the internal combustion engine. We cannot hope to regulate multinational companies without the framework of the Community. We cannot hope to tackle problems of pollution and the environment without the framework of the Community. We cannot hope to tackle the refugee crisis and the creation of cross-frontier social and employment standards without the European Community. That brings me, as some will not be surprised, to what the Conservatives are now saying about the social charter.
The noble Lord the Leader of the House mentioned charters. Ministers hardly rise to their feet without mentioning one kind of charter or another, but never the social charter. Therefore, it is worth saying briefly why I believe that to be the position. The first point to make is that the Government's opposition to an improvement of international labour standards is nothing new. Unlike many things which are now blamed upon the right honourable Member for Finchley, that is not her fault. Since the 1970s, and the days of the first social action programme and the Vredeling fifth directive, the Conservative Government have opposed all attempts to improve international labour standards. There is nothing new about that.
As I understand it, two bogus arguments have been advanced. One of those arguments was mentioned by the noble Lord the Leader of the House. It is the principle of subsidiarity. We are told that there is no case for doing those things because they can be better done at national level. There is a great deal of truth in that, if I hat is what is being done. If the Government were to say, "We do not want parental leave to be regulated by Brussels; we will do it ourselves and we will do it now", they would have an argument for subsidiarity. If the Government were to say, "We do not believe that the social action programme should deal with working hours; that is a matter for our Government and we will introduce it now", they would have a case. But their use of subsidiarity is an argument for doing nothing. So it is not a legitimate argument which they can use within the context of the
1176
treaty. Therefore, they move to their second equally bogus argument, which is that buried in the treaty and in many statements coming from Brussels there is a commitment to high employment. Since high and stable levels of employment are thought to be incompatible with an improvement in international labour standards, they are therefore able to sabotage every attempt by everyone else to improve them.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene to make one point. The noble Lord said that people say that there is no alternative. He said that was because we do not announce in advance that we will do what other people recommend should be done. Is not doing nothing an alternative to doing something? So there is a practical alternative.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I am not certain what the noble Lord is doing nothing about. If he is talking about the social charter, yes, of course there is an alternative to introducing legislation on minimum hours and minimum wages; but that cannot be justified by talking about subsidiarity. The essence of subsidiarity is that we are saying, "We can do it better at our level than you can at your level." To justify that, we have to propose to do something. The argument is that the proposal may be against employment. The short answer to that argument is that that is not what 11 out of the 12 countries think. That is what the Secretary of State for Employment says as a result of feeding his prejudices into the Treasury computer. He receives that answer. We have told him again and again of the whole range of other research of a different kind which comes to a different conclusion.
We must take the view that the Government believe in moving towards European standards where they are the standards that the Government require. The Government are not good Europeans because they are not prepared to accept that there are other countries which place other priorities in other directions. It is for that reason that we cannot support the Government today.
5.7 p.m.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, my brief remarks will be devoted chiefly to the bogey-word "federalism". As I understand it, we are already firmly committed to an "ever closer union" of European states within the European Community. If that phrase means anything, it means that, every so often, we are bound to take measures which will gradually transform the Community into a political and economic union of some sort; that is to say, investing it increasingly with some supra-national powers. That would seem not to differ much in practice from pursuing a "federal goal". But, of course, it all depends on what one supposes an eventual federation would turn out to be.
As I see it, the word might be retained as being of some use in persuading our European partners that we really are sincere in our desire for ever closer union, but it is perhaps dangerous by giving the impression that we agree with those who look towards the formation in Europe of the equivalent of the constitution of the United States of America. That last is, however, something which I believe this country

1177
would never accept; nor would it be acceptable, I suspect, to most of our European partners, if it ever came to the point.
Why? The North American states which came together in a union after their successful war against Great Britain, already had, in addition to the fellow feeling resulting from that war, many things in common, notably language, law, cultural traditions and even, to a large extent, religion. It was therefore possible for them eventually to form what was, in effect, something more than a federal union with a President, elected by popular suffrage, able, with the "advice and consent" of a Congress, to conduct among other things, foreign affairs and defence, the component states being substantially left with powers over internal matters only. But who can imagine a similar system being applied to the ancient nation states of Europe, with their different languages, histories, cultures and religions, who have been obliged to come together, not because of a common war against an external foe, but as the result of a series of appalling wars among themselves?
Is it, in fact, conceivable that in the foreseeable future we might have a president of Europe, elected—regardless of nationality—for a period of four years, installed in Brussels with his own staff, his own ministries, and in command of a strong, possibly conscripted, force, all wearing a federal uniform and presumably run on a common language? It is barely conceivable.
But if so, what is the point of having some kind of Congress, also in Brussels, consisting of a Council of Ministers transformed into a Senate and the present Parliament transformed into a House of Representatives, which clearly could not function in the absence of a central authority of some kind? Unless, of course, it were agreed that the unelected president of the Commission should become the effective president of Europe. But I do not think that such a solution would be likely to appeal to our various democracies.
Now it may be argued—and it is argued—that a presidential regime of the kind envisaged would work if the nation states comprising the present European Community voluntarily agreed to become the equivalent of American states, or perhaps if those states broke up into regions which were separately represented in the new federation. Of course it could be—and logically that might be the best solution—acceptable to those who sincerely believe that the nation state itself is the source of all international evil and that it must totally forgo its independence if peace is ever to prevail.
What may happen in the future no one can say; what is certain is that if, in present circumstances, the impression grows that we are inevitably moving towards such an abolition of the nation state, there is likely to be an explosion of nationalist sentiment—and not only in this country—that may at least put back further progress towards European unity for several years.
It seems to follow, if what I suggest is agreed, that what the Government could well do when they say, as
1178
they do, that they seek to avoid "the development of a federal Europe" is to make clear that what they will not accept is the creation of something like the United States of America. But, as I see it, none of the points which we still apparently object to in the two draft treaties for discussion at Maastricht—and here, differing from the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, I include an eventual monetary union and a social charter—comes into this category at all. We may object to some of them, perhaps along with others, on the grounds, for instance, that they are unworkable or contrary to the general interest, or that the time for them is not ripe, but not that if they were approved they would eventually reduce this great and ancient nation to the rank of an American state.
The European Community is an unique organisation, never before attempted, I believe. It was born as a result of a realisation by the nations of Western Europe, almost all of which had been defeated or occupied during the last hideous war, that they must in some way become interdependent if another catastrophe was to be avoided. We felt originally that we could not join them. Had we not won the war? Suez, and our increasing impoverishment, made it impossible for us to stand aside. But the Community's machinery, which we accepted 20 years ago, though it has its defects, has been shown, broadly speaking, to be acceptable and correct. The Council of Ministers and its numerous sub-committees, the Commission, the Parliament and the Court will all, in time, be reformed, but it is on them alone that the future Community must surely be constructed.
In particular, the Commission has been unduly criticised in this country. The disastrous CAP is not its fault, but rather that of the Council of Ministers; it, too, must and will be reformed. It is quite right that the Commission should be preparing plans for example, for a common industrial, transport and, yes, a social policy. One would have thought that the principle of subsidiarity alone would prevent it from trying to prescribe the exact meat content of a British sausage, or indeed the precise location of a British road. But it must obviously have an important part to play in initiating plans to provide against, for instance, the poisoning of the atmosphere or the sea. To describe it as a "Belgian Empire" is a silly joke.
So, in conclusion the Ministers must be prepared over the next year or two to take more decisions by qualified majority vote, even in some matters affecting foreign affairs, and eventually—more especially if the Americans withdraw from Europe—defence as well. The Parliament must be given some real part to play in the formation of policy and with some control over the Commission. For its part, the Court should, by one means or another, be assured that its decisions are duly observed by all concerned. It will take time for all this to be done, but we should press strongly for it to come about as quickly as possible.
With all this in mind, we can surely wish the Government well in the all-important negotiations on which they are about to embark. Undoubtedly, all but a small minority will applaud them if they return with two treaties signed by all concerned. But a similar majority will be filled, I fear, with gloom and

1179
apprehension if, for any reason, they fail—especially if they are found to be in a minority of one. The opportunity for far-reaching decisions, taken in common, is approaching, and they must rise to a great occasion.
5.20
Lord Aldington: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, whose experience of these issues extends over so many years. The subject of this debate was covered by two reports of the Select Committee. One report was produced by a sub-committee I chaired and another, more legal report, was produced by the sub-committee chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver. Both reports were welcomed. I stand by the principles and opinions of both reports.
Our report, published in 1990, warned against the use of the word "federalism". It came out against a federalist approach and for a step-by-step approach. At the outset of my remarks I wish to say that I support unreservedly the stance taken by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. That stance was admirably expressed to us by my noble friend Lord Waddington this afternoon. I express my warmest admiration for the way in which the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have handled the negotiations so far, and for the way in which they have kept us in this House and those in another place fully informed.
As I support their stance, I shall not make any proposals on any detailed matters they may be negotiating. However, I shall make some general observations. Through my attendance at meetings of European affairs committees of the 12 parliaments and through my visits to a number of our partner countries in the course of Select Committee business, I have been able to form a worm's eye view, as it were, of the problems facing the negotiators.
That experience has shown me all too clearly the divergent and often emotional demands and arguments of some—not all—of the parliamentary representatives of other member states. That worm's eye view has given me a chance of understanding the problems that have faced our negotiators better than I understood them in the past. There is the confusion between the fine and historic visions of the future they want for Europe and the practical requirements as regards the choice of what further advances towards political union should be put into the treaty this year. There is the matter of the acceptance of catchwords such as "federal" and "democratic deficit" without working out what the words and concepts mean.
I have still to meet any champion of the federal aim today who is ready to say now that his country should give up its international sovereignty and its seat in the United Nations. I have not met all that many enthusiasts for passing joint control of legislative powers to the European Parliament who understand where democratic control of Community legislation lies today; namely, in national parliaments with the European Parliament playing an important but not dominant part in co-operation and other processes.
1180
The fact is that some national parliaments have had little information about Council proceedings and still less say, until quite recently. It is no wonder that Britain has found it difficult to explain our preference for the European Parliament controlling the Commission and not the Council. It is all so logical to us because we believe that the Council is the key decision maker in the Community, and has to be in the foreseeable future. My noble friend referred to the proposals—the Prime Minister has described these proposals—to give the European Parliament much greater powers in other respects. That is a good measure and I support it.
It seems to me obvious that the best way to build up unity of thought and action in the Community is by voluntary consensus on policy within the Council. That seems so obvious that I have mistakenly underestimated the force of those who seek to impose unity in policy, as well as in action, by majority vote. I do not understand how it can be supposed that Britain, or for example France, Germany or Italy, can be expected to face a situation in which their foreign ministers, having said that course A in foreign policy is right and course B is wrong, and can then be forced to tell their parliaments, "We have been outvoted and are now required on a vital foreign policy issue to do exactly what we think is wrong". What better way of provoking later Balkanisation of the Community!
We have been right to feel our way in the advance towards closer political union. The whole Community has been right up to date in eschewing definitions of the form of union it seeks. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, in giving evidence to the Select Committee on 28th June 1990 said:
"I think we will always be travelling towards rather than arriving at political union … I do not myself envisage it as likely and probably not desirable that we should move towards a complete common polity in the sense the United States is".
I agreed with that view, as did the Select Committee. I believe that most noble Lords also agree with it. It would seem to me an enormous mistake in a fast changing world—as the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, said, there is so much we do not know—for the Community to depart from its known, steady, step by step advance which has proved so right in the 35 years since its establishment. However, it would be as serious a mistake to take no forward steps now when quite obviously there is need for more parliamentary control of the Commission's activity, including the implementation of the Council's decisions. There should be more parliamentary control by the European Parliament; a better understanding of the Council's work—more open explanation—more co-operation between individual members of the European Parliament and members of national parliaments; better implementation of laws and decisions of the European Court of Justice and the modernisation of other institutions' powers among other things.
I wish to make a few remarks about economic and monetary union where there is also a need for further progress. That objective has been agreed by all member states since 1972. It has been encouraging to watch the success of British Ministers in working with

1181
others to steer the monetary union negotiations into sensible practical channels. The immediate need is for agreement on Stage 2 and the preparatory arrangements for the next stage, whenever that may be and whatever it may consist of. That there is broadly such agreement, as I understand it, is a tribute to the Chancellor of the Exchequer among others.
In our EMU and PU report—as it is known—last year we were anxious to ensure that British Ministers took a full and effective part in the discussions about Stage 2 and the preparations for the next stage, whenever that should be. They appear to have achieved that. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, said we could not influence such preparations. I do not view the matter that way. I do not view the draft treaty that way. I believe that we can and will influence preparations at the right time.
Like my noble friend Lord Cockfield I am fully persuaded—whatever my views are on the single currency, which I shall discuss later—that it is right for Britain and indeed for everyone to have the right to delay the decision on whether, as well as when, to embark on a single currency until nearer the time when such a great change is practical. It is much easier to understand the advantages of a single currency at the right time than it is to appreciate the problems of creating the currency and its mechanisms and the full potential of the problems that could be caused to any nation whose economy was not ready for monetary union. Both those problems can be underrated.
On the other hand, I believe that the advantages of a single currency to all members of a single market cannot be overrated. I certainly do not believe that Britain could be a successful member of the single market and not be in the single currency union from the outset. That is my view and it is the view of a number of people who are more knowledgeable than I am. However, at present it is not the view of the other place, nor of my noble friend Lord Joseph and many other noble Lords, or of Mr. Benn and others. Some of the reasons for those people taking a different view are political and some are economic.
In those circumstances I agree that it would have been quite wrong for the Prime Minister to have accepted any commitment for Britain beyond Stage 2. As I have said before, I do not agree with those who say that that prejudices our ability to influence later events. There is plenty of time to debate the economic and political advantages and problems of a single currency before it would be wise to take a decision in the Community. Those questions can quite properly be resolved several years on.
At Maastricht there are other more immediate problems to be resolved. I remain optimistic that they will be resolved. Like other noble Lords I very much hope that they will be resolved. It is very important that they should be but it is equally important that we should not give our backing to going along the wrong road.
I say that I am optimistic because our Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary are being listened to once again. Once again we are accepted as full Europeans. That is due most of all to the Prime
1182
Minister's personal commitment, the position which he has won with his fellow heads of government and the support which he commands in our country.
5.33 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, the opinion polls tell us that the public are becoming increasingly disillusioned with the European Community and suspicious about the negotiations which are to take place at Maastricht. That is a great pity, but it is not entirely surprising given the note of hysteria which has entered part of the public debate which is taking place at this very crucial period leading up to the negotiations.
That does not appear to have happened in other countries on the Continent. Their governments and people are facing the same decisions but the discussion is on an entirely different level. One wonders why that is so. I believe that it is because each country made the same calculations. They agreed to the Single European Act and they cannot and do not want to turn back. They accept the pooling of sovereignty within the Community in return for wider world influence.
The decisions to be made are momentous. There is a great need for informed discussion so that people know exactly what is at stake. However, I believe that the Government should have had that informed discussion prior to the signing of the Single European Act, which set in motion all the changes which are to be discussed at Maastricht. However, because of the internal problems within the Conservative Party the Government found that difficult. That has resulted in suspicion among the British people of further integration within the European Community.
Much of the debate is a re-run of the discussions of the 1960s and early 1970s. It seems sometimes to be forgotten that we have been a member of the Community for two decades. People talk as if it is still a matter of joining for the first time. Now, as my noble friend Lord Cledwyn mentioned, there is a request for a referendum. I am happy that the Government appear to be responding negatively to that demand. That is right. The present situation has clearly emanated from the Single European Act, the debate on which was guillotined in the other place. It is ironic that the very person who signed the Single European Act is now calling for a referendum.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will my noble friend give way? Perhaps I may remind her that the call for a referendum came from other people long before Mrs. Thatcher took it up.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, my noble friend is probably right; but when Mrs. Thatcher asked for a referendum it made a great impact.
I should like to make three points. First, what would happen if we availed ourselves of the draft EMU treaty's opt-out clause and signed the treaty, retaining the right to decide whether we want a single currency? My noble friend Lord Callaghan gave some reasons why we may be obliged to do that. However, it should be recognised that the sacrifices that we would make would be very great. Such action would place Britain fairly and squarely in the second

1183
division. If we eventually decided not to join a monetary union which went ahead without us, there would be an adverse effect on inward investment into Britain and a likely loss of influence on the development of the EMU. Further—and crucially—how could we expect to make the City of London the financial centre of the Community when we were outside a single currency? Therefore, as my noble friend Lord Callaghan pointed out, there would be considerable problems if we did not sign that treaty.
Perhaps the Minister will specify what the Government will do if our European Community partners form a monetary union and Britain remains outside that structure even though convergence is achieved. The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, gave his interpretation. I hope that the outcome will not be as bad as that suggested by my noble friend Lord Tonypandy—that we would become the 51st state.
Many people are not convinced by the economic arguments for EMU. We have heard many of them today. However, surely there is still a great deal to be negotiated. The question is whether Britain will have any serious influence on events after Maastricht if, as William Keegan wrote in the Observer yesterday, we remain beyond the boundary as the permanent twelfth man of Europe. As was also pointed out in the Observer yesterday, at the bottom line lies that 50 dollar question: where else is there for us to go? There has been no suggestion of that in the debate today.
I should like to reiterate the Labour Party's view on the matter. The party is in favour in principle of progress towards economic and monetary union and an eventual single currency. However, it believes that economic monetary union must involve members working towards real economic convergence, not just on inflation but on policies to produce sustained growth. My noble friend Lord McCarthy made that very clear.
My second point concerns closer co-ordination of European foreign policy. I shall take the topical and tragic events in Yugoslavia to illustrate the need for that. What happened in Dubrovnik shows why we hope aid pray that Maastricht works.
There are two reasons for that. First, if European member states had co-ordinated their foreign policies regarding the situation in Yugoslavia, they might not have sent such conflicting messages to Yugoslavia and so avoided the incorrect assumptions made by the different factions in that conflict. Secondly, what has happened points to the need to widen Europe. But how can we widen it without first deepening it via a closer economic and monetary union and the co-ordination of foreign policy? We cannot possibly envisage absorbing the countries that have already been mentioned—Sweden, Norway and Austria—and the eventual involvement of Eastern European countries, together with Russia and various of its republics, without first developing a consistently co-ordinated foreign policy among member states. A vital element in that foreign policy should be to put into practice an idea of the previous French Minister of Justice, M. Badinter; namely, to establish a permanent European Community arbitration commission so that in future we could put conciliation
1184
procedures in place before a conflict got under way. Maastricht gives Europe the opportunity to deepen before it has to face the challenge of widening eastwards. I sometimes wonder whether that becomes clear in British debate which so often seems to be dominated by the most parochial conception of our national interests.
My final point, which has already been made today, relates to democracy. Members of another place are bound to equate democracy with British parliamentary sovereignty, but the general public may wonder whether democracy might also mean accountable European institutions and, above all, an elected European Parliament with real powers to control and review the decisions of the Council and the Commission. I was happy to hear the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, state in detail the reforms envisaged. He realises that we would like to go a little further and that we favour the European Parliament being given the power to initiate legislation and to enjoy some form of co-decision with the Council of Ministers. Co-decision would in effect give a degree of legislative power to the European Parliament at the expense of the Commission. That would have a balancing effect on the different powers of those institutions.
In conclusion, I am not a born-again European which I understand the Conservatives are calling my colleagues in the House of Commons. Ten years ago I made my maiden speech in your Lordships' House on Britain's position in Europe. I still believe what I said then; namely, that Britain's position in Europe is of great interest and importance to the people of Britain and to the people of Europe as a whole.
5.43 p.m.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: My Lords, I warmly welcome the impressive speech with which my noble friend the Leader of the House opened our debate. I am also glad to note the wide degree of agreement on all sides of the House about the best way in which we should proceed.
I recollect being asked to state a final negotiating position in advance of negotiations, so I have every sympathy with the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary at present. They cannot be expected to state precisely what they will or will not agree to at Maastricht. As my noble friend the Leader of the House said—I am glad that the point was taken up by my noble friend Lord Cockfield—there must be give and take in negotiations. One must go into them with a measure of room for manoeuvre.
The Prime Minister has stated his approach clearly in so far as that is possible at present. I am sure that he will defend both British and European interests in the hope that they coincide, as they should do. The list of practical proposals which we put forward, and which my noble friend the Leader of the House indicated, is prudent and, if adopted, will lead to the strengthening of the Community. The Prime Minister is right when he says that we must be at the very heart of Europe, bringing our own ideas for its future

1185
development to the conference table for open discussion, and always seeking to ensure that the Community moves forward harmoniously.
As she indicated in the other place, no doubt Mrs. Thatcher would have turned up swinging her handbag. She said that she hopes the Prime Minister will wield a cricket bat. He has certainly said that we must go on to the pitch to play hard, but, because he has a rather better relationship with our Community members, I see him bowling a few gentle but nonetheless effective googlies at opponents who have their heads too much in the air. His approach will be different in style, although not always essentially in substance.
In her speech last week, Mrs. Thatcher invoked the spirit of Winston Churchill, but not so long ago the Prime Minister reminded an audience in Bonn that it was Winston Churchill who saw our task as being:
"to recreate the European family, or as much of it as we can, and provide it with a structure under which it can dwell in peace, in safety and in freedom".
That must remain our primary objective.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, we must also seek to widen as well as deepen the Community, because, under the Treaty of Rome, those European countries that can fulfil the requirements of the treaty have a right to become members. We must also seek to make the Community more outward-looking than it is at present and we must give a high priority to implementing the Single European Act. We must do all that before we can set about trying to determine the ultimate end of the Community and the final structure.
As the noble Baroness suggested, it is ironic that perhaps the greatest achievement of Mrs. Thatcher's Administration, for which it will be honoured in the future, is that it passed the Single European Act of 1986. That took the United Kingdom along the road to a supra-national European union by accepting majority voting in place of unanimity in a significant number of cases. It is still open to us to decide how and when we shall extend that number, but the principle was quite clearly accepted in the 1986 Act. There was no question of a referendum then. There was no question even of the free vote which the Conservative Party allowed when we debated the European Communities Bill.
Before we talk of referendums, we might consider the importance in constitutional matters of this kind of allowing more genuine free votes in the House of Commons. There was no question then of letting the people choose: Mrs. Thatcher made the choice herself. It is strange to see demands for referendums come from the very people who spend most of their time arguing about the vital importance of maintaining parliamentary sovereignty.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, showed some sympathy for the idea of a referendum. Part of the pressure for a referendum and one of the reasons why the polls initially showed some support for a referendum is the growing feeling that parliamentary sovereignty has been undermined by an increasingly powerful and centralised Executive. With dissent of any kind, to put it mildly, discouraged and
1186
with a payroll vote that would make George III and Lord North green with envy, Mrs. Thatcher hardly allowed the Cabinet to decide, much less Parliament or the British people. It is almost bizarre to hear an attack on arrogant and wrong government coming from her lips.
She says, "Let the people choose." But choose what? She said that the people must choose whether or not they want to be forced into or kept in a union. Maybe we shall soon hear her espousing the cause of Scottish nationalism. A better example might be a referendum to allow the English to choose whether they want to retain the union with those expensive, troublesome and all too socialist Scots. So what is the referendum to be about? What is the question? That is the question.
The question was clear in 1975: "Do you want to be in the Community or out?" Perhaps one could put the same question again, if a treaty of that nature emerges from Maastricht. What shall we have as a question? If it were: "Do you want a federal states of Europe?", the answer would almost certainly be "No". If the question were: "Do you approve the goal of European union?" (as Mrs. Thatcher herself affirmed in the Stuttgart declaration), the answer would almost certainly be "Yes". If it were: "Do you agree with the objective, as set out in the Treaty of Rome, of an ever closer union of the peoples of Europe?", the answer, I believe, as in 1975, would be an absolutely overwhelming "Yes".
The referendum question may be: "Are you in favour of a single European currency today?" The answer would probably be "No", in which case the Government would say, "Thank you for your advice but the question does not arise. Future parliaments may ask your advice again". If the question were: "Do you agree that a single European currency at some time in the future has much to commend it?" the answer would probably be "Yes".
I have just spent three days on the Continent carrying around three envelopes, one with French francs, one with Belgian francs and one with German marks. Every time that I changed a traveller's cheque I lost money. It might be worth recalling that it was Thomas Cook who, in the 19th century, invented the traveller's cheque because the British found it difficult to travel around Italy with 16 different currencies to negotiate. We might also remember that Belgium and Luxembourg have not lost control of their budgets or their national identity by having a common currency; nor have Switzerland or Liechtenstein. As my noble friend Lord Cockfield said, there is nothing to stop any of them having a further extension of the common currency. Let the Dutch throw the guilder into a Benelux common currency if they so wish.
A more relevant question at the present time might be: "Do you think we might join the narrow band of the exchange rate mechanism (a) on our own initiative, or (b) only when the rest of the Community does so?" One might add perhaps: "If not, why not?"—or, "Answer in not less than 50,000 words". If the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister can agree on the basis of a new treaty at Maastricht, it will have to go through the process of ratification, through

