Sitting of 1 December 1992

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS

  Message from the Queen
  THE VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
  I have received your Addresses praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Guyana) Order 1992 and the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Falkland Islands) Order 1992 be made in the form of drafts laid before your House.
  I will comply with your request.

Oral Answers to Questions
  EMPLOYMENT

    Merseyside Training and Enterprise Council
    Mr. Wareing: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what changes she is planning in the funding of Merseyside training and enterprise council.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): Merseyside training and enterprise council's budget this year is more than £50 million, allowing it to help more than 20,000 people. The regional director will discuss funding for next year with that TEC in the next few weeks.
    Mr. Wareing: Is the Minister aware that this year the funding of Merseyside TEC was 7·5 per cent. down in real terms, and that the 231,000 training weeks for which it contracted this year represented a 20 per cent. reduction compared with last year? What sort of Government talk about recovery but are prepared to pay more than treble the amount that they pay out to Merseyside TEC to keep unemployed people idle on Merseyside? Does the Minister appreciate the fact that I represent one of the worst unemployment zones in the country and that when people there hear the Prime Minister talk about recovery they laugh, and laugh and laugh. I cannot wish my constituents a prosperous new year, because the Government will have to go before they can have one.
    Mr. McLoughlin: If anybody laughs, it must be at the hon. Gentleman's whingeing. One must look at what has happened in his constituency. In July 1986, unemployment was 9,472; in October 1992, it was 6,394—down by 33 per cent. I hope that even the hon. Gentleman could welcome that.
    Mr. Simon Coombs: What has been the take-up of resources for employment action within the Mersey side
    126
    training and enterprise council area? Do the Government intend to make funds for employment action more widely available in the future?
    Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. None of the training schemes that we have introduced has ever received the Opposition's support. They whinge about wanting training to be provided, yet criticise every scheme that we put forward positively. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced some new training initiatives that will come into force as a result of the excellent settlement that she managed to achieve during the public expenditure round.
    Mr. Alton: Is the Minister aware that, from this very day, the disabled people previously being trained at the Greenbank project in Liverpool will cease to be trained there because of the reductions in funding by the Merseyside TEC? Does he accept that the disabled are a vulnerable group of people, about whom he has received personal representations? Will he look again at the funding for that specific group and see whether additional resources can be made available to the Merseyside TEC for their benefit?
    Mr. McLoughlin: That point has been brought to our attention. My noble Friend Viscount Ullswater has been dealing with the matter and I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall look at it again.
    Mr. Evennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that business and community leaders have welcomed TECs as the best way to deliver training, taking into account local needs?
    Mr. McLoughlin: That is the case. The simple fact is that TECs are making a substantial contribution throughout the country both locally and nationally.

    Unfair Dismissal
    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what action she proposes to take to protect people employed for less than two years from unfair or arbitrary dismissal.
    The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Michael Forsyth): Many people without two years' service are already protected against unfair dismissals, for example, for trade union reasons or on grounds of race or sex.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Will the Minister reflect on the fact that many hundreds of people will be disappointed by his reply, bearing in mind that they have suffered unfair and arbitrary dismissal and have no remedy because they have been employed for less than two years, and many part-time workers, particularly women, have to be employed for five years before they have a remedy? Many people who are rich and powerful obtain substantial sums in compensation, but ordinary workers have no remedy. Is that consistent with maintaining the rule of law and in the spirit of the rules of natural justice?
    Mr. Forsyth: At a time of high unemployment we must be wary about making changes that would make recruitment of people more difficult or less likely. But perhaps I can reassure the hon. Gentleman in at least one respect. We plan to extend the rights that people enjoy

    127
    against unfair dismissal to include pregnant women and to extend protection without a qualifying period to workers who are dismissed on health and safety grounds.
    Mr. Sykes: Does my hon. Friend agree with the people of Scarborough and Whitby who welcome the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill, on the standing Committee of which I have the privilege to serve, which protects individuals against the unfair and alien practices so long practised by the trade union movement?
    Mr. Forsyth: I entirely agree with the people of Scarborough, particularly in their sending my hon. Friend to the House. I welcome his participation on the Committee stage of the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill, which, as he rightly emphasises, extends employment rights for a number of our fellow citizens.
    Ms. Quin: Will the Minister confirm that no other European Community country has as long a qualifying period as we do for protection against unfair dismissal? Will he further confirm that no other country savagely penalises part-time workers in the way that we do? Is he not in favour of a level playing field in Europe?
    Mr. Forsyth: Certainly not. We have a higher proportion of women and part-time workers in our work force than do many of our European partners. We have a higher percentage of women in our work force than any other European country, apart from Denmark. The hon. Lady, perhaps unwittingly, has made my point. Were I to take her advice there might be fewer opportunities in the labour market for women, part-time workers and others. Is that what she wants?

    Local Initiative Fund
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans she has to provide further support for the local initiative fund.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that the local initiative fund, which allows training and enterprise councils and local enterprise companies to develop new ideas in support of training and business growth, will be increased by £12 million in 1993–94.
    Mr. Mitchell: Given that that fund goes to support local training initiatives by TECs and related bodies, will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that TECs and similar bodies now have sufficient funding to redeem the Government's pledge to school leavers that they will all be offered a place on a training programme?
    Mrs. Shephard: Yes. We have always made it clear that TECs will be adequately resourced for that purpose. In the five months since June, 99,000 young people in England have entered youth training. Estimates from TECs last week suggest that of all those young people who left school this summer, about 19,000 have yet to take up a training place. I have written today to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Employment with full details of how TECs are meeting that guarantee and I am taking a close TEC-by-TEC interest to ensure that that guarantee is met.
    Mr. Ronnie Campbell: What would the Secretary of State say to the organisation in my constituency called
    128
    Mustard Seed which must fold at the end of the month because it does not have the money to keep going and because the TEC does not have enough money? Mustard Seed deals with the back-end—with the young people leaving school who cannot get jobs or apprenticeships. What advice does the Secretary of State have for organisations such as those run by the Church who are trying to keep those kids off the streets and off the dole, but which are folding because of a lack of money? What guarantee does the right hon. Lady have for them?
    Mrs. Shephard: I have always made it absolutely clear that we stand by the guarantee of places for young people. All TECs and LECs are adequately resourced to meet the youth training guarantee. If any TEC or LEC can show that it is not, we will certainly look at its case.

    Training and Enterprise Councils
    Mr. Milligan: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures she is taking to meet the concerns which have been expressed by TECs.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: Last month, I was pleased to be able to announce a package of measures that has been welcomed by TECs throughout the country.
    Mr. Milligan: I thank my right hon. Friend for the statement that she made in reply to the previous question, but is she aware that 1,000 young people in Hampshire still have not been able to get training places? Hampshire TEC has a most imaginative scheme for providing initial training, to try to get those young persons up to the level that private business requires. Can my right hon. Friend explain what will be the effect in Hampshire of the announcement that she just made?
    Mrs. Shephard: I can certainly explain with pleasure to my hon. Friend that close attention is being paid to Hampshire TEC's particular problems with meeting the guarantee. As I said, all TECs have the resources required to meet it. In fact, we have provided for 244,000 places for young people in the current year and the number required is only 216,000. There is no problem with resources, but there may be a problem with Hampshire TEC—as there are with some others—in finding employer placements. Each and every TEC—few now are finding difficulty—will be helped to meet the guarantee by the end of this month.
    Mr. Wallace: How can the Secretary of State say that the guarantee is being met when she has just heard that 1,000 young people in Hampshire have no training places? A similar survey in Fife also found a large shortfall. Is not the reason that the right hon. Lady's budget for this year is £3·5 billion, when, in 1987, in real terms, it was £5·1 billion? In other words, the Secretary of State has only two thirds of the amount that was available in 1987, but unemployment is roughly at the same level. Is not the right hon. Lady abdicating her responsibilities to those who are unemployed and seeking training?
    Mrs. Shephard: Unlike the hon. Gentleman, we welcome the fact that more young people are staying on at school. That results, perforce, in fewer young people coming forward for a training place. As I said, some TECs have found it difficult this year to find employer placements. There is of course always a surge of demand when young people make up their minds to choose youth

    129
    training in the autumn. I repeat that there need be no problem of inadequate resources preventing TECs and LECs from meeting the guarantee.
    Mr. Heald: Does my right hon. Friend agree that training and enterprise councils can play a special role in cases where there are large redundancies by co-ordinating task forces—as they have done in Hertfordshire and in my constituency in north Hertfordshire?
    Mrs. Shephard: Yes. Hertfordshire TEC has played a key role in helping with British Aerospace redundancies, and I was delighted by the positive and strong response made by TECs in preparing plans to cope with pit closures.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: How can the Secretary of State claim that TECs are happy with the settlement when last year, this year, and next year they received and will receive real-terms cuts in their budgets at a time when long-term unemployment and unemployment generally are continuing to rise?
    How can the right hon. Lady tell the House that she is keeping to the guarantee when, by her own figures, she admits that 19,000 young people have not been found a youth training place? Will she undertake to re-examine the situation whereby many young people for whom the guarantee has not been honoured find themselves without any income? Will she talk to her friend at the Department of Social Security and suggest that those young people should once again receive some kind of benefit?
    Mrs. Shephard: As the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, there is a special hardship allowance and bridging allowances for young people who are between YT places. Given that in the House on 20 November the hon. Gentleman wrongly claimed that 75,000 young people were waiting for a training place, I thought that he would welcome today's figures.
    Mr. Sweeney: Does my right hon. Friend accept that Britain is unique in offering a guaranteed place on a training scheme for all 16 to 17-year-olds?
    Mrs. Shephard: Yes, I accept my hon. Friend's point. There is no question but that we have a better record in that respect than many of our European counterparts, including France.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will make a statement about employment levels in west Cumbria.
    Mr. McLoughlin: The most up-to-date figures are available down to regional level and show that between March 1983 and June 1992 the civilian work force in employment in the northern region, which includes west Cumbria, increased by 67,000.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does not the Department of Trade and Industry's current national energy review. with all the talk about coal, important as that is, have major implications for employment in the nuclear industry in west Cumbria? What guarantee have we that the voice of the nuclear industry, as in the case advocated by the West Cumbria TEC, is being channelled into the Department of
    130
    Employment and relayed on to the Department of Trade and Industry when decisions are taken on the regional assistance map?
    Mr. McLoughlin: I am sure that that case will be taken into account if the TECs feed it into the review currently being undertaken by the President of the Board of Trade. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to feed that view to his Front-Bench colleagues.

    Retraining
    Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will make a statement on developments in the retraining of unemployed adults aged over 21 years.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: On 12 November I announced training for work, a new programme for those aged 18 and over who have been unemployed for six months or more. It will start from April 1993 as part of a new range of measures that together will provide 500,000 more opportunities to help unemployed people back to work—resulting in 1·5 million available places.
    Mr. Nicholson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. The whole House will recognise the priority that the Government place on training for people of 16 and 17, and we welcome the remarks that my right hon. Friend made earlier today. However, is she aware that in our constituencies people are concerned about the plight of people over 18, and over 21, who face unemployment in this dreadful and prolonged recession? That concern is especially marked among those who have retired from work. Will my right hon. Friend redouble her efforts to provide retraining and suitable employment advice for the people whom I have mentioned, and make efforts to bring the below-average TECs up to the standard of the best? Will she also tell me what role she envisages for job clubs?
    Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend may be reassured about the performance of TECs by the knowledge that a larger proportion of their funding will be output related. In other words, the money that they receive for training will be related to the output of jobs and qualifications. We now have a big package of measures which should meet the needs of all those who need to be retrained, reskilled and helped back into work, and we have a vastly increased number of places in job clubs, which have an excellent record in helping people back to work.
    Mr. Diner: Can the Minister tell my constituents who have recently been made redundant from Rolls-Royce, Alvis and Clarkson Machine Tools—men who are at the pinnacle of their skills and experience in modern technology—what on earth she will offer them in the way of training?
    Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government cannot create jobs. It is business, industry and commerce which create jobs. The role of the Government is to prepare the right framework for the recovery, to help people to get jobs, to prepare people for the jobs available and to help them keep in touch with the jobs market. Our new 1·5 million place programme is designed to do exactly that.
    Sir Peter Emery: Although we see the importance of training, will my right hon. Friend make it absolutely clear

    131
    that the proportion of the population in employment in the United Kingdom is far greater than the proportion in almost any other country in the European Community? That point should be underlined.
    Mrs. Shephard: I thank my hon. Friend. We have a higher participation rate of people in work than any other EC country except Denmark. That also applies to women in employment.
    Mr. Dobson: The Opposition welcome the announcement by the Secretary of State today in so far as it acknowledges the abject failure of the existing schemes for people who are out of work. Will the right hon. Lady confirm that only one in five people who have been on employment training schemes have gone on to get a job, and that people who have not been on schemes have, therefore, stood a better chance of getting a job than those who have been on employment schemes? Surely the answer is not a host of schemes, but a Government who will come forward with a package that will provide jobs that people can get. People do not want training: they want work.
    Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Gentleman should have listened to what I said. The funding for training and enterprise councils is to be output related—related to the outcome of training in terms of obtaining jobs and obtaining qualifications.
    The hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for employers is a little ill placed, given his remarks about them as recently as September. He said of employers:
    "These people are stinking, lousy, thieving, incompetent scum."
    How much credibility does the hon. Gentleman have?
    Mr. Bellingham: When my right hon. Friend is next in Norfolk, will she find time to visit the King's Lynn job club, which I recently opened? If she does, she will hear support for the way in which she has protected her Department's budget in real terms. She will also hear some people say that many firms tell them that if they are over 50, they are too old to apply for jobs. What advice would she give such people?
    Mrs. Shephard: I know my hon. Friend's job club. He may know that last year, before I had any connection with my present responsibilities, I visited that job club.
    I should perhaps declare an interest in the question of people over 50. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will announce later this week the membership of a working group that is designed to bring to employers' attention the qualities of people over 50 in the work force.

    Unemployment, Barrow and Furness
    Mr. Hutton: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what policies she intends to pursue to reduce unemployment in Barrow and Furness.
    Mr. McLoughlin: The Employment Service and Cumbria TEC deliver a wide range of employment, enterprise and training programmes to help unemployed people in Barrow and Furness find the best and quickest route back to employment.
    Mr. Hutton: Is the Minister aware that my constituency has experienced the biggest increase in unemployment of any constituency in the north of England over the past two
    132
    years? Unemployment has doubled during that period. Unemployment now affects every family and every part of my constituency.
    Will the Minister give my constituents two assurances? First, will he increase the resources available to the Cumbria training and enterprise council this year, instead of imposing further cuts on it, so that young people especially can have access to quality training now that apprenticeships at VSEL have finished? Secondly, will he assure my constituents that he will place his Department at the front of a new and fresh initiative to secure jobs in my constituency by giving it assisted area status?
    Mr. McLoughlin: As the hon. Gentleman knows, assisted area status is a matter for the Department of Trade and Industry. I am sure that he has made representations to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.
    We shall discuss with each TEC over the next few months the allocation of budgets. We shall, of course, want to look at the detail of what has happened in particular areas and at the training requirements that are necessary in each area.

    Astra Training Services
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will make a statement on the value of contracts placed by training and enterprise councils with Astra Training Services.
    Mr. McLoughlin: Contracts placed by training and enterprise councils are a matter for the councils individually, and the Department does not collect information on the amount of business that TECs place with individual training providers.
    Mr. Mullin: Is the Minister aware that, since Astra was handed over, along with a large sum of public money, to a group of former civil servants, that company has reneged on its pension commitments and demanded from its employees on pain of dismissal salary cuts of 10 and 15 per cent., and that employees have recently been surprised to discover that they are now owned by a company called Schroeder Ventures? Is the Minister able to assure the House that that is not just the beginning of an asset-stripping operation and another privatisation scandal?
    Mr. McLoughlin: The sale was conducted on a clean-break basis. It is not for Ministers to comment on what is happening in private companies.
    Lady Olga Maitland: May I give a warm welcome to the initiatives that have been announced today to help 18-year-olds and others? However, is my hon. Friend aware that the information services—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The question is specific to TECs with Astra Training Services. One has to keep to the question.

    Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service
    Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether she has any plans to privatise ACAS.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: ACAS will continue as an independent statutory body charged with improving industrial relations, but, following representations from my hon. Friend and others, its duty to extend collective bargaining will be removed.
    Mr. Riddick: As it is clearly inappropriate for Government bodies such as ACAS to promote collective bargaining in this day and age, may I congratulate my hon. Friend on the statement that he has just made? Is he aware that the Institute of Directors is advocating the full privatisation of ACAS? Is that not a first-class idea?
    Mr. Forsyth: I was not aware of that fact and, no, I do not think that it is a first-class idea. My hon. Friend, having persuaded the Department to abandon the terms of reference which put a duty on ACAS to promote collective bargaining, should quit while he is ahead.
    Mr. Eric Clarke: In the past, ACAS was very helpful in industrial disputes. Because it is being privatised, will there be a bonus system, a productivity agreement, or what? Will people who are liked be appointed, rather than people who can do the job? I fear that ACAS will become a Government-friendly society and will demonstrate the attitude that the Minister is demonstrating today.
    Mr. Forsyth: I am not quite sure what is going on. I have just said to my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) that we would not be privatising ACAS. The hon. Gentleman has given the argument for privatising ACAS. If he had gone on for much longer I might have had second thoughts.

    Youth Training
    Mr. French: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the youth training scheme.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: More than three quarters of all young people who complete their YT training go into a job, further education or training. I am concerned, however, about the operation of the YT guarantee, and my right hon. Friend has taken steps to ensure that every training and enterprise council meets its obligations.
    Mr. French: Is my hon. Friend completely satisfied that, in terms of monitoring and organising YT placements, there can no longer be any grounds for trainees to say that their time is not well used because they are required to make the tea or sweep the floor?
    Mr. Forsyth: I am not entirely satisfied about any aspect of YT, but credit should be given to the extent to which the scheme is a considerable success. My hon. Friend will know that his own TEC—Gloucester TEC—is doing extremely well on the delivery of YT, with 90 per cent. of those involved getting a job in or at the end of their period of training. I agree with my hon. Friend that we have to continue to improve the monitoring of the YT scheme and to ensure that more of its output is related to its funding, which is precisely what my right hon. Friend has done since her appointment as Secretary of State.
    Mr. Llwyd: Does the Minister accept that, dealing with the YT scheme in general, it is high time that the Government made funding available for young people to
    134
    take job opportunities so that they are able to take full part in the scheme? In rural areas, they are paid insufficient to enable them to travel to take up YT.
    Yesterday I was discussing this very subject with various people in north Wales. The main impediment to the take-up of YT schemes unfortunately is that very matter. Will the Government rethink?
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman is making a serious point which is worthy of consideration. There are problems in rural areas. One effect of the flexibility to which my right hon. Friend was able to get agreement, and which will apply to TECs under the new proposals, is that there will be more scope to tackle the difficulties which the hon. Gentleman has identified.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Robathan: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when she last met training and enterprise council chairmen to discuss progress on young people's unemployment.
    Mr. McLoughlin: My right hon. Friend meets TEC chairmen frequently to discuss with them the arrangements they are making to meet the vocational education, training and employment needs of young people.
    Mr. Robathan: I understand from speaking to TECs that one problem is finding work placement schemes for people in YT. What measures is my hon. Friend taking to encourage employers to take people into work placement schemes?
    Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We have initiated a variety of schemes which we have asked TECs to pursue. Since my right hon. Friend has occupied her present position she has made abundantly clear to TECs the importance that she places on their meeting the youth training guarantee. I notice that the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) has not withdrawn the remarks he made on 20 November, reported at column. 568 of Hansard, but the figures are nowhere near those about which the Opposition have been scaremongering.
    Miss Lestor: Would the hon. Gentleman perhaps like notice of what I hope to raise shortly when I come to see him or a member of his Department? In an area like Salford, an area of long-term unemployment, we do not have the industry that can offer people YT places; the places that were being offered have been withdrawn either because the firms have gone out of existence or have stopped taking in people. In that respect, many of the young people in my constituency expect to join their fathers and become long-term unemployed. That is disastrous for all of them.
    Mr. McLoughlin: I know that the hon. Lady hopes to bring a number of her colleagues to the Department in the not-too-distant future. We are very concerned to ensure that young people who require youth training places are given places. There are various ways in which that can be done. We have made resources available. We have made it clear that we are prepared to consider the resource implications of particular TECs that are suffering from resources problems.

    Autumn Statement
    Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will make a further statement on the impact on employment prospects of the autumn statement proposals.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: My right hon. Friend's proposals, aimed at building confidence, helping industry and strengthening the economy, will help to boost employment prospects.
    Mr. Fabricant: Can my right hon. Friend confirm precisely how many new job opportunities she thinks that the autumn statement has created for unemployed people?
    Mrs. Shephard: Priority has been given to protecting programmes with significant employment implications. Along with the relaxation of monetary policy measures, that should assist confidence and help to bring about a recovery.
    Ms. Armstrong: Is the right hon. Lady aware that in my constituency since the autumn statement substantial redundancies have been announced in construction, particularly at Blue Circle Cement? Is she further aware that in my constituency we have had an horrific rise in the number of long-term unemployed, yet the Government seem incapable and unwilling to do anything about it? When will she make sure that the long-term unemployed have some opportunity to make some choice about the future?
    Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Lady will know that I am always concerned about anybody who is facing unemployment or redundancy. That is why I was pleased to announce a package of 1·5 million employment and training places to help precisely the people about whom she is concerned, with special emphasis on those who are long-term unemployed.
    Mr. Bowis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most immediate and specific job creation measures announced in the autumn statement was the agreement that the Jubilee line should proceed? That will bring enormous numbers of jobs to London and beyond it. Will my right hon. Friend therefore put in a quiet word to her right hon. Friends in the Treasury that such steps are good news for London and that the next step might be the Chelsea-Hackney underground line?
    Mrs. Shephard: I admire my hon. Friend's ingenuity. He is very capable of putting a quiet word in with the Treasury, but nevertheless the Jubilee line extension is excellent news for employment.
    Mr. Eastham: If the Secretary of State is really interested in creating jobs and employment, may I recommend that she looks at the document printed on behalf of the Engineering Employers Federation last week, which talks about a strategy for industry and is extremely scathing about the support that the Government have not given to creating jobs?
    Mrs. Shephard: I did see the document to which the hon. Gentleman refers. The engineering industry, together with other manufacturing industries, will be delighted at the increase in capital allowances, the help given to exports
    136
    and the removal of car tax, all of which help industry and were welcomed by it, following my right hon. Friend's autumn statement.

    Bank Holidays
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when she expects to make an announcement on United Kingdom bank holidays.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: The Government are today issuing a consultation document on the future of the May Day bank holiday in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, having received a number of representations over the years suggesting that the holiday be moved to a new date. Any change could come into effect from 1995.
    Mr. Evans: Does the Minister agree that the May Day bank holiday was introduced, without public consultation, at No. 10 Downing street, when beer and sandwiches were the order of the day? Is it not a fact that in 1976, with millions of people out of work, all that the lot on the Opposition Benches could do was to think of an excuse to have a day off, other than a strike day?
    Mr. Forsyth: As usual, my hon. Friend speaks for Britain. Most people have been irritated by the way in which the May Day bank holiday can fall within a five-week period, which in some years can also include the Spring bank holiday and Easter. Unlike the last Labour Government, this Government will consult before reaching a conclusion.
    Mr. Janner: Would the Minister not speak much more for Britain if he arranged for British people to have the right to a statutory minimum holiday, which people in every other European country have but we do not?
    Mr. Forsyth: In that respect, we share the same view as that reached by the then Labour Government when they introduced the 1 May bank holiday—that holidays are a matter for employers and employees to agree among themselves.
    Mr. Rupert Allason: Is my hon. Friend aware that his decision to move that holiday would be widely welcomed in the tourist industry? After making that decision, will he grasp the nettle and move Easter to a permanent date?
    Mr. Forsyth: I confess to not being an expert on the method by which the date of Easter is calculated, but I certainly do not intend to embark on that route. I said that we were consulting, but my hon. Friend is shortening the consultation period somewhat by inviting me to reach a conclusion within two minutes of announcing the document. Consultations will close on 28 February and I shall see that my hon. Friend's views are taken into account.
    Mr. Galbraith: Is it not a sad reflection on the Government that, with unemployment rising by the day, the only topic that they can talk about is when we get a public holiday?
    Mr. Forsyth: This Government take into account the wishes of the people. The Government should respond to the inconvenience that has been caused by the May Day socialist holiday. As usual, Opposition Members put politics before people.

    Employment Rights
    Mr. Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what study she has made of the employment rights for employees in the United Kingdom relative to those in other EC member countries; and if she will make a statement.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: In 1991, the Department commissioned a study of race discrimination legislation in EC member states and it also regularly collects comparative information on employment rights. The results show that Britain leads on race discrimination law and practice and British workers enjoy an extensive range of employment rights that compares well with other EC countries.
    Mr. Watson: That is a selective response from the Minister. Why will workers in the United Kingdom be denied the protection under the social chapter that will be given to their fellow workers in other EC countries when the Maastricht agreement comes into force? Workers in the United Kingdom have poorer working conditions, including hours of work, and are denied collective bargaining rights. Why do the Government think that the social chapter will damage industry and destroy jobs in this country? The other 11 EC countries do not believe that it will happen to them. What is the difference between the United Kingdom and the other EC countries?
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman must have been asleep during Question Time. On several occasions it has been said that a higher proportion of the British work force is in employment. We have more women in employment, and there are more opportunities in the job market. What my right hon. Friend achieved at Maastricht in getting an opt-out for the social chapter was to create the opportunity, as Mr. Jacques Delors said, to make Britain an investment paradise. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is against that.

    PRIME MINISTER
    Mr. Ronnie Campbell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 December.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I have been asked to reply.
    As part of his European Community presidency duties, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is visiting Spain and Portugal for discussions with Prime Minister Gonzalez and Prime Minister Cavaco Silva in preparation for the European Council in Edinburgh.
    Mr. Campbell: With 20 million tonnes of subsidised foreign coal coming into Britain and subsidised nuclear electricity coming from France—equivalent to 6 million tonnes of coal in the United Kingdom—will the Prime Minister consider subsidising the transportation of British coal to Europe and the rest of the world, thus saving miners' jobs and British Rail jobs?
    Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman has, understandably, raised a variety of issues which are the subject of the review by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. I note that my right hon. Friend is present and will have heard what the hon. Gentleman suggested.
    Mr. John Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend remind the Prime Minister to tell the Prime Ministers of Spain and Portugal that many people in the United Kingdom must make great sacrifices in the present economic climate and that they will not take kindly to any great increase in the European Community budget to fund expenditure in those countries?
    Mr. Newton: I understand that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has referred to those matters in his conversations. I have no doubt whatever that he has once again made Britain's position clear—we will not be prepared to contemplate any adverse change in the British abatement.
    Mrs. Beckett: Does the Lord President realise that when people get their council tax valuation figure based on 1991 prices, they are likely to feel that it is extremely unfair since, in most parts of the country, house prices have fallen sharply in the past year? In Greater London alone, house prices have fallen by about £11,500 since the valuations were carried out.
    Mr. Newton: The hon. Lady will be well aware that, generally, valuations in London have turned out to be lower than we thought. Somebody living in a band A or band B property in the south-east should not need to pay any more than someone living in a similar band elsewhere. What people must fear is the Labour party's policy of returning to the rates.
    Mrs. Beckett: Will the figures be a devastating reminder of the way in which the Government have let people down by pursuing policies that have destroyed the value of their only major asset? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there are likely to be millions of appeals against the valuations, which will mean that the chaos and injustice of the poll tax is likely to be surpassed by the chaos and injustice of the council tax?
    Mr. Newton: The policies that the Government have pursued have brought about a halving of interest rates to the benefit of home owners generally in the past two years.
    Mr. Hendry: Given that today is the Churches National Housing Coalition's lobby of Parliament, will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to reaffirm the Government's commitment to policies for tackling homelessness? Those policies include the rough sleepers' initiative, the pilot foyer schemes and projects to bring empty shops and houses back into use, including 70,000 belonging to local authorities.
    Mr. Newton: Yes. I acknowledge what my hon. Friend says. I am glad to say that the Government's policies are expected to deliver considerably more houses than the 153,000 over three years promised in the election manifesto. We expect the policies to produce 170,000 by 1994–95. In addition, an extra £86 million has been made available for the rough sleepers' initiative over three years. That initiative has already reduced the numbers sleeping rough by more than 60 per cent. I am delighted—as my hon. Friends will be—that the first property has been purchased today by housing associations using the £600 million for England made available in the autumn statement.
    Ms. Gordon: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 December.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Ms. Gordon: Does the Leader of the House realise that, despite what he said, Londoners have been hit by a triple whammy in relation to the council tax? First, house prices were forced up by an unsustainable boom, then they collapsed because the Government refused to reduce interest rates in a futile attempt to save the pound, and finally houses have been banded on the basis of unrealistic values. Will he ask his right hon. Friend to intervene to ensure that Londoners are not hit again by a second unfair tax, and to modify the son of poll tax?
    Mr. Newton: I have already made the key point that I need to make in reply to the hon. Lady in response to the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett). The grant paid to authorities in London and the south-east—which has significantly increased in comparison with last year—takes account of the higher cost of providing services in that region. The hon. Lady should ensure that her local authority does not use the money in a profligate way.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 December.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is often an unfortunate link between lack of accommodation and lack of a job? Will he join me in congratulating the Young Men's Christian Association in my constituency which, following a Government initiative, has pioneered a partnership between the churches, the Employment Service, and the training and enterprise councils to break the vicious cycle and bring hope to young people?
    Mr. Newton: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. I think that he is referring to what is known as—my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry) mentioned it—the foyer project, which brings together in a strong partnership the expertise of people working in the spheres of employment, training and support for young people. It is an excellent initiative and I hope that we see more of them, along the lines of that described by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes).
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 December.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Winnick: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the Prime Minister is particularly proud of the fact that, since he has held his present position, unemployment has risen from 1·5 million to nearly 3 million—even according to official figures? What sort of Christmas message are the Government to give to all those people in our country who have been deprived of the right to work, to the homeless, to people who are frightened of losing their homes, and to
    140
    all the other victims of the Government's wretched policies—people who cannot expect the Treasury to pick up their bills for them?
    Mr. Newton: Apart from what I have already said about the Government's housing policies and the progress being made, I think that what my right hon. Friend would highlight the autumn statement and the prospects that it brings for improved economic performance.

    North of England
    Mr. Devlin: To ask the Prime Minister when he next intends to make an official visit to the north of England.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is making plans for a series of visits to all parts of the country and hopes to include the north of England among them.
    Mr. Devlin: When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister comes to the north of England, will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House remind him that it is a region which benefits more than any other in Britain from European Community investment and inward investment from outside the European Community? In the light of that, will my right hon. Friend tell the Prime Minister that it is seen as urgent by many people in my region that the Maastricht treaty be ratified as soon as possible?
    Mr. Newton: It is certainly the case that anybody who visits my hon. Friend's part of the country will see the physical advantages of the attractions which, under this Government, this country has had for overseas investment such as Nissan and Fujitsu and the huge progress that has been made in generating a new economic base up there. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend speaks for his constituency in wishing to see that process continued and strengthened by the ratification of the Maastricht treaty.

    Engagements
    Mr. Ernie Ross: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 December.
    Mr. Newton: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Ross: Can the hon. Member tell the House whether or not the substantial privatisation contract awarded to Tarmac was in any way a pay-off for the substantial sums donated by that company to the Conservative party last year.
    Mr. Newton: Yes I can, and it is not.
    Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 December.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply. I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave some moments ago. [Laughter].
    Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Fabricant.
    Mr. Fabricant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the MO figure for money supply, the amount of cash flowing around in the economy, has increased by 3 per cent. this month over the same figure last year and, while not trying to allude to any botanic connection, would he agree that this is at least an encouraging sign for the economy?
    Mr. Newton: May I first apologise to my hon. Friend. It was not actually, despite the evidence, a deficiency of my eyesight, but the fact that the first person in my sight line was the hon. Lady opposite, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley).
    On my hon. Friend's question, it is the case that the MO figures, mainly notes and coins in circulation, do reflect the growth taking place in retail sales and they add, I think, to the improvement that can be seen, in the fact that, after allowing for falls in interest rates, real disposable income of a typical family with a £30,000 mortgage went up by 20 per cent. in the two years to October 1992.
    Mr. Mallon: I know that the right hon. Gentleman will share my view that the violence we saw in my constituency at the weekend and that ripped Belfast apart today is vile and reprehensible and cannot be allowed to exist In any civilised society.
    Does the Leader of the House agree that what the terrorist groupings fear most is not more resources for security or more troops, but the creation of a new agreement among the people of Ireland which will strip the terrorist groups of any shred of legitimacy and confine them to the dustbin of history? Will he ask his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to ensure that when there is a new Taoiseach in the Republic of Ireland, they will jointly lead a drive for peace and a peaceful settlement within Ireland in 1993?
    Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman has spoken with warmth for virtually everybody—probably for everybody in the United Kingdom, certainly for the overwhelming majority. I shall take pleasure in drawing his remarks to the attention both of the Prime Minister and of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whose hard work to this same objective has been manifest over the past few months.
    Mr. Nicholls: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 December.
    Mr. Newton:: I have been asked to reply. I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Nicholls: Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity of considering the findings of Professor Rheinhardt Schmidt of Kiel university that of the top major companies in Europe, six are United Kingdom
    142
    companies and that if facts like that are as obvious as far away as Germany, it is about time they were as obvious to the Opposition Front Bench here?
    Mr. Newton: I have indeed seen that report, showing that the three top firms in what is, I believe, German-based research, are British and that six of the top 10 are British, including a significant number of our pharmaceutical companies. They deserve to be congratulated on their achievement. I should like to hear a bit more of that type of compliment coming from the occupants of the Opposition Front Bench, instead of their trying to run down our firms and industry.
    Ms. Walley: While the Prime Minister is spending time in Portugal and Spain, may I ask the Lord President to urge him on his return, prior to his visit to the north of England, to call in at Stoke-on-Trent, my constituency, where he will see for himself the lack of Government support for manufacturing industry, particularly in relation to the pottery, ceramics and allied industries? May we have a Government commitment to examine the way in which investment can be made to that industry? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is no good talking all the time about what can be done to get people retrained; we should be preventing them from becoming unemployed in the first place?
    Mr. Newton: I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to the hon. Lady's request. I must, at the same time, draw her attention to the fact that the autumn statement included a substantial range of measures designed to encourage manufacturing industry, and that one of our key manufacturing industries, motor cars, is showing great signs of being far more successful than it has been for decades past.

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

    EDUCATION
    That the draft Education Support Grants Regulations 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Boswell.]
    Question agreed to.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. David Sumberg: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your help in urging a review of the way in which Standing Order No. 20 procedures are organised. It is clear after yesterday's disgraceful performance by the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), that the Labour party is using those procedures to smear him—
Madam Speaker: Order. Standing Order No. 20 applications come to me. If there is any criticism whatever about the way in which they are handled, that criticism lies with me. If the hon. Member or any other hon. Member wishes to criticise the way in which such applications are handled, a substantive motion must be tabled, and I shall see that it is debated.
Mr. John McAllion: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I draw your attention to the Orders of the Day and Notices of Motions on today's Order Paper and, in particular, to the instruction that stands in my name. Indeed, it has appeared in my name on every Order Paper since the Second Reading of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill.
The instruction has not been selected, nor has new clause 22, which deals with the same subject—to empower the House to hold a referendum in Scotland to bring Scotland in line with the principle of subsidiarity.
Can you explain, how the House can meaningfully debate the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, which is based on the principle of subsidiarity, when excluded from such consideration is the only means available to apply subsidiarity to Scotland? Do you agree that the real world should, at least at times, impinge on our discussions in this place, especially as everybody in Europe knows that we cannot have European union without subsidiarity at every level, including in relation to Scotland? Why should we even refuse to debate the subject?
Madam Speaker: I can deal with the instruction which stands in the name of the hon. Member because it is within my remit to do so. The instruction, I must tell him, is plainly not in order. As he and the House know, I do not give an explanation in respect of the selection.
The matter of the government of Scotland, a subject of great importance not only to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) but to the whole House, is not cognate to the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. So it is out of order, and I am therefore unable to call the hon. Member to move his instruction.
Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: There is no further point of order. I have dealt with the matter.
Mr. Walker: No, it is a fresh point of order.
Madam Speaker: If it is another point of order, I will hear it. I cannot hear further points of order on that matter.
Mr. Walker: You, Madam Speaker, will be aware that this unitary Parliament was created by the Act of Union in 1707 and that this Parliament cannot be bound by any decisions of previous Parliaments under our unwritten constitution. I seek your guidance on matters as they affect Scotland under the Act of Union, whether or not the Maastricht treaty, if it were to be enacted in the Bill before the House, would change substantially the relationship between Scotland, the unitary Parliament and our unwritten constitution. While it does not refer directly to what the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) has raised, it is an important aspect of the Union of the United Kingdom and it must be addressed before we proceed with the Bill.
Madam Speaker: That is a somewhat hypothetical matter and not one for me to deal with at this stage. The House must proceed, as it determined to proceed after Second Reading, with the Committee stage of the bill. We must leave it at that for the time being.

Coal Mines (Closure Review)
3.35 pm
Mr. Bill Etherington: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to specify the procedures to be followed when the closure of a coal mine is proposed; to require assessments of efficiency, profitability. contribution to import substitution, competitiveness with other fuels and related matters; to set criteria for the approval or disapproval of a proposed closure; and for connected purposes.
I wish to introduce the Bill to try to prevent any repetition of the disgraceful scenario following the announcement by the President of the Board of Trade during the recess which led to the infamous 13 October statement. I believe that such a Bill is long overdue.
The country was told in 1984, when the modified colliery review procedure was placed before the deputies' union, NACODS, that the procedure would be sacrosanct. Unlike certain Ministers and many hon. Members, on the Opposition Benches, I understand what "sacrosanct" means. It does not mean that, when things turn a little nasty, the procedure is totally ignored. The procedure has now fallen into disrepute, and I would like to see something replacing it on a statutory basis.
It was all very well for Lady Thatcher and the then Energy Minister, Mr. Peter Walker, to assure the House that the review procedure would be followed. As time went on, they went missing from the House. Statute law does not go missing; it continues.
Two issues make me certain beyond doubt that we need to take this matter out of the hands of the Department of Trade and Industry. On 12 October I wrote to the President of the Board of Trade, asking for some borehole information on the coal measures off the Northumberland and Durham coast, information going back to the late 1950s and the early 1960s. Today I have been informed by the Energy Minister that the Department of Trade and Industry has no such information and that if I require it I must approach the National Geological Survey or British Coal. This leads me to believe that the disgusting decision taken in the recess was taken without proper knowledge of the subject.
What makes me even more convinced that that is the fact that in answer to a question from me in the House the President of the Board of Trade stated that he could not understand why people were buying nuclear or gas-generated power if it was more expensive than coal. If that is his understanding of the subject, we badly need a review and we badly need to take it out of the House, the Department and the Ministry.
All I ask is quite simply that we go back to what we were promised by the Government in 1984. If that comes about, we will never again have the stupid and ridiculous state of affairs in which a Minister has to come to this House and state quite categorically that he needs three months' breathing space.
146
I say again to the President of the Board of Trade that the miners and those who support them have not been fooled by what has been said. We know that the decision to be announced in January or February will be based upon what public pressure can be brought to bear rather than upon the facts of the matter. It is no use Ministers coming to the House and asking for time if they do not intend to do something tangible in that time. Nothing leads me to believe that it was anything other than that.
I went to Wearmouth colliery last week. Perhaps one or two Conservatives know where that is, but I will tell those who do not. It is in the county of Tyne and Wear, formerly County Durham, and it is in Sunderland—not particularly noted for having a good football club, but a place that will be known to most people. I went down the mine at Wearmouth colliery to see a new face which it has cost £20 million to get to over many years. The face is in some of the best conditions that anyone, including me, will have seen in this country. It is in a seam of coal in undisturbed geological strata more than 8 ft thick. Yet that colliery, according to the President of the Board of Trade, was to be mothballed. I was supposed to be thankful for that. It meant that, out of the 21 collieries proposed for closure, it was somewhere between numbers one and four in the rating, so there were at least 17, and possibly 20, behind it. I am not satisfied with that, and there are many other people who are not satisfied with it. That is why I am asking the House to support the Bill.
I should like to pay a tribute here—I have not had an opportunity to do so before—to hon. Members on the Government Benches who supported the miners and those who support them by voting with the Opposition to ensure that a proper review was carried out. We shall be eternally grateful to that handful of Members. One of them has certainly suffered, and it may well be that others will do so, but they have our gratitude. Many hon. Members stated that they were voting only for the review and that their final vote would be based upon what was proposed by the President of the Board of Trade as and when the review was completed. We hope that those hon. Members will join us should we not get the result that we wish to get.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bill Etherington, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Alan Meale, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mr. John Cummings, Mr. Ronnie Campbell, Mr. Jimmy Hood, Mr. Eric Clarke and Mr. Michael Clapham.

Coal Mines (Closure Review)
  COAL MINES (CLOSURE REVIEW)
  Mr. Bill Etherington accordingly presented a Bill to specify the procedures to be followed when the closure of a coal mine is proposed; to require assessments of efficiency, profitability, contribution to import substitution, competitiveness with other fuels and related matters; to set criteria for the approval or disapproval of a proposed closure; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 22 January 1993 and to be printed. [Bill 92.]
Orders of the Day

  European Communities (Amendment) Bill
  Considered in Committee.
  [MR. MICHAEL MORRIS in the Chair]
  3.44 pm
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. May I express the thanks of those of us concerned about the Bill for the preparations that you have made, which I hope will mean that we do not have a repetition of what happened in 1972—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] We had 15 hours of points of order until 7 am.
  The first three amendments on the Order Paper, Nos. 73 to 75 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), some hon. Friends and myself, have not, according to the provisional selection of amendments, been selected for debate by you, Mr. Morris. However, I wish to put to you in as simple language as I can, some of the reasons why I hope that you will consider the matter before we debate the amendments that you have selected and will reinstate those amendments.
  The European union created by the treaty has two components. First, the novel titles, I, V, VI and VII, which create a new entity known as European union, which is contained in articles A to F and title I; title V on foreign and defence, articles J to J(II); title VI on justice and home affairs, articles K to K(9); and title VII, the final provisions L to S. The second component already partially exists—the treaties of Rome, Paris and Brussels relating to the coal and steel and Euratom treaties. They are in place now and are not new. The treaty will amend, update and strengthen those with various matters relating to subsidiarity, the European Parliament and economic and monetary union.
  In the Bill, the Government have been remarkably economic with the words and those matters, which are contained in at least 238 articles in the treaty of Rome, are subsumed only under titles II, III and IV, despite the fact that the Bill provides for the whole treaty, which is particularly on European union—that is the long title. The items that I have specified appear only in subsection (k), which we are adding to the European Communities Bill. The Bill does not provide for consideration of titles I, III and V, which are important to the House in terms of something new in the treaty.
  Therefore, we must ask by what method the House can ratify those important new elements of the treaty. According to the Foreign Secretary, who is not here—the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) is present—those matters are an intergovernmental "outer building" and do not involve too much the Community's existing institutions. Indeed, under article C they are required to be a single institutional framework and at least 40 references are made to the Commission, the Council, the court or the Parliament in those new parts of the treaty, so we cannot separate them quite as much as the Minister of State and the Foreign Secretary decide.
  In selecting the amendment of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown)—one of his hon. Friends will no doubt move it—and the other amendments in the group, all relating to title I, articles A to F, you may allow
  148
  us, Mr. Morris, at least to debate title II. Debates about foreign affairs, security, justice and home affairs may follow later.
  But, Mr. Morris, you have selected the amendments on line 9 of sub-paragraph (k), which is the pipeline to the European Communities Act. That simply adds those matters to the automatic or near automatic obligation of the House and the United Kingdom to the obligations contained in the original treaty. It in no way allows us to deal separately with the major items that I have outlined. Even if they are debated, as they may well be, whether or not they go into sub-paragraph (k) or are left out, that is no way to find out whether the House approves them. All we are doing is making them automatically effective.
  Therefore, I submit that if we are to ratify, which is surely what this is all about, the matters relating to European union and its foreign policy, justice and home provisions, which are important to everyone, we must have some free standing amendments.
  The amendments in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney propose that we would give a specific debate to each of the titles and have a vote on them, just as we would on a statutory instrument, and approve them or not, as the case may be, to enable the Government to ratify the treaty. But at the moment we do not have that opportunity under the Bill or under the amendments.
  There will not be a specific debate on those matters as there would be on a statutory instrument on, for instance, dog licences. The House would be able to decide yes or no on such a statutory instrument, but not yes or no to ratification of those important titles of the treaty.
  There is an even greater reason why we must have separate debates on those matters away from subparagraph (k). Foreign affairs and security are matters for the royal prerogative. Having made inquiries, I understand that the Government do not necessarily require the Bill to ratify the European union articles of the treaty.
  Under the treaty, all that the Minister has to do is to send a certificate of ratification to the Italian President. Therefore, we are not in a position to say yes or no despite the fact that we shall be handing over to other bodies the power of the royal prerogative itself.
  Unless the three amendments in the name of my right hon. Friend, or something similar, are selected, perhaps at a later stage, the House will be deprived of debating the specific importance of the articles, of the surrounding edifice of the European union, in a manner which is less specific than would be the case under a statutory instrument for domestic legislation for a dog licence.
  Unless we can do so, the process of ratification by our own constitutional requirements which the treaty provides will not have been followed because we shall not have the opportunity specifically to discuss and vote on those important matters relating to European union.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I shall rule on one point of order at a time. We have plenty of time ahead of us.
  The hon. Gentleman makes his point of order with his usual thoroughness and conviction and puts it in Memberconstituency

  149
  succinct a form as he was able, even though it was pretty long. I can provide him with an answer, but it will be rather short.
  Amendments Nos. 73 to 75 provide that certain parts of the treaty are to be ratified only when the House has agreed to ratification. This is not a Bill to ratify the treaty. I repeat that: this is not a Bill to ratify the treaty. Therefore, amendments to put a limitation on ratification are beyond the scope of the Bill. Nevertheless, I may say, in respect of the hon. Gentleman's concluding words, that although I cannot anticipate amendments that may be tabled in future, of course I will consider any such amendments—but I am not promising anything at this stage.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I have three brief, genuine points of order. [Laughter.] I can assure right hon. and hon. Members who are laughing that nothing has made me more sick than sitting through all those European debates when Governments of both parties have deliberately restricted discussion. Why cannot we debate a referendum clause? Right hon. and hon. Members have made several attempts. I tabled such an amendment and I see no reason why you, Mr. Morris, as the Chairman of Ways and Means and being responsible to the British people and to right hon. and hon. Members who want to express a view, cannot give approval to debating amendment No. 70, for example, which does not involve any expenditure. It is just a means of giving everyone an opportunity, whether or not they want to take it, to express an opinion on a referendum.
  Your Clerks, Mr. Morris, have been more than helpful, but is it the case—as I fear—that the Bill has been drafted in such a way as to prevent right hon. and hon. Members from expressing a view on whether there should be a referendum? Despite the restrictions imposed by not having a money resolution, would it not be possible to have a vote on amendment No. 70, which would give right hon. and hon. Members the right, not to express a view, as some of them want, but to say yes or no to whether the people of this country should have some say in handing over their freedoms and liberty without their specific permission? Could we not have a debate, on any clause or amendment, on whether or not there should be a referendum?
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  The Chairman: Order. I will deal with points of order one at a time.
  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but there cannot be a vote on amendment No. 70, simply because it is out of order at this time—[Interruption.] Order. May I respond? I did not interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I cannot select any amendment that is out of order. That is the rule of the House. However, if the hon. Gentleman shows his usual ingenuity and continues with his usual degree of creativity—doubtless assisted by right hon. and hon. Members on his own side and across the Floor of the Committee—he may yet succeed. The hon. Gentleman must be clear that there is no money resolution associated with the Bill. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman keeps trying.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris.
  The Chairman: No. I call Mr. Cryer.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I draw your attention to clause 3 and to the proposed amendments to that clause, none of which has been selected. The list of selected amendments refers to a "provisional selection", and the remarks that you made a few moments ago, Mr. Morris, were very helpful.
  When I saw the helpful Clerks in the Table Office after tabling amendment No. 89, I was informed that the fact that there was not a money resolution in the Bill did not debar an amendment such as mine making provision for a referendum. In the terms of that amendment, a money resolution is not necessary—but before the amendment could be implemented, the Government would have to table a Ways and Means resolution.
  Have amendment No. 89 and the others on clause 3 been rejected, or will the published provisional selection be supplemented by further examination of amendments that have not been considered so far—including amendment No. 89? Or was your reply, Mr. Morris, to the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) an intimation that my amendment is debarred because of the absence of a money resolution?
  When I saw the Clerks, I was informed that my amendment was perfectly in order for selection and debate, even though the mechanism for implementing it was not available in the Bill. I share the view of the hon. Member for Southend, East that the House should have an opportunity to debate the question of a referendum—and if that proposal were carried, it would be up to the Government to provide the machinery and the Ways and Means resolution to put it into operation.
  It would be an important denial of the debating powers of the House if such an amendment were not selected and considered. If the amendment is defective, clearly we shall have to devise one which is not, but when I submitted my amendment I was told that it would stand, and that it could be debated. My information was that the House could consider a referendum. If it does not do so, millions of people will question the validity of the House in ignoring that possibility.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  The Chairman: Order. One at a time.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  4 pm
  The Chairman: Order. May I rule on the point of order that has already been raised? I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) for raising it, but I am afraid that the information that he was given on amendment No. 89 was not correct. The amendment is out of order as it stands. I re-emphasise to the hon. Gentleman and to all hon. Members that the list is a provisional selection of amendments. We are starting on clause 1; the hon. Gentleman, understandably, is raising questions about clause 3, so he has a little time to get his amendment in order.
  Mr. Nicholas Budgen: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. May I make a general point about the difficulties involved in interpreting the meaning of the treaty? As you know, with domestic legislation the words that a Minister uses in advancing his argument about the meaning of a clause have now become

  151
  more important and binding, because, following a recent decision of the House of Lords, the Minister's words may be considered when the wording of the legislation is being construed. Furthermore, if by chance the House of Lords, or even the Court of Appeal, gives the words of a statute a meaning that was not anticipated, it is relatively easy—I do not pretend that it is very easy—for the Government to introduce amending legislation, and sometimes even to rectify with retrospective legislation any injustice which may have been done because of the misunderstanding about the wording.
  Here we have an entirely different situation. We are not dealing with domestic legislation which will be interpreted by the House of Lords, and which is subject to possible amendment by a sovereign Parliament. If the treaty is ratified, it will be interpreted first by the Commission, which has the right of initiative, and secondly by the European Court.
  It is important to understand that the Government have already made some extremely wide assertions about what the treaty does not do. At the Conservative party conference, the Prime Minister—
  The Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is addressing a matter to which I can attend rather than Government policy.
  Mr. Budgen: Indeed, Mr. Morris. You have enormous power and influence over these proceedings, and as we struggle to understand the meaning of the treaty, the very raising—or even the half raising—of your eyebrow will cause the Government to jitter with fear. If you were to say that you thought that an external objective explanation of what the treaty meant would assist the House, I expect that thet Government would immediately accede to your suggestion.
  I shall explain briefly why I think that that is necessary. For instance, at the Conservative party conference, the Prime Minister made five points about the treaty which I, as a pompous lawyer—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] If my right hon. Friend had made those assertions before any judge who happened to be even half awake, they would have been described as very brave.
  My right hon. Friend was brave enough to say, for example, that the treaty had nothing to do with immigration. I invite the Committee to look at the treaty. The Committee will see that it deals specifically with immigration. After my right hon. Friend's splendid and brave speech, which was so well received by the Tory party conference, all of whose members had read the details of the treaty with great care, no doubt—
  The Chairman: Order. The Tory party conference is not a matter for the Chair. I commend to the hon. Gentleman the publication HMSO 13409, which I imagine he must have in his possession. I am not of a mind now to call for an external and objective assessment. I move on, therefore, to Mr. Winnick.
  Mr. Budgen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris—
  The Chairman: Order. I shall come back to the hon. Gentleman.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  The Chairman: Order. I call Mr. Winnick.
  Mr. David Winnick: Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). As we are beginning our deliberations in Committee today—we know why we are beginning them—it is important to realise that the Bill is the most crucial legislation that could come before the House. I am sure that you take the point, Mr. Morris.
  If the Bill is passed, the constitutional arrangement of the United Kingdom—we will argue this when we come to the details—will undoubtedly be changed. Many of us believe that the change will be for the worse, although I realise that that is not a matter for the Chair, but a matter for debate.
  I cannot conceive of any other measure that will come before us for many years which could have such a crucial bearing on the future of this country. That is true whether one takes a critical view, as I do, or whether one takes the view that we should go down the federal road, which I believe to be the whole purpose of the treaty. I ask you simply this, Mr. Morris: what opportunity can we be given to say, either as a House of Commons or as a Committee, that the people of our country should be consulted?
  You, Mr. Morris, have said that the selection of amendments is provisional. Those who have a view different from the view of those of us who are critical may share the belief that the British people should be consulted. If that is not the case, and if we are to debate measures that, in so many ways, will change the constitutional arrangement of our country and which will take substantial powers away from the House of Commons—there is no doubt that that will happen if the treaty comes into effect—what opportunity will the British people have to express their views?
  The British people may come to the view that the treaty is right we do not know. In the 1975 referendum, the British people voted in the way that I did not want, but at least they were consulted. I choose my words carefully and I make no criticism of you, Mr. Morris. It will be a tragedy both for the House and for our country if we pass into legislation the provisions of the treaty concerning the United Kingdom without being able to say to the British people, "Here is your opportunity to speak."
  The Chairman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I can say to him only what I said to the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). I suggest that the hon. Gentleman works with him. I recognise the importance of the issue. However, I have to be bound by the rules of the House, and matters have to be in order.
  Miss Emma Nicholson: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. May I ask you to guide the Committee? There seems to be a small but vociferous minority of Members who are attempting to impede the Bill. Will it be possible for you to remind the House that the Bill was passed with a substantial majority? Those of us who are members of other Committees, such as Standing Committees, very much desire to participate in this Committee and not merely to listen to impeding and blocking points of order. The Bill should go ahead with all haste.
  The Chairman: The Chair does not feel impeded at the moment.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. There is something very sinister about this affair. I listened very carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who kicked off with his point of order regarding certain amendments. I listened to a couple of other hon. Members talking about the need for a referendum. I also read the papers this morning. For the first time on this issue I was able to read briefings in almost every so-called quality newspaper about how the Chairman of Ways and Means would deal with hon. Members who happen to have an alternative view to that of the two Front Benches on the common market and on Maastricht. That is sinister.
  You should understand, Mr. Morris, that you are sitting in that chair because of the democracy that is practised in this country. Under the treaty, in some circumstances it is likely that some of those powers will be eroded, yet those briefings suggest that the Chairman of Ways and Means is going to take action to stop Members of Parliament representing their constituents, 68 per cent. of whom in many of the surveys that have been conducted want to get out of the Maastricht treaty and do not want anything to do with it. However, when my hon. Friends and others try to call for a referendum, we are steamrollered because of the briefings that we have already read.
  I regard that as a distasteful development and it should be stopped. It is high time that we stood up for the people of Britain, the majority of whom want to say no to Maastricht. The House of Commons, on occasions, is supposed to represent the views of the British people. I get the clear impression that, generally speaking, when the two Front Benches are in agreement, the Chair goes along with it. I am waiting for an answer in the negative to that.
  I have been a Member for a considerable time, and it has always been the case that, when the two Front Benches agree, and we have the Liberal Democrats throwing their weight behind them, Back-Benchers' views are treated with disdain, even though we represent a massive majority of the people outside. I believe that we should discuss that amendment on a referendum, and I do not—
  Mr. Budgen: On a point of order, Mr. Morris.
  The Chairman: Order. I cannot take a point of order on a point of order. Mr. Skinner was just concluding.
  Mr. Skinner: I did not ask you to give way. Whose side are you on? Typical of lawyers.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: The hon. Gentleman has only just referred to Conservative colleagues as his hon. Friends.
  Mr. Skinner: I never called him my hon. Friend—read the record. I am not that big a fool. The hon. Gentleman might be in the same Lobby as me on these occasions, but that is as far as it goes.
  We are going to have a proposition for a referendum in the future. It xs just conceivable that it might happen after Edinburgh. The game now is that the Government of the day want to go to Edinburgh without anybody being able to say that we have made a very important decision in the House of Commons to table an amendment on a referendum. I regard that as chicanery. It is high time that the Chair and the House of Commons, irrespective of the two Front Benches, understood that those of us who have a different view from that of the Front Bench, and believe
  154
  that the common market has been an unmitigated disaster from beginning to end, are fed up with British families having to pay £18 every week to bail out that tinpot club. It is time that the voice of the British people was heard and not stifled by anybody, including the Chair—and no more briefings.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  The Chairman: Order. I am most grateful, but let me rule on this point of order. I re-emphasise that it is a provisional selection.
  Mr. Skinner: Who did the selection?
  The Chairman: I did the selection. The selection rests with the Chair.
  I take full responsibility for that. I have to recognise that the House has given a Second Reading to the Bill. Finally, I say to all hon. Members that my door is ever open. Anyone who wants to come and talk about the Bill or amendments is most welcome.
  4.15 pm
  Mr. William Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. As I understand it, new clause 7, in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), escaped the difficulties that are inherent in the requirement for a money resolution. However, there were one or two small errors that needed to be corrected. As I understand it, it was for that reason that the new clause could not at that time, this morning, be included in the provisional list of amendments. Given the fact that suitable adjustments will be made, am I correct in thinking that we are getting close to the target and that the new clause, which I have retabled, is likely to be selected?
  The Chairman: I shall look at any new amendments tomorrow.
  Mr. Tony Benn: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. You very kindly invited some people to your room yesterday in order to avoid a frustrating points of order session, but this is not just a point of order. What we are discussing is the relationship between different parts of the constitution. You pointed out that the House has no power to ratify or not to ratify the Maastricht treaty. That is correct, because the Queen has the power and the Prime Minister exercises it. So you reminded us of our inherent impotence.
  You then told us, Mr. Morris, that you were prepared to consider, and you did not rule out, amendments on a referendum, and you advised us to try at different stages to see whether we could get past the Clerks. That is no way to treat our constituents. I was elected 42 years ago on Friday. I am not prepared to wait until later to find out whether the people of Chesterfield have any role in a treaty which, if implemented, would change fundamentally their relationship with the Executive. I am not prepared to do it.
  If you say that there are certain ways in which this can be done and that the Clerks will be empowered to help us do it, that is one thing, but why should we play games with the Clerks—"Line 2 is out of order and I cannot tell you why. Like Mr. Asquith, wait and see whether I select it." At the outset of consideration of the Bill, the British people are entitled to know whether they have any rights at all in determining whether the treaty goes through.