1187
either the Ponsonby rules or a change in our domestic law to give effect to the terms of the treaty. If they want to do that, well and good, but we cannot judge until they come back with a treaty on which we can express an opinion.
I do not believe that failure to agree on everything will necessarily hold back developments in Europe. We at least can fairly claim that so far we have done more to create an open financial market than has any other country of the Community. We now need every member of the Community to allow complete freedom of capital movement to comply with existing obligations under the Single European Act and to achieve a greater convergence of national economies before we can contemplate a single European currency.
It is unfortunate that a number of factors have sown the seeds of disunity in this country and elsewhere in recent months. I believe that we must regret the unnecessarily aggressive statements and actions of Mr. Jacques Delors, the President of the Commission. I heartily agree with those speakers who said that we must bring the Commission under greater democratic control, both by the European Parliament and the national parliaments. It does not help that the Italian commissioner—at the moment I forget his name—has such a totally misguided view of our town and country planning procedures. Plainly he does not understand how they operate.
There has also been the quite extraordinary bureaucratic nonsense of the kind which says that a Bath bun can only be baked in Bath or that one can eat a Yorkshire pudding only if it comes from Yorkshire. Those examples are fiction but in fact it is almost impossible when reading the newspapers to decide what is fact and what is fiction. Certainly there is a great deal of public resentment of that kind of bureaucratic interference.
Finally, I regret the unwisdom, to put it mildly, of the Dutch presidency in insisting on the words "federal union" being stated as an objective of the treaty. That may be just what I call Euro-rhetoric but it is manifestly provocative and designed to create dissension. As a result, much of our debate on Europe—certainly in the other place and some of the newspapers—has become increasingly unreal and to a large extent irrelevant. We must all know that irresponsible national attitudes offer only a miserable prospect of mounting mutual injury and bad feeling. As the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, said, European union means different things to different people. What is certain is that it is not about some utopian united states of Europe on the United States basis in the immediate future or even in the distance.
Of course, to many Europeans federation means decentralisation rather than the reverse. I have always adopted as a general principle—we often talk about the founding fathers—the views expressed by Jean Monnet, who said: The European Community is a process not a project. Or, as he put it on another occasion: We are uniting not states but people. Also, if I might say so, I like the expression used by my noble friend the Leader of the House: it is a "developing organism".
1188
I have always believed that we must move forward step by step with realism, recognising that every practical step that we take toward the ever closer union of the peoples of Europe is part of an irreversible process. It is one in which, to do her credit, Mrs. Thatcher and her Administration played a most notable part.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, perhaps I may ask my noble friend a question. He said "move forward". Could he tell me to what, in his vision, he is moving forward? What is the ultimate place at which he expects to arrive in moving forward?
Lord Rippon of Hexham: I hope to arrive in heaven and I hope that some things will happen after that. My vision of moving forward is a movement toward an every closer union of the peoples of Europe. I do not see that it is necessary to define it much further than that. It is a process to which we must all freely agree at every stage.
The goal of European monetary union is clearly of immense importance. As many speakers have pointed out, our response to it may well determine whether our industry thrives or whether we lose London's pre-eminence in financial markets to Frankfurt or Paris. As with NATO and the Western European Union—still, I believe, the basis of our European defence—or any other treaty, we have to surrender a degree of sovereignty. We are not considering some academic concept of sovereignty. We have freely pooled sovereignty in the past whenever we thought that it was in our common interest. I have no doubt that we shall do so again—I hope after Maastricht, but if not I am sure that there will be many more summit conferences in the years ahead. Sometimes we expect too much from them and are needlessly disappointed. I shall be content if some substantial progress is made on this occasion.
Above all, I agree with those speakers who emphasised that we must not lose our vision of a truly united Europe. We must be practical and pragmatic. But though we have our feet on the ground we can still look at the stars. I only add that we must watch our step and not try to go too fast; otherwise Europe, like me, may fall flat on its face and break an arm in four places.
I am confident that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary will successfully keep their balance and that at Maastricht they will serve both this country and Europe well.
6 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, who spoke in such rollicking form. I have no hesitation in agreeing emphatically that the Community should give more priority to completing the market, and that it should be more outward-looking, as the noble and learned Lord said. I confess to mixed feelings in finding so much with which to agree in the previous speeches. For 40 years I have enjoyed engaging in economic disputation as a substitute for physical exercise. When I find so much to agree with, I think that I must re-examine my own view. It was

1189
heartening to hear the noble Lords, Lord Cockfield and Lord Callaghan, candidly expressing in much the same words a lack of enthusiasm for political union.
Having heard the very clear speech of the Leader of the House, I am still left with a mystery about Maastricht which deepens as the fateful day draws near. The question that I keep asking is this: what positive, substantial benefits are Her Majesty's Government seeking for Britain in return for the endless and dangerous concessions that our European partners will never cease to demand from us? Until last Wednesday I did not believe that the Prime Minister had been very forthcoming. Indeed, his reticence prompted a magisterial Euro-sceptic leader in The Times last Wednesday which stated that the "stark difference" between them was that Margaret Thatcher "knew where she wanted to lead her country and did not care who else knew it"; and that John Major "appears less sure and is certainly less frank". However, since last Wednesday almost all has been revealed. In a 45 minute oration, the Prime Minister drew up the battle lines: he would never agree to a federal vocation; he opposed conceding more power to the European Parliament beyond monitoring the Commission; he rejected Community interference with our health and education policy; he was against extending the competence of the Brussels Commission; he rejected the more or less indiscriminate extension of qualified majority voting, especially on the mountain of mischief lurking beneath the innocent-sounding "social dimension"; he opposed the subordination of British foreign policy and national defence to the vagaries of the European Council; and, finally, for the foreseeable future he did not want Britain committed to monetary union.
What positively does he want? The only tangible benefit that he claimed in his speech came from Britain's membership of "the world's largest single market". I entirely agree with that. But surely this is our dear old forgotten friend the European Economic Community, now more or less banished from polite conversation and, as I understand, a forbidden reference in Hansard. Beneath all the cross-talk about IGCs, successive Luxembourg and Dutch drafts, endless negotiations and photo opportunities, the British Government want nothing more from Maastricht. What they crave above all is an agreement. I fear that this craving will cost us, and indeed Europe, dear.
Style and semantics apart, Mr. Major's judgment on the main issues is now revealed as not so very different from that of Mrs. Thatcher. All that remains in doubt is whether he can summon up her candour and courage to see the matter through. The plain fact seems to me that we have a stage-managed political circus coming up at Maastricht. It is a distraction from our greater priority of completing the single market which was brilliantly conceived five or six years ago, by the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield. More seriously, it is a tragic diversion from the Bruges vision of preparing to open that market to the liberated countries of Eastern Europe. The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, said that we must deepen the
1190
Community before we widen it. My anxiety is that in the name of deepening it we shall make it more difficult for other less developed economies to join.
The Euro-summitry shows that Britain's overriding aim is damage limitation. The Euro-swells talk of a new dawn, a noble European vision. I do not mind that in the long run. However, the unalluring reality here and now smacks more of murky wheeling and dealing to conjure up a bogus consensus that conceals a fundamental and quite honourable conflict of principles. The familiar Foreign Office strategy is to see how little it must concede to federal folly, how little damage it will risk to long-term British interests and how little appeasement it must offer to the ceaseless importunities of the Euro-zealots. All that, my Lords, is in the cause of keeping at the centre of Europe and on board that ghost train being driven recklessly by people such as Jacques Delors in a direction that few Ministers and not many previous speakers wish to travel.
My conundrum for the Euro-élitists who now head all three parties, is this. How can we give a positive lead to nations hellbent on travelling in the wrong direction? I give two examples. First, the present draft treaty enables our partners to impose on us a social programme that among other mischief restores trade union power, enforces minimum wage and holiday requirements, lays down maximum full-time and part-time hours, days and week-ends, only stopping short—for the time being—at prescribing a uniform European bedtime. Yet free trade, which we uphold, depends on differences in costs and circumstances. Free competition and mobility includes choice between alternative jurisdictions. The single market requires the removal of existing obstacles, not the erection of new ones. Labour supporters such as the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, may like the social charter as a sly way back to the golden age of 1979. But am I guilty of what Sir Geoffrey Howe mocks as a "negative, apprehensive, fearful" approach if I claim that such policies—whatever one thinks of them—should be forever a matter for domestic debate and decision? That is surely the best type of subsidiarity.
Like so much else, all that has less to do with Euro-idealism than with the brazen national interest of the stronger economies such as Germany to burden the weaker members with high labour costs, and the effort of the weaker countries such as Spain and Portugal to burden the stronger with the cost of compensating subsidies.
So it is with monetary union. The Government are right to oppose membership because it is bad not only for us but for Europe. There are technical, economic reasons why a totally fixed exchange rate is inappropriate for a Europe of economies at differing stages of development, with differing structures, differing rates of growth and differing degrees of flexibility that will never reach the blessed state of convergence. Nor is there any guarantee that the EMU under multi-lingual management will be as stable as the old deutschmark. The only certainty is that one currency would mean in the end one finance minister, as Nigel Lawson said, and the noble Lord,

1191
Lord Joseph, repeated today. There would be no retreat to national moneys when things go wrong, as assuredly they would.
The impatience of some partners to join up is based on conflicting or inconsistent aims. For example, in Germany it is to avoid inflation; in France and Italy, it is to avoid deflation; and with Spain and others there is the never-ending prospect of subsidies. Since it is a doomed and costly experiment, why should we sign at Maastricht on condition that we are left out? But we are still left in to pay towards the perpetual subsidies for the worst affected regions. Such doubts held by leading independent, liberal economists throughout Europe are held with the same vigour that I am perhaps displaying. Noble Lords will find them attached to a ringing declaration in the latest paper of the Bruges Group which I strongly commend to your Lordships.
Last Wednesday the Prime Minister concluded his speech on the Community by saying simply;
"The goals were democracy, prosperity and stability in Europe The means were the creation of a single market in goods and services".—[Official Report, Commons, 20/11/91; col. 280.]
I agree 100 per cent. with that formulation. I am going to make a suggestion to the Prime Minister that the next time he makes a speech and wants to ring the changes, he should quote Adam Smith who said 215 years ago:
"Were all nations to follow the liberal system of free exportation and free importation, the different states into which a great continent was divided would so far resemble the different provinces of a great empire".
Here is our immediate priority: to combine the economic integration of free trade with the political decentralisation of self-government. Then we can extend Adam Smith's spontaneous, invisible, natural and evolving empire to an ever-widening single market.
According to the Guardian poll of 14th November a clear majority of all persuasions, including the Liberal Democrats, want nothing more than completion of the market and the benefits of international free trade. It remains only for our party leaders to learn that while the spread of trade brings people together, forcing the pace on political union would only deepen the divisions among us.
6.12 p.m.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross. However, he started his speech by suggesting that the speech of the Prime Minister had not been very clear on his objectives. In contrast to the noble Lord I found the speech to be extremely clear both as regards the objectives and, so far as his negotiating posture would allow, on the means whereby he hoped to achieve them. That also enables me to say, having also heard the speech of the Leader of the Opposition in the other place, how refreshing it was to hear the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, today. The noble Lord was intelligible and clear as to what he thought. Although I do not agree with a great deal of it, his speech made a quite refreshing change. I hope that he will not get into trouble with his own party for what I have said.
1192
I propose to confine my remarks to the single currency proposal. That is welcomed by a number of industrialists, including the CBI, and a number of those in the City. In particular, the City believes that the prompt acceptance of a single currency will increase the chances of the European central bank being sited in London. It should be. I remind noble Lords that the physical possession of the central bank does not have any influence on the manning of it. If the bank should be here, no doubt the governor and many senior officials will be drawn from other nation states as is the case with the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development which is situated in London but manned by others.
Another group of enthusiasts for a single currency tend to be the tourists. Understandably, they find the inconvenience and expense of changing currencies to be something which they hope to avoid. They give some extreme and rather silly examples. It is suggested that if you take a pound and change it into the currencies of the 12 countries you finish back in the UK with 30p. That is ridiculous. Apart from the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Rippon of Hexham of traveller's cheques, the other way which I commend is the far more effective Eurocheques which enable one to tap into the currency of the country wherever one may be.
For those who are enthusiastic for joining the single currency now, particularly some in the City of London and tourists, I ask noble Lords to consider what the consequences would be on much more important issues. A single currency must inevitably mean a single European central bank wherever it is situated. In order to discharge its responsibilities which must include the stability of the currency, the avoidance and control of inflation, that bank must have the power to fix interest rates for the member states which are part of the EMU. That would deprive the Opposition of their weekly questions as to why interest rates have been increased or decreased, or whatever the case may be. That would be a consequence. It would be a question of the European central bank fixing the rates.
In order to discharge those responsibilities, the European central bank must fix the main fiscal policies of the member states.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Before he leaves the question of the bank, will he tell the House to whom that bank will be accountable?
Lord Boardman: My Lords, perhaps I may move on to that. If the noble Lord will wait a moment, I will deal with that because I attach much importance to that point. Another factor that would arise with a central bank is that it would have hold and control of the gold and foreign reserves of all the central banks of the nation states who are members, just as the Bank of England does today in holding the reserves to support sterling. My noble friend Lord Joseph made reference to that in his speech. I believe that these essential parts of the central bank—that is to say, fixing interest rates, fiscal policy and the holding of

1193
reserves, are components which are essential to a European central bank with the responsibility for controlling inflation and achieving stability.
We well know about the relationship between those factors in our own economy; namely, the control of inflation, interest rates and fiscal matters which are issues which we debate in this House from time to time. There is the further point to achieve the essential convergence and to keep it. That is needed in order that the nation states can be members of a single currency. That will mean very large transfers of aid from the richer to the poorer countries. It will be a multiple of the aid which is provided under the present EC structural funds at the present time.
Prosperous economies such as that of the United Kingdom and the businesses in it, will have to provide the resources to build up the economies of poorer nations, such as Greece and others. The result will be a massive and permanent transfer of authority and resources—and to whom? The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, raised the question of who is to be responsible for the appointment of the governor and officials of that central bank. Who will be responsible for hiring and firing them? As I understand it, the draft treaty states that they must not be political appointments and that I understand. If that is so, how are the appointments to be made? I was told by a member of the European Parliament that they will be appointed by agreement between the 12 nation states with the approval of the European Parliament. I await with interest to see how that is to be achieved. We read about the 364 economists in this country, at one time writing on how the European economic policy should he conducted. Imagine multiplying that factor throughout the various nation states.
There are those who quote the Bundesbank as being the ideal example of political independence from the state. I remind those who make that argument of what happened when the basis of the exchange rate between the East German ostmark and the deutschmark had to be resolved. It was not resolved by the politically independent Bundesbank; the decision was not that of Karl Otto Pöhl, the governor of the Bundesbank. The decision was made by Chancellor Kohl and the German Government. It was they who said what the rate should be, with rather serious consequences on the economy of Germany in the short term. So much for the political independence of the Bundesbank.
A single currency within Europe may well evolve. I am not saying that it is unattainable over time but I am saying that that time is not now. We should not forget the larger world outside Europe. We must not believe that Europe contains all our trading relations, political allies and economic enemies. The larger world outside will have its own currencies. We shall still have to contrast and compare ourselves with the dollar and the yen. With a single currency, instead of Wall Street and Tokyo looking to London to make an assessment of pounds sterling, they will have to cast their eyes to that rather more mixed bag which will evolve under the contemplated arrangements.
1194
I believe that the Prime Minister and the Government are taking those points fully into account. I support their refusal to accept a single currency at this stage. I believe that they are right to reserve the right to opt in later if we wish. I shall not develop that argument because it has been discussed earlier and will no doubt be discussed again later.
As regards a referendum, I believe strongly that the issues which we are debating here should be decided by the long established parliamentary democracy of which we are part. In my view a referendum would be inappropriate and would be an erosion of the sovereignty of Parliament which I wish to preserve.
Lord Weidenfield: My Lords, I shall confine myself to the notion of a common foreign policy and majority voting. If I share the Government's reluctance on the question of head counting on vital issues of foreign policy, it is not in spite of but because of a lifelong attachment to the idea of a united Europe, a Europe which sooner or later may embrace all lands between Brest and Brest Litovsk, and one day may stretch even further east.
While ever closer union and continuous consultation in the fields of economic, financial, educational and social policy should be the order of the day, there are still wide gaps, too many differentiated interests in the sphere of the foreign policies of Europe's nations, varying priorities and, hence, still scope for independent initiatives within the wider context of European or western values and standards.
Had M. Delors had his say at the outset of the Gulf crisis, a majority would probably have voted for concessions to Saddam Hussein. He may have been allowed to keep the islands, to retain his army and air force and by now he would have been further along the road to atomic autarchy. Had German unity been put to the vote, M. Delors would have pleaded, as plead he did, to find an independent birth in the Community for the desolate German Democratic Republic. Conversely, it was the bold, almost reflex, reaction of the British Government in confronting Saddam Hussein from the beginning which swayed the other European nations to follow suit with varying speed and vigour. It was the patient and wise statesmanship of Chancellor Kohl and President Gorbachev which found a peaceful formula of opening and, as it were, "greening" the frontiers between the west and east of Europe.
As regards the Yugoslav tragedy, the groping and fumbling for a well-nigh unanimous solution has thwarted important initiatives and has lost us invaluable time as well as human lives. Had Germany and Italy—members of the Community—and Austria (certainly the next in line for membership) been encouraged to follow their first impulse to recognise the sovereignty of Slovenia and Croatia last summer, I submit that the implicit consequences would have deterred the Serbian soldiery and might have saved Vukovar from being razed to the ground and Dubrovnic from being turned into a Venetian ruin.
With the Community expanding in stages to 14, 17, 20 or more than 25 ultimately eligible members, and as many languages, we may have to think realistically and imaginatively about how a future Europe could be

1195
run. We may find unity through diversity and not see consensus turn into sluggish compromise, conforming to a kind of Gresham's Law where the basest currency of mean appeasement or masterly inactivity drives out principles, moral values and cherished ideals.
The process of European unity in the field of harmonising foreign policy must not be artificially hastened. As I said, there is much more to be done to intensify co-operation in many other fields. There is much need for a deeper understanding of how we perceive our neighbours and how they perceive themselves.
If Maastricht, as some have pointed out, is the moment of truth, it is also the moment for plain speaking. Whence derives the feverish drive to settle European institutions so hastily? The Dutch president speaks for one of the smaller nations which, not unnaturally, prefers a system in which it has equal weight with the towering big four or five, as we shall soon include the growing Spanish power. However, the driving force is France—the France of Mitterrand. France seems to be in search of a dominant role in the councils of Europe. It seeks that role through Brussels where the prevailing ethos, the style of leadership of the bureaucracy, is largely influenced by France and reflects the vision of her president. Here is the brilliant, complex, volatile leader whose words, deeds, initiatives and coups de théâtre straddle four centuries of French history; who in his diurnal round echoes the purple eminences of the 17th century and the haughty despot; of the 18th century; the grand visions of the first Napoleon and the buildings of the third Napoleon who, at some moment, joins in spirit the marchers to the Bastille, and at others steps into the shoes of his great gaunt predecessor who more than anyone else moulded the 20th century for France.
All those policies and gestures are neatly knotted together by two twin threads: distrust of America and fear of Germany. To marginalise American influence in the fields of foreign policy and defence and to tie Germany to a central institution in which France has a disproportionate weight are accordingly the two primary aims of France's political endeavour. Is that in the national interests of ourselves or Europe?
It should be Britain's primary aim to have the closest relations with Germany and Italy and to widen the Franco-German axis which admittedly, when functioning fairly, is the greatest achievement of European history in the half century behind us. However, we should widen it into a close-knit three or four power relationship of growing intimacy and intensive partnership.
The Germans are backing the French designs with overt enthusiasm but there must also be misgivings. Germany has an abiding desire to keep America well inside Europe. However, there is also that uncanny doubt which Germany has about her identity. There is the German fear of herself and the wish to allay mistrust and banish the ghosts of the past. To that end the Germans have been ready to overlook some French sorties and sallies. Did not Mitterrand, as the only western statesman, fly to east Berlin and counsel Herr Modrow to reassert the position of the DDR? Did he not fly to Kiev to persuade President
1196
Gorbachev to go slow on German unification or plead in Prague with President Havel to set up a new French inspired cordon sanitaire at Germany's eastern border?
The Germans have proved that they can be relied upon. They have a functioning democracy and a sense of responsibility. Their challenge and opportunity in eastern and south eastern Europe are enormous and they are destined to play a leading part in years to come in the rehabilitation process in that part of the Continent. In my view, Britain should be an active partner and should develop ever closer ties with Europe's central power, not at the expense of others but with a single-minded vigour and conviction.
There are dangerous portents of political radicalism and inter-communal strife all around us, near and far. That is undeniable. However, we can work with the new Germany to build a better Europe. It is worth the risk but it also requires a new trusting state of mind. If anything can rouse some of the dormant demons in German society, it is a blinkered and prejudiced approach. Only if our Monday Club men go on hissing "Hun", our media Cassandras whisper "Fourth Reich", and defeatist manufacturers go on crying "Wolfsberg" is there a remote chance of prophecies fulfilling themselves.
In conclusion, the great variety of traditions and well-tried institutions in Europe need not be an impediment to the unity that we who call ourselves convinced Europeans desire so much. On the contrary, they can be the building blocks not for an unhistorical Europe of cantons; not even for a Federal United States of Europe, but for a United Europe of States which, in the fullness of time, will grow together indissolubly.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, I must first apologise that I shall not be able to stay to the end of the debate, as I have duties elsewhere. However, I have found the contributions from those far more expert than I most interesting and informative. The debate has shown the House at its best.
We are already part of Europe. We signed the Treaty of Rome. Today's arguments are about the pace of change towards a united Europe whatever that may mean, who is to be invited to join, and in which fields we should progress most rapidly.
I count myself as British first but also a European. I stayed with a kind and educative French family when I was in my early teens and would describe myself as a Francophile, although their Europeanism today comes into question when they "return to our moutons" in a most unco-operative way. My brother-in-law is Italian and I belong to a county council that has close connections with the Landkreis of Ludwigsburg in Germany. When one visits Holland or Denmark one feels a deep sense of old and long-standing alliances and friendships.
However, I agree with my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary that Europe is interfering more and more in every nook and cranny of national life. We do not need nannying about planning from Brussels. When I travel in Europe I am pleased to meet

1197
variety; to enjoy the idiosyncrasies and variety of national habits. French saucisson, German wurst and Italian salami are all delicious. But I am still pleased to come back to British "bangers and beans". And we certainly do not need a European sausage.
My impression is that too many initiatives come from civil servants cocooned from ordinary people in bureaucratic palaces of administration in Brussels. Democratic control from elected members and governments, who are much closer to people's feelings and beliefs, must continue to prevent theory from taking over. I was glad to hear the proposals of my noble friend the Leader of the House on that subject today. Subsidiarity must be based on practical possibilities acceptable to people of each country unless international harmonisation is absolutely essential.
As chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission for five years I was grateful for the influence of the Treaty of Rome in this country in securing progress in equal opportunities between men and women. However, as a member of a European advisory committee on the subject, some of the papers we received were far too abstract and theoretical and we did not adopt them.
For too long Europe has been torn apart by succeeding "war war". Now we must pursue the alternative policy of "jaw jaw". At times that can be frustrating and, to the impatient, slow. However, I believe that it is the only way. Rome was not built in a day. In circumstances such as these, impatience leads to hasty and ill-prepared decisions which will create a backlash—literally, more haste less speed. Nevertheless, in a spirit of give and take we must all remember our common heritage—Christianity, love of music, drama and the arts, reliance on science and mathematics, our common humanity and a proper respect for individual freedom. We have much to share for our common good. Patience and perseverance in the search for acceptable common policies must be the name of the game—a step-by-step policy as described earlier by my noble friend the Leader of the House—if we are to succeed in coming closer together.
As a great supporter of the right honourable Margaret Thatcher as Prime Minister, I do not agree with her demand for a referendum. These subjects are far too complex for simple straight votes by ordinary laymen and women, among whom I count myself. We would find it extremely difficult properly to take into account all the factors involved. As a European I fully support the Prime Minister in his rejection of that idea and also in his policy of patient negotiation, but at the same time his strong stance for sovereignty for Britain where necessary. He has a difficult task needing all his undoubted carefully balanced judgment. I wish him well at Maastricht.
6.36 p.m.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs spoke of the opinion polls and their negative attitude towards the European Community and its present intentions. That is a serious matter.
1198
There is a wide difference between the views of the three major political parties and those of the general public.
In 1975 the Prime Minister announced that in the referendum the nation had voted overwhelmingly to remain in the European Community. "And now", he said, "an end has come to 14 years of controversy". We all agreed with Prime Minister Wilson and most of us were relieved, for the controversy was not always edifying. It was fed on one side by Utopian hopes and promises, and on the other by bizarre threats and dire prophecies. It was feared that there were risks to the status of the Queen. There was a fear that we should be turning our backs on 1,000 years of history and we might even be renouncing our language—the language of Chaucer. No longer could we ask our friends what would happen,
"Whan that Aprille with his shoures sote The droghte of Marche hath perced to the rote".
All that would be over if we remained in Europe. And all the barmy proposals made to the Commission by pressure groups in Brussels, or the daft ideas of some junior busybodies working for the Commission would be reported and broadcast as if they were the solid intentions of the Commission. A moment ago it was said that one could not distinguish fact from fiction. We all remember the claim that Bristol Cream Sherry could no longer be sold under that label because it contained no milk fats.
Political fears were also raised. The Community was a rich man's club led by Roman Catholics, all too ready to exploit the innocent and guileless British. Even stronger was the view of some of the far Left, that the Community was a cold war instrument supported by the Americans, designed to keep Europe split into two so that Western capitalism could be free from Communist contamination.
It is true that much of that nonsense disappeared after the referendum. But some of it stayed around. Since the nation reached what was presumably the final decision, 16 years have passed and a new generation are now hearing some of the old warnings against largely imaginary dangers. That is partly responsible for the opinion polls today. Only this weekend a former Cabinet Minister referred to our fellow Europeans, our colleagues in the Community, as "foreigners", and the former Prime Minister thought it useful to remind us that, unlike other countries, Britain is surrounded by water.
It has been said recently more than once that we are to be enticed into an abominable federation and to lose our national distinction for all time in a United States of Europe. So, my Lords, some people—including a lot of Conservatives—are proposing a referendum because they believe that we should reject the Treaty of Maastricht, though what would happen to us and the Community, with which we do over 50 per cent. of our foreign trade, they do not say, but they believe that the result of a referendum would be negative.
How has this grown up? It is partly the result of membership of the Community being used as a political card in the internal politics of the United Kingdom. This has fostered throughout the nation

1199
much suspicion of the Community. This Government have done a lot of good things in Europe, and of course signed the Single Act, that most important European gesture. Nevertheless they have chosen to appear to the electors to be the more sceptical member of the Community, the most aggressive, the most nationalistic. And my own party, until quite recently, has played into Conservative hands by its cold hostility or even total opposition. We have always had in the Labour Party a European wing, to which I have always belonged. But the Labour voices heard most frequently and most vehemently in the European debates in another place have been highly critical of the Community.
The Liberals can be proud of their consistent support, but it has had little effect on their fortunes or on the public attitude to the European question. Now for virtuous but ill-advised reasons, which I did not understand even when the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, was explaining them today, they are proposing a referendum. It is of course true that what is now proposed, a single currency and closer political union, is as great a leap for its members as was the original act of joining the Community. It is a solemn moment in history and the proposals need to be authoritatively explained and deeply discussed. Surely the Government must show more enthusiasm for the general idea and sound a clarion call to the nation, for there is no doubt about the objectives but only about the means of their achievement.
It was a calm, reasoned and rather good speech that the Prime Minister made last week. I thought it was a perfect House of Lords speech rather than a House of Commons speech. But it was designed to cool the party, not to enthuse the nation. He did not explain why he wants to be able to back Maastricht and what its consequences might be. He did not calculate the costs nor estimate the benefits. His party is too frail at this moment for such a vigorous exercise, seeking to deal with an obstinate recession and to hold at bay the discarded mistress of its current economic and social troubles.
This criticism of the coldness of the Prime Minister—or should I say the coolness of the Prime Minister—has been made by my own party, but its own enthusiasm is too recent and too unexpected to move the nation. Indeed, it has not yet had a noticeable effect upon our own prominent sceptics. Alas, too, this debate has been more of a precursor to the general election than to the Maastricht agreement. I am talking not about the debate in this House but about the general debate in the country. It is sad indeed that the problem has to be discussed at this moment in the electoral cycle.
The great historic events in Europe also complicate the issue. Prosperous countries from the European Free Trade Area are ringing at the front door for admission to the Community, and the new democracies in the East are knocking at the back door and pining for the day when they become associate members. The political side of Maastricht is further complicated by the changes in the role of NATO and the need for the Community to have not a defence policy—for that is NATO's job—but a security policy.
1200
We must take care not to underestimate the difficulties of advancing towards a single currency and political unity. We have heard some important speeches on that subject from expert people in this Chamber tonight. The criteria proposed for adequate economic convergence are simple, but they will require a stricter discipline than some countries might be able or politically willing to enforce. But closer union must come if the powerful German nation and the rest of us are to live easily and happily together.
I am most thankful that my party, in the words of one of its senior spokesmen, has come to recognise that the choice for Britain, and France too, is shared sovereignty or no sovereignty, shared influence in Europe or no influence, shared power or no power at all. The danger some people fear of a United States of Europe on the American model with a European all-powerful Washington is a most improbable danger, but the danger of a disintegrated Europe is one to be feared and avoided.
6.47 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick. It is unfortunate that it appears that the party to which he adheres and the party to which I adhere tend to give the impression of using this subject as a political card. There are some other matters that the noble Lord mentioned with which I cannot agree. The main burden of my speech is to support the approach of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister as reported in the Official Report of the other place and as explained by my noble friend the Leader of the House today. I stand by the views expressed by many speakers, including my noble friend Lord Aldington.
If my noble friend Lord Boardman is satisfied that the Government have taken into full account the problems of monetary union, as other noble Lords have also stated, that is good enough for me. And if the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, supported by other noble Lords, is satisfied that the Government have taken into full account the problems of political union, that again is good enough for me.
It is also the burden of this speech to remind Ministers at Maastricht, and the money markets of the world, that under the aegis of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister decisions of government are a true reflection of the composite wisdom of the Cabinet. We in your Lordships' House should consider all differences in a calm, objective fashion, establish a little more confidence and seek to stabilise the currency so that the negotiations get off to a good start unencumbered by what my noble friend Lord Carrington once described as "foghorn diplomacy".
Our destiny lies assuredly with the Economic Community, as it continues to expand by accession or association—in whatever form it may assume, a form as yet not known—so long as in this process of give and take, referred to by my noble friend the Leader of the House, a form of constitutional government under the Queen in Parliament and a substantial measure of residual sovereignty is retained by the state. There are proposals on the table for extending the powers of the Commission and the European Parliament and for

1201
extraneous extensions of qualified majority voting beyond what is already established. If implemented these proposals could reduce the powers and status of the Mother of Parliaments to that of a local authority council chamber. If once our frontiers were on the Rhine, they now march with those of all other member states in the Community, a Community which we have no wish to divide and no claim to rule, a Community in which the states retain their sovereign status and individuals retain their national identities, a Community committed to establishing closer union between the peoples of Europe.
The concept of this closer union among the peoples of Europe is not new. Sir Winston Churchill said at The Hague in 1948 that we need not waste time about who originated the concept of a united Europe. We may yield, he said, our pretensions to King Henry of Navarre and to his minister, Sully, who between 1600 and 1607 laboured to set up a permanent committee of the leading Christian states of Europe. It was called the Grand Design. As Sir Winston truly said, we are all, after this long passage of time, servants of that Grand Design. But the process leading gradually to a union with a federal goal, however worded in the draft treaty, would establish a new federal European order. As the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, rightly said, we are not ready for it, and it is not sufficiently worked out.
We may take note that, as soon as the ink was dry on the signatures of the Six, a debate arose between those who wished to have a federal structure and those who did not. The debate continues today, not having been resolved in favour of federalism either by the Treaty of Rome or by the Single European Act. We may also take note that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, advised that the wording of the draft treaty in this regard is calculated to excite the highest suspicion and that the danger of employing expressions of ultimate objective opens the door to some future positive commitment.
Next, one comes to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. Surely we must take note that he, as a matter of principle, has adopted a fundamental approach which by and large appears so far to have commanded the broad approval of most speakers in this debate. I advert only to three facets of the Motion to which he spoke in another place; first, a constructive approach to economic, monetary and political union which avoids the development of a federal Europe; secondly, preservation of the right of Parliament to decide in the future whether to adopt a single currency; thirdly, the avoidance of intrusive Community measures in social and other areas which are a matter for national decision.
My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has a safe pair of hands. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary is a skilled and tested professional diplomat. These men of calibre can surely be trusted as to whether they make a deal or do not make a deal; and if they make a deal which involves any substantial surrender of sovereignty, to respect the ballot box and the will of Parliament. I agree with my noble friend Lord Rippon that there is much to be said for
1202
ratification of any treaty on a truly free vote in another place. That is far better than a referendum which, as my noble friend Lord Boardman truly said, is erosive of Parliament and, as my noble friend Lady Platt has just said, is far too complicated for most of us to be able to understand. I include myself with her among that body of people. I have to rely on the expertise of noble Lords of the calibre of my noble friend Lord Boardman. I am not sufficiently expert in these matters to be able to know exactly what I should do.
Surely on 9th and 10th December at Maastricht we shall achieve a new spirit of consensus, something to which my noble friend Lord Waddington referred, on the implementation and enforcement of Community measures and on the commitment to defeat Community fraud. Reference is made to our proposals for the Court of Auditors, a matter near and dear to the heart of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. There will be enhanced co-operation against terrorism and all types of international crime. On defence, in an entirely new dimension, WEU will perhaps be accepted as the bridge between NATO and the European Council. No doubt other proposals for alleviating the fluctuating exchange rates which at the moment only appear to be of benefit to currency speculators are on the table for discussion. As I said, I am not competent to deal with such matters but it is a great source of comfort to think that they will be discussed in an objective and constructive manner. Last of all, something has to be done about the accountability of the Commission.
There is much to be achieved in the mutual interests of all member states. For my part, I join with other noble Lords who have expressed good wishes and encouragement to both my right honourable friends on their mission to Maastricht.
7 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I am glad to be taking part in this important debate which was introduced by the measured and thoughtful speeches of the noble Lord the Leader of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and my noble friend Lord Thomson. I believe that they set the tone of what has been a very wide-ranging debate. I am also very glad to be succeeding the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, to whose contributions to our debates I always listen with great care. I agree with him that it is time we decided that our destiny lies within the European Community and in working towards ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, while at the same time retaining our historic national identity.
There is no doubt about the historic importance of the negotiations which are about to take place in Maastricht. As the noble Lord the Leader of the House said in his opening speech, there are a number of people who feel that in dealing with the Community in the past we may have been too slow to react. There are some who feel that had we joined the European Coal and Steel Community, or the European Economic Community, the shape of the Community might have been different. However, what is important is to learn from whatever errors or omissions there have been in the past. I am glad to note the very careful preparations which have been

1203
made for the forthcoming negotiations, for the time which has been allowed for full debate in both Houses of Parliament and for the stimulus of a large degree of public debate.
As a strong supporter of our European destiny, I am heartened every time the Prime Minister says, as he repeated in his speech in another place, that it is in Britain's interests to be at the heart of the European Community. There are massive changes going on throughout Europe. More and more countries are looking to the European Community as an area of political stability and long-run economic growth. There are already five countries which have applied for membership and five more have signified their intention of doing so. What they eventually do will be largely determined by what goes on at Maastricht. If those negotiations are successful and there is general agreement, then these countries will be emboldened to go ahead and we can use the European Community as a basis for establishing democracy and prosperity over a wider and wider area of the whole European continent. A leader in the Financial Times this morning says:
"Unity will open the way to an enlarged Community".
There are of course many aspects to the two treaties which will be negotiated and which are interlinked. As some noble Lords have done, I should like to concentrate on economic and monetary union. The most important aspect of economic and monetary union s the element of convergence which many noble Lords have already mentioned. In his speech in another place when speaking about convergence, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that that was not a new objective and that in fact it had been considered and pressed forward in the early 1970s as one of the major objectives of the European Community. What is remarkable is the degree of convergence which has developed among those countries that were the original signatories of the European monetary system, which was of course introduced during the presidency of the Commission by my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead.
That convergence has meant that there have been very few changes in recent years to the parities within the monetary system. There is little doubt that by pursuing that same route greater convergence could be achieved in the future. I believe that Britain has played a very large part in bringing the concept of convergence to the head of the argument in favour of ultimately moving towards a single currency. There were those who sometimes felt that if we got the single currency first, we would then move towards convergence. However, the view has now been established that we need to work towards convergence and then move into the single currency.
The elements of convergence as laid down in the protocol to the treaty are of great importance because they encapsulate all the objectives of economic policy which ill parties in this country have in mind; for example, low inflation, low budgetary deficits, exchange rate stability, long-term interest rates at reasonable levels and sustained growth. If one carefully examines the various stages by which the single currency is to be reached, it is proposed that, as
1204
a result of sustained efforts to achieve greater convergence, the decision will be taken at about 1997 as to which of the member countries has achieved that level of convergence which would enable it to join the single currency concept.
I should now like to raise the issue taken up by Britain concerning the so-called "opt-in" position. I have a question for the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. Assuming that we achieve our economic objectives which have been clearly set out—that is, low inflation, and so on—and that we reach a level of convergence by 1997 which would enable us to go into the single currency, would we then prima facie do so or not? If, on the other hand, we did not reach that level of convergence then obviously we could not go in. I am not quite sure what the opt-in position is. The process by which the single currency is to be achieved is that it should be applied to those countries which reach the agreed level of convergence on inflation and the other related matters.
The point has been raised as to what would happen if we did not join the single currency: that is, assuming that we were in a position to do so. The fact is that we would then have a currency caught between three very strong currency groupings—namely, the yen, the dollar and the ecu. Within the past few days we have already seen what happened to sterling when it was caught between the weakening dollar on the one hand and the strengthening Deutschmark on the other. We have already suffered from that pincer movement and there is not yet a European single currency. Once the single currency is established and the ecu represents a large number of the countries in the European Community, our position with a currency standing outside but trading worldwide, which it still is, would become very exposed.
There is another important point which has been mentioned by noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Boardman. I refer to the question of transaction charges. We tend to think of those charges as what we as tourists pay when we want to convert our money into Lira and so on. But, in total, transaction charges throughout the Community over the past year amounted to 20 billion ecus; that is, £15 billion. That is what the transaction charges amounted to. If ever there were a non-tariff barrier impeding development of the single market, it seems to me the £15 billion paid yearly to exchange money within the single market is such a barrier, and, therefore, it should be eliminated.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that those figures relate to Europe, and do not extend to some of the other countries with which European countries trade?
Lord Ezra: So far as I am aware they relate to Europe, my Lords.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, back to the banks, I suppose.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, indeed, back to the banks. That is very pleasant for the former friends of the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, or, indeed, for his present friends.

1205
This is a serious problem. Great benefit is to be gained from the single currency proposal. I hope that the Minister will be able to explain why we have made the reservation that we have, as there are already conditions attaching to those who will be eligible to join the single currency when the time comes.
I should like to conclude by repeating that I am pleased that the position taken by the Government at present is much more positive than it was previously. There are still some constraints and limitations, as the Prime Minister made clear in his speech in another place, and which were repeated and strongly supported by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross. There are those constraints and limitations, some of which I am dismayed about. Nonetheless, bearing in mind that the objective is for us to stay at the heart of Europe, and bearing in mind the great skill of our negotiators, I wish them well and every success.
7.12 p.m.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I should like to make a few remarks about the future role of the European Parliament and the powers which I believe it should enjoy after the Maastricht agreement, which we hope will take place. I should declare that it has been my interest and preoccupation to be a Member of that Parliament for nearly 17 years.
The history of the European Parliament's place in this country has been a sad one, because when we first became elected in 1979 that coincided with the election of a Prime Minister who believed that there was no place in the European institutions for a directly elected European Parliament. It was perhaps no coincidence that Members of another place took their cue from her and in many cases formed the opinion that we were a weak Parliament on the one hand, but on the other hand a threat to their existence as the fount of democratic virtue, and the repository of sovereignty which began some 600 years ago.
It emerged that some of those reservations were correct: that we were not an effective Parliament; and we were not an effective democratic guardian. With our wanderings across Europe, our constant waitings at airports and our moving of documents and machinery from capital to capital, it would be difficult if that were not to be the case.
The background built up on the basis of our being in conflict with national parliaments and, in particular, with another place. That was reflected, for instance, in a public opinion poll in the Sunday Times yesterday which claimed that a minority was in favour of extending the powers of the European Parliament; but the question posed, and the one almost always posed on that point, was:
"Are you in favour of transferring powers to the European Parliament from the Westminster Parliament?"
The answer received depends upon the question asked.
I should like to argue that there should be greater powers for the European Parliament, but not at the expense of the British Parliament, or other national
1206
parliaments. I believe that greater powers for Strasbourg would increase the influence of national parliaments.
We must face the fact that the most powerful force within the European institutions is still the Commission. Its members are the professionals in European business. Not only do they run the day-to-day administration of Europe; not only are they the guardians of the Treaty of Rome; not only are they the initiators of all legislation—they have all the skills—the Commission has senior Cabinet Ministers from many countries put in to guide and lead it. It has a vast amount of political weight and it has all the strings in its hands. What happens when a new law is proposed? The draft is of course prepared by the Commission. It is sent to Strasbourg. It is sent to us in the European Parliament to examine, to reject or to amend. We amend it or we reject it; but the Commission then has the right to say yes to our amendments and to our advice or to say no to them. We cannot then insist on our amendments being persevered with in the face of the Commission's refusal.
In what other democratic country, I wonder, is a civil service permitted to overrule the wishes of the democratically elected legislature? More than that, simultaneously with the Commission discussing an amendment that may have been voted by the European Parliament, it is also discussing the same amendment with another group of people—the national civil servants: the men and women from Whitehall; from the Quai d'Orsay; and from the Farnesina; and from other Foreign Offices and departments in the 12 countries. We often say that we believe that we are doing good work and making common-sense amendments, but how do we know that that same matter is not being discussed in secret by officials, with not one person among them being elected? At the end of the day what we recommend and decide may be voted down. It is not merely voted down, it is slapped down by the Commission. There will be nothing that we can do about it.
During that time national parliaments have little to contribute. I say that with great respect to the work done by the House of Lords European Communities Committee, which scrutinises legislation. With the best will in the world, it is difficult for your Lordships to influence the Council of Ministers when we have contact with only one Minister out of 12, and when the contact with the Commission—the people doing the day-to-day work—is virtually zero. There is no formal line between your Lordships' House and the Commission; nor is there a link between Members of another place and the Commission.
In practice of course Members of another place are often busier than we are. They do not have time to study the detail of the proposals as carefully as do the members of the committee chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Serota. They are presented with a take-it-or-leave-it decision, or semi-decision, about which they often complain but reluctantly accept.
Members of the European Parliament would do well to be allowed to work more closely, if necessary on a formal basis, with Members of your Lordships'

1207
House and Members of another place. They will do so in order to provide proper democratic scrutiny of proposed legislation emanating from the Commission in Brussels and to make sure that the democratic deficit—so-called—ceases to exist. I believe that this idea should be put by my noble friend the Prime Minister close to the top of his agenda. It should be advocated by our senior Ministers at the Maastricht conference. The idea of greater powers for Strasbourg should be put together with greater powers for Westminster, as something to be proclaimed rather than as a concession to the foreigners, which the idea of greater powers has been in the past.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, may I intervene to ask a question? What is there at the moment to stop the House of Commons and the House of Lords meeting regularly to discuss all the items, without them having to be bothered with further discussions at Maastricht? That is the situation that exists, if we want it.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. As a former Member of the European Parliament, he has great expertise in this matter. However, the fact is that, particularly in another place, there does not seem to be the time to tackle these questions when any decision reached by such a group could not be implemented by contact with the Commission or with the Council of Ministers. The link, the nexus, is just not there. That is where we Members of the European Parliament could help members of national parliaments. In other words, I am in favour of a Strasbourg-Westminster axis and against a Whitehall-Brussels or Whitehall-Berlaimont axis. That is how I believe the matter should be regarded.
I very much hope that my noble friend the Prime Minister will take note of some of these ideas. As for the legislative side, I believe it is less important. At this stage I do not foresee much greater powers being given to the European Parliament vis-à-vis the Council of Ministers. I wish to do away with that bogyman. I believe that there should be strong powers for the Council of Ministers but not that the powers of the European Parliament should be circumscribed at every point by a non-elected body of commissioners and a large number of "Brussels bureaucrats". We should be allowed to do our job for which we were democratically elected, just as the Ministers do the job for which they were elected. I hope that this is what the Prime Minister will urge. I believe he would still have time between now and the meeting to suggest that if we are really to do our job properly and if we really are to control the men and women in the Berlaimont, who—as his right honourable friend put it—poke their noses into the nooks and crannies of our British way of life, we shall do it much more effectively if we are able to establish our base in the same city as the Commission is sited at present. It will be much easier and mere sensible if that can be done and I hope that the Prime Minister will take the point on board.
I wish to echo what other noble Lords have said in truly wishing my right honourable friend well in the Herculean task that he faces over the next few days.
1208
He will be going to Maastricht with the overwhelming support of your Lordships and Members of another place. For heaven's sake, we wish him well.
7.24 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I offer no apology for starting with history, as did the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld. We are all both trapped by our history and wish to overcome it at the same time. After attending the Paris peace conference in 1919, Keynes wrote:
"England still stands outside Europe … Europe is apart and England is not of her flesh and body. But Europe is solid with herself".
Our agonised heart-searching in the run up to Maastricht shows how much of that judgment is still true. Every move forward to greater political unity is a crisis in our politics. That is certainly not the case for other members of the Community. For Europe has conceived a project which history has taught us to fear. It is not the single market or even the single currency—I shall come to the single currency later—but the attempt to unite Western and Central Europe into a single state.
There have been many attempts in the past to do this by force and we have resisted them. At present, there is an attempt to do it by agreement and we resist that. It is not just that we do not wish to be part of it, but that we do not really want it to happen at all. The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, believes that had we not joined the Common Market the six would already have formed a political union. I think that we went in partly to prevent that from happening.
Many would argue that this fear of European political unity is an out of date historical reflex, that Europe has a federal destiny and we are inescapably part of it. I do not despise reflexes—they often come in quite handy—but I am not sure that people who say this are right on either count. Federalism is only one of the institutional forms which European unity can take, and not necessarily the most attractive or relevant one. France and Germany are also trying to overcome their history and may learn by experience that the world today is very different from the world of the 1940s and the 1950s when the European project was conceived. Nor am I convinced that the best way for us to maximise our talents, our energies and our interests is to box ourselves into a new European state.
The Prime Minister talks about us being at the heart of Europe. The fact is that we have been at the centre of the world but rarely at the heart of Europe. Our location precludes us from that. It is still so today and I doubt that it will ever be different. Although we are much reduced, our instinct is still to seek our fortune overseas, not on the continent. All that will change; it is already changing. But we cannot achieve in five minutes that sense of a common fate which it took two world wars—not of our making—to bring about in Europe.
We have been slow to grasp the persistence of the European drive to political unity. The former Prime Minister sometimes gives the impression that, like one of the architects of Ceausescu's palace in Bucharest, she woke up every morning to find the horror of another unexpected excrescence added to that grisly