  155
  I first advocated a referendum in 1968. It took me about seven years to persuade the Labour party; my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition voted for a referendum. Now I am afraid there has been some slippage which will need to be dealt with again. [Interruption.] Of course it will be dealt with. Does anyone honestly think that the Labour party will unite with the Tory party on the one issue on which the British people have no rights? Is the House saying now that the British people have no rights?
  Whether there is a referendum depends on what the House decides, but I beg you, Mr. Morris, not to appear to be leaving it open as if it was a game with "Erskine May". It is not a game with "Erskine May". A fundamental question is involved. The Government do not object to a referendum, so long as it is in Denmark. If there is a Danish referendum and the Danes say no again, the Maastricht treaty goes down the pan anyway. So my constituents are being told that their future will be decided by Crown prerogative here and by the Danish people there. Politically it is not on.
  I launched a petition for a referendum, and I am getting thousands of letters. I have another petition to present tomorrow. People of all opinions from all over the country want to have their say on Maastricht. The Liberal party is for Maastricht and for a referendum, as will be made clear when we come to it.
  It is essential, Mr. Morris, if I may put it to you in my last word, that you make it clear that it is possible to find a form of words which does not fall foul of a money resolution and which will allow the British people to have a say. I put that to you with great passion and fervour. It is not my rights which are at stake but the rights of the people who sent every hon. Member here.
  The Chairman: I shall make two points. First, the Clerks are not empowered to make decisions. Secondly, I have had to make those decisions and they have had to be based on the rules of debate of the House. I have more constituents than the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and they are just as important as everyone else's. I recognise the strength of feeling, but debates in the House have to be in order. I hope that we can find an amendment that is appropriate and in order. I am encouraging those people who have done a great deal of work on that to continue with that work, and to hone the amendment so that it is in order.
  Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson: I seek your guidance on a narrow point of order, Mr. Morris. In the remarks that have been made so far it has been made clear that the Maastricht treaty is a legal document and it is therefore essential that the wording is precise in all its different forms. Before we debate clause 1, title I, might I draw your attention to page 88, article S of the treaty available in the House, which states:
  "This Treaty, drawn up in a single original in the Danish, Dutch, English, French, German, Greek, Irish, Italian, Portuguese and Spanish languages, the texts in each of these languages being equally authentic".
  However, on page 7, in article B, I do not find the English translation that I expected but two untranslated French words, "acquis communautaire".
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: They are untranslatable.
  Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson: My hon. Friend suggests that they are untranslatable. For the purpose of clarity, I took the trouble to obtain a copy of Collins English-French dictionary, because the word "acquis" has a number of possible meanings. It could mean "experience", "gain", "achieve", "be sure of", or "take for granted"—and those are just some of its meanings. A number of words of French origin are in common parlance in my constituency and in the House—for example, "laissez faire". Cooks talk about something being "garni"; and we talk about omelettes. I have no doubt that hon. Members could think of other possibilities. But "acquis communautaire" is not in common parlance.
  If we are to discuss title I and to accord it the detailed consideration required by a legal document which has to be precise, can you, Mr. Morris, with your sweep of foreign languages, immediately translate it for me, or will you invite someone else to do so, before we discuss the matter, because it is of some importance?
  The Chairman: The Bill is in English—as the hon. Gentleman will have noted—and I am not responsible for what is written in the treaty; nor are we debating it. I hope that he will bear that in mind.
  Sir Edward Heath: Are you aware, Mr. Morris—as I hope you are—that the House will support you entirely in condemning the outrageous allegations which were made against you and the Chair by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)? I have been here almost twice as long as the hon. Gentleman and I have never heard such allegations made; nor have I ever heard the Chair allow them to be made. Indeed, my experience has been exactly the opposite—that we Back Benchers know the extraordinary lengths to which your predecessors and the other occupants of the Chair have gone to to ensure that we get proper treatment. I pay tribute to them for that.
  I hope that, when the hon. Member for Bolsover calms down, he will withdraw his completely unjustifiable allegations against you as the Chair. You are in the Chair and we shall support you in your decisions on the choice of amendments down for discussion. Those hon. Members who want to use your decisions as a means to make their speeches are not justified in doing so in any way. Finally, it is obviously your responsibility as well as in your power to consider any amendments that are tabled, but I do not think that it is within the power of the Chair to suggest that it may be possible for amendments to be tabled which will meet the needs of individual Members, so we shall support you in making your decisions, and support you to the full.
  The Chairman: I examine amendments only once they are tabled. The Office of the Clerk is available to help hon. Members perfect their drafting finesse, which is entirely appropriate because the vast majority of hon. Members are not lawyers.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. It seems to be one of those afternoons in which we are all making statements about sticking out for this or that group, and interpreting what the British people want. Perhaps I could simply chuck in my lot. I should like to stick out for the decisions of the Labour party conference, which were distinctly and overwhelmingly in favour of

  157
  Maastricht. I simply tell those who have talked a great deal about conference decisions in the past that they should face it that—like it or not—there were clear decisions at the Labour party conference in favour of Maastricht—
  Mr. Skinner: And on defence.
  Mr. Dalyell: I concede that there were clear decisions at the Labour party conference on defence and, certainly, on Maastricht. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and I are not united on that issue.
  Furthermore, if we are to interpret the national view, my interpretation—I will put it no higher than that—of the electors and the generality of the Linlithgow constituency is that they want the Maastricht Bill and closer ties with Europe.
  The Chairman: That did not seem to be a point of order for the Chair. I hope that any further points of order will be specific, arid ones for which the Chair has responsibility.
  Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I draw your attention to the treaty of union which created this Parliament. That treaty places certain items of Scottish life and activity into a matter of perpetuity.
  Mr. Chairman: Order. I do not know whether the hon. Member heard Madam Speaker's ruling on that matter. That ruling stands and cannot be reopened now.
  Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. M orris. My point of order is less controversial than the previous ones, but it is within your competence in the Chair to direct me on it. The great odyssey on which we have just launched ourselves will require Members of Parliament to have great sustenance during the many days ahead—the sustenance of information rather than anything stronger, I hasten to add.
  Clearly, the rules of debate in Committee are different from those that normally pertain to debates on the Floor of the House. We want you to rule on the matter of the provision of information to us. As ever, the Government are greatly assisted by the civil servants who sit in i he Box. They can pass pieces of paper and take writing material into the Box with them. That is in order.
  Those of us who must battle against the serried ranks of the civil servants and Ministers can normally, in Committee, rely on our advisers sitting next to us to perform a similar function. However, when we are in the Chamber, our advisers sit under the Gallery. Normally, anyone who takes writing material into the Box or tries to write notes is quickly admonished. I wonder whether you could rule that it is in order for us to have our advisers under the Gallery and freely exchange written notes and material with them during the course of what I suspect will be an exceedingly long Committee.
  The Chairman: The hon. Member knows the conventions of the House; he has been here long enough. It is not necessary for me to rule on the point of order.
  Mr. Bowen Wells: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I wonder whether you could help the House and the people outside who are watching our affairs by explaining how you propose to proceed with the Committee. Several points of order have already been raised with you on the amendments that you have not selected. In my experience, the selection of amendments is
  158
  rightly left to you and the Clerks, under strictly understood rules and regulations, and questions to you regarding amendments that you have not selected are strictly out of order. Is that the procedure that you are going to adopt in Committee?
  Would it therefore be out of order to raise issues about amendments that have not been selected? I think that the Committee would be grateful for your ruling on that, so that we can proceed in an orderly fashion and know exactly when we shall get down to matters of substance.
  4.30 pm
  The Chairman: I shall follow all the normal procedures.
  Mr. Peter Hain: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. As a relatively new Member of the House, may I seek your guidance on voting procedure on the amendments that you have selected? I do so as an ardent pro-European who believes that our future is in Europe and who voted yes in the 1975 referendum, but who feels that the Maastricht treaty is fatally flawed. Its monetarist economic framework will impose massive deflation and lead to mass unemployment and cuts in public spending.
  I believe that if a leading amendment—for example, amendment No. 36 on the European central bank—is moved by my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition and voted on, the other amendments in the group do not necessarily have to be voted on. If, for some reason, there is no vote on the leading amendment, will you give consideration to votes on later amendments for example—amendment No. 101, tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Dr. Berry), as the amendments related to the central bank and budget deficits contain many complex issues?
  The Chairman: Yes, I shall certainly consider that, but I did not think that we would reach those amendments this evening. I call Mr. Taylor.
  Mr. Ian Taylor rose—
  Sir Teddy Taylor rose—
  The Chairman: Mr. Ian Taylor.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: I am grateful to be called. On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Will you provide some guidance to the Committee? This is a three-clause Bill, and is very short. However, you have chosen to provide the Committee with a long series of grouped amendments on separate subjects, which is extremely helpful and will enable us to have a proper debate under clear subject headings. It will help the Committee and those people outside who are following the debate with great interest.
  The House gave the Bill a thorough Second Reading and I believe—I seek guidance on the matter—that the measure has already spent more time on the Floor of the House than did the Single European Act during its passage through the House. Therefore, would it not be helpful if we made as rapid progress as possible through the various headings? It would be inappropriate to have further debates on amendments that you have not called, some of which—such as those relating to a referendum—many Conservative Members do not believe to be appropriate.
  We believe that it is the duty of the House to scrutinise the Bill, and any further discussions on items such as

  159
  referendums will delay the Committee's ability to consider the helpful groups of amendments already tabled. Can we make progress?
  Mr. Morris: I think that we are making some progress, and I re-emphasise the fact that the selection of amendments is my decision and mine alone.
  Mr. Ken Livingstone: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I apologise for leaving the Chamber for a moment, but I had a note that a constituent of mine who was in the Gallery was so distressed by your ruling against a referendum that she was reduced to tears and had to go home—
  Mr. Morris: Order. I have given no ruling against a referendum.
  Mr. Gyles Brandreth: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Most of the points of order that we have heard so far do not appear to me—an absolute lay person—to have been points of order—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Morris: Order. I regret to say that there have been points of order, on which I have ruled.
  Mr. Stephen Milligan: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. The Committee appreciates the difficulty of your position in conducting the debate, and that it is entirely proper that there should be a full debate and the proper procedures should be adopted. Will you bear it in mind that in the previous debate hon. Members overwhelmingly expressed the view that they were in favour of the principle of the Bill, and that any attempt to frustrate the will of the majority of hon. Members should be rejected? Secondly, thousands of jobs across the country will be at stake if we have an unnecessarily prolonged debate.
  The Chairman: I am most grateful, but that was not a point of order.
  Mr. Marlow: As the Bill progresses, there will no doubt be a small minority of hon. Members who will put the point to you the point that has just been put—that there has been a Second Reading debate and that we should abjure further debate and ratify every amendment on the nod, but the fact is—you know it as well as I do, Mr. Morris—that since the Second Reading debate, the world has changed. The ERM has been blown out of the water, the Danes have voted down the treaty and we are in totally different circumstances.
  The Chairman: I have already ruled that the point that the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Milligan) made was not a point of order, and it is still not.
  Mr. Marlow: My point is different.
  The Chairman: You can have a separate one in a minute.
  Mr. Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. You have selected amendment No. 93 which deals with title I, arising from which is a matter that raises a question of a money resolution, because article F and the amendment in the names of myself, the Leader of the Opposition and many other hon. Members, which would bring in article F, deals with the raising of resources, the means necessary for the
  160
  Community to achieve its objectives. That seems to many of us to be quite clearly a question which relates to money that would be raised to pay for the objectives of the treaty. Therefore, we should like you to rule on whether that matter gives rise to a requirement for a money resolution if title I is accepted as part of the Bill.
  The Chairman: The hon. Member is increasingly ingenious, but he is incorrect in his submission.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: This is my second very brief point of order and there is no question of my doing anything more than asking things that matter. You, Mr. Morris, have selected amendments in large groups; one of them has 27 separate amendments. I ask a general question: would it be your intention, as some of us believe these are rather important issues, that something should be said on each amendment if the hon. Member who has tabled it wishes to speak, before consideration is given to a motion for the closure? It would honestly be, although I appreciate the very good reasons—
  The Chairman: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. We shall have to see how we get on.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: What is the answer?
  The Chairman: With the greatest respect, I gave an answer; whether the hon. Gentleman was listening is another matter, but I repeat that we shall have to see how we get on.
  Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. In your very generous selection of amendments—and I commend you on how they have been done—may I draw your attention to amendment No. 93 which is the leading amendment in the first grouping? In the debate on that amendment and on the others in that group shall we be able to raise the matters that are guaranteed for ever under the Act of Union between Scotland and England? Those are the words in the Act. I draw your attention to the fact that there are aspects of Scottish law—a separate legal system and a separate educational system. I am sure you know that in Scotland the ancient universities are guaranteed in perpetuity.
  The Chairman: Order. One example is probably enough. Madam Speaker has ruled that such issues are not cognate to the Bill, and that ruling must stand.
  Mr. Marlow: I have two brief points of order to raise with you, Mr. Morris, because we all want to get on. First, you will be well aware that this is a real cruncher of a Bill. It is enormous, and vast numbers of amendments have been tabled. The amendments, as is traditional, have been set out and put down in sequence in the Bill, and they have numbers. The new clauses at the back are fairly easy to refer to, because they are in numerical order.
  I have no doubt that during the Committee stage on the Floor of the House, hon. Members will from time to time, as is their wont, refer to various amendments. There are about 84 pages of amendments, and interested hon. Members wishing to follow the debate will be scrabbling through trying to find a particular amendment to which reference may just have been made.
  I suggest that it would be helpful, if it were possible, for us to have two lists of amendments, the traditional one, which is right and proper, and a further list that would be

  161
  composed of the same amendments but in numerical order. That would be very helpful to us and I see no reason why that should not be done.
  The second point that I wish to raise with you, Mr. Morris—
  The Chairman: Order. One point at a time, please. What I have tried to do in the provisional selection of amendments is quite clear. It should be within the ability of hon. Members to find their way round eight amendments, and hopefully, hon. Members will have done just a little preparation before coming into the Chamber.
  Mr. Denzil Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. In regard to the grouping of amendments., may I ask you to confirm that only the first of a group is moved but that there is no impediment or prohibition on any hon. Member speaking to other amendments in the group? May I further ask you to confirm that if, on other amendments in the group, an hon. Member wishes a separate vote to take place, he can ask for that to happen? My understanding of the general custom is that in most cases, such a separate vote is allowed.
  The Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman is correct on his first point. On his second, relating to Divisions, an hon. Member can indeed ask. The decision whether there shall be a separate Division rests solely with the Chair.
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Almost the final words of the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill are:
  "The Bill will have no direct financial effect in the United Kingdom."
  I am confused, if only because of the cohesion fund in the treaty and the fact that the British Government are now engaged in budgetary explorations, as President of the Community. So I cannot reconcile an assertion of that nature with what is contained in the treaty and what we are about to be asked to legislate for in the Bill. What is the ruling on the basis of an assertion of that nature, when the nation and the House know full well that financial implications for the country and taxpayers arise as a result of the consequences of the Bill?
  The Chairman: I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising that point, but I must tell him that the Chair is not responsible for what is in the Bill. I suspect that the hon. Member might catch my eye and be able to question the Government, who will, no doubt, wish to refer to the point.
  Mr. Benn: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Returning to the referendum issue—[Interruption.] I return to it because it is important and the Chair has been helpful, but I raise what is an important point—
  4.45 pm
  The Chairman: Order. Is it a new dimension? I have ruled very clearly on the referendum issue. Many points are important. I hope that the right hon. Member is raising anew dimension; he is a senior colleague, and I shall listen attentively to his point of order.
  Mr. Benn: I hope that you take seriously my points, Mr. Morris. I am not trying to delay or frustrate. Politically, the matter is important and I am trying to find a way round the difficulty.
  162
  As this is a provision for Community citizenship, why should not the Community pay the cost of the referendum, avoiding the problem of the money resolution? We are in entirely new territory now. Hitherto, there have never been resources to do anything in Britain, except from the British Government on the initiative of the Crown through the Treasury. Now we are in a new position and I am asking—I am sure that you will consider my request carefully, Mr. Morris—whether you will consider the possibility of an amendment being tabled saying that, before the Bill comes into effect, the Community shall be required to organise a referendum in this country at no direct cost to the taxpayer, because it would come out of the British contribution. I put that forward as a serious suggestion.
  The Chairman: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for raising what is a new dimension. If he will submit a text, I shall look at it very carefully.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  The Chairman: Order. I note that most, if not all, of the hon. Members who are now rising have raised at least one point of order. Some have already raised two. I hope that they are now raising new points of order that have not been covered by any other hon. Member on either side of the House.
  Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Will it be in order, during the many debates that we are bound to have on the large groupings of amendments, for me to draw attention to the impact that amendments and clauses may or may not have on Scotland? I have particularly in mind matters over which Scotland now has control under its Scottish Office administration—its legal system and its education system.
  The Chairman: Broadly, yes.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: I raise my third—again, a genuine—point of order, Mr. Morris. [Interruption.] My other points of order were equally genuine, whatever some hon. Members may think.
  We have found with other European treaties, and as a result of debates on European issues, a wide variation between what we thought we were voting for and what actually happened. That has not happened with normal domestic legislation. A good example of that was the merchant shipping legislation and its effect on Scottish fishermen.
  Is it possible for you, Mr. Morris, as our chairman, to ask for written notes either from the Commission, which would seem the most appropriate, or from the European Court, for example, on issues that might show whether the United Kingdom would be under an obligation to join the ERM? I have read five different proposals and interpretations and I do not know which is right. The Government and Opposition do not know either, and we shall have to wait until we are told by the European Court. To save the time of the House and to prevent unnecessary and tedious debate, may I ask you to examine whether there is any procedure for you, as our Chairman, to ask for a ruling from the Commission or the European Court?
  Mr. Budgen: On a point of order, Mr. Morris.
  The Chairman: Order. It is clear that I am about to give a ruling. In any case, one at a time, please.

  163
  The occupants of the Government Front Bench will have heard what the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) said—the matter is certainly not one for the Chair—and I have no doubt that they will decide whether they can help him.
  Mr. Cash: On a point of order, Mr Morris. I raise with you the question of the Queen's consent to the Bill. It is clear that the measure affects prerogative, and of course the Queen would be regarded as a citizen of the so-called union. In those circumstances, may I ask whether the Queen's consent has been obtained? I cannot recall that happening on Second Reading. I understand that in important or urgent circumstances, it may be given at any point during the proceedings.
  Will you be good enough, Mr. Morris, to ensure that the Queen is not only asked, but is given an opportunity to be fully briefed on the implications of the legislation as respects her prerogative so that her consent may, if necessary, be given?
  The Chairman: I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising that point, although I imagine that he will have read today's Order Paper. In case he missed it, I refer him to page 2484, where it says:
  "European Communities (Amendment) Bill: Committee. (Queen's Consent to be signified on Third Reading)."
  Mr. Bryan Gould: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I seek your guidance on a point that arises on the first grouping of amendments but which may also arise on later groups. We are dealing in the Bill with a brief piece of domestic legislation, but we are looking through the measure to substantive provisions in the treaty. That is evident in the first group of amendments.
  The lead amendment, No. 93, proposes that title I be added to the Bill—be included in the provisions that are incorporated in domestic law—but all the subsequent amendments, with the exception of No. 108, suggest that we add title I minus one or other of the articles in title I. That means that, unlike the provisions of a clause in a domestic piece of legislation, we are required to vote on the wider provision before voting on amendments to that provision.
  In other words, if title I were clause 1, we would move and debate and presumably then vote on a succession of amendments to clause 1. Only then, when we had established the shape of clause 1, would we vote on the broad question of "clause stand part". That is a sensible and logical way of proceeding. By virtue of the way in which this group of amendments is constructed, however, we are required to vote—I assume, if the ordinary rules apply—on amendment No. 93; that is, on the overall question whether title I should be added to the Bill.
  What I want to know from you, Mr. Morris, is what would be the effect of a decision in either direction on our ability to vote on subsequent amendments. I take the point that you made in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) a moment ago, but on the assumption that you were disposed to allow divisions on subsequent amendments, how would that be possible if we had voted either to add title I in its entirety or had voted not to add title I at all? What possibility would we have of voting on Amendments Nos 344, 345 and so on?
  The Chairman: If the House chooses to add title Ito the Bill, I shall have to consider the position. Otherwise I am quite happy with the selection of amendments that I have made.
  Mr. Gould: Further to that—
  The Chairman: Order. Sir Peter Tapsell.
  Sir Peter Tapsell: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Is it the intention that votes will be taken immediately after a particular group of amendments has been debated? Also, would it be the intention that each one of those amendments, although grouped together, could be voted on separately when the time came?
  The Chairman: The Chair will follow the normal procedure, which is that the votes will take place where they come in the Bill, except for the lead amendment. I have already dealt with the hon. Member's other point.
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: I should like your guidance on a similar point, Mr. Morris. I understand the necessity to group the large number of amendments under these headings, and in most cases I understand why one must wait until the amendment comes up, because often those amendments are somewhere later in the Bill. In the vast majority of cases now, however, the groups of amendments are at exactly the same place in the Bill as the one before, because of the narrow nature of the Bill. Will you therefore have discretion to call the amendments for a vote, if you accept them, in order, rather than wait for some subsequent time to vote on an amendment which is 10 or 13 amendments down the road, although they are all in the same place in the Bill? I understand why in normal Committee procedure one must wait: amendments grouped with others may come later in the Bill. In this case they are in identical positions, with all the amendments in the same spot.
  For sheer simplicity and for the ease of understanding of hon. Members, is it in your discretion, if you accept amendments after the lead amendment and you allow us to have a vote on them, to call them straight away rather than wait for some esoteric moment?
  The Chairman: Such discretion is not mine. We will follow the normal procedure as they come on the amendment paper. That does not remove the right of hon. Gentlemen to have a vote at the appropriate time.
  Mr. Budgen: Further to the point of order made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). Perhaps I could make a suggestion on which you, Mr. Morris, may be able to act. It would seem that the European Court cannot give an advisory opinion on anything except a proposed treaty between the Community and some external body; it therefore seems unlikely that the court can give us an advisory opinion. It is also perhaps unwise to obtain an opinion from the Commission because it is such a political body.
  I am informed, however, that the Council has some 2,000 employees and a substantial legal staff in its employ, and I understand that it would be able to give an advisory opinion, particularly since, at the present time, the British Government hold the presidency. So I hope that you, Mr. Morris, will perhaps offer some word of advice to the Government.
  May I take another point, before you rise, Mr. Morris—
  The Chairman: Order. No. Those on the Front Bench will have heard the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Hugh Dykes: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I am not in any way questioning your judgment and decisions in the Chair. I think that the whole Committee will agree that your response has been extremely helpful today in clarifying a number of areas where hon. Members on both sides of the Committee were somewhat confused about the relationship of the Bill to the treaty and other aspects, and how, for example, in response to the important point of order of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), you explained how extraneous material which was encompassed in the treaty could perhaps, possibly by a vote, come to be part of the Bill, which some of us might regard as a difficult concept but none the less an important one for the Committee to consider. You have been very helpful and there have been a number of significant clarifications, so I am not questioning in any way your decisions in the Chair, Mr. Morris.
  I note, however, that for over one hour and 20 minutes we have had points of order of varying quality, substance and depth. As one who, reflecting other hon. Members' wishes, would like to get on to debate the amendments in the very helpful combinations which you have selected and put them together—in clusters which are extremely rational—I feel that the sooner we can do so, with your approval and decision, the better. I sense that many hon. Members would like to make progress and start the debate.
  The Chairman: I note that the hon. Members who are standing, with one exception, have had at least two points of order, if not three. I hope that they will find totally new territory—otherwise, I will propose that we start on the Bill.
  Mr. Michael Connarty: I hope that it may be a new point of order, Mr. Morris. Having read all the amendments and new clauses, I find that no point has covered my concern about the definition of subsidiarity. As a new Member, I seek to know from you whether it is possible, even at this late stage, and having heard what other hon. M embers have said about the difficulty of getting anything through the Clerks, to table a new clause relating to the definition of subsidiarity, which might clarify article 3B, which does not define subsidiarity in a way that anyone has found useful and merely obfuscates rather than clarifies. Would it be possible to bring in a new clause?
  The Chairman: May I help the hon. Gentleman? There is plenty of time for any new clause. The Clerks are there to help me to ensure that the material that they bring before me is in order. That is their function, and they do it exceedingly well.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I seek further clarification of the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). I am not clear whether the Chair has the right to look at the question whether a Bill needs a money resolution. lf, as a matter of fact, further financial resources are committed by the British Government under the treaty of union, is it a matter for the Chair whether the Bill will be valid without a money resolution? If not, how do hon. Members
  166
  properly raise the issue in debate? It is critical for many reasons, not least because it is necessary to have a money resolution if some of the amendments are to be allowed.
  The Chairman: I am not sure that I can help the hon. Gentleman a great deal. The Bill has had its Second Reading. It is on Second Reading that the hon. Gentleman should have raised such points. Further to that, those on the Government Front Bench will have heard him.
  Mr. Skinner: You will know, Mr. Morris, that when an hon. Member who has no Government backing introduces a Bill. let us say, on a Friday, and manages to get it through Second Reading without a money resolution and, as a result of various changes in the course of proceedings, finally manages to get it through the House, there have been scores of occasions when the Government, because they have been satisfied with the nature of the Bill, have decided to allow a money resolution to be added. The Bill may not have started with one, but many times it has finished with one.
  I suggest to you, Mr. Morris, that in this case any amendment which leads to the necessity for a money resolution could be treated in the same way as a private Member's Bill which starts off without Government backing. It is the same principle and it ought to be allowed on this occasion as well.
  The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is correct; a money resolution could be brought forward by the Government at any time; but it is not a matter for decision by the Chair.
  5 pm
  Mr. Marlow: There are points of order which are said to be helpful, but are not. This point of order is intended to be genuinely helpful, Mr. Morris. It is obvious to you that many hon. Members would like a debate on the subject of the referendum. It is obvious, if public opinion polls are anything to go by, that large numbers of people outside the House would agree. You have yourself signified that you would be happy if it were in order for an amendment to be put down which would allow the House to have a debate on a referendum. I am sure that you want to be as helpful as possible. There are in the House some of the best brains in the country—or people who think that they have the best brains in the country. Amendment No. 89, which is obviously out of order, because it has been so ruled, says:
  "This Act shall come into operation on such date as the Secretary of State may"—
  The Chairman: Order. There is no point in the hon. Gentleman reading out amendments that are out of order. I am happy to have any amendment on any subject so long as it is in order. On the referendum, I have made the position abundantly clear. I have made it clear three times underlined, and I cannot say any more on the referendum.
  Mr. Marlow: May I finish my point of order?
  The Chairman: I thought that the hon. Gentleman had finished, because he was about to quote something that is out of order.
  Mr. Marlow: Can you help the House and those who think that they are the best brains in the country by saying what parts of that amendment are weak, so that we can put our brains together to strengthen it and fulfil the will of the House, and your will as well, Mr. Morris?
  The Chairman: I cannot write the amendment for the hon. Gentleman; he must do his own work.
  Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. A short while ago, in response to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), you drew our attention to the Third Reading of the Bill, where Queen's Consent to the prerogative was mentioned. There have been many attempts, both in Select Committee and in questions, to get a Government view on whether the monarch, the Crown, with or without family, with or without taxes, will be a citizen of the European union. Article 8 of the treaty reads:
  "Citizens of the Union shall enjoy the rights conferred by this Treaty and be subject to the duties imposed thereby."
  I infer that possibly the fact that the Queen's prerogative has been placed at the disposal of the House in this respect means that, if this treaty is indeed ratified and comes into effect, provided all nations concerned ratify it, the monarch, whoever that may be in the future, will be subject to the duties imposed thereby as a citizen of the union. The constitutional implications of that with regard to foreign affairs, security, the administration of justice and the courts' decisions are, as you will know, profound.
  I do not necessarily expect you to answer immediately, Mr. Morris, but how can the House find out whether the monarch of the day will become a citizen of the union? If you cannot rule on that now, because you may not know yourself, can you indicate to the House how it can find out before we reach the debate on this most important matter?
  The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman has been here a long time. He knows that it is not for the Chair to rule on the interpretation of the Bill.
  Mr. Denzil Davies: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). You said, Mr. Morris, that you had no discretion to take a vote on an amendment immediately following the lead amendment and that the vote had to take place in the order of the amendment on the amendment paper. I accept that, of course, but can you tell me why you do not have discretion and what rule prevents your having it?
  The Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman knows that the amendments are put down in the order in which they are tabled—first come, first served.
  Mr. Gould: May I ask you, Mr. Morris, for a slight elaboration of the ruling which you kindly gave in answer to the point of order I raised earlier? Am I to understand that if the lead amendment in the first group of amendments were carried—so that title I was added to the Bill—there would be no insuperable procedural or logical problem about subsequent Divisions on amendments to add title I minus one or two articles to the Bill? In other words, are you telling us that it would be, as is ordinarily the case, a matter entirely within your discretion whether to allow a Division on those provisions, or is there some further difficulty that we shall have to face?
  The Chairman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but it is a hypothetical question. I would have to consider the matter if and when we reached that position, and it would clearly require very serious consideration.
  Mr. Budgen: I am sure that you, Mr. Morris, and the House will agree that we all wish to pace ourselves in the consideration of the Bill and the treaty. I have no doubt
  168
  that the House would like to ensure that we have proper consideration of all parts of the treaty, so that the last part is as well considered as the first. You may have noticed—I was not a party to these discussions—that it is alleged by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) that a very significant promise was given to him in order to obtain his support in the voting in the paving debate. It is said by some that it was merely an anticipation and explanation of the likely course of the proceedings on the Bill.
  Please do not get up for a moment, Mr. Morris; just let me finish my point.
  The Chairman: Order. The only reason that I get up is that the hon. Gentleman is talking about issues that are nothing to do with the Chair. I am sorry; I can only conduct the debate in the Chamber when we are discussing matters on which the Chair has responsibility. The Chair has no responsibility for the details of promises made by one hon. Gentleman to another on a paving motion. If it was a different point of order, the hon. Gentleman should not have started on that basis. I will give him one chance: let us have a point of order for the Chair and not something to do with Government policy.
  Mr. Budgen: With great respect, Mr. Morris, I have no doubt that you wish to know how it is planned that these proceedings should be timed. It is a relevant question for you and for the House—
  The Chairman: Order. I have no wish to know how they are to be timed.

  European Communities (Amendment) Bill
    Clause 1

      TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION
      Sir Russell Johnston: I beg to move amendment No. 93, in page 1, line 9, after 'Titles', insert 'I'.
      The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 108, in page I, line 9, after 'Titles', insert

      'I (except Article F on page 8 Cm 934)'.

      No. 313, in page 1, line 9, after 'Titles', insert 'I (except Article E)'.

      No. 344, in page 1, line 9, after 'Titles', insert 'I (except Article A).'

      No. 345, in page 1, line 9, after 'Titles', insert 'I (except Article B).'

      No. 346, in page 1, line 9, after 'Titles', insert 'I (except Article C).'

      No. 347, in page 1, line 9, after 'Title', insert 'I (except Article D)'.

      No. 348, in page 1, line 9, after 'Title', insert 'I (except Article F)'.

      Sir Russell Johnston: So we have begun at last, Mr. Morris.
      It is worth recalling to the House that when the Danish referendum took place there was, two days later, a meeting of the Council of Ministers in Oslo at which all member states, including the United Kingdom agreed to proceed with ratification forthwith—something that we have notably failed thus far to do, although many other countries have so proceeded.

      169
      You said very early on in dealing with points of order, Mr. Morris, that this Bill is not about ratification. You emphasised that, and said that it is specifically not about ratification. In legal terms you are certainly right; I am the last person to argue with the Chair about that; but the consequence of not passing this Bill would be that the treaty would not be ratified, even if that is not in proper legal constitutional terms the real situation.
      A limited number of amendments can be made without affecting the purity of the treaty. Many people have said that this short Bill can hardly be changed, and that, if it is, it will wreck the treaty and therefore Maastricht will fall.
      Mr. Dennis Skinner: Wouldn't that be wonderful?
      Sir Russell Johnston: What the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) regards as wonderful and what I regard as wonderful are wide apart.
      It cannot be said, however, that, if amendment No. 93 is passed, it will break the treaty. It can be argued—no doubt the Minister will do so—that it affects British domestic legislation. That is a different question, and I shall consider it, but it is worth stressing that the insertion of the titles does not change or breach the treaty or nullify ratification.
      Interestingly, the same applies to the opt-outs that the United Kingdom has entered into. I am not sure whether it is proper to raise a point of order in the middle of a speech, but if, for example, the Committee decided that it wished to reinsert the social chapter which the Government have opted out of, it would affect other member countries, because they each would have to introduce a new short protocol in their own Parliaments reversing the opt out that they had previously agreed. It would not, however, affect the integrity of the treaty. I think that I am right in saying that. That point was not made in the many points of order, but we shall have to consider it. It certainly does not apply to title I or titles V to VII, which may be inserted without affecting the treaty.
      We contend that hon. Members should have the right not simply to debate the treaty but to approve the title. We are arguing about ratification a la carte, whereby the Government choose the bits that they want to ratify. I think that Britain is the only country to have excluded Parliament's right to express an opinion or accept a part of the treaty. Most other member states introduced a simple Bill, to which the treaty was attached. That is not how we are proceeding. perhaps because of the nature or our legislative practice and the fact that, unfortunately, we do not have a written constitution.
      The Minister will argue that title I is declaratory and therefore has no sense in law and that, as the other titles are intergovernmental, Parliament has no role. Ratification is a well-established process in international law. The 19th-century dictionary of diplomacy by Baron de Cussy defines it as
      "the act by which the sovereigns in whose name a treaty has been negotiated and concluded, approve the provisions cif this treaty and undertake to put it into effect."
      The point about the sovereign is raised often enough by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). The days have long passed when, in reality, kings were sovereign in this respect.
      Dicey, writing on the United Kingdom constitution, took the view
      170
      "that the sovereignty of Parliament is the dominant characteristic of our political institutions."
      On the subject of making treaties—a power
      "in the hands of the Crown and exercised in fact by the executive government"—
      he took the view that this power is dependent on the will of Parliament, which may regulate it, abolish it or take a decision
      "making the assent of the Houses of Parliament necessary to the validity of a treaty."
      That, essentially, is the argument that I am advancing. As long ago as Aristotle, it was argued that sovereignty in a democracy belonged to the citizens.
      5.15 pm
      Without wishing to enter into the arguments about a referendum, it must be noted that Ireland, Denmark and France held referendums on ratification—referendums on the whole treaty. When pressed by Members who support referendums, among whom I do not number myself, the Prime Minister said:
      "It has always been my view that these matters are best dealt with by the House because we are ultimately answerable to the electorate for the decisions we take."—[Official Report, 4 November 1992; Vol 213, c. 292.]
      That is fair and I agree with it, but, if that is true, surely the House has a right to express its view on the whole treaty, not just part of it.
      Amendments Nos 108, 313, and 344 to 348 are being taken with amendment No. 93. Those amendments accept the insertion of the title, with the exception of a particular article in it. Amendment No. 108 which stands in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, excludes article F, which deals with the European convention on human rights. The other amendments, which all stand in the name of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), who appears to have departed and is probably writing more amendments somewhere, deal with each of the various articles.
      I should be interested to hear the argument advanced by Labour Front-Bench spokesmen, because there is some suggestion that, if the House passed title I, including article F, it might have the effect in law of Britain having ratified the convention on human rights, which we have not formally ratified although we shadow it, rather as we did the mark. I should have thought that it was desirable to ratify—a point that was made in the Dimbleby lectures only a couple of nights back. I agree with that.
      Mr. George Robertson: Last night.
      Sir Russell Johnston: I accept the hon. Gentleman's correction; he obviously knows which day it is, which is a positive step forward for all of us. I can assure him that, by the time the Committee stage is over, he will not know which day it is, but I suspect that few other hon. Members will either.
      Article A of the title establishes European union, with the United Kingdom as part of it. That is an important decision, and many hon. Members passionately oppose the idea. Under that article, the Government became very excited about the union being "federal", and fought ferociously to get the word excised. Ultimately, they succeeded, and instead we have a union in which decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen—the famous word "subsidiarity", which appears in article B.
      I should have thought that the establishment of European union is an extremely important matter and should not be slid round. In the Government booklet that

      171
      was produced miraculously in November to describe what they would do during their presidency in July, little reference is made to European union. It says a little on page 11 but is concerned mostly with the single market and says how exciting that all is.
      The creation of European union is profound and exceedingly important, particularly as it is supposed to be organised to demonstrate consistency and solidarity in the future. I should have thought that the House should debate and decide on that issue.
      Article B includes the first reference in the Maastricht treaty to issues such as promoting
      "economic…union, ultimately including a single currency".
      It also includes
      "the eventual framing of a common defence policy"
      and the "acquis communautaire", about which the hon. Member for New Forest (Sir P. McNair-Wilson) was so excited earlier. He is now bobbing up and down with even more excitement.
      Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson: I am not that excited, but will the hon. Gentleman translate "acquis communautaire" for the benefit of the House? It may be common parlance in his constituency and all his constituents may know immediately what it means, but why is it not translated in the article?
      Sir Russell Johnston: Few matters are discussed more often in my constituency than the acquis communautaire. Asking me to translate it is rather like asking me to give the English for "spaghetti" or "blitzkrieg"—
      Mr. Skinner: Or "bullshit".
      Sir Russell Johnston: No, that is different. It is an English word with which the hon. Gentleman is deeply familiar.
      The acquis communautaire, as the hon. Member for New Forest knows perfectly well, is the corpus—another foreign word—of Community law. It is the body of Community law, if the hon. Gentleman prefers. The expression "acquis communautaire" has therefore become an accepted description.
      Mr. Dalyell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, had we had a common defence policy, we might not have been involved in many of the mistakes, which are ever more evident, of the Gulf war?
      Sir Russell Johnston: I remember long ago when we debated devolution in the House and the hon. Gentleman fought those proposals night after night. He had a good technique, which was to pick any policy—it did not matter which one—
      Mr. Dalyell: It did matter which policy. I was very selective. I am extremely choosy about policies.
      Sir Russell Johnston: The hon. Gentleman would find out from experts in the subject whether the matter might be worsened by devolution. Experts being experts, they would usually say that that was possible. The hon. Gentleman would then make a long speech demonstrating that it was probable.
      The hon. Gentleman picks the Gulf war as a matter on which attitudes may go one way or the other if we had a common defence policy. I thought that the Gulf war was
      172
      necessary. If we had a common defence policy, I believe that we would have taken decisive action earlier in the former Yugoslavia, but that is a matter of opinion. One can never guarantee that structures, however more beneficial they are than existing ones, will necessarily produce the right political answers, although I hope that they would.
      The essence of my argument is that matters as fundamentally important as article B, even if expressed in a declaratory fashion—as they are—should be emphasised in the House and made clear to the public at large, and Parliament should approve them specifically. If we declare that we wish to see the eventual framing of a common defence policy, the whole country is obliged to be committed to it through the treaty.
      Mr. Jim Marshall: The hon. Gentleman argues for including article B in the original Act of Parliament. He will be aware that article B, in a declaratory form, includes the three pillars of the Maastricht treaty: bringing the original treaty up to date; the pillar on home affairs; and the pillar on foreign affairs and security. He will know that the Government chose that form to exclude home affairs, foreign affairs and security from the European Community's competence. Would the amendment, which would include that in the original Act of Parliament, bring home affairs, foreign affairs and security within the competence of the Commission?
      Sir Russell Johnston: No, the amendment would not have that effect. I simply contend that what already exists in the treaty as a declaration of intent should be approved of by Parliament. The amendment does not change the treaty in any respect. A number of other countries have approved the entire treaty.
      Mr. Marshall: I realise that the hon. Gentleman and I have both been in Paris this week—perhaps he took an earlier flight than me—but he misses the point. The Government are keen to exclude foreign affairs, security and home affairs from the European Commission's competence, which is why they chose the three-pillar approach in the Maastricht treaty. Would the hon. Gentleman's amendment to the original European Communities legislation bring foreign affairs and security and home affairs within the competence of the European Commission?
      Sir Russell Johnston: As far as I know, the answer is no—not because I do not want them to be brought within the competence of the European Commission and institutions, because I do, in respect of both foreign affairs and defence. However, the inclusion of article B in the Bill would not have that effect, any more than it has by being in the treaty signed by the Government.
      Mr. Denzil Davies: This may be a point for the Minister, but I understand that the Bill creates within the United Kingdom certain Community rights and obligations. As title I does not need to be incorporated because it demands no rights or obligations internally in the United Kingdom, what is the point of including it in the Bill, as the hon. Gentleman wants to do?
      Sir Russell Johnston: For the very reason that I have already explained, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman was dozing. As far as I know, the Parliament of every other

      173
      Community country has approved the whole, not just part, of the treaty. Even if we are talking about declarations of intent rather than specific legislative requirements, we have a right to express a view.
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Davies: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, it is he who has been dozing. We are not talking about ratification. Ratification is for the Crown. The treaty can be ratified according to United Kingdom law. Other countries may ratify treaties differently. This Bill is not about ratification but about incorporating certain rights and obligations in the internal law of the United Kingdom so that courts can enforce them. I ask the hon. Gentleman again: on that basis, what on earth is the point of incorporating title 1?
      Sir Russell Johnston: We had that argument at the beginning of my remarks. You, Mr. Morris, made it clear at the beginning, when dealing with various points of order, that the Bill does riot have the legislative effect of ratifying the treaty. The hon. Gentleman is correct:. I know all about that. It is also true that, if the Bill is rejected by the Committee, it will have the political effect of the treaty not being ratified.
      Mr. Benn: Will the hon. Gentleman help us on one point? He is a fully declared federalist. He said so, and he would be in favour of the Bill including title I. Can he confirm again the view expressed so powerfully by the leader of his party, that the Liberal Democrats support the most federal development of Maastricht and, anyway, the Maastricht treaty as it is before us, and favour a referendum on the matter? There is all the difference in the world between people who favour a union but say that the public should have no say in the matter, and those who favour a union but say that they recognise its importance and think that the public should decide for themselves.
      Sir Russell Johnston: There are two different questions there. One is whether one approves of federation; the other is whether one approves of a referendum. I take the latter point first. The leader of the Liberal Democrats has frequently expressed his support for a referendum; he has for a long time been consistently on record in that regard. However, that is not the official past conference policy of the party, and there are others within the party, including myself, as I said about 10 mintues ago, who do not necessarily agree with him or with the right hon. Gentleman that referendums are necessarily the best way of making decisions.
      When one considers the Danish referendum and the fact that opinion polls have demonstrated that some 20 per cent. of the Danish population who voted in the referendum did not know what Maastricht was two weeks before the vote took place, one sees that that is not the wisest way to take a complicated decision.
      I know perfectly well that there are strong and consistent arguments in favour of referenda. There are hon. Members who regard referendums as a desirable general part of the constitution, rather as is the case in Switzerland, which is the one country which uses referendums as a regular form of making decisions. But there are others who, for more substantial reasons, believe that representative forms of government are a better way of reaching such a complicated decision.
      The Chairman: Order. The amendment is not about referendums. It is appropriate to make a passing comment on referendums, but it is not in order to develop the arguments for or against referenda.
      Sir Russell Johnston: I am grateful for your ruling, Mr. Morris.
      Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman has just said that 80 per cent. of the Danish electorate knew what the Maastricht treaty was. The Maastricht treaty is being debated by the Committee. Would the hon. Gentleman like to give an opinion on how many right hon. and hon. Members know what the treaty of Maastricht is?
      I have good news for the hon. Gentleman. Christmas has come early. He said that he would like the Community institutions to be involved in foreign and security policy, and probably home affairs and immigration. Article J.9 says:
      "The Commission shall be fully associated with the work carried out in the common foreign and security policy field."
      Article J.7says:
      "The Presidency shall consult the European Parliament on the main aspects and the basic choices of the common foreign and security policy and shall ensure that the views of the European Parliament are duly taken into consideration."
      If the Bill is approved, the hon. Gentleman has won the match. It is there.
      Mr. Jim Marshall: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I realise that you have just said that referendums are not to be included in the debate, but I draw your attention to title 1, article F, which says:
      "The Union shall respect the national identities of its Member states, whose systems of government are founded on the principles of democracy."
      You and the House, will know that, in a number of member countries referenda are an accepted and legitimate means of making decisions. If people refer to referendums in other countries and in Britain as well, that would be covered by title I, article F.
      The Chairman: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman heard my ruling clearly. I said that it was perfectly proper for referendums to be alluded to or referred to, but not to have a substantive debate on a referendum.
      Mr. Marshall: Why not?
      The Chairman: It is not relevant to the amendment that we are debating. If the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber earlier, he must have heard all the points of order about referendums, and if he was not, he should have been.
      Sir Russell Johnston: I am grateful for your ruling, Mr. Morris. I think that you intend that we should refer to it en passant.
      Mr. Hugh Dykes: Or de temps en temps.
      Sir Russell Johnston: Yes.
      I was referring to article B and there is no point in referring in detail to the other articles. I have no doubt that we shall hear from the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) on article F. I find it difficult to understand why he would wish to exclude article F if he deserted title I. I should have thought that he, like myself, is in favour of the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
      Mr. George Robertson: So that the hon. Gentleman does not go down a blind alley, I should say that that amendment was designed, as so many other amendments have to be designed, to allow a debate on the subject of the European convention on human rights, no more no less.
      Sir Russell Johnston: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
      I wish to make only three more substantial points.
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: Is it the hon. Gentleman's position, and that of his party, that the article could be brought into effect by prerogative power? As has been pointed out, it seeks to establish a union and citizenship. How could that be effected by prerogative power, when the very last paragraph of article F says:
      "The Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to obtain its objectives and carry through its policies."
      I am interested in whether the hon. Gentleman is moving the amendment because he believes that that title I cannot be achieved by prerogative power.
      Sir Russell Johnston: I am arguing that the title, which I quite accept is declaratory and sets out a number of desirable objectives—
      Mr. Shepherd: But it is legally binding.
      Sir Russell Johnston: Yes, but it is difficult to make an objective legally binding. An objective is an aim, a hope—a desire to move in a particular direction. In this day and age, Parliament ought to be able to pronounce upon the matter, and I thought that the hon. Gentleman would agree.
      Mr. Shepherd: My intervention was made in the spirit of inquiry, because I think that I will vote for the title's inclusion in the Bill. I was merely trying to establish the basis on which that proposition was being advanced. I asked the hon. Gentleman whether it was appropriate, whether it was justiciable by the European Court—in which case it would be legally binding on us—and whether the Government maintain that, through the use of the prerogative power, they can effect such a provision.
      I am also interested to know why the hon. Gentleman does not think that article F—this point was seized on by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State—does not require a money resolution.
      Sir Russell Johnston: I explained my position, and I am glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman has been convinced by my oratory and is likely to vote for the inclusion of the title. The aims set out in the title and the implications of establishing European union directly concern every one of us, and should be the subject of approval by Parliament.
      Mr. Harry Barnes: The initial provision in article A makes reference to the development of a union, yet the Liberal Democrats favour federalism. Are not the title's provisions a step towards a unitary system? Subsidiarity itself is a centralised notion that dictates that certain aspects can dribble down and be devolved, whereas federalism specifies particular responsibilities for national Governments and the federal body. Are not the Liberal Democrats' principles being eroded by the title? Other right hon. and hon. Members might want to vote for the amendment, but it is difficult to understand. why the Liberal Democrats proposed it.
      Sir Russell Johnston: Although the word "federal" was removed by the Government in negotiation, the way in which the majority of our Community partners view the nature of an evolving union and the notion of subsidiarity is significantly different from the way in which the British Government view them. Chancellor Kohl talks about subsidiarity and union in terms of federalism.lb/>
      In that regard, I will quote from our debate last June, when the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) put the point extremely appositely:
      "If we had a federal state in Europe today, we should have more sovereignty guaranteed for the House than we have at present."—[Official Report, 26 June 1991; Vol. 193, c. 1076.]
      The hon. Gentleman repeated himself in December, saying:
      "our federal position would be a step ahead of what we have now. At least when a country is federal it knows what belongs to it and what belongs to others."—Official Report, 18 December 1991; Vol. 201, c. 360.]
      I agree. I know that what was established at Maastricht is not yet a federal state, but I am convinced that it is moving in that direction.
      Mr. John Butcher: The hon. Gentleman knows that the word "union" evokes strong responses from Ulstermen and a different response from Scotsmen. The meaning of subsidiarity to a German may mean devolution for Scotland, unwanted devolution for the regions of Britain, and an unwanted disassembly of the Union for the people of Ulster.
      We are addressing a constitutional point, and the hon. Gentleman has a good record of examining such questions. He has been consistent with his party's policy on devolution, so does he believe that the objective—to use his word—is the German style of devolution/federalism/ subsidiarity, or the citizenship of a monolithic state? The hon. Gentleman is opening up a key question.
      5.45 pm
      Sir Russell Johnston: I believe that the Community could not hold together if it became a monolithic state, given the diversity of its peoples. Almost inevitably—although perhaps more slowly than I would wish—one will see the development of federal institutions. The Community is already a sort of incomplete federation.
      As to the different meaning of words to different people, one Conservative Back Bencher sensibly turned to his dictionary. If one looks up the word "federalize" in the "Oxford English Dictionary" one finds the following explanation:
      "unite in a federal union…to decentralise; to take from the central authority and hand over to federal bodies in the state, or to federal states in a union."
      That is the OED definition, but the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs seems anxious to rewrite that excellent book.
      Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman may have read the evidence given on 5 February by Paul Taylor, senior lecturer in international relations at the London school of economics to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, in which he clearly stated, in relation to the Maastricht agreement:
      "The expression a European union is a term that was included in the preamble and which appears at a number of other places, but which in practice appears to signify little that would not have been indicated by the term federalism in this context."