1209
structure. But there has really been no excuse for surprise. The post-war constitutions of most of the original six contain provisions for the transfer of sovereign powers to supranational bodies. So the federalist thrust was there from the start. It was deflected for a time by de Gaulle and his successors, but the competition between the four main Community institutions—theCouncil, the Commission, the Court and the European Parliament—now gives it an internal dynamic which may well prove irresistible.
How should we play the hand which history has dealt us? I am as much in favour as the next person of trying to get the best of all worlds and I am not immune to European idealism. It would be extraordinary folly to cut ourselves off from the benefits of the single market and political co-operation in order to hoard a shrinking sovereignty. At the same time we must recognise that we are not nearly as ready to accept a European destiny as many, perhaps most, of the present members of the Community. This suggests to me a fourfold strategy for Maastricht and beyond. Incidentally, I have to agree with the noble Lord the Leader of the House that no strategy is needed, that we must take issues as they come. This leaves the initiative in European affairs to those who do have a strategy. As I have suggested, there are many of them.
First, we should do everything in our power to slow down the pace of the advance towards federalism. That means essentially trying to limit the competence of the Community as far as possible to the economic and monetary matters defined in the Treaty of Rome and the subsequent Single European Act.
Secondly, I agree completely with the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, that within that area of competence we should fight unremittingly to get the principle of subsidiarity properly defined and taken seriously. Everyone now pays lip service to it, but the Commission often issues its directives as though it had never heard of it.
As Samuel Brittan has argued eloquently and frequently in the Financial Times, the enemy here is not federalism but centralisation—the urge of Brussels to interfere, under cover of health and safety, harmonisation, level playing fields and other such issues, in matters which are not its concern. We should oppose the extension of qualified majority voting to the matters contained in the social charter and we should always, with other directives issued under the qualified majority procedure, ask, "Is this required by the principle of subsidiarity?"
Incidentally, I find it difficult to understand remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, earlier in the debate. He seemed to be arguing that subsidiarity is all very well if the Government do what he wants, but if that is not the case then Brussels should do it. I would point out to the noble Lord that the issue is not one of what one does, but of where the responsibility for doing it lies. I agreed very much with the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, when he said that healthy competition between different social systems is what is good, not a grey uniformity.
1210
Thirdly, we should do all we can to make a reality of European co-operation in defence and foreign policy. I feel that what we have lacked in the past is not a federal vocation but a European vocation, as de Gaulle, no federalist himself, never tired of pointing out. It is our uncritical Atlanticism which more than anything else has detached us from France in the past. Had we taken ideas of defence and foreign policy co-operation with the French more seriously in the 1980s we would never have been so isolated as we are today on the issue of majority voting in foreign policy. That is a classic example of how to play a strong hand badly.
Fourthly, we should press hard for early widening of the Community to include Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. That is not to stop so-called deepening but because those countries urgently need the political and economic support for freedom and democracy which membership of the Community alone can give them. However, in putting that case for widening we will also expose the hollowness of some of the arguments for centralisation.
I wish to say a few words about the single currency. This, like the single market, has to do with economic welfare. Our judgment should turn not on the abstract ground of sovereignty but on whether the arrangements proposed are more or less likely to promote the well-being of our people. By joining the Common Market we renounced the right to put up our own tariffs. By joining a monetary union we renounce the right to devalue, to inflate the currency or to run budget deficits at will. The serious arguments against the surrender of any of these instruments of national economic management take a Keynesian form. It is said that the capitalist economy is inherently unstable and suffers from lack of confidence, and that national governments must retain the power to protect their people from slumps. I appreciate the force of that argument although it comes, rather oddly, from Mrs. Thatcher. I should have preferred a rather looser fiscal rule.
However, a perfectly good Keynesian argument can be put on the other side. Instability is largely due to uncertainty. A major cause of uncertainty since the 1970s has been the erratic way national governments have managed their economies. So rules designed to guarantee low inflation, exchange rate stability and prudent fiscal policy will tend in themselves to make economies more stable and allow for a higher level of activity by their effect in reducing the long-term interest rate.
That is a prize which has eluded us for over 20 years. Time will tell whether the rules and institutions outlined in the draft treaty on economic and monetary union will work out as intended, but the risk is surely worth taking if the convergence conditions are met. Here I find some of the arguments that have been put forward in this debate a little confusing. The noble Lord, Lord Joseph, argued that economic and monetary union would lead ineluctably to central government; that a central bank would lead ineluctably to a central government. I do not see the logical connection there. Article 107 of the draft treaty states clearly:

1211
"When exercising the powers and carrying out the tasks and duties conferred upon them by this Treaty … neither the ECB, nor a national central hank, nor any member of their decision-making bodies shall seek or take instructions from Community institutions or bodies, from any government of a Member State or from any other body".
Does the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, believe this will not happen, or what? Where is the connection between the idea of a central bank and the inevitability of a central government? To me the independence of the central bank from political control is the most attractive thing about it. In monetary management I prefer a democratic deficit to a democratic surplus.
The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, says we need an opt-out clause because our economy may be too weak when the time comes. But that surely is a matter of the convergence conditions. If they are properly specified, no opt-out clause is necessary. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, also asked that question. I shall be interested to hear the reply to it. If the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, believes that the economies of Europe will never converge enough to make a single currency possible, why is he so worried about us committing ourselves to it? Those are all questions that require answers. Therefore, I take a relaxed view about progress towards a single currency. We have five years to test the hypothesis that this is the best way forward and I see nothing wrong in committing ourselves to the experiment.
The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, has rightly pointed out that any British Government will have a difficult time ahead. We have a small margin for mistakes. However, if our diplomacy is skilful and resolute we have a good chance of obtaining the agreements we want. I have no doubt that in time our European, though not necessarily our federalist, vocation will grow. For those reasons I am in favour of the Government's negotiating stance for Maastricht.
7.37 p.m.
The Earl of Bessborough: My Lords, I should have liked to make a separate speech about subsidiarity as it is a subject that interests me greatly. I should also have liked to make a separate speech on convergence, but I shall not do so. The noble Lord who has just spoken made some extremely interesting comments on those two subjects. I merely wish to ask: what is Europe? That is a question which a well known Italian friend of mine, Giovanni Agnelli, asks in a recent article entitled Uniting Europe through Enterprise. He points out that 2,500 years ago Herodotus offered an answer to the question. He said that Europe is one of the three parts into which the world is divided. Understandably, his view of geography was somewhat limited.
History does not provide much help either. There never has been a state or political entity which could formally be called Europe. Even the European Community does not provide an answer to the Herodotus question. Too many important elements are missing. One cannot ignore the EFTA countries and the emerging democracies of Eastern Europe. Incidentally, I am glad that the European Community and EFTA are reported to be reaching agreement on
1212
creating a European economic area as a step towards full membership of the Community for the seven EFTA countries.
In that connection I was particularly happy to preside recently at a luncheon in honour of the Austrian Vice-Chancellor, Erhard Busek, having also recently had talks with the Austrian ambassador in Washington on the subject of the EC and EFTA, of which Austria is a member. I hope that such a European economic area comes into being. Austria and the other EFTA countries seem keen that it should.
Faced with a world order which is moving towards global dimensions, divided into large continental regions, Europe has to be united. I believe that that is an absolute necessity for our political and historical survival. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and my noble friend the Leader of the House have said, that does not mean rushing blindly to sign any agreement. Nor does it mean renouncing the different cultures and traditions which make up Europe's rich and varied heritage. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said at Blackpool, our aim should be for closer union between states, not a so-called federal merging of states. I wish that we could forget that "F" word: the "U" word (union) makes much more sense. We now have a chance to build on that, to recreate more of a European family, to construct a safe and prosperous home for European generations yet to come. To quote again what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said, it is a chance we must not miss.
As Europeans, we are, I believe, on the threshold of historic decisions. I regret having to say this, but to adopt as negative a line as my right honourable friends Mr. Tebbit and Mr. Ridley would be a disaster. I do not believe that even my right honourable friend the former Prime Minister would altogether go along with them, even if she did take on Sir Alan Walters as an adviser. However, I am glad to learn that the professor now seems to be accepting the inevitable.
I am also glad that my right honourable friend Mrs. Thatcher did not vote against the Government last week. Her predecessor, my right honourable friend Mr. Heath, is the staunchest European I know. I agree with his whole stance in regard to Europe. What would we be without the Romans and Normans and many other continental invaders and refugees?
From what I have said so far, your Lordships will recognise that I too am a Europhile. That is not merely because I am half French, with an American wife whose country unites so many of those of European stock, nor because my son-in-law, who is a distinguished art expert, is Greek and my niece is married to a notable Italian banker, to say nothing of having Irish, Welsh and Canadian connections and friends in every member state of the Community. I say what I have said because I believe that 2,500 years ago Herodotus was more or less right. I hope that he may prove to be so in the future and that Europe will be the second, third, or perhaps the first great power in the world.
Finally, I recognise that there are considerable problems to be resolved in regard to political union

1213
and defence. However, having reflected in some detail on monetary union I can think of no reason why we should not unite with other member states in the stabilisation of currencies and aim ultimately for a single currency. That need not involve dropping the term "pound sterling" even if we also recognise the ecu—as we already do for certain transactions.
I agree with what my noble friends Lord Aldington and Lord Rippon said on that subject. Both made excellent speeches. As I have said before in your Lordships' House, I believe that a single European currency will help to keep down inflation and reduce interest rates whatever the slide of sterling vis-à-vis the deutschmark may be today—and I gather that this afternoon sterling has rallied. I feel sure that the Bank of England will be able to deploy its 44 billion dollars of foreign reserves to stave off any fresh assault on the pound and avoid the need for the Government to raise interest rates to defend sterling.
Surely my right honourable friend Mrs. Thatcher, whom we all respect as having been a great Prime Minister, having agreed to join the exchange rate mechanism and signed the Single European Act, must have known that those were steps on the way to accepting monetary union.
I hope therefore that we shall be able to come to agreement with our 11 friends at Maastricht and not, at least at this stage, have to organise a referendum. Britain is after all itself a parliamentary democracy. As the first British vice-president of the European Parliament, and having played an active part in the 1975 referendum, I hope that the European Parliament, which is democratically elected, may have some of its powers increased. I was glad to hear what my noble friend the Leader of the House said on the subject. He went a long way towards what I consider to be the right type of solution for the European Parliament. I agreed very much with what my noble friend Lord Bethell said. I had the honour to propose him as an MEP in 1973. I have never forgotten it, and he has been a very good Member of that Parliament.
I say to the Government: good luck at Maastricht!
7.48 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs, asked why the British people are rather more sceptical and not as enthusiastic about European union as people in other member states. Did she not say that? Perhaps she will enlighten us.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I did not ask why. I said that it was a fact and then gave the reasons.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I thought that she was asking a rhetorical question but she sees it as a fact. I see it as a fact that the British people are not so much in favour of so-called integration and economic union as our continental partners and that is because, first, our institutions are different. Secondly, the ways in which people relate to those institutions and in which people in this country relate to their politicians are different. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, the British people were deceived
1214
and misled when we first entered the Common Market in 1972. We were not told that we were entering a form of economic union. We were told that we were entering a Common Market. During the referendum campaign, we were specifically told that economic and monetary union had been negotiated out of the treaty and that it no longer existed as a policy or as a possibility. As they were deceived at that time, the British people are therefore not as enthusiastic about further integration and unity as my noble friend would like them to be.
Maastricht is now revealing the truth; namely, that this country has been led unwittingly into a position which threatens its future as a self-governing nation. Thus, in 19 short years, we have come a long way towards abandoning the institutions built up over hundreds of years to give the British people freedom, democracy and self-government. Apparently, our Government now contemplate signing a treaty that will sooner or later give away British control over economic and monetary policy and perhaps start down the road of ceding power over foreign and defence policy. That will effectively be the end of a self-governing Britain. Judging from our experience so far, our people will instead be governed by a domineering, centralising, soulless, federal super-state within which ordinary people will have little say and over which they will have no influence.
People like myself and my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington, who from the beginning have recognised the real intentions of the Euro-federalist fanatics to create a Western-European super-state, have been insulted, belittled, told that we were misleading the people when we warned of the federalism in store for Britain and have been called Little Englanders and the rest. However, we were right all along and those who did not dare to reveal their true ambitions before are now emboldened to do so.
Sir Geoffrey Howe was at it again last week. He described so-called Euro-sceptics as yesterday's men. As always, like all Euro-fanatics, he stood the truth on its head. Yesterday's men are the empire-builders and centralists whose world has collapsed in chaos, recrimination and bloodshed. It is those who see the way forward to peace and stability through determined but willing co-operation between sovereign, self-governing states who are today's men and tomorrow's men, not those who wish to rebuild in Western Europe the centralist monster that has so ignominiously collapsed in Eastern Europe.
During his resignation speech, Sir Geoffrey Howe said that sovereignty is not like virginity which you either have or do not have. He believes that sovereignty can be shared. That is another misleading concept. For "sovereignty", substitute "self-government". Now you see that it is like virginity: you either have it or you do not have it. If you allow your decisions to be made by a group of other people or nations voting by a majority, you have not pooled self-government; you have lost it. That is the truth of the matter.
We are told, and I should like to believe it, that the Government have no intention of accepting the present proposals for political union. However, they

1215
appear quite ready to sign an agreement on economic and monetary union which would remove from the British Government and Parliament, and therefore the people, a huge tranche of self-government. They say that they will sign the treaty, but will not be bound by it for the present. However, inevitably, once in place, as we have seen time and time again, the inexorable process of economic and monetary union will move on until it envelops all the parties to the treaty within its stifling mantle. Thus, monetary policy will be exercised by a central European bank which will have snaffled all Britain's external reserves. The British Chancellor will be told how large his budget deficit may be or whether he shall have a deficit at all. Every aspect of economic and financial policy will be under the scrutiny and control of Brussels and all countries will have to conform to its diktat.
It is said that the object before we attain union must be convergence but, frankly, for "convergence" we could read a form of economic fascism in which all countries have to conform, whether they can or not and regardless of their different backgrounds, to the policy of the strongest state, or else.
I understand why such a system might appeal to corporatists like Mr. Heath, but I cannot understand why the Labour Party would wish to be put under such savage restraints, bearing in mind the policies that it wishes to implement. The party's change of mind appears to stem from the Single European Act which was ruthlessly imposed on Parliament and the people by Mrs. Thatcher. Labour opposed that Act because it believed that it eroded Britain's ability to govern itself. It now says, "We have gone so far; we might as well go the whole hog and hand the whole lot over to Brussels". That is not good thinking. It is like a doctor who, having given a patient some medicine which half kills him, decides to carry on prescribing the same medicine until the patient is dead. That is quite wrong. Furthermore, the Labour Party should beware lest it is accused of wishing to gain office merely to give away to others the power bestowed on it by the people, should it win the election.
The issue transcends party politics. It has always been country before party and it will remain that way. I have never been prepared to be whipped on this subject in the past and I shall certainly not allow myself to be whipped in the future.
That brings me to my final point; namely, the question of a referendum. Mrs. Thatcher has attracted a great deal of criticism, much of it, quite frankly, deserved. However, I find it amazing that the Conservative Party, particularly some of its senior members, should seek to stifle what she says and to tell her that she should not have free speech. I should have thought that that was wrong. It is her right and duty to speak on the subject as she believes. That is the duty of all of us.
The case for a referendum in the present circumstances is quite unanswerable. I do not know at what stage it would take place. I agree with many people who have asked at what stage we should have a referendum. We should have a referendum at the stage where it is quite clear that our economic, monetary and perhaps other policies will be controlled
1216
by people other than the British Government and the British Parliament. If all the parties are agreed on a single policy, there is only one way in which the British people can have a voice in resolving what in fact would be a unified parliamentary policy; namely, by referendum.
I see no reason why people should be afraid of such a referendum. I sincerely hope that all those in senior positions in all the parties will consider and reconsider the matter and that they will agree that, unless the people are given the opportunity to declare themselves, they will again be dragged reluctantly into the new arrangements by what they will consider to be a conspiracy. That would be damning for Parliament, bad for Government and bad for democracy.
Let me say a final word to noble Lords and to the British people. It is not far-fetched to say that we are in danger of losing self-government. I warn that once a people loses self-government, it is a hell of a job to get it back. Therefore, before we lose it, let us make sure that the people give their consent. Better still, let us not agree to lose it at all but keep it for ourselves, for it has protected us over many hundreds of years.
8.1 p.m.
Lord Elibank: My Lords, to my mild surprise I find myself in the minority of speakers advocating a pro-European policy, almost to the point of recklessness. As such I shall inevitably incur the wrath of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon.
I have been mildly surprised at the very cautious—I might almost say unenthusiastic—approach of a number of noble Lords to this great new development which is opening up in front of us. I believe that the great majority of your Lordships feel that the EC is inherently a dangerous institution, that it ought to be approached with great care and that we should keep as far away from it as we decently can at all points. I believe that that is a misconception. I believe that our future lies in Europe. I hope that the Government will approach in a positive frame of mind the various negotiations, treaties and institutions which are to be discussed, seeking to join them where possible and not to approach them with the objective, which I secretly suspect they have in some respects, of delaying for as long as they decently can.
Some aspects of the Government's policy lack clarity. I listened carefully to the speech of my noble friend the Leader of the House. I now understand better the Government's negotiating position at Maastricht, though I admit that I would not wish to be cross-examined on it. I feel that there may be some confusion between a negotiating position and an objective. I heard the Leader of the House use the word "objective". What he meant, I believe, was that we must adopt a pragmatic approach. Indeed, "pragmatic" was a word which he used from time to time.
The problem with the pragmatic approach, much beloved of the British people, is that it is no clarion call. If we wish to have the British people behind us on this and subsequent negotiations, some kind of resounding call will have to be made to them at some

1217
time. That cannot be done by talking vaguely of convergence toward a common objective or a united Europe.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, perhaps I may ask my noble friend a question. He called for clarity and suggested that it was not in my noble friend's speech. Mr. Jacques Delors has been very clear. Does my noble friend think that that is the kind of thing that we ought to accept or that we ought to be pragmatic about?
Lord Elibank: My Lords, I certainly do not accept everything that Mr. Delors has said; nor do I accept the timetable that he has proposed. He has other motivation for the route that he follows. However, he is clearly on the federalist course. However objectionable that word may be, I believe that if we are looking for a convergence in Europe—or something like it—that is what will come in time. The idea of a policy of convergence sets no timetable. It may look 10 years or 100 years ahead. It is very vague. Personally, I should prefer to see an objective of convergence at approximately the same speed as the other members of the Community. That is where we are inclined to drag our feet. In our negotiations with the EC we always seem to see merit in delay, hanging on and waiting to see what might happen. That way we shall be late again.
One aspect that causes the Government a considerable amount of trouble is sniping from the sidelines. I have great sympathy with them. Members of the party, often senior members, ridicule or contradict the Government's efforts forward. I exhort the Government to take a firm and determined line on this issue and disregard such sniping; otherwise, when they go to the negotiating table at Maastricht the impression will be created that they are looking over their shoulders at their enemies or antagonists at home. That will weaken their approach to their negotiating partners in Europe; it will also weaken their chance of convincing the British people that what they are doing is right and best for the nation.
Referendums and whether or not they are desirable have also been mentioned. The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, said that he had instigated two referendums, one of which ended up as he wished while the other did not. I do not understand how the Government can handle a situation in which they have a positive policy which they recommend to the electorate and start to carry through but then have a referendum which might well go against the policy that they advocate. Can they then backtrack or do they hedge? What do they do? That would seem an intolerable situation but one which could possibly arise in the present circumstance. The Government might well have a majority for their policies in both Houses when they return from Maastricht; however, a referendum could show a majority of the British electorate against those policies. The Government would then be in an intolerable position. I think that they do very well to reject referendums at any stage.
My last point touches on the issue of sovereignty. It is a very important matter and the motivation behind
1218
much of the caution exemplified by many of the speeches tonight. Fear of the loss of sovereignty is the motivation for proceeding with the utmost caution, in many cases as slowly as possible.
Sovereignty, as a number of noble Lords have said, is not an absolute concept. If one considers the last time that we could properly say that we were a sovereign nation I suggest that it was the second half of the last century at the height of the Victorian age. We were probably then the number one power in the world and what we wanted to do with our economy, foreign policy and defence we could do without consultation with others. Since that time our power and sovereignty have diminished. With the occasional upward blip, it has been a steady downward path from the middle of the 19th century until today.
There are various reasons for that. Some are arguable. However, most of us would say that a prominent element in that loss of sovereignty has been our willingness to over-pay ourselves for the poor levels of productivity that we have achieved in relation to our competitors. At present, our economy is very much at the mercy of the Japanese, the Americans and the Germans. That is the realistic situation today. It will not change. If we isolate ourselves in Europe and refuse to join, or join belatedly, a number of the institutions we have discussed today, that loss of sovereignty and power can only accelerate. Our only hope is to get into a larger power complex such as Europe and to wield our influence from within.
Our economic record over the past 100 years has been so poor that I cannot concede that a union within Europe will cause it any further deterioration. Of course there is an element of risk when we throw the dice. But it seems to me that we have a far better chance of winning than of losing. Fundamentally, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, I believe that the force of history compels us to join Europe. It is inevitable. The only choice that we have is how long we delay in joining any particular institution.
It has been said a number of times that in those circumstances it is better to get in early and to set the rules of the club rather than to hang back and have them set for us in a manner that we might find unattractive.
8.12 p.m.
Lord Varley: My Lords, at this point in the debate after so many fine speeches I wonder what fresh new material I can give. I am tempted to say, "Ditto to the speeches that have gone before". If I were to forgo my right to speak, I would say, "Ditto to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rippon of Hexham", because I agreed with so much that he said. However, I do not intend to forgo my chance to put in my two pennyworth.
I was very pleased when my noble friend Lord Cledwyn put the case for the official Opposition so forcefully and cogently when he spoke today. I was delighted that he reinforced the position taken by the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition in another place, and colleagues such as the Shadow Foreign Secretary and the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer who have taken courageous lines. I hope that when he goes