      177
      In other words, Mr. Taylor was saying that there is no distinction to be drawn between the arrangements provided by the treaty and a federal system.
      The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones) indicated dissent.
      Mr. Cash: My right hon. Friend, in his usual jocul ar manner, thinks that is wrong, but I look forward to hearing him explain—which I do not think he will find it easy to do—how the arrangements for which title I and the rest of the treaty provide—particularly having regard to the central banking arrangements for the whole of Europe—can easily be distinguished from a federal system.
      Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will distinguish between the arrangements in this country—with a central bank at the centre of gravity for Europe as a whole, with unelected, unaccountable bankers having the degree of power that they will—and the word "federal".
      Sir Russell Johnston: I will decline the hon. Gentleman's invitation, and take this rare opportunity to agree with almost everything he said. I thought that his definition was very accurate, and it is exactly what I would like to see.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for quoting me as an authority, and I glad that he agrees with me. I was seeking to make the point that a federal state would be a fundamental advance on what we have now and on what is in the Maastricht treaty—not the creation of a federal Europe in which they belong to something and we belong to something, but the creation of a unitary European union in which there would be central decision making and hardly anything guaranteed for national institutions.
      Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those of us who are inclined to support his common-sense amendment to allow Parliament to debate title I would not in any sense be supporting that title? We would simply be saying that such a provision should be discussed by right hon. and hon. Members and not be a device used by some—perhaps erroneously—to have the Bill presented in such a way that amendments are not selected and issues are not properly discussed?
      Sir Russell Johnston: Having heard the hon. Gentleman speak many times, I have a pretty clear idea of what he does and does not believe, so I do not accuse him as he suggests that other people may.
      In my definition, subsidiarity is federalism, because it is written down, entrenched and guaranteed—and the hon. Gentleman asked me whether an institutionalised federal state would represent an advance on Maastricht. Yes, of course it would. We have never said that we regard Maastricht as an end point—far from it—but in the present circumstances we consider that it represents a notable advance, and that its rejection would have a severe adverse effect on the political situation in the Community and beyond, in the eastern countries and in the European Free Trade Association.
      Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson: The hon. Gentleman was generous enough to congratulate me on using a French dictionary to try to unravel "acquis communautaire". As he has just mentioned subsidiarity, I wonder whether he could show me an English dictionary which contains a definition of that word.
      Sir Russell Johnston: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman could try the Library. I am sure that the people there would help him.
      Mr. Marlow rose—
      Mr. Bernard Jenkin rose—
      Sir Russell Johnston: I must bring my speech to a conclusion. I am not in the business of extending the debate. The hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) has not intervened so far, so I shall give way to him.
      Mr. Jenkin: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Government's victory in negotiating the words "federal vocation" out of the treaty has made no difference to the meaning of the treaty? Given his view that the treaty takes us towards a type of federal union, does he suggest that the Government, albeit inadvertently, seek to sell the treaty on a somewhat false prospectus?
      Hon. Members: Say yes.
      Sir Russell Johnston: I could pretty nearly say yes—but, among other things, the hon. Gentleman referred to the Government's "victory". I wish that Conservative Members—and all hon. Members—would stop using such warlike language about negotiations within the European Community. Every time a Minister returns from Brussels, we are told, "We defeated them," or, "We beat them," or, "We did them down." One sees the image of Spitfires whirling in salute above. That is not the way forward. Perhaps one of the reasons why the Government have not been so successful in many areas of negotiation is because they approach matters in too confrontational a way.
      The hon. Member for Colchester, North said that I believed that the rest of Europe wishes to move the Community towards the creation of a federal Europe. That is not my idea alone; I am sure that many independent observers would accept it. I realise that the British Government do not wish to move in that direction. They have made that quite clear, so they are not deceiving anyone. What emerges will be the result of interplay between the various political forces. That will determine the outcome for us.
      The Liberal Democrats' goal is a democratic, accountable, federal Europe, embracing all the countries that wish to join and respecting their national and cultural identities.
      Mr. Austin Mitchell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Sir Russell Johnston: Oh, all right.
      Mr. Mitchell: Mine is a more friendly intervention. I shall revert to the earlier argument, because I believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) had a more correct assessment of what we are doing. Would the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) care to wade a little further into his pile of "acquis liberale" by telling me what will happen if we accept the amendment?
      Paragraph 2 of article F of the treaty says:
      "The Union shall respect fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms signed in Rome on 4 November 1950".

      179
      If we incorporate title I, as the Liberal Democrats' amendment suggests, would the European convention on human rights be incorporated into British law, as many of us feel would be appropriate?
      Sir Russell Johnston: I do not think so, although I would wish—
      Mr. Mitchell: Then what is the point?
      Sir Russell Johnston: What is the point of what? I have already explained at length to the hon. Gentleman why I think that the title should be approved by Parliament—because it contains a series of declarations of considerable seriousness, on which Parliament should have the right to express a view. That does not mean that the provision goes as far as I would wish. I should certainly favour our recognising the European convention on human rights.
      Mr. Barnes: As hon. Members who believe in open government and freedom of information, surely we must get the meaning of the word "federalism" correct, and understand what subsidiarity implies. Is it really being said that subsidiarity is a subterfuge being used to move us towards federalism? I stand for federalism, and I should like the Bill to provide for it, but that is not what we have been offered.
      We are offered something else, which is described as subsidiarity, so subsidiarity must be clarified. If that cannot be done in such a way as to turn subsidiarity into federalism, subsidiarity should be recognised for what it is—an attempt to persuade us to accept moves towards a unitary system, and a union.
      Sir Russell Johnston: I believe that the hon. Gentleman would agree that the Government have a record of centralising control within the United Kingdom. Does he also agree that, when they use the word "subsidiarity", they mean subsidiarity from Brussels to Whitehall? The Government want subsidiarity to stop at Whitehall. But my definition would mean subsidiarity from Brussels to Edinburgh and Liverpool, and to the various regions of England, Scotland and Wales. That is what we mean in connection with federalism, too.
      Of course we know that the Government's definition of subsidiarity and their concept of decentralisation are different from mine—and doubtless different from those of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes).
      Mr. Barnes: The Liberal Democrats are supposed to be a democratic party.
      Sir Russell Johnston: We are.
      Mr. Barnes: A democratic party must opt clearly for a principle by which the various positions begin to become clear. The word "subsidiarity" has never been used in legal or constitutional documents, nor to explain democratic positions. It was used in a papal encyclical, and operated within structures such as the Catholic Church. The word was applied to fascist Italy, to define the rights of the individual.
      The document in question contains the mildest of trickle-down provisions; some things might be dealt with at a lower level, but most things would be done at the. centre. That is like someone going to the monarch, or to
      180
      the tsar, with icons, and hoping that he will not be killed. What comes down to the lower level is entirely dependent on the centre.
      Sir Russell Johnston: I take note of what the hon. Gentleman says, and I am sure that the Minister does, too.
      Mr. Robert Maclennan: It is the long-standing policy of the Liberal Democrats to seek the incorporation of the European convention on human rights into our domestic law, and that policy has been openly supported by the Master of the Rolls, Sir Thomas Bingham, in his annual address to the Bar Council, and—as recently as last night—by Lord Chief Justice Taylor, in his Dimbleby lecture.
      Does my hon. Friend agree that, unfortunately, because the Government do not intend to include in the Bill matters which do not give rise to Community rights and obligations—in particular, the provisions of article L of title 7—which excludes from the consideration of the European Court of Justice all matters which do not directly arise from the original treaties of the European Community, even if we adopt title I into the Bill as the amendment proposes, we shall still not be able to incorporate the European convention into British law? That is regrettable, but unavoidable in light of the Government's policy, which has no doubt been imposed on other colleagues in the Community.
      Sir Russell Johnston: I agree with everything my hon Friend says. I also referred to the Dimbleby lecture in that connection. I have made the case as clearly as possible—
      6 pm
      Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman's advice on this issue will probably be very valuable and much more so than that of many other hon. Members.
      It has been made clear to us that the Committee is not about ratifying the Bill: it is about incorporating parts of the treaty into United Kingdom legislation. In the amendment, the hon. Gentleman seeks also to incorporate title I into British legislation. I am tempted. I have a great deal of sympathy for what he is trying to achieve, and I may well support him in the Lobby later.
      I ask the hon. Gentleman to advise the House. Let us suppose that we do not support his amendment. Let us suppose that even the Government oppose the amendment and it is defeated. Let us suppose that other amendments that seek to incorporate other parts of the treaty into British legislation at a later stage are also defeated. How, then, is the whole of the treaty ratified? Through this process, we are legislating only part of the treaty. How, therefore, is the rest of the treaty ratified?
      Sir Russell Johnston: The short answer is that, because the Chair very properly decided that the amendment should be selected—the Chair has also selected other amendments concerning other missing titles—the House has the opportunity to express an opinion on whether it wishes titles to be included or not. The opportunity exists. We know that, in strict terms, the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) is right. We are not ratifying; we are talking about the parts of the treaty which have a direct consequence on British law. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the fact is that, if we defeat the

      181
      Bill, the effect will be that we do not ratify.I know that that is a paradox, but it is true, as the hon. Gentleman knows. I repeat that we should include title I of the treaty.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I hope that it will be helpful to the Committee if I seek in the first instance not only to reply to the points made by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), but to seek to place in context the important debate that we are about to have. If I am lucky enough to catch your eye later, Mr. Morris, I shall seek to respond to points made subsequently by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), who will no doubt speak on the amendment he has tabled, and to the points raised by other hon. Members.
      The House owes a debt to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber for tabling the amendment because it enables us to have a debate that is essentially about the structure of the treaty. It is important for us to have that debate and it is timely that the Committee should open with it.
      I hope that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber will be persuaded by my remarks, and by what subsequently takes place in Committee, that the wisest course would be for him to withdraw the amendment. That is my objective. Curiously enough, the finger was put by the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall)—
      Mr. Jim Marshall: I hope that it was not my finger but the intellectual power of my comments that influenced the Minister.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: The hon. Gentleman, aided and abetted by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), went to the heart of what, as I hope that hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber will accept after the debate, is the weakness of the argument.
      There are two sides to the amendment. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber replied frankly when the hon. Member for Leicester, South said, rightly, that the purpose of the structure of the treaty—this is at the centre of the Government's negotiating position and I believe that the Opposition are not unsupportive of that position—is to separate out common foreign and security policy, and interior and justice policy, and to make them separate intergovernmental pillars and not part of the treaty of Rome. The hon. Member for Leicester, South asked whether that was not the purpose of the whole treaty.
      The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber replied, perfectly frankly—this is the position of the Liberal Democrats and will come as no surprise to anyone—that he indeed wanted to bring those areas of intergovernmental activity into the treaty of Rome. He wants a single structure—what we here have come to call a federal state. I realise that in the course of the Committee we shall have some interesting debates about what the word "federal" means. It means different things in different countries. That is what the Liberal Democrats aspire to.
      There is a certain amount of sense in what the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber seeks to do. I do not want Conservative or Opposition Members to be confused about the matter. In seeking to move title I on to the face of the treaty, one is taking a step towards a
      182
      single-structured treaty. That is what the hon. Gentleman wishes to see. I hope that none of my hon. Friends will be deceived by that.
      Sir Nicholas Bonsor rose—
      Mr. Benn rose—
      Mr. Garet-Jones: I will give way, but I want first to complete this part of my argument so that the House well understands what we shall be asked to vote on when the Question is put.
      The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber and his party are clear about the matter. It must, therefore, have come as some surprise to the hon. Gentleman to find that the amendment enjoyed the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). I will explain why I believe that my hon. Friend will give that support and why he will even gain support from my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) whose intentions on the Maastricht treaty and on the Bill are well known to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber and to the Committee. My hon. Friend's intentions are perfectly proper, but they are not the ones that the hon. Gentleman seeks.
      Mr. Benn: Whether the amendment which seeks to incorporate title I is in the Bill or not—that is all that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) proposes—the Government intend to ratify title I. There is no objection to the words. It appears that the Government do not want too much of the attention of the House of Commons and of the country to be drawn to title I by incorporating it in the Bill—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Of course. If title I is in the Bill, everyone can see it.
      People do not study treaties, including the aims and objectives. Acts of Parliament do not get studied very much, but at least they are looked at. Treaties are never looked at. I hope that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber will not be persuaded to withdraw the amendment. If he does withdraw it, the Government will go ahead and ratify the treaty.
      The second point raises matters of tactics for the Edinburgh summit. What gain have the Government got from putting the Bill on today? When the Edinburgh summit meets next week, every other European Minister will see that the British Government do not want the objectives of the Maastricht treaty put before the British Parliament. That is what this is about—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Of course it is.
      If the Minister had said that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber was right and that the Government would ratify the objectives, he could at least go to the summit as a "good European". However, in fact, the first thing that he will have to say to the others is, "You are ratifying and we are ratifying, but we did not want our Parliament to incorporate the objectives in the legislation." By moving the amendment, the hon. Gentleman has exposed the deception and the strategy of the Government in trying to deny to the British public the enormity of what they are doing. On a matter of language, I do not know what "la reine la vault" means, either, if the Bill has to receive Royal Assent in Norman French which, to the best of my knowledge, is no longer in the Oxford English dictionary.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: The right hon. Gentleman is making a point that seems to be entirely misleading both to himself and to the Committee.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: Tell us why it is misleading.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I will seek to do so.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: Do it now.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I will seek to do so.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: I will listen very carefully.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: If my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East will contain himself for a few seconds, I will seek to do so.
      The right hon Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) will be aware that the purpose of the Bill is to bring into British law those elements of the treaty of Maastricht that involve an amendment to the treaty of Rome, as amended by the Single European Act. Fortunately for the Committee and for its procedures, it is possible for us, in doing that, to have much wider debates and to debate those other elements of the treaty of Maastricht which do not necessitate a change or an amendment to the treaty of Rome as amended by the Single European Act, such as the intergovernmental activities of the union. There will be a number of debates—I dare say that they will be very long and detailed—when the Committee considers all those aspects of the Bill, too.
      Sir Nicholas Bonsor: The point that I was going to make follows on from what was said by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), with whom I wholly agree. Will my right hon. Friend please confirm that European law overrides British law when there is a conflict? In so far as title I has any legal validity in the courts of the land, it will be enforced by the courts of this land whether or not it is incorporated in the Bill. Therefore, what on earth is the point in preventing the Committee from debating the legal consequences of title I? What is the point of keeping it out of the Bill when the legal effect will be identical, whether it is in the Bill or whether it is enforced through European law?
      Mr. Garel-Jones: If the Committee will allow me to make the remarks that I am about to make, I hope to be able to answer my hon. Friend. As a quick reply—I hope that I am allowed to make a detailed explanation of the point—may I say that my hon. Friend will see in the response that the Government have put to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee that the common provisions of the treaty are not justiciable by the European Court of Justice by virtue of article L of the treaty. The common conditions that we are discussing are not justiciable under the European Court of Justice. I shall try to make progress, but I will, of course, take interventions.
      Mr. Marlow: My right hon. Friend is being very tolerant, and I am grateful. If title I is not justiciable, what is the point of it and what effect does it have?
      Mr. Garel-Jones: Title I describes the objectives of the treaty. It places the treaty in context, both those aspects of the treaty that are amendments to the treaty of Rome and those aspects of the treaty that are not part of the treaty of Rome. I welcome the amendment because it goes to the heart of the structure of the treaty and the Bill. It is important that we understand that from the outset.
      Mr. Denzil Davies: We all understand that title I is not justiciable by the European Court because it is not incorporated into the treaty of Rome. It is quite different to say, however, that, if the British Government ratify title I, as they will have to if they ratify the treaty, the British Government are then bound vis-a-vis all other Governments by what is in title I. If title I is a federal blueprint—I do not know whether it is or not—the British Government are ratifying a federal blueprint.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Garel-Jones: If the right hon. Member for Llanelli and my hon. Friends who are seeking to intervene will allow me to make some progress, they will realise that I am seeking to address the very questions that the right hon. Gentleman has put to me and that my hon. Friends wish to put. So far, I have not been able to get beyond the first paragraph of what I wish to say. I am perfectly happy to take interventions, but I should like to place my answers to the right hon. Gentleman and to the mover of the amendment in context.
      It is important that we understand that the treaty structure—this is the point that the hon. Member for Leicester, South put to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber—was a significant negotiating success for the United Kingdom at Maastricht. It provides the separate intergovernmental pillars for co-operation on the common foreign and security policy and in home affairs outside the treaty of Rome. In those matters, the EC institutions will operate under different rules. For example, the Commission will not have the exclusive right of initiative. There were those—the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber is of this view—who wished—
      Mr. Butcher: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. We now have a difference of view on whether title I would be justiciable. It is a very important matter because, if we are to incorporate something into law which will be justiciable, and if that is therefore to be part of our constitution, now written as opposed to basically unwritten, we should not proceed with the discussion of the amendment, given that it now sets a precedent—we should know the answer to this—for the proposal by the Government to exclude whole chunks of the treaty from the Committee's consideration unless covered fortuitously by amendments that you accept.
      This is not a spurious point of order. We really need to know before we proceed further whether, having passed article 1, whether we discuss it or not, a European Court judgment could give flesh, meaning or obligations to this Parliament arising from its approval.
      The Chairman: Obviously, there are powerful arguments at bay and they must be discussed on the Floor of the House, and they should proceed. I certainly cannot rule on them at this stage.
      Mr. Butcher: Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris. The Minister of State has given an assurance—of course, we have to accept in good faith that that is his interpretation—but there are serious doubts whether article L insulates us from decisions by the European

      185
      Court which bind the House of Commons and bind us constitutionally and which can have a significant effect on the way in which we view citizenship in this country.
      I put it to you again, Mr. Morris, that this is a very serious point. If we approve article 1 without that discussion and without a judgment from the Law Officers we may have future discussions on many other parts of the treaty, not knowing the constitutional basis on which they might be implemented in this country.
      Mr. Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Morris.
      The Chairman: I rule on one point of order at a time. The hon. Gentleman should know that by now.
      The arguments are all of substance throughout the whole process of the Bill. Some may seem more important than others, but arguments have to be deployed and then we have to come to a conclusion. The Committee votes either for the amendment or against it. It is not for the Chair to advise one way or the other. I do not think that I can help the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher) any further.
      Mr. Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Would it be convenient for the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General, perhaps in rotation, to attend our debate' These are matters not exclusively of English law. We are now told that they are part European law and part English law. It seems to me that the Minister of State is having a little difficulty in explaining himself. It might be helpful if the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General could be brought in to bail him out.
      The Chairman: Order. Ministers will have heard that; it is not a matter for the Chair.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I am not experiencing—
      Mr. Benn rose—
      Mr. Garel-Jones: If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, I want to make a little progress. I will seek to deal with a number of questions, including the one which my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) has just raised on a point of order. I do not want to be discourteous to the Committee by refusing to take interventions, but I want to try to answer the points made by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber and to address the questions which hon. Members wish me to address. We are in Committee and there will be no difficulty for hon. Members to intervene. They may intervene freely on each other. I hope that it will be helpful to the Committee if I put these remarks on the record now. When I have done so, hon. Members will no doubt raise a number of points.
      Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I agree with almost nothing that has been said by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), and indeed take a different view from some of my hon. Friends, but may I support the hon. Member for Stafford on one matter? There is a serious argument for having a Law Officer present.
      The Chairman: I have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said. I have already ruled that that is not a matter for the Chair.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: There are those in Europe who wish all co-operation between Governments and member states to fall under the treaty of Rome within the framework of
      186
      the existing Community rules and under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. That is in essence the position which the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber seeks to defend. I think that is why he has sought to incorporate title I into the provisions of the Bill. There is a reason why he should not do so, but that is a respectable reason, well understood by hon. Members.
      There are also a number of people in Europe who share the federal views held by the Liberal party. That is why, in the course of the negotiations leading up to the treaty, the Dutch Government sought to introduce a unitary text that would indeed have made all these matters areas where the Commission had the sole right of initiative, and would have made all the areas that we will discuss in Committee justiciable by the European Court of Justice.
      Sir Nicholas Bonsor: My right hon. Friend has drawn the attention of the Committee to article L. He must give his full attention to what article L(a) says. Is he telling the Committee as a legal fact that title I of the treaty is not a provision amending the treaty establishing the European Economic Community with a view to establishing the European Community?
      Mr. Garel-Jones: Yes, Sir. The pillared structure that I was referring to represents a significant change of direction for the Community. For more than 30 years, since its foundation, the Community has developed in a centralising way, drawing more and more areas of policy and action under the central framework of Community institutions, operating under Community rules and enacting Community legislation. The introduction of the pillared structure of the treaty on European union represents moves away from that centralising trend and into more flexible forms of co-operation under the umbrella of European union. It is the distinction between co-operation in the Community and co-operation in the European union that lies at the heart of the treaty and therefore at the heart of the Bill.
      Mr. Rowlands: Will the Minister point to anywhere in title I which makes those distinctions? is there anywhere in title I a reference to intergovernmental institutions? We read that the objective is the framing of a common defence policy, leading to common defence. That is not a pillared structure. Is there any reference in title I to a pillared structure and to the intergovernmental provisions of the treaty?
      Mr. Garel-Jones: Title I refers at different points to the whole treaty; therefore, it makes reference to the treaty of Rome and the amendments to it and it makes reference to the intergovernmental aspects—
      Mr. Rowlands: Where?
      Mr. Garel-Jones: The hon. Gentleman has just referred to one himself—defence. More importantly, it distinguishes which areas are aspects of the amendments to the treaty of Rome and which aspects are intergovernmental.
      Mr. Cash rose—
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I want to make more progress.
      Mr. Rowlands rose—
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I want to make more progress. I am about to address the very points that the hon. Member for

      187
      Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) is putting to me. If he will allow me to make a little progress I will give way to him and to my hon. Friend.
      It is important that I reply first to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber and seek to place the debate in a context that will help other hon. Members who have tabled amendments. The treaty falls into distinct parts. Title II contains amendments to the treaty of Rome.
      Mr. Rowlands: What about title I?
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I will come to title I in good time.
      Titles II, III and IV contain corresponding amendments to the treaties establishing the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Atomic Energy Community. Titles V and VI provide for intergovernmental co-operation in common foreign and security policy and justice and home affairs respectively.
      Hon. Members will recall the debate about the treaty structure before Maastricht—temples versus trees. That debate concerned whether Community rules in the treaty of Rome should apply in all areas of co-operation. Co-operation in separate intergovernmental pillars will not take place under the Community's normal rules. That is clear from article E. The Community institutions will operate according to the conditions laid down in the relevant sections of the treaty. For example, article L specifically excludes intergovernmental provisions from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Garel-Jones: Not at this point. I shall certainly give way later.
      Mr. Cash: On the point about article L—
      The Chairman: Order. The Minister has made it clear that he is not giving way.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: For example, article L specifically excludes intergovernmental provisions from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice unless member states unanimously confer on it jurisdiction to interpret a specific convention adopted under title VI. Community legislation cannot be adopted under the intergovernmental provisions of titles V and VI. In those areas member states will co-operate as members of the union. The union is a wider concept than the Community, embracing both intergovernmental co-operation and co-operation under the treaty of Rome. Title I—
      Mr. Cash rose—
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I am answering the point about title I.
      Mr. Cash: The Minister is not.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: Since I am about to embark on the answer, it shows remarkable anticipation by my hon. Friend to say that I am not answering the point; perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to do that.
      Title I, "Common provisions", and title VII, "Final provisions", apply to the treaty as a whole. Effectively they establish the treaty's structure. The structure of the treaty is reflected in the Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to make effective as part of the corpus of the Community treaties in
      188
      the law of the United Kingdom those provisions of the Maastricht treaty which amend the European Community treaties previously enacted here by the European Communities Act 1972 and its successors.
      We must give effect in our domestic legislation to the Maastricht treaty in such a way as to create a framework within our domestic law for recognising Community rights and obligations which arise from the treaty. We had to do the same with the treaty of Rome in 1972, and we did so by means of the European Communities Act. That is the framework of domestic law that we have followed ever since—notably in 1986, when the 1972 Act was amended to incorporate the Single European Act.
      6.30 pm
      I fully understand the motives of the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber, who moved amendment 93. As a European federalist, he wished to begin chipping away at the pillared structure of the union, which is what moving title I into the body of the Bill would do. If one is a European federalist, there is a point in that—most of my hon. Friends are not. As I shall explain in detail later, the purpose of the Bill is to incorporate into British law those narrow amendments to the treaty of Rome that we need to operate in the House and to operate our legal system in Britain. The amendment has the disadvantage of creating an anomalous situation in United Kingdom domestic law.
      Mr. Benn: In respect of title I, the Minister properly says that those are largely objectives and are not justiciable. The end of title I says that the union—the new organism that we are setting up—
      "shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies."
      Those words can mean only one thing. We are setting up European union and—with the assent of the Government when they ratify the treaty—the European Community will have the right to do things to us and to other countries. It is no good saying it is not justiciable. If the instruments of union take on board that remit, the question is whether it is legal in Britain and what remedy we have got. By ratifying the treaty, the Government are giving birth to a new executive which is even more powerful than the Crown. I think that that requires a proper answer.
      Mr. Garel Jones: It is policies as defined in the treaty.
      Mr. Rowlands: The hon. Gentleman repeated that title I establishes, describes and reflects the structure of the treaty. I asked him before, and I ask again, where in title I there are any references to the intergovernmental pillars. He referred me to the defence policy provision. Let me remind him that that is
      "to assert its identity on the international scene, in particular through the implementation of a common foreign and security policy including the eventual framing of a common defence policy, which might in time lead to a common defence".
      There is nothing intergovernmental or pillared about those words—they are all about federalism and the union of the European Community.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is contained in the third paragraph of article A:
      "The Union shall be founded on the European Communities, supplemented by the policies and forms of co-operation established by this treaty."
      Intergovernmental union is one of the forms of co-operation that is established in the treaty.
      Mr. Cash: Is my right hon. Friend arguing that the provisions of title I do not give rise to international legal obligations, irrespective of whether they are within the treaty of Rome and are therefore European Court of Justice applicable? Secondly, has it passed his notice that article L comes under title VII, which is not part—or sought to be made part—of the domestic law of the United Kingdom? The situation is therefore curious, as my hon. Friend invokes the provisions of article L, which will be dealt with exclusively by prerogative, to endorse his arguments for yet another prerogative power, when everyone knows that both provisions are international legal obligations, irrespective of whether they are in the treaty of Rome—unless he wants to deny that they are obligations. Will he comment on that?
      Mr. Garel-Jones: Any international treaty that the United Kingdom subscribes to is an international treaty—
      Mr. Cash: It is a legal obligation.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: My hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong, but I said that it was not justiciable by the European Court of Justice.
      Mr. Dalyell: Is the Minister aware that mine is probably the friendliest—or the least unfriendly—face that he is looking at on the Opposition Benches? That puts me in a position to say that if Ministers are going to talk about the incorporation of law—we have just heard that that is the main object of what we are discussing—it is at least wise that a Law Officer should be present to clarify such matters. I have some experience of constitutional Bills—although not experience that my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) would entirely approve of—and, having spent 47 days on a devolution Bill, I ask, will the Government take it from me that it is a wise precaution to have a Law Officer present at an early stage because it makes a difference? This is not an insult to the Minister, but he will get into dreadful trouble if he does not do that.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I understand the friendly way in which the hon. Gentleman puts his case. He will understand that any legal matters that I seek to explain—if my hon. Friends will allow me to do so—are explained on the advice of the Government's Law Officers. If specific matters arose and the Treasury Bench felt that an intervention by a Law Officer would help the Committee, we would invite one of my right hon. and learned Friends to assist the Committee.
      Mr. Dalyell rose—
      Mr. Denzil Davies rose—
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I give way to the right hon. Member for Llanelli.
      Mr. Davies: As I understand the right hon. Gentleman's argument, title I refers to a separate pillar, which is not justiciable—the nasty European Court cannot consider it and nor can the Commission it is intergovernmental. In that case, why does the treaty refer to the "acquis communautaire", which is the corpus or body of EC law which has been built up until now and which will continue to be built up? Title I is made subject to all that.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that title I refers not only to the intergovernmental aspects of the treaty but to the whole treaty. That is the point that I am seeking to make. We are seeking to give effect to the Maastricht treaty in our domestic legislation, to create a framework within our domestic law, recognising Community rights and obligations which arise from the treaty. That is what we did when we introduced the Single European Act.
      Mr. Dalyell: I shall intervene once again and then I shall be quiet. As a Member of the House for more than 30 years, I do not think that it is merely a question of parliamentary amour propre. I ask the Minister, gently and seriously, what more pressing business the Attorney-General could have than to be present on the Front Bench while we are discussing such matters. Former Attorneys-General would have been here automatically. My second Attorney-General was Sir John Hobson. [Interruption.] Yes, one could say that. Another was Lord Dilhorne. At least they would have been present on the Front Bench. Apart from anything else, this is playing down Parliament. There could be no more urgent occasion for the Attorney-General to support his hon. Friends.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I accept what the hon. Gentleman has said, both because he is a senior Member of Parliament and because I know that he said it out of the affection that he and I have for each other, and that he did not mean any disrespect. I assure him that not only has everything that I say been agreed and cleared by the Law Officers but that if I or other Ministers felt that it was necessary for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to be here, I would certainly ensure that he came to give his advice.
      Sir Richard Body: I am trying to offer some perfunctory advice. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and others will remember that a Law Officer was present throughout the proceedings on the original Bill 20 years ago, and we made remarkable progress as a result. At that time the former Solicitor-General, now Lord Howe, was in charge of almost all the amendments and therefore was well equipped to answer some of the finer points that we seem to be making this afternoon. I ask my right hon. Friend to bear that in mind. I am trying to be helpful. Perhaps we would make more progress if a Law Officer were present throughout the proceedings.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: My hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) is a senior Member of the House, and I will bear in mind what he said. It is true that in 1972 my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) were present when we discussed the accession of Britain to the Community and our adherence to the treaty of Rome—I am not seeking in any way to minimise the importance of that debate—which was a momentous decision. Nevertheless, I take the point that my hon. Friend made.
      Several Hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I want to make a little more progress if I may. I have not finished my response to my hon. Friend. I listened respectfully to what he said, If, at any time, the Treasury bench feel that it is necessary for my

      191
      modest efforts to be supplemented by the presence of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, I will certainly ask him to advise the Committee.
      Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I do not think that my right hon. Friend understood the point that I was trying to make in my previous intervention, which would explain why he did not answer it.
      Article L(a) says that the European Court of Justice will have jurisdiction over the
      "provision amending the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community with a view to establishing the European Community,".
      It appears that title I does precisely that. Does my right hon. Friend not share my fear that the European Court of Justice, when asked whether it has the right to intervene in such matters, will take a pro-European—pro-federal—stance, as it always has, and will decide that the interpretation of that clause enables it to decide matters which arise out of title I?
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I shall make a general point first.
      Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I want an answer.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: Underpinning what my hon. Friend said was the belief—I think well founded—that a number of judgments that the European Court has made in the past 30 years tended, in their thrust, to be centripetal. One of the outcomes of the way in which not only the treaty but article 3(b)—which the Committee will examine in some detail in due course—has been structured is that the court's judgments will be influenced in the future. I am not alone in my belief that the court's judgments are likely to be more centrifugal during the next 30 years than they have been in the past.
      I turn to the specific issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor). As he will have observed, the wording that he referred to in article L is identical to the wording in article A of the common provisions. The European Court is able to act in those matters contained in the treaty of Rome, as amended by the treaty that we are discussing—to quote from the Bill—
      "so far as they relate to those Titles."
      So far as the titles relate to the provisions in the amended treaty, the European Court will act as a result of the articles in the treaty, not as a result of the common provisions.
      Mr. Marlow rose—
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I want to make a little more progress before I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow).
      We need to legislate domestically to incorporate those EC treaty provisions which can have a direct effect in the United Kingdom on Acts under which provisions may be adopted, and we must be able to make subordinate legislation to give effect to EC obligations. That means predominantly and overwhelmingly the provisions of titles II, III and IV plus the protocols which will become an integral part of the EC treaty. That is why those three titles are referred to in clause I of the Bill.
      The position on the preamble to title I, the common provisions, and the position on title VII, the final
      192
      provisions, are different. The titles do not give rise to Community rights and obligations, but the preamble in the common provisions may play a role in interpreting other provisions in titles II, III and IV under which rights and obligations can arise. Thus the obligations are created elsewhere in the treaty. However, the preamble to title I may relate to the relevant provisions in some way. Article B is a good example as it sets in context the operational provisions elsewhere in the treaty.
      The final provisions in title VII confer no powers to adopt Community Acts, but they clearly have an effect on the way in which the Community will operate. After all, the provisions are in many respects the same as the final provisions in the treaty of Rome, suitably amended for incorporation in a treaty on union. The arrangements for enlargement, article N, or further treaty amendment, article O, clearly fall into the category of being related to the treaty of Rome.
      To return to the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster, article L clearly relates to the treaty of Rome since it delineates the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, including within that treaty. Therefore, the article needs to be within the scope of the Bill. By contrast, article D in the common provisions, which refers to the make-up of the European Council, does not. To a large extent, it reproduces the equivalent article in the Single European Act—article 2 in title I—which was not included within the scope of the Single European Act. There is no reason to depart from that precedent.
      Several Hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I want to make three points relating directly to the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster, and then I shall give way to my hon. Friends, starting with my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Northampton, North.
      The Bill covers the common provisions, the preamble and titles I and VII, only as they relate to titles II, III and IV. Thus, the structure of the treaty is reflected in the Bill. To incorporate all the provisions from the intergovernmental pillars and the common provisions into the scope of the Bill—which amendment No. 93 seeks to do—would create a legal anomaly at the heart of the domestic legislation required to give effect to Community obligations.
      To all intents and purposes, it would drive a coach and horses through the domestic legal framework that we have developed over the past 20 years for our Community membership. It would create confusion and is absolutely not necessary in terms of United Kingdom law. Indeed, it could be taken to mean that the intergovernmental agreements on, for example, asylum and immigration might have a direct effect in the United Kingdom, bypassing the House of Commons; it could be a first step in that direction.
      Furthermore, it would give a false impression of the nature of the treaty provisions, suggesting that they are capable of having an effect that the terms of the treaty do not allow. It would mean that the United Kingdom moved in a more federal direction than the treaty of Maastricht seeks to do—a matter of concern to some of my hon. Friends. It would ultimately ignore the treaty's structure—with the clear differences between the treaty of Rome and intergovernmental provisions—that the Community and the union reflect, as negotiated at Maastricht.
      Mr. Marlow: The Bill seeks to bring various parts of the treaty into United Kingdom law. Title I is not at present one of those parts. My right hon. Friend the Minister has said that title I is not justiciable by the European Court, but he also said that it would have impacts on other aspects of the Bill, some of which are to be incorporated in United Kingdom legislation. Will my right hon. Friend tell the Committee in detail how title I would be used, by whom and to influence what?
      Mr. Garel-Jones: Title I is descriptive. It describes the framework within which the treaty operates. Because it seeks to describe the breadth of the union's action, it describes some elements that are within the treaty of Rome and some that are without. Therefore, the Bill uses the words
      "together with the other provisions of the Treaty"—
      elements in the common provisions and others—
      "so far as they relate to those Titles, and the Protocols adopted at Maastricht on that date and annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Community".
      Mr. Walter Sweeney: Instead of reading from his prepared brief, will my right hon. Friend answer one simple question? Why cannot we have a full debate on clause 1, which I am sure the British public expect us to do? If we do not have a full debate on it, the public will suspect that we are trying to sweep something under the carpet. May we please have an answer?
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I do not know whether my hon. Friend has been present all afternoon—perhaps he has—but I hope that it has not escaped his notice that we are in the process of debating that issue. When I have finished speaking, a number of hon. Members will speak, no doubt I shall intervene in their speeches, and the Committee's debates will be illuminating, not just for the Committee, but for the country.
      Sir Russell Johnston: I thank the Minister, who is being generous in giving way. He said that, if title I were included, it would create an anomalous legal position, but he did not tell us in what way. The only example that he produced was something to do with immigration. Surely, if the position is as anomalous as he said—he also said that it would "drive a coach and horses" through the provision—he should be able to give umpteen examples. However, he has been somewhat delphic so far.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I shall try to be a little more helpful to the hon. Gentleman. As he will be aware, the Single European Act sought to amend the treaty of Rome where necessary so that legal decisions could be taken in the United Kingdom—to give legal force in the United Kingdom to provisions of the Single European Act. That is how we have proceeded in the United Kingdom when faced with such treaties. We are seeking to incorporate into British law those aspects of the Maastricht treaty that require amendment to the European Communities Act 1972.
      The amendment seeks to incorporate into the Bill—and therefore directly into British law—those elements of European activity that we have specifically sought to separate from the treaty of Rome to ensure that the Commission should not have the sole right of initiative and to ensure that such matters are not justiciable in the European Court of Justice. In one sense, the effect of the amendment would be that our domestic British law was more federal than the treaty of Maastricht.
      Mr. Rowlands rose—
      Mr. Garel-Jones: That was the very point that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney was seeking to make when he intervened—and I agree with him. I shall not give way to him.
      Mr. Spearing: I think that the Minister will agree that, although he may take a different view on the request that I made to the Chairman on a point of order, it is germane to what we are now discussing. The Minister is seeking to tell us that the writ of the European Court is excluded from his famous intergovernmental pillars. However, article L specifically gives three instances where the Court of Justice writ will run—the foundation treaties under L(a), article K.3, 2(c) relating to possible conventions on justice and home affairs, and the final provisions of the treaty, L to S, which are intergovernmental.
      We are discussing article E—under title I—which specifically mentions the Court of Justice. It states:
      "the Court of Justice shall exercise … powers … on the one hand"—
      the title then mentions the foundation treaties of Rome, Brussels and Paris—
      "and, on the other hand, by the other provisions of this Treaty".
      The other provisions must be outside the trunk, and be part of the intergovernmental section of which the Minister is so proud. Why is the second part of that section in article E? If the Court of Justice has nothing to do with title I, why is article L so phrased as to give it that power?
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I believe—no doubt the hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong—that I answered the question on article L when I said that I recognised that there were a number of articles, such as articles O and N, that referred directly to the treaty of Rome. The common provisions and the provisions at the tailend of the treaty are, in one sense, hybrid because they refer to provisions within and without the treaty.
      Several Hon. Members rose—
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Will the Minister indicate to whom he is giving way?
      Mr. Garel-Jones: My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher).
      Mr. Butcher: In his first comment on article L, my right hon. Friend said that title I would never be justiciable by the European Court. In a second comment, which he said that he had cleared with the Government's legal advisers, he said that in some circumstances title I might be justiciable by the European Court. My hon. Friend earlier spoke of incorporation in the corpus of the law of Europe. I appreciate entirely his willingness to help us in this interrogative process, but surely other Committees provide a precedent—I turn to the Chairman for advice on the matter. I believe that in other Committees judgments of the Law Officer have been circulated. That would be particularly helpful, as it is the first time that the Committee has heard the interpretation on which hinges so much of our subsequent discussion. We are now at the heart of the issue of what is and is not to be justiciable in the treaty, whether through the Government's bilateral arrangements outside the treaty or within it.

      195
      The Committee is not entirely sure whether title I ever will be justiciable. There is a hint that it may be, and if it is so, other parts of the treaty may be affected. We should get this clear before we proceed, because so much of the Government's case has depended on it hitherto.
      7 pm
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I think I have answered that already.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the Minister not undermining title I when he says it is only descriptive? Is it not definitive? Does it not go right to the heart of the matter and is not merely descriptive?
      Mr. Garel-Jones: No, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. What we—
      Mr. Benn: The Minister will appreciate that there is no filibustering going on; we are trying to explore a central question. What he is saying is that there are two sorts of law—parliamentary law and a prerogative law. My understanding is that whatever the provision may be under which laws can be made in Britain is irrelevant. For example, if the country goes to war, it does so under the prerogative. It is no use saying that, it is not justiciable in domestic courts, that because we are at war and the courts will recognise it. If we sign a treaty, it is the law.
      Surely the European Court is bound to take account of the fact that, with the solemnity of the royal prerogative, the Prime Minister has ratified, in the name of the Crown, title I. We cannot go to the European court and say, "I'm awfully sorry but that is not quite the sort of law you thought it was". Similarly, if there is any prerogative power in this country, that is also the case. We cannot question who the Archbishop of Canterbury is, because it has not been in legislation; it is a prerogative power of appointment.
      Without meaning to—that is why I desperately wish he would take our advice and have a Law Officer here—the Minister is pretending to the House, quite innocently, that there are two sorts of law, one which is justiciable and the other which is not. In fact, all law is justiciable because we are bound by all law, by prerogative, by statute, by custom and practice, and by judge-made law. All are capable of interpretation and appeal to any court that has any rôle in the matter.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I have done my best to explain this to the right hon. Gentleman once—in fact, more than once.
      Sir Richard Body rose—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman puts his question to the Minister, may I remind the House that, while I appreciate this is an important debate, many of the interventions are very long and are not directed to the Minister. If hon. Members bear that in mind, progress will be much sharper.
      Sir Richard Body: I appreciate that we must make progress, but perhaps before the Committee sits again tomorrow my right hon. Friend will make inquiries of the Law Officers about this because the European Court of Justice does interpret legislation differently from our own image. I do not know about Scottish courts but that certainly applies to English courts. In the English courts,
      196
      there is what is called the golden rule, whereby the judges can look only at the section itself, and interpret that, whereas in the European Court of Justice on numerous occasions, in interpreting a section, the judges have gone back to the preamble of the Bill to assist them in interpreting the section—in other words, doing something which our own courts do not do.
      Perhaps my right hon. Friend will ascertain whether he is absolutely right in what he has just told the Committee, because he may find that the advice he has received is mistaken and that what he says applies to the English courts but not to the European Court of Justice.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: The advice I have received, of course, is from the Attorney-General himself, the legal adviser to the Government. The Bill is drafted in order to be compatible with our domestic legislative framework and with our domestic precedents and domestic practice. That is the principal reason why the Government will be unable to accept amendment 93—
      Several Hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I am perfectly happy to discuss the many questions which hon. Members will raise in the course of the debate arising out of the general structure of the treaty. That is the debate which the amendment has prompted. I am happy to discuss the issues which it raises so far as the distinction goes between the treaty and the union and the way it is reflected in the legislation. To the extent that the provisions of title I need to be incorporated in the Bill, they are so incorporated. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber will not press the amendment. If he does, I must invite the Committee to vote against it.
      Mr. George Robertson: May I start, not by following the Minister's somewhat beleaguered speech but by making my own speech in which I shall try to look at the issue from a slightly different angle from that of the Minister. I may come to a similar conclusion, but I hope for different reasons.
      I welcome the way in which the Chairman of Ways and Means has structured this debate, because it is very welcome. Once we are beyond this group of amendments it might be slightly more comprehensible to anybody who looks in from the outside world. We are also grateful for the split that took place to the proposed group of amendments on the general provisions which has allowed us to have this interesting and valuable debate on title I.
      Opposition Members—I am sure that this applies to most others—want this debate on this lengthy Committee stage. I underline the fact that the length of Committee stage is determined by the Government and the Prime Minister's promise to the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) and not by any intention by the Opposition or, indeed, by the other side of the House to prolong the debate beyond what is necessary.
      The debate will be exhaustive, but so it should be. The provisions of this treaty are enormously important and penetrate into very intimate parts of British life. It is right that the House gives proper debate and scrutiny to what has been agreed on the country's behalf and to what, if the House so consents, will be incorporated into British law.
      The Government will find the experience uncomfortable. The Minister, I think, has tasted only a sample of what is to come during the weeks and months ahead. I

      197
      have to say that, for some crime of which I have not yet discovered the nature, this is the second European Communities Amendment (Bill) on which I have been an Opposition spokesman. I can scarcely imagine what the crime was. It may have escaped my notice, but it must have been extremely serious for me to have to go through this again. As we went through the expressions that pass for English but sound very foreign, the expression "deja vu" came to my mind.
      The amendment in the name of the leader of the Liberal Democratic party suggests that we should incorporate title I of the Maastricht treaty into the Bill. I judge it by a number of tests: why should we put it in? Is it necessary that we should put it in? Is there a benefit from putting it in today?
      I have given considerable thought to the amendment, because I knew that it was likely to be the first one of the Committee stage; it was a laborious exercise, embarked on not easily, but by way of punishment.
      There seemed to be immediate attractions to including title I in the Bill. One that struck me was the fact that the definition of "subsidiarity" in title I was better than the definition in article 3B, to which we shall come in due course. The subject of subsidiarity has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members. The subject is close to the hearts of those of us from north of the border, because the Government seem enthusiastic about subsidiarity in the European Community but reluctant and grudging towards subsidiarity and decentralisation in the United Kingdom.
      Article 3B is indeed complex. I cannot see that it is constructed in such a way that subsidiarity will be real—my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) makes the point endlessly—because it refers to it purely in terms of the exclusive competencies of the Community. On the other hand, subsidiarity is dealt with differently in title I, which refers to decisions being taken "as closely as possible" to the citizen.
      I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate, he will confirm that what we are discussing is a formulation on subsidiarity that is attractive to the British Government, and that when we come to consider article 3B, that might be taken as being a part of title I and will be considered relevant to the provisions of titles II, III and IV which will be incorporated in the Bill. As I say, that seemed an attractive aspect of title I which suggested that perhaps we should support the Liberal amendment.
      Mr. Spearing: I will not follow my hon. Friend into discussing the advantages or disadvantages of subsidiarity, which he rightly says applies only to outside exclusive competence. Has he realised that the amendment would move title I into line 9 on page 1 of the Bill? The Liberals are using the series of amendments to discuss the merits or demerits, and some of the content, of title I. Indeed, my hon. Friend is doing just that.
      Does my hon. Friend not realise that the place in the Bill where the amendment would appear—this was relevant to the point of order that I raised at the beginning of the proceedings—would add the obligations, be they justiciable or not, of the European Communities Act 1972, but would not add them to the Bill in respect of ratification? So although it might be good to debate the subject, the consequences would probably not be all that great.
      Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend anticipates me, because, perhaps laboriously, I was about to explain that while there seemed to be attractions to incorporating title I, we should not support the Liberal amendments, as those immediate attractions would not necessarily apply. In other words, I come to the same conclusion as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South but by a different route.
      Mr. Marlow: Will the hon. Gentleman be kind enough to have a crack at the point that I put to the Minister, who has not yet had time to answer it? Titles II and III will become part of British law, and we know that. Title I will not become part of British law and it will not be justiciable by the European Court. On the other hand, it will have an impact on our law, as has been pointed out. What will that impact be, how will it be used and to what instruments will it apply?
      Mr. Robertson: If the hon. Gentleman wants to have a crack at his right hon. Friend, he should not try to use me to do it. His right hon. Friend is paid much more and, being a Minister, has more expert advice than is available to me—[Interruption.] If not expert advice, the advice available to him is more extensive than that available to me.
      I am sure that the Minister will eventually get round to answering the point that the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) put to him, and to all the other awkward questions that Conservative Members are raising. I am a mere humble toiler on the Opposition Benches, forced by the inadequacies of the Short money to work these matters out for myself. I am sharing with hon. Members in all parts of the House the results of my cogitations. I put them forward for their perusal, and I shall be interested to hear whether they agree with my conclusions.
      The second superficial attraction of title I is the area to which an amendment of mine, No. 108, would apply—[Interruption.] I am grateful for the help of Conservative Members, but I gather that I need not move that amendment. It seems that my information, about that and other matters, is superior to that of the Minister and his hon. Friends.
      That amendment is concerned with article F of the European convention on human rights. There seems to be a superficial argument for saying that if we incorporated title I in the Bill, by the back door we should have achieved the legal implementation into this country of the European convention on human rigths. In an environment in which the Government are hostile to taking that course, there is a superficial argument for taking that step—
      Several Hon. Members rose—
      7.15 pm
      Mr. Robertson: I must get on, because I am anxious to limit my remarks to less than the hour that seems to be the average for speeches so far.
      Mr. Butcher: The hon. Gentleman has referred to certain changes that may occur by the back door as a result of incorporating title I. Does he believe in Scottish devolution? There is an interpretation of subsidiarity that suggests that, if one takes decisions as closely as possible

      199
      to the people in relation to national institutions, one gets regional government, otherwise known in Scotland as devolution.
      Mr. Robertson: If applied, the principle of subsidiarity leads to decentralisation, in the United Kingdom and throughout Europe. I believe in decentralisation. I do not believe in a unitary state in Europe. Europe can develop properly according to a principle which happens to be called subsidiarity—for the purposes of the treaty and the jargon of the moment—but it is a healthy and efficient principle which we should apply in the European Community. Britain would also be the better for having that principle applied to the way in which we take decisions.
      Are the superficial attractions of title I real? The Chairman of Ways and Means made it clear at the outset that we, in the Committee of the whole House, are not engaged in the ratification of the Maastricht treaty. That may be a difficult concept for people outside to appreciate, but it should be fully comprehensible to hon. Members. We do not ratify treaties. We apply to British law, by separate legislation, whatever is necessary to implement the treaties that have been signed by royal prerogative.
      I have complained about that method of legislating over the years. In the 10 years that I have been a Labour spokesman on foreign affairs, the only opportunity that I have had to debate major treaties signed on behalf of this country in the sphere, say, of arms control, has been when a statutory instrument has occasionally trickled down to the House giving diplomatic immunity to inspectors appointed under those treaties.
      I had been in the House for only a year when Labour was last in power, but I have always made the point that something should be done about the Ponsonby rules and the way in which the House deals with treaties. Some of my hon. Friends, and certainly some Conservative Members who have been in government, could have done something about that over the years. Perhaps this is not the time to start complaining about it. We are taking the Maastricht treaty and removing from it those elements that require legislation in this country. We should ensure that the minimum legislation necessary is put into effect in British law.
      We should not be trying to put into effect in British domestic law more than is absolutely necessary under the terms of the treaty. What we are concerned with here are purely and simply the rights and obligations imposed upon this country by the treaty signed at Maastricht. That would appear to include titles II, III and IV, but not the other titles, except in respect of certain key areas some of which have come up already in the debate and others of which I hope will be fleshed out.
      Mr. Cash rose—
      Mr. Robertson: In a spirit of pure nostalgia, because we have gone through these debates so often, and since the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), known as "the loose change of European politics", is someone who cannot possibly allow a speech to go by without contributing to it, I will give way to him.
      Mr. Cash: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to answer my question in that case. Does he believe that
      200
      those parts of the treaty that are not included for the purposes of the Court of Justice are titles that give rise to international legal obligations? In other words, title I would give rise to international legal obligations. Is that right or not, because the hon. Gentleman is making quite a lot of play of this?
      Mr. Robertson: I am not making play of that at all. The Law Officers—one floated into the Chamber a short while ago and floated out again—who are paid large amounts of money, who have immense qualifications, who, it would appear from the bill they gave the Chancellor, charge rather a lot of money for them—and who will no doubt give the Minister a bill tonight simply for floating through the Chamber, asking how he is getting on and telling him that their invoice will be in the post, so to speak—can bend their minds to that question.
      A real question has been posed this evening: what international legal obligations have been entered into under the Maastricht treaty? That, however, is not what we are principally involved in with this amendment. I am sure that the hon. Member for Stafford will be able to persuade his colleagues to give that clarification, even if they send him a bill for it.
      Sir Russell Johnston: If I understand the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) correctly, he is saying that we must not have too much unnecessary legislation, and that the Bill contains what is necessary for the adjustment of domestic law. In other words, he seems to be saying that, if title I is included, it will not make that much difference, whereas the Minister is saying that, if it is included, it will make an awful lot of difference. Which is right?
      Mr. Robertson: I will come to the next part of my argument. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) and I have shared so many debates that he thinks he can read my mind, but I am enunciating a principle that applies to this legislation and which I think is a good principle—that from these treaties that the Government care to sign we should put the minimum legal requirement into the legislation and we should not enter into anything else that is not required. I will come to the point of title I and whether it breaches my principle and whether it might create even more serious problems for the objectives that I have set out. This is where I come to the issue of the pillar structure.
      The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber and his party did not agree with the pillar structure; they wanted the European tree, with all decisions to come through the one institutional structure, with the right of the Commission to be involved in it. But that is not what was eventually agreed at Maastricht. The structure agreed there was precisely what I and my party officially wanted—that the elements within the treaty that require to be part of the European Community pillar, the EC pillar, should be that way, but that aspects such as foreign and security policy, with all its implications, and home affairs and justice should be separate, intergovernmental pillars.
      Who knows what the future will bring about? Things may develop by way of negotiations, by way of the next intergovernmental conference, but we have to live with what we have now. I favour it; I think that it was the right outcome, and 12 Governments agreed that it was the best outcome in the circumstances.

      201
      In that respect, it is no different from the Single European Act that I and the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber sat through in 1986, because that created an institution called European political co-operation; it was not part of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill that we discussed at such length at that time, because it was decided that it would remain an embryonic intergovernmental process that might perhaps build up eventually to a common foreign policy machinery. It has become that, but, as yet, the Community governments have not agreed that it should still be part of the full pillar.
      That is what we have at present: three major pillars that will co-exist. It appears that title I, if folded into the Bill, will complicate the structure that has been created. I disagree with the way in which the Minister seemed to suggest that title I was the pillar structure and that, by folding it in, we would complicate what was coming afterwards; that is the impression he gave. What title I does, especially in Article C, is to talk about a general principle that does not relate to two of the pillars and, in not relating to them, will complicate not European Community law, which can live with complications and blurred edges, but British domestic law, which works on the basis of minimum legislation where it is required by any external treaty such as the Maastricht treaty.
      I worry, therefore, that it will complicate the situation and will in practice lead to something which I do not believe the Liberal party would consider healthy and which my own party certainly does not consider healthy; encroachment on the principle of automaticity. Over the years, I have listened to my right hon. Friends the Members for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) going on about section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972. Section 2 is the one that they wanted suspended because it provides for the automatic implementation in Britain domestic law of European Community law as established through the principles of the EC treaty of 1972, subsequently amended by the Single European Act.
      That automaticity is extremely important. It has given a status to European Community law in this country which is of great and sometimes controversial importance, as we found in the matter of the Spanish fishing boats. We choose; the Government in the first instance, when they sign the treaties, and eventually the House, when it considers the treaties in detail, make a conscious, precise and limited decision about what areas will be subject to the automaticity rule, because to do so is to give supreme importance to any law that is determined at European level in the British domestic context.
      Mr. Benn: I have listened with great care to what my hon. Friend has said about section 2, but I hope that he has not missed the point, which is that laws that are brought into effect automatically under section 2 are laws assented to by the royal prerogative itself. The whole point about section 2 is that it has a domestic relevance quite apart from Europe; for the first time since 1649, a Minister can make a law that applies in Britain without the consent of Parliament. So it has changed the balance of power in Britain vis-a-vis Ministers, hon. Members, and electors. That is an issue which my hon. Friend should also address.
      Mr. Robertson: I was not around in 1642. Nor was I around in 1972, but my right hon. Friend the Member for
      202
      Chesterfield was. It is a long time since then and a lot of changes have taken place, but no change has taken place in the important principle that he has just enunciated. He is right to say that it is a very important principle. In some ways it has been unnoticed. He was in the Cabinet for many of those years and had the chance, if he wanted, to change it, if change was possible. Perhaps it was not possible because the decision had been taken in 1972 and subsequently endorsed by a referendum that my right hon. Friend invented for the British people.
      7.30 pm
      I am making the point now that we want to be as sparing as possible about the areas in which that royal prerogative will be exercised. That is a principle with which I am sure my right hon. Friend would agree absolutely. If we are to be sparing we have to be careful about what might come out of an amendment such as amendment No. 93, putting title I into this Bill. We could be opening the door to automaticity of the law as determined at the European level in the other two pillars being put into British law.
      The Minister made an attempt at an explanation, but was not allowed by his hon. Friends to finish it. It is possible that, under the intergovernmental pillar on home affairs and justice, a new law, perhaps on a common immigration and asylum policy, could be agreed by all 12 Governments in the Community. Under the pillar structure as it stands now, that would require separate legislation in each of the 12 countries before it could be implemented. If, however, it came under the single pillar of construction, the decision taken by Ministers sitting behind closed doors in the Council of Europe, perhaps by majority vote, would have automatic effect in British law.
      I am not saying whether that is right or wrong. Some people would say that a common European immigration policy would be a good thing. I do not agree with that, but anyway it should not at this stage be susceptible to the possibility that it could automatically become British law.
      Mr. Maclennan: I wonder if the hon. Member is right in his acceptance of the Government's view that these pillars are as separate as he makes out. It appears to me that under article C of title I, to which he referred, there are powers, exercisable by the Commission and indeed by the Council, which enable the institutions of the Community, as opposed to the union, to act in pursuance of the objectives described in title I but utilising the powers they enjoy under the treaty of Rome as amended in other articles. That appears to me to be the meaning of
      "building upon the `acquis communautaire'".
      It also appears to be what is intended by the granting of power to the Commission to ensure consistency in respect of external relations. If the institutions of the Community, in exercise of these powers under title I, introduced regulations, directives, or whatever, would these not be self-executing in this country under the provisions of the European Communities Act 1972? And, if that is the case, why should not title I itself be incorporated in the Bill?
      Mr. Robertson: This is probably the only place where one can tangle with lawyers and not receive a bill. I am therefore grateful for the opportunity to cross my amateur sword with these great legal brains. But if the hon. Gentleman reads the last sentence of article C, he will see:
      "They"—
      that is, the Council and the Commission—

      203
      "shall ensure the implementation of these policies, each in accordance with its respective powers."
      Of course, there are bloodings involved, quite deliberate bloodings, between the Council and Commission in relation to the pillars, but as they stand at the moment they are still discrete. The Council does not have the single and unique right of initiation when it comes to proposals, and the automaticity rule does not apply. Further and separate legislation would still be required in these areas so long as these pillars exist.
      That might start not to be the case if title I were folded into the Bill and title IV, the pillar on home affairs and justice, were there. It is a door which is beginning to open and I do not believe that the Committee would want it to open at this stage, although certain hon. Members might want to go in that direction.
      Mr. Denzil Davies: Does my hon. Friend not agree that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) has a point, and it is the same point as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) made in an intervention? It is arguable that, once title I is ratified under the prerogative, no internal legislation is needed. A court of England and Wales, and probably a court of Scotland as well, would enforce any directives coming under title I despite the fact that there is no legislation here, because, as a result of the prerogative, it is part of English law. That is the real worry and the real problem.
      Mr. Robertson: Here we have another QC telling me—
      Mr. Denzil Davies: I am not a QC; I am a Member of Parliament.
      Mr. Robertson: I know that my right hon. Friend is a Member of Parliament. We will wait and see whether the Law Officers of the Crown can give us absolute clarification, but, in terms of what I have been able to read and the information provided to me by the House of Commons Library, it seems that the interpretation that I place upon it is correct.
      These common provisions, like the common provisions of the Single European Act, which were never included in their entirety in the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1986, may well have some force in law, because they have a status; they have been ratified. But because they are not specifically inserted into United Kingdom law, they remain in a completely different situation from those aspects that would fall under section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972. The advice that I had from the House of Commons Library was:
      "It would perhaps be inconsistent to include Title I in the EC (Amendment) Bill and not the CFSP"—
      common foreign and security policy—
      "and Justice and Home Affairs Titles, V and VI, which also do not require UK legislation for implementation."
      Perhaps I am going on too long, and undoubtedly other hon. Members will do so, but it is an extremely important subject. I am trying to help my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen by developing a thought process which is of some significance, I believe, in interpreting what is happening.
      I did not think that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber, when he went down the road of
      204
      amendment No. 93—all these amendments were tabled in June this year—was likely to be enthralled with the idea of folding in title I as an absolute matter of principle. I simply suggest to him that perhaps it is opening doors that he does not want opened. It is taking the House and the country in a direction on which they have not yet made a decision. Therefore it might be appropriate for him to withdraw his amendment. If he chooses to press the amendment, the official Opposition will not vote for it.
      Mr. Cash: We have had a long discussion about whether title I should be inserted in the Bill. I believe that we have covered most of the ground that needs to be covered on that point. It does not seem to me that it will make as much of a difference as the Government have implied, for this reason. It is an international legal obligation either way. The fact that it is not within the precincts, as it were, of the Court of Justice has certain consequences, but in terms of what is contained in title I, articles A to E, if one asks oneself how this will affect the daily lives of the people of the United Kingdom, the whole thing takes on a completely different dimension.
      I am rather surprised that, so far, no discussion has taken place about what is contained in title I and the impact that it will have on our constituents. Whether it is to be justiciable under article L, which itself is a prerogative power, or whether it is to be under the Court of Justice in part, is a good esoteric argument and has certain quite important implications. This is not a game, but a provision in a legally binding treaty, which we have solemnly signed and which, under the Ponsonby rules, will be ratified by prerogative at the end of the Bill.
      The Minister of State kindly wrote to me some months ago when I asked the same question about the Ponsonby rules as the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). The bottom line is that, if this is a prerogative treaty, it comes into effect but parts of it need to be enacted to fall within the provisions of the European Communities Act and the competence of the European Court. This is all very interesting stuff, but I am interested in what impact it will have on the British people.
      I tabled a number of amendments to article A. I was extremely grateful to The Chairman for listening to my representations yesterday and for agreeing to select the amendments, which I hope will give an opportunity to explain to the people of this country and perhaps to some other people the real implications of the treaty. If amendment No. 93 were made, the courts would have an opportunity to consider some of the issues in due course, but judging from the way in which the argument has developed, there appears to be little prospect of that. The article is important; it will still affect people, it will still be binding on our Government and it will still be implemented. Therefore, it will have a direct effect on the daily lives of the people of this country.
      There is little information on article A in the Government's pamphlet "Britain in Europe". I have read it pretty carefully, but it makes no reference to European union. That is the usual sleight of hand that we have become used to. There has been no White Paper, despite there having been one in 1970, or statement of Government policy on what the treaty involves. Article A says:
      "By this Treaty, the High Contracting Parties establish among themselves a European Union, hereinafter called 'the Union'."

      205
      That sets up a legal union that is binding upon the people of this country and, as I said in a book that I wrote recently entitled "Against a Federal Europe", is indistinguishable from a federation.
      Mrs. Edwina Currie: Is my hon. Friend saying that the term "European union" has suddenly appeared out of the blue under the treaty, or am I right that the treaty of Rome talked about the
      "ever closer union of the peoples"
      and the Single European Act, passed by the House, talked about
      "transforming relations as a whole among their states into an European Union"—
      capital "E" and capital "U".
      Mr. Cash: I shall quote Stuttgart, Hanover and all the rest. It is in the treaty of Rome and the preamble. The phrase is "ever closer union". I remind my hon. Friend that, in the debate last June on the Luxembourg draft, the Foreign Secretary gave the same quote as my hon. Friend, but I produced the draft. It appeared that I was the only hon. Member to have it, because, unfortunately, it was put in the Library only at 1.30 pm that day. There has been a considerable attempt to ensure that people do not know what is going on.
      The words "ever closer union" are not what we are debating. We are debating the words with which I began:
      "The High Contracting Parties establish among themselves a European Union".
      That is what it means. It is a legally binding provision.
      Mr. Bill Walker: Will my hon. Friend cast his mind back to the debate on the Single European Act, when Unionist Members such as myself—I was a Unionist before I was a Conservative, which was not odd in Scotland—asked Ministers what union meant. We were proved right: union was what was meant in the preamble to the Act. Greater union has followed, as we have seen in decisions taken by the Commission and the European Court. When anyone questions whether we understand the meaning of the union, we point out that we were questioning what it meant some time ago.
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Cash: Absolutely: these matters have been going on for hundreds of years, but the bottom line is that the treaty creates a legally binding union within Europe, which is quite different from the treaties that are normally transacted between countries.
      Mr. Edward Garnier: My hon. Friend has made a number of assertions without supplying any evidence for them. Will he provide us with the details that underscore the assertion that he has just made?
      Mr. Cash: If my hon. Friend reads the treaty. which clearly specifies the nature of the union, he will find the answers to the questions that I have just put.
      Mrs. Currie: Come on: my hon. Friend is fudging.
      Mr. Cash: No, I am not fudging.
      Mr. Budgen: Is not the difficulty that the European Court of Justice takes into account the title and preamble, whereas the House of Lords does not, and that we simply do not know whether my hon. Friend's assertions or those of the Government are correct? Unless the Government
      206
      invite one of the institutions of the Community to give objective advice on how the treaty is likely to be viewed by the European Court, we are stumbling in the dark.
      That is disgraceful, because the Government have made many scandalous assertions about the treaty—for example, that it had nothing to do with immigration, one which they have subsequently retracted.
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: And that it was decentralising.
      Mr. Budgen: And that it was decentralising. If the Attorney-General is too busy, we want some objective advice from the European Community. Otherwise, we shall be thrashing around in the dark. My hon. Friend is doing his best, but many other Members are completely unequipped.
      Mr. Cash: I am delighted to be able to respond not only to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) but to my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier). According to the Government, the original treaties aimed to achieve an
      "ever closer union among the peoples of Europe";
      but, according to article A, "the High Contracting Parties" become ever closer and establish an actual European union.
      The Government's position is based on the following proposition: whereas previously the peoples of Europe were engaged in trying to achieve an ever closer union among themselves, they now establish the European union itself. That clearly shows what is being done under these articles, yet, even though the European union is established by the first paragraph of article A, the second paragraph contradicts that assertion by stating that the
      "Treaty marks a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe."
      Logically, if the union had already been established, as article A, paragraph 1, says that it has, the process of creating an ever closer union is superfluous as one cannot get closer than union itself. The process has reached its conclusion with the establishment of the union, which means that the process has ceased, although the second paragraph suggests that there is some way still to go.
      That raises the next question: is the European union of article A, paragraph 1, the
      "ever closer union among the peoples of Europe"
      aimed at under earlier treaties and continued by article A, paragraph 2 of the treaty? Apparently not. The ever closer union is to be a union among the peoples. That is established under paragraph 1, which states that it is to be a union among the "High Contracting Parties".
      Mr. Garnier: I am becoming deeply confused by my hon. Friend's argument. Paragraph 1 of article A says:
      "By this Treaty, the High Contracting Parties establish among themselves a European Union, hereinafter called 'the Union'".
      According to my hon. Friend's argument, that suggests something central. Paragraph 2 says:
      "This Treaty marks a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen."
      My hon. Friend did not read out the latter part of that paragraph, which suggests moving away from the centre. How does he deal with those two paragraphs set together?
      Mr. Cash: They can be dealt with simply as follows. Paragraph 2 of article B deals with
      "the establishment of economic and monetary union, ultimately including a single currency",

      207
      which presupposes the central bank arrangements that follow later. For practical purposes, nothing is more centralising than a central bank. Furthermore, the implications of that are that decisions on economic and monetary affairs, made by unelected, unaccountable bankers, will be taken away from the citizen. Those are the bases upon which people enter polling booths and vote in general elections. [Interruption.]
      Therefore, if we are to set up a central bank under those arrangements, as part of economic and monetary union and a single currency, we shall take away from the citizen his most important right—his right to vote. All decisions on economic and monetary affairs, which are currently the basis on which people vote in general elections, will be handed over to unelected, unaccountable bankers.
      Mr. Budgen: May I help my hon. Friend? While my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) was saying in her usual charming and tactful way that my hon. Friend's argument was poppycock, the Attorney-General entered the Chamber. Had he put his mind to the matter, he could have given us his view about the meaning of those articles. We are all floundering around trying to understand, and getting extremely angry. We require an objective analysis, if not from the Attorney-General, better still from one of our new masters from Europe, who could tell us how he will proceed by high command in Brussels.
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I remind the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West that he has repeated himself two or three times. The point that he has just made was exactly the same as those that he made in previous interventions. It is becoming tedious repetition.
      Mr. Cash: A further question arises under article C, which says:
      "The Union shall be served by a single institutional framework which shall ensure the consistency and the continuity of the activities carried out in order to obtain its objectives".
      The creation of that single institutional framework is also part of the creation of that legal union, so we have central banking arrangement, which are about as centralising as anything can be and remove power from the citizen because decisions on economic and monetary affairs are taken by unelected bankers. That is clear to anyone who takes the faintest interest in the matter. We also have the creation, under article C, of a single institutional framework.
      Clearly, a legal union being created. It is not simply a question of ever closer union, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough was trying to assert, but the creation of a union in itself.
      Mr. Jim Marshall: Although I am opposed to the treaty, the more I hear the hon. Gentleman's arguments against it, the more I am tempted to support it.
      The hon. Gentleman is misleading the House by seeking to imply that institutions will be created in a way that gives increased competence to the Commission. The point of the institutional framework developed at Maastricht was to limit the Commission's competence specifically in home affairs and foreign and security policy. That being so, how can the hon. Gentleman square that circle with the arguments that he is now developing?
      Mr. Cash: The Commission's powers are already set out under the treaty of Rome. Further competences are granted to the Commission under the Maastricht treaty. Indeed, some 64 new majority voting arrangements will be associated with the Commission. The idea that the Commission will not gain new powers under the treaty simply shows that the hon. Gentleman has not read the treaty carefully. Even within the so-called "separate pillars" of foreign and security policy, the treaty says that the Commission will be fully associated with those tasks.
      Clearly, the Commission will have an enhanced role. It may not be the role that it originally wanted, but that is not the point. It will have an enhanced role both within the provisions relating to the treaty of Rome and with regard to the so-called "separate pillars".
      Mr. Jim Marshall: I am sorry, Mr. Lofthouse—I hope that my intervention does not become repetitious. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. He accuses me of not having read the treaty, but I assure him that I have. I sometimes think that he has not read it, for he is led by his own point of view.
      Within the two intergovernmental pillars, the Commission has a right to attend meetings of Ministers. That is fair, and limits the Commission's responsibility by making crystal clear the Commission's competence and Ministers' field of responsibility. The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the fact that Ministers at intergovernmental meetings have a right to call on the expertise of the Commission in seeking information that they may need to reach correct decisions. That does not imply increased responsibility for the Commission but ensures that the Council of Ministers is adequately prepared to make correct decisions in the light of the union.
      Mr. Cash: Article D specifies the new arrangements for the European Council and for bringing together heads of state. The President of the Commission is included in that. It is not simply a question of bringing him along as an amateur observer: he is given a completely new status under the European Council.
      Mr. Garnier: My hon. Friend has just made a number of assertions without providing us with the evidence for them. Where in article 1 does it say that the President of the Commission has a new status?
      8 pm
      Mr. Cash: Article D clearly states:
      "The European Council shall provide the Union with the necessary impetus for its development and shall define the general political guidelines thereof."
      It goes on to say:
      "The European Council shall bring together the Heads of State or of Government of the Member States and the President of the Commission."
      At the moment, the European Council operates in an informal manner and under the arrangements—
      Mrs. Currie: It does not.
      Mr. Cash: Yes, it does. My hon. Friend obviously has no understanding of the basis on which these things operate.
      At the moment, the arrangements are not within the precise legal framework which is prescribed by title I; otherwise, there would be no need for the provisions in the first place. They are being incorporated in this way to give

      209
      them that status within the framework of the Maastricht treaty which they did not have beforehand. Surely that is the reason for doing it.
      Mr. Ian Taylor: My hon. Friend, who is an expert in these matters, knows only too well that the European Council has given proper status in the Single European Act. If one goes further, the arrangements for foreign policy which took place as a result of the changes in the Single European Act took place in European political co-operation, in which the Commission was also intimately involved. It did not have the power of initiation. There is nothing more intergovernmental than the European Council which, by definition, is a meeting of the Heads of State and Prime Ministers. My hon. Friend voted for the Single European Act. Now what is he worried about?
      Mr. Cash: The short answer is that the Single European Act was a good Act, because it was based upon political co-operation. I voted for it because I believed that it was important to try to improve the quality of political co-operation within Europe, and because of its potential for increasing trade within Europe. Those were good reasons for voting for it. It is also true that it contained enhanced powers for the Commission. But the difference between the Single European Act and the Maastricht treaty was that the former was primarily about co-operation and trading, whereas the latter is primarily about the manner in which we are governed. That is the fundamental difference between the two.
      That is why I emphasised the centralising process of the central bank. It is that which transfers powers which at the moment belong to the British voter. It is important that people should bear that in mind when they are considering the assertions that the treaty is a decentralising process. It is not.
      Mr. Ian Taylor: These are extremely important points. My hon. Friend, having voted for the Single European Act, needs carefully to consider his position. Under the Single European Act, the Commission's position was strengthened. The former Prime Minister, Lady Thatcher, was keen that that should happen, knowing that, in order to achieve the objective which my hon. Friend supports, which is the opening up of the single market, it was important for the Commission to have strong powers of initiation.
      The interesting thing is that, in many defined ways, the Bill tries to restrain and clarify the Commission's powers and, by injecting for the first time the concept of subsidiarity, redresses some of the balances which went wrong as a result of the Single European Act. If my hon. Friend supported the Single European Act during its passage here, it is puzzling to Conservative Members why he is not an enthusiastic supporter of the Bill.
      Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend's argument is a little disingenuous on that point. He tries to make out that there is no difference in substance between the Single European Act and the Maastricht treaty; that it is yet another gradual movement, a little canter down the road. It is nothing of the kind. There is a massive and complete difference between the two measures. The Single European Act was much maligned but necessary. The Bill deals with completely different subject matter, and greatly enhances the centralising tendencies of the Single European Act.
      210
      On 3 April 1992, speaking to the Berkemann forum, Chancellor Kohl said:
      "In Maastricht we laid the foundation stone for the completion of the European Union. The European Union treaty introduces a new and decisive stage in the process of European union which, within a few years, will lead to the creation of what the founder fathers of modern Europe dreamed of following the last war—a united states of Europe."
      The Government, in their booklet "Britain in Europe", say that they do not want and will not have a united states of Europe, but that is the objective to which the German Chancellor has been moving as expressed in that Berkemann forum speech. The problem is that on European union we are at loggerheads with the Germans, as we are with other member states.
      If one travels around Europe as many of us do, and asks about the nature of the treaty in which we are involved—I see the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) nodding his head, because he knows that it is true—everywhere people say that this is a European union which they want and like, and that it is either a federal or unitary system depending on what language they care to use. But for practical purposes, this is a European union. That is what they want, and that is what Chancellor Kohl said when he spoke on 3 April 1992.
      Someone is not coming entirely clean on this, because the bottom line is that we cannot have it both ways. The truth is either what Chancellor Kohl is saying or what is being presented to us. I look now at my hon. Friends the Members for Esher (Mr. Taylor) and for Harborough, who try to claim that this is not a European union. They say that it does not have the characteristics that I have attributed to it, a belief which is clearly shared by other member states.
      The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber knows that that is true. He wants a federal or unitary Europe. My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) made a speech the other day when he came clean. He said that that is what he wants too. The plain fact is that that is what lies at the heart of the whole problem.
      Sir Richard Body: Does my hon. Friend agree that not only has Mr. Kohl expressed his views but Mr. Bangemann, Vice-President of the Commission, has put it succinctly? Perhaps my hon. Friend will say whether he agrees with Mr. Bangemann that the Maastricht treaty is a "fundamental step" towards a federal union?
      Mr. Cash: Yes, that is precisely the language which is used, but which is camouflaged in these debates because there are a number of people who do not want the British people to know the truth. That is the problem.
      Mr. Allan Rogers: The hon. Gentleman is right to criticise the Government. Last week, the Government were described as being like a gatecrasher going into a party backwards and pretending to everyone that they were on their way out. Article B sets out fully the objectives. The problem is that the Government do not have enough guts to say where they stand on the matter. They prevaricate, because they are trying to satisfy hon. Members such as the hon. Gentleman and everyone else, instead of coming clean. The problem with the Government is that they know where they are going but they are trying to get there by subterfuge.
      Mr. Cash: I find great difficulty in understanding the Government's position, which is one reason why I voted against the Government on the paving motion and on Second Reading. There is a great deal of disinformation, of which the pamphlet "Britain in Europe" is a prime example. It tells only half the story. It does not even refer to the fact that we are to be engaged in a European union.
      As I have said repeatedly, we have not even had a White Paper. What on earth is going on? White Papers on important matters are pouring out of the Government all over the place. But when we come to something as massive as the change in the nature of British government on the scale that is envisaged and is carried out—we are talking about a treaty which has already been signed by the Government—there is no White Paper to explain the treaty to the British people. No wonder that, when Women's Own asked the good ladies, in a poll, whether they could define the ecu, nine out of 10 replied that they thought it was a bird.
      Mrs. Currie: My hon. Friend does not have to be so patronising.
      Mr. Cash: Not at all. The reason for confusion is that there is no White Paper stating precisely what the treaty is all about. I have been calling for one for several years. At the bottom line, if the public are to be asked to make a choice, and if right hon. and hon. Members are to be asked to vote on such a question, they should have enough information to know precisely what is the Government's policy—not just the verbiage in the treaty, with which my right hon. Friend the Minister of State tried to deal earlier. There should be a declaration in a White Paper as to the treaty's objectives, policies and implications.
      As to the type of union into which we are being taken, I invite the Committee to consider the provisions in the 1970 White Paper. That is another story, and is part of the process of disinformation, stealth, or whatever one likes to call it. Some would call it being more than economical with the actualité.
      Mr. Garnier: When my hon. Friend is next under the dryer reading women's magazines, will he care to check whether the poll did not in fact relate to Emu rather than to the ecu? Also, he supported the Single European Act because it was good for British trade. Is he now saying that the Maastricht treaty is deleterious to the interests of British trade?
      Mr. Cash: I am, and with good reason. One has only to look at the exchange rate mechanism. The International Monetary Fund has said that it does not think that it would be a good idea to go ahead, and so has the Bank of International Settlements and many distinguished economists—including 60 in Germany alone, who recently signed a letter to that effect.
      A recent issue of Management Today published the results of a poll to which 3,000 business men replied, and 68 per cent. of them said that they would vote against the treaty in a referendum. That was their verdict. Only two weeks ago, I attended a Confederation of British Industry meeting in my constituency at which another hon. Member was also present, thinking that he would stage a bit of a coup against myself as a Euro-sceptic. He told those CBI members, "CBI policy is the exchange rate
      212
      mechanism, plus a single currency. Will you vote on that?" Only one person put up his hand in favour of a single currency.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and apologise for being absent when he rose to speak. I dare say that I will have many other opportunities in Committee to hear his interventions.
      My hon. Friend will recall that the preamble to the Single European Act includes this statement:
      "Moved by the will to continue the work undertaken on the basis of the Treaties establishing European Communities … and to transform relations as a whole among their States into a European Union in accordance with the Solemn Declaration of Stuttgart of 15 June 1983".
      Did my hon. Friend think that was a good thing, at the time that he voted for the Single European Act?
      Mr. Cash: I have no difficulty with that, because the preamble referred to "a European Union". The question is the distribution of the functions prescribed by the union that we are asked to consider. I well remember that, in April 1990, when my noble Friend Lady Thatcher, then Prime Minister, was threatened with Britain's expulsion from the Community if the Government were not prepared to sign up to a union, she rightly asked, "But what union? What does it involve, and what will it contain?" Now we know.
      Mr. Garel-Jones rose—
      Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend the Minister, who seems anxious to return to the Dispatch Box, will remember that, at meetings of the Conservative manifesto committee, in March and February 1991, I put to him the same question that he now raises about the nature of the union. I said that if, by the end of that year, the Government signed a document containing functions that were inimical to Britain's interests, and that was the union they wanted, I would oppose it. That is what I am doing now.
      8.15 pm
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's confirmation that he was prepared to subscribe to the objective of European union in respect of the Single European Act. I presume—it is useful to establish such matters as we move into what may be a lengthy Committee stage—that, unlike my noble Friend Lord Tebbit, my hon. Friend does not regard the Single European Act as a mistake, but continues to support it.
      Mr. Cash: I do. I will go further and say that I am delighted that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn), who is Chairman of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, has taken up a suggestion that I made to his predecessor last year—that the single European market should be investigated in respect of abuses that work against the interests of British business.
      I return to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Gamier) in respect of the Single European Act. He has not long been a Member of Parliament, but I am sure that he knows from his constituents that there are problems with the working of that Act, such as stock exchange transparency, subsidies paid by various countries to some of their companies, and so on. A whole catalogue of issues must be sorted out.
      I am delighted that, within the framework of the Single European Act, the Select Committee will take the

      213
      opportunity to investigate and reveal abuses. I like to believe that I played a small part in helping the Committee to examine those questions.
      Mr. Peter Shore: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the words from the preamble to the Single European Act quoted by the Minister reflect one of the great follies committed at the time? Those words were then used to coerce or to push forward that which is now in the Maastricht treaty. If any lesson has been learnt from 1986, it is that we should carefully study such things as the preamble and title I to the Bill.
      Mr. Cash: repeat that, when reference is made to "a European Union" but no description is given, that is a load of Euro-waffle. When it comes to what will be included, I was interested to get hold of a copy of the Luxembourg treaty. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) will remember that day in June 1991. He may have had a copy of that treaty as well, but very few people even knew that one had been deposited in the Library. We then began to realise that the intention was to take us clown a route exemplified by the Maastricht treaty.
      Mr. Jim Marshall: We return to the question whether or not the preamble will be used in the courts to justify further decisions by the European Court. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) referred to the Single European Act. Does the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) agree that similar sentiments were expressed in the original treaty of Rome, and that the European Court has been using them ever since? To give the Government their due—although I am tired of doing so—at least, by article VII, the Government are seeking to limit the European Court's future right to extend the European Commission's sphere of influence.
      Mr. Cash: That returns us also to the question whether or not one interpretation is more valid than another. I do not happen to agree with the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall). He was keen to suggest that this was some kind of damage limitation exercise, but I view it as a deliberate attempt by other member states to centralise and therefore to accumulate more power at the centre of Europe. That case is easily made on the basis of the documents before us.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: My hon. Friend seems to be saying that he prefers a vague undefined concept of European union, as in the Single European Act, to a definition that specifically separates out important areas of political endeavour and makes them intergovernmental. He was content to sign up to an undefined union, but now he finds a union defined in such a way as to reinforce intergovernmentalism unacceptable.
      Mr. Cash: Even I am pretty surprised by that little intervention. The phrase "a European union" in the preamble meant nothing. Because it has no functions attached to it, it was completely different from the Maastricht treaty, which goes into the functions that are allocated between the member states. That is the fundamental question.
      Mr. Rogers: Does the hon. Gentleman not think it rather odd that the Minister should invoke article B of the Maastricht treaty to establish that we now have a union with defined parameters, yet that, at the same time, the
      214
      Government should try to obfuscate and generally mislead the British public, because they have not the guts to say what the treaty is?
      Mr. Cash: I agree that there has been a good deal of obfuscation. I shall not go into the question whether there is a deliberate attempt to mislead, but in the 1970 White Paper to which I referred earlier, there was certainly a clear statement that the veto would continue, that the European Community would not develop into a federation and that we should retain our essential sovereignty. Some people may think that that was a long time ago—but there has never been any denial of what was said then. In one of our more recent debates, I asked the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup whether, as he is now calling for federalism—or a unitary system, or whatever—he would repudiate the words in his White Paper. He gave me no reply, because clearly that White Paper was misleading, and it took in many people.
      That is the basis on which the process has tended to move, and I believe that the same thing is happening with the present treaty, too. The British people are not being told the truth; they are not being told exactly what is involved.
      Mr. Roger Knapman: In the past few minutes, we have heard much about the beauties of the Single European Act. Does my hon. Friend believe that the raft of directives and regulations might be in any way connected with the fact that Europe's present share of world trade is only 20 per cent., compared with 25·5 per cent. 10 years ago? In the light of those statistics, does my hon. Friend believe that the Single European Act has had all the effects that were expected when it was passed?
      Mr. Cash: That is one reason why I hope that the Select Committee inquiry will iron out some of those questions and bring out the truth to the British people.
      For example, we are constantly told that the fact that 50 per cent. or 55 per cent. of our exports go to Europe is a wonderful thing. But the trade deficit is £12 billion against us. Another dimension then arises. I believe that much of that disparity and that deficit has come about because of the abuses of the single market, which I hope that we can sort out. That does not necessarily mean that we should not trade with Europe. Europe needs to trade with us as much as we need to trade with Europe.
      Mr. Cryer: More.
      Mr. Cash: All right, even more—I agree.
      Also raised in connection with the Single European Act is the strange untenable proposition that, if we do not sign the Maastricht agreement, we shall be excluded from the Single European Act and the treaty of Rome. That is poppycock. Those are treaty obligations of the kind which we are now being asked to sign. They are binding upon the other member states and ourselves, just as the present treaty would be.
      The Single European Act and the treaty of Rome are not options that can be tossed overboard if we decide to accept the threats about what will happen to us if we do not sign. Nor does the coercion effectively being imposed on Denmark mean that that country can be excluded from the Single European Act and the treaty of Rome. That cannot happen. If it did, the other member states would be in breach of their treaty obligations.

      215
      Those obligations are not like the title I obligations, which, as I have said, are of a prerogative nature. They are international legal obligations under the aegis of the Court of Justice and therefore they take on the character of being justiciable before that court. The other member states cannot simply turn round and say, "We do not like the way you behave. Although the unanimity rule under article 236 says that all member states have to complete their constitutional requirements and have to be unanimous, we shall fudge it all. We shall manage to make a new arrangement with Denmark, but we shall exclude you from the treaty of Rome and the Single European Act."
      Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson: In that context, as we are the largest payer towards the European club—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] As we are the second largest payer, there can be no question of our being excluded. Until other people want to write cheques for the cost of the organisation, we are an essential part of it.
      Mr. Cash: I am delighted that my hon. Friends have been dealing with the practical questions of the treaty's impact on the daily lives of our constituents. It is all very well to talk in esoteric terms about whether title I is in or out, and for what reason—but the real point is that we are dealing with people's lives. The question arises: who governs? The basis of our democracy is affected. Those are the matters of concern to our constituents.
      I shall take the exchange rate mechanism as an example. Economic and monetary union is referred to in article B of the treaty, which says:
      "The Union shall set itself the following objectives to promote economic and social progress which is balanced and sustainable"—
      I shall deal with that idea in a moment—
      "in particular through the creation of an area without internal frontiers, through the strengthening of economic and social cohesion"—
      I thought that we Conservatives had done a little damage to that idea, but it does not seem to have escaped inclusion in article B. The passage continues:
      "and through the establishment of economic and monetary union, ultimately including a single currency in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty'.
      We have seen what happened when, for reasons which escape me, people decided that it was a good idea, on a piece of paper, to attempt to make totally divergent economies converge. That was done—on a piece of paper—and it was called the exchange rate mechanism. When it started in 1979, it was a voluntary arrangement between the governors of the various banks throughout Europe. There may have been some spurious merit in attempting to secure some co-ordination and co-operation, to which I have no objection.
      However, then along came Mr. Delors, and turned it into a plan for part of an economic and monetary union. When the ERM collapsed on black Wednesday in September, interest rates rocketed up and caused immense damage throughout the land. The system was based on an absurd dogma, which had created massive havoc, panic and fear throughout the country. None the less, we find that we are still expected to sign up to it, in the form of article B. I shall consider our opt-out in a moment.
      The article says—we are signing up to all this stuff and we are part of that union—that the objective of the union
      216
      is the establishment of economic and monetary union, ultimately including the single currency. What is the connection between that and our so-called "opt-out"?
      Let us consider the protocol, which clearly states that the process of stage 3, which is applicable to all member states including ourselves—the protocol is immediately adjacent to our so-called opt-out—is irreversible, irrevocable and comes into effect on 1 January 1999. I shall come on to stage 2 in a moment. The protocol says that we cannot exercise our veto in respect of any other member states.
      It is said that we are to be at the heart of Europe and that it is better to influence from within than from without. If we connect that with the fact that we have also agreed that the process will be irreversible and irrevocable, and that we shall not veto it for the others, we are effectively saying that we have accepted the gravitational pull. The position is even worse than that. Under article 8 of the protocol of the European Monetary Institute under stage 2, our Governor of the Bank of England will join the EMI. He and the EMI members will not be allowed to take instructions from member states.
      Mrs. Currie: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      8.30 pm
      Mr. Cash: No. My hon. Friend must be patient.
      The point is that article 8 cuts across section 4 of the Bank of England Act 1946, which clearly states that the Chancellor of the Exchequer on behalf of this House elected and accountable—he now has to answer some
      questions here and there—has the power and the right to be able to issue directions to the Governor of the Bank of England.
      Under stage 2, the position changes the moment that we get into the European Monetary Institute. That is a completely different kettle of fish and that is the way in which our Government are being changed by stealth. Nobody refers to that.
      Mrs. Currie: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Cash: I will not—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Not for the moment. I will give way with pleasure in a minute. I want to complete my point first. There is not a word in the pamphlet about the matters to which I have just referred. There is nothing about the protocol's irreversibility and irrevocability. There is nothing about the EMI and the fact that it cannot take instructions from member states. That is the essence of the power that is being created, generated and centralised. Anybody who attempts to argue otherwise should simply look at the treaty.
      Mrs. Currie: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his courtesy. He has now been talking for almost an hour. We have all got the message that he does not like title I.
      My hon. Friend's problem, on which I should like him to comment, is that the outside world sees his position as strange. The Bill does not include title I, yet all six amendments that he has tabled seek to put title I into the Bill. If he thinks that title I is so awful, what is he doing proposing all the amendments that seek to put title I into the Bill? Is he just trying to filibuster and to delay the Bill?
      Mr. Cash: I absolutely and totally deny that. That is a terrible slur. I am sure, Dame Janet, that you do not want to construe my hon. Friend's remark as an indirect

      217
      criticism of the Chair. The interesting point is that the amendments were selected by the Chair, for which. I am deeply grateful.
      I will answer the question simply. If my hon. Friend looks at the amendments to which she has just referred, she will see that they say, "insert I"—that is, title I—and that it then says "except'. The exceptions are articles A, B, C, D and F. The object of the exercise is to demonstrate why I do not want the provisions in the Bill. The reason is precisely the devastating impact that I believe they will have on the people of this country and on my constituents.
      Mr. Tim Devlin: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Cash: Of course. I always give way to my hon. Friend.
      Mr. Devlin: My hon. Friend said earlier that he was really concerned about how Maastricht would have an impact on the man and woman in the street in Great Britain. I will quickly draw my hon. Friend's attention to what is actually in the Bill. Article 2 says:
      "The Community shall have as its task, by establishing a common market and an economic and monetary union and by implementing the common policies or activities referred to in Articles 3 and 3a, to promote throughout the Community a harmonious and balanced development of economic activities, sustainable and non-inflationary growth respecting the environment, a high degree of convergence of economic performance, a high level of employment and of social protection, the raising of standards of living and the quality of life, and economic and social cohesion and solidarity among Member States."
      How many of my hon. Friend's constituents, of my constituents or of any other constituents would object to anything in that? That is what is actually going into the Bill.
      Mr. Cash: I will tell my hon. Friend quickly if I may, Dame Janet. The British people in a series of opinion polls have already made it abundantly clear that they do not want economic and monetary union. There is a massive majority of about 68 per cent. That is the basis on which my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) seeks to fillibuster. I am sorry to have to say that to him. What he has referred to comes under title II We are dealing with title I.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that one difference is that the people of Britain no longer want to be taken in by all this twaddle about all the wonderful things that are happening? They remember that previous Bills said that the ERM would bring growth and stability. It was said that the CAP would bring fair prices for the housewife. The British people will not be taken in by all this nonsense and twaddle, unlike the minority of our pro-European hon. Friends.
      Mr. Cash: May I add to that point, Dame Janet? To come back to what the objectives of the union are supposed to be, article B says that one objective is
      "to promote economic and social progress which is balanced and sustainable".
      What is balanced and sustainable about the ERM and the collapse of sterling? With the tremendous gravitational pull and with all the machinery that is being cranked up to the EMI, what will be the effect of taking the ERM into economic and monetary union and into the central banking arrangements that are at the heart of the treaty? When the ERM collapses—all the Parliaments will have
      218
      committed voluntary euthanasia, as we are being asked to do now—the whole damn thing will collapse. There will then be massive instability and there will no balance in Europe.
      The EC may say, "We will compensate for such a collapse by the social cohesion contained in the articles"—that is, the transfer of resources and the cohesion fund. Let us look at the Delors 2 package and the way in which our Government are now trying to wriggle out of the competencies that were granted under Maastricht and for which they now say that they will not pay. We then begin to realise that the proposal will ruin the trust between the peoples of Europe because the people of Spain, of Portugal and of other countries will have been led up the garden path—[HON. MEMBERS: "And the Irish."] The Irish have been led up the garden path with the £6 billion that they were supposed to get.
      Those countries will find that Germany does not have the money to pay for the fund, because Germany is preoccupied with its own affairs. The people in other parts of Europe are equally strapped for cash. We are the second highest net contributor, yet we are now apparently a qualifier for the cohesion fund.
      It is crazy. We are supposed to be going into a system of convergence—the ERM—which has already been
      demonstrated to be completely incapable of working. Under our autumn statement, we do not have the faintest opportunity of being able to comply with the convergence conditions prescribed by Maastricht. That is compounded by the fact that convergence is also part of our "European policy" for the rest of Europe, so it cannot work. We qualify for the cohesion fund, yet we are net contributors. Now the Germans say that they will take away £2 billion of our rebate. That is an absolutely crazy situation.
      The plain fact is that we are being asked to accept provisions that will create civil disorder in parts of Europe. With the budgetary arrangements proposed and with the monetary policies that the unelected, unaccountable bank will have the independence to be able to enforce, the poorer people in other parts of Europe will find that their public service sector and borrowing requirements will be slashed. Those countries will not have the slightest chance of being able to pay the fines that the Government propose should be imposed on them. As a result, the poor will get even poorer.
      That is another of my fundamental objections. It does not apply only to Europe; it applies to the third world. The last line of the book that I recently wrote said:
      "while the third world starves."
      Several hon. Members rose—
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. If I stand, other hon. Members sit. I wanted to make the observation that I know that this matter has caused some excitement, but I do not expect a lot of sedentary interruptions. Is the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) giving way?
      Mr. Cash: I am giving way to my hon. Member the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin).
      Mr. Devlin: Going back to amendment No. 93, which is about whether title I should be part of the Bill, I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is speaking in favour of it or against it. I should like him to clarify that point. The treaty has written into it article 3B, which is the subject of the Bill, whereas title I is not part of the Bill. Why is my hon.

      219
      Friend opposing the treaty, given that it is the first one which prescribes a role for national parliaments, if he is so keen to preserve that?
      Mr. Cash: The answer is simply that it is not in the treaty. We have only to look at the Government's own handouts to know that the declarations are not part of the treaty. I was at the assize last year, and I was darned glad that that matter will not be imposed upon us, because there was a vote after two days of idiotic discussion. People were brought from all over Europe at absolutely fantastic expense. Even my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies), who is a bit of a Europhile, said to me, when we had a bite afterwards, that even he did not believe that that crazy state of affairs could possibly have existed.
      The assize passed 240 amendments to a treaty which nobody had been told was even going to be given to us, all in the space of about two hours, by pressing buttons. Nobody had the faintest idea what was going on. That is another good reason why we should keep well away from those aspects, and I am delighted that they are only in a declaration.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I hate to interrupt my hon. Friend's flow, but I assume that he is speaking to his amendments Nos. 313, 344, 345, 346, 347 and 348. Will he tell the Committee why he wishes to include those articles in the scope of the Bill, thus, as it were, supporting the federalist amendment?
      Mr. Cash: I am more and more astonished by my right hon. Friend's interventions. The matter is very simple. Because it was not included by the Government, we had to include title I in order to be able to knock out all the noxious provisions. It is precisely for that reason that we are now considering the articles and demonstrating their inadequacy and the reasons why we do not want them. That is precisely what is going on. There is every conceivable reason for doing so. I understand that those on both Front Benches have already decided that they will not vote on this matter, or at any rate they will vote against the Liberal Democrats' amendment if they decide to press it to a vote.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: With respect, I do not think that my hon. Friend has answered the question. If he is saying that he wants to move the articles into the Bill to provide a peg for a debate, I would understand that. If he said, "This is a probing amendment on which we can debate the various articles," I would understand that. But his amendment would not eliminate the articles; it would include them in the Bill. If it is not a probing amendment to stimulate debate, which, Dame Janet, you know is the practice in Committee, my hon. Friend should tell us why he wants to do what he purports to want to do in the amendments.
      Mr. Cash: The amendment also gives us the advantage of being able to demonstrate why the articles should not be included. Furthermore, it is a matter of international legal obligation. I am continually trying to get out of the Minister of State whether he regards title I as an international legal obligation. So far, he has not been prepared to give me an answer. I should be glad if he would—perhaps he will do so later. We are not discussing a casual piece of paper, and the Minister of State knows it.
      220
      It is the binding material for the treaty as a whole. That is the basis on which the matter is being considered. It is not being put in the Bill because the Government want to do it by prerogative. They are doing that by prerogative, but they are not coming clean.
      8.45 pm
      The provisions are fundamental to the Maastricht treaty. Whether they are justiciable under article L in certain respects is debatable. They are international legal obligations which are of profound importance. That is why it is important that these matters should be probed, discussed and considered in full depth. That is what we intend to do.
      Mr. Knapman: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I am sure that he wishes to make further progress. Could he refer again to the business of convergence? Is my hon. Friend suprised not to have had an intervention saying that convergence policies are a good thing? Is that possibly because at the weekend we found that, in Ireland, mortgage rates have gone up to 18·5 per cent., it was suggested that, if the Germans do not drop their interest rates by 1 January, Irish interest rates will go up to 40 per cent., and that overnight money has gone to 100 per cent? Is it perhaps that these are not the right few days to suggest that convergence policies are bringing the stability that some of us are told is the effect of such policies?
      Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) has hit the nail on the head—that is true. Hon. Members do not want to raise that point. They started by talking of trying to turn the debate back to title I and trying to turn it into a technical debate. The one thing that they do not want in any circumstances is for the people of this country to know the practical implications of this matter. That is what they do not want, but they will get doses of it as we proceed.
      Mr. Jim Marshall: I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has come back to that point. When he was talking about economic convergence, he put the classic monetarist argument that if convergence principles were implemented at the moment, they would lead to increased unemployment throughout Europe. That is why many Opposition Members are opposed to virtual convergence. What attracts me to article B is that, if one could have real economic growth throughout the Community, it would be much easier to reach the convergence principles, but that would be based upon growth and increased public expenditure.
      Mr. Cash: I have much sympathy with the objective that the hon. Gentleman is seeking. We all want jobs and prosperity for the people of Europe. We do not want another war, and we do not want the difficulties that we experienced over 100 years. But the problem is that the treaty is completely out of date. The people who are advocating those policies are carrying the intellecutal baggage of the 1950s. Since the collapse of the Berlin wall, we have moved into a completely new Europe. Merely grafting on so-called new solutions to what appear to be old problems will create disunity in Europe and not the European union that some are claiming in the provisions that we are discussing. It will not be diversity; it will be disunity. The trust between the peoples of Europe will be ruined.

      221
      Also, there will not be an equal union; there will be an imbalance. We can only take German interest rates as an example and the way in which they have been manipulated to the disadvantage of the rest of Europe, on the one hand, and the way in which the French have behaved with regard to GATT and nearly destabilised and might yet destabilise world trade on the other hand.
      The French may yet destabilise the whole of world trade. That is not communautaire. That is not operating on the basis of the provision to promote economic and social progress which is balanced and sustainable. That is pursuing nationalistic, not even national, policies which are unfortunately a very sad and tragic reflection on their internal political systems.
      For us to be drawn into the chaos that that will induce will be bad for us. That is another reason why we should make sure that we do not accept the treaty. It would lead to political instability. Let us consider the landscape of Europe for a moment. There are problems in Yugoslavia. There are problems in eastern Europe where the Germans have taken up 85 per cent. of all foreign investment; they also own half the Russian debt. There are disturbances in Georgia, problems in Kosovo and problems in Macedonia.
      In that maelstrom it is proposed to impose a system of convergence which everyone knows will not work. The Westminster Parliament will be emasculated and our constituents will lose the right to make choices in general elections. As a consequence of convergence, the Community will create the very instability which it claims that it is seeking to avoid. That is one of my most fundamental objections to the treaty.
      Furthermore, all this raises the question of the rule of law in Europe. Some influential people, including Ministers, have suggested that the system of law may collapse. We are told, "You do not have to worry about all this, because for practical purposes it will all collapse anyway." That is a disreputable argument. If individual member states lose their freedom and rule of law by the creation of a union, and a new rule of law, imposed under the European Court of Justice and other international obligations, collapses, that will be an act of massive political irresponsibility.
      If the whole thing collapses, what will we put in its place? There is no secession clause. There is no way out. Therefore, somebody will have to enforce the system. I should like to know who that person or persons will be. The system will have to be disciplinary. That could be the beginning of a new fascism—something we should be fighting against.
      Mr. Livingstone: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is the core of the mistake? No one denies that those who are eager for European unification see tremendous economic benefits. There could be unification if Europe were achieving convergence. The idea that locking us into these structures will create convergence is nonsense. There are completely different levels of speed and development. When the whole thing does not start to work, the common defence policy will become the arm which imposes the order when the European Court finds that it cannot uphold decisions by the Council of Ministers that nations should cut their spending and their budgets. That is the danger.
      Mr. Cash: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's analysis.
      222
      Another strange, mysterious theology developed since the 1940s and 1950s is that these provisions will contain Germany. They will not do anything of the kind. Just as we found with the exchange rate mechanism, the economic muscle of Germany will prevail. We only have to look at the trade balances of Germany and other member states.
      What I am saying is in no sense anti-German. Many people in Germany have made a massive contribution to peace in Europe since the 1940s, but when a country has such economic muscle and is effectively banking many other countries, it will be the most powerful. We have heard that France is virtually on the point of surrendering to the deutschmark. If Germany has control over the institutions and majority voting—other member states will be inclined to vote with Germany because effectively it controls their economy—far from containing it, we will have handed power to Germany on a plate.
      That is the one thing we must not do with Germany. We must contain Germany by a balance of power and not by a spurious, academic, theoretical, theological attempt to contain it by pieces of paper. I remember Munich—at least I remember that it was the waving of a piece of paper—
      Mrs. Currie: On a point of order, Dame Janet. I apologise, but many of us want to speak. Many of us would like to speak to the amendment that is before us. My hon. Friend has been speaking longer than anyone else in the debate. He would not have to put up with so many sedentary interventions, to which you rightly drew attention, or interventions if he would sit down and let somebody else speak.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Hon. Members will understand that unless an hon. Member engages in tedious repetition, I do not have power to decide on the length of a speech.
      Mr. Cash: I am grateful to you, Dame Janet. What I am doing is going through the amendments that have been selected by the Chair and dealing with each one in turn. I should like to come back to the press release which was produced by the German embassy on 13 April 1992.
      Mr. Wells: Can my hon. Friend tell us which of the items he is dealing with at present, which he has already dealt with and which he will deal with next?
      Mr. Cash: Fortunately, as they are all grouped together, that decision has been taken by the Chair. I do not have to answer that question because they are all interwoven as part of the debate. I am delighted to assure my hon. Friend that I have no intention of attempting to separate them. I should have been delighted if each had been taken separately because there is more than enough meat in the words "economic and monetary union" to enable us to have a full debate on that alone.
      Mr. Bill Walker: Given the way in which the amendments are grouped, does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that all the arguments on them are deployed? This is no ordinary legislation—if we get it wrong, we cannot put it right next year—it is a constitutional change and we must therefore ensure that it is debated properly and thoroughly.
      Mr. Cash: I endorse my hon. Friend's remarks. I am surprised that some of my hon. Friends are not prepared to allow an opportunity—
      Mrs. Currie: Let other people have an opportunity.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. There are many sedentary interruptions—some from the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie). This is not satisfactory. As long as the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) has the Floor, he is entitled to be heard.
      Mr. Cash: I am most grateful, Dame Janet.
      A speech by Mr. Martin Bangemann, the Vice-President of the European Commission and a former German Cabinet Minister, was mentioned earlier. As it directly bears on the question of European union, it is worth reminding the House that he said:
      "The inadequacies of European decision-making cannot be remedied by returning power to member states. The notion of subsidiarity presupposes the idea of a federal European state."
      That mirrors what Mr. Delors and everyone in Europe has said because their perception—
      Mr. Devlin: On a point of order, Dame Janet. I hesitate to draw your attention to this matter, but I have listened to this speech for more than one hour and have heard the same section of Herr Martin Bangemann's speech referred to twice before. As you ruled that it was not in order to indulge in repetition, does that qualify as the requisite repetition?
      The Second Deputy Chairman: The expression is "tedious repetition" and that must be the view of the Chair and not of hon. Members.
      9 pm
      Mr. Cash: As often appears to be the case, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) is wrong. I merely mentioned Martin Bangemann before, whereas just now I quoted what he said. It is important that we make it clear that those people in Europe believe that they are creating a federal super-state. That is in direct contradiction to what the Prime Minister has been telling us we want for this country.
      The press release from the German embassy on 13 April says:
      "There are no differences of conviction between Chancellor Helmut Kohl and the Prime Minister."
      The second paragraph of the press release congratulates the Prime Minister on his election victory and says:
      "This is a deserved accolade for you and a great encouragement for those of us who hold the same convictions."
      The press release is saying that the German Chancellor believes that the Prime Minister holds the same convictions as he does. Obviously, it is worrying to some of us if they share the same convictions on Maastricht, as Chancellor Kohl states that the treaty
      "is a new and decisive stage in the process of European union, leading to a united states of Europe within a few years".
      That is directly contrary to what we heard at the Conservative party conference, and to the pamphlet "Britain in Europe", which unequivocally states that we are not on the slippery slope to federalism—
      Mr. Milligan rose—
      Mr. Cash: I am delighted to give way to my hon. Friend, since he had the benefit of a trouncing in the debate the other day.
      Mr. Milligan: My hon. Friend says that the Prime Minister and Chancellor Kohl appear to agree, which
      224
      seems to be the case. My hon. Friend has not noted that it is Chancellor Kohl who appears to have changed his mind, and who is now a supporter of subsidiarity and made a strong speech on the need for national identity. Will my hon. Friend welcome that conversion?
      Mr. Cash: No, I do not believe that subsidiarity is worth the paper that it is written on. It is the biggest con trick of all time. It demonstrates the centralising features of the Community. If something is subsidiary, it automatically assumes that something else is superior. The central bank is superior. It is a granary of power, which will exercise undemocratic control over the people of Europe. When that system collapses, there will be real trouble.
      Mr. Devlin: On a point of order, Dame Janet. My hon. Friend has mentioned that argument about the central bank once before. He has just mentioned the discrepancy between the Prime Minister's speech at the Conservative party conference and the booklet for the second time. I have no doubt that that is very tedious; what we are trying to establish is whether it is also repetition.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I must be allowed to be the judge of that. As long as the hon. Member for Stafford is constantly interrupted, it may make it easier for repetitions to slip in.
      Mr. Cash: Again, I am most grateful, Dame Janet.
      The pamphlet purports to deal with a range of issues concerned with the European Community and the Maastricht treaty, so it is not surprising that I might wish to dip into it from time to time, because it contains so many inaccuracies and so much disinformation and so many half-baked statements. As it has been distributed to the people of this country as some sort of alternative White Paper, it is very important to point those out.
      It is all very well for us to think that there can be a bit of banter in this Chamber, but some hon. Members, including those who have made deliberate interventions, are overlooking the fact that their constituents are affected by what is contained in the treaty. Many of their constituents might not be too happy if they knew what their views on the subject were. I intend, without tedious repetition, to set the truth of what is in the treaty before the British public. That is worth doing, because the Government will not publish a White Paper.
      I refer to the next comment, rather than the previous one, of Martin Bangemann. On 3 November 1992, the Prime Minister said that Mr. Bangemann was wrong. The report in The Times says:
      "The Commission had already made absolutely clear that these were personal remarks and did not reflect the views of the Commission. Nor, can I assure you, are they my views, the views of this Government or any mainstream Government in Europe."
      Judging from some of the speeches that I have heard in the past year, certainly since the Maastricht treaty was signed, there is a strong sign that the leaders of the other Member States—Mitterrand, Kohl, Lubbers, and so on—have a federal agenda on their minds; that is what they want. It would not surprise me to learn that Martin Bangemann made the statements, because they are merely a reflection of the attitude of other leaders in Europe.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Milligan) said, the establishment of the social cohesion fund is terrible. The bottom line is that the treaty called for

      225
      a new cohesion fund for the poorest members of the European Community—Greece, Portugal, Ireland and Spain.
      Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Is not the cohesion fund the essence of a communist ideal of taking from the people to redistribute to the people? Is not that socialism, tooth and claw? Should not the Conservative party be opposed to it?
      Mr. Cash: Bearing in mind the colour of the dress of my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), I am not surprised that the reference to the setting up of the social cohesion fund as a communist plot immediately sprang to her mind. The worst aspect of any policy is to engage in breaking promises which may not be fulfilled. It is clear that the other leaders of the member states are seeking to transfer resources on that socialist engineering principle, which will not work.
      We must try, somehow or other, to give genuine help through fair trade with the other member states. The problem is that not all the member states will subscribe to the cohesion fund. We have heard that the Delors 2 plan has been jettisoned, in part because there is no money to pay for the cohesion fund. The structural funds—the regional funds—which I have not dealt with at all, have been cut back. A range of other matters have been presented to us as part of the package, but they simply will not work.
      Mr. Livingstone: Does the hon. Member not agree that, far from being a communist plot—because that might change the opinions of some of my hon. Friends—it is a great redistribution treaty? When we are talking about 2 per cent., or perhaps 3 per cent. at the most, of the European total GDP being under control, that does not provide those powers. We oppose the setting up of the social cohesion fund, largely because it will have no capacity to cope with or pay for the restitution of damage that centralisation of the economy will cause.
      Mr. Cash: It is intraordinary how much I agree with the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone). I never thought for a minute that that would be possible. There have been moments when I had the highest regard for many of the arguments of the hon. Member for Chesterfield, (Mr. Benn) about British democracy, but I never thought that I would agree with the hon. Member for Brent, East on economic matters.
      It will not work. That is one good reason for not allowing it to happen, but it is being thrust on us. We have an opportunity in Committee to expose the inadequacies of the arguments and to be able to say that we are—we hope—rational people who will listen to the arguments and attempt to form a measured judgment.
      I would not want to espouse Tory party policies if I did not think that they would work effectively. I have an instance in mind. I was delighted that the exchange rate mechanism collapsed—some of us said that we thought that it would not work. As I said to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister during my speech in the recess, the measure was contained in our manifesto. It was not the Euro-realists—I am not sure about the phrase "Eurosceptics" and prefer to use the phrase "Euro-realists"—who destroyed it. We said that we did not think that the exchange rate mechanism would work; we thought that it would collapse, and it did. We did not tear up our
      226
      manifesto to get out of the ERM, we were driven out of it because the system was inadequate, insufficient, fatally flawed—
      Mrs. Gorman: It was unsustainable.
      Mr. Cash: As my hon. Friend says, it was unsustainable. We must be entirely realistic about what the treaty contains. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, we must go through it clause by clause, line by line. It was also suggested that the Bill would have a bruising passage, and that may be the case. It will certainly have a thorough passage through the House.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: I agree with almost all that my hon. Friend has said, but is there not a danger of being too pessimistic about the cohesion fund? Does my hon. Friend not accept that the scope for spending anything on the cohesion fund has been greatly reduced by the fact that the cost-cutting reforms of the common agricultural policy—a triumph for the Government and the EC—have resulted in an increase in the estimated expenditure from £26,000 million to £31,000 million, so there should not really be anything left for the cohesion fund?
      Mr. Cash: I find that an encouraging intervention, but I always feel that whenever I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) is about to rise. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay wishes to say something.
      Mrs. Gorman: Is it not a tenet of communism that it takes from people according to their means and gives to people according to their needs? Is not that, in essence, what the cohesion fund is about? Is it not also true that, while our net contribution to the European Community is now £50 million every week, with the cohesion fund—I do not know how the Government believe that they can take that from the same pot of money, although they have said that it will not cost more money—by 1994, our membership of the organisation will cost us the equivalent of £200 million every week. Is it not true that we could build roads, hospitals, schools, homes for the homeless and many other things in this country if we kept the money in our pockets where it belongs?
      Mr. Cash rose—
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. Before the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) continues, he should appreciate that many of the issues that he is raising come under a separate and later group of amendments. I hope that he will address himself to the amendments that form the first group.
      Mr. Cash: I certainly shall, Dame Janet.
      The citizenship of the union arises under article B, which clearly states:
      "The Union shall set itself the following objectives …to strengthen the protection of the rights and interests of the nationals of its Member States through the introduction of a citizenship of the Union".
      Some of the statements that I have heard in support of that have been disingenuous and less than candid. Unfortunately, what is not made clear is the fact that the union provides not only for rights to be given to its participants, but for the duties imposed thereby.
      My right hon. Friend the Minister of State may or may not recall that I raised the issue with him in a written question to which I received one of the most extraordinary

      227
      answers that I have ever received during my time in the House. He said—I paraphrase—that such duties as were referred to would be those that emerged as the European Community evolved. His reply was something along those lines and I am sure that he will correct me if I am wrong.
      That is the sort of theme that was being pursued and there is very good reason for being vague in matters of this kind. I think that the Minister is very wise to be vague, because this is blank cheque territory.
      What is the most important function, or certainly one of the prime functions, of a legal entity of the kind that this European union is to be? It is the call to arms. That is the direction in which this is going: to a common defence policy. What is the first requirement, the first duty to be imposed on citizens? It is that they may be conscripted. Labour Members may care to reflect on that, because a Franco-German army has been created and I believe that the Secretary of State for Defence was not even invited to some of the meetings because they were held in secret. They were obviously up to something or other and they did not seem to want to have him there. Be that as it may, one of the first duties of a citizen is the call to arms and I think that people ought to be reflecting hard on what that might involve.
      9.15 pm
      There is the further question of voting in elections. We have been told that the wording of the arrangements for voting for these new citizens will be confined to local and regional elections but that is not what it says. It says "municipal".
      In English, according to "The Concise Oxford Dictionary" the word "municipal" would mean to do with a borough—perhaps a rotten borough or whatever—but the practicality of it is that it is to do with local government.
      However, in the precedents of the Court of Justice there is a very important Italian case from a few years ago. Surprise, surprise—the word "municipal" as already interpreted by the court means "national". Translate that in the citizenship provisions. Translate municipal to national, in line with the precedents of the Court of Justice, and we have a big question mark. I hope that the Attorney-General or someone will come and explain these complicated legal things that I do not understand.
      I should like to know whether the word "municipal", meaning national in that context, would refer to what a Liberal right hon. Member did when he went to Rome to stand for election there. We might find other nationals coming over for a test case. Then it will go to the Court of Justice. We will sign the treaty and suddenly they will say, "You thought you knew what you were signing, but, as is so commonly the case with this treaty, you thought it meant so and so, but actually, bad luck, it means something else." The Court of Justice could easily substitute "national" for "municipal" and we could find ourselves in difficulty. I should like to know why that matter was not raised when the treaty was being negotiated. That Italian case is quite a well-known one.
      As I see the Minister of State thumbing through some biographies down there, perhaps he would be good enough to tell me whether he will answer the question, which I might put to him rhetorically, as to whether municipal means national as expressed by the Court of Justice?
      Mrs. Gorman: Does my hon. Friend think it possible that, as a result of this legislation, we might end up with Sophia Loren opposing Shirley Porter for Westminster city council or if Mr. Delors fails to make it for the presidency of France, that he might stand for Durham or even that La Ciciollina might stand in Northampton for a seat on the council there?
      Mr. Cash: All these things are marvellous and extraordinary in themselves. I have not the faintest idea which way they will go, but it conjures up some pretty amazing thoughts. Some of the people my hon. Friend refers to are the stars of some time ago, but we may find that other people who have been taking an active part in politics, but are also star quality of a younger generation, might come forward as well.
      Important questions lie at the heart of the citizenship issue because we are being told that what is being done will not affect our rights as British citizens. It is said that this is an add-on, a little extra, when in reality it is fundamental and goes back to the whole question of the union. The union is a legal framework, and whether it comes within the Court of Justice or is a legal international obligation, what is proposed will be binding on us. It should be struck out of the treaty because it goes to the heart of the way in which we run our democracy and the rights which we are used to exercising.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: Will my hon. Friend remind the House that European citizenship is not static and that under article 8E there must be a three-year review to extend the duties of European citizens, in addition to which new powers and rights can be introduced? The idea that, by some means, voting in municipal elections represents citizenship is a load of rubbish. Instead, every three years there will be a review to increase the duties. We shall be well on the way to a single European state, even though the vast majority of hon. Members do not want to face up to that, do not want to read about it and do not want to hear the arguments on the subject.
      Mr. Cash: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention.
      Article B provides:
      "The Union shall set itself'
      the objective
      "to develop close co-operation on justice and home affairs".
      While we are told that that is a separate pillar, those provisions will be binding on us. We are bound to compare what was said on immigration at the Conservative party conference with the substantive provisions in the treaty.
      It is not even as simple as that. If the unanimity rule is dispensed with and a joint action plan for immigration is brought in, we shall face the prospect of another enabling provision designed to allow the Court of Justice to have jurisdiction over immigration policy. That issue has not been explained to people, and considering what is going on elsewhere—
      Mr. Graham Allen: Including the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill.
      Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman is right to refer to that measure. Many of those who are responsible for putting the treaty together do not realise that people can read and do not necessarily believe what they are told. Indeed, the more incredibility that arises as the process goes forward, the more questions people want to be answered.