1219
to Maastricht the Prime Minister will realise that he is very fortunate in having prominent members of the Opposition in this House and in another place who want to see a successful outcome to the negotiations.
In the 1960s I believed that Britain could thrive and prosper outside the Community. I even thought that, but only just, at the time of the referendum in 1975. However, I considered that we could thrive and prosper, perhaps preserve and build on our trade with the Commonwealth, and forge even closer links with the United States. I am sorry to say that that route to increasing prosperity and to building a first class economy proved illusory and mistaken. We are now no more than a medium-sized European power slipping down the world's manufacturing industrial league. Our industrial base has shrunk and our international competitiveness is constantly under threat.
Our great abundance of national resources is being squandered, or not used to good effect. My enthusiasm now for the Community stems largely from our appalling decline in industrial influence in the world. For example, since 1979 our manufacturing capacity has increased by only a tiny amount—2 per cent. Consumer spending has increased by about 30 per cent., hence the huge balance of payments deficit, and the fact that we have not used the tremendous resources from the North Sea.
It grieves me to see Ministers sometimes almost going down on their bended knee to plead with the Japanese to invest in this country. I do not wish to give the wrong impression; such inward investment is extremely welcome. However, the fact that we are able to do better in vehicle building today in Britain has more to do with Nissan, Honda and Toyota than what remains of our indigenous car industry. We once were proud to claim support for ICL as a wholly owned British computer company. Now that great hope is wholly owned by a Japanese company.
Over the past 25 years, we have sought to control our rising unit labour costs either by a statutory or a voluntary incomes policy with all the anguish that that has brought. More latterly we have sought to do so by reducing trade union influence, by restrictive legislation or high unemployment. Our attempt to remain internationally competitive was at the expense of devaluing our currency. The only time in the past decade when sterling currency appreciated was when the world oil prices rose either due to the OPEC cartel, when that body had power, or in a Middle East conflagration. Its appreciation was because of our self sufficiency in energy. That is diminishing all the time.
I do not know anyone who wishes to go back to the days of formal incomes policies or trade union power broking and the scope now for anti-trade union legislation hardly exists without violating basic human rights. It will not be long before our indigenous oil and gas start to diminish. Whatever cushion we attain from those fuels at present will decline. Our future is therefore inextricably linked to the European Community. Every examination of the facts points inescapably to our need to play a leading role in its development.
1220
I rejoiced when we joined the exchange rate mechanism because it imposes a discipline on us that we have not had the courage to apply to ourselves over any reasonable length of time. I leave aside whether we joined at the right rate. I assumed that the then Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, who agreed to it, and her Chancellor, the present Prime Minister, knew what they were doing. Perhaps after the recent outbursts from Mrs. Thatcher it was foolish of me to make that assumption. But I assumed if they said it was right that it was right at the time.
The present difficulties that sterling is experiencing in the exchange rate mechanism is as much to do with the Government's prevarication about the line to take at Maastricht and the disarray in the Conservative Party than any threat of a rise in German interest rates. Therefore the Government, headed by Mrs. Thatcher, having committed us to a Single European Act and the exchange rate mechanism now have a duty to play a leading part in forging even closer links with our Community partners.
It is naive to believe that we can stop the further development of the Community. If the Prime Minister and his senior colleagues find that they cannot sign the treaties at Maastricht, it will lead to their humiliation and it will be disastrous for the country.
I can understand why the Motion before this unelected House is to "take note" but on such an important issue I was amazed by the Government's pathetic Motion in another place last week. I believe that Mr. Tebbit described it as "Alice in Wonderland". You could have taken any three pages from that book, put them on the Order Paper and got everybody through the Lobbies on that basis.
It would have been far better if our Government had followed the example and courage of the Labour Opposition and set down a Motion on the Order Paper which gave a clear lead. Then at least those in a minority who genuinely and conscientiously did not agree could have registered their opposition. For example, those who take the line of my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon could have gone through the Lobbies or abstained as many of my former colleagues did in the House of Commons.
However, my biggest complaint about the Government and some of the Ministers on this issue—I do not necessarily say that that applies to the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, the Leader of the House when he spoke this afternoon—is that they are not making out a logical case for European integration or participating constructively. They seem only to react to what our partners propose and then appear to give the impression that they want to slow down what I believe to be an inevitable process. Of course many aspects of Community power is infuriatingly bizarre and trivial. But as the Government approach the negotiations, we are not talking about whether Cornish pasties can be made in Worcester, but the whole pattern of our trade and industrial power perhaps for the next 30 years. Over 50 per cent. of our exports and 52 per cent. of our imports are with countries in the EC. By the end of this decade the Community of 12 may be 20. To make

1221
sure that we gain our full share in an expanding and prosperous Community, we need currency stability and eventually a common currency link.
If our leaders make a hash of the negotiations at Maastricht, we can probably rule out the City of London as Europe's leading financial centre, and the £4,000 million or so that it earns a year will eventually go to Frankfurt or Paris. Therefore, I urge the Prime Minister and his colleagues not to allow themselves to be painted into a corner by Mrs. Thatcher and Mr. Tebbit who try to give the impression that they are saving us from awful foreigners. I believe that it was Samuel Johnson who said,
"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel".
Neither Mrs. Thatcher nor Mr. Tebbit are scoundrels, but they are in the twilight of their House of Commons' careers. I would not be surprised to see them here before too long and as impotent as some of us are. That may be. I believe that the Prime Minister wants to reach an agreement at Maastricht. He should not be looking nervously over his shoulder at a minority in the House of Commons even as eminent as that minority is. If he has the courage to follow his own instincts, he will be doing a great service to the British people. I hope that he reaches agreement, and I wish him well.
8.23 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, the number and standard of the speeches that have been heard in your Lordships' House this afternoon are surely full evidence of the great importance of the subject which we are debating tonight. The noble Lord, Lord Varley, will understand that I do not entirely agree with all the comments he made about the economy of this country, though I agree with some of what he said.
We are discussing in this draft treaty a document which is presumably to be only an interim document. With countries knocking at the door to enter the Community over the next five to 10 years presumably it will be necessary to renegotiate a further document dealing with institutions, the economic situation and financial arrangements which will enable EFTA and eventually the other new democracies in Eastern Europe to join in a wider Community.
We have to look at the draft treaty as an interim document which gives an orientation for future development within the EC. Further, we cannot see the EC as isolated. Therefore, we cannot afford to let it fail. EFTA and the new democracies, and the extraordinary and dramatic instability both in the economy and the political situation in what I believe is now the USS, formerly the USSR, are surely reasons why we must come to satisfactory conclusions at Maastricht. We need to answer the requests of these countries and their aspirations to join the EC.
In this instance it is also important to maintain the balance between the institutions which may eventually be modified to deal with enlargement. Therefore, I particularly welcome the speech of my noble friend Lord Waddington this afternoon setting out the main parameters of the political and economic dimensions which arise within the discussion on the draft treaty.
1222
Most noble Lords have referred to the speech made on Wednesday in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. He outlined the main issues in which the United Kingdom was also winning arguments. As far as I can see he has won the argument about NATO; he is winning the argument about WEU; he is also winning the argument about where a foreign common policy will be placed in the overall architecture of Europe.
Therefore, we are seeing not only skilful negotiations but a demonstration of the powers of this Government to work towards agreement with other member states. Those of us who do not live only in this Chamber, but who sometimes have time to go outside and visit other countries in the European Community, will know perfectly well as we read our local press that each member state has its own problems with regard to Maastricht. The document before this Government and the other 11 member states is a draft document prepared by the Netherlands Government and originally based on the Luxembourg draft treaty which was distributed in June of this year.
What we are seeing are all 12 member states trying to come to a common agreement. Therefore, I totally reject the insinuation that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is acting in a defensive capacity. He is putting forward some extremely good ideas which seem to be gradually gaining acceptance from other member states. Of course, he is defending the position of the United Kingdom as one would expect any prime minister of any political party to do in this kind of negotiation. In this instance I believe that the Prime Minister and my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary have already clocked up some considerable gains for the United Kingdom.
The noble Lord, Lord Varley, and also the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, agreed that the Government were acting in good faith in trying to get a satisfactory solution. It was with great regret therefore that I read in the Rainbow, which is the Hansard of the European Parliament, that the leader of the British Labour Group, Mr. Ford, said in the main debate in which M. Delors addressed that body:
"Do not give in! Do not let a lame-duck government, which itself has the support of only a minority of the British people, that is afraid of its own right-wing minority"—
I underline the following words—
"that refuses to negotiate in good faith".
I hope that whoever replies to the debate from the Benches opposite will reassert that there is no question but that the Government of the day and my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary are acting in good faith for the good of the United Kingdom. That disgraceful statement made within the European Parliament was heard by a very large number of members from all over the EC. It was neither helpful nor acceptable.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. I was not aware of the remarks made by the leader of the Labour Party in the European Parliament. However, I must remind the noble Baroness that the most savage and offensive attacks upon the right honourable Member the Prime Minister were made by Members of his own party.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I accept that comment from the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, but I regret that in an international body such as the European Parliament there can be that sort of attack undermining the good faith of the Government and, in particular, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister.
I should like to say a few words about detail. First, as regards the single currency, I do not pretend to be an economist. However, I welcome the opt-in clause. Let us remind ourselves that that is not only for the benefit of the United Kingdom. I know at least one government, apart from the United Kingdom's, who are delighted that that is included. They will benefit from that opt-in clause. We always take the view that the opt-in clause is only for the British Government to save our situation, but that is an accepted position by all member states, and at least one other member state agrees.
The point about convergence was strongly enforced by the British Government in that certain criteria should be agreed as to what determines whether or not convergence had been reached and whether there should be entry into a single currency. There again, at least o le if not two governments will not be able to fulfil those criteria in five, six or possibly seven years when the date is reached—if we ever reach that stage—at which we enter into a single currency. We must view those matters with rather more objectivity and not continue to hammer at our own Government who are, after all, working with 11 other governments to reach satisfactory conclusion.
In parenthesis, I should say that this is a new situation created by our present Prime Minister. However, he is working with 11 governments to reach a satisfactory conclusion. Perhaps that has not always been the case up to the present time. The United Kingdom set that principle on convergence before we join a single currency. It is now widely recognised as essential. Of course, we may never reach that stage. Nobody knows because it is a matter for the future. We may never reach a common currency. However, we already have a common currency which is widely used—indeed, I remember the comments and strictures made about a hard ecu and the ribald laughter at that proposal. However, I believe that we are now reaching a hard ecu. It is being used in trading negotiations throughout the Community and, indeed, by countries outside the Community trading within it. Those countries insist on trading in ecus. I am happy to see my noble friend Lord Boardman, an expert in that sphere, nodding his head in agreement.
I welcome also the statement concerning NATO and the question of the Western European Union. I support my noble friend Lord Bethell in his excellent speech about the powers of the European Parliament. I should like to insist—as did my noble friend—on the necessity of the European Parliament's role to scrutinise the work of the Commission. Commissioners are appointed and are not elected. Nobody within the Commission structure is elected. We see more and more secondary legislation coming from the Commission because it is delegated by the council. That secondary legislation is published and is
1224
hardly every scrutinised, debated or amended because it is controlled by the Commission through the system of committees whose officials are from member states. That is a new role to which the European Parliament must be directed.
Another aspect is the control of fraud. I was sorry to hear on good authority that the socialist group in the European Parliament has proposed that the budget control committee should be abolished and be made a sub-committee of the budget committee. Perhaps another noble Lord may be able to confirm that, but I heard it on good authority from the European Parliament. It seems to me that if the role of the European Parliament is to scrutinise and to take action on the amount of fraud taking place throughout the Community—and we are all well aware of that—surely one needs a stronger budget control committee acting on its own. The committee should be given certain rights of investigation. It should be provided with documentation and have the power to call people before it. That would be better than abolishing such a useful committee.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. In regard to the proposed abolition of the budget control committee, will the noble Baroness investigate to see whether one reason for that proposed abolition—and I have no knowledge of it—is because of the great difficulty always experienced not only by the budget committee but also by the budget control committee in obtaining definite information from the Commission? The noble Baroness will appreciate that the budget control committee can act only if it is supplied with the information it needs, particularly from the Commission.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, who is an expert in that sphere. I hope that in the draft treaty special powers will be given to the budget control committee to allow it to do what the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, was talking about. Indeed, that was reinforced by the excellent report which came from the European Communities Select Committee of this House which proposed that that committee should have stronger powers as regards calling for documents and evidence from the Commission and, indeed, the Court of Auditors. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention.
The ratification of the president of the Commission is essential if the parliament is ever to be able to use its power under Article 114 to censure the Commission. I know that there are two ex-commissioners in your Lordships' House. They can feel safe that never again will they be at risk of censure. However, they know that from time to time a sword of Damocles was held over their heads. Their minions would ask the MEPs whether there would be a censure motion. Perhaps that does not apply to the two noble Lords present, but I have heard that phrase several times during my time in the parliament.
If the appointment of the president of the Commission must be ratified by the parliament then, once the Commission had been censured, member

1225
states would not be able to reappoint the same people again. They would have to come before the parliament before they took up office. Therefore, that would strengthen that power which the parliament has never used for the reasons which I have described.
The noble Lord, Lord Joseph, was right that subsidiarity is a crucial element in the draft. There are implications for the powers of member states—not only national governments but also local authorities right down to district council level. The draft which I saw is unacceptable and I should prefer a statement along the lines of the US constitution's Tenth Amendment which clearly reserves powers to the states in the text. That would be extremely beneficial.
I now refer to the subject of a referendum. I am a firm supporter of the former Prime Minister who did so much for this country and so much to support the sovereignty of Parliament in all her statements throughout the world. Wherever she travelled she always spoke of the sovereignty of Parliament and, above all, the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament in relation to her arguments in the meetings of the Council of Ministers. I am very sad that she is now suggesting a referendum. That would totally undermine the powers and the sovereignty of Parliament. Three parties agree on a major issue. Because she happens to disagree with those three parties she believes that she is entitled to call for a referendum of the people of this country. There have been several major issues on which agreement has been reached by the three major parties; for example, NATO, the Anglo-Irish agreement and a host of major issues of the greatest importance to this country. I believe that that shows the good sense of the people of this country in voting for politicians of the major political parties who, whatever their disagreements may be on some issues, when considering the overriding interests of the United Kingdom, nearly always join together to protect its greater interests. Therefore, I totally reject the idea that we should have a referendum on those two issues. I am sorry that that suggestion should have come from my right honourable friend for whom I have the greatest respect.
In conclusion, we should realise that we must get the draft treaty right.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will allow me to intervene. She may recollect that the suggestion of a referendum did not come from the right honourable lady, Mrs. Thatcher. It was mooted by people who had feelings upon it. She said that she would not rule it out in certain circumstances. There is no question of her being the author of the suggestion, whether right or wrong, and I do not believe she was all that wrong.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I am pleased to hear from my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls that the former Prime Minister did not make that suggestion. I am perhaps mistaken in my understanding. Having read Hansard, there is no doubt that the Official Report of 20th November showed my right honourable friend indicating considerable enthusiasm
1226
for the idea of a referendum. Because she suggests so many things I could not believe that she allowed someone else to suggest the idea and then took it up herself. I must therefore apologise to my noble friend for making that cardinal error.
In conclusion, we must recognise that the world is changing. In the past two years we have seen dramatic events in Europe. We do not know what dramatic events we shall see beyond Eastern Europe. We are seeing a new emerging southern Africa. It behoves us in this Parliament to ensure that Britain is in the centre where major decisions will be made affecting not only our future but also the future of the whole of Europe and, indeed, the rest of the world.
We know that the European Community is the largest trading bloc. It will be even bigger with EFTA countries coming in and its position will be stronger. I hope that the draft treaty produces all the answers we need to ensure our stability and prosperity. Consequently, I totally support the actions of my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary and wish them well in their task, which will be for the benefit of our people.
8.41 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, in our debates on the Community, as seems to happen quite often, particularly as on this occasion I warmly agree with one of her later suggestions, to which I shall return.
Ten days ago the deputy editor of the Daily Telegraph, Mr. Charles Moore, in an article on the implications of Maastricht, wrote as follows:
"Bored and perplexed, we [the British people] tend to assume that the European question can be treated pragmatically. We dislike what we call the wilder excesses of the federalists, but we comfort ourselves that the important people in the Community are more moderate. This is false comfort. You have only to talk for half an hour (and I have talked for much, much longer) to senior EC officials and politicians, to realise that they almost all want to supersede the nation state with European government. 'We are building the United States of Europe', one Commissioner told me on Tuesday, and he said it not as a rhetorical challenge, but as a statement of fact".
Those who have studied the matter and are honest with themselves must concede that as far as continentals are concerned that is one of the main objectives of the Maastricht Summit. In other words, de Gaulle's noble concept of L'Europe des patries, is effectively chucked aside. That may be what countries which are 19th Century creations want, or countries which were formerly dictatorships or which not so long ago were under the sway of dictatorships, but it is not for us. Our history is different and therefore our psychology is different. That is why those noble Lords like the noble Lord, Lord Elibank, who claim that if we had joined the Community earlier or played a greater or more central role in its deliberations we could have swayed the other 11 members to our way of thinking, are mistaken.
It is not merely a question of tradition and sentiment. There are dangers involved, and not for this country alone. We must consider some of the implications of a common foreign policy subject to qualified majority voting, which the noble Lord the

1227
Leader of the House rightly condemned in a vigorous and excellent speech. Suppose, heaven forbid, some years in the future Argentina and Brazil were to go to war with one another. One would expect Portugal to back the Brazilians and Spain and possibly Italy to back the Argentinians. But why on earth should any of the rest of us become involved?
Moving to another part of the world, do we really want to become involved in an all too possible future armed conflict between Greece and Turkey? That almost certainly would be the case if there were to be a common foreign and defence policy.
Again, we know that many people on the Continent, and not just Madame Edith Cresson, are consumed with resentment for Japan, the United States and, by extension, the English-speaking former dominions. But that is not our attitude and never will be. We have absolutely nothing against the Japanese, provided they are prepared to admit to the atrocities committed by their troops between 1936 and 1945; nothing, apart from occasional minor irritations against the Americans, to whom we are bound by blood And language; and we certainly have nothing against the Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders. On the contrary, we back them up to the hilt, much to the annoyance of the continentals more often than not.
As I have mentioned before, French acquaintances of were genuinely affronted that we backed the New Zealanders rather than them over the "Rainbow Warrior" incident, holding that our attitude brands us as not being sufficiently communautaire. I would much rather be right than communautaire. Very belatedly indeed the French at long last apologised to New Zealand for the "Rainbow Warrior" incident, only to spoil it all a few days later by awarding decorations to the two secret service agents who blew up the "Rainbow Warrior" and killed the Portuguese photographer on board. If a common foreign policy had been in place no doubt the French Government would expect the British Government to try to persuade Her Majesty to include the two French agents in the next New Year's Honours List for services rendered to the Community. I do not believe that that would go down particularly well.
The most worrying aspect of all, as the right honourable Member for Devonport, Dr. David Owen, hinted at in another place last Wednesday, is that if a uniform foreign policy had been in place last August at the time of the hard-line coup in the Soviet Union, when Britain was supporting Mr. Gorbachev and Mr. Yeltsin but France and Germany seemed to be on the verge of accepting the coup as a fait accompli, Britain might have been outvoted. So with President Bush virtually isolated, a hard-line government might well have been in power in the Soviet Union today, with Mr. Gorbachev and Mr. Yeltsin behind bars or in Siberia.
I turn to the question of a single currency. As almost every expert tells us, except the noble Lord, Lord Rippon—I am certainly not an expert—but including Mr. Nigel Lawson, monetary union will accelerate the trend towards economic union and is
1228
also likely to lead inexorably, over a period of time, towards fiscal union, for reasons I shall not go into now.
What are the implications of that? There is one grave constitutional implication which, so far as I know, has not been mentioned in either House of Parliament. As the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, emphasised, nobody seriously supposes that any EC central bank which comes into existence will he genuinely independent, any more than the Bundesbank was independent when the West German Government twisted its arm last year and forced it to accept a preposterously out-of-line exchange rate for the östmark. In other words, the different national governments controlling the central bank will have an input into monetary policy just as they will have an input into economic and Community-wide fiscal policy.
Suppose by coincidence, as is quite possible, France, Germany, Italy, the Benelux Countries, Spain and Portugal were all due to hold general elections in the autumn and winter of 1993 and the spring of 1994. Suppose, also by coincidence, the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland, Greece and Denmark had general elections scheduled for the autumn of 1994 or the spring of 1995. Suppose again that a drastic economic crisis blew up in the summer of 1994 and that forthwith the French, German and Italian governments proposed extreme fiscal and monetary corrective measures to remedy the situation; in other words, a short, sharp shock. They would have nothing to worry about because their general elections would be three-and-three-quarters, four-and-a-half or five years away. In vain would the British, Irish, Danish and Greek governments argue that that would he disastrous for their re-election chances six or nine months ahead. They would be outvoted. Rigid austerity measures would be imposed and the incumbent governments in the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland and so on would be thrown out on their ears.
I am therefore convinced that the end effect of a single currency and all the implications attached to it will be synchronisation of general elections all over the European Economic Community; not necessarily on the same day but at any rate in the same week. In practice this would entail fixed-term parliaments. I think that the Liberal Democrats would welcome such a move; I am not sure that other parties would do so.
There is another aspect to elections taking place on virtually the same day. On the evening of election day when the British public are gathered around their television sets to watch the results coming in first from Cheltenham and then Torbay—or the other way round—then from Bradford, Edinburgh and so on, Mr. Dimbleby will fill in the gaps that there always are between the results coming in by showing the results coming in from Aix-en-Provence, Dortmund, Piacenza, Cordoba, Odense, Coimbra, Zeebrugge, Chania, and so on, and inevitably the British people would begin to realise, if they had not done so already, as would the people in other member states, that the real power in the Community lies not with the national parliaments but in Brussels and Strasbourg.

1229
They would begin to take the view, if they had not done so already, that there was no further point in pressing their Members of Parliament for improvements in their standards of living, or to rectify the wrongs they feel they are suffering. As power now lies at the centre, that is the place to lobby; and there is not much point in turning out for general elections in future since they have become tantamount to local government elections, where you get only a 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. turn out at most. I really wonder whether that is what people in either House of Parliament want.
Turning quickly to the powers of the European Parliament, I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Bethel!, who said that it was democratically elected. Certainly it is democratically elected but it is not democratically composed. The people of Luxembourg will have 12½ times as many representatives per capita as will the people of a united Germany: but it is democratically elected.
Perhaps there is something to be said for allowing the parliament a veto over new legislation, not least because so much legislation nowadays tends to be interfering, illiberal and often unnecessary the world over, and therefore the more often that it is vetoed the better. There must be one proviso. Reform of the common agricultural policy and action against corruption must be put beyond the reach of any veto by the European Parliament.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, rightly cited the resentment that most people in this country feel at interference by Brussels in matters which are no legitimate concern of Brussels, and no legitimate concern of people in any other country. This applies Community wide. The French do not want interference from us any more than we want interference from them.
The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, in earlier speeches has on two occasions suggested to us why this should be: too many talented men with too much power and quite a little time on their hands tend to get up to mischief. The noble Lord may well do so again tonight for all I know. I would also suggest that the European court is beginning to act too much like the American Supreme Court, in that it is making quasi-political decisions instead of purely judicial ones. These decisions are always in the direction of interpreting ambiguous statutes, and there are far too many ambiguous ones, in favour of Brussels rather than in favour of individual nation states.
Time does not permit me to list all the ridiculous, petty, harmonising directives with which we are lumbered, but I invite your Lordships to read Christopher Monckton on page 7 of the Evening Standard of 20th November. We are apparently even now to have a standardised Euro-condom. It seems that the Commissioners found the Italian ones too small. I am not making this up: your Lordships can read it in most of last week's papers.
It is not enough for the Prime Minister, Mr. Major, to say to the other 11, as he must, "Thus far and no further" as regards petty harmonisation. The frontiers of Brussels interference must be rolled back. At the
1230
least we must be as free to control our internal affairs as are Arkansas, New South Wales and Prince Edward Island, which at the moment, in many respects, we are not. In other words, in return, for example, for agreeing to the admirable new directive controlling time-share advertising and marketing—admirable because time-share abuses extend across national frontiers—the Prime Minister should reclaim the right of the British, and of course of others, to decide on the location of their own bridges, motorways, bypasses and so on, which have nothing to do with people in any other country.
In order to roll back effectively the frontiers of Euro interference, despite what other noble Lords said, I am afraid that we must throw into the dustbin such vague, amorphous, weasel words as "subsidiarity", which mean all things to all men. Subsidiarity, incidentally, also implies that all power legitimately rests at the centre, which may graciously decide to dole out a little of it to the constituent nation states as and when it so feels inclined. But it does not reside at the centre: power resides with the people and the nation states, and it is up to them to hang on to it and not tamely cede it to Brussels.
Instead—and here I greatly welcome what the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, proposed—we need a new treaty that will strictly confine the competence of Brussels and Strasbourg to those matters which genuinely transcend national frontiers, leaving everything else without exception to national parliaments.
8.57 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, this debate to take note "of the forthcoming negotiations at the European Council at Maastricht" has been fantastic. It has covered a wide field. We have already had 28 speakers and there are eight more to follow. That is a pretty wide coverage. It has also been a long debate. I shall therefore take only a short time and short circuit the points that I wish to make.
The object of a debate taking note, as we who understand what parliamentary words mean know, is to share minds with the Government as to the line they should take when debating at Maastricht—sharing minds with us, as they shared minds with Members of another place last week. We know that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, who will do the negotiating, will not be able to read every word of what has been said by 36 speakers in your Lordships' House today. But we expect the Leader of the House, who is a member of the Cabinet, to take back a clear message as to what the House has said.
If I may presume to give guidance to my noble friend on the Front Bench, I would suggest that he discards quite a lot of what has been said which, although absolutely excellent, is longer term, and concentrates on that part of the debate that relates to the negotiations to be entered into on 9th and 10th December. We can reduce that to saying that the single currency and the political and social charters are the two issues that cause difference of view. On those issues the Prime Minister has the support of almost everyone who believes that we must be careful