      229
      The British population is becoming increasingly concerned at the vast discrepancy between what they were led to believe and what is going on. As the currency of language is becoming more familiar to people, they are discovering that they do not like much of what they hear. That will cause greater difficulty for the advocates of the measure as time passes, for as the monetary system implodes, so the other provisions relating to justice and home affairs become clearer.
      There are no doubt some admirable objectives, for example, in seeking to prevent drug abuse and the transfer of drugs across borders and so on, but is it necessary to have a Euro-poll? Where will the centre of power of that poll be, who will run it, what powers will they have and what effect will that have on the rights and duties of British citizens? Little information has been given on all those matters.
      Mr. Allen rose—
      Mr. Spearing rose—
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. Could the hon. Gentleman make quite clear to whom he is giving way?
      Mr. Cash: To the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), the captain of our cricket team.
      Mr. Allen: I presume that the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) will be aware that yesterday the ad hoc group of Immigration Ministers met in London, came to numerous conclusions and made numerous resolutions in respect of asylum and safe third countries, none of which has been or will be reported to the House. Will he make a brief comment on that in his remarks?
      Mr. Cash: It is all quite disgraceful. It is not the slightest bit surprising, however, because many of these meetings take place in secret, as the Council of Ministers does. This is half the trouble: the European union will not be a new wonderland of democracy, anything but. It is my belief that the European Parliament cannot fill that void. If Westminster and other Parliaments are emasculated by the provisions of this treaty, we will have a democratic void and the power of government will grow greater.
      In the July edition of a journal published by the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, the official think tank of the Christian Democrat Party, Chancellor Kohl's party, there was a very interesting statement—that since the Danish referendum something very strange had been going on in Europe; voters were beginning to protest. It went on to say that this would make governing even more difficult than it had been in the past. This is the kind of language coming out of the Christian Democrat party. This is what was said by the editor of the official think tank journal.
      Our Conservative MEPs—and this relates directly to the questions on the European Parliament contained in article D—have joined up with the European People's party, an exclusively federal organisation. That causes great concern among certain Conservative Members, but obviously not to the Minister of State, who is looking, in his usual way, totally bewildered by what he is hearing.
      Sir Russell Johnston: Since it is such a federal party, which is obviously something that the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) finds quite odious, why have all the Conservative Members of the European Parliament joined it?
      Mr. Cash: The short answer is that they have federal inclinations of which the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber would be more than proud. They want a federal system, and that is why many of them—
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: They do not.
      Mr. Cash: Very well. I am more than happy to qualify that by saying that many of them do. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) because I happen to know that her husband, who is an MEP, does not.
      Mr. Patrick Cormack: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and next-door neighbour the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), but he is traducing many fine Members of the European Parliament, including his own Member and leader of the Conservative group, Sir Christopher Prout.
      Mr. Cash: I said "they", but I was referring to a number of them. There are some who do, although I am more than happy to accept that there are others who do not. Unfortunately, irrespective of what they think privately, they have joined up with the European People's party, the constitution of which is exclusively federal. It is very difficult, on the one hand, to say that one does not believe in it, and, on the other, to subscribe to a constitution which is as federal as that of the EPP.
      Mr. Cormack: Is my hon. Friend querying Conservative party policy?
      Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend, from a sedentary position, says that I seem to have doubts about aspects of Conservative party policy on this matter. I can say with absolute clarity that I do not believe in the exchange rate mechanism, although that was described as the centrepiece of our counter-inflationary policy and therefore the central plank of our economic strategy. I did not tear it up, but it was torn up, and it was the central plank of our economic strategy.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: It does not seem to be the centrepiece of this group of amendments.
      9.30 pm
      Mr. Cash: I would not for one minute, Dame Janet, wish to cross swords with you on any matter, and certainly not on that. Economic and monetary union and a single currency are included in these proposals but I have already dealt with them, so I would not want to go into that again.
      Mr. Marlow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He is very tolerant and I know that he wants to conclude his remarks very shortly. He will make up his own mind on that, so perhaps I should say that I am sorry to intervene on my hon. Friend's introduction.
      My hon. Friend sits with me on the European Select Committee. As regards title I, we have had before us recently a large number of documents arising out of the Maastricht treaty. The treaty has not yet been ratified. Perhaps it is not title I, but some other part of the treaty that entitles European institutions to put documents before the House based on the Maastricht treaty when the treaty has not yet been ratified.
      Mr. Cash: As ever, the ingenuity and perception of my hon. Friend are quite magnificent. He has made his point. I have not the faintest idea how it can be done, but I

      231
      certainly share his deep reservations, worries and doubts about it. The plain fact is that on most of the matters which arise on this treaty we are being taken for a very substantial ride.
      There is another provision in article B on which I have not yet touched, and that is the subject of subsidiarity. Subsidiarity is described here as one of the main objectives of the union. It clearly states that the objectives of the union are to be achieved as laid down
      "in the Treaty and in accordance with the conditions and the timetable set out therein"—
      some very important matters relating to the conditions and timetable for economic and monetary union arise on that—
      "while respecting the principle of subsidiarity as defined in Article 3b of the Treaty establishing the European Community."
      We all know that Lord Mackenzie-Stuart described subsidiarity as gobbledegook. There are serried ranks of European lawyers who take exactly the same view and are totally opposed to it. They include some of our most distinguished practitioners at the European bar. They know that subsidiarity is a con trick, and they say so repeatedly.
      I see that you have now returned to the Chair, Mr. Morris, and I shall seek to keep within the bounds of order in line with the strong rulings that you have given on these matters. I am very gradually and carefully working my way through the provisions.
      I shall leave it to others to elaborate on subsidiarity because I find that it is a theological concept of such complexity and confusion that it is much better left for the early part of a day—perhaps that will be tomorrow.
      Mr. Knapman: My hon. Friend is moving on so fast that I am having a job keeping up with him. I wonder whether it is possible to believe in both market forces and a fixed exchange rate?
      Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend asks whether it is possible to equate market forces and a fixed exchange rate. The answer is emphatically no, for this very good reason: what these proposals are attempting to do is to pay lip service to free trading arrangements. That is what the treaty of Rome, the original basis of the European Economic Community, was all about, and I thoroughly endorse and agree with it.
      But then, because of this extraordinary desire to impose systems within it and then to redistribute in this social engineering way that we are expected to agree to under the transfer of resources, they want to have fixed exchange rates, not only to get a greater degree of control over the currencies but also to create one country. At the moment the Berlaymont seems to be closed, but anyone who managed to get in before that happened will have noticed the placards on the way in which say "Europe my country". No attempt is made to disguise that.
      I have enormous respect for the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber and his colleagues, who passionately believe in the virtues of a federal system and European union. They believe that it will enhance democracy, but those who hold the contrary view are equally entitled to develop their arguments. I am worried, however, about compromises being reached on issues that are not capable of being compromised—democracy,
      232
      voting and citizen' rights in the United Kingdom in the United Kingdom and whether Parliament will be able effectively to conduct its affairs. The budgetary arrangements proposed in the treaty will be imposed on our central bank—the Bank of England—and thereby on Parliament. We shall not then be able to hold the Chancellor accountable for the Budget.
      There are other measures that I have not mentioned, such as multisurveillance budgets, which sound like something from outer space—which is where the treaty should be sent.
      Mr. Winnick: The hon. Gentleman referred to the possibility—to many of us it is more than a possibility—of going down the federal road. Should not we congratulate the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), the Father of the House, on being so frank when he was challenged—
      Mr. Spearing: By me.
      Mr. Winnick: By my hon. Friend on one occasion—about his belief that Europe should follow the example of the United States? He justified that by saying that the states of America have some autonomy. If the Government were as frank as the right hon. Gentleman, we would know where we stood. Does the hon. Gentleman agree, therefore, that when emphasis is on an ever closer union, as proposed under article A, whatever interpretation—
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I have noted that interventions have been very long today. They should be short and succinct.
      Mr. Cash rose—
      The Chairman: Order. I have been listening all evening to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), who has now covered all the articles and is beginning to be repetitious. The Committee is willing to listen to specific and new points, but he has dealt with the values of this Parliament at some length and is beginning to go down that route again. I hope that he will move on to new subjects. He has spoken—I have kept a careful check—to every article so far.
      Mr. Cash: I am most grateful. I shall do all that I can to ensure that I do not transgress your rulings, Mr. Morris. I agree that sometimes it is better to stick to six-ball rather than eight-ball overs.
      Article C says:
      "The Union shall in particular"—
      this is very important and it ties in with another article that I have not dealt with—
      "ensure the consistency of its external activities as a whole in the context of its external relations, security, economic and development policies."
      The paragraph goes on to say:
      "The Council and the Commission shall be responsible for ensuring such consistency. They shall ensure the implementation of these policies, each in accordance with its respective powers."
      Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend was saying that, if the Chancellor were to announce his Budget at some future date, people would find it difficult to understand. But if, in three years' time, the Chancellor says, "I'm awfully sorry, but we must close 50 schools and 30 hospitals," the reason that he can give is perfectly straightforward: to promote economic and social progress that is balanced and

      233
      sustainable. We would have to spend more money for Greek and Portuguese hospitals and schools. It is clearly written in the treaty, so people will know why the Chancellor is doing that in three years' time.
      Mr. Cash: One problem is that people will not easily forgive us if they discover that what they thought we had signed turns out to be something else. When they complain, it will be too late.
      That is why, Mr. Morris, I am going gradually, but none the less carefully, through the provisions. In no sense do I want my speech to be regarded as a filibuster. I am dealing specifically with the provisions as and when they arise, and I am more than happy to justify every word that I have said.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: Although I appreciate the fact that my hon. Friend is trying to hurry because of pressures from you, Mr. Morris and elsewhere, does he agree that it would be wrong to complete that part of his argument without telling all hon. Members present who may not have read the treaty that, if a future Chancellor of the Exchequer does not do what the central French institutions tell him, he and the British people can be fined in the same way as a rate-capped council?
      Mr. Cash: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that observation. I do not need to repeat it, because it is now on the record. I hope that people outside will take note of that because I have discovered that people are discovering many things about the treaty and, as we go deeper into it, they will learn even more.
      I return to article C about the consistency of external activities. We well remember what happened in the GATT round recently when France dug itself into a position which, even now, may induce a trade war. It is precisely because of the European Commission's role in that matter that those difficulties arose. It is not just bilateral trade. The provision says:
      "The Council and the Commission shall be responsible for ensuring such consistency."
      The hon. Member for Leicester, South said earlier that I was claiming that the Commission would have more powers under the treaty than I could justify. This is yet another example, and there are many others. It is not simply an airy-fairy canter through "Alice in Wonderland" territory; it is about how the United Kingdom will be governed in future.
      When we see that our business men, companies, partnerships and good, honest, decent hard-working people could find that they are afflicted with a massive trade war because of one country's intransigence and the fact that the European Commission is operating—
      Mr. Cormack: As the country in question can be so intransigent and independent, does that not blow a hole in my hon. Friend's argument?
      Mr. Cash: It certainly does not, because my argument is that, within a European Community that works effectively, people operate on the basis of mutual obligations. It is precisely because some countries are not interested in doing that that we are faced with the difficulty. It is a form of nationalism, not national interests, which is the subtle distinction that needs to be made.
      We have had a similar problem with Honeywell Bull, Renault, Rhone Poulenc and Usinor. There is a stack of
      234
      examples—the creation of mega-Euro-champions. That is the kind of thing that causes difficulties. It is the job of the European Commission to sort out such things and, in relation to the external activities, it is found wanting. That is why we should not be making these massive transfers of power to it in relation to economic and development policies.
      9.45 pm
      The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was present a few moments ago and I should like to address some remarks to him. In the proposed energy policy under the treaty, there are already signs of greater control by the so-called union over our energy affairs. The pit closure programme and the disposition of the balance between nuclear, gas and coal power is a matter that we went into recently. The Vice-President of the European Commission, that tremendous advocate of free trade, Sir Leon Brittan, approved a DM3·3 billion deal between the heavily subsidised German coal producers and the German power operators.
      That gives a tremendous advantage to German energy users at our expense. RWE, which I understand is the biggest energy concern in Germany, intends—and I have every reason to believe that it will be successful—to sell steam coal to our power generators when we are closing our pits. That is an incredible state of affairs. All that arises out of the movement towards a common energy policy.
      I asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when I met him why we did not sort out the European Coal and Steel Community regulations as a precondition to all this, because it is upon that basis that the German coal producers are so heavily subsidised. There are omissions from the arrangements every bit as much as there are matters which should have been sorted out as the negotiations went ahead.
      Mr. Winnick: Again, I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to a point that I have made and on which he is dwelling. As a result of the treaty, by the beginning of the next century we shall be left with a British Parliament with little more power than a state senate within the United States. That may satisfy some, such as the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), but I imagine that it does not satisfy the majority of hon. Members, and certainly not the British people.
      Mr. Cash: I am sure that that is a sound point. The hon. Gentleman compared Britain and America. The harmonisation of our VAT arrangements has put us in a more disadvantageous position vis-a-vis the European Community, even before we enter into this union, than individual states in respect of the federal arrangements for sales tax in the United States. We are worse off even before we go into the union.
      Mr. Barnes: Has not the hon. Gentleman persistently confused the development towards federalism with the development towards a unitary state, sometimes using the word "or" to put the two together? Some of us favour the establishment of federalism in Europe, a united states of Europe, but we are against developing a unitary state. We do not believe that we can get to federalism by going through a unitary state. That is the big mistake that the Liberal Democrats seem to be making.
      Mr. Cash: I have enormous sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's point, but there is no such thing as a simple,

      235
      overarching definition of federalism. I have read articles describing the treaty sometimes in relation to a unitary state, sometimes with a federal connotation. There is a tendency to intermingle the two. I am inclined to agree with the hon. Gentleman that the treaty has more of a unitary character than the commonly regarded federal system.
      There is no way of precisely defining federalism. We must avoid becoming involved so much in semantics—which is why all the nonsense about taking the word "federal" out of the treaty does not amount to a row of beans. The issues are the distribution of functions, the extent of the centralising process, and where the power will lie. Those are the questions on which we should concentrate, and I intend to do so tonight.
      I mentioned economic and development in respect of article C, but I have not yet referred to external relations and security. Common foreign and security policy raises big questions. Those are prerogative powers and, as with title I, it is not intended that they will be included in the Bill.
      The extent and range of the powers that will be conferred on the Community are infinitely greater than people have been led to believe. Under a joint action plan or European guidelines, a completely different kind of foreign policy would be run in this country. No longer would we be able unilaterally to enter into the kind of bilateral arrangments that took us into the Gulf war.
      Mrs. Currie: That is nonsense.
      Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend says that I am speaking nonsense, and I shall be more than delighted to give way to her.
      Mrs. Currie: I had my supper and returned to the Committee, and found that my hon. Friend was still talking. Britain did not enter into a bilateral arrangment in the Gulf war but served as part of the United Nations force of 30 countries. Nothing in the Bill will stop us doing the same in future.
      Mr. Cash: I emphatically take issue with my hon. Friend, because the treaty clearly states that where a joint action plan has been created—
      Mrs. Currie: That is not the same thing.
      Mr. Cash: Yes, it is. I said that, in the context of a joint action plan or in relation to European guidelines, there would be substantial changes in the way that we carry out our foreign and security policy. I quote from article J.1(4) of the treaty:
      "The Member States shall support the Union's external and security policy actively and unreservedly in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity. They shall refrain from any action which is contrary to the interests of the Union"—
      and we are debating the union under title I—
      "or likely to impair its effectiveness as a cohesive force in international relations. The Council shall ensure that these principles are complied with."
      Article J.1(1) states:
      "The Union and its Member States shall define and implement a common foreign and security policy"—
      The Chairman: Order. I can read as well as the hon. Gentleman, as I am sure other right hon. and hon. Members can. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the
      236
      Committee is debating not article J but amendment No. 93 and those associated with it. I shall be grateful if the hon. Gentleman will not be tempted down other routes.
      Mr. Cash: I agree with you absolutely, Mr. Morris, but I was dealing with foreign and security policy, and in the light of my hon. Friend's intervention, I thought that it would be helpful to explain why I thought that she was wrong. However, of course I accept your ruling.
      Article D says:
      "The European Council"—
      that is not the same as the Council of Ministers—
      "shall provide the Union with the necessary impetus for its development and shall define the general political guidelines thereof."
      That represents a curious but none the less dangerous movement towards greater union. When the European Council prescribes the union's general political guidelines that will have a significant adverse impact on the manner in which we in this country, through our elected representatives, decide the basis on which we want to run our affairs.
      There is no definition of those general political guidelines. That should give considerable cause for concern. We often find that the treaty does not provide proper definitions of the expressions within it, and if we do not have those we shall get into deeper and deeper trouble. The expression "general political guidelines" is so vague as to mean almost anything to anybody, yet it is included in the treaty as a legal obligation to be exercised by the European Council.
      No one has a clear idea what the functions of the European Council will be. It appears that, although it is effectively without a democratic base, that body will make decisions at summits, pronouncing on the political affairs of all member states. Apparently it will not be accountable within the new legal framework or specifically accountable to the House. To whom will it be accountable? Nobody knows. It is not set out anywhere how its functions will be implemented.
      As I read through the treaty I find ever more grounds for disturbance and concern, as I imagine that we are about to transfer such powers to a treaty arrangement which has never been explained to the British people.
      The last article that I shall discuss is article F. Interestingly, the Leader of the Opposition tabled an amendment to that article that was identical to the one that I had tabled.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: Before my hon. Friend leaves article D, will he explain that the European Council, with all those wonderful new powers, will have a legal obligation to report to the European Parliament but not to national Parliaments?
      Mr. Cash: As ever, my hon. Friend has made a most valuable intervention. The European Council will report only to the European Parliament. That is where the con trick occurs. In all the verbiage and garbage generated to try to justify the treaty we are told that the European Parliament will be given greater powers, yet all that the European Parliament will get here is a report after each of the council's meetings, and a yearly written report on the progress achieved by the union.
      I do not believe that there is any good reason for giving the European Parliament enhanced powers. I believe that we should retain our powers as a sovereign independent state within Europe. But when I was working on the

      237
      Conservative manifesto committee, I was offered a suggestion that would have included the words "sovereign independent state" in the manifesto. Unfortunately, much to my concern, those words disappeared during the proceedings. That demonstrates the basis on which the treaty has been negotiated.
      If the words "sovereign independent state" were taken out of the Conservative manifesto working party paper at about that same time that the Government were beginning to negotiate the treaty, one can begin to understand that the European union they had in mind was not a European union of independent sovereign states.
      I see that my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) is here. He has repeatedly made profoundly useful contributions to the question of independent sovereign states within Europe. We are determined to maintain our position in Parliament and not to allow the treaty to overtake the ancient traditions of this House. I was about to turn to article F3, which I raised on a point of order before we started these proceedings. That—
      It being Ten o'clock THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
      Committee report Progress; to sit again tomorrow.

    ESTIMATES
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 131 (Liaison Committee),
    That this House agrees with the Report [26th November] of the Liaison Committee.—[Mr. Wood.]
    Question agreed to.

  North Sea Haddock Quota
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]
  10.1 pm
  Mr. Alex Salmond: I rise on the Adjournment. For a few seconds, I thought that those in the fishing industry watching and listening to this debate would be impressed by the amount of interest shown in the future of the haddock fishery. I am sorry that so many hon. Members are now leaving.
  I hope that the Minister has been informed that my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) wishes to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, at the end of my contribution. That is wholly appropriate, because the issues that will be raised affect the whole fishing industry round the coast of Scotland and elsewhere.
  This debate takes place on a motion for the Adjournment. It reflects great shame on the Government that, at the end of a vital Fisheries Council last week, no statement was made to the House on the progress or lack of progress of that Council. There was no opportunity in Government time to debate properly the future of this vital industry. There might then have been more time and opportunity for hon. Members to make their particular contributions. I hope that the Minister will first address the question of when fishing will be accorded its proper priority in terms of the proceedings of the House to allow a variety of hon. Members representing fishing communities to put forward their views.
  I hope that the Minister is under no illusions about the consequences of last Monday's abject failure. There was total failure to gain any extension or borrowing forward of the haddock quota. The consequences will be severe. If the Minister had told the House that he had tried his best, but had failed to achieve any progress in Europe, he would have been subject to a variety of criticisms, but at least he would have had an argument and a leg to start on.
  What is intolerable is that the Minister and the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food did not even attempt to argue for the borrowing forward of the haddock quota. The fishing communities of Scotland regard that failure absolutely and utterly inexplicable.
  There are three consequences. As a direct result of the Minister's failure, the industry will move from its current position of total scarcity to one of glut on 1 January, when the haddock quota will zoom up by 120 per cent. on current levels. The industry will move from famine to almost uncontrollable feast. Many industry observers do not believe that the processing sector can cope with 130,000 tonnes of haddock annually. The result of that huge increase in the haddock quota will be glut, depressed prices, and the industry's problems will immediately change as it oscillates from famine to feast.
  In Committee only last week, hon. Members debated the principle of the "Hogmanay haddock". The fish are not to be caught in December, when there is a ready market and keen prices. Exactly the same fish will be available to be caught next month, when there will be a glut and depressed prices. The Minister's failure has subjected the industry to that nonsense. The Minister should reflect on the direct result of his failure—the bleak Christmas that many thousands of people in fishing communities will face as catchers and processors lay up boats and lay off workers.

  239
  One of the remarks in Standing Committee a couple of weeks ago which caused most offence was that of the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. He said that there was no real need for concern because
  "the processing industry in Scotland … has not shut up shop."—[Official Report, European Standing Committee A, 18 November 1992; c. 14.]
  It is extraordinary that a Fisheries Minister can be so oblivious to the problems of the fishing industry as to make such a casual remark.
  At the major demonstration in Aberdeen a week past Friday, that remark was noted by fishing communities. Processors who are trying their best in very difficult conditions not to lay off workers as Christmas approaches found it offensive that the Fisheries Ministers could not even recognise the extent of the problems faced by the processing sector because of the dearth of fresh fish.
  Hon. Members from fishing communities will have been advising constituents at their weekend surgeries on the problems faced by the catching sector, such as obtaining unemployment benefit, which is an extreme problem for many constituents. I should like the Minister at least to tell us that he appreciates the severity of the problems affecting thousands of families in fishing communities.
  There is another consequence which, for many people looking at the long-term future of the industry, is the most severe of all. As a direct consequence of the Minister's failure not to get borrowing forward of the haddock quota at the Fisheries Council, thousands of tonnes of good-quality fish are currently being discarded dead into the North sea.
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: Does my hon. Friend agree that fishing is a sustainable, renewable industry, which is badly mismanaged by the British Government, and that the fishing industry in Arbroath and throughout Scotland has every reason to feel betrayed by a Government whose policy failures will devastate families and fishing communities throughout Scotland?
  Mr. Salmond: My hon. Friend's remarks are well noted. They were universally shared at the fishing rally in Aberdeen a week past Friday. Many people see as the most criminal aspect of the current fisheries mismanagement the fact that good-quality fish could be discarded dead for no useful purpose into the North sea.
  I now refer to why Fisheries Ministers felt unable to take any action. My hon. Friend the Member for Moray and I met the Scottish Fisheries Minister on 21 October, when we first raised the necessity of looking for the advance on next year's quota. He wrote to us last month. He said that it would be "imprudent", in the absence of scientific advice, to borrow forward a quota which was not known. Most of us would say that that is a substantial argument, but, even before the Minister's letter reached me, the quota for next year became known, and of course it is a 120 per cent. increase on this year's quota. So the argument that the Minister presented at that stage was false.
  We were told in Standing Committee that the Government could not argue for this, because it would be difficult in terms of the European negotiations. That struck me as a surprising argument, since haddock is almost
  240
  completely a United Kingdom fish and, for that matter, dominatingly a Scottish fish. No one else in the European Community has a strong vested interest in the haddock quota or in stopping borrowing forward.
  No doubt the Minister will say, "What about the Norwegians?" They have a huge interest in the haddock quota in the North sea, but the simple solution was to borrow forward on the west coast quota, which is 100 per cent. a United Kingdom quota and 90 per cent. a Scottish quota. In the coming year, an increase of 50 per cent. for that quota is forecast. The few thousand tonnes of haddock involved could have been borrowed forward on the west coast quota to address the current crisis in the fishing industry in Scotland, with no complications for the Norwegian negotiations.
  The Minister may tell us that there is no precedent for borrowing forward within the Community. That is not so. It is only some five years since the Community rolled forward the entire fishing year, because Fisheries Ministers were not satisfied at the end of the year that we were progressing sensibly. The fishing year became 14 to 15 months. In addition, the Minister is currently negotiating a change in the common fisheries policy, or perhaps a completely new policy which proposes a multi-annual quota, so no damaging precedent would have been set if they had borrowed forward on the haddock quota.
  Can the Scottish Minister tell us whether the real reason for his inability even to table the proposal last week was not given in Standing Committee by the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, when he said:
  "The industry is fairly divided about whether it is desirable to do that."—[Official Report, European Standing Committee, 18 November 1992; c. 14.]
  The Scottish industry is not divided. Every section of the industry, every producer organisation, every representative organisation, and every representative voice in the processing industry had asked for the same proposal. If the industry was said to be "divided", it can only be a hint that advice was coming from elsewhere against the proposal. The Minister must be honest and tell us whether he was vetoed from putting forward the proposal by objections from elsewhere furth of Scotland.
  It has been suggested by reputable voices in the fishing community that there has been a miscalculation of this year's quota which would explain the extraordinary oscillation of the haddock quota. I have tabled questions, but I hope that the Minister will address that point tonight.
  Finally, I hope that the Scottish Office Minister understands that the Scottish industry is on the march, as was shown in Aberdeen a week past Friday. The Scottish industry will be on the march again a week come this Friday, at a major demonstration at the European summit in Edinburgh. The Minister should not underestimate the anger felt across the fishing communities. I hope that we will get satisfactory explanations tonight. I have never seen a more convincing argument for Scotland needing independence in Europe than the abject failure to represent our fishermen in the European Community last week.
  10.13 pm
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Do I understand that the hon. Lady has informed the Minister?
  Mrs. Ewing: To my knowledge, the Minister's office was informed of my request to participate in the debate, with the agreement of my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond).
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the Minister happy for the hon. Lady to participate in the debate?
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Sir Hector Monro): Yes, indeed.
  Mrs. Ewing: I shall be brief, because the reply from the Minister will be very important to us. In congratulating my hon. Friend on securing the debate, may I say that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) recognise that an Adjournment debate is no substitute for a debate in Government time.
  Since the House resumed its official capacity in mid-October, we have mentioned the need for a debate on the fishing industry in Scotland at every business question time, but those requests have not been granted. They have been pushed aside, and the fishing industry and fishing communities feel offended by that attitude. From the Government's approach, one would think that the industry was not important, but it is vital to Scotland's national economy and to our local communities the length and breadth of the Scottish coastline.
  A week past Friday in Aberdeen, our fishing communities showed dignity and decency as they walked in unity, whether they came from the catching or processing sides of the industry and whether they were directly or indirectly involved. They walked throught the streets of Aberdeen and asked that their voices be heard.
  Given that there will be another demonstration in Edinburgh on 11 December, will the Minister at the very least ensure that the Conservative party is represented on the platform and that it makes its views heard in front of the people of Scotland and of those fishing communities? If the Government continue to treat our people with such contempt, they most certainly do not deserve any respect. Will the Minister or his Back-Bench colleagues—I notice that at least one has had the decency to turn up for this debate—at least show their faces on that occasion?
  10.16 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Sir Hector Monro): I am pleased to be able to reply to the debate obtained by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). Although I realise from his speech that he finds it difficult, he must accept that I take this matter as seriously as he, his colleagues from the Scottish National party and my colleagues do.
  Fishing is of prime importance to Scotland. I shall explain why what happened this year has been extremely unfortunate. I know that the hon. Gentleman finds it difficult, but it is important to accept that North sea haddock has been in a distressed state for several years, yet fishing pressure has remained high.
  Spawning was good in 1991; hence the great increased prospects for 1993. There will be an enhanced total allowable catch because of good spawning during the past two years, and not because the scientists got it wrong. That does not mean that we can immediately return to over-fishing. If we do, we shall return to the cycle of recent years, when there has been an extreme shortage of fish. We cannot allow unlimited fishing at present.
  242
  Let us get the facts right. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will listen. As he knows, in 1992, the total allowable catch of haddock was 60,000 tonnes, and we had to negotiate—with extreme difficulty—with Norway for our 42,640 tonnes quota, which was up 15 per cent. on 1991. He should bear in mind that no one else in the Community has more than 2,000 tonnes, so the haddock quota is significantly a United Kingdom tonnage.
  As the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady know, we fished out that quota by November. Indeed, in some cases it was fished out by October. There were no cuts in the quota—it was fished out earlier than expected purely because fishing pressure was so high and fishing was so expert. Management of the quota is the industry's responsibility. Much of the haddock caught was small and difficult to market and, unfortunately, that helped to reduce prices in mid-summer.
  I agree that the non-sector also fished out its quota, but it has to keep roughly in step with the producer organisations, if the quotas are to be fished out equally. The closure in October was not premature. By that time, we were up to 92 or 93 per cent. of the quota. Subsequently, after the fisheries had been closed, we were up to 98·4 per cent. In the Scottish Fisheries Organisation, Iandings were still coming in six weeks after the closure.
  The scientific information from our Advisory Committee on Fisheries Management is that the quota will be much higher in 1993. That is good news, and we should welcome it. The total allowable catch is likely to be about 133,000 tonnes. Once again, we will need to go into detailed negotiations with Norway. I expect that we will receive between 70,000 and 80,000 tonnes of North sea haddock, which is almost double what we have this year.
  Mr. Salmond rose—
  Sir Hector Monro: There is a constraint on time, so I must press on.
  The quota for cod will be much the same next year, and the quota for whiting will be down slightly. Fishermen will be encouraged to know that they can begin fishing in four weeks time with a substantially increased quota.
  The west coast fisheries will have an increased quota for haddock, although not so much as in the North sea, and a small increase in the quotas for cod and whiting. Broadly speaking, the prospects for next year look much better.
  It is unreasonable for the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan to allege that I did not take action. I want to make that matter absolutely clear. As someone who has been preaching about Scotland in Europe for a long time, the hon. Gentleman should begin to understand how Europe works—he has no idea whatever. He thinks that he can drift to Brussels or Luxembourg, wave his arms and all the other countries will fall at his feet and accept exactly what he asks.
  Mr. Salmond rose—
  Sir Hector Monro: No, the hon. Gentleman can wait until I have made further progress.
  In early October, my officials foresaw the problem, and immediately commenced discussions with officials and the Council in Brussels and Luxembourg. When I raised the matter at the Council on 19 October, it was clear that no one would grant us an advance of quota, especially in the light of the reputation that we had earned during the year for the production of black fish. Nevertheless, although

  243
  the council said no in October, our officials kept up the pressure and did everything possible to obtain an advance of quota, but it simply was not possible. We tried swaps and all means to obtain quota for our Scottish fishermen.
  One day, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan will get to Europe in some capacity. However, he will not get very far if he does not understand how the Council of Ministers works and how the Council of Europe works generally.
  Mr. Barry Porter: I hesitate to intervene in matters of a Caledonian nature. I do not know much about haddock, cod or whatever.
  Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In an Adjournment debate, is it normal for a Minister to give way to another hon. Member when he has already refused to give way to the hon. Member whose had the Adjournment debate?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): It is for the Minister to decide to whom to give way.
  Mr. Porter: Is the Minister satisfied, not so much with the arrangements that have been made in the European Community, as with the policing of them?
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is a complete abuse of an Adjournment debate by a Scottish Member.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.
  Mr. Porter: I am part of the United Kingdom Parliament. I am merely asking whether the Minister is satisfied with the policing arrangements for the quantity of fish which is taken by countries other than the United Kingdom.
  Sir Hector Monro: I am certainly not satisfied. I want other countries to meet our standards in terms of policing the quota system and the days-at-sea system.
  I made it quite clear to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan that we had made every conceivable effort. He must bear in mind the fact that, even if there had been a chink of light, it would have meant returning to Norway to discuss the matter with the Norwegians. Whatever precedent the hon. Gentleman likes to trot out, it would not have taken us forward.
  The hon. Gentleman has said some irresponsible things to the press.
  Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister give way?
  Sir Hector Monro: No, I shall not give way, as I am trying to finish my speech in four minutes.
  Mr. Salmond: The Minister gave way to his hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter).
  Sir Hector Monro: That was, perhaps, a mistake.
  The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan has made some irresponsible statements. The rules were absolutely clear. It is much more important to ensure that we obtain better results in 1993 than we did this year. That is what we intend to do.
  244
  In Scottish Fishing Weekly, The hon. Gentleman said that it was criminal for the Government to refuse to borrow the quota. It was absolutely impossible to do so, and he must accept that.
  Mr. Salmond indicated dissent.
  Sir Hector Monro: He is shaking his head as if he were able to control the Council of Ministers in Europe. That shows how out of touch he is with the practicality in Europe.
  The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) spoke in the same way when she said that the matter was equivalent to the highland clearances, which is a gross exaggeration of the present position. Nobody has tried harder than my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I. My hon. Friend knows as well as I that we have done our level best to obtain the best possible arrangments for our fishermen in Europe next year.
  Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister give way?
  Sir Hector Monro: If the hon. Gentleman will let me finish what I am saying, I shall then give way. He must accept that we made positive gains at the last Council—we obtained gains from the multi-annual guidance programme, which was reduced to 20 per cent., 15 per cent. and zero. That was a substantial improvement on the reduction in fishing that there might have been over the next four years.
  We have retained the Shetland box, the Hague preference, the six and 12-mile limits. The stability issue is important relative to the quota split. We have also obtained segmentation of demersal, pelagic, and nephrops fishing. We have introduced decommissioning. Nobody was shouting louder about decommissioning than the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan 12 months ago—now we have obtained it. It is most important that the hon. Gentleman realises the positive input that we have made to help fishermen in the United Kingdom and Scotland in recent weeks.
  Mr. Salmond: I have listened to the Minister's excuses, but we have had no answer to the basic question: why was the request not tabled at the Fisheries Council? When the Minister of State, Minstry of Agriculture, said on Wednesday before the Fisheries Council that the industry was divided on the issue, what exactly did he mean? Was that the real reason why the Minister did not come forward and represent Scottish fishermen as he should have done in the European Community?
  Sir Hector Monro: One day—or perhaps never—the hon. Gentleman will learn a little about diplomacy in international negotiations. He must accept that some things are written down, some things are achievable and some things are not. It was absolutely impossible to obtain an advance on quota for next year. If we had obtained an advance quota, next August or September we might well have been in the same position as we are now.
  The capabilities of the Scottish fishing fleet in capacity are enormous. There is no difficulty at all in catching thousands of tonnes of quota, as we have seen this year, when the fishermen put their minds to it. So I hope the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will realise that we did have a debate in which he and his hon. Friends had free range of subjects on fishing. That was in Standing

  245
  Committee a fortnight ago. They made a very valuable contribution which was helpful when we went to Brussels to discuss the MAGP.
  In the debate around the end of the year on the important Fisheries Council to take place later this month, we shall be coming to the announcement about the exact quotas for fishing.
  Mrs. Ewing: What about the tie-up position?
  Sir H. Monro: The rumours one hears about eight or ten-day tie-ups are but rumours. The hon. Lady knows what I think about them, from the debate we had two years ago. I hope very much that we are not in that position, particularly bearing in mind the very strict restrictions that we have in this country, and which we will be in a position to enforce later on if the Bill now before another place becomes law. There is a great deal ahead in terms of restrictions.
  The hon. Lady must understand that, if we were not tough on fishing quotas, we would have very few fish to catch, and the fishing industry would be in decline. We are
  246
  determined as a Government to see the fishing industry prosper. We shall be in that position next year and will see the fishing industry prosper, because quotas will be substantially more than they were this year. I believe that this is the right way to assist the fishing fleet. That is of the greatest importance to this Government, whatever the hon. Gentleman says about our efforts over recent months.
  Lastly, I reiterate that it was simply impossible to obtain an advance quota. If it had been, we would have achieved it.
  Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you clarify the rules on interruptions during Adjournment debates? I was certainly under the impression that no-one could interrupt a debate without the permission of the hon. Member—
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at twenty-nine minutes to Eleven o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the estimate of his Department of the numbers of adults who(a) are at present liable to pay a contribution for civil legal aid and (b) are not at present liable to pay a contribution towards the cost of civil legal aid but would become so under the Lord Chancellor's proposals.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Information on eligibility for legal aid is available only on the basis of percentages of households. We estimate that about 23 per cent. of households are currently eligible for civil legal aid with a contribution. The proportion of households which are not at present liable to pay a contribution but will become so under the changes recently announced is estimated at 14 per cent.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Pakistan
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he plans to take to persuade the Pakistani authorities to review the death sentence for blasphemy passed on the Christian, Gul Masih; and what representations he has made to the Pakistani Government concerning the treatment of religious minorities in Pakistan.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have been carefully monitoring the position of all minorities in Pakistan, including Christians, for some time. We have regularly made our concerns known to the Pakistan Government, most recently on 30 November with the Pakistan Foreign Secretary, Shaharyar Khan. We understand that the case of Mr. Gul Masih has gone to appeal.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the Government first became aware of aircraft flying in logistical or any other support of combat forces in the air exclusion zone over Bosnia-Herzegovina before 16 November.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Since the establishment of air and ground-based observation, we have become aware of reports of flights by military aircraft which have not been approved by the United Nations protection force. We have had no confirmation of the purpose of such flights, or evidence that the aircraft were used in combat missions.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his oral 86
  answer to the hon. Member for Western Isles on 25 November, Official Report, column 854, to what extent the ban on military flights imposed by United Nations resolutions 781 and 786 is limited to aircraft flying combat missions; and to what extent it extends to any flights with a military purpose, with the exceptions of the United Nations protection force flights or other flights in support of United Nations operations or resolutions.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  United Nations Security Council resolutions 781 and 786 ban military flights in the airspace above Bosnia-Herzegovina. The ban does not apply to UNPROFOR flights or to other flights in support of United Nations operations, including humanitarian assistance.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what definition he uses of aircraft flying combat missions in his assessment of contraventions of the exclusion zone over Bosnia-Herzegovina.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The United Nations protection force has produced guidelines which define a military flight for the purposes of United Nations Security Council resolutions 781 and 786 as any flight by a fixed-wing or rotary aircraft that has a military purpose. This excludes flights with a humanitarian purpose, or which are judged by UNPROFOR to be in the pursuance of the peace process.

  We have no confirmed reports of aircraft being involved in combat activity over Bosnia-Herzegovina since 13 October.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will now make it his policy in the Security Council of the United Nations to press for further measures necessary to enforce the ban on military flights in the airspace of Bosnia and Herzegovina, as provided for in resolution 786.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The United Nations Security Council made clear in resolution 786 its determination to consider urgently further measures necessary to enforce the ban on military flights over Bosnia-Herzegovina in the case of further violations reported to it.

  Research Projects
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 19 October,Official Report, column 27, how many scientists working on these projects had to sign the Official Secrets Acts or agree to any restrictions on publication or discussion of the project; and how many projects in universities and polytechnics which were funded by the Government Communications Headquarters were signed in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Five scientists working on the projects listed in my answer of 19 October have signed the Official Secrets Act. The research commissioned by GCHQ is confined to unclassified subjects, as stated in my answer of 29 June, but there are clearly benefits to GCHQ to be able to discuss the context in which the research will be useful to them, and this of necessity involves revealing classified information to some of those involved.

  The numbers of research contracts signed in each year since 1979 are as follows:

  87

  Institutions

  Number of contracts

  1979

  University of Birmingham

  1

  University of Surrey

  1

  1980

  Loughborough University of Technology

  1

  1981

  University of Sheffield

  2

  1982

  University of Sheffield

  1

  University of Surrey

  3

  University of York

  2

  1983

  University of Leicester

  2

  University of York

  1

  1984

  University of Sheffield

  1

  1985

  Cheltenham and Gloucester College of Higher Education

  1

  University of Leicester

  1

  Plymouth Polytechnic

  1

  1986

  Imperial College, London

  1

  University of York

  1

  Cheltenham and Gloucester College of Higher Education

  1

  University of Leicester

  1

  University of Manchester

  1

  1987

  Plymouth Polytechnic

  1

  University of Leicester

  1

  Cheltenham and Gloucester College of Higher Education

  1

  1988

  Plymouth Polytechnic

  2

  1989

  Cambridge University

  1

  1990

  University of Leicester

  1

  1991

  University of Leicester

  3

  University of York

  1

  Oxford University

  1

  1992

  University of York

  2

  Cheltenham and Gloucester College of Higher Education

  1

  I have asked GCHQ to confirm the titles and cost of the projects referred to above and will write to the hon. Member when I have the full list.

  During research for this question, a further contract has come to light which should have been included in my earlier answer. The contract signed in 1990 with the university of Leicester was worth £1,700. This should be added to the sum given in my answer of 29 June to give a total of £528,200. The contract was for testing and integration of DF subsystems.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the average time taken by the Ministers in his Department, including himself, to answer letters from hon. Members, in each of the first three quarters of 1992, measuring the time from the receipt of the letter to the dispatch of the substantive reply.

  Mr. Goodlad
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) on 3 November, at col 173.

  Running Costs
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress he has made in achieving the target of a reduction of 1·5 per cent. in his Department's running costs for the present financial year, in the first half of this financial year; and what specifically has been saved, by what means and in what areas of his responsibility.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office diplomatic and aid (Overseas Development Administration) Wings are expected to achieve efficiency savings of 2·3 per cent. and 2·74 per cent. respectively on running costs for 1992–93, thus exceeding the minimum target of 1·5 per cent.

  The target areas for savings include relocation, staff reductions, overseas security, overseas estate, energy efficiency, training, travel, communications and information systems.

  Neo-Nazi Activities
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Governments of the former Soviet Union concerning neo-Nazi and extreme right-wing activities in these countries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We look to all countries of the former Soviet Union to live up to their obligations and commitments in respect of human rights, including the rights of ethnic and religious minorities. We use appropriate opportunities to express to their Governments our concern about the activities of extremist groupings of all persuasions.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Governments of Germany, Spain, and France concerning neo-nazi activities in those countries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Her Majesty's Government are very alert to the rise in attacks against foreigners in Europe. So are the Governments of Germany, France and Spain. The European Council has twice issued declarations expressing its condemnation of racism and xenophobia: at Dublin in June 1990 and at Maastricht in December 1991. The European Parliament also issued resolutions on the subject during its plenary sessions in March and November this year. The problem is being addressed both at the European and national level.

  Acquired Rights Directive
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the effects of the acquired rights directive on(a) services which his Departments contracts out and(b)services which he plans to contract out in the future; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is fully aware of its obligation to take account of the effects of the Transfer of Undertaking (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 (TUPE), the British law based on the acquired rights directive, and of the directive itself, when contracting out any services, but the detailed implications have to be assessed in each particular case; it is not possible to generalise.

  European Union
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs under what circumstances and constitutional procedures he expects to deposit instruments of ratification in respect of titles I, V and VI of the treaty on European union with the President of the Italian Republic as required by that treaty.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The United Kingdom's instrument of ratification will be deposited with the Italian Government once we have given effect in United Kingdom law to those provisions of the treaty of European union which amend the European Community treaties previously enacted here. The instrument of ratification will cover all titles of the treaty on European union.

  Iraq
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what responses have been made to requests and reports received from the United Nations special commission of inspection in Iraq or its executive chairman, Rolf Ekeus; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding reply, 26 November]: The Government have made a significant contribution to the work of the United Nations special commission on Iraq as it seeks to implement relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. In response to UNSCOM's requests, we have supplied personnel for the UNSCOM inspection teams and some specialised equipment. It is not our practice to comment in detail on the information given to us by UNSCOM.

TRANSPORT

  Aviation
  Mr. Deva
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what conclusions he has reached on the case for compulsory third party insurance in aviation, in the light of the single market in aviation.

  Mr. Norris
  The EC licensing regulation (council regulation (EEC) No. 2407/92 of 23 July 1992), which is part of the single market in aviation, introduces from 1 January 1993 a statutory requirement for air carriers to hold insurance to cover liability in case of accidents in 90
  respect of passengers, luggage, cargo, mail and third parties. Any air transport operator established within the European Community and operating commercially will, with minor exceptions, be subject to this requirement as a condition of holding the new operating licence—which all Community air carriers will need to have.

  My Department had already been examining the case for a general scheme, within the United Kingdom only, of compulsory third party insurance for all United Kingdom operators and pilots. In the light of consultation with the Civil Aviation Authority and the insurance industry (and in the light of the new EC requirement), my officials have found no reason to doubt that the great majority of United Kingdom operators and pilots do already hold insurance in respect of third parties. Accordingly, taking into account the new EC requirement, I see no reason to add to bureaucracy and administrative costs by introducing a separate United Kingdom scheme.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the average time taken by the Ministers in his Department, including himself, to answer letters from hon. Members, in each of the first three quarters of 1992, measuring the time from the receipt of the letter to the dispatch of the substantive reply.

  Mr. Norris
  The average time taken by Ministers in the Department of Transport, including the Secretary of State, to answer letters from hon. Members, in each of the first three quarters of 1992, measuring the time from the receipt of the letter to the despatch of the substantive reply is as follows:

  1 January—31 March—average response time=14·93 working days.

  1 April—30 June—average response time=15·98 working days.

  1 July—30 September—average response time=14·83 working days.

  The target for ministerial correspondence in the Department of transport from letter in to reply out is 15 working days or less.

  Running Costs
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress he has made in achieving the target of a reduction of 1·5 per cent. in his Department's running costs for the present financial year, in the first half of this financial year; and what specifically has been saved, by what means and in what areas of his responsibility.

  Mr. Norris
  My Department's running costs budget for financial year 1992–93 contains planned savings significantly in excess of 1·5 per cent.

  The review of running costs at the mid-point of the financial year showed that the Department was within budget. The forecast outturn for the full year is also forecast to be within budget.

  The savings initiatives are wide-ranging and varied. They include the continued equipment of most administrative staff with word processors, which has allowed the closure of a typing pool and a reduction in the number of typists, the computerisation of traffic area offices and a reduction in their number from eleven to eight, the contracting out of stationery and publications, energy conservation measures, and reductions in accommodation

  91
  costs, as well as initiatives across the whole Department at working level to improve the effectiveness with which all resources are used.

  Further details of the efficiency targets set by my Department are given in the departmental management plan 1992–95, a copy of which is in the House of Commons Library.

  Red Routes
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much money has been allocated to the London boroughs of(a) Haringey, (b) Islington and(c)Tower Hamlets for work related to red routes since these were introduced.

  Mr. Norris
  The latest estimates of expenditure on approved works for the red route pilot scheme are as follows:

  £

  (a) Haringey

  778,000

  (b) Islington

  1,111,000

  (c) Tower Hamlets

  1,490,000

  A further £526,000 has been provided for works in Hackney.

  Rail Privatisation
  Sir Keith Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list all the individuals and organisations he has consulted over his Department's current rail privatisation proposals.

  Mr. Freeman
  Many individuals and organisations have been consulted, and many others have volunteered their

  Trunk roads and motorways in England: new construction expenditure (cash)

  £ million

  Transport Regions

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  5 year Total

  Eastern

  79·7

  61·8

  69·6

  209·0

  240·5

  660·6

  South Eastern

  68·6

  121·0

  214·5

  313·0

  320·3

  1,037·4

  North Western

  56·1

  71·4

  63·9

  102·0

  100·0

  393·3

  West Midlands

  85·0

  162·3

  213·5

  165·5

  193·0

  819·3

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  56·1

  39·4

  30·2

  41·3

  48·7

  215·7

  South Western

  93·6

  103·3

  92·2

  119·4

  122·8

  531·3

  East Midlands

  29·7

  73·7

  88·0

  152·8

  100·7

  444·9

  Northern

  28·9

  39·1

  58·1

  55·3

  34·4

  215·8

  London

  59·1

  53·0

  124·5

  121·4

  141·6

  499·6

  Total (Cash)

  556·8

  725·0

  954·5

  1,279·5

  1,302·0

  4,817·9

  Total (GDP deflated constant 1992–93 prices)

  708·9

  884·7

  1,115·9

  1,411·0

  1,355·1

  5,475·7

  A27 (Improvements)
  Mr. Higgins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate the amount which would be payable under the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 if his preferred route for the A27 Worthing-Lancing improvements scheme went ahead; and what is the corresponding amount for the bypass north of Cissbury ring.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The estimated sums payable under the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 are £22·84 million for the published route and £837,000 for the route north of Cissbury ring at current prices. These sums are
  92
  views. They include the British Railways Board, railway trade unions, local authorities, rail user consultative committees and other consumer groups, the CBI, commercial enterprises and financial institutions.

  Road Building
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much his Department has spent in each of the last five years on new road building; if he will give the figures for each region; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The Department of Transport has spent £4·8 billion on the new construction of motorways and trunk roads in England in the period 1987–88 to 1991–92, broken down as follows:

  £ million

  1987–88

  557

  1988–89

  725

  1989–90

  955

  1990–91

  1,280

  1991–92

  1,302

  Total

  4,818

  The table sets out the expenditure by region.

  In real terms (GDP deflated), expenditure rose 91 per cent. over the five years; investment in new roads has increased further to £1,446 million in 1992–93, and will rise to the record level of £1,496 million by 1994–95. This funding is being used to make excellent progress with the road programme; since 1987–88 we have completed 604 miles of new motorway and trunk roads, including 72 bypasses.

  included in the "land cost" estimates shown in the recently published brochure for the A27 Worthing-Lancing scheme.

  Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representation his Department has received from the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  My right hon. Friend has not received any representations recently from the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors, although it did send him a copy of its letter of 1 October to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor about the importance of investment in transport infrastructure. We have had a number of useful
  93
  discussions with the federation this year, and there is a regular dialogue with the Department which has enabled a helpful exchange of views on various matters.

  Main Line Rail Services
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will establish a target date by which time all major freight and passenger ports and airports will be served by a main line railway.

  Mr. Freeman
  No. The provision of railway infrastructure is a matter for the British Railways Board.

  Out of Town Shopping
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research has been conducted by his Department into the effect of the development of out of town shopping facilities on the level of car journeys undertaken.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  There are two research projects currently in hand:(a) a series of traffic surveys on trip attraction rates at different sites for a variety of land uses, including retailing, in London and the south-east; and (b) a joint DOE/DOT commission to investigate the relationship between land use and trip generation, and identify measures to reduce the need to travel.

  Private Sidings and Rail Schemes
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to amend the criteria for section 8 payments for developing private sidings and rail schemes by(a) broadening the environmental criteria referred to to include motorways and trunk-roads and take account of congestion, (b) increasing the lorry sensitive mile value,(c) reducing the minimum qualifying period for asset use(d) the widening of the scheme to include intermodal operations.

  Mr. Freeman
  The criteria for the payment of freight facilities grants were broadened last year and we are continuing to keep their effectiveness under review. The grants scheme will require amendment in due course to reflect the privatisation and liberalisation of rail freight.

  Combined transport operations are eligible for grant.

  Traffic Calming
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the effect of traffic calming measures on the level of traffic on nearby roads.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Traffic calming measures can have the effect of displacing traffic onto nearby roads. We have advised highway authorities that traffic calming schemes need to be developed within an overall strategy for the roads in their areas.

  The Department, through the Transport Research Laboratory, has studied some 60 traffic calming schemes introduced by local authorities. A preliminary assessment indicates that there has not been an increase in accidents on the surrounding road network.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will review his Department's guidelines for local highways authorities on traffic calming measures.
  94
  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Advice and guidance on traffic calming is kept under review and brought up to date in the light of experience, changes in the law and the results of research.

  My Department is currently working on traffic calming regulations, under provisions of the Traffic Calming Act 1992. We aim to undertake a public consultation soon and lay regulations before the House in the new year.

  Motoring Campaigns
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what publicity campaigns have been launched by his Department during 1991 and to date in 1992 highlighting(a) the importance of proper car maintenance, (b) reduction of speed for (i) cars and (ii) lorries, (c) acceleration and braking and (d) encouragement of public transport usage; and what is the amount allocated to each individual campaign.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  During 1991 and 1992 the Department launched two major television advertising campaigns (with the slogan "Kill your speed, not a child") aimed at the reduction of driving speed in residential areas. The amounts allocated to this campaign were £1·2 million in 1991 and £2·3 million in 1992.

  A number of campaigns launched in 1991 and 1992 have addressed issues raised by the hon. Member, for example:

  April 1991

  Travel Safely by Public Transport.

  June 1991

  Transport and the Environment. Included information on benefits of public transport.

  August 1991

  Safer, Cleaner, Wiser Driving. Leaflet issued with all vehicle licence renewals for 12 months. Included advice on maintenance.

  September 1991

  Advice on new Road Traffic Act provisions. Leaflet issued with vehicle licence renewals for 12 months. Included advice about unroadworthy vehicles.

  June 1992

  Blunt Instrument public service information film for television. Encourages reduction of driving speed in residential areas.

  July 1992

  Easy Ways to Save Fuel. Leaflet issued with vehicle licence renewals for 12 months. Includes advice on braking and accelerating and on use of public transport.

  Many of these initiatives form part of wider campaigns covering a number of related issues, and it is not possible to provide costs in the form requested by the hon. Member.

  A12 Dualling (Suffolk)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his latest estimate of the cost of dualling the A12 in Suffolk, including a new crossing at Lake Lothing; and if he wil make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 30 November 1992]: The cost of dualling the A12 in Suffolk is currently estimated to be £197 million. This figure includes £82 million for the Lowestoft relief road and second harbour crossing.

  Speed Limits
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the changes he has announced on speed limits to be in operation; and if he will make a statement.
  95
  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 30 November 1992]: A draft order was laid before the House on 23 November, seeking to remove the requirement for local authorities to obtain the Department's consent before establishing a speed limit on a principal road. This is subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses but I hope to be in a position to make the order by January 1993.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Guildford Four
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what documents the security services have disclosed to Sir John May's inquiry into the Guildford Four convictions and on what terms.

  Mr. Jack
  None.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what evidence his Department has supplied to Sir John May's inquiry into the Guildford four convictions; and on what terms.

  Mr. Jack
  We provided Sir John May with documents relating to the consideration given by the Home Office to representations which were made about the safety of the convictions of the Guildford Four. These documents were supplied to Sir John on a confidential basis and with his understanding and agreement that he would discuss with us any question of their further use which might arise in the course of his inquiry.

  Windsor Castle
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has regarding advice given to authorities responsible to Windsor castle on fire safety precautions.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The royal household is responsible for providing suitable fire safety precautions for Windsor castle. In doing so they may seek advice from whatever sources they consider to be most appropriate.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from Berkshire fire brigade on the advice offered to the authorities at Windsor castle in respect of fire safety precautions, specifying the nature of the recommendations and the dates upon which they were made.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for fire safety at Windsor castle and at all occupied royal residences has been vested in the royal household since 1 April 1991. The royal household may seek advice from any source. Her Majesty's chief inspector of fire services has asked for a full report on the fire from the chief officer of the Royal Berkshire fire and rescue service, which will include details of any fire safety advice provided by his brigade.

  Car Boot Sales
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the connection between car boot sales and burglary.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Clearly there may be instances of car boot sales being used to dispose of stolen property.96
  However, there is no evidence that the majority of traders at car boot sales are anything other than law abiding citizens.

  May Inquiry
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the cost so far of Sir John May's inquiry into the Guildford and Woolwich pub bombings.

  Mr. Jack
  Sir John May's inquiry was established in October 1989. Up to the end of October 1992, the inquiry had incurred expenditure of £1,357,000. Most of this expenditure relates to the Maguire case. The amount that can be attributed to the inquiry into the Guildford and Woolwich convictions can be identified only at disproportionate cost.

  National Identification Bureau
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the functions of the National Identification Bureau; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The National Identification Bureau provides police forces with confirmation of the identity of arrested persons through the matching of sets of fingerprints; supplies details of arrested and convicted persons for prosecution, investigative and other purposes; maintains, to these ends, the national collections of fingerprints and criminal records; operates a national index of selected criminal methods; circulates details of wanted persons to forces through the Police Gazette; and facilitates the exercise by members of the public of their rights of subject access to the police national computer under the Data Protection Act 1984.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the averge time taken by the Ministers in his Department, including himself, to answer letters from hon. Members, in each of the first three quarters of 1992, measuring the time from the receipt of the letter to the dispatch of the substantive reply.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The figures for the period in question are not currently available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. New monitoring arrangements came into effect on 1 October 1992 and it is my intention to make available in the Official Report, early next year, performance figures showing the volume of ministerial correspondence from hon. Members in 1992, the targets set for reply and the percentage of replies sent within target.

  Running Costs
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made in achieving the target of a reduction of 1·5 per cent. in his Department's running costs for the present financial year, in the first half of this financial year; and what specifically has been saved by what means and in what areas of his responsibility.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The planned efficiency saving on Home Office running costs for the present financial year is £24·7 million, or 1·7 per cent. of the estimated outturn on
  97
  running costs. The Home Office has already made

  Home Office: Running cost efficiency. savings for the first half of 1992–93 financial year

  Department

  1991–92 (first half) running cost efficiency savings (£k)

  Achieved through

  Prison service

  6,056

  Increased manpower productivity.

  Police department

  7,000

  Rationalisation of maintenance resources and savings from relocation in the Directorate of Telecommunications, civilianisation in District Training Centres and economies of scale in the Police National Computer Organisation.

  Criminal and research and statistics departments

  101

  Productivity gains in the Attendance Centre Network, computerisation of drugs related activities and the more effective use of human and computer resources in statistical analysis.

  Immigration and nationality department

  35

  Relocation savings and productivity gains in nationality and citizenship activities.

  Finance department

  263

  Productivity savings in Budget Support Group and improvements in purchasing and supply management in the Home Office Procurement Unit.

  Fire department

  377

  Contracting out of maintenance and storage of the Emergency Fire Service and staff efficiency savings.

  Establishment department

  536

  Productivity savings in Personnel Management Division and computerisation and increased productivity at ED5 (computers and payroll).

  Forensic science service

  200

  Improved caseworking productivity.

  Passport agency

  120

  Improved purchasing methods and better stock control.

  Total Home Office running cost efficiency savings

  14,688

  Acquired Rights Directive
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the effects of the acquired rights directive on(a) services his Department contracts out and (b) services he plans to contract out in the future; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The possible effects of relevant employment legislation have been taken into account in any consideration of the contracting out of my Department's services.

  The main functions to be market-tested to September 1993 were published in the citizens charter White Paper (Cm 2101) on 25 November 1992. The impact of the acquired rights directive and Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 will be fully taken into account, and legal opinion sought on a case-by-case basis.

  Prison Education
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he intends to ensure quality and high standards in the delivery of prison education.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Government consider that competition is the best guarantee of quality and value for money. The report from the Education, Science and Arts Committee on prison education in 1990/91 (HC 311) and reports from Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons have commented that, under the present arrangements, the quality of education provision varies considerably between different establishments. Through more detailed specification of requirements, competition and more rigorous monitoring, the aim is to ensure that, in future, education programmes delivered to prisoners are of a consistently high quality.
  98
  efficiency savings of £14·7 million on its running costs in the first half of 1992–93. Details of these savings are set out in the table.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to re-organise the delivery of the prison education service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on 27 October at column 581–2. Invitations to tender for the future provision of educational services in prisons and young offender institutions were issued on 30 October and are due for return on 7 December.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimates he has made of the effects of the acquired rights directive on his plans to put prison education out to competitive tendering.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The legal advice received by the prison service is that, where there is a transfer of an undertaking for the purposes of the acquired rights directive and the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, then the directive will apply. The directive does not apply where there is not a transfer of an undertaking. Competitive tendering for the future provision of education services in a prison establishment would not necessarily lead to such a transfer.

  Wolds Remand Centre
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners at the Wolds remand centre are segregated under rule 43 or any similar arrangements.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  At unlock on 27 November 1992, there were five prisoners segregated under rule 43 for good order and discipline. A further 21 were segregated under the same rule at their own request.

  Sea Defence
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the future of the sea defence and river flooding early warning siren from April 1993.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The obsolete national air raid warning siren network is to be closed as soon as possible. My officials have approached those local authorities which are understood to use the siren system for flood warning purposes and have asked them whether they wish to retain the equipment for such future use and to be responsible for its upkeep. Arrangements will be made to effect retention where it is sought.

  Shops Act
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his statement of 26 November relating to the Shops Act 1950—Official Report, columns 997–98—if he will set out the grounds on which he considers the Shops Act 1950 to be in abeyance; and if he will make a statement on the consequences for local authorities.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Pending the decision of the European Court, there is doubt whether the provisions for Sunday trading in the Shops Act 1950 are consistent with Community law, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary made it clear to the House on 26 November that, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General explained to the House on 11 May at columns 367–68, local authorities can still issue summonses and apply for interim injunctions against retailers. Local authorities must decide for themselves what action to take.

  Fire Precautions (Places of Work) Regulations
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has completed his consideration of comments on the proposals for the Fire Precautions (Places of Work) Regulations 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The consultation process drew an excellent response, and I am grateful to all those who contributed to it. While many who responded were generally content, some valid criticisms did emerge. It was also evident that the possible impact of the regulations had in many cases been misunderstood.

  I intend, therefore, to give further and fresh consideration to the content of the draft regulations. We will not now introduce them on 1 January 1993 as originally planned. My aim will be to simplify the regulations and to limit their scope in order to reduce unnecessary burdens on business and those charged with enforcement responsibilities. The associated technical guidance will be redrafted in order to clarify our intentions. It will also be supplemented by a simplified guide for the owners of small businesses.

  I shall bring forward fresh proposals for consultations in due course.

  Probation
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the projected numbers of persons who will be supervised by the probation service on licence after release from custody for each of the next three years.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 26 November 1992]: Estimates based on the latest prison projections will be produced in the new year.

  Fire Regulations
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what fire regulations are imposed on(a) English stately homes which are open to the public and(b) to Windsor castle.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Under the Fire Precautions Act 1971, the use of premises or parts of premises as an office, shop, factory, railway premises, hotel or boarding house where the numbers of people involved are above certain minima may require a fire certificate. Any part of a stately home or of Windsor castle that falls within these categories may therefore be subject to the provisions of the 1971 Act.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Natural Resources Institute
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 6 November,Official Report, columns 426–27, what has been the cost to the Exchequer of the chief executive of the Natural Resources Institute's visit to Wageningen, Netherlands on 8 May.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Natural Resources Institute under its chief executive, Mr. Anthony Beattie. A copy of his reply is attached.

  Letter from Anthony Beattie to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 27 November 1992:
  Lady Chalker has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question about my visit to Wageningen last May.
  The visit was combined with one to Amsterdam in connection with NRI's participation in the European Consortium for Agricultural Research in the Tropics. The additional costs associated with the visit to the Centre for Tropical Agriculture in Wageningen were £113·97.
  In my letter to you of 28 October I gave the date of my visit to Wageningen as 8 May. This should have read 13 May, an error for which I apologise.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Windsor Castle
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what part of the Chester tower at Windsor castle has been open to the public; and on what occasions this has occurred over the past five years.

  Mr. Brooke
  The Chester tower is not open to the public. It comprises a small number of state rooms which are used for state occasions only, together with office and staff accommodation.
  101
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what insurance against fire loss or damage exists in relation to the fabric of Windsor castle and the furnishings and artefacts therein.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 30 November]: The fabric of the occupied royal palaces has never been insured since it is almost impossible to put a value on such buildings. Where damage occurs, the cost of repairs is met from the annual works programme funded by my Department. The Government bear insurance risks themselves, since it is far more economic to do this than to pay annual premiums on Crown property.

  Items in the royal collection are insured against damage but not loss. Other contents are insured.

  Hampton Court Fire
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what help was offered to the royal household to meet the cost of additional or alternative fire precautions to Windsor castle, following the fire at Hampton Court and the subsequent publication of the report of the inquiry into that fire.

  Mr. Brooke
  There have been significant increases in resources for the royal household works programme in recent years to provide for fire prevention programmes at Windsor castle and the other royal residences. The total cost of the programme for rewiring and other works at Windsor castle has been £20 million, including a substantial amount for fire protection.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what advice was tendered to the royal household following the fire at Hampton Court and the subsequent publication of the report of the inquiry into that fire.

  Mr. Brooke
  The royal household received advice on fire safety from PSA after the Hampton Court fire, and that advice was fully incorporated into the designing of works projects at Windsor castle and other royal residences. The household now employs its own fire consultants.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what was the average time taken by the Ministers in his Department, including himself, to answer letters from hon. Members, in each of the first three quarters of 1992, measuring the time from the receipt of the letter to the dispatch of the substantive reply.

  Mr. Brooke
  As my Department was established in April 1992, I can supply estimates of the time taken to respond to hon. Members' letters for the second and third quarters of 1992. The average was approximately 16 working days in the second quarter and 17 working days in the third.

  Accounts (Confidentiality)
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will bring forward legislation to prohibit the offering by newspapers of financial inducements to staff of banks and credit card companies to divulge confidential information about customers' accounts.
  102
  Mr. Brooke
  I shall consider what, if any, action needs to be taken when I have received and studied Sir David Calcutt's report on press self-regulation. Meanwhile, I have no plans for legislation.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of when the United Kingdom will meet the convergence criteria for EMU.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Government are determined to ensure that the United Kingdom economy is able to meet the convergence criteria so that the United Kingdom can choose whether or not to move to the third stage of EMU.

  Company Cars
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will bring forward proposals to treat all company cars and company car parking provision as income for taxable purposes.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Employees are already taxed on the benefit of cars made available for private use by employers. Car parking provided by employers for employees was exempted from tax as a benefit in the Finance Act 1988.

  Car Tax
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue was received from special car tax in 1990–91 and 1991–92; and what is his estimate for 1992–93.

  Sir John Cope
  Car tax raised £1·5 billion in 1990–91 and £1·2 billion in 1991–92. Following the reduction in the rate from 10 per cent. to 5 per cent. in the 1992 Budget, the yield for 1992–93 was estimated to be £0·7 billion. This forecast was revised down to £0·6 billion prior to the autumn statement, reflecting depressed car sales. Following abolition of the tax with effect from 12 November, this estimate has been revised to £0·5 billion.

  Charities
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will bring forward proposals to exempt charities from VAT.

  Sir John Cope
  I have no plans to add to the existing wide range of VAT reliefs already in place for charities and the voluntary sector.

  Maastricht Treaty
  Mr. Duncan-Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans Her Majesty's Government have to seek amendment of the Maastricht treaty so as to alter the dates for commencement of stages two and three of economic and monetary union.

  Mr. Nelson
  We have no such plans to do so.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many civil servants are currently employed by his Department(a) in London and (b) elsewhere.
  103
  Mr. Nelson
  There are 1,350 in London and 640 elsewhere, based on staff in post at 1 November 1992.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Sprout
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average time taken by the Ministers in his Department, including himself, to answer letters from hon. Members, in each of the first three quarters of 1992, measuring the time from the receipt of the letter to the dispatch of the substantive reply.

  Sir John Cope
  The average number of working days between a letter being received and the dispatch of the reply was:

  Letters posted

  Number

  Average working days

  Ql

  4,409

  15

  Q2

  1,126

  17

  Q3

  3,332

  22

  From November 1992, new targets were introduced for the dispatch of replies to letters from hon. Members:

  Letters for ministerial reply on matters concerning Her Majesty's Treasury: reply to be posted within 15 working days;

  Letters for ministerial reply on matters concerning other Chancellor's Departments, including Inland Revenue and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise: reply to be posted within 18 working days;

  Letters for ministerial reply on matters requiring a report from a local Inland Revenue tax office: reply to be posted within 23 working days.

  Running Costs
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress he has made in achieving the target of a reduction of 1·5 per cent. in his Department's running costs for the present financial year, in the first half of this financial year; and what specifically has been saved, by what means and in what areas of his responsibility.

  Mr. Nelson
  The 1992–93 running costs limit for the Treasury already takes account of planned efficiency savings of 1·6 per cent. of some £0·9 million. The main areas for efficiency savings are staff savings on support services and improved purchasing procedure. Savings in the year to date on the purchase of a wide range of goods and services amount to some £420,000.

  Premium Bonds
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what criteria he used in proposing to increase the minimum purchase by parents, guardians, or grandparents of premium bonds for children; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  The minimum purchase level of national savings products is kept under review. The minimum purchase level for premium bonds was raised to £100 in July 1989, except for purchases on behalf of children, which remained at £10. I have decided that, given the need to achieve running costs savings in the 1992 public expenditure survey, these thresholds should be brought into line.

  National Savings
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what criteria he used in proposing to increase the minimum for each deposit into ordinary account with national savings, including the amount required to open an account; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  The minimum deposit level of national savings products is kept under review. Since each deposit costs the same to administer, irrespective of the amount involved, small transactions are disproportionately expensive. Given the need to achieve running costs savings in the 1992 public expenditure survey, I therefore decided that the minimum deposit should be increased from £5 to £10.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what criteria he used in proposing to increase the minimum for each deposit into an investment account with national savings, including the amount required to open an account; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  The minimum deposit level of national savings products is kept under review. Since each deposit costs the same to administer, irrespective of the amount involved, small transactions are disproportionately expensive. Given the need to achieve running costs savings in the 1992 public expenditure survey, I therefore decided that the minimum deposit should be increased from £5 to £20.

  Private Health Care
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what element of private health care provision falls within the public sector borrowing requirement where(a) public sector land or property is used, (b) tax relief is provided on contributions, (c) private insurance is offered as an alternative to pay in public sector employment and (d) public sector contracts are purchased from private sector provider units; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  (a) None; (b) tax relief increases the PSBR; (c) the cost of obtaining private insurance would increase the PSBR, offset to the extent that pay is lower than otherwise; (d) the contract is funded from the expenditure provision for the NHS. This is part of public expenditure which affects the PSBR.

  Hospital Trusts
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to exempt hospital trusts from inclusion in calculations in compiling the public sector borrowing requirement; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  None.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to exempt hospital trusts from regulations on capital expenditure applied to directly managed units; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  None.

  Pleasure Craft
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the recommendations agreed this week on value-added tax on the import of pleasure craft; and if he will make a statement.
  105
  Sir John Cope
  Proposals by the EC Commission about VAT on pleasure craft currently under temporary importation arrangements are still under discussion in the Council as part of the simplification directive. I will write to the hon. Member with details when the proposal is adopted.

  Leasing Agreements (NHS)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what way the relaxation of leasing agreements will be applied to the provision of equipment or materials within the national health service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  Provided that the great majority of the risk stays with the private sector, the capital value of the leased asset will not count against the health authority's allocation or trust's external financing limits. In the past this provision has been restricted to leases satisfying a short term need. It will continue to be necessary to demonstrate the value for money of leasing as opposed to purchase.

  Bank of Credit and Commerce International
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will reconsider his decision not to publish those parts of Lord Justice Bingham's report into the supervision of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International which disclose the use of BCCI accounts to facilitate the trade of arms with Iraq; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 17 November 1992]: Neither my right hon. Friend the Chancellor nor I are aware of any evidence that BCCI accounts were used to facilitate the trade of arms for Iraq. As for the Bingham report, my right hon. friend the Chancellor has already made it clear to the House that the balance of public interest weighs against publishing any of the appendices.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 16 November,Official Report, column 26, whether the Bank of England is liable, as a result of the indemnity given to Price Waterhouse when commissioning the section 41 report on BCCI, to defray any damages or costs awarded against Price Waterhouse as a result of the action recently instituted on behalf of the Sheikh of Abu Dhabi.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 27 November 1992]: The indemnity given to Price Waterhouse by the Bank of England when commissioning the section 41 report on BCCI is limited to any cost, liabilities and expenses arising out of their appointment, investigation and report. It would not cover any cost, liabilities and expenses were it shown that these had been caused by Price Waterhouse's own negligence or wilful default.

  Office

  Address

  Area occupied sq metre

  Dundee 3 Tax District

  Overgate House Marketgait Dundee

  890

  Dundee 1 Tax District

  2 Court House Square Dundee

  990

  Dundee Collection Office

  Overgate House Marketgait Dundee

  680

  Dundee Tax Inquiry Centre

  2 Court House Square Dundee

  340

  As is common with Government Departments, the Inland Revenue pays an accommodation charge to

  Nationalised Industries
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the guidelines for the capital spending, investment policies and external financing limits of the nationalised industries as they existed prior to his autumn statement; what new guidance he has given to the nationalised industries and trade agencies; and if he will place a copy of all relevant documentation in the Library.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 30 November 1992]: The main elements of the control framework for nationalised industries are set out in the relevant parts of the 1978 White Paper "The Nationalised Industries" (Cm 7131), and summarised in the statistical supplement to the 1991 autumn statement (Cm 1920). The latter document also sets out the external financing limits planned for 1992–93.

  Further detailed and technical central administrative guidance is issued from time to time, in internal working documents.

  In addition, Ministers responsible and Departments may give guidance to particular industries from time to time.

  No general guidance on these subjects has been issued to the nationalised industries since the Chancellor's autumn statement. The new external financing limits are, however, set out in the "Autumn Statement 1992" (Cm 2096).

  Inland Revenue, Dundee
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many of the staff at the Caledonia house tax office in Dundee belong to non-mobile civil service grades; and what right these individuals have to choose to stay with the Inland Revenue in Dundee, and to refuse a compulsory transfer to an office outwith Dundee.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 30 November 1992]: Twenty four of the staff at Dundee 4 Inland Revenue office, Caledonia house, Dundee are in non-mobile grades. Each is obliged to accept a transfer into another office only if it is within a reasonable daily travelling distance of his or her home.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what accommodation is provided in Dundee for(a) the tax district 3 office, (b) the tax district 1 office, (c) the collector of taxes office and (d) the taxes inquiry centre; from whom this accommodation is leased in each case; and what would be the cost in each case of terminating the lease at six months' notice.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 30 November 1992]: The accommodation occupied is as follows:

  Property Holdings, which acts as landlord in relation to the Inland Revenue and rents the buildings for Crown use.

  107
  The Inland Revenue incurs no cost by surrendering the buildings to Property Holdings after giving six months' notice of its intention to do so.

  Independent Taxation
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whom he consulted before taking the decision to close the tax offices at Dundee and Falkirk, and to concentrate the work arising from independent taxation for women in the office in Glenrothes; how many Inland Revenue staff will now be required to change their place of work to Glenrothes as a result of this decision; and what assessment has been made of the civil servants' increased travel costs arising out of this decision.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 30 November 1992]: We approved the Inland Revenue's decision to concentrate work on tax repayment claims in Glenrothes and four other Inland Revenue offices, in order to ensure that resources are used efficiently within the Inland Revenue. It is not yet possible to say how many, if any, Inland Revenue staff will be required to change their place of work to Glenrothes as a result of the decision: the wishes and preferences of individual members of staff will be fully taken into account in considering this. Increased travel costs stemming from a change in an individual's place of work will also be taken into account and may, depending on the circumstances, be met by the Inland Revenue for up to three years.

TRADE AND. INDUSTRY

  Private Detectives
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what use his Department and the Department of Energy made of private detectives in each of the last five years; at what cost; and if he will list the firms involved.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Information on the use of private detectives in the context of the question is not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on how many occasions since 1979 his Department has engaged private detective agencies to investigate the activities of British citizens; and if he will list the date and purpose of each investigation.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  [holding answer 18 November 1992]: Information on the use of private detectives in the context of the question is not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Nuclear Electric plc
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what conditions are attached to the spending of the fossil fuel levy by Nuclear Electric; and what proportion of the levy is applied to the decommissioning of nuclear plants.

  Mr. Eggar
  The non-fossil fuel obligation and the fossil fuel levy arrangements were introduced to secure the benefits of nuclear and other non-fossil fuel energy in increasing diversity of supply and reducing CO02 emissions. The levy is needed to cover the additional costs
  108
  associated with nuclear and renewables generation over those of fossil generation. In the case of nuclear, these additional costs include so-called back-end costs, which comprise the reprocessing of spent fuel, the decommissioning of stations and other plants and the treatment and disposal of resulting waste.

  Loan Sharks
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will take action to control criminal activities and extortion by unauthorised loan sharks.

  Mr. Leigh
  The Director General of Fair Trading and local authority trading standards departments are responsible for enforcing the Consumer Credit Act 1974 which prohibits unlicensed persons from carrying on the business of lending sums of less than £15,000 to individuals. Enforcement of the criminal law on making unwarranted demands with menaces and on unlawful harassment of debtors is a matter for chief constables.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will now make it his policy to publish details of amounts and destinations of all civil plutonium exported under safeguards from the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Eggar
  Information on the exports of civil plutonium under safeguards are published annually by my Department. The information is as detailed as possible within the constraints given in my answer to the hon. Member on 14 May 1992,Official Report, column 170.

  Shipping
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total tonnage of shipping constructed in the United Kingdom in each year since 1973.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Records held by the Department of Trade and Industry cover merchant shipbuilding constructions since 1976. Figures of the period prior to this date are not available.

  Warship building is the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence and is excluded from these figures.

  The total tonnage of merchant registered ships of 100 gross tonnes and over constructed in the United Kingdom for each year since 1976 is as set out in the table.

  Compensated Gross Tonnage (Thousands)

  Year

  Completions

  1976

  898

  1977

  693

  1978

  709

  1979

  584

  1980

  513

  1981

  254

  1982

  418

  1983

  349

  1984

  288

  1985

  262

  1986

  168

  1987

  236

  1988

  87

  1989

  144

  1990

  208

  1991

  142

  Regulatory Measures
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the main measures increasing regulation in any area for which his Department has responsibility, which his Department has caused to be put into effect since the last general election.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Since 9 April 1992, two pieces of primary legislation have been brought into effect by my Department.

  The Competition and Services (Utilities) Act 1992 (some provisions have not yet been implemented);

  The Timeshare Act 1992.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the main measures of deregulation, or simplification of regulation, which his Department has carried out, or caused to be carried out, since 9 April.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  My Department continues to make a good contribution to the Government's deregulation initiative. Since 9 April 1992 the main measures are as follows:Nine partnerships have been established between local authorities and businesses as a result of a DTI initiative to make local authority regulation more effective arid less burdensome;
  The companies Act 1985 (Accounts of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises and Publications of Accounts in ECUs) Regulations 1992 has come into effect and reduces the burden of reporting on small and medium-sized companies;
  A scrutiny of the procedures for approving and monitoring oil and gas field development and production activity offshore and onshore has been completed. Its overall effect will be to bring about a more streamlined system for approving developments and the scrutiny's recommendations will be implemented in the near future;
  A new telecommunications class licence, which revoked the class licence for the running of branch telecommunications system and clarifies, simplifies and improves arrangements for the provision of resale services from rented telecommunications capacity;
  A new radiocommunications licence for road contractors, which removes the previous need for a separate

  United Kingdom imports and manufacturers' sales1 (£ millions)

  (1) United Kingdom manufacturers' sales2

  Civil aircraft and parts4

  Washing machines

  Cameras

  Televisions

  Computers

  Ships and boats

  Cars and commercial vehicles

  Motor cycles

  1979

  5—

  168

  45

  395

  347

  —

  4,424

  —

  1980

  353

  178

  37

  395

  413

  —

  4,295

  —

  1981

  417

  167

  38

  405

  364

  648

  4,032

  —

  1982

  477

  178

  29

  431

  391

  1,072

  4,388

  —

  1983

  582

  207

  34

  508

  548

  1,101

  4,267

  4

  1984

  712

  210

  34

  494

  948

  1,037

  4,856

  —

  1985

  836

  230

  33

  494

  1,279

  1,387

  6,078

  —

  1986

  1,099

  231

  56

  516

  1,032

  575

  6,517

  —

  1987

  1,009

  259

  59

  592

  1,957

  835

  8,669

  —

  1988

  1,333

  276

  45

  607

  2,394

  900

  9,838

  4

  1989

  1,501

  247

  56

  545

  2,445

  1,080

  10,941

  3

  1990

  1,860

  268

  —

  848

  2,684

  1,216

  —

  1

  1991

  1,700

  245

  —

  1,004

  —

  1,160

  10,648

  —

  (2) United Kingdom Imports3

  1979

  —

  59

  64

  117

  190

  —

  2,978

  100

  1980

  —

  59

  69

  105

  247

  270

  2,464

  128

  1981

  227

  70

  87

  —

  399

  233

  2,448

  117

  1982

  245

  77

  85

  187

  494

  267

  3,295

  87

  1983

  378

  93

  91

  251

  723

  110

  4,232

  88

  1984

  479

  100

  102

  249

  916

  299

  4,322

  68

  110
  licence for each contract.

  Work is currently going on in my Department to identify a new programme of work under the deregulation initiative for 1993 and beyond.

  Running Costs
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress he has made in achieving the target of a reduction of 1·5 per cent. in his Department's running costs for the present financial year, in the first half of this financial year; and what specifically has been saved, by what means and in what areas of his responsibility.

  Mr. Eggar
  Prior to the merger of the Department of Trade and Industry with the Department of Energy, the two Departments published targets for efficiency savings of 3·7 per cent. and 2·3 per cent. respectively. The running cost allocations to each department for this year reflected those savings, which the Department is on course to achieve. Furthermore, as a result of the merger, the Department has been able to reduce the overhead costs of common functions and services, with savings to date of 60 posts. These savings have been used to strengthen the Department's sponsorship role and to support other priority activities.

  Manufactured Goods
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the value in current prices, for each year since 1979, of (i) civil aeroplanes, (ii) washing machines, (iii) ships, (iv) cameras, (v) television sets, (vi) motor cycles, (vii) computers and (viii) cars and buses which were(a) manufactured in the United Kingdom, (b) manufactured by non-United Kingdom companies in the United Kingdom and (c) imported into the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Needham
  The sales information for non-United Kingdom companies in the United Kingdom is not available. Information on United Kingdom manufacturers' sales on United Kingdom imports is given in the table.
  111

  Civil aircraft and parts4

  Washing machines

  Cameras

  Televisions

  Computers

  Ships and boats

  Cars and commercial vehicles

  Motor cycles

  1985

  894

  124

  111

  186

  1,046

  149

  4,889

  76

  1986

  353

  136

  136

  226

  1,080

  322

  5,653

  78

  1987

  513

  131

  145

  227

  1,369

  184

  5,915

  84

  1988

  712

  158

  149

  256

  1,449

  183

  8,014

  103

  1989

  1,819

  144

  157

  265

  1,777

  186

  8,674

  123

  1990

  1,899

  128

  136

  218

  1,741

  138

  8,282

  165

  1991

  1,584

  137

  131

  245

  —

  298

  6,106

  130

  1 Information on sales and imports is not directly comparable. The product classifications used for the collection of sales and trade information differ, and sales information is not collected from smaller companies.

  2 There have been changes over the years in the products included in the heading and to the coverage of the inquiries. Therefore, the series may not be consistent over time. Full details for each product are in the relevant Business Monitors.

  3 A new system of product classification was introduced on 1 January 1988.

  4 Sales statistics are not available, therefore, turnover is used.

  5 not available.

  Data sources: PQ and PA business monitors 3302, 3454, 3460, 3733, 3633, 3634, 3650, 3510, 3521, 3610 and the Society of British Aerospace Companies.

  Nuclear Power Stations
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish estimates for the average amount and value of fossil fuel used in the construction of a nuclear power station in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Eggar
  It is very difficult to make estimates of the amount and value of fossil fuels utilised in the construction of any power station. In particular, it is difficult to hypothecate electricity used in the manufacture of materials used in the construction of the station to any particular fuel source.

  Assisted Areas
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the areas which have submitted an application to obtain assisted area status; and if he will list the names of individuals or organisations which submitted the applications.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  At the most recent count, on 16 November, there had been 1,550 formal written representations received in my Department and the Welsh and Scottish Offices about the review of the assisted areas map. Providing information about each individual or organisation in the form requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, as the consultation paper about the review issued in June made clear, representations received are available for inspection at specified offices of the three Departments concerned.

  Defence Cuts
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 4 November to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins),Official Report, columns 313–15, if he will list those proposals he received for European Commission funding under the Perifra II scheme concerned with retraining and resettlement of former members of the armed forces and their families, or civilians displaced as a result of reduced defence expenditure, identifying those proposals subsequently forwarded to Brussels, those which were subsequently approved and the estimated expenditure in each case; what is the total expenditure for this programme throughout the European Community; and if he will make a statement.
  112
  Mr. Sainsbury
  A proposal from the Royal British Legion was the only such proposal received for the second year of the Perifra scheme. The costings of individual grant applications are not normally published as they may contain commercially sensitive information.

  This proposal was transmitted to the European Commission, and was awarded 1,969,000 ecu in grant towards the design and construction of a training centre. The total expenditure on Perifra committed in 1993 throughout the Community was 50 million ecu.

  Major Energy Users Council
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the principal members of the Major Energy Users Council; and if he will make a statement on his most recent discussions with the council.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Major Energy Users Council represent large energy users in many industrial sectors. Officials met the MEUC last month. It was agreed that the MEUC would survey the electricity prices paid by their members in 1991 and 1992. My Department will then compare the results of this survey with our own statistics.

  Electricity Contracts
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a list of the principal sectors of industry in which large users of electricity in Great Britain have successfully negotiated beneficial supply contracts with the private sector electricity generating companies.

  Mr. Eggar
  DTI statistics show that the average electricity prices paid by industry fell by 12 per cent. in real terms between the second quarter of 1992 and the second quarter of 1989, before the electricity supply industry was privatised. Individual contracts are a commercial matter for the companies concerned.

  Power Generation
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) which other EC countries have invested in coal-water mixtures; and which intend to use it as a source of power generation;

  (2) how much has been invested into research of coal-water mixtures as a clean source of power generation since 1980 by (a) his Department and (b) British Coal;
  113
  (3) how much (a) his Department and (b) British Coal intend to invest in research and development of coal-water mixtures in the financial year 1993–94.

  Mr. Eggar
  The use of coal water mixtures was investigated by industry during the 1980s, with support from the European Commission. British Coal, with EC support, invested about £1·1 million and industrial companies also contributed to the collaborative research programme. Several other EC countries also received EC support for research on coal water mixtures, including France, Germany and Italy. My Department has not provided financial support for research on coal water mixtures.

  The conclusions of the research were that the use of coal water mixtures in power station boilers was technically feasible but it was not economic. In particular it was a more expensive method of reducing sulphur emissions from coal fired power stations than gas desulphurisation equipment. Neither my Department nor British Coal has any plans for further research on coal water mixtures.

  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much has been invested by his Department in(a) oil, (b) gas and (c) nuclear fuels as a source of power generation.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department's expenditure on nuclear research directed specificially at power generation in 1991–92 was £80·1 million. There was no expenditure on oil or gas research for power generation.

  Debt Payment
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will introduce legislation to require businesses over a certain size to pay their bills promptly.

  Mr. Leigh
  Though we understand the frustrations felt by small businesses because of delayed payments, we remain unconvinced that legislation would prove effective. The majority of organisations representing small firms share the Government's view that the effect of a legislative approach would be, at best, minimal and could even be

  Scheme

  Take-up

  Expenditure

  1991–92

  1991–92

  The Enterprise Initiative Consultancy Scheme

  14,387 cases

  £64·4 million

  Loan Guarantee Scheme

  2,941 loans guaranteed

  £27·541 million

  Small Firms Merit Award for Research and Technology (Smart);

  180 stage 1 grants

  £12 million

  Support of Projects Under Research (SPUR);

  148 grants

  £318,000

  Your Business Success;

  75,000 kits

  £1 million

  Graduate Enterprise;

  5,200 students

  £340,000

  The Export Marketing Research Scheme (ERMS);

  221 projects

  £1·1 million

  Regional Enterprise Grants;

  975 grant offers

  £7·3 million

  Development Projects

  individual projects

  £350,000

  late payment development projects with three trade associations

  £30,000 each

  informal investment demonstration projects with five TECs

  £100,000 in 1992–93

  114
  damaging to the small firms sector. We remain interested however to receive views on how an effective legislative framework might operate.

  Thermo-Lag 330–1
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what use is made of Thermo-Lag 330–1 produced by Thermal Science Inc., in British nuclear power plants for the purpose of protecting electrical systems in the event of an emergency.

  Mr. Eggar
  This is a matter for the operators of nuclear power plants.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms. Lynne) of 2 November,Official Report, column 60, what progress has been made with his European Community counterparts in the development of standards in respect of the testing of cosmetics on animals.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 19 November 1992]: At the meeting of the Council of Ministers held on 3 November, we secured agreement on a common position on the proposed sixth Council amendment to the EC cosmetics directive which includes a ban on the use of ingredients tested on animals after January 1998, with a provision for the Commission on scientific advice, to propose the postponement of the ban where validated alternative testing methods are not available by then.

  Support Programmes
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the support programmes for small and medium-sized enterprises run by his Department with the latest available figures for annual expenditure and take-up; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 25 November 1992]: The support programmes run by my Department for small and medium sized enterprises are as follows:
  115
  During next year my Department will start support for up to 15 pilot schemes which will provide businesses with a single point of access to information and advice.

  Manufactured Imports
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the value of manufactured goods imported, in current and real terms, for each financial year since 1979–80 from(a) the rest of the European Community, (b) Japan, (c) South Korea and (d) Taiwan; and what was the percentage change between 1979–80 and the current year.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 26 November 1992]: Information is not available for financial years nor for individual countries in real terms. The available information, in current prices and for calendar years, is given in the table.

  United Kingdom imports of manufactured goods1

  Current prices £ million

  2 European Community

  Japan

  South Korea

  Taiwan

  1979

  16,225

  1,441

  256

  211

  1980

  16,023

  1,666

  229

  222

  1981

  16,607

  2,154

  313

  311

  1982

  19,903

  2,572

  307

  324

  1983

  24,233

  3,250

  424

  447

  1984

  28,050

  3,650

  426

  574

  1985

  31,768

  4,036

  469

  561

  1986

  35,325

  4,863

  641

  687

  1987

  39,808

  5,413

  915

  989

  1988

  45,912

  6,452

  1,133

  1,133

  1989

  52,768

  6,980

  1,134

  1,334

  1990

  54,102

  6,607

  943

  1,193

  1991

  49,646

  6,655

  905

  1,250

  Percentage change, 1979 to 1991

  206

  362

  254

  492

  Average annual percentage change, 1979 to 1991

  10

  14

  11

  16

  1 Sections 5 to 8 of the Standard International Trade Classification.

  2 European Community is defined in terms of its 1991 membership throughout.

  Source: Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom, CSO.

  Utilities Regulation
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the cost of regulation in 1991–92 for(a) telecommunications, (b) gas and (c)electricity; and what are the expected corresponding figures for 1992–93.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  [holding answer 30 November 1992]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) Official Report, column 345. Details of the 1992–93 budgets for the regulators may be obtained from the regulators themselves, or from published Government expenditure plans:

  Budget 1992–93 (£ million)

  OFFER

  10·0

  OFTEL

  8·055

  OFGAS

  13·203

  1Information supplied by OFGAS.

  Albania
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what trading links now exist between the United Kindom and Albania; what talks he has held with that country in respect of such trade; what subjects in respect of trade were discussed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 26 November 1992]: The United Kingdom's present trade with Albania is small, with exports of less than £2 million and imports of £250,000 in the period to the end of September this year. In part, this is due to the extremely difficult economic conditions which prevail there. None the less there have been several visits by British companies to the market recently which have shown some long-term potential in sectors such as tourtism, agriculture and food processing, and mineral extraction. I hope these early forays can be built on in the future.

  Trading Standards Departments
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what consultation he has had with the county councils in Wales in relation to the reorganisation of trading standards departments; if the reorganisation will follow the boundaries of the unitary authorities; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what proposals he has to administer the trading standards service in Wales following local government reorganisation; what consultations he has had with county trading standards officers in Wales in relation to joint boards to provide the service; and what proposals he has for local democratic accountability in relation to joint boards.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 26 November 1992]: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has had no such consultation. A Department of Trade and Industry official participated in the environment and public protection services sub-group set up by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. The sub-group, which also included representatives of the district and county councils, discussed the future arrangements for the trading standards service in Wales. Its report is in the Library. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will announce his decisions in due course.

  Business Statistics
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 19 November,Official Report, column 225, to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) if he will give a breakdown by region and by county of the number of businesses that have registered and deregistered in each year since 1981.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 27 November 1992]: A breakdown of the number of businesses that have registered and deregistered for VAT by region and by county for the years 1980 to 1990 was published in "VAT Registrations and Deregistrations, County and District Analyses 1980 to 1990", a copy of which is available in the Library or online via NOMIS. For further information, contact the NOMIS team at: NOMIS, Unit 3P, Mountjoy research centre, University of Durham, Durham DH1 3SW.

  Girobank
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will place the final sale contract documents for the sale of Girobank in the Library.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 30 November 1992]: No. The final sale documents for the sale of Girobank are commercially confidential documents belonging to the Post Office as vendor and the Alliance and Leicester building society as purchaser.

  999 Calls
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what approaches and representations he has received from commercial organisations over the future management of 999 calls.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 30 November 1992]: The Department has received no such representations from private sector commercial organisations.

  Development Area Status, Cheshire
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy not to remove development area status from Ellesmere port and adjacent parts of Cheshire.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 30 November 1992]: I shall consider the needs and circumstances of all areas, including the Wirral and Chester travel-to-work area, in the review.

  Pyramid Selling
  Mr. Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information he has on the number of(a) prosecutions and (b) convictions for offences related to pyramid, direct selling and multi-level marketing practices and advertisements in each year from 1982.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 23 November 1992]: Part XI of the Fair Trading Act covers pyramid selling and similar trading schemes. The only prosecution brought by this Department under this legislation was in 1987. Two companies and their directors pleaded guilty to 39 offences under the Fair Trading Act 1973 and the Pyramid Selling Schemes Regulations 1973.

  Oil Exploration
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the marine sites where his Department are offering licences for test drilling for oil and mineral exploration; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Copies of the announcements, made on 5 March, 30 July and 26 November, giving details of the acreage on offer in the 14th offshore licensing round have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. Applications for the first two stages of the round are due by midday 16 December 1992 and for the frontier stage by midday 9 March 1993.

EDUCATION

  Correspondence
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the average time taken by the Ministers in his Department, including himself, to answer letters from hon. Members, in each of the first three quarters of 1992, measuring the time from the receipt of the letter to the dispatch of the substantive reply.

  Mr. Forman
  In the first quarter of 1992 substantive replies were issued in an average of 39 days; in the second quarter 29 days and in the third quarter 24 days.

  Running Costs
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what progress he has made in achieving the target of a reduction of 1·5 per cent. in his Department's running costs for the present financial year, in the first half of this financial year; and what specifically has been saved, by what means and in what areas of his responsibility.

  Mr. Forman
  The Department's target for efficiency improvements in the 1992–93 financial year, as published in the departmental report in February 1992, Cm 1911, is 2·2 per cent. The main contributing areas to this are the wider use of information technology, relocation of posts, rigorous staffing reviews, and tighter control of support service costs. The Department expects to reach its target, but the data necessary for calculating efficiency improvements are not available until after the year-end.

  Acquired Rights Directive
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what estimate he has made of the effects of the acquired rights directive on(a) services his Department contracts out and (b) services he plans to contract out in the future; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forman
  In contracting out services, this Department has taken into account the possible effects of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981. It will continue to do so for each of the components of its market testing programme. These were set out in the citizens charter White Paper, Cm 2101, as:

  building, office and support services in DFE's London HQ;

  some information systems services;

  payroll services provided by Chessington Computer Centre; and

  services provided to the Teachers' Pensions Agency by the Paymaster General's Office.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what are the latest figures he has for schools which have held a successful ballot to opt out of local authority educational provision and the number of such schools which have been refused permission to opt out.

  Mr. Forth
  A total of 574 schools have voted in favour of grant-maintained status. Of these, the Secretary of State has turned down applications from 51 schools.

  Higher Education Funding Council
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proportion of the Higher Education Funding Council for England's budget is expected to be spent on supporting research activities in the financial year 1992–93 and the planned totals for 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96.

  Mr. Forman
  The Higher Education Funding Council for England will become responsible for funding higher education in England on 1 April 1993. The council is expected to announce its funding for teaching and research for 1993–94 early in 1993. The proportion of recurrent funding allocated for research by the Universities Funding Council in academic year 1992–93, before taking account of the transfer of resources to the research councils for the new boundary for dual support, was 35 per cent. The Government have indicated that they expect no significant change in the proportion of funding allocated for research in higher education in 1993–94. Funding council allocations are determined on an annual basis.

  Students
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will publish an education charter for students.

  Mr. Forman
  The White Paper, "The Citizen's Charter, First report: 1992", Cm 2101 indicated that further and higher education charters will be published in spring 1993.

  Education Inspectors
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the expected salary costs for 1992–93 for higher education inspectors.

  Mr. Forman
  A total of £1·2 million, including national insurance contributions by the Department.

  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many inspectors are currently employed by the Higher Education Funding Council.

  Mr. Forman
  The Higher Education Funding Council for England is in the process of establishing its arrangements for the assessment of higher education. In preparation for a full programme of visits in 1993, the council has carried out test assessments using the services of four inspectors seconded from the Department. The council will make appointments shortly.

  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many of Her Majesty's inspectors were employed in 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Forth
  The number of full-time equivalent HMI employed by the Department on 1 April each year since 1989–90 was as follows:

  1 April 1989–479

  1 April 1990–462·5

  1 April 1991–482·5

  1 April 1992–466·5

  Since 1 September 1992 HMI engaged in the inspection of schools and teacher training have been members of the independent Office for Standards in Education, headed by Professor Sutherland, Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools.

  Student Unions
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what information he has as to the major users of those student union funds received from public sources, including(a) the cost of sabbatical officers and (b) support for students' societies in institutions of higher education.

  Mr. Forman
  Student unions' funds derive from a variety of sources: notably profits on their trading activities, and grant from their parent institutions, paid out of funds deriving from a mix of public and private sources. A survey undertaken by the Department in 1988 identified the principal services provided by campus unions: these include representation of students; welfare; sports; catering and refreshments; shopping; travel and insurance; and support for student societies. No information is available centrally on the breakdown of unions' expenditure on these activities, or on the employment of sabbatical officers.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will circulate to all student unions details of the recent High Court ban on the university of Greenwich students union from political campaigning.

  Mr. Forman
  This would be premature, since the transcript of the court case is not yet available. When it is, I shall consider the implications of this case.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the legal status of a student union.

  Mr. Forman
  In England and Wales, as a general rule student unions in further and higher education institutions are established by or under their institution's charter or articles of government.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will audit the use of funds of student unions to discover the extent of illegal spending.

  Mr. Forman
  The auditing of student unions' use of funds is a matter for the educational institution concerned. The short survey of student unions, carried out by the Department and published in September 1989, found that over 75 per cent. of unions' accounts were subject to approval by the institution. Among the issues addressed in the current consultations initiated by the Department is whether any improvement in financial accountability is required.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make it his policy to apply charities law on political campaigning to student unions.

  Mr. Forman
  A significant proportion of local student unions are already charities and subject to charities law. Responsibility for taking legal action to ensure that a charity's activities conform to its charitable objects rests with the Attorney-General, who issued guidance on this to student unions in 1983.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education on what basis student unions receive public and members' funding.

  Mr. Forman
  Student unions are financed from block grant from their institutions. The Department's survey of
  121
  student unions, published in 1989, found that half were dependent on this grant for 90 per cent. or more of their non-trading expenditure. The amount and the method of determining grant vary between institutions. In higher education, the grant is paid out of general funds which come from a variety of public and private sources. In further education, the usual pattern is for the block grant to be funded at least in part from an element within the student registration fee. In most institutions student union income from individual members is not substantial, relating to small amounts from associate or live members.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education who is liable for repaying illegal spending by student unions.

  Mr. Forman
  Where a student union's funds are used for purposes which are not within its objects, officers of the student union are potentially at personal risk to a claim that they have been party to a breach of trust, and liable to make good any loss.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what estimate he has made of the number of sabbatical officers funded by student unions in each year since 1964 and the range of payments to sabbatical officers in student unions.

  Mr. Forman
  No estimate has been made centrally of the number of sabbatical officers funded by student unions or the range of payments to such officers.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is his policy on permitting student unions to influence public opinion and to affiliate to other organisations so as to promote non-charitable purposes or charitable purposes other than those of the student union.

  Mr. Forman
  The Government have initiated consultations on membership of campus unions and the National Union of Students; freedom of speech; and the use of public funds by campus unions and the National Union of Students. In the light of the consultations, the Government are now considering proposals for action. The extent to which student unions influence public opinion and affiliate to other organisations in order to promote activities that could be regarded as outside their legitimate concerns is being considered within this framework.

  Ozone Depletion
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) if he will implement a refrigerant recycling and reclaim policy covering all departmental equipment currently using chlorofluorocarbons and hydrochlorofluorocarbons; if he will publish targets for departmental reuse and recycling; if he will implement an equipment conversion and replacement programme for all departmental uses of chlorofluorocarbons and hydrochlorofluorocarbons; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will introduce a leakage prevention programme for all refrigeration and air conditioning equipment owned and operated by his Department; if he will publish targets for reductions in leakages; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  Property Holdings, or its appointed contractors, maintains all the Department's refrigeration and air-conditioning plant, under its standard option arrangements. The Department depends on these arrangements to control the use of ozone-destroying chemicals, and to recycle any waste from this plant.
  122
  There have been no leaks of ozone-depleting chemicals recorded in the Department for the last five years. Leaks are prevented by the application of planned maintenance regimes. The disposal and recycling of all controlled waste material is governed by the duty of care regulations. The Department does not currently have sufficient information to publish targets for the reuse and recycling of CFCs and HCFCs.

  In the case of light equipment, such as fire extinguishers and domestic fridges, the Department observes guidance disseminated by the Department of the Environment. This has led, for instance, to the replacement of all the Department's halon fire extinguishers with environmentally friendly alternatives.

  The Department's purchasing policy is to avoid buying materials and equipment that rely on ozone-depleting substances in their use or manufacture, unless suitable alternative products are unavailable. A reduction in the amount of ozone-depleting chemicals used in its premises will automatically follow as a result of the implementation of this purchasing policy.

PRIME MINISTER

  Security Service Commissioner
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Prime Minister what arrangements have been made to appoint a Commissioner under the Security Service Act 1989 when Lord Justice Stuart-Smith's appointment expires on 17 December.

  The Prime Minister
  Lord Justice Stuart-Smith has accepted reappointment for a further three years, until 17 December 1995.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 December.

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 1 December.

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  As part of the EC presidency duties, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is visiting Spain and Portugal for discussions with Prime Minister Gonzalez and Prime Minister Cavaco Silva in preparation for the European Council in Edinburgh.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Science and Technology White Paper
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the names of the individuals and organisations who have made submissions to the consultation on his forthcoming White Paper on science and technology; and if he will place copies of the responses in the Library.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The consultation period ended on 30 November, and the response has been superb. Over 500 submissions from all over the United Kingdom have been received from multinational companies, small businesses, charities, academia, professional bodies, institutes and societies, and, of course, scientists at the bench. Their responses have covered all the major aspects of science and technology.
  123
  All the views expressed will be taken on board and fed into our thinking on the White Paper, which I intend to publish in the early part of 1993. I very much appreciate how seriously the consultation has been taken and am pleased with the way it has widened the debate on the future of science and technology in this country.

  Since responses are still arriving I intend to wait a short while before placing a list of respondents and copies of responses from organisations, who have consented, in the Library. However, today I am placing in the Library copies of the submissions from the Research Councils.

  Medical Reports
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make it the practice of Her Majesty's Government employing Departments to give the right of access to medical reports to their employees, or individuals who undergo medical examination as potential employees.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Government Departments are bound by the requirements of the Access to Medical Reports Act 1988 and the Access to Health Records Act 1990. The civil service occupational health service also complies with these statutes.

  Since employees and potential employees already have ready access to medical reports provided and health records maintained about them, I do not consider further action to be necessary.

  NHS Medicines (Limited List)
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what assessment the Office for Science and Technology has carried out of the likely impact on scientific medical research of the Government's proposed extension to the limited list regulations in respect of NHS medicines.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  It is not expected that the proposed extension will have an adverse impact on Government-funded medical research.

  As regards research funded by the United Kingdom pharmaceutical companies, I can add nothing to the answer already given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Health, in his answer on 26 November to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) at column 810.

  Technology Transfer
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what responsibilities the Office of Science and Technology has for the promotion of technology transfer from the public sector research base into industry.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Office of Science and Technology supports many initiatives through the five research councils to encourage the transfer of technology from higher education institutes or publicly funded research establishments to companies.