1231
not to throw away our parliamentary powers and our general sovereignty. Along with many of my noble friends I listened to his speech in another place last week. Its message was clear and certainly satisfied pretty well all the arguments I have heard today on the two issues. I could repeat in my own words many of the points that have been made but I satisfy myself by saying that an amalgam of the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, and of my noble friends Lord Joseph and Lord Boardman would summarise the message from the majority of the participants in the debate on the two questions to which I have referred.
I should like to put one point to my noble friend Lord Boardman. In his invaluable contribution he made clear the dangers that would flow inexorably from the single currency. However, I did not quite understand how he feels about the rather cunning suggestion made by ardent Europeans that while we can have the power to decide when we opt in, we ought now to agree to a resolution that we would now be prepared to anticipate that ultimately, under certain circumstances we would opt in. If one gives up the point of principle, the consequences referred to by my noble friend will flow. It would be helpful if my noble friend could indicate to me how he feels on that point.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, it is clear that we look at what is on offer. We have a period of five, six or seven years to see how it evolves. If we believe then that it is in the interests of the United Kingdom to join the European monetary union, then we have the option and right to join. At the same time we shall have right—being in the heart of Europe, to use the words of the Prime Minister—to take part in forming that union, a union which we hope we will have the right to join and which we will or will not join as we decide at that time.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I heartily endorse that interpretation. That means that we do not want the Prime Minister to come back and say, "We have not agreed to the single currency but we have agreed that we will not rule it out under certain circumstances". That is giving way on the principle.
I have voted solidly on one line since the Treaty of Rome first came before us in draft. From the very beginning I have felt that what was proposed would grow to dangerous levels. That has happened. How did they get away with it? We had a very alert House of Commons and a very alert House of Lords at that time. It occurred through the type of developments that I have just described. One commits oneself in advance to some extent and then one has to pursue it to some extent or risk the charge of perfidious Albion; someone going back on his word. As my noble friend Lord Cockfield is looking a little sceptical, I shall give him an example of what I mean.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. We were not signatories to the Treaty of Rome. We had nothing to do with the drafting of it. We had an observer at the conference at Messina. We said that we would not participate in the Community because we were certain that it would fail.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I know that. I can remember when we sent Reggie Maudling along. He came back and said that it was a dead duck. Although they said that it was a dead duck after they had sent Reggie Maudling packing, it did not stop them later virtually accepting the draft of the Treaty of Rome, from which all the trouble has flowed.
I want to say why I am wary of the kind of tactics that can arise. In those days I had resigned as a junior Minister in order to emphasise that I felt strongly on the point. There was no personal animosity. Derek Walker-Smith, Robbie Turton and I tried to point out the dangers that we felt would flow. That is why I hope the Prime Minister will listen to the points I am making. We could not then get them to talk on this vital principle of what would develop if certain things happened. They would turn us off by saying how wonderful was the directive on carrots or how the directive on brussels sprouts would be to our advantage.
The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, is not perhaps the politician that some of us have had to be for the past 40 years in order to recognise how these things work. I am saying that on this issue I hope that the advice of my noble friend Lord Boardman on the single currency will be taken and that it will not be weakened by having a long-term half acceptance of a general principle. If an amalgam of the speeches made by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, and my noble friends Lord Joseph and Lord Boardman contains the message that the Leader of the House takes to the Prime Minister—that is what the object of the debate should be —that would leave me very happy.
As I accept the views expressed so well by my noble friends and by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, there is no need for me to repeat the individual arguments. However, I have a suggestion not only for the Prime Minister but for the Labour Opposition in terms of what could flow from these developments. We have had a good deal of talk about a referendum. Under certain circumstances I believe that a referendum should not be ruled out. Indeed, before Ireland comes in it will have a referendum. Switzerland has a referendum virtually every month so as to make certain that it carries the nation with it when instruments are signed. Therefore, on this issue I cannot see where we claim that it is of fundamental importance. I do not remember any other time in the history of what I call the parliamentary system based upon parties when a matter of such fundamental importance had the official support of the Government, the Opposition and any third party which may be in existence.
I believe that our parliamentary system is the thing which preserves our freedoms. Indeed, it is what I believe brought us to be one of the most satisfying nations in the world. That is why so many people want to come here. I want to preserve that. We have always had the advantage of ensuring that we come to the right conclusions by the confrontation of the Government, the Opposition and others. If that confrontation is not going to take place, and if the fundamental danger—that is, if there is such a danger—is that the people of this country will suffer because

1233
our present parliamentary system does not allow them to have their point of view taken into account, I do not think that that is satisfactory. I do not even say that if we have a referendum which brings forth a decision the government of the day have got to accept it; they can amend it and do all sorts of things. However, they ought to be aware of the situation. I do not think that Gallup polls are a satisfactory method of arriving at such a conclusion.
However, we should not forget that, in the absence of a referendum, Gallup polls seem to show conclusively that the people of this country do not want a single currency and do not want us to move speedily down the avenue of political and social charters such as M. Delors has explained to us. That is why I questioned my noble friend on that aspect of the matter. M. Delors does seem to get his own way. However, that does not mean that we can be accused of being a country without compassion. We can bring in the individual parts of the political and social policy which we think are good. We do not have to wait for that to be pushed upon us by the European Government or Parliament. Indeed, we have accepted many of those parts.
I am glad to see that my noble friend the Leader of the House is back in his place. I know that he is very well versed on what I have to say in conclusion. Indeed, he has been at it for the same length of time that I have. He was one of my young helpers when I fought my first election in 1945. Therefore, I know that he has been bang in the middle of electioneering and that he knows all about my next point. It could well be that the referendum will be unnecessary. All parties at present seem to be in agreement. The voice of the people as shown by the Gallup polls may not be taken into account—although I think it will. The speech of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, if adhered to, satisfies me. If what he said last Wednesday is brought to fruition in the sort of arrangements he agrees at Maastricht, then that is all right by me. However, if, for some reason which we are never allowed to understand, he deviates from that course, that is when the referendum will come in. We must bear in mind the fact that we shall have a general election in a very short time after the negotiations take place at Maastricht on 9th and 10th December. At that time, the people will want to say something about these matters.
I do not know how many of my noble friends have been actively involved in politics for long enough to remember some of the precedents. Many of my noble friends who were active will remember how, at a time when the issue never became anything like as vicious as is likely to be the case this time, Lord Hinchingbrocke challenged the official Conservative candidate. The seat was played about with and lost.
I suggest that if what comes back from the negotiations differs very much from what the Prime Minister said he wants to achieve, then let us not be surprised—and this message applies to the Labour Opposition as well as to my noble friends in the Conservative Party—the effect could be the drafting-in of anti-European candidates who will want to
1234
reflect what the Gallup polls are saying and what people as a whole are thinking. Lord Sutch has built up an organisation and has fought a number of elections; a number of independents seem to appear and fight almost every by-election; and so I do not believe that people who feel strongly about this matter of such fundamental importance will let the matter go without using the power that exists to get themselves elected to Parliament to put forward their views. I hope that that does not happen because it would be disruptive.
Many of my right honourable and honourable friends at the other end of the Palace to whom I have spoken have given me the impression—I hope that I am wrong—that they are more interested in doing things which will win them their seats than in doing what they deep down believe is in this country's long-term best interests. Unfortunately, the danger that will flow from making the wrong move at Maastricht on 9th and 10th December will not show itself overnight. If it did, we could deal with it.
In Russia, it took them 74 years to discover the mistake that they made. I do not know how many years it will take us to realise the danger that some of us believe will flow from these decisions.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the circumstances in the Soviet Union and the result of 74 years of communism are different from 20 years of a successful European Community since we have been a member?
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, my noble friend is usually alert. Indeed, I am the president of her fan club. She can usually see the point quickly. What I am saying is that when these ideological issues—because that is what they are—start to take a grip, that will not happen overnight. It will take some time before we realise that we have lost our sovereignty. It may take a long time before we realise that it is some chancellor in Brussels who is deciding the rate of tax and some other Minister somewhere else who is deciding how that tax should be spent. It may take 20 or 30 years. I am only using that as an analogy: in Russia it took 74 years.
It has been a good debate. We do not expect those who will negotiate in Maastricht to have read it, because with 36 speakers that will take too long. We know that my noble friend the Minister will be reporting to his colleagues as to the general feeling of the House before they go to negotiate. I merely suggest to my noble friend that he disregard the points made about the long term, which have been good, because they are not immediate. The two factors which are immediate, and which will decide whether we are to have unanimity in the country or not, are the single currency and the political and social charters. If my noble friend can take back an amalgam of the speeches of my noble friends Lord Joseph and Lord Boardman and of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, he will have satisfied me that the right message has been passed to the right quarters.
9.18 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, your Lordships will recall that as recently as 1986 I had the honour of speaking for my party from the Front Bench in total opposition to the Single European Act. One of the principal reasons for that was a conviction which, at that time, I had every reason to believe was shared by my party, the members of which were with me in the Division Lobby. I detected and suspected an unrelenting drive towards federalism and the diminution of the powers of the British people, through their parliamentary democracy, to determine the nature and extent of their own policies and to deal with their own affairs, while at the same time co-operating to the maximum degree of unanimity with our European colleagues.
I have not changed the views that I expressed then, which were reflected again in the speech which your Lordships allowed me to make in the debate on the Select Committee's report on economic and monetary union only a few days back. It is not my intention to repeat the reasons that I then gave. Indeed, I shall endeavour, so far as it lies within my power, to make some constructive suggestions to the Government as to how, under present circumstances, they might see fit to proceed. That may be accompanied perhaps by one or two cautions about the kind of things they ought to avoid.
Before doing so, however, I wish to deal with one aspect of our affairs which I find highly disturbing. It has been widely represented that Britain—my country and your Lordships'—is somehow the odd man out in Europe. that it is one versus 11. If one looks at the Community flag, one finds 12 stars of equal size. The misconception ought to be subject to a small correction because the odds are not quite as large as it would indicate. It will come as no surprise to your Lordships that the population of the United Kingdom is greater than the combined population of at least seven of the member states: Belgium, Denmark, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Portugal. Taken together, they have a population 3 million less than that of the United Kingdom. So the odds arc a little shorter than 11 to one which gives the impress on of cold isolation against overwhelming numbers on the continent of Europe.
The original treaty and the amended treaty that followed it give sanction to this. The state of Luxembourg has a population of 378,000, and that is the same size as the city of Bristol. Luxembourg has one member on the Council of Ministers and six Members in the European Parliament. If we transpose that into terms of British politics, it would mean that Bristol had 81 Members of the British Parliament. I venture to suggest that that is a slight over-representation.
Let us take matters rationally: the odds are not all that overwhelming in terms of 11 to one. Moreover, the seven themselves to which I have referred are not always n agreement with one another. It has been known for Italy, Germany and France to have differences. Please let us not put ourselves in the position of self-isolation. I remember that there was a case in the early part of the war when the American
1236
Ambassador gave a report back to the President of the United States as to the likelihood of Britain being able to endure a conflict against nazi Germany. The report was pessimistic, he said he did not think we would be able to make it. Events have proved him wrong. Therefore, let us take a slightly more objective view in terms of numbers and weight, and the extent of the present disagreements.
What is the intergovernmental conference about? Why was it held at all? The Council of Ministers can from time to time meet over a proposal of the Commission, as I shall show. But there is nothing to prevent it meeting from time to time to discuss progress within the European Community. It would obtain a surprising picture if it did that, because the Community so far—although I hope things go well in the future—has not been very impressive. Its rate of growth has been less than that of Japan or of the United States, and its rate of unemployment is higher. There are a whole series of factors to he considered. The EC has almost reached the stage where it compares itself with a single country, Japan, and is busily fortifying itself against possible Japanese commercial invasion. The EC has not been such a profound success. One only has to read—as I have—the annual reports produced by the Commission. They are lengthy but they all reveal the same disappointing picture.
The economy of Europe, as Europe, is not doing all that well. I wish it would do better. Moreover, as regards rectifying regional differences, one only has to read the previous Commission report to obtain a review of the whole progress of regional development over the past 10 years. The report admits that regional differences far from having disappeared—no one ever pretended that was the case—have not substantially changed in spite of a massive injection of funds. I could understand the desire to convene a conference to discuss those kinds of matters openly and in public and to discuss whether the Common Market had achieved the free interchange of goods, services and people and how it could be made to operate more efficiently and thereby improve the European economy. However, this intergovernmental conference was convened specifically by the Commission. Exactly the same situation pertains with regard to this conference as pertained in regard to the conferences that preceded the Single European Act. The purpose of the Commission is a structural one to make further progress towards the openly avowed objective of achieving the ultimate super state and a federal union in Europe. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, referred to that aim in his quotation from the Daily Telegraph. It is common knowledge that the Commission has already announced that if it does not get its way at the Maastricht conference, it will convene a further intergovernmental conference a few years later. The Commission will continue to convene conferences until it achieves what it wants.
I cannot believe that we in the United Kingdom—I trust that I speak broadly for all parties—want the continuation of these proceedings to be under the relentless pressure of non-elected civil servants, or collegiates, in Brussels with the pure purpose of

1237
enlarging the area of bureaucratic operation. I do not think that is wise or necessary. Are the Government themselves, in negotiating at Maastricht, content to accept a position where they can act only on a proposal from the Commission? One can quite understand that in the earlier stages of the Community, when the politicians got together, it was highly convenient to have a highly trained body of civil servants or academics for the purpose of charting out future progress. It was highly convenient that progress should be made by means of that delegated instrument. But was it the intention of the Council of Ministers that member states could only act on a proposal from the Commission? If that is still the case, I hope I may respectfully suggest to Her Majesty's Government that before they sign any treaty at Maastricht they should make quite sure that the Council itself takes more powers and that the powers of the Commission in relation to the Council are correspondingly reduced.
There is a further instance. Your Lordships may not be aware that not only is the situation as I have described it in relation to original proposals, but even when the 12 member states agree that they want a regulation amended that can be vetoed by the Commission. Indeed, Mr. Lilley, in giving public evidence before the Select Committee of your Lordships' House on 22nd October, said in reply to a question from me:
"It is something not often understood in this country. It gives the Commission the right of veto. In one particular case Britain started off in a minority of one, and managed to persuade all 12 Member States to agree with our position, but the Commission then did not agree, so it could not proceed. They sometimes evoke that right of veto".
The question I have to ask the Government is whether in the course of the Maastricht negotiations they intend that position to continue. If they do not intend it to continue, what amendment to the draft treaties do they propose to institute in order to ensure that that does not happen?
There are a number of things which the Commission could do. Perhaps one may suggest that if it does not like what it contains, in the free time—free from preparing plans for the next intergovernmental conference following Maastricht —the Council itself brings pressure to bear upon the Commission to make very drastic changes to the common agricultural policy, which, so far as I can gather, both sides of the House (or at least two-and-a-half sides of the House) agree is a bad policy.
Without it being a proposal from the Commission, can the Commission suggest that the Council becomes more accountable for public funds? Recent audit inquiries have revealed that in 1990 Italy received £4.22 billion in aid from the Commission for which it cannot account to the Commission. To this day the Commission does not know where that money has gone. Similar observations apply in relation to £151 million of aid to Turkey and a further £3 million to Morocco. That cannot be properly authenticated and the Commission do not know where the money has gone. Will the Council bring pressure to bear or will it
1238
take powers under the treaty to instruct the Commission, which after all is supposed to be the Council's executive arm, to make full and effective investigations into the matter?
Again, as the Government know very well, the Court of Auditors is a source of continued irritation to the Commission. At present the Court of Auditors frequently has great difficulty in obtaining the information it requires, not only from member states but sometimes from the Commission itself. I know that because I have spoken to representatives of the Court of Auditors.
The financial regulations of the Community, as drafted by the Commission and agreed by the Council, state that the Commission have the right to reply to the Court of Auditors' report prior to the issue of that report to the general public. The Commission's comments, usually about one-third of the size of the report itself, are issued together with the auditor's report. That means that we shall receive the auditors' report for 1990 about mid-December—an unnecessary delay of some three months. I should like to know whether the Government are prepared in negotiating at Maastricht to incorporate within the treaty an undertaking to amend the financial regulations to ensure that the auditors' report is published immediately and independently of any Commission comments on it. I should be grateful if the Government would comment on that matter.
In the short time remaining, I should like to deal with changes in the powers of the European Parliament. As I understand it, it is proposed to give the European Parliament powers of co-determination with the Council. I may be wrong and should be glad to be corrected. However, if a situation arises in which the European Parliament has a right to veto any directive or any other measure passed by the European Council, that will undermine the authority of Westminster. In the case of British interests, instead of coming to the Westminster Parliament, powerful lobbies which oppose certain Community proposals will start flocking to Strasbourg in order to lobby there. Power in that regard will automatically depart from the Westminster Parliament. I hope that the noble Earl will consider that matter.
I also seek an assurance about the role of bankers. I look almost in terms of affection upon the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, who occupied a high position in the bank with which I entrusted my meagre funds. I read in the draft treaty a proposal for a bank which would be completely independent of all political influence and which would determine the strategic banking and monetary policy throughout the Community without any kind of political control. That is an enlargement of the Liberal Party's proposal to make the Bank of England independent of the Government here. The Liberal Party will always agree with anything that comes out with a European label, so we need not trouble with that any more. I want to know whether the Government agree—
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, has the noble Lord read the constitution of the Bundesbank on

1239
which the independent bank is to be modelled? That constitution states that the Bundesbank must support the economic policy of the German Government.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I have read the text to which the noble Lord refers, but I have a more up-to-date version than that of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, who speaks from the Front Bench on behalf of his party and who advocates complete independence.
Some of my best friends are bankers; but, after the recent history of the banking community throughout the world, not by any means excluding the City of London, with recent banking scandals and manifestly unsound monetary and lending policies, I venture to suggest that any body of politicians which ventures to put strategic economic control in the hands of bankers wants their head examined. Perhaps the Government will comment on that.
Finally, it is suggested that, if we do not take part in these arrangements, we shall be relegated to the second division, whatever that may mean. I well appreciate the significance of league tables. On perusing those relating to the excellent game of football, I observe that Wales is not in either the first or the second division. That does not damn Wales in my eyes. In fact, some of my best friends are Welshmen. I sincerely hope that we shall not apply the metaphor too directly, particularly in view of the results at Cardiff Arms Park in the other type of football. I hope that there will be a Welsh national recovery.
However, any suggestion that this country is in the second division of anything is a complete insult. My country is a great country. It has been a great country for many years. It has stood for freedom throughout the world at a time when some of the European countries were not always so assiduous in pursuit of that freedom. It has a considerable Commonwealth with which it has very good relations. I do not believe that it has all the virtues, but I am very proud to be a member of it. I am quite sure that whatever is implied by the term second division—I assume that that is a position of inferiority to someone or other—my country never has been and in my view never will he in that kind of position.
9.40 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, it is always my fate to follow a splendid speaker. I am reassured by the stated policies of Her Majesty's Government as set out by my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State and by the noble Lord the Leader of the House in his opening remarks. However, like most of us I want to eat my cake and have it. I want to be in Europe on our own very tightly drawn terms as a free country, freely co-operating with others, and not under existing central control, without accountability. I realise that our national instinct is only too likely to be pragmatic, to compromise and see the other man's point of view. This time we must be not traders but good poker players. We must not sign away our independence for tactical advantage. The Prime Minister cannot show
1240
his hand too soon, but we must call the bluff of the Germans and their supporters, remembering always that they need us.
If I believe that the Prime Minister will preserve our political independence, why do I say more? One reason is that important as our national interest must be, there are also broader considerations. My specific concerns are, first, the future relationship between the European Community countries and the newly-liberated Warsaw Pact countries in what was the Soviet Union. On that issue we must think strategically. Those countries have all emerged after a great struggle from a closed, non-accountable, unwieldy, centralised bureaucracy. They are struggling towards the light, democracy and individual accountability. The Western democracies have been their model. It cannot make sense for us to choose this moment to relinquish our democratic, accountable sovereignty in favour of placing ourselves under the autocratic, central control of the Commission or even of yielding it more power in any sphere.
Speaking before the Select Committee of this House on political union, a witness spoke of the need to address the democratic deficit and for greater transparency. He said that the most important arm of the legislation—the Council—operates entirely behind closed doors. Another witness said that the power that has gone from national parliaments in member states to Europe has not gone to the European Parliament; it has gone to the Commission and the Council of Ministers. Democratic controls that were fought for over decades and longer have, if you will, been abandoned.
We keep deploring the lack of infrastructure in the countries of the East. We keep deploring their total inexperience in terms of accountability. Is the Commission a good model? We must retain our own open and independent democratic process but somehow still contrive to play an effective part in Europe and correct that democratic deficit. We must ensure that the powers of the Commission pass further to the parliament and that the newly-democratic countries do not find there, in the splendid phrase used in the Select Committee's proceedings, "wolves in democratic clothing".
Let us stand by advocating the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Bethel], for closer links with the European Parliament. Otherwise the Russians and the other states could well be driven back on to their own old model of centralised bureaucracy, secrecy and private pressure groups. We also have to remember that those countries do not have partnership in development with Europe as their only option. Japan, once the Kuriles question is settled, is waiting to move in.
My other concern is the need for us to retain enough strength and independence in both political and defence terms to contain what I see as the dangerous resurgence of fascism in Germany, Austria and to some degree in France. The signs are the same as those that we saw and ignored at our peril in the 1930s. I recognise that the West Germany of 1989 may have wished genuinely to be a peaceful power whose strength lay in its economic might. However, the

1241
Germans who joined them in 1990 came from a state that was built at least partly by the remnants of the SS and of the nazi power. Reunification has not proved the fairy tale success that many of the younger generation of the former GDR expected. Those who are disillusioned and unemployed—and many are—are vulnerable, as they were in Hitler's day, to demagoguery and to a revival of the Hitler cult. They now have a vote in Germany and an ever louder voice, and Germany wishes to exert its great power through the instrument of the Community. I am deeply relieved therefore that Her Majesty's Government are apparently determined that we shall retain our own independent foreign and defence policies and that we have already ensured that NATO will remain in Europe. We may need one day to help the good Germans against their own internal devils.
In the end, I believe that we shall be able to solve the problems of Eastern Europe and of the larger
1242
world only if the European Community works in concert with the United States. For that to be successful we must retain our full independence of action to operate freely in the Community, in NATO, in the UN and in the Commonwealth as the special needs of each situation may require. We must be an active part of the Community if we are to influence the future. But we belong to many groups besides Europe—for example, the UN and the Commonwealth. We have far more to offer the Community than we sometimes recognise. Moreover, we may not be alone among the Twelve in the line that we take.
I hope that we think of Maastricht as the first of many serious examinations of the options—not as a make or break encounter. It is all too important to hurry over in this constantly changing international situation, especially in the Soviet Union. As Alexander Yakovlev said a week ago in the United States,
"If democracy does not survive in the Soviet Union, it will be useless to discuss issues of strategic stability".
9.48 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, at this late hour much has been said and it is difficult to know what to add. I voted yes to the 1975 referendum. In past years I have lived with the uncomfortable position of not being in agreement with the Labour Party Front Bench. At last I find myself in the odd situation of being on the right side.
The debate has continued for many years. As a schoolboy I was brought up on a Indian nationalist version of the history of the British Empire. I was told—I am sure that it was wrong—that the East India Company reneged on all the treaties that it signed. Obviously that must have been untrue. However, government having signed the treaty in 1973 in which the goal of economic and monetary union was clearly stated, and having passed the Single European Act in which it was made clear that there was an eventual hope of political union, I am astonished that people still express surprise at the situation they face today.
The debate is not about whether we should join Europe; the time has long since passed for such debate although I wish later to discuss whether that is inevitable. The debate that has continued for the past 20 years or more is about the modernisation of British society.
Over the post-war period we have seen a number of attempts to modernise British society. We have had the white heat of the technological revolution of the noble Lard, Lord Wilson; we have had Selsdon Man; and we have had the tremendous effort of Mrs. Thatcher and her Government, though I am not in sympathy with it. All these have been attempts to launch this country into a modern, dynamic economy and society. If we are still discussing Europe it is because some of us—and more than many of us imagine—find that the best hope of meeting the challenge of modernising British society after 100 years of the "British disease", as it is called, lies in being part of Europe and part of a modern, dynamic community.
That is because many of us have doubts that, if left to ourselves, we could be modern. That is a doubt shared by people who do not like the European Community. There is hesitation whether we should opt in or out in 1995 or 1997 to which my noble friend Lord Callaghan referred. Why is there this hesitation that, come 1995 or 1997, we may or may not be able to join? It is because we are not sure that we will be ready to join and that the economy will be strong enough even after six, seven or 10 years of adjustment. We have lost confidence that the economy can survive on its own as a dynamic economy able to make its way.
The reason we have lost that confidence is the experience of the past 40 years or more of economic management by different parties with the best of intentions. There was some success and some failure, but at the end of the day we cannot say that we have the political wisdom to say, with hands on our hearts, that left to ourselves we shall make a success of things. The noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, said that he
1244
would much prefer being the 51st state of the United States rather than being part of Europe if all the arrangements fell through.
We should discuss all the options that are available. We are a sovereign state and we can choose to withdraw from the EC if we wish. We can refuse to sign at Maastricht and say that we do not want any part of it. Let us face that situation and look at it in its true reality. Suppose we withdraw from the EC. What choice do we have? We have many choices. We can join the United States. In the early 1970s the North Atlantic free trade area was much mooted and some people thought that they might be able to join. However, that experiment failed because it was not really credible that such an arrangement would be a viable one. There was no political will or economic case for it.
I do not believe at this juncture of our economic history that we could last outside both the EC and what is going to be the North American free trade area comprising Canada, the United States of America and Mexico. I do not believe that anyone seriously thinks, much though we love it, that sovereignty is so valuable to us that we are right now willing to withdraw from the European Community and not join anything else and survive on our own. That is because the economic case for doing so is lacking.
Another reason is that we no longer live in a world in which capitalism in one country is possible or feasible. The growth of multinational corporations, the international division of labour and the global financial markets all tell us that sooner or later we shall have to join a club. That club need not be a centralist one. A federation can be non-centralist. The United States of America was non-centralist for a long time and some people may believe that it is still non-centralist. Indeed, the US managed to have a federation with a single currency and without a central bank for much of its history. As the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, said, the US did not have a central bank until about 80 years ago. It had a single currency. Indeed, even after having a central bank it would be false to say that the US had a centralist federation. That happened about 25 years later for totally different reasons. Therefore, one does not necessarily have to take it for granted that a centralist European Community is inevitable.
Indeed, I say to my noble friend Lord Bruce that if we do not want a centralist Community—and I do not want that—let us argue more strongly not just that the Council should be more powerful than the Commission but that the European Parliament should be more powerful than the Council. Indeed, if we do not like the European Parliament because we believe that it threatens the sovereignty of Westminster, let us follow the logic of federations around the world and say that democratic deficit is not merely shown by the fact that the European Parliament does not have enough power but that the European Parliament represents only territorial principle and not the principle that members of a federation should have representation as a federation, the principle on which the US Senate is based.