  The initiatives supported by the OST through the research councils are:

  1. The LINK scheme which encourages companies to become involved at the pre-competitive stage of research. To date 30 programmes have been announced involving almost 300 active projects, with many more under consideration. Overall funding for these programmes is currently £410 million, made up of equal inputs from Government and
  124
  industry. Most programmes involve both research councils and one or more HEIs alongside other Government Departments and industry.

  2. The teaching company scheme (TCS) which arranges partnership programmes between companies and HEIs. Able graduates ("Associates") are employed on two-year contracts to undertake a specific project within a company. TCS announced their 1000th programme earlier this year. At present, there are over 400 TCS programmes in operation involving around 450 Associates. The TCS is organised jointly by SERC and DTI; ESRC and other Departments are also involved.

  3. Integrated graduate development scheme (IGDS). This scheme is run by the Science and Engineering Research Council (SERC); it enables graduates in employment to undertake postgraduate training at masters level in a part-time modular form. Twelve programmes are running at present; there will be six intakes in 1992–93 and six more are planned. Costs are shared between SERC and the company.

  4. Collaborative awards in science and engineering (CASE): these entail industrial sponsorship of research post-graduates by companies based in the United Kingdom. Since 1990 an average of 1,000 students have taken up CASE awards. The student receives a normal studentship from a research council plus additional maintenance grant, and spends a minimum of two months with the company. A similar scheme arising from a review conducted by Dr. J. Parnaby (SERC) enhances the stipends of students working towards engineering PhDs. This new doctorate course will include a higher content of industrial engineering and work experience in industry. The scheme started on a pilot basis in September 1992.

  5. Postgraduate training partnerships (PTPS): this is a joint OST/Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) pilot scheme started in 1992–93. In the first year some 50 postgraduate students are carrying out research for their higher degree at the five partnerships between an industrial research organisation and higher education institution.

  6. Application of computers to manufacturing engineering (ACME): among other things ACME co-funds club-type initiatives whereby groups of companies benefit from new technology developed in HEIs. There has been SERC funding of about £40 million since 1984–85, and 520 schemes since inception.

  7. Interdisciplinary research centres (IRCs): the IRCs, jointly financed by the research councils and industry, were set up with the purpose of performing research in 'fusion' areas which would be of broad relevance to industry. There are 19 IRCs with another two (in human toxicity and brain repair) planned. There are 868 full-time equivalent staff employed in IRCs.

  8. Engineering design centres: are based in universities; there are now seven of these centres and many of them have close links with industry.

  9. Industrial fellowships: this is a scheme supervised by the Royal Society which manages a two-way flow of senior researchers (at the senior lecturer or industrial equivalent level) in order that a specific research project can be completed. Currently, there are about 5 fellows per annum.

  10. Total technology: is a scheme whereby engineering postgraduates work towards a PhD while interacting closely with industry: the project work has to be completed in industry, under joint academic and industrial supervision.

  11. Royal Academy of Engineering industrial secondment scheme: enables academics to be seconded into industry, particularly SMEs, to do research which would not normally be undertaken by SME concerns. The scheme grant pays for the replacement teaching staff in the HEI while the academic is seconded. Currently, there are four or five secondments per annum.

  12. Centre for Exploitation of Science and Technology (CEST): this body is jointly funded by OST, DTI and industry. Many of its projects are concerned with exploiting new technology and finding applications for new technology more widely in industry. Most projects involve science base organisations.

WALES

  General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement concerning the implications for Wales of the GATT negotiations.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I welcome the agreement between the EC and the United States of America on the outstanding differences between them. We await the full report from the Commission, but the agriculture agreement appears to be broadly compatible with reforms of the CAP regimes agreed last year.

  The need now is to return to Geneva to make the agriculture agreement multilateral and complete negotiations in all other areas, including liberalisation of trade and services and tariff reductions. We believe it is possible to reach political agreement this year.

  Mining (Environmental Damage)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the basis for excluding the coal spoil heaps and mine tailings dams of Wales from the draft regulations under section 143 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The uses of land listed in the draft regulations for initial coverage by registers are those considered most likely to give rise to contamination. Current research being undertaken for the Government is identifying, in general terms, the occurrence of natural contaminants associated with mined ground.

  Dentists
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will prevent the employment of more salaried dentists by family health service authorities in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  No.

  Smoke Alarms
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are his plans for assisting local councils in Wales to increase the programme of fitting smoke alarms to council properties; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  It is for individual local authorities to decide what priority within their enhanced resources to give to fitting smoke alarms to their properties.

  Housing Management Tendering
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidelines have been produced by his Department on the steps to be taken to protect tenants in the event of a successful housing management tenderer becoming insolvent or failing to deliver adequate performance standards.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  It will be for local authorities to ensure that their tenants' interests are protected in the event of inadequate contract performance or of insolvency.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the change in unemployment in Wales by number and percentage since November 1990.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Between November 1990 and October 1992 the number of people unemployed in Wales, after seasonal adjustment, increased by 38,900, from 91,300 to 139,200 a rise of 42·6 per cent.

  Abortion
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many and which national health service hospitals in Wales providing day-care abortion services are offering medical abortion services in the first nine weeks of pregnancy by mifepristone and prostaglandin.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information in the form requested is not collected centrally. Abortion notifications between July, when the drug was licensed, and December 1991, the latest period for which figures are available, show that the mifepristone and prostaglandin method was used in two NHS hospitals in Wales. Identifying information derived from the notification form, including the names of the hospitals concerned, may not be disclosed under regulation 5 of the Abortion Regulations 1991.

  Special Needs Education
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many establishments for children with learning difficulties in Wales have section 56 status.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information is not available centrally.

  Ozone Depletion
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will implement a refrigerant recycling and reclaim policy covering all departmental equipment currently using chlorofluorocarbons and hydrochloro-fluorocarbons; if he will publish targets for departmental reuse and recycling; if he will implement an equipment conversion and replacement programme for all departmental uses of CFCs and HCFCs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My Department is currently formulating a green housekeeping strategy which will make a clear statement of our policy to govern the use of ozone-depleting substances. The statement will be followed up by an action plan for issue to departmental operational managers in implementing the policy.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will introduce a leakage prevention programme for all refrigeration and air conditioning equipment owned and operated by his Department; if he will publish targets for reductions in leakages; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given today by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, which covers refrigeration and air conditioning systems in buildings occupied by my Department.

  Hospital Construction
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much has been spent in Wales in each year since 1979 on hospital construction programmes.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information in the form requested is not available but the amount of capital expended on hospital building schemes—inclusive of land purchase, design costs and plant and equipment—in the financial years 1979–80 to 1990–91 was as follows:

  £000

  1979–80

  9,930

  1980–81

  9,506

  1981–82

  15,027

  1982–83

  16,313

  1983–84

  15,939

  1984–85

  43,921

  1985–86

  44,573

  1986–87

  48,547

  1987–88

  47,845

  1988–89

  46,675

  1989–90

  63,627

  1990–91

  75,344

  Source: Health authorities annual accounts.

  Note:

  As the result of the introduction of a new format of accounts, no comparable information is available for 1991–92.

  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the new(a) hospitals and (b) hospital extensions and units opened in Wales since 1979.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Table 1 lists the new hospitals opened in Wales since 1979. Table 2 lists other hospital developments, extensions and units, costing over £1 million completed since 1979. Details of schemes costing less than £1 million are not held centrally.

  New Hospitals opened in Wales since 1979

  Ysbyty Gwynedd

  Mold Community Hospital

  The Princess of Wales Hospital, Bridgend

  Morriston Hospital, Swansea

  Wrexham Maelor Hospital

  Ystradgynlais Community Hospital

  Prince Philip Hospital, Llanelli

  Chirk Community Hospital

  Ysbyty George Thomas, Ystrad Fechan

  Deeside Community Hospital

  Hospital Extensions and Units Costing over £1 million—completed since 1979

  Ysbyty Glan Clwyd Scanner Suite

  Ysbyty Glan Clwyd Multi-disciplinary unit

  St. David's, Carmarthen, 90 bed ward block

  Bryntirion Development

  Amman Valley Development

  St. Woolos Development

  Tredegar General—elderly accommodation

  Nevill Hall—outpatients department redevelopment

  Royal Gwent, Scheme 6

  Blackwood Acute Psychiatric Unit

  Llanfrechfa Grange Laundry

  Central College of Nursing

  Llandudno Development

  Cefni Hospital Development

  St. Tydfil's Adaptations for elderly accommodation

  Prince Charles, Merthyr, Scheme 2

  Aberdare elderly unit

  East Glamorgan elderly unit

  128

  Pontypridd Continuing Care Unit

  Machynlleth Hospital Development

  Rookwood ALAC

  Llandough Obstetric Unit

  UHW—Medical Genetics Centre

  Remedial Works

  Paediatric Cardiac Unit

  Upgrading of ITU

  Telephone Switchboard

  Cardiac Catheter Laboratories

  Velindre Linear Accelerator Suite

  CRI—MRI Scanner

  Neath Outpatients Department

  Singleton—Sterile products unit

  Pathology, PHLS and Mortuary

  Physical Medicine

  Main Kitchen/cook chill

  Boiler House

  Infrastructure works

  West Ward Block

  Residential Block

  Gorseinon Hospital Upgrading

  Tonna Development

  Salmon Fishing
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate has been made of the value of the Welsh economy of the tourist trade attracted to Wales by sport salmon fishing.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  In 1988 a survey commissioned by MAFF estimated that visiting anglers to the National Rivers Authority's Welsh region contributed £2·4 million to the Welsh economy.

  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was(a) the total salmon catch taken by sport fishermen in Welsh rivers and (b) the total commercial salmon catch taken off the coast of Wales for 1991–92.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In the National Rivers Authority's Welsh region in 1991 anglers reported catches totalling 4,525 salmon and commercial netsmen catches totalling 3,037 salmon. Figures for 1992 will be compiled at the end of the year.

  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total revenue generated for the Welsh economy by commercial salmon fishing enterprises.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In 1991 the first sale value of salmon taken by commercial fisheries in the National Rivers Authority's Welsh region was estimated to be £65,000.

  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people in Wales are directly or seasonally employed in(a) commercial salmon fishing enterprises and (b) sport salmon fishing.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In 1991, 436 people either held commercial licences to fish for salmon and sea trout or were endorsed on such licences. It is estimated that about 60 people are employed full or part-time by owners of fisheries which provide salmon and sea trout angling for sport.

  Breast Cancer
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures are being taken to ensure women in Wales receive regular check-ups for breast cancer.
  129
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  An all Wales breast screening service for women between the ages of 50 and 64 years is provided by Breast-Test Wales. In accordance with national guidelines, women in this group are screened every three years. Women aged 65 and over will be screened on request. Regular screening for women under 50 years is currently not recommended but all women who experience symptoms which cause concern can and should seek early advice from their general practitioner.

  Community Care Grants
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of applications for community care grants in(a) Clwyd and (b) Wales are successful.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Under the flexible community care grant scheme introduced two years ago, the Welsh Office, in partnership with local authorities, gives grant aid to local projects aimed at developing more flexible forms of community care for elderly people and for people with physical and/or sensory disabilities. Numbers of applications and approved grants are set out in the following table.

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Clwyd

  Applications

  6

  12

  Approved

  6

  8

  Wales

  Applications

  54

  73

  Approved

  47

  46

  Traffic Calming
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to incorporate traffic calming measures in all road improvement and road building initiatives pursued by his Department.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  It is already our policy to incorporate the most appropriate road safety measures in all our road schemes.

  Shopping Facilities
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list the out of town shopping centres and hypermarkets developed within each local authority area in Wales during the last two years;

  (2) what proportion of supermarkets and hypermarkets in Wales are currently located (a) out of town, (b) in urban areas adjacent to the town centre and (c) within the town/city centre;

  (3) how many empty shops there are at present within each urban settlement in Wales; and what were the equivalent figures for each of the past five years.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This information is not held centrally.

  Car Parking
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will bring forward proposals to grant additional powers to local authorities concerning the control and regulation of parking within town centres.
  130
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  No. Extensive powers to meet this need are currently available.

  Further Education
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many further education courses in(a) painting and decorating, (b) plumbing and welding, (c) electronics, (d) hairdressing and beauty, (e) journalism and (f) construction will be available in South Wales colleges after September 1993.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Responsibility for providing further education is currently the responsibility of the local authorities. From 1 April 1993 the Further Education Funding Council for Wales will take over the responsibility for funding further education provision. It is not possible to say at this stage how many further education courses of different kinds will be available in South Wales colleges after September 1993 since this depends on a variety of factors.

  Private Sidings and Rail Schemes
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the schemes which have been granted section 8 payments for the development of private sidings and rail schemes in Wales during 1990 and 1991, or which are scheduled for 1992, indicating how much money has been allocated to each scheme.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  No section 8 payments were granted in 1990 and 1991. No payments are scheduled for 1992 although Ryan Mining Ltd. has received approval for a grant of £4,247,000 which is expected to be paid in 1993 and 1994.

  Bus Lanes
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for the 12 largest urban centres in Wales by population the percentage of total route miles covered by dedicated bus lanes.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Of the 12 largest urban centres in Wales by population, only Cardiff, Newport and Caerphilly/Bedwas have dedicated bus lanes. These amount to 1 per cent. or less of their total route miles.

  Women Passengers
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many incidents have been reported of(a) physical attacks on women passengers and (b) instances of sexual harrassment of women passengers (i) at railway stations in Wales and (ii) on trains in Wales in each of the last five years.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  This information is not readily available and I will write to the hon. Gentleman and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  Company Transport Schemes
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many company transport schemes have been established in Wales to transfer company employees to and from their place of employment.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  This information is not held centrally.

  Swn Dwr Farm
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what price was received by his Department following the sale of Swn Dwr farm, Northop, Clwyd.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Following a formal tender process, acceptable offers were received for the sale on 14 October 1992 in three lots of parts of the former Swn Dwr farm, Northop, Clwyd. The sales are currently with solicitors and completion is anticipated shortly. The price paid for each lot is considered commercially confidential information between the parties.

  Running Costs
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress he has made in achieving the target of a reduction of 1·5 per cent. in his Department's running costs for the present financial year, in the first half of this financial year; and what specifically has been saved, by what means and in what areas of his responsibility.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My Department is on course to achieve a saving of 1·5 per cent. in its running costs in 1992–93. Managers throughout the Department are contributing to this saving.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the average time taken by the Ministers in his Department, including himself, to answer letters from hon. Members, in each of the first three quarters of 1992, measuring the time from the receipt of the letter to the dispatch of the substantive reply.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information requested is as follows:

  1 January 1992 to 31 March 1992–12 working days

  1 April 1992 to 30 June 1992–12 working days

  1 July 1992 to 30 September 1992–14 working days

  Bardsey Island
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will designate the area around Bardsey island, Cardigan bay as a marine nature reserve, in recognition of the importance of the dolphin population; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend is responsible for designating marine nature reserves following an application from the Countryside Council for Wales. There are no such applications currently before him. I understand, however, that the council has completed surveys of the area that will enable it to undertake the relevant consultation procedure.

  Housing Stock
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the future of the housing stock held by the Development Board of Rural Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I will be laying draft regulations to govern the disposal of the Development Board for Rural Wales' housing stock before the House in due course.

  Assisted Area Status
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will provide a list of the 67 submissions he has received concerning assisted area status, indicating from which constituencies each submission has been received; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answers I gave him on 26 October and 24 November.

  District Health Authorities (Appointments)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the criteria according to which he is appointing members of the new area health authorities; what is the known political affiliation of those already appointed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Appointments to district health authorities are made on the basis of aptitude and merit and irrespective of any political affiliations.

  Higher Education (Research)
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales's budget is expected to be spent on supporting research activities in 1992–93; and what are the planned totals for 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I will announce the allocation of resources for the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales as soon as possible. The allocation of funds for research will be determined after consultation with the funding council and in the light of the totality of funding available to it.

  Health Trusts
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to provide the health trusts recently approved in Wales with the capital funding required to enable them to achieve the developments set out in their trust application in the time scale prescribed.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Announcements on the overall capital provision for hospital and community health services in Wales and its distribution between allocations to health authorities and provisional external financing limits for NHS trusts will be made during the course of the next few months.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Home Help Service
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people are in receipt of the home help service in each unit of management in the Eastern and Southern health and social services board; and what were the figures for 1 April 1990 to 31 March 1991 and(b) 5 April 1991 to 31 March 1992.

  Mr. Hanley
  Information is collected centrally only at one date each year. The number of people in receipt of the home help service in each unit of management of the Eastern and Southern health and social services boards at 31 March 1991 and 31 March 1992, the latest date for which information is available, was as follows:
  133

  Community Unit

  31 March 1991

  31 March 1992

  Eastern board

  North and West Belfast

  3,606

  3,501

  South and East Belfast

  15,569

  25,486

  North Down and Ards

  1,456

  21,716

  Down and Lisburn

  22,444

  22,436

  Southern board

  Craigavon and Banbridge

  2,011

  1,794

  Armagh and Dungannon

  1,686

  1,687

  Newry and Mourne

  1,578

  1,495

  1 This figure includes an extrapolation of data from 1990 as not all the information for 1991 is available.

  2 These figures relate to dates in either May or July of the year in question.

  Ozone Depletion
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will introduce a leakage prevention programme for all refrigeration and air conditioning equipment owned and operated by his Department; if he will publish targets for reductions in leakages; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Routine maintenance of all refrigeration and air conditioning equipment includes a leakage test. Where a leak occurs or major maintenance work is being undertaken in equipment which uses chlorofluorocarbons or hydrochlorofluorocarbons, these are replaced by ozone-friendly refrigerants. In other cases, equipment containing CFCs and HCFCs is replaced when it reaches the end of its useful life.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will implement a refrigerant recycling and reclaim policy covering all departmental equipment currently using chlorofluorocarbons and hydrochlorofluorocarbons; if he will publish targets for departmental reuse and recycling; if he will implement an equipment conversion and replacement programme for all departmental uses of CFCs and HCFCs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  In Northern Ireland the Department of the Environment has advised the public sector on the use and reduction of CFCs and halons. It has also worked closely with the district councils, which are responsible for waste collection and disposal in the Province, on the extraction and recycling of ozone-depleting gases from redundant fridges and freezers from all sectors. Each council now has access to a CFC removal facility and any gases which have been removed are recycled by ICI. It is policy that any departmental equipment which becomes redundant is replaced by more environmentally acceptable equipment and I will publish targets in a forthcoming strategy document.

  Forensic Science Laboratory, Newtownbreda
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many owner-occupiers have now submitted claims for compensations as a result of damage caused by the IRA bomb at the forensic science laboratory at Newtownbreda on 23 September; in how many of these claims authorisation has been given to issue interim payments; and how many interim payments of more than £2,000 have now been made.
  134
  Mr. Mates
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Compensation Agency under its chief executive Mr. J. Robinson. I have asked him for a reply to be given.

  Letter from J. Robinson to Mr. John D. Taylor, dated 30 November 1992:
  I refer to your recent Parliamentary Question concerning the criminal damage resulting from the bombing of the Forensic Science Laboratory at Newtownbreda on 23 September. The Secretary of State has asked me to respond.
  In total 727 applications for compensation have been lodged in connection with this incident and 179 interim payments made. Of the total number of applications received 490 are in respect of owner/occupiers and to date interim payments have been authorised in 122 of these cases. Twenty-two of the interim payments to owner/occupiers have been above £2,000. In addition 56 offers of settlement have been made to owner/occupiers three of whom had already received interim payments.
  As you may appreciate, many of the claimants are covered by household insurance policies and the Compensation Agency has to take account of this and other interests before making interim payments or settling claims.

  Training and Employment Agency
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 2 November,Official Report, columns 47–50, what has been the cost to the Exchequer during the last 12 months of the chief executive of the Training and Employment Agency's visits to (a) Brussels and (b) Germany.

  Mr. Atkins
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Training and Employment Agency under its chief executive Mr. Julian Crozier. I have asked him for a reply to be given.

  Letter from J. S. Crozier to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 27 November 1992:
  Following the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland's answer of 2 November (Official Report, columns 47–50) you have asked him to provide information on the total cost to the Exchequer during the last 12 months of the Chief Executive of the Training and Employment Agency's (T and EA) visits to (a) Brussels and (b) Germany.
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply as Chief Executive of the Training and Employment Agency which I do as follows:

  Total cost to the Exchequer

  Visit

  £

  Brussels

  552·13

  Germany

  727·95

  Cereal Production
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the current surplus or deficit in cereal production in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Hanley
  Northern Ireland has a deficit in cereal production and net imports amounted to 492,000 tonnes in 1991.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the average time taken by the Ministers in his Department, including himself, to answer letters
  135
  from hon. Members, in each of the first three quarters of 1992, measuring the time from the receipt of the letter to the dispatch of the substantive reply.

  Mr. Mates
  The information is not readily available in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate costs.

  Running Costs
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress he has made in achieving the target of a reduction of 1·5 per cent. in his Department's running costs for the present financial year, in the first half of this financial year; and what specifically has been saved, by what means and in what areas of his responsibility.

  Mr. Mates
  We are on target to deliver the 1·8 per cent. cash releasing savings as detailed at chapter 11 of "Northern Ireland expenditure plans and Priorities 1992–93–1994–95" (Cmnd. 1917).

  Higher Education (Research)
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proportion of the Department of Education for Northern Ireland's higher education budget is expected to be spent on supporting research activities in 1992–93; and what are the planned totals for 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96.

  Mr. Hanley
  In the financial year 1992–93, just under 33 per cent. of the Department of Education's higher education budget is being spent on supporting research activities in the university sector in Northern Ireland. For subsequent years planned totals are not yet available as the methodology by which research funding will be determined is currently under consideration.

  Nursing Homes
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many citizens of the Irish Republic are resident in nursing homes in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how the Department of Health and Social Services ensures that only British citizens are subsidised in Northern Ireland nursing homes by public funds.

  Mr. Hanley
  Help from public funds for people in nursing homes is provided mainly through income support but other benefits may also be payable. The maximum income support payable is generally reduced by the 136
  amount of any other available income. In certain circumstances, income support is payable to people coming to Northern Ireland from other countries, including European Community member states, which have similar obligations in relation to their corresponding benefit schemes.

  Elderly People (Funding)
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what funding is available for the elderly in Northern Ireland from EEC sources.

  Mr. Hanley
  The individual European Community programmes, operated under the Northern Ireland community support framework, are not aimed specifically at elderly people, although the latter may benefit indirectly. As part of an European Community action programme for older people, which culminates in a European Year of Older People and Solidarity between Generations in 1993, a limited amount of funding is being made available to support mainly pan-European activities to mark the year.

  Residential Care and Nursing Homes
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the role of the Client Groups Legislation Unit in respect of the Residential Care Homes Regulations N.I. and the Nursing Home Regulations and Registered Homes Tribunals Rules N.I.

  Mr. Hanley
  The client legislation unit is a small, time-limited unit within the Department of Health and Social Services dedicated to the preparation of new registered homes legislation, both primary and subordinate. The unit issued the Residential Care Homes Regulations (Northern Ireland), the Nursing Homes Regulations (Northern Ireland) and the Registered Homes Tribunal Rules (Northern Ireland) in draft form for consultation on 16 November. It will receive comments on all this subordinate legislation up to 14 December.

  Eastern Health and Social Services Board
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether employees with the Eastern Health and Social Services Board may register their nationality under the fair employment legislation as European; and how many have done so.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989 does not make provision for employees to register their nationality. However the Eastern health and social services board does request applicants to indicate whether they are from an EC or non EC country and there are 18,995 EHSSB employees registered as EC nationals.

HEALTH

  Hormone Replacement Therapy
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost of general practitioner prescribed hormone replacement therapy in each national health service region and family health services authority area in 1991–92; and if he will express that cost as expenditure per head of the female population for each area.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Note: The data included in the table are for preparations used for hormone replacement therapy as defined in the British National Formulary chapters 6.4.1.1 and 6.4.1.2. Some of the products could be wed for indications other than HRT. The period covered is April 1991 to March 1992 and the figures are for the net ingredient cost of prescriptions dispensed by community pharmacists, prescriptions dispensed by doctors and prescriptions submitted by prescribing doctors for items personally administered.

  Hormorne replacement therapy—England 1991–92

  NIC—Net Ingredient Cost

  NIC—Net Ingredient Cost per head of Female Population

  FHSA Name

  NIC

  NIC/Head

  £

  £

  Cleveland

  579,975

  2·03

  Cumbria

  513,631

  2·05

  Durham

  597,589

  1·93

  Northumberland

  287,420

  1·83

  Gateshead

  191,788

  1·84

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  225,443

  1·59

  North Tyneside

  170,745

  1·68

  South Tyneside

  128,790

  1·59

  Sunderland

  270,097

  1·77

  Northern RHA

  2,965,478

  1·87

  Humberside

  864,076

  1·93

  North Yorkshire

  763,371

  2·07

  Bradford

  405,128

  1·68

  Calderdale

  176,848

  1·76

  Kirklees

  306,322

  1·57

  Leeds

  719,500

  1·98

  Wakefield

  291,091

  1·81

  Yorkshire RHA

  3,526,336

  1·88

  Derbyshire

  866,565

  1·82

  Leicestershire

  763,437

  1·69

  Lincolnshire

  603,283

  2,00

  Nottinghamshire

  912,784

  1·77

  Barnsley

  190,450

  1·67

  Doncaster

  321,214

  2·16

  Rotherham

  171,854

  1·33

  Sheffield

  457,509

  1·72

  Trent RHA

  4,287,096

  1·78

  Cambridgeshire

  673,611

  2·00

  Norfolk

  906,173

  2·34

  Suffolk

  583,899

  1·75

  East Anglia RHA

  2,163,683

  2·05

  Bedfordshire

  544,581

  2·04

  Hertfordshire

  1,174,413

  2·34

  Barnet

  279,609

  1·80

  Brent and Harrow

  351,075

  1·52

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  501,852

  1·53

  Hillingdon

  235,285

  1·97

  138

  FHSA Name

  NIC

  NIC/Head

  £

  £

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  450,608

  2·67

  North West Thames RHA

  3,537,424

  2·00

  Essex

  1,737,656

  2·20

  Barking and Havering

  307,844

  1·59

  Camden and Islington

  348,021

  1·91

  City and East London

  371,387

  1·28

  Enfield and Harringey

  377,723

  1·57

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  368,378

  1·60

  North East Thames RHA

  3,511,009

  1·82

  East Sussex

  797,161

  2·10

  Kent

  1,764,088

  2·24

  Greenwich and Bexley

  438,645

  1·98

  Bromley

  385,880

  2·53

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  625,343

  1·70

  South East Thames RHA

  4,011,117

  2·10

  Surrey

  1,232,952

  2·23

  West Sussex

  911,909

  2·45

  Croydon

  363,573

  2·22

  Kingston and Richmond

  370,512

  2·38

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  594,536

  1·90

  South West Thames RHA

  3,473,483

  2·27

  Dorset

  808,695

  2·35

  Hampshire

  1,906,760

  2·40

  Wiltshire

  579,860

  2·01

  Isle of Wight

  175,537

  2·66

  Wessex RHA

  3,470,582

  2·32

  Berkshire

  862,692

  2·29

  Buckinghamshire

  808,863

  2·51

  Northamptonshire

  617,377

  2·07

  Oxfordshire

  640,275

  2·21

  Oxford RHA

  2,929,206

  2·28

  Avon

  974,609

  1·98

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  540,141

  2·20

  Devon

  1,233,861

  2·30

  Gloucestershire

  576,903

  2·09

  Somerset

  495,070

  2·06

  South Western RHA

  3,820,584

  2·14

  Hereford and Worcester

  769,466

  2·21

  Shropshire

  464,404

  2·22

  Staffordshire

  1,002,273

  1·90

  Warwickshire

  552,465

  2·23

  Birmingham

  879,187

  1·73

  Coventry

  293,369

  1·89

  Dudley

  250,033

  1·60

  Sandwell

  173,540

  1·15

  Solihull

  289,761

  2·82

  Walsall

  221,067

  1·66

  Wolverhampton

  175,972

  1·39

  West Midlands RHA

  5,071,539

  1·90

  Cheshire

  1,259,205

  2·55

  Liverpool

  462,260

  1·86

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  334,512

  1·94

  Sefton

  346,512

  2·24

  Wirral

  389,056

  2·21

  Mersey RHA

  2,791,620

  2·24

  Lancashire

  1,482,176

  2·04

  Bolton

  243,773

  1·82

  139

  FHSA Name

  NIC

  NIC/Head

  £

  £

  Bury

  196,882

  2·14

  Manchester

  341,059

  1·53

  Oldham

  212,248

  1·88

  Rochdale

  219,809

  2·09

  Salford

  238,549

  2·04

  Stockport

  342,588

  2·31

  Tameside

  197,317

  1·75

  Trafford

  272,994

  2·45

  Wigan

  323,490

  2·05

  North Western RHA

  4,070,886

  2·00

  ENGLAND

  49,630,313

  2·02

  Calcium Supplements
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost of general practitioner prescribed calcium supplements in each national health service region and family health services authority area in 1991–92; and if he will express that cost as expenditure per head of the female population for each area.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested is given in the table.

  The data included in the table are for calcium supplements as defined in the British National Formulary chapter 9.5.1.1. The period covered is April 1991 to March 1992 and the figures are for the net ingredient cost of prescriptions dispensed by community pharmacists, prescriptions dispensed by doctors and prescriptions submitted by prescribing doctors for items personally administered.

  Calcium supplements England 1991–92

  NIC—Net Ingredient Cost

  NIC/Head—Net Ingredient Cost per head of Female Population

  FHSA Name

  NIC

  NIC/Head

  £

  £

  Cleveland

  58,435

  0·20

  Cumbria

  34,204

  0·14

  Durham

  64,425

  0·21

  Northumberland

  33,883

  0·22

  Gateshead

  24,882

  0·24

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  36,334

  0·26

  North Tyneside

  46,218

  0·45

  South Tyneside

  20,532

  0·25

  Sunderland

  76,075

  0·50

  Northern RHA

  394,987

  0·25

  Humberside

  104,125

  0·23

  North Yorkshire

  75,560

  0·20

  Bradford

  64,769

  0·27

  Calderdale

  18,859

  0·19

  Kirklees

  40,141

  0·21

  Leeds

  74,230

  0·20

  Wakefield

  24,809

  0·15

  Yorkshire RHA

  402,493

  0·21

  Derbyshire

  117,234

  0·25

  Leicestershire

  108,224

  0·24

  Lincolnshire

  97,693

  0·32

  Nottinghamshire

  103,570

  0·20

  Barnsley

  20,388

  0·18

  Doncaster

  41,381

  0·28

  Rotherham

  29,296

  0·23

  Sheffield

  35,320

  0·13

  Trent RHA

  553,107

  0·23

  140

  FHSA Name

  NIC

  NIC/Head

  £

  £

  Cambridgeshire

  70,897

  0·21

  Norfolk

  70,532

  0·18

  Suffolk

  58,164

  0·17

  East Anglia RHA

  199,594

  0·19

  Bedfordshire

  38,042

  0·14

  Hertfordshire

  143,371

  0·29

  Barnet

  53,993

  0·35

  Brent and Harrow

  50,594

  0·22

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  90,311

  0·27

  Hillingdon

  23,756

  0·20

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  40,462

  0·24

  North West Thames RHA

  440,528

  0·25

  Essex

  145,219

  0·18

  Barking and Havering

  37,478

  0·19

  Camden and Islington

  40,235

  0·22

  City and East London

  40,651

  0·14

  Enfield and Haringey

  80,327

  0·33

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  39,627

  0·17

  North East Thames RHA

  383,538

  0·20

  East Sussex

  81,774

  0·22

  Kent

  176,068

  0·22

  Greenwich and Bexley

  40,712

  0·18

  Bromley

  23,372

  0·15

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  37,483

  0·10

  South East Thames RHA

  359,409

  0·19

  Surrey

  119,487

  0·23

  West Sussex

  120,449

  0·32

  Croydon

  27,881

  0·17

  Kingston and Richmond

  42,489

  0·27

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  64,134

  0·21

  South West Thames RHA

  374,440

  0·24

  Dorset

  92,732

  0·27

  Hampshire

  148,107

  0·19

  Wiltshire

  52,851

  0·18

  Isle of Wight

  14,866

  0·23

  Wessex RHA

  308,557

  0·21

  Berkshire

  54,634

  0·15

  Buckinghamshire

  76,040

  0·24

  Northamptonshire

  55,136

  0·19

  Oxfordshire

  33,793

  0·12

  Oxford RHA

  219,603

  0·17

  Avon

  118,269

  0·24

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  105,892

  0·43

  Devon

  122,348

  0·23

  Gloucestershire

  62,736

  0·23

  Somerset

  53,472

  0·22

  South Western RHA

  462,718

  0·26

  Hereford and Worcester

  93,170

  0·27

  Shropshire

  49,914

  0·24

  Staffordshire

  110,275

  0·21

  Warwickshire

  58,751

  0·24

  Birmingham

  109,298

  0·21

  Coventry

  97,215

  0·63

  Dudley

  56,107

  0·36

  Sandwell

  40,661

  0·27

  Solihull

  24,080

  0·23

  Walsall

  42,147

  0·32

  141

  FHSA Name

  NIC

  NIC/Head

  £

  £

  Wolverhampton

  36,953

  0·29

  West Midlands RHA

  718,571

  0·27

  Cheshire

  154,340

  0·31

  Liverpool

  46,592

  0·19

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  43,084

  0·25

  Sefton

  44,998

  0·29

  Wirral

  51,180

  0·29

  Mersey RHA

  340,194

  0·27

  Lancashire

  194,165

  0·27

  Bolton

  43,900

  0·33

  Bury

  26,824

  0·29

  Manchester

  43,987

  0·20

  Oldham

  30,688

  0·27

  Rochdale

  36,901

  0·35

  Salford

  29,602

  0·25

  Stockport

  35,565

  0·24

  Tameside

  38,172

  0·34

  Trafford

  20,653

  0·19

  Wigan

  30,373

  0·19

  North Western RHA

  530,831

  0·26

  England

  5,688,569

  0·23

  Clinical Psychology Training
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps her Department is taking to increase the number of graduates applying for post-graduate clinical psychology training;

  (2) what assessment her Department has made of the effect of the level of financial support available on the willingness of graduates to take up postgraduate clinical psychology training.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  It is a matter for regional health authorities to determine how the training arrangements for clinical psychologists are organised and funded. This includes any assessment of factors affecting the numbers of applicants for such training.

  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average level of income of a postgraduate clinical psychology traineee on(a) a nationally agreed salary scale and (b) a bursary awarded by the northern consortium of health authorities; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The pay scale effective from 1 April 1992 for trainee clinical psychologists who are employed on Whitley terms and conditions is as follows:

  £11,268

  £11,718

  £12,187

  £12,675

  Information about the current average income of trainees is not available.

  I understand that the northern regional education purchasers' group has yet to decide the level at which any bursaries might be set.

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what would be the annual cost, and what would be the current charges if prescription charges had been raised in line with inflation since 1979.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  A cost of about £170 million in 1991–92, and a current charge of 69p.

  Only one in five items dispensed in the National Health Service now attracts a charge at the point of dispensing, compared with two in five in 1979. In 1991, over 100 million more items were dispensed free of charge than in 1979. Although the prescription charge has increased, it continues to represent less than half the average total cost of a prescribed item to the NHS.

  Solvent Abuse
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what her Department's planned direct expenditure is on solvent abuse in the year 1993–94.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No decisions have yet been taken about expenditure in 1993–94.

  NHS Staff (Pay)
  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance will be issued to enforce the 1·5 per cent. pay rise ceiling she has set for NHS staff; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) on 23 November at column 505.

  Residential Care Homes
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will consider imposing an obligation on local authority inspection units to make publicly available their reports on residential care homes in the private and voluntary sectors and in local authority homes; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  We expect local authorities to allow public access to the reports on individual care homes and other services prepared by inspection units, under the terms set out in chapter 5 of the policy guidance "Community Care in the Next Decade Beyond". The consultation document "Inspecting Social Services" published on 2 October 1992 contains proposals aimed at increasing the influence of inspection reports and ensuring their public availability.

  Copies of both the guidance and the consultation document are available in the Library.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many local authorities have published the reports of their inspections of registered residential care homes; and if she will provide a list of those authorities and the number of their published inspections.

  Mr. Yeo
  This information is not held centrally.

  AIDS
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the AIDS support grant for 1992–93 and 1993–94; and if she will make a statement.
  143
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 19 November to the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates),Official Report, column 387, what reasons underlie the reduction of specific grant for AIDS/HIV from 1992–93 to 1993–94; and what assessment she has made of the effects this will have on service provision (a) in England, (b) in the west Midlands and (c) in Birmingham.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The AIDS/HIV specific grant is £15·3 million for 1992–93 and £12·4 million for 1993–94. The grant will continue to support a maximum 70 per cent. of expenditure. For 1993–94, the grant will be targeted more effectively on those local authorities most in need of support and the funds thereby released will be used for other important priorities. The Department is currently considering how best to target the grant in the light of individual authorities' needs.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average time taken by the Ministers in her Department, including herself, to answer letters from hon. Members, in each of the first three quarters of 1992, measuring the time from the receipt of the letter to the dispatch of the substantive reply.

  Mr. Sackville
  We aim to reply within 28 days of receipt, and we actively monitor performance against this target. The information is shown in the table.

  Average clearance time (calendar days)

  Number of letters received

  1 January 1992 to 31 March 1992

  25·93

  4,866

  1 April 1992 to 30 June 1992

  18·03

  3,320

  1 July 1992 to 30 September 1992

  23·75

  4,073

  Patients Charter
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether she will give every citizen the right of access in the patients charter to medical records held about him or herself by(a) an employer and (b) by a medical practitioner.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Access to Health Records Act 1990 and the Data Protection Act 1984 provide individuals with a right of access to their own health records, subject to certain safeguards. This right has been highlighted in the patients charter. The statutory right of access extends to those health records held by an individual's employer where those records have been compiled by a health professional in connection with the individual's care.

  Nottingham City Hospital
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she will announce her decision on the appeal from Nottingham city hospital to be allowed to build a new day care unit at the edge of its current site and on the competing bid by the health authority to sell land for a supermarket.
  144
  Mr. Sackville
  The matter has been referred to the National Health Service Management Executive for resolution. The NHSME is currently waiting for further information from the parties concerned.

  Acquired Rights Directive
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate she has made of the effects of the acquired rights directive on(a) services her Department contracts out and (b) services she plans to contract out in the future; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  To date, the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations which implement the acquired rights directive have not been applicable to any services contracted out by the central Department.

  The main functions to be market tested within the Department by the end of September 1993 were published on 25 November 1992 in the citizens charter White Paper (Cm 2101). These are as follows: internal audit, internal management consultancy, library services, office services, selected statistical surveys and support, welfare foods scheme. The possible effects of the acquired rights directive will be taken into consideration in each market test.

  Prescribing
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what discussions she had with ICI Pharmaceuticals prior to her announcement of the extended limited list system for national health service prescribing;

  (2) what discussions she had with representatives of the pharmaceutical industry about possible alternative ways of reducing the NHS drug budget prior to her announcement of the extensions to the limited list system for national health service prescribing;

  (3) what alternative methods of reducing the overall national health service drugs budget she considered prior to the recent announcement of the extensions to the limited list prescribing system; and why, in each case, those alternatives were rejected;

  (4) what consultations she had with representatives of the Royal College of General Practitioners to discuss the medical implications of extending the limited list prescribing system to those categories which were included in her recent announcement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The selected list scheme has been in place since 1985, and has helped to control the growth in the national health service drugs bill, without adverse effects on patient care. Extending the scope of the scheme to ten new therapeutic categories will not affect the basic structure of the scheme. As now, decisions on individual drugs will be taken on the basis of advice from the independent advisory committee on NHS drugs, comprising doctors, dentists and pharmacists appointed after consultation with relevant professional organisations, and after the manufacturers concerned have been given the opportunity of making representations to the Committee.

  Advance consultation with professional organisations, representatives of the pharmaceutical industry or individual manufacturers on the proposal to extend the scope of the scheme was not therefore, in the Government's view, appropriate. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear in her announcement on 12 November, we intend to have discussions with the

  145
  pharmaceutical industry, and the medical and pharmaceutical professions, about the drugs bill, and we expect other possible ways of controlling overall expenditure to be considered in the course of those discussions.

  Sir Michael Grylls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement providing full details of representations which she received prior to the announcement of an extension to and adoption of the limited list prescribing system; and which representations specifically support the inclusion in that list of each of the new categories of product which will now be included in the system.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No such representations were received.

  Accident and Emergency Units
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will establish an inquiry into the resourcing, planning and co-ordination of accident and emergency units in Greater Manchester; and if she will make a statement;

  (2) if she will arrange for an investigation into the number of occasions during November when more than one accident and emergency unit was closed in the central and south Manchester areas, and into the impact on patients; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  North Western regional health authority co-ordinates the provision of accident and emergency services across Greater Manchester. A working party into the provision of these services has recently concluded its work. The hon. Member may wish to contact Sir Bruce Martin, the chairman of North Western RHA, for information about the working party and for details of accident and emergency services.

  Homeless People
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance the Government issues to local authorities on the health and welfare of homeless people.

  Mr. Yeo
  Prime responsibility for the health of homeless people, as for others in its area, lies with the relevant health authority. Recent guidance to local authorities which includes references to the health and welfare of homeless people is contained in the homelessness code of guidance (published by the Department of the Environment, the Department of

  General dental services (England): average gross payment to dentists in 1992–93

  Adult item of service

  Continuing care

  Child item of service

  Capitation

  Entry payments

  Gross

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  January

  5,018

  590

  310

  884

  175

  6,978

  February

  5,458

  613

  359

  810

  220

  7,460

  March

  5,551

  621

  381

  845

  239

  7,637

  April

  5,665

  631

  374

  871

  229

  7,770

  May

  5,278

  643

  361

  896

  224

  7,402

  June

  5,331

  661

  364

  915

  177

  7,447

  July

  5,337

  674

  369

  930

  171

  7,481

  August

  5,211

  613

  375

  940

  161

  7,302

  September

  4,553

  594

  328

  959

  140

  6,573

  October

  4,468

  602

  349

  976

  126

  6,521

  Total

  51,870

  6,242

  3,570

  9,026

  1,861

  72,570

  146
  Health and the Welsh Office) and in this Department's guidance on the implementation of our care in the community policies.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many homeless people attended outpatients departments in each London hospital in the latest available year.

  Mr. Yeo
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate she has made of the number of homeless people in London who do not have access to a general practitioner.

  Mr. Yeo
  All homeless people, have the right of access to a general practitioner. To encourage and improve this access, the Department of Health is funding a number of special projects, in London and elsewhere, where a significant need has been demonstrated which the normal arrangements do not meet. These projects are based on a doctor, often supported by other professional staff, holding surgeries in places, such as day centres, where homeless people tend to congregate.

  Dentists
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are her estimates for gross payments per dentist in 1992–93 and net income per dentist after expenses in 1992–93.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We estimated that the new fee scale, introduced on 8 July 1992, would deliver a gross income of about £88,000 to the average dentist. However, the full effects of the revised fee scale are not yet apparent, and it is too early to revise the estimate of either dentists' gross earnings or net income in 1992–93. Dentists should, however, still receive several thousand pounds more than the target average net income recommended by the Review Body on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish a table showing the average gross payments for a general dental practitioner for each of the first 10 months of 1992–93 broken down into(a) adult item of service, (b) continuing care, (c) child item of service and (d) capitation.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested (the latest available for the last 10 months) is set out in the table.
  147
  Note

  The above figures were obtained by dividing expenditure on the GDS in England, excluding direct reimbursement of business rates and other payments made by FHSAs, by the number of general dental practitioners in England at 30 June 1992 (14,865). These data are not compatible with the data used by the Dental Rates Study Group.

  Residential Homes
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will state the latest estimate for the number of places in(a) private residential or nursing homes, (b) voluntary residential or nursing homes and (c) local authority residential homes and express each element as a percentage of the total number of places.

  Mr. Yeo
  Information which separately identifies private and voluntary nursing homes is not available. The total number of beds in nursing homes (including beds in dual registered homes) at 31 March 1991 was 124,300.

  Provisional estimates of the numbers of places in adult residential care homes (including dual registered homes) as at 31 March 1992 are:

  Places

  per cent, of total

  Private homes

  172,800

  52

  Voluntary homes

  55,400

  17

  Local authority homes

  105,400

  31

  The figures include only those private and voluntary homes which have registered under the Registered Homes Act 1984, and so exclude for instance, homes with fewer than four residents. Unstaffed local authority homes are not included in the figures.

  Community Care
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) in calculating the territorial distribution of the social security transfer element of the community care funding available from April 1993 what assumptions were made concerning the numbers, in percentage terms, of future residents of private or voluntary care or nursing homes who would be placed in establishments outside their own local authority boundaries;

  (2) what correcting mechanisms to take account of migration have been included in the distribution arrangements for community care funding with effect from April 1993.

  Mr. Yeo
  The overall level of cross-boundary flows was taken into account in deciding the respective weighting to be given to the two parts of the distribution formula—whether according to standard spending assessment or according to the current pattern of income support expenditure. A standard spending assessment distribution would tend to favour those authorities most likely to place residents in homes outside their boundaries, and so the less weight that is placed on the income support element of the formula, the less need there is to adjust it for migration.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what allowance has been made for support costs after 1993–94 in the arrangements for community care funding with effect from April 1993.

  Mr. Yeo
  In each successive year after 1993–94, the amount of the previous year's special transitional grant for 148
  community care, including the additional amount of £140 million which has been made available in 1993–94 in respect of authorities' new responsibilities, will be included in the personal social services standard spending assessment control total and distributed through the revenue support grant.

  Pharmaceutical Industry
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment her Department has made of the likely effect of the Government's proposed extension of the limited list on the pharmaceutical industry's international competitiveness and its export achievements.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on 26 November at column 810. The relative competitiveness of the United Kingdom pharmaceutical industry and its export achievements depend on many factors in both the United Kingdom and other key pharmaceutical markets.

ENVIRONMENT

  Environmental Sustainability
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to ensure that structural fund regulations are amended to include a commitment to environmental sustainability as a vital component of regional policy during the United Kingdom's presidency of the EC.

  Mr. Maclean
  Draft regulations covering the future operation of the structural funds are still awaited and it is unlikely, therefore, that negotiations will start during the United Kingdom's presidency. However, when negotiations commence, the Government will be concerned to achieve closer integration between Community environmental policy and the structural funds.

  Charities (Planning Applications)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many planning applications have been received by local authorities from registered charities in each year since 1985;

  (2) what plans he has to allow local authorities to waive planning application fees from registered charities; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what is the estimated cost of waiving local authority planning application fees from registered charities.

  Mr. Baldry
  Information on the number of planning applications and the fee revenue received from registered charities is not collected. Planning application fees are determiend by the type of development proposed rather than by the nature of the applicant. Under the existing statutory provisions, local authorities have no power to waive fees. I have no plans to allow them to do so.

  Earth Summit
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the dates by which Her Majesty's Government expects to ratify each of the agreements made at the Earth summit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  We are seeking to ratify the framework convention on climate change and to establish the basis on which we can ratify the convention on bilogical diversity by the end of 1993.

  Ozone Depletion
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce a leakage prevention programme for all refrigeration and air conditioning equipment owned and operated by his Department; if he will publish targets for reductions in leakages; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  My Department has a comprehensive green housekeeping strategy in place which aims to prevent leakages of ozone-depleting refrigerants through the regular servicing of refrigeration and air conditioning equipment. It deals with the scrutiny of materials used by contractors, the storage and disposal of ozone-depleting substances and compliance with the professional codes of practice.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will implement a refrigerant recycling and reclaim policy covering all departmental equipment current using chlorofluorocarbons and hydrochlorofluorocarbons; if he will publish targets for departmental reuse and recycling; if he will implement an equipment conversion and replacement programme for all departmental uses of CFCs and HCFCs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  My Department already has a policy on its use of ozone-depleting substances. It is included in its statement on green housekeeping which was published in March 1992 and, among other things, commits the Department to eliminating the use of substances such as CFCs, halons, carbon tetrachloride and 1,1,1 trichloroethane. It also stipulates that the chemicals being replaced should be recycled in products where no alternative is available.

  The policy is being implemented through a comprehensive green housekeeping action plan which was issued to departmental operational managers in October.

  The Department does not presently have sufficient information to publish targets for departmental reuse and recycling.

  Property Services Agency
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those firms bidding by 26 June to take over the duties of the Property Services Agency; and which firms were shortlisted.

  Mr. Redwood
  Seven firms bid by 26 June to purchase the PSA projects of which WS Atkins; Carl Bros; the Pell Frischmann/Sir William Halcrow Consortium; and Tarmac were shortlisted. Names of those not shortlisted are regarded as commercially confidential but will of course be available to the National Audit Office.
  150
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what commercial basis Tarmac was offered the contract to run the Property Services Agency.

  Mr. Redwood
  Tarmac was not offered a contract to run the Property Services Agency. PSA Projects was offered for sale by open competition and Tarmac was the successful bidder.

  Sewage Works
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of sewage works for each water company comply with the standard set by the National Rivers Authority.

  Mr. Maclean
  The most recent information, relating to 1990, is contained in this year's "Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics", and in my Department's recent report "The UK Environment", copies of which are in the House Library. Overall in 1990, 92 per cent. of sewage treatment works complied with their consent conditions, compared with 77 per cent. in 1986 and 83 per cent. in 1988.

  Whales
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment upon what grounds EC member states can derogate from prohibitions on the killing of whales contained in(a) the habitats directive and (b) the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species regulation EEC No. 3626/82; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to article 16 of council directive 92/43/EEC. There are no provisions for derogations of the type described in Council Regulation (EEC) No. 3626/92.

  Local Government Finance
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what amount of money he assumes will be raised in local authority capital receipts by(a) Wear Valley district council, (b) Derwentside district council and (c) Durham county council as a result of the measures announced in the autumn statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I have not made any estimates of these receipts at the level of individual local authorities. Authorities have provided their own forecasts of the receipts they expect to receive during 1992–93 and this information is available in the Library of the House.

  Rent Arrears, Northamptonshire
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of rent arrears in each district in Northamptonshire at the latest convenient date.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 2 July 1992 to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) at column 675.

  Travel Times
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures are taken by his Department to promote zoning schemes linking residential, commercial and recreational areas so as to keep travel times to a minimum.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Department has issued preliminary advice to local planning authorities on how development patterns may influence the need to travel, and promote choice of more energy-efficient means of transport, in "Planning Policy Guidance" (PPG) note 12. The Department will be publishing shortly the results of research commissioned jointly with the Department of Transport on the part which land-use planning measures could play in achieving these objectives. Some of its findings will be reflected in a revised version of PPG 13 on transport and planning, a draft of which will be issued for consultation in the next few months.

  Specific advice on locational policies in development plans designed to influence travel patterns in relation to industrial and commercial development and small firms was issued in November in a revised version of PPG 4. Equivalent advice for retail development is given in the consultation draft of PPG 6, issued in October.

  Water
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is the total number and percentage of English homes directly served by mains water supplies; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what is the total number of homes directly served by mains water supplies for each of the EC member countries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The "Levels of Service Report 1990–91", published by OFWAT, lists 23,594,000 domestic properties that are served by mains water supplies for England and Wales. These account for approximately 99 per cent. of the population for England and Wales. Figures are not available for properties in England separately, or for other EC member countries.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans his Department has to improve co-operation and liaison between the water companies and British Waterways; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The relationship between British Waterways and the water companies is a matter for the board and the companies.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next plans to meet the chairman of the regional water companies; and what matters will be discussed.

  Mr. Maclean
  Ministers have had a number of meetings in recent months with the chairman of British Waterways, at which, among other things, matters of strategic policy and board appointments have been discussed. But the Secretary of State has at present no plans to meet him.

  Sheltered Housing
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to transfer the care element of the warden service in sheltered housing from housing accounts to the social services budget; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  A recent Court of Appeal judgment cast doubt on housing authorities' powers to provide care services and charge their costs to the housing revenue account. To avoid disruption to these important services, we are seeking powers in the Housing and Urban Development Bill to legitimise all housing authorities' arrangements in connection with care services.

  The Government's policy is that the housing revenue account should be a landlord account. We therefore propose that these new powers would be temporary only. But before any decisions are taken about the timing of any change in the arrangements, or about how the services would be provided thereafter, or about how their costs would be accounted for, there will be full consultation with all parties early in the new year. When considering how best to implement any new arrangements we shall consider all the financial and administrative issues to ensure that support continues to be available to those who need it.

  Running Costs
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress he has made in achieving the target of a reduction of 1·5 per cent. in his Department's running costs for the present financial year, in the first half of this financial year; and what specifically has been saved, by what means and in what areas of his responsibility.

  Mr. Howard
  The Department's annual report for 1993, which is currently being prepared, will show that between 1986–87 and 1991–92 the Department increased it's efficiency by about 4 per cent. a year. These figures reflect a measurement of administrative output throughout the Department and not merely of running costs. The savings have been achieved primarily by the increased use of information technology and the implementation of more efficient and effective management controls. As a consequence, the Department has been largely able to absorb the cost of additional policy initiatives. Equivalent figures for the current financial year are not yet available, but will be published in the departmental report in early 1994.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has concerning the decision of the Property Services Agency International to withdraw from the contract to build the road from Mount Pleasant airport to Newhaven in the Falkland Islands; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Discussions on the completion of the road are taking place between Property Services Agency International and the Falkland Islands Government in the light of the run down of PSAI's workload.

  City Challenge and Urban Programme
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what resources will be available for city challenge and the urban programme in 1993–94.
  153
  Mr. Howard
  City challenge and urban programme resources will rise from a total provision of £319 million in 1992–93 to £408 million in 1993–94, underlining the Government's continued commitment to urban regeneration. In addition, the 57 urban programme authorities will have an estimated £500 million in extra spending power in 1993–94 as a result of the changes I announced on 13 November in the capital receipts rules. To complement these resources, I have decided to make available up to £20 million in uncommitted urban programme resources in 1993–94 through a new urban partnership fund (UPF) which will combine with local authorities' usable capital receipts and other funding, including private finance, to promote urban regeneration. Details of the UPF are included in guidance to local authorities, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Wildlife Trade
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what changes will be made in controls on the wildlife trade from 1 January 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The main controls on the wildlife trade will remain unaltered but the establishment of the single market will make it impractical to retain controls on some imports and exports. We propose to compensate for this by strengthening controls within the United Kingdom.

  There are controls throughout the European Community on trade in species protected by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). These cover imports from and exports to non-EC countries of all species listed on the CITES appendices and also include prohibitions on the sale of specimens of endangered species. They are supported by systems of permits and certificates issued and recognised by all member states. This system will remain fully operational on 1 January. Within the United Kingdom, we have an extensive system of controls to restrict sales of specimens of native species. Within Great Britain, this was strengthened in October to include a further 90 species and will remain unchanged from 1 January next year.

  At present, we also control the import and export of many species not listed on CITES, under the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976. From 1 January, it will no longer be possible to retain these controls in relation to trade within the European Community. Given the future freedom of movement within the Community, we have looked carefully at whether we should continue to control trade in non-CITES species with non-EC countries. We have concluded that it is only sensible to do so where most other member states have similar controls, because otherwise our restrictions could be evaded very easily by routing trade through EC neighbours. This means that from 1 January 1993 controls under the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976 will apply only to the import of the skins of harp and hooded seal pups. We are writing to traders giving details of the species which will not require import export licences.