1245
We do not have that. Indeed, we should argue that the European Parliament needs a second chamber which would more properly reflect the federate nature of the European Community. Surprisingly, that argument has not been made but it should be. It is no good believing that by hesitating now, refusing to sign, by making conditions and by delaying, as the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, said, we shall gain a more democratic Community or a less centralist Community. If we want that, we must get in there and play an active role. We should not play a recalcitrant and sullen role. Let us propose that our traditions of democratic control, which we know about, should be reflected in the European constitution.
My main purpose is not to speak so much about the political problems of the federation but about the economics of monetary union and the single currency. I believe that a single currency would be very good and the sooner it comes the better. I shall explain why I think that. I believe that when we used to have national economies with proper control over monetary and fiscal policies—roughly the period between 1946 and 1971—that was a golden period. We had full employment and moderate inflation. We had good economic growth. It was better in some years than in others but it was fairly good. From 1971 onwards we entered a different era in which individual countries lost their autonomy. There were global financial markets and rapid movement of capital. It is difficult for small single nations to be able to pursue a policy of full employment and good economic growth without becoming subject to rapidly speculative movements of capital and currency.
The example of the United States shows that an economy of a sufficient size, such that the proportion of foreign trade is not large, can pursue full employment policies within its territory without having to look over its shoulder constantly for speculative attacks on its currency. The US has been able to pursue an extremely aggressive monetary policy. It has cut interest rates and tried to get a revival not because it does not care about inflation—its inflation record is very good. However, it can pursue such a course with impunity because it is a sufficiently large area of a single currency and custom-free union.
We cannot pursue such policies and we have not been able to do so. Rather, when we have done so in 1970–73 or 1986–88, we have had to pay dearly for those policies. I do not mind confessing that I care more about full employment than anything else. I welcome a single currency. I believe that a single currency would allow us, over the Community territory as a whole, to pursue policies of full employment and economic growth which currently we are restricted from pursuing.
I differ in one respect from the usual doctrine in regard to the European community, which is that, like my noble friend Lord Bruce, I am not all that thrilled about the autonomy of a central bank. It is a paradox, bearing in mind all we know regarding the Bank of England. The Bank of England was autonomous after 1946. It covered itself in great glory regarding monetary policy.
1246
The idea that autonomous central banks are successful is a recent invention. It arises only from the experience of the Bundesbank. People forget to tell us that the Bundesbank is supported by a sensible wage-bargaining system which sustains it; it is not merely monetary orthodoxy. Monetary orthodoxy often leads to severe deflations whose costs fall on the poorer people. It is all right for central bankers to say that they are autonomous and do not want the currency to slide, and so on. But I shall always believe that proper democratic control is required as much of bureaucracies such as the European Commission as it is of central banks. If we do not have proper democratic control over central banks, then they are likely to do untold damage to the economies, as indeed the Bank of England did to the British economy in the 1920s.
I conclude by saying that I do not believe choice is inevitable or unavoidable. But even if we had signed no treaties in the past, if there were no commitments and I was asked what was the best choice facing this economy, I should still say that we should enter economic and monetary union as soon as possible. Let us work towards a proper federal Europe; not a central Europe but a federal democratic Europe in which we can play an active part.
10.3 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, if there is one thing about which academics must be careful it is not trespassing on other people's territory. Therefore I shall make only one comment on the latest remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Desai, who must have left those Members of the House with no access to the media with the impression that the United States has conquered the problem of unemployment. The United States has a single currency; it has important areas of unemployment and has not by any means through that single currency been able to overcome the considerable differences that exist between its states. Therefore, whether or not it is a good thing, it is not a panacea for those who put employment at the top of their economic objectives.
Having made that point I shall hastily retreat to matters about which I have some knowledge. The debate is a constant irritation for those whose academic discipline is either history or politics. They find both those disciplines misused. The point I should like to begin with is the argument alluded to several times in the course of the debate regarding a referendum. I believe that a referendum is not simply something that we should reject on principle, or that is contrary to the sovereignty of Parliament or some other great phrase. I believe that it is simply incompatible—I hope to show why—with the way in which we operate our system of government.
Let us suppose that the Prime Minister returns from Maastricht with two agreements and that those are put to the vote of the country in a plebiscite or referendum. Let us suppose, as the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, would have us believe—he may be right—that the country votes against these measures. What then is the Prime Minister to do? He and his Cabinet will have convinced themselves that this is the

1247
way in which they can run the country's affairs, and presumably that there is no other option. Therefore, they must, in accordance with the normal logic of our constitution, resign. They would have lost in the same way as if they had lost a vote in the House of Commons. These arguments apply equally to the idea of free votes in the House of Commons, which, on major issues, are also incompatible with the way in which we run our affairs.
So the Prime Minister resigns. Can Her Majesty then summon Mr. Kinnock to form an Administration? Hardly, because Mr. Kinnock would have come back with something even less acceptable to those who voted against Mr. Major's agreements. Can Her Majesty apply to Mr. Paddy Ashdown? The argument there is even stronger. So what happens? The only alternative open is to apply to someone who has opposed the measures that the Government wish to put through, and so we would get an Administration headed by my right honourable friend Mrs. Thatcher, along with Mr. Tebbit, Mr. Ridley, the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, and whoever else may be available. But that Administration would clearly not have a majority in the House of Commons, and therefore there would have to be an election.
We come back to the fact that the logic of the British system is that only an election to the House of Commons can determine policy. Whether the parties agree or disagree, are united or are split, for 200 years or perhaps more it has been an assumption that a government can only continue in office if it has the support of the House of Commons, and if this is challenged then it must appeal to the country to return a House of Commons that will sustain it.
For that reason all the arguments about let the people decide and so on are totally irrelevant. They might fit if we had, for instance, the separation of powers. Suppose we had an irremovable president. Then one could say, "All right, he will have lost one Administration but he is still there and he can carry on the executive branch of government". But we have not got that. we have responsible government. We have the Westminster model, and one cannot combine the Westminster model with a referendum. I say this irrespective of whether one would or would not be in favour of the proposals put to the country.
A referendum might be, and is, appropriate, as are free votes in the House of Commons, for matters that do not affect the general conduct of policy. But how can a cabinet that had decided that it cannot conduct foreign affairs, defence and the economy, except by the agreements that it has reached with other countries, venture to say, "Never mind. Of course we can still go on"? It cannot happen. Therefore what people are challenging is the essence of our system.
Coming more closely to the substance, what worries me occasionally—and it is perhaps understandable—is attempts made to bring in arguments which sound at first blush powerful. If he will forgive me, the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, should have been cautious before quoting Winston Churchill as favouring what is now proposed in the form of European integration, including this country.
1248
As it happens, for an historical meeting on Churchill held in the United States under the aegis of my noble friend Lord Blake, I spent a good deal of time at the beginning of this year rereading Churchill's speeches on Europe at the time and the evidence of his opinions as recorded by his collaborators and his friends. Although Churchill was of course enthusiastic for some kind of union in western continental Europe, because after the Second World War as after the first he hoped that France and Germany could reconcile their age-old quarrel, he always said that this union, however it was phrased—at different times it took different forms—in western Europe should be supported by the British Empire, as it then was, and Commonwealth and by the United States. He never believed that Britain could or should be part of it. Therefore to bring in Churchill is to wave a banner which we are all tempted to follow but at which we should sometimes look with caution.
There has been a good deal of skating around federalism. We hear the excuse occasionally that we can accept it because it means something different to continentals. That is nonsense. There is only one meaning of federalism. It is a system of government in which powers are guaranteed by a written constitution both to central authority and to the units of which the federation is made up. That is true of the United States, Canada, Switzerland and Australia and also, though in a slightly different way with a greater degree of centralism, of the Federal Republic of Germany.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that Bavaria never signed the constitution of the Federal Republic of West Germany?
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I am not sure what Bavaria needed to do to sign it. It is governed by the Basic Law and does in fact operate under it. It is represented in the Bundesrat and the Bundestag. Having spent some time in Bavaria, I found no one who thought that it was not part of federal Germany. But perhaps the noble Lord has other Bavarian friends who think differently.
We know exactly what federalism means. As I have said in the House before, there are moments when one thinks that a proper federal system might be less dangerous than what is available to the European Community at the moment, which seems to be a capacity for extending powers at the centre in a way which in a thoroughgoing federal system it might be easier to check. In particular one has the court always interpreting questions of competence in favour of the centre as a matter of policy, a point to which the noble Lord, Lord Monson, referred.
I do not know and no one knows how deep it actually goes in Europe but we are facing at any rate at the level of our dialogue people who are convinced above all that they are swimming with the tide of history. It used to be the future of the proletariat, but now it is the future of European integration. People who believe that they have history on their side are often very difficult to talk to about practical issues.
I believe that only yesterday Chancellor Kohl in a television interview compared the march of European integration to the flowing of the River Rhine down to

1249
the sea. Considering the fact that the River Rhine is the major source of pollution in Europe, I thought that that was a singularly unfortunate metaphor. But, on the other hand, I have the greatest confidence in my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I am sure that when they get to Maastricht they will steer clear of the Lorelei.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, in the course of this debate we have heard a great many different attitudes expressed. There have been those, mainly from the Government Front Bench, who have said that we cannot foresee the final shape of Europe. Of course, that is true. But it is good to have some idea of where we are going. Then there are those who are scared to death of federalism, of which the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, appears to be one. I shall return to that issue later. The noble Lord said that there is only one meaning to the word "federalism". He is quite correct in that view. However, it is also true to say that it can take several different forms. There are also others who appear to be wholly opposed to any kind of association with Europe, except of the loosest and purely trading variety, but who do not offer much alternative.
It is equally difficult to interpret what happened in another place last week or to interpret the result of that debate. I say that because the Government defeated the Labour amendment by 101 votes. But it is very difficult to work out what that signifies as, implausible though it may seem, the Labour amendment was rather more pro-European than the Government's Motion. Moreover, what can we make of a vote in which Mrs. Thatcher, Mr. Heath, Mr. Ridley and Sir Geoffrey Howe walked through the same Lobby, if not arm in arm or side by side, at least one behind the other?
The debate in which we have engaged today is one which has been going on for a very long time in this country. It has gained in intensity during recent weeks simply because we are faced once more with making a decision and simply because, once more, when faced with such a decision there are siren voices advising us to refuse to jump, so to speak, to postpone the decision or to procrastinate. It happened before and we know about the consequences of following such advice.
As the Prime Minister said last Wednesday, we joined the Community late, the rules of which were drawn up by the original members and not by us. He went on to point out, quite correctly, that the structure of the Community's budget and the much reviled common agricultural policy are the result of that situation. Those who revile the CAP might learn the lesson that it is better to be in and make policy rather than be out and have the policy made in your absence.
It seems to me, as other noble Lords have said, that the decisions which we are being asked to make at Maastricht go very nearly to the heart of the purposes which inspired the Community and which need to be repeated again and again. Whatever the noble Lords,
1250
Lord Stoddart of Swindon and Lord Harris of High Cross, may say, the aims of the Community were always, and from the beginning, political; it was merely the means that were economic. That fact must never be forgotten. Moreover, the aims remain political. Those who refuse to recognise that point have tried and failed in the past to break the Community by setting up a free trade area. They have tried to transform the Community into a free trade area and to prevent its political development by opposing such decisions as those which will confront us at Maastricht in the near future.
The political purpose of the Community was straightforward and it was successful. It was to prevent, as the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, said, the outbreak of yet another civil war in Europe; it was to secure a reconciliation between France and Germany; it was so to scramble Germany in a European omelette that it could never be reconstituted into the original eggs, if I may a use a complicated and not very appropriate metaphor. That was the purpose, and it succeeded.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, says what a failure the Community has been. That is rather astonishing because the Continent has had a long period of peace, and for that we must be grateful to the Community. We have a queue of people trying to join the Community. They are not only the EFTA countries but those in central Europe. It is odd that such a failure should prove to be such a political and economic magnet.
The original purpose was also to balance within the Community the economic and political power of Germany by having substantial countries such as the United Kingdom, Italy and France within that Community. With the reunification of Germany, that is more than ever necessary.
The same arguments apply now to the need to strengthen and consolidate the Community institutions within the new Europe that is emerging before our eyes today. The political structures which underly that Europe need consolidation and strengthening. We need to look at them again in the new situation that faces us. That task is made only more urgent by the prospect of enlargement; by the application of the EFTA countries and the hopes of the central European countries—Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia—to which I shall return.
If the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, thinks that those central European countries want only a free trade area, he has misunderstood their intentions. They want to be part of a politically integrated Europe and nothing less.
Among the objections to such plans which are regularly raised is sovereignty, which has been discussed by several noble Lords. Membership of the Community involves, and always has involved, a loss and a pooling of sovereignty. Anyone who supposed anything else grossly misunderstood the very nature of the European Community. That loss of sovereignty under modern conditions, as my noble friend Lord Thomson of Monifieth and the noble Lord, Lord Desai, have pointed out, is more nominal than actual because we do not have it now. As my noble friend

1251
said, if the other 11 opt for a single currency in a single market the pound will be tied to the ecu, and opting out will prove to be a weak option. If that is the sovereignty that we are losing, I do not believe that it is a matter of very great substance.
The same applies to foreign and defence policy. Where was our sovereignty within NATO? An attack on one was an attack on all, and that was that. There was no question of opting out under those circumstances. The idea that Britain can pursue its own independent, free foreign policy surely disappeared at the time of Suez. Nor did the Falklands prove anything to the contrary. Without American intelligence, missiles, bases and fuel it is exceedingly doubtful whether we could have succeeded in the Falklands.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Is it not equally true that any European defence organisation which was not part of NATO would have to depend upon the technological advantages which the United States alone possesses?
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, it all depends on the kind of conflict in which it was involved. I should have thought that it was perfectly clear from recent events, for example, that the United States is not particularly interested in participating in anything to do with Yugoslavia. I do not see why it should be. On a wider scale, it may be necessary but I do not believe that it is self-evident that what the noble Lord said is true.
In the Gulf, for example, in which we also participated, our contribution was 2 per cent. of the total. It was outnumbered by the French and paid for by the Germans. So much for the independent military action of this country.
It therefore seems to me that the co-ordination of foreign and defence policy which is becoming accepted will almost inevitably go further. How and when is more difficult to foresee, but the history of the European Community's response both to the Gulf and to Yugoslavia shows the need for devising a more effective and efficient way of co-ordinating foreign and defence policy than has so far been devised, and for resolving the differences which inevitably exist within a group of nations such as our own.
Nor is it in my view anti-American to foresee that the American military presence in Europe is likely to diminish in the next decade as it has already diminished. It is merely necessary to draw obvious conclusions from what is happening in the United States; for example, the results of the Pennsylvania senatorial election and the pressures under which President Bush finds himself to concentrate more on America and American policy and less on overseas.
The development of a European defence pillar, a European defence policy, by the end of the century seems to me necessary and inevitable and a sensible precaution for us to take. The question is: should we participate in that development or should we keep out of it and leave it once more to others to develop in our absence?
1252
Let me now turn briefly to federalism. It has become a kind of bogy word and is interpreted by many people, in the Prime Minister's words, as a centralised federal structure. In this I wholly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Desai. There is no reason why it should be a centralised federal structure. It is a question of how we distribute the power. That we can do as and how we wish. I wholly agree also with the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, when he said that it is much better to have a formal federal structure in which we decide how the powers will be distributed between the centre and the lower authorities rather than to do it on the hoof, as it appears to be done at present.
However, what is absolutely clear is that from the very beginning it was the intention of the Community to develop on these lines. Indeed, when in February 1959 I spoke to an amendment in another place proposing, after the breakdown of the free trade area negotiations, that we should join the European Community, Mr. Maudling, the then Paymaster-General who had been in charge of the negotiations answered this proposal fully. I quote from Hansard:
"for us to sign the Treaty of Rome would be to accept as the ultimate goal political federation in Europe, including ourselves".
Anyone who thinks that there was any doubt, even at that time, as to what we would be committing ourselves to is deluding himself.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, at the same time as that was being said by Reggie Maudling, the other leaders were saying that we had the power of the veto and we would use it to prevent that happening. Those two things run together.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, we were not in the European Community at that time so we could not possibly have had powers of veto. They were simply saying that if we signed the Treaty of Rome that would mean committing ourselves to a federal goal. That is the only point I am making. That was said in 1959 by Reginald Maudling and repeated by several other people at that time. I do not think anyone would deny that. It was said to be an unthinkable prospect at that time for that very reason. However, much that was said to be unthinkable has now become thinkable. Since then we have signed the Treaty of Rome, presumably with our eyes open. We have signed the Single European Act, which allowed majority voting, presumably with our eyes open. I find it difficult to understand what people think we have done, which we did not do, knowing what we were doing.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I do not wish to delay the noble Lord but is it not a fact that when we were signing the Treaty of Rome and when we passed the European Communities Act Mr. Heath and others denied the fact that we were on the road to a federal Europe? Is that not a fact and was that not concealed not only from Members of both Houses of Parliament but also from the British people? That is the complaint here.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, that question was put to Mr. Heath in another place last week. If the noble Lord reads the relevant copy of Hansard, he can read Mr Heath's reply. It is not for me to reply for Mr

1253
Heath. All I can say is that the Liberal Party, which was in favour of joining the Community, never at any moment denied that there was a loss of sovereignty involved and that there would be a supra-national authority to which we would have to conform.
However, for the reasons I have already given, I think it is foolish to make federalism a bogy word because one should take seriously into account how the powers are distributed. If one takes that matter seriously, I see no reason why the issue of over centralisation should arise. It seems to me odd that a Government obsessed with subsidiarity—that is really another way of talking about the distribution of powers—should refuse devolution for Scotland. It is rather odd to think that in the likelihood of a Scottish assembly being established—I should think it probable that that will occur within the next decade—this country will become that dread thing, a centralised federation.
Further, once there is majority voting, one is on the way towards some kind of federal structure. One is in a federal condition and the precise distribution of powers is a matter of the utmost importance. I shall not detain noble Lords for much longer. What we have witnessed in the whole of this debate and in the whole of this controversy which has occurred over the past few months is a lack of leadership on the part of the Government in relation to public opinion at home and within the Community.
The policy the Government have followed appears to be determined more by internal Conservative Party politics than by the interests of the country. The Government have not been manifestly successful in that policy, and as a consequence they have had to ask for the tolerance and understanding of our European colleagues. For that tolerance and understanding we shall in due course have to pay a price. The price will include London being ejected from its position as the financial centre of the Community. The choice of London as the site for the central bank will be put in jeopardy. The dominance of the Franco-German alliance has been strengthened. Those are the prices we have had to pay to keep the Government's policy on line. They are heavy prices to pay. But the most important factor in my view is that we have not been asking the questions within the Community which urgently need answering at this moment.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, said, the European Community has been a huge success. It has been a magnet attracting other countries wishing to join, such as the EFTA countries and Central European countries. As the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, said, it is likely to increase in size from 12 to 20 or more members in the course of the next decade or 15 years. In addition, it has the problem of absorbing the united Germany of 80 million people within its structure. We should be asking ourselves whether the institutions which were devised for six members are appropriate for 20 and whether the consensual arrangements whereby the six and the 12 reached agreements can be transferred just like that to 20 members.
1254
In my view that is exceedingly unlikely. It will require rare political and institutional imagination to adapt those institutions to include the EFTA countries and the countries of Central Europe within their ambit. We should be asking how and proposing ways and means whereby those institutions should be adapted, how the distribution of powers should be arranged, what organisation of foreign and defence policy should be devised, and how we should arrange voting. The idea that one could have unanimity in a Community of 25 powers is unrealistic; that would lead to the situation that existed in the Polish Diet in the past. Those are the urgent questions to which the attention of the country, the Community and the Commission should be directed.
If we want to be at the heart of Europe - and I and my colleagues on these Benches believe profoundly that that is the right place for this country, that it is her destiny to be there, that we should be a constructive influence there and, as the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said, we should try to make it work - it is to those questions that we should be addressing ourselves rather than to the old, sterile arguments which we have gone over so many times in the past.
10.37 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, it is late in the evening and I shall try not to detain your Lordships too long. This has been a very important debate, which has echoed the debate in another place, although not in all expressions of opinion. Strongly held views have been expressed in your Lordships' House, and it is only right that that should be so.
I shall try to follow the noble Duke, the Duke of Manchester, in his distinguished maiden speech and seek to discover the common ground between us. The noble Duke is absolutely right. We have been invited by the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal in his Motion to take note of the negotiations. In doing so we should try to discover the common ground that exists in this House. As a number of noble Lords have said, there is a great deal of common ground, although there is no point in ignoring the fact that there are sharp differences of opinion.
As my noble friend Lord Cledwyn said, my job is to talk more about economic and monetary union than about political union. However, I accept the point of the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, that Chancellor Kohl has made it perfectly clear that political and monetary union go together. Whether the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, is right or my noble friend Lord Callaghan is right in casting some doubt on whether that is so or whether it is a negotiating position remains to be seen. However, I accept that there is a political dimension to economic and monetary union even if EPU and EMU do not go together in exactly the way that Chancellor Kohl has indicated. I shall concentrate on EMU while not neglecting the fact that EMU itself is a political matter.
The noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal, in what, if it is not impertinent to say so, was a very constructive and interesting opening speech, took us further than the debate in another place last week. He explained some of the background to the negotiations at

1255
Maastricht. As we heard from other speakers, we have had the European Communities Act, the Single European Act and entry into the European exchange rate mechanism. I have some sympathy with my noble friends Lord Bruce and Lord Stoddart—it is probably the only point on which I have some sympathy with them—who said that the Single European Act was pushed through your Lordships' House on a Friday. As I recall, it was whipped and guillotined through another place. I am not sure whether the debate that was held in this House on a Friday, when my noble friend Lord Bruce was in charge, was exactly the kind of debate that we should have had on the Act. Nevertheless, it went through.
As my noble friend Lord Cledwyn said, we now find ourselves confronted with the present situation. There are several questions. The first is, as the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said, the age-old debate: is this to be a Common Market—in other words, a free trade area—or is this to be a community? That debate has run through the past 20 years or so. Some of us have taken the view from time to time that it should be a common market; in other words, a free trade area. Others have taken the view that it should be a community and, to be perfectly honest, we have changed our minds from time to time. It is only reasonable that, confronted with those problems, we should change our minds.
The second question is: if it is to be a community, what happens to what is called the democratic deficit? The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, referred to that factor. The third question is: what happens to the social dimension which many people on the Continent of Europe, and probably all of our partners in the Community, feel is part of the Community rather than something that can be separated from it.
My noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs and the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, raised a fourth point; namely, the widening of the Community. How do we construct an organisation which can not only answer the three questions that I have put, but allow for entry of Eastern European countries or other countries as and when they wish to enter? All those questions—there is no point in denying it or in bucking the issue—are fundamental questions for the constitution of our country. That is why it is right that your Lordships should discuss the matter this evening.
The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, and my noble friend Lord Callaghan put their fingers on the point when they said that Maastricht is not the end of the story. No one will come out of Maastrict saying, "That is the final form of the Community. That is where we are for ever and a day and there is nothing that can possibly change". Furthermore, the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, said that there is no intention—I cannot conceive of any intention—of trying to turn Europe into something like the United States. In that sense, federalism—here I reply to the point of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff—is almost what you mean it to be. There have been many disputes about what federalism really means.
Speaking for myself and for my party, I do not want to go strongly down the "federal" road. I do not think that it is right. I do not wish to have to correct
1256
the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, but de Gaulle did not refer to, "L'Europe des patries"; he referred to, "L'Europe des états". It is important to get that right. It is a Europe of states which come together in a community in which certain matters are decided by qualified majority voting. We certainly envisage qualified majority voting on environmental issues, but we do not envisage qualified majority voting on, for instance, defence policy issues. We believe in NATO. There is an intermediate area in which there are certain issues on which qualified majority voting is in our view right and there are certain issues where it is not right.
I turn to economic and monetary union. I was very interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, had to say. I think it was the first time that he has agreed with the Government in almost everything that he said. It was a delight to hear that he agreed with the Government. I am almost speechless, for the noble Lord's speeches, which I admire, always seemed to be constructed against the Government. Maybe I am mistaken and maybe on occasions the noble Lord has spoken against the Government. However, I was interested to hear him say - and he is right - that the Single European Act by itself commits us to economic union. That is in the Preamble, although I accept that there is no timetable for it. But Parliament passed that measure and economic union is in the Preamble of the Single European Act.
The Government tried to respond to the difficulty that economic union almost inevitably implies some closer arrangement between currencies—to be logical, in the end economic union requires some locked exchange rates—by what is known as the hard ecu proposal, which was put forward by the Treasury and about which we have heard very little. I ask the noble Earl—it is the only question I put to him - what on earth has happened to the hard ecu proposal? Has it vanished down the pipe or down the stream? Has it been given up? What has happened to it? We heard speeches from the Dispatch Box opposite to the effect that the hard ecu was the right way to proceed. Somehow we no longer hear such speeches. What has happened to that proposal?
I should like to concentrate now on the conditions under which we believe that economic and monetary union can work. It is a point that was raised by my noble friend Lord Callaghan and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, said that the problem is that if we go into economic and monetary union we must have real convergence. I accept that the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, would rather not go into the whole thing, but the point which was emphasised by my noble friends Lord Varley and Lord Callaghan is that the United Kingdom economy at the moment is not strong enough to move into convergence along the lines defined in Article 109f of the draft treaty.
If we are to go into economic and monetary union, we must have real convergence rather than the convergence that is set out in the article that I mentioned. It is not enough to have a high degree of price stability. It is not enough to have a sustainable government financial position. It is not enough that member states should have respected the normal

1257
fluctuation of margins provided for by the ERM. And it is not enough that there should be durability of convergence achieved by the member states with participation of the ERM.
What has to happen if we are to participate successfully in EMU is real convergence of the real economy; otherwise, we shall have a level of unemployment in this country and a massacre of the rest of manufacturing industry which we cannot sustain. That is the point that we believe very strongly.
Secondly, what other condition do we require for entry into EMU? It is political accountability of the institutions that will run that organisation. The noble Lord, Lord Boardman, made the point very clearly. He asked: who will appoint the governor of this European central bank? Who will be responsible for setting the exchange rate of the single European currency? Our view is that that should be the role of ECOFIN. We believe that proper democratic accountability could be achieved through the Economic and Financial Council.
I believe my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington was right on our third condition. We cannot accept EMU unless there is a proper regional policy of distributing the rewards of whatever happens through EMU through the communities so that we do not end up by paying more than we should to the Community.
I have made this point on many occasions previously. I do not wish to bore your Lordships by repeating it. My noble friend Lord Callaghan was right; I thought he had been reading the speech I made during the debate on the gracious Address. We are running a deficit at the depth of a depression, whereas on all previous occasions we have come out of a recession with a balance of payments surplus. That is the case in money terms at present. However, if we go into a single European currency, it is no good thinking that that deficit will simply be eliminated. It will be eliminated statistically, but it remains in real terms. It is important to ensure that in 1997 our economy is in balance with other economies in the European Community so that we can say, "In real terms we are holding our own". Under any other conditions EMU will be a loss maker for us.
We then come to the penalties for not joining EMU. In other words, it is the same question: what is in it for us? My noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs spoke of the disadvantage to the City of London, as did the noble Lord, Lord Boardman. There would be severe disadvantages to the financial services industry—as I prefer to call it—if we were not members of this new unit. I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, is right in saying that the markets have bombed out sterling in the expectation that there will be no deal at Maastricht.
I believe that there is a problem with the dollar and with possible interest rates in Germany. Those are more responsible than discounting a possible failure at Maastricht. Nevertheless, the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, made a serious point when he said that if we are outside this currency union—in other words, if we do not lock our exchange rate in one way or another, through a single currency, or another way—with the
1258
deutschmark, there will be a deutschmark zone. If there is a deutschmark zone in 1997, it will be so powerful that sterling will inevitably shadow the deutschmark in that zone, like it or leave it. I am afraid that that is the truth of the matter as the markets will see it.
I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, said about transactions charges. He is quite right. We would certainly save money. If we went into EMU seriously we would ensure that we benefited from being the financial centre of Europe.
The timetable is this. There would have to be real decisions in 1997. That is where Stage Three really starts to bite. Either we are in or we are out by 1997, unless the Community decides to postpone the whole issue for another two years; that is in the draft treaty. My noble friend Lord Callaghan likes the idea of an opt-out arrangement. I prefer to see the convergence provisions in Article 109f of the draft treaty very much strengthened along the lines that I have recommended. The whole Community then has to decide whether in real terms the economy of one or any country is up to joining this new single currency that is proposed.
I do not like the idea of a referendum. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, knocked that on the head pretty successfully. I do not see how one can frame a question or what happens if a referendum is lost. I do not see how it can be binding. I simply do not see how it can work. Nevertheless, we have to accept that there are decisions that will be made at Maastricht. As the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, said, there will be give and take. I have no objection to the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal not revealing the Government's negotiating position. That is absolutely right. We believe that, subject to the points that I have mentioned and subject always to the thought that there is a social dimension to Europe that the Government do not yet accept, that, with the Prime Minister, we should be at the heart of Europe.
I have tried to sum up from our side where we see common ground in this House. I accept that there are noble Lords who have different views on the extremes, but I believe there is common ground in this House. It is in that spirit that I say to the Government that we believe that we should be right in there, forming the Community as it is developed. In that I wish the Prime Minister success at Maastricht.
10.57 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, this has been, as one would expect of such an important occasion, a most stimulating and encouraging debate. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part. It is indeed a debate that my right honourable friends the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will read with great interest. We have heard a range of views expressed generally supportive of the Government's constructive approach to these negotiations and their firm commitment to Community membership. There are those who would like to see the Community do more or to see a re-drawing of the

1259
balance of power between the institutions; more power to the Parliament and less power to the Commission.
As my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal stressed at the start of this debate, we must first and foremost always consider the practical implications of any such changes. There is no point erecting gleaming new machinery for enhanced European co-operation if we are not in a position to make it work.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, said that the negotiations would be difficult for any Prime Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, said much the same. The noble Lords are right. But it is not nearly as difficult as a re-negotiation back into Europe that a Conservative Prime Minister would have had to undertake if a Labour Government had won the last election and taken us out of Europe. While the Labour Party's new-found enthusiasm for Europe is welcomed by many but by no means all of its supporters, as was clear this afternoon, it is sad that those facets which it opposed in the Community are the same ones which have benefited Britain and that its new-found enthusiasm is on the same issues as could do Britain the most damage.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I tried very hard in my winding up speech not to make a party political broadcast. I tried to unite the discussion that we had in the House. I hope that the noble Earl will follow me in that.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. He made a very constructive speech. I shall make a constructive speech. Various points were made quite legitimately. I am sorry that the noble Lord took offence at what was purely a factual statement by me.
I would like to start with economic and monetary union. It is a wide-ranging subject and it needs a little explanation. It comprises three stages. We are already in stage one which only consists of as many member states a possible seeking to join the ERM and efforts to complete the single market next year. The draft treaty says that stage two starts on 1st January 1994. The key points are that monetary policy remains a national responsibility. Contrary to previous plans, the European Central Bank is not set up. The Economic Monetary Institute - the EMI - is established with an advisory, consultative role continuing the work of the committee of the European Central Bank governors which now meets regularly in Basle.
The existing process of multi-lateral surveillance of member states' economic policies is set on a formal treaty basis.
The finance council has a discretion to register member states' budget deficits and, if it chooses, to declare them excessive. It can issue recommendations but not ceilings or penalties. All member states will make efforts to achieve convergence of economic performance in four areas: inflation, no excessive deficit, long-term interest rates and two years in the ERM narrow band.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, there is agreement that there should be a hardening of the ecu in stage two, as I have just
1260
described it. I noted with interest what my noble friend Lady Elles said about that. She felt that we were already moving in that direction.
There is no fixed timetable for stage three. The only rule is that the Commission and the EMI must report on progress on convergence before 31st December 1996. The key points here are that the European Central Bank is established to take over monetary policy. National central banks will be part of the European system of central banks. All would be independent of member states and Community institutions but would be accountable to the European Parliament and the finance council. We do not share common ground with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, on that point. It would not be practical for the European Central Bank to take instructions from 12 finance Ministers.
The exchange rate policy would be determined by the finance council provided it was compatible with the primary objective of price stability. Member states would not be able to move to stage three until they had passed the convergence tests set out above. At least a certain number - six, seven or eight and we should prefer eight - would have to be ready and willing to move to stage three before it could start. As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, reminded the House, the United Kingdom has successfully taken the lead in arguing for the importance of prior convergence. Countries which failed the test would be granted temporary derogations, allowing them to join later when they were ready. Under the current proposals any member states, not just the United Kingdom as my noble friend Lady Elles reminded us, would be able to opt for exemption status. If they do not wish to move to stage three, they do not have to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Desai, and the Labour Party would welcome a single currency now. In contrast, we have made it clear that we shall not sign a treaty which would commit us to move to a single currency without a separate decision by the British Government and Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, said that that shows that we are grudging members of the Community. I put it to him that he is wrong for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, and my noble friends Lord Cockfield and Lord Aldington. I must disagree with the view put forward by the noble Lord, which the Liberal Party enunciates, that the only good European is the person who does not query any measures put forward. I do not believe that to be in Europe's interests.
To answer the point made by the noble Lords, Lord Ezra and Lord Skidelsky, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made it clear that it would be wrong to pre-empt a decision as to whether it would be right for the United Kingdom to move to a single currency. That is not a decision for now. It is a decision to be taken by Parliament at the appropriate time in the future. I believe that is also the answer to my noble friend Lord Joseph, to whom I listened with particular care.
I can tell the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, that it is envisaged that the existing arrangements for the ERM will continue for any country which is not

1261
part of the single currency although the monetary policy of the European Central Bank would not apply to any exempt member state.
We wish to reach satisfactory conclusions to both IGCs at Maastricht. We are working for that result, but I cannot speak for others.
I now turn to the other IGC; namely, that on political union. We have heard a great deal this afternoon and this evening about that "F" word -federalism—the federal goal and whether any treaty at Maastricht will set us on a road towards it. Federalism is a red herring. As the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, said, to some it means centralisation and a superstate: to others it means de-centralisation and a structure of subsidiarity. None of us can predict how the Community will develop and whether in 10 years from now it will look more or less like a federal system.
As my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal pointed out in opening the debate, the Community has come a long way since we joined it in 1972. But it has done so on the basis of the mutual consent of all its members to broaden and deepen the range of their co-operation. That is the way in which it will continue to develop in the future. Defining any end state can only be unhelpful, especially where a word like "federalism", open to such a wide variety of interpretations, is the specific goal in question. Therefore my noble friend Lord Bessborough will be pleased that the Government have already made perfectly clear that we cannot accept any treaty containing that language, and we are pleased to have the support of my noble friend Lord Aldington on that.
In our view the Community should evolve gradually by the consensus of its members. The important thing is to make sure that each step forward is a practical and workable one which will bring benefit to all the Community's members. That is why we have all along advocated a treaty structure which retains the current flexibility and diversity in the forms of co-operation between member states. Much of that co-operation takes place on the basis of provisions and common policies set down in the Treaty of Rome. But there is much useful work that goes on outside that structure in inter-governmental fora. It is no less European for that. It is no less intense, no less co-ordinated and no less useful than work under the treaty.
I am glad to say that the present text of the Netherlands treaty recognises that view and maintains areas for inter-governmental co-operation. That approach will allow us to expand the level of our co-operation on a number of sensitive subjects as far as necessary and as quickly as possible. After all, that is what we all want.
A number of noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, raised the important issue of increasing the democratic accountability of the unelected Commission. We have a clear view of the powers of the Commission, and more importantly, of the limits of those powers. It is the Council of Ministers which is the decision-making power in the Community and not the Commission.
1262
The Commission's legislative powers are limited to those delegated to it by the Council of Ministers, and then under carefully drawn conditions. Even so, as my noble friend Lord Rippon of Hexham said, it is still possible for the Commission to stray into the details of everyday life in a way which has antagonised the British people and led to calls for increasing the accountability of the Commission. A number of draft provisions in the treaty to be examined in Maastricht are designed to address that problem.
If a treaty is signed, it will contain provisions allowing a European Parliament role of approval on the appointment of the Commission, a more detailed European parliamentary role in the budget discharge procedure, and the right to call the Commission to account, as well as broader rights to set up temporary committees of inquiry to receive petitions and to appoint an ombudsman. That would be a positive gain for Britain and for the rest of the Community.
We spent some time a little over a month ago debating in detail the question of expanding the European Parliament's powers in the legislative field. We did so on the basis of an admirable report produced by the European Communities Committee on the law-making powers and procedures of a political union. I remind the House of one of the report's conclusions, which said that the concept of co-decision between the European Parliament and the Council was inherently unworkable. We very much agree, and it seems that our partners do as well. What is now on the table in the latest Dutch treaty text is nothing like earlier ambitious proposals for joint decision-making between the Council and the European Parliament, both having equal weight in the legislative process. Instead, there is the prospect of introducing in certain areas an ultimate power for the European Parliament to block a decision taken by Ministers in the Council. The label "co-decision" is no longer accurate and no longer applies.
The Government's position on the developing role of the European Parliament in the Community has been set clearly before the House in the past. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and the Government are close to being on common ground in that regard. We recognise and encourage the useful work that the parliament can perform in enhancing the accountability of the Commission, in attending to the detail of the Community's accounts to achieve greater efficiency, and in providing a focus for investigating the grievances of European citizens. In addition, in answer to a question of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, we are ready to consider introducing the new proposed negative assent procedure into the Community's decision-making process, provided its scope of application is strictly limited.
However, the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and we differ in that we believe that there is no case for any more significant increase in the parliament's legislative power so soon after the step change represented by the Single European Act. To the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, and to my noble friend Lord Bethell, I would add that it is through involving our national parliaments more closely in the Community's work, an area where I know that this House wishes to take

1263
the lead, that we will truly be able to strengthen the democratic accountability of the Community as a whole.
On defence, a subject mentioned by the noble Duke, the Duke of Manchester, in his excellent maiden speech which carried all the more weight for being brief, we are negotiating in the IGC on the basis of three broad principles, which I believe command the broad support of the House, including, I hope, the support of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. First, the importance of the Atlantic Alliance. My noble friend Lady Park will be pleased to know that we are firm that NATO must retain sole responsibility for the defence of NATO territory.
The Western European Union should be developed to be the instrument of a European defence identity. It should have links in different ways to both the Union and NATO, but it should be subordinate to neither.
The third point is that defence co-operation in Europe should not force our other allies to be periphery, nor should it present them with a fait accompli which they have no choice but to accept or reject. We are confident that an agreement can be reached which protects those three principles at Maastricht. The Anglo-Italian declaration on European defence was widely welcomed, and I would put it to the noble Lord, Lord Varley, that it is but one example of the positive role that we have taken. It has been by no means a reactionary role.
Another question that has naturally commanded much attention is the issue of a common foreign policy. This is nothing new. In practice we have been seeking to operate such a common policy for some considerable time. Strengthening the commitment to achieve such a policy is a long-standing British objective. We hope that the mechanisms agreed at Maastricht will deliver one, but I would put it to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, that this does not mean putting it within the Treaty of Rome. Thus we do not agree that this need contain any provision for qualified majority voting. A common policy will carry most weight when it is unanimously agreed. Majority voting will not long hide disunity and disarray when it is exposed to the pressures of the real world.
I was going to answer a question of the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, at this point, but as he is not in his place, I shall not do so. But let us be clear, nobody is suggesting that majority voting should be introduced for significant issues of principle, but only for implementing decisions of a very secondary nature. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, would agree that the burden is on the other member states who favour this distinction to convince us that it can ever work in practice.
I am not in the least surprised that a number of your Lordships raised the question of a referendum. I appreciate the strongly-held views in all parts of the Chamber. I agree with the sentiments expressed by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place last week and repeated this afternoon by my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal. We believe there is no need for a referendum after Maastricht. I admired very much what my noble friend Lord Beloff said, and
1264
my noble friend Lord Boardman put it more succinctly for us non-academics when he said that we live in a parliamentary democracy.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked about social policy, and I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, is not in his place to hear what I have to say on this particular point. I agree that we do not want to give up so much of what we have achieved in the past 12 years, and it is worth pointing out that just three draft directives in the social action programme, including those on part-time work and working time, would cost British employers up to £6.5 million and lead to the loss of as many as 100,000 jobs. I agree with my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls, whom I am pleased to see is in his place. We need to look at this area with great care.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, showed his expertise with regard to the Court of Auditors among the other areas that he mentioned. The Treaty of Rome already provides that the Court of Auditors should be completely independent in the performance of its duties. It is not subservient to the Commission. There are proposals in the draft treaty put forward by the United Kingdom which should improve the workings of the court. I agree with the noble Lord—none is too soon. I shall write to the noble Lord on the details and on the other points that he raised.
Finally, I should like to echo the words of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place last week. He made it quite clear that Britain's place is at the heart of Europe, and that the Community's best interests lie in reaching an agreement at Maastricht which will satisfy all of its members. We will not be afraid to argue our corner where we believe our position is right. That has always been our approach. It has worked of course in our own interests, but also in the long-term interests of the Community. Our stands in the Community in the past, calling for sound finances and a reformed common agricultural policy, are in retrospect seen not as wrecking or isolationist but as fundamental good sense. It has not damaged our interests to be a little sceptical, as the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, described it.
For a consensus agreement to be reached at Maastricht, there will need to be give and take on all sides. There are some points we should prefer to see agreed which may not be. But some points are more important than others. I shall summarise what are among the most crucial for us. On EMU, we must see the incorporation in the treaty of strict conditions of economic convergence and a provision which will allow government and Parliament to decide whether and not just when to join a single currency. On political union, we must safeguard NATO as the principal vehicle of our defence, and avoid the creation of any competing European defence structure which would undermine it.
On foreign policy, we want stronger and closer co-operation, outside Community competence. But it must not interfere with our ability to take decisions in our own national interest. We need to increase the European Parliament's role in controlling the

1265
Commission, but we should not allow the Parliament to become the legislative equal of the Council in making policy for the Community.
We want greater co-operation in Europe in the fights against cross-border crime, drugs, terrorism, illegal immigration and other Home Office issues. This treaty provides a chance to give such intergovernmental co-operation a sound basis in its international law; again this is best pursued outside the framework of the Community.
Finally—and here I agree with my noble friend Lord Joseph —we must constrain the extension of Community competence to those areas where Community action makes more sense than national action, or action on a voluntary inter-governmental basis. Again, I was going to say something to the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, on this subject.
This is the approach which we believe will have the support of the majority of people in this country. It is a policy designed to maximise our influence in the Community; and we must use that influence. We must use it to ensure that the Community fills the important role in world affairs which the changes elsewhere in Europe and its growing economic strength dictate it must. We must keep the Community open, liberal, true to its original free-market philosophy; and we must see that the Community does not turn its face away from the newly-emerging democracies of eastern Europe. We should offer them the prospect of
1266
Community membership along with the other applicants in a lengthening queue, once they can satisfy all the conditions of membership.
That is the challenge before us. It is a challenge, as I have said, to which the Community can rise only if the structures and procedures we agree at Maastricht for this next stage of the Community's development are workable, practical and command consensus. It is with this vital goal in mind that the British Government approach the Maastricht European Council. We continue to participate forcefully at the heart of debate in helping to shape the structure, the processes and the future development of an organisation which is set to play an ever increasing role in the wider world, and an ever more beneficial one in all of our lives.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security (Consequential Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Bill [H.L.]
A Message was brought from the Commons that they concur with the Lords Message of 21st November.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past eleven o'clock.

  PRISON FARMS: POTATO QUOTA
  PRISON FARMS: POTATO QUOTA
  CYCLISTS: LIGHTING OFFENCES
  CYCLISTS: LIGHTING OFFENCES
  TRADE MARKS LEGISLATION
  TRADE MARKS LEGISLATION
  TRIDENT
  TRIDENT
  UK NUCLEAR WEAPONS:SAFETY STUDY
  UK NUCLEAR WEAPONS:SAFETY STUDY
  OPERATION GRANBY: EVALUATION
  OPERATION GRANBY: EVALUATION
  OPERATION GRANBY: CONTRIBUTIONS TO UK COSTS
  OPERATION GRANBY: CONTRIBUTIONS TO UK COSTS
  A.419: PROPOSED LATTON BYPASS
  A.419: PROPOSED LATTON BYPASS
  HGVs: SPEED LIMIT
  HGVs: SPEED LIMIT
  FALKLAND ISLANDS: CONTINENTAL SHELF
  FALKLAND ISLANDS: CONTINENTAL SHELF
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION: GUIDANCE
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION: GUIDANCE