  We are determined that these changes should not result in any significant loss of protection for species which require it. We urged the European Commission last year to bring forward proposals to strengehen EC-wide controls and this they have done. We have made good progress during our presidency of the European
  154
  Community towards achieving agreement on a new regulation which would extend EC controls on the wildlife trade to more species than are covered at present by the 1976 Act. We expect this regulation to be adopted next year. Further, freedom of movement within the Community will make it particularly important to have effective controls within member states and the Environment Council on 20 October took the view that a good deal of discretion on these should continue to rest with individual countries.

  We therefore propose to strengthen controls applied within this country. As a first step, we propose to extend sales controls to some 200 species formerly protected by import and export restrictions and which our scientific advisers, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, consider would otherwise he at risk from trade. We propose too to review how the operation of all our wildlife sales controls may be made more effective. We are consulting interested organisations about the scope of the review which will be undertaken over the course of the next year.

  Personal Social Services SSA
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to review the children's element of the personal social services standard spending assessment and the area cost adjustment to ensure equity between local authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 30 November 1992]: My right hon. and learned Friend announced his proposals for standard spending assessments (SSAs) for 1993–94 on the 26 November 1992. There now follows a period of consultation during which representations about any aspects of SSAs will be carefully considered.

  Water Industry
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the cost of regulation in 1991–92 for the water industry; and what is the expected corresponding figure for 1992–93.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 30 November 1992]: Different aspects of quality regulation fall to the drinking water inspectorate (DWI) and National Rivers Authority (NRA). The Office of Water Services (OFWAT) regulates prices.

  In addition to its regulatory functions the DWI provides technical and scientific advice to my right hon. Friends, the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Wales. DWI's total costs for 1991–92 were £1·4 million, and for 1992–93 are expected to be £1·6 million.

  The NRA spent in total £35 million in 1991–92, and expect to spend £41 million in 1992–93, on licensing and monitoring of discharges: approaching two thirds of this is attributable to water industry discharges. The NRA spent a further £8 million in 1991–92, and expect to spend £9 million in 1992–93, on licensing and enforcement of abstractions: the proportion attributable to the water industry is not readily available.

  The Director General for Water Services's "Annual Report 1991", a copy of which is in the Library, records that in 1991–92 OFWAT's budget was £6·29 million, and for 1992–93 is £7·52 million.

  Local Authority Capital Receipts
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the level of capital receipts held by each local authority at the end of year 1991–92 and which they are unable to spend according to current rates, together with the level of capital spending by each authority in 1991–92.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 30 November 1992]: Local authorities are not required to identify the reserved part of capital receipts from other amounts which have been set aside as provision to meet credit liabilities (PCL). Information on the total amount set aside as PCL at 31 March 1992 is not yet available. The most comprehensive information relates to 31 March 1991: this is in the Library of the House.

  I am arranging for provisional information on gross capital expenditure in 1991–92, as reported to the Department by local authorities, to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will publish and place in the Library in hard copy and in machine readable form, as soon as possible after issuing his consultation paper on 1993–94 roles support grant, a table showing for each local authority its 1992–93 standard spending assessment with and without adjustments for changes in local authority functions and its 1993–94 SSA with the percentage changes, between both 1992–93 SSAs and the 1993–94 SSA;

  (2) what are the cash and real terms increases for total standard spending in England in 1993–94, after adjusting for changes in local authority functions, compared with (a) total standard spending for 1992–93 and (b) local authorities' budgets for 1992–93.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 27 November 1992]: Information on 1992–93 SSAs was placed in the Library in hard copy and in machine readable form following the announcement of the 1992–93 revenue support grant (RSG) settlement. Similar information on the proposals for the 1993–94 RSG settlement was placed in the Library, again in both hard copy and machine readable form, immediately following the announcement to the House yesterday of our intentions for 1993–94.

  There are several ways in which the 1992–93 SSA figures might be adjusted to allow for the changes in local authority functions in order to facilitate comparisons with the 1993–94 information. I shall provide a set of SSAs for 1992–93 on an adjusted basis, together with a full description of the underlying assumptions shortly.

  Region

  Taxbase March 1991 (millions)

  Dwellings March 1991 (millions)

  Taxbase September 1992 (millions)

  Dwellings September 1992 (millions)

  Northern

  0·923

  1·243

  0·900

  1·294

  North West

  1·962

  2·516

  1·905

  2·607

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1·535

  1·952

  1·486

  2·045

  East Midlands

  1·303

  1·572

  1·245

  1·663

  West Midlands

  1·639

  2·016

  1·619

  2·102

  East Anglia

  0·677

  0·816

  0·689

  0·874

  South West

  1·694

  1·842

  1·671

  2·003

  South East

  4·078

  4·143

  4·261

  4·415

  Greater London

  2·950

  2·824

  2·720

  2·946

  Public Buildings (Fire Damage)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the total cost to public funds arising from fire damage in public buildings in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 27 November 1992]: The total cost to public funds arising from fire damage to public buildings on the civil estate for the last three years, based on reports received by my Department, were:

  £

  1989

  631,439

  1990

  6,168,465

  1991

  Nil

  To date fire costs reported for the current year amount to £2,000. The cost for 1990 includes £6,000,000 arising from a single incident in a storage depot at Burtonwood. One incident was reported for 1991 but no cost was incurred. Fire incidents occurring on the defence estate are not reported to my Department.

  Council Tax
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the impact on the band D equivalent council tax of a single person discount of 50 per cent. instead of 25 per cent.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 26 November 1992]: On the basis of the provisional taxbase information provided by local authorities for consultation purposes, it is estimated that a 50 per cent. single person discount would reduce the national taxbase by just over 8 per cent. This means that the headline council tax for two adults would need to be about 9 per cent. higher in order to raise any given amount of revenue. For single person households the combined effect of the increased discount but higher basic tax rates would be a reduction of about 27 per cent.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing, for each region, the total number of band D discounted equivalents for council tax purposes form CTB1, row 11, total of columns 1 to 8 and the total number of dwellings on the valuation list, form CTB1, row 8, column 9, and a table showing comparable information for each region imputed from the illustrative council tax figures produced by his Department in 1991.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 20 November 1992]: The information requested is as follows:

  157

  Region

  Taxbase March 1991 (millions)

  Dwellings March 1991 (millions)

  Taxbase September 1992 (millions)

  Dwellings September 1992 (millions)

  Total

  16·761

  18·923

  16·270

  19·950

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Bananas
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the arrangements for bananas agreed at the last meeting of Agriculture Ministers.

  Mr. Curry
  The Agriculture Council of 16 and 17 November discussed the Commission's proposal for the common organisation of the banana market. No agreement has yet been reached on the future arrangements for bananas. The Council will consider the issue again in December.

  Mr. Channon
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what interim arrangements he is proposing to put in place to protect the position of Caribbean banana exporters during the interim period after 1 January 1993 before final decisions on the banana regime are taken.

  Mr. Curry
  The Government are working hard to achieve agreement on new EC banana market arrangments as soon as possible. If necessary, interim measures designed to protect our traditional suppliers in the Commonwealth Caribbean will be put in place on 1 January 1993.

  Mr. Channon
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he intends to make so as to achieve a successful banana regime before the end of the United Kingdom presidency.

  Mr. Curry
  I am reflecting on the possibilities for reconciling the wide differences of opinion between member states in a way consistent with our objectives on this dossier.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the average time taken by the Ministers in his Department including himself, to answer letters from hon. Members, in each of the first three quarters of 1992, measuring the time from the receipt of the letter to the dispatch of the substantive reply.

  Mr. Curry
  In this Department, Ministers replied within 21 days to letters from hon. Members and noble Lords in 80 per cent. of cases in the first quarter, 91·7 per cent. of cases in the second and 78 per cent. of cases in the third quarter of this year. Numbers of letters received during the first three quarters were 1,931, 2,521 and 3,684 respectively. The Department does not hold information on the average time taken to reply to Ministers' correspondence.

  Running Costs
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he has made in achieving the target of a reduction of 1·5 per cent. in his Department's running costs for the present financial year, in the first half of this financial year; and what specifically has been saved, by what means and in what areas of his responsibility.

  Mr. Curry
  The main areas which contribute to the Department's running cost efficiencies are: information technology; staff inspection, to ensure the most efficient organisation of work; and purchasing.

  The efficiency gains which these measures provide are monitored and reviewed on a 12-month (financial year) basis, and information is not available on a six-month basis. Information on efficiency gains will be available after April 1993.

  Plant and Machinery
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the level of investment has been on agricultural plant and machinery for each year since 1979; and if he will give a breakdown of the different areas including tractors, combine harvesters, and farm buildings.

  Mr. Gummer
  Latest estimates of investment by the United Kingdom agricultural industry in building and works, plant and machinery and vehicles are shown in the table. Information on tractors, and combine harvesters is not available separately.

  Gross capital formation at current prices

  £ million

  Buildings and works

  Plant and machinery

  Vehicles

  1979

  397

  501

  100

  1980

  557

  425

  82

  1981

  516

  361

  103

  1982

  617

  484

  112

  1983

  645

  599

  122

  1984

  661

  563

  129

  1985

  556

  595

  116

  1986

  432

  495

  122

  1987

  396

  447

  126

  1988

  447

  538

  140

  1989

  473

  489

  161

  1990

  545

  431

  201

  1991

  436

  394

  191

  Fishermen (Incidental Catches)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many reports regarding incidental catches of marine mammals by fishermen his fisheries officers in England and Wales have received to date under the scheme set up to monitor the extent of this interaction.

  Mr. Curry
  There has been one report for England and Wales which recorded the incidental catch of three dead common porpoises.

  GATT (General Waiver)
  Mr. Channon
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what agricultural products coming from least-developed or island states have been granted a general waiver from the GATT in respect of their imports into the EC.

  Mr. Curry
  The draft GATT agreement on agriculture, tabled by the GATT director general in December 1991, states:"In implementing the commitments on market access, developed countries will take fully into account the particular needs and conditions of developing countries by providing for a greater improvement of opportunities and terms of access for agricultural products of particular interest to these countries, including the fullest liberalisation of trade in tropical agricultural products as agreed at the Mid-Term review, and products of particular importance to the diversification of production from the growing of illicit narcotic crops."

  The GATT in any case provides for preferential tariff treatment to products from developing countries in accordance with the generalised system of preferences.

  Horses (Exports)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he will put in place from 1 January 1993 to avoid the export of horses for slaughter under the EC trade legislation.

  Mr. Soames
  As indicated in the reply given on 6 November to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), EC Directive 91/628 provides specifically for national provisions in relation to horses, and our rules will continue to apply from 1 January 1993.

  EC Agricultural Fund
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much was spent by the European Community agricultural fund, for each year from 1980 to the latest date for which figures are available on(a) intervention purchase and (b) export subsidy on those categories of oilseeds in contention in the GATT, together with an indication of quantities for each year.

  Mr. Curry
  Figures for costs of intervention and export refunds for oilseeds (rapeseed, sunflowerseed and soya beans) are set out in the table. I will write to the hon. Member with the information which he seeks on quantities.

  Year

  Intervention (mecu)1

  Export refunds (mecu)

  1980

  8·9

  3·7

  1981

  —5·3

  5·4

  1982

  0

  3·8

  1983

  —3·7

  3·7

  1984

  2·1

  0·4

  1985

  0·5

  3·4

  1986

  0·05

  2·3

  1987

  —0·4

  64·0

  1988

  2·4

  24·9

  1989

  7·4

  5·8

  1990

  3·8

  1·0

  1991

  0·5

  0·5

  1 A minus figure indicates that proceeds from sales exceeded costs of purchase and storage in the year in question.

  Veterinary Medicines Directorate
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 4 November,Official Report, columns 286–87, if he will list by visit for the last 12 months, the cost to the Exchequer of the international visits made by the director and chief executive of the Veterinary Medicines Directorate.

  Mr. Gummer
  Responsibility for this matter falls to the chief executive of the veterinary medicines directorate. I have asked him to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Dr. J. M. Rutter, to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 27 November 1992.
  In his reply to your question, the Minister said that he had asked me to write to you direct.
  I have attended two international scientific meetings on a fact-finding basis during the 12 months from 27 November 1991.

  6–10 June 1992

  Animal Health Institute/Food and Drug Administration

  Symposium on the Microbiological Significance of Drug

  Residues in Food—Rockville, USA.

  Cost: £2,365·28;

  21–26 June 1992

  VIth International Technical Consultation on Veterinary

  Drug Registration—Buenos Aires, Argentina.

  Cost: £3,739·46.

  The costs were incurred in accordance with Treasury rules for Civil Service travel and subsistence.

DEFENCE

  Technical Co-operation Programme
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 21 May,Official Report, 256, when the technical co-operation programme mentioned in point (f) was set up; what was its original purpose; and which countries were involved at the beginning.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  On 25 October 1957, the then President of the United States and the then Prime Minister of Great Britain made a declaration of common purpose part of which stated that:"The arrangements which the nations of the free world have made for collective defence and mutual help are based on the recognition that the concept of national self-sufficiency is now out of date. The countries of the free world are interdependent and only in genuine partnership, by combining their resources and sharing tasks in many fields, can progress and safety be found. For our part we have agreed that our two countries will henceforth act in accordance with this principle."

  Immediately afterwards, the Canadian Government declared themselves ready to join in this common effort. The resulting organisation was called the tripartite technical co-operation programme.

  Chemical and Biological Warfare
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) pursuant to his answer of 26 June,Official Report, columns 357–58, what is the nature of the collaborative work between Canada and Britain in the field of chemical and biological warfare carried out since 1962.
  161
  (2) pursuant to his answr of 26 June, Official Report, column 359, from what source his Department obtained the sample of shellfish toxin for the study in 1982;

  (3) pursuant to his answer of 29 June, Official Report, column 411, under which defence agreement the environmental testing of the S10 respirator in Australia was organised; and what other chemical and biological warfare equipment has been tested in Australia through this agreement since 1962;

  (4) pursuant to his answer of 16 July, Official Report, column 936, under which specific international agreement or agreements named in the Official Report, 21 May, columns 255–56, technical and scientific information on VX nerve gas and possible binary gases was exchanged; with which countries this information was exchanged; in what form it has been exchanged; and when the first information was exchanged;

  (5) pursuant to his answer of 26 June, Official Report, columns 358–59, how often the CB defence sub-group of the technical co-operation programme meets; when and where the last meeting of the sub-group was held; how many times the sub-group has met since 1967; and when each of the four countries joined the sub-group.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Responsibility for the subject of the questions has been delegated to the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment DSA under its chief executive, Dr. Graham Pearson. I have asked him to arrange for replies to be given.

  Letters from Dr. Graham Pearson to Mr. Ken Livingstone, 1 December 1992:
  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking him pursuant to his answer of 26 June, Official Report, Columns 357–8, what is the nature of the collaborative work between Canada and Britain in the field of chemical and biological warfare carried out since 1962 (Question 3, Order Paper, 19 November 1992) has been passed to me to answer as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.
  2. The United Kingdom abandoned work into offensive chemical and biological weapons in the 1950s as has Canada and collaboration between the two countries since 1962 has been into the provision of effective protective measures for the members of the Armed Forces of the UK and Canada against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them.
  3. In both countries, the approach to the provision of such protective measures is made up of:

  a. assessments of the hazard which involve evaluation of the potential agents that may be used against our Armed Forces and provide information on the sensitivity levels required for detection and protection,

  b. techniques for detection, identification, monitoring and warning,

  c. physical protection including respirators, individual protective ensembles and suits as well as collective protection,

  d. decontamination of persistent agents to reduce the hazard and,

  e. medical countermeasures to enhance the ability of the body to survive should exposure to chemical or biological warfare agents occur.

  4. Such collaboration is carried out under the various collaborative arrangements detailed in the answer of 21 May 1992, Official Report, Columns 255–256. These involves meetings, visits to the respective Establishments and Headquarters involved and the exchange of information, personnel and equipment. The benefits from such collaboration include the sharing of limited resources and thus better value for money as well as the achievement of more robust conclusions as a result of peer review by our counterparts in Canada.
  162
  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking him pursuant to his answer of 26 June, Official Report, column 359 from what source his Department obtained the sample of shellfish toxin for the study in 1982 (Question 4, Order Paper, 19 November 1992) has been passed to me to answer as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  In my previous letter of 10 August 1992 to you I said that

  "The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down is to ensure that the UK Armed Forces have effective protection measures against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them. As part of this work, it is necessary to investigate the effectiveness of protective measures against the range of potential agents. As stated by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, Mr. Archie Hamilton, MP, in his answer of 26 June 1992, Official Report, column 359, a study on shellfish toxins was carried out in 1982 to establish whether such toxins have any effect on medical countermeasures against nerve agents.

  This work into the evaluation of the effectiveness of protective measures against the range of potential chemical and biological warfare agents forms part of the United Kingdom chemical and biological defence programme on which information is exchanged with the United States Department of Defence under the international agreements referred to by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, the Rt. Hon. Archie Hamilton, MP in his answer of 21 May 1992, Official Report, columns 255–256. In this instance, the study was carried out using material supplied by the US Army Chemical Research, Development and Engineering Centre at Edgewood, Maryland."

  3. The sample of shellfish toxin was therefore provided by the US Army Chemical Research and Development and Engineering Centre at Edgewood, Maryland which has from 1 October 1992 been renamed as the US Army Chemical and Biological Defense Agency located at the Edgewood Research, Development and Engineering Centre.

  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking him pursuant to his answer of 29 June, Official Report, Column 411, under which Defence agreement the environmental testing of the S10 respirator in Australia was organised; and what other chemical and biological warfare equipment has been tested in Australia through this agreement since 1962 (Question 5, Order Paper, 19 November 1992) has been passed to me to answer as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  2. The environmental testing of the S10 respirator was carried out at the Joint Tropical Trials Research Establishment (JTTRE) under a Memorandum of Agreement between the UK and Australia relating to a joint programme of research, investigation and material testing at the JTTRE which was an outstation of the Materials Research Laboratory (MRL) of the Australia Department of Defence and is now designated as MRL-Queensland.

  3. Some carbon-impregnated overgarmets were tested in the late 1960s and early 1970s in an indoor storage trial at the Joint Tropical Research Unit (JTRU) under an earlier UK/Australian Memorandum of Understanding which set up JTRU in 1962. The JTRU was subsequently incorporated into the JTTRE.

  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking him pursuant to his answer of 16 July, Official Report, Column 936, under which specific international agreement or agreements named in the official report, 21 May, Columns 255–6, technical and scientific information and VX nerve gas and possible binary gases was exchanged; with which countries this information was exchanged; in what form it has been exchanged; and when the first information was exchanged (Question 8, Order Paper, 19 November 1992) has been passed to me to answer as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  2. VX nerve gas was synthesised in the early 1950s and information was first exchanged in the early 1950s between

  163
  the UK, US and Canada under the Tripartite Cooperation Programme which involved the United Kingdom, United States and Canada and subsequently became the Technical Cooperation Programme referred to in the Official Report, 21 May, Columns 255–6. The form of the information was in oral presentations and papers presented at the cooperation meetings, the exchange of reports and through the exchange of information on a more informal basis between individual scientists and during exchange postings arranged under the auspices of this collaborative arrangement. In the 1970s, the chemical, physical and general physiological properties of VX became unclassified. Patents on VX were also unclassified.

  3. Insofar as possible binary gases are concerned, this has been the subject of much less exchange as the binary concept was developed by the United States in the 1970s and 1980s at a time when the UK no longer had an interest in retaliatory capabilities. Such information as has been exchanged of relevance to assessment of the potential hazard from binary gases has been largely under the UK/US/Canada MOU on Chemical and Biological Defence and the Technical Cooperation Programme.

  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking him pursuant to his answer of 26 June, Official Report, Columns 358–9, how often the CB Defence sub-group of The Technical Co-operation Programme meets; when and where the last meeting of the sub-group was held; how many times the sub-group has met since 1967; and when each of the four countries joined the sub-group (Question 6, Order Paper, 20 November 1992) has been passed to me to answer as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  2. The Sub Group E on chemical and biological defence has met 15 times during the period 1967–1992 and the last meeting was held in the UK at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment in June 1992. The frequency of meetings is about once every 12 to 18 months and is as often as necessary to meet the objectives of the sub-group to promote collaboration in chemical and biological defence research. The UK, US, Canada and Australia were founder members of the sub-group when it was activated in 1967.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many memoranda of understanding have been agreed in the field of chemical and biological warfare involving Britain and the United States of America since 1963; what was the subject and nature of each memorandum of understanding; and in which year each memorandum was signed.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The United Kingdom abandoned all offensive chemical and biological weapons in the late 1950s, since when the United Kingdom has been solely concerned with the provision of effective protective measures for the United Kingdom armed forces. It therefore follows that no memoranda of understanding on chemical and biological warfare have been agreed since 1963.

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 21 May at column 255 for details of general defence agreements between the United Kingdom and the United States of America in the field of chemical and biological defence.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contingency plans his Department established in association with the United States of America following the United Kingdom's decision to abandon offensive work in the field of chemical and biological warfare.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave him on 21 May at columns 255–6 and on 26 June at column 358.
  164
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has concerning the use of chemical or biological weapons in the former Yugoslavia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There is no clear evidence to suggest that any of the republics of former Yugoslavia possesses chemical or biological weapons, although the Yugoslav Army does have quantities of tear gas.

  Toxicological Warfare
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when and where the 15th tripartite conference on toxicological warfare was held; which countries participated; what were the conclusions and recommendations of the conference; and under which defence agreement the conference was organised.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The 15th tripartite conference on toxicological warfare was held in the United Kingdom in 1960. The participant countries were the United Kingdom, the United States of America and Canada, and the conclusions and recommendations of the conference have not been published. The conference was organised under an informal 1947 agreement to discuss like programmes of a chemical, biological and radiological nature.

  CR Gas
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 16 July,Official Report, column 936, what are the main points of the draft text of the chemical weapons convention which relate to CR gas; and what implications it would have for the United Kingdom stock of CR gas.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The main points of the draft chemical weapons convention which relate to CR gas are:

  Article I, paragraph 5

  Use of Riot Control Agents

  Article II, paragraph 7

  Definition of Riot Control Agents

  Article II, paragraph 9d

  Purposes not prohibited under the Convention

  Article III, paragraph le

  Declaration of Riot Control Agents required under the Chemical Weapons Convention

  Annex 2, Appendix 1, Part XI

  Allegations of use of Riot Control Agents

  The chemical weapons convention has no implications for the United Kingdom stocks of CR gas.

  RAF Regiment
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the present strength of the Royal Air Force Regiment; and if he will make a statement on the role of this branch in the defence and security of RAF establishments and the maintenance of military skills in this service.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The RAF Regiment is undergoing force reductions from just over 3,000 regular personnel in 1991 to about 2,400 personnel in 1995, a reduction of over 20 per cent. It is responsible for the defence of RAF airfields and installations at home and overseas against ground and low-level air attacks; for counter-terrorist measures; for measures to mitigate the
  165
  effects of nuclear, biological, chemical and conventional weapons; for the training of all RAF personnel in ground defence skills, and counter-terrorist guarding duties at stations in the United Kingdom and overseas. The RAF Regiment's volunteer reserve programme has led to the formation of eight auxiliary-manned squadrons for the ground and low-level air defence of stations and installations in the United Kingdom.

  Regular units of the RAF Regiment continue to perform operational duties in Northern Ireland, Belize, Cyprus and the Falkland Islands. Officers are also currently deployed on United Nations duties in Cambodia, Kuwait, Iraq and the former Yugoslavia.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the average time taken by the Ministers in his Department, including himself, to answer letters from hon. Members, in each of the first three quarters of 1992, measuring the time from the receipt of the letter to the dispatch of the substantive reply.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The performance of my Department in meeting targets laid down for replies to letters from hon. Members will be reported in our departmental report, due to be published early next year. The figures given will relate to the period 1 December 1991 to 30 November 1992.

  Running Costs
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress he has made in achieving the target of a reduction of 2·5 per cent. in his Department's running costs for the present financial year, in the first half of this financial year; and what specifically has been saved, by what means and in what areas of his responsibility.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Data for the current financial year are not yet available. In the financial year to 31 March 1992, however, the Department made efficiency improvements to a value of £234 million against a target of £192 million. The outturn in each of the Department's main management areas and by means of achievement was as follows:

  Area

  Target £ million

  Performance £ million

  +/-£ million

  Navy

  45·0

  62·2

  +17·2

  Army

  66·0

  56·0

  -10·0

  Air Force

  51·0

  61·9

  +10·9

  PE

  10·8

  30·7

  +19·9

  Centre

  19·1

  23·1

  +4·0

  Total

  191·9

  233·9

  +42·0

  Means of Achievement

  As percentage of Total

  Organisational Changes

  24

  Contractorisation

  5

  Changes in Manpower Mix

  6

  Rationalisation

  14

  Relocation to lower cost areas

  1

  Utilities and Energy

  1

  ADP and IT

  1

  Asset Management

  18

  Design/Engineering

  1

  Purchase Improvements

  3

  166

  Means of Achievement

  As percentage of Total

  Capacity Management

  25

  Entrepreneurial Activity

  1

  This related not only to running costs but to Defence expenditure generally, apart from pensions and capital equipment.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the United Kingdom troops in Bosnia have clothing to protect them from the consequences of chemical and biological weapons.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  All United Kingdom troops deployed in Bosnia have NBC respirators and protective suits, which give protection against normal chemical weapon agents. They also have detection equipment and wind indicators.

  Yugoslavia
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consulation is undertaken by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and UNPROFOR prior to the departure of each convoy in the former Yugoslavia.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Prior consultation about individual convoys is conducted between Bosnia-Herzegovina command and UNHCR officials at Kiseliak. Instructions about convoy tasks and delivery points are passed to UNHCR warehouses and to the national contingents. This is supplemented by constant liaison at working level.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action is being taken by UNPROFOR in the former Yugoslavia to protect the chemical plant near Tuzla; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  UNPROFOR is deployed in Bosnia-Herzegovina under the terms of United Nations Security Council resolutions 770 and 776 for the purpose of escorting humanitarian convoys. The mandate does not include the protection of any part of the local infrastructure or facilities, such as the industrial chemical plant at Tuzla.

  Iraq and Iran
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effect of British defence equipment exports on(a) Iraqi and (b) Iranian military capabilities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  The Ministry of Defence studies Iraqi and Iranian military capabilities and their military procurement activities. Apart from case by case assessments of individual export licence applications, no specific studies have been undertaken on the effect of United Kingdom defence equipment exports on the Iraqi and Iranian military capabilities.

  Gulf Trust
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contribution has been made to the Gulf Trust from the polo day at Windsor in July 1991; what representations his Department has made on the matter; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The event did not generate any income for the Gulf Trust.

  Historic Military Buildings Committee
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the membership, responsibilities and achievements of the Historic Military Buildings Committee since its inception.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Historic Military Buildings Committee was formed in October 1987 and comprises members who are experts in their fields from both the private and public sectors. It is an advisory group and its terms of reference are"To consider issues concerning the upkeep of historic buildings on the Defence Estate; to consider the future of historic buildings on the Defence Estate for which there is no current defence use; and to advise on ways in which they might be preserved, either through a new defence use or through disposal in a manner sympathetic to their character".
  The committee has provided advice on a number of individual sites as well as advising on more general issues such as maintenance of historic buildings. Current membership is:

  Viscount Cranborne—Under Secretary of State for Defence.

  Professor W. Whitfield—Architect, William Whitfield and Partners and Commissioner, Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission.

  Mr. S. A. Lipton—Chief Executive, Stanhope Properties Plc.

  Dr. J. R. B. Taylor—Architect and Research Consultant.

  Head of London Region, English Heritage.

  Head of Heritage Division, Department of the Environment.

  Director General of Design Services and Adviser on Architectural Matters, Department of the Environment.

  Head of Infrastructure and Logistics (Infrastructure), Ministry of Defence.

  Head of Defence Lands Service, Ministry of Defence.

  Additional representatives from within the Ministry of Defence attend as required.

  Historic Buildings
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which organisations are responsible for advising his Department on the care of historic buildings and ancient monuments in the ownership of his Department; and what role is played by the statutory bodies with general responsibilities in this area in(a) England, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The organisations which advise the Ministry of Defence on the care of historic buildings are:

  (a) The Department of National Heritage;

  (b) The Department of Environment (Conservation Unit);

  (c) English Heritage;

  (d) Historic Scotland;

  (e) Cadw;

  (f) Department of Environment for Northern Ireland.

  168
  The Department obtains advice and clearance from the relevant bodies when it intends to either demolish, alter or extend an historic building.

  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to ensure that historic buildings and ancient monuments in his Department's ownership or care are maintained and protected to the same standards as if they were in private ownership.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My Department is fully aware of the important responsibilities which come with the ownership of historic buildings on the defence estate and aims for the highest standards of conservation.

  British Legion Centre, Tidworth
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has to provide financial support for the British Legion training centre at Tidworth.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My Department has no such proposals. The Royal British Legion has however, been successful in securing a grant from the European Community PERIFRA programme towards the cost of building the centre.

  Departmental Properties
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 13 November,Official Report, columns 1005–6, how much revenue his Department hopes to raise from (a) the sale of 97 housing properties at Finningley and (b) the transfer of the additional 119 housing properties at Finningley to a housing association; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The method of sale for the 97 housing properties at Finningley has yet to be decided and it would be inappropriate to disclose a figure which could prejudice any negotiations or tender action. The price for the sale of the 119 housing properties at Finningley has been recommended by the district valuer, but it remains commercial in confidence.

  Iraq
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has about the use of United Kingdom technology in the Iraqi centrifuge uranium enrichment plant at Al-Farat.

  Mr. Aitken
  [holding answer 25 November 1992]: As indicated in the IAEA reports which are available in the House of Commons Library, the Al-Farat sites intended use was as a centrifuge machine manufacturing plant. It was still under construction at the start of the Gulf War. No United Kingdom manufacturing equipment has been found at the facility.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has about the role of the Taji and Hutteen factories in Iraq prior to 15 January 1991.

  Mr. Aitken
  [holding answer 25 November 1992]: From United Nations inspection reports, we now know that Taji was a military installation serving armaments production as well as missile storage, support and modification. Al Hutteen was an ammunition plant producing and testing a variety of armaments including artillery rockets and shells.

  Space Research Corporation
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on all meetings held between Ministers and officials of his Department and the Space Research Corporation since 1985.

  Mr. Aitken
  [holding answer 25 November 1992]: I am not aware of any such meetings.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Information Technology
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 30 October,Official Report, columns 922–23, what has been the cost to the Exchequer of the Information Technology Services Agency's visits to the United States Social Security Administration during the last 12 months; and what was the purpose of the visits.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for the administration of the Information Technology Services Agency is a matter for the chief Executive, Mr. F. J. Kenworthy. He will reply to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from F. J. Kenworthy to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 1 December 1992.
  The Secretary of State has asked me to respond to the Parliamentary Question tabled by you on 24 November 1992, concerning my fact finding visit to the United States Social Security Administration. As Chief Executive of the Information Technology Services Agency I have responsibility for the Agencys travel expenditure.
  The visit referred to in the Secretary of States answer of the 30th of October, Official Report, columns 922–3, took place in July 1992. The main purpose of the visit was to attend a meeting of the 5 Countries IT sub-committee which took place in Ottawa, Canada. This is a group comprised of representatives from the Information Technology Divisions of the Social Security Departments of the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK. The purpose of setting up the 5 countries meetings was to create a forum which is conducive to the sharing of knowledge and pooling of experience. The sub-committee meets a little less than once a year.
  Whilst in North America, I took the opportunity to visit the offices of the United States Social Security Administration in Baltimore to look at some of the technical advances that they have made in their utilisation of Information Technology. I was particularly interested in their use of kiosk technology and optical imaging and was keen to look at the improvements in service that this type of technology could offer to the public.
  Also during my visit to the US SSA I met with the Deputy Commissioner of Systems, Mr. DiPentima, to discuss the possibility of an exchange of technical staff between our two organisations. ITSA has already been involved in a number of exchanges with the other members of the 5 Countries and these have proved extremely worthwhile; resulting in a sharing of expertise which could otherwise only have been gained through the employment of consultants at, a considerable greater cost.
  The total cost of my visit to Canada and America was £5,341·03.

  Independent Living Fund
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has for the future of the independent living fund.
  170
  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend, the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) on 24 November at column 597.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what arrangements have now been made to replace the independent living fund in Nottingham after March 1993; and if he will state whether(a) the replacement for the ILF will continue to be based in Nottingham, (b) curent levels of staffing and finance will be maintained and (c) existing staff in the ILF will be transferred to the replacement unit.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend, the Member for Canterbury on 24 November (Mr. Brazier) at column 597.

  Details of the administrative arrangements for the two bodies will be announced in due course.

  Child Support Act 1991
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has to ensure that a woman will not be compelled to claim maintenance from her child's father(a) before the implementation of the Child Support Act 1991 and (b) afterwards.

  Mr. Burt
  There is currently no requirement for a mother to co-operate with the Department of Social Security in seeking maintenance from the father of her child, though the great majority do so willingly. From April 1993, parents with care who are getting income support, family credit or disability working allowance will be required to co-operate with the Child Support Agency in seeking maintenance, unless the agency is satisfied that compliance would risk causing harm or undue distress to the parent with care or to any child living with her.

  Agencies
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has to amend targets set for his next steps agencies for 1992.

  Miss Widdecombe
  By a combination of increasing expertise and improved efficiency, the Contributions Agency is having increasing success in identifying the previously unregistered self employed. Accordingly my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, has raised the agency's 1992–93 target to identify those with class 2 liability from 40,000 to 70,000 persons. This will be a more challenging target for the agency's staff to meet.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations his Department has received from the national chairman of the Royal British Legion concerning his announcement on 12 November on the uprating of war pensions and allowances; what reply is being sent; what action he will be taking; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  A letter on the subject has been received from the national chairman of the Royal British Legion. A reply has been sent advising that the views expressed in that letter, and the views of others representing the interests of ex-servicemen and women, will be discussed at the meeting of the Central Advisory Committee on War Pensions on 3 December.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the average time taken by the Ministers in his Department, including himself, to answer letters from hon. Members, in each of the first three quarters of 1992, measuring the time from the receipt of the letter to the dispatch of the substantive reply.

  Miss Widdecombe
  This information is in the table:

  Quarter

  Number of letters

  Average working days taken

  1 January 1992–31 March 1992

  4,464

  19·0

  1 April 1992–30 June 1992

  2,284

  18·5

  1 July 1992–30 September 1992

  3,169

  21·0

  Running Costs
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress he has made in achieving the target of a reduction of 1·5 per cent. in his Department's running costs for the present financial year, in the first half of this financial year; and what specifically has been saved, by what means and in what areas of his responsibility.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Department is well on the way to achieving its target of 1·5 per cent. efficiency savings in 1992–93. Approximately £66 million has already been achieved to meet the cash target of £78 million and we expect to exceed that by around £20 million by the end of the year.

  The main achievement in efficiency measures to date include, within the Benefits Agency, staff savings from computerisation of IS and pensions. Better education for the Contributions Agency's customers has led to greater efficacy in NIC collection whilst further savings have been made in the transfer of work from IT consultants to civil servants and contractors.

  Families
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is the cost of the survey on families with children being carried out on behalf of his Department by the Policy Studies Institute;

  (2) what is the purpose of the survey of families with children being carried out for his Department by the Policy Studies Institute; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  The survey of families with children is being carried out for the Department as part of a programme of studies by the Policy Studies Institute. The programme looks at the role of family credit for a range of different families, and will provide better information than is presently available on movements in and out of low income.

  The cost of the survey is £20,000.

  Child Support Act
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the numbers of parents with care who will incur the 78-week benefit penalty under the Child Support Act 1991.

  Mr. Burt
  It is not possible to estimate this number within acceptable levels of accuracy. However, it is 172
  anticipated that in all but a tiny minority of cases of parents with care on benefit will either voluntarily co-operate with the Child Support Agency or will not be required to co-operate because there would be a risk of harm or undue distress to her or her children, were she to do so.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the numbers of families divided into lone parents and couples, who will be lifted off income support as a result of receiving child support maintenance under the Child Support Act 1991 in the first year of implementation and the following three years.

  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend, the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Mr. Knox) on Thursday, 26 November at column 803.

EMPLOYMENT

  Wages Councils
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations she has received against her proposal to abolish the wages councils.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Since 5 November, I have received a number of representations for and against the proposal. Some 94 per cent. of representations from employers support abolition of the wages councils.

  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will make a statement on the impact on incomes following the abolition of wages councils.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The abolition of wages councils will free up the labour market, increase job opportunities and improve the prospects for many individuals to increase their income.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many employees have conditions of work and remuneration covered by wages councils; and what percentage of these employees are women.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  It is estimated that the wages councils set minimum pay and overtime rates which cover some 2,561,000 workers, aged 21 or over, about two thirds of whom are women.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to her answer of 19 November,Official Report, column 332, if she will estimate (a) the number of wages councils employers in 1988, (b) the number of them who responded directly with support for abolition and (c) the ratio of (b) to (a).

  Mr. McLoughlin
  It is estimated that some 250,000 employers were covered by wages councils in 1988. The 1988 consultation document, resulted in 36 individual employers and 37 employers' organisations writing in support of abolition. It is not possible to estimate the ratio of all employers covered by the councils which these letters represent.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of Britain's work force is currently unemployed; and what percentage of the European Community's work force is currently unemployed.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The latest available and most up to date figures are published by the OECD. These show an unemployment rate for the United Kingdom of 10·2 per cent. for October 1992 compared with an EC average, excluding Denmark, Greece and Luxembourg, of 9·4 per cent. for September 1992.

  Ms. Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many redundancies there have been in the west midlands in the last three months.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The latest available figures from the quarterly labour force survey show that 32,000 people were made redundant in the west midlands in the three months prior to the spring 1992 survey.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what the change has been in the numbers unemployed for a year or longer since 1 December 1991.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Claimant unemployment figures by duration are available on a quarterly basis and are not adjusted for seasonal influences. Between January 1992 and October 1992 the number of claimants unemployed for more than one year rose by 208,635.

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total number of unemployed people in the United Kingdom, using the same counting base as in May 1979.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  No such figures are available from the Department. Attempting to estimate how many people would now be registered as unemployed at jobcentres and careers offices if voluntary registration had not been introduced in October 1982 would involve speculation about economic, demographic and other factors.

  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest unemployment figures; and what the figures were in May 1979.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  On the consistent, seasonally adjusted basis, there were 2,867,600 claimant unemployed people in the United Kingdom in October 1992 compared with 1,087,000 in May 1979.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many young people in the Carlisle travel-to-work area are not in employment, not on a youth training scheme and not in full-time education.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  In October 1992 there were 1,143 unemployed claimants aged under 25 in the Carlisle travel-to-work area.

  Job Clubs
  Mr. Brandreth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will make a statement on the performance indicators used in the evaluation of job clubs.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The overall indicator for job clubs is the degree to which they improve unemployed people's174
  chances of finding work. Our most recent survey (1989), found that attending a job club increased an individual's chance of finding a full-time job by about 50 per cent. Information is also collected monthly to measure the performance of individual job clubs. This includes the number of entrants to the programme and the number of job placings. Information on costs is collected quarterly.

  Pay Levels
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when she last met representatives of the Low Pay Unit to discuss average pay levels in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There has been no meeting with the Low Pay Unit.

  TECs
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the contribution of the training and enterprise councils covering Surrey in helping those out of work.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Surrey TEC has developed a range of innovative approaches to help people get back into work. This is true of TECs up and down the country.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures she is taking to meet the concerns which have been expressed by TECs.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply given earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Milligan).

  Careers Service
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations she has received regarding the future of the careers service.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Following public consultations on the future of the careers service in spring 1991, my right hon. Friend has received representations from local education authorities, training and enterprise councils, the Institute for Careers Guidance, local authority associations and others.

  Coal Industry (Health and Safety)
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment she has made of the reasons for the increse in the death and injury rate in the coal mining industry for the years 1987–88 and 1989–90.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Any increase in accident rates is of concern, but it is not appropriate to compare two years in isolation. A relatively small change in the number of accidents can disproportionately effect accident rates.

  The British Coal "all accident rate" for 1990–91 of 29·34 per 100,000 manshifts is the lowest ever recorded and this is the clearest indication of the continuing progress in reducing accidents achieved by British Coal in cooperation with the workforce, worker's representatives and the Health and Safety Executive's mines inspectorate.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to her answer of 19 November,Official Report, column 337, when she expects the review of the pesticides incident appraisal panel to be complete; and if she will publish its findings.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The review by the Health and Safety Executive of the pesticide incidents appraisal panel is now underway. Details of the findings will be made publicly available, and an interim statement of progress is anticipated by the end of June 1993.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to her answer of 19 November,Official Report, column 336, if she will give the procedural changes undertaken by the Health and Safety Executive in its dealings with the public.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Health and Safety Executive has introduced the following procedural changes relating to its dealings with members of the public:guidance on the procedure for dealing with complaints has been revised and re-issued to all staff in the Health and Safety Executive's (HSE) Field Operations Division (FOD);
  new instructions have been issued to all professional staff in FOD on responsible and considerate relations with private individuals; and
  arrangements have been made to improve the internal organisations of HSE area offices to provide nominated public inquiry officers and duty inspectors.
  HSE has also issued two booklets which tell both the general public and the employer about the HSE and about the way its staff go about their work. They explain what the public can expect from HSE and what to do if they are not happy with the way they have been dealt with.

  Passenger Congestion
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals her Department has to encourage employers to stagger the work hours of employees as a means of alleviating passenger congestion.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  None. It is for employers and employees to agree between themselves what patterns of work best suit their needs.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Gwitym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment by reference to what costs to the trainee the youth training allowance is calculated; and when it was last increased.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The minimum weekly allowances paid to young people on youth training are £29·50 for 16-year-olds and £35 for those who are 17 or older. The minimum allowance for 16-year-olds was last increased in July 1988; the £35 was set in April 1986.

  Many trainees receive more than these minimum allowances because employers are encouraged to supplement payments to trainees. It is in their interests to do this because it helps them to recruit and retain trainees in whom they are investing quality training.

  A young person who is living at home with their parents should find the allowance adequate for their needs. Young people who find the allowance to be insufficient may be able to obtain additional support by making a claim for income support.

  Training
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what funds will be made available for further employment training schemes in areas affected by coal mine closures; and if she will make a statement concerning allocations to Seaham and Easington.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  A total of £75 million will be made available for additional labour market measures to alleviate the effects of the colliery closures. Final details of the action plan for County Durham training and enterprise council for the Seaham—Vane Tempest—colliery and Easington areas, including the proportion of the £75 million available, have yet to be agreed and will depend on the closures going ahead.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list all the Government and Government-financed agencies which have provided employment, skills training, or other courses, to job seekers in the Seaham and Peterlee areas during the past five years.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  County Durham training and enterprise council and formerly the Employment Department's Durham area office have provided training programmes in Seaham and Peterlee areas through a wide range of organisations during the past five years. These are listed. The list also includes other Government Departments and Government supported organisations which have been active in Employment creation and enterprise support in these areas.

  Training providers in Seaham/Peterlee in last five years

  Northern Training Trust

  Peterlee College

  Key Colleges

  Easington District Council

  Council for Voluntary Services

  Easington Unemployment Committee

  Seaham and District Adult Training Trust

  Seaham Action

  Training providers based outside Peterlee/Seaham hut Operating in these areas

  LINK

  AC Training

  Action Training

  ASTRA Training

  Sedgefield District Council

  Other Employment Departments/Government supported organisations

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Employment Department

  Employment Service

  County Durham Training and Enterprise Council

  The Northern Development Company

  East Durham Development Agency

  East Durham Task Force

  British Coal Enterprise Ltd

  English Estates North

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations she has received from organisations within the Easington constituency to increase and improve employment training schemes.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I understand that several recent representations relating to employment training provision have been made by Easington organisations to the County Durham training and enterprise council.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many(a) informations were laid and

  177
  (b) convictions were obtained under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 in the coal mining industry in each of the last five years; and what was the average fine.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information requested is as follows:

  Year

  Informations: laid

  Convictions

  1987

  9

  3

  1988

  3

  2

  1989

  51

  6

  1990

  24

  3

  1991

  0

  0

  The average fine for the convictions was £1,543.

  Ozone Depletion
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will implement a refrigerant recycling and reclaim policy covering all departmental equipment currently using chlorofluorocarbons and hydrochlorofluorocarbons; if she will publish targets for departmental reuse and recycling; if she will implement an equipment conversion and replacement programme for all departmental uses of CFCs and HCFCs; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  It is part of the Department's environmental policy to eliminate where possible the use of toxic or ozone-depleting chemicals. This is being achieved by replaceing equipment which uses such substances with alternatives which do not contain ozone-depleting chemicals, as and when they are due for replacement. The use by the Department of ozone-depleting chemicals is minimal but we pay due regard to proper disposal methods and are taking steps to ensure that all staff are aware of them.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will introduce a leakage prevention programme for all refrigeration and air conditioning equipment owned and operated by her Department; if she will publish targets for reductions in leakages; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Where such systems are a part of properties occupied by the Department they are regularly checked as a part of planned maintenance.

  Women
  Ms. Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures the Government are taking to improve training and promotion prospects for women.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Government are committed to the improvement of training and promotion prospects for everyone in the labour market. It has welcomed the national education and training targets and the emphasis they place on acquiring skills.

  The introduction of the training and enterprise councils (TECs) has meant a training environment which is flexible and geared towards the achievement of vocational qualifications for everyone. The work that has been clone on the accreditation of prior learning is particularly helpful to women who are less likely to have achieved vocational qualifications in their working lives.
  178
  Labour market returners, the majority of whom are women, have and will continue to have special access arrangements within adult training programmes run by TECs. The programmes also provide flexible training that allows women to reconcile their domestic commitments with their training.

  The Government take every opportunity to encourage employers to make the best use of their resources. This includes supporting the employer-led Opportunity 2000 campaign. We promote the development of people in work through the investors in people initiative, which applies to all people. In addition this year, we have introduced a new national training award that recognises training and development of specific benefit to women.

  In the new year, my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, intends to launch a series of regional 'opportunity shops' to promote women's participation in the world of work and beyond.

  European Community Social Affairs Council
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what matters will be discussed at the next EC Social Affairs Council; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  At the meeting of the Social Affairs Council on 3 December, among the main items to be considered are the United Kingdom presidency initiatives concerning employment growth; effective implementation and enforcement of Community legislation; vocational qualifications; and the portability of occupational pensions.

  A number of other important matters will be on the agenda, including Community instruments on:

  free movement of workers:

  the posting of sub-contracted workers in the Community;

  health and safety in mines and quarries;

  the proposed European Health and Safety Agency; action for the disabled.

  This agenda will take forward the aim of the United Kingdom presidency of making sensible progress on the business of the Community and of securing a positive social dimension that brings real benefits to the citizens of the Community.

  The Council will also discuss the current state of play on the working time directive.

  Health and Safety Research
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much money was received from the European Commission in respect of health and safety research undertaken for the Commission by the Health and Safety Executive; who was the recipient of that money in each year since 1990–91; and what is the corresponding information for the current year.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Money received from the European Commission in each year for research related projects was:

  £000s

  1990–91

  50

  1991–92

  176

  1992–93

  100

  These receipts were retained by the Health and Safety Executive.

  Agricultural Inspectors
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list the number of agricultural inspectors in the Health and Safety Executive area offices in Scotland in each year since 1978.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The number of agricultural inspectors employed in Scotland in each year since 1978 was:

  Number

  1978

  15

  1979

  16

  1980

  18

  1981

  17

  1982

  15

  1983

  17

  1984

  16

  1985

  16

  1986

  18

  1987

  21

  1988

  20

  1989

  19

  1990

  19

  1991

  18

  1992

  23

  Note: Figures are for 1 April each year and show full-time equivalent staff.

  Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of the money allocated to the Health and Safety Executive following the transfer of the offshore safety division was spent in 1991–92; and what proportion of it has been spent in 1992–93.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Information is not available in the precise form requested. However HSC/E's direct expenditure on its offshore safety division in 1991–92 was £11·5 million; the forecast for 1992–93 is currently £19·9 million.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list the number of factory inspectors in the Health and Safety Executive area offices in Scotland in each year since 1978.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The number of factory inspectors employed in Scotland in each year since 1978 was:

  Year

  Number

  1978

  62

  1979

  65

  1980

  67

  1981

  64

  1982

  63

  1983

  55

  1984

  51

  1985

  53

  1986

  48

  1987

  48

  1988

  46·5

  1989

  46

  1990

  49

  1991

  50·5

  1992

  62·5

  Note:

  Figures are for 1 April each year and show full-time equivalent staff.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the contribution for the Health and 180
  Safety Executive to the European Commission in relation to European health and safety directives and standards for each year since 1990–91; and what is the contribution for the current year.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  The HSE plays a very active part in the development and negotiation of all health and safety directives and standards at European level.

  Employment Prospects
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations she has received about the effect of the autumn statement on future employment prospects.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State has not, as yet, received any representations about the effect of the autumn statement on employment prospects. However it is our belief that the series of measures proposed in the autumn statement aimed at rebuilding confidence, helping industry and strengthening the economy will help to boost employment prospects.

  Employment Action
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the implementation of the employment action programme.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Since its introduction in 1991 employment action has played a valuable role in providing temporary work to help unemployed people maintain their existing skills. This will continue to be one of the options in the new training for work provision that will be introduced in April 1993.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the average time taken by the Ministers in her Department including herself, to answer letters from hon. Members, in each of the first three quarters of 1992, measuring the time from the receipt of the letter to the dispatch of the substantive reply.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The average time taken to reply to hon. Members letters in the first three-quarters of 1992 was as follows: first quarter 9·28 working days; second quarter 8·57 working days; third quarter 10·4 working days.

  Running Costs
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what progress she has made in achieving the target of a reduction of 1·5 per cent. in her Department's running costs for the present financial year, in the first half of this financial year; and what specifically has been saved, by what means and in what areas of her responsibility.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Department's spending plans for 1992–93, including its proposals for achieving at least a 1·5 per cent. reduction in administrative costs through efficiency gains during 1992·93 are summarised in the departmental report (Cm. 1906) published in February 1992. We hope to make efficiency gains in a number of areas including:
  181

  Improved procurement procedures;

  Rationalisation of the estate;

  Improved administration procedures;

  Investment in and better control of telecommunications;

  Implementation of Internal Audit and Management Services reviews;

  Improvements in staff training; Investment in Information Technology.

  Savings will be generated over a full 12-month period and the attainment of planned targets is assessed following the end of each financial year. Specific figures on savings to date are unavailable. However, at the end of the first six months of the current financial year there is every indication that the anticipated savings will be realised.

  Medical Examinations
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether she will introduce proposals to require that individuals whose application for employment is refused on the basis of a medical examination, are sent the results of such an examination and informed of the medical reason why employment has been refused.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  No. This is a matter for employers to decide.

  Long-term Unemployment
  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will visit Bradley redundancy action group to discuss the psychological and emotional effects of long-term unemployment.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Employment Ministers have no plans to visit this group; but the employment service regional director will shortly be arranging for contact to be made with the group, as will Wolverhampton training and enterprise council.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans she has to increase the opportunities available to help unemployed people.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  On 12 November, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, announced a new framework of employment and training measures to help unemployed people back to work. The new arrangements, which will begin in April 1993, offer the widest range of help to unemployed people that we have ever provided. We expect there to be almost half a million more opportunities on our programmes in 1993–94 than in this year.

  Acquired Rights Directive
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what estimate she has made of the effects of the acquired rights directive on(a) services her Department contracts out and (b) services she plans to contract out in the future; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The possible effects of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, which implement the acquired rights directive in the 182
  United Kingdom, have always been taken into account in any consideration of the contracting out of my Department's services.

  The main functions to be market tested to September 1993 were published in the citizens charter White Paper (Cm 2101) on 25 November.

SCOTLAND

  Glasgow
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will discuss with the Glasgow city liaison group the needs of those who are victims of violence.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend recognises the needs of victims of violence but has no plans to meet the Glasgow city liaison group. Government funding of some £642,000 is being provided in the current financial year for the Scottish Association of Victim Support Schemes. The association provides general assistance and counselling for all victims of crime through a network of local support schemes. There are a number of such schemes based in Glasgow.

  Fact-finding Visits
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 3 November,Official Report, columns 156–57, if he will list for each of his Department's agencies, and by date and venue for the last 12 months, the cost to the Exchequer of the chief executives' fact-finding visits.

  Mr. Lang
  The hon. Member's earlier question elicited replies from the four agencies for which I am responsible, indicating that only the chief executive of Historic Scotland had made such fact finding visits. I have therefore asked Mr. G. Munro, chief executive of Historic Scotland to reply to the hon. Member directly.

  Letter from Graeme N. Munro to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 1 December 1992
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent question about the costs of 'fact-finding' visits.
  My reply of 30 October sought to explain in general terms the types of visit I have undertaken in the last 12 months from which I have gained useful insights into various matters relating to my responsibilities as Director and Chief Executive of Historic Scotland. However, none of these visits was arranged specifically as a 'fact-finding' visit.
  I should be very happy to provide further information on any particular area of our work of interest to you.

  Forest Policy
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to develop an integrated forest policy for Britain, ensuring that all aspects of deforestation at home and abroad are taken into account; and what mechanism exists to ensure that each Government Department adopts a coherent and complementary approach to forestry and deforestation issues.

  Sir Hector Monro
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer the Prime Minister gave the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) on 3 November at column 133.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the average time taken by the Ministers in his Department, including himself, to answer letters from hon. Members, in each of the first three quarters of 1992, measuring the time from the receipt of the letter to the dispatch of the substantive reply.

  Mr. Lang
  The Scottish Office has a target of issuing replies to letters from hon. Members within 17 days of their receipt. My Department's performance in meeting this target during 1992 will be published in the Official Report in due course, and be made available to the House Libraries.

  Running Costs
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress he has made in achieving the target of a reduction of 1·5 per cent. in his Department's running costs for the present financial year, in the first half of this financial year; and what specifically has been saved, by what means and in what areas of his responsibility.

  Mr. Lang
  The overall level of running costs for my Department is agreed with Treasury each year on the basis that efficiency gains of 1·5 per cent. must be delivered. Departments must then ensure they operate within the overall running cost limit set, and my Departments are on target to do so in 1992–93.

  Delivery of specific savings and improvements in efficiency is the responsibility of managers throughout each of my Departments working within designated budgets and performance targets which reflect the need to produce efficiency gains through increased output and reduction in costs. In identifying opportunities for savings, managers can call on support and expert advice from specialists in areas such as organisation of work and purchasing. Internal management plans define prospective savings and check on the delivery of what was planned for the previous year. The specific details requested are not readily available and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Higher Education
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of the Higher Education Funding Council for Scotland's budget is expected to be spent on supporting research activities in 1992–93; and what are the planned totals for 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Higher Education Funding Council will not begin distributing funds to higher education institutions until 1 April 1993. It therefore has no budget to support research activities in

  Year Sold

  Name and Location of Properly

  Area (ha)

  Name of Purchaser

  Sale Price

  1988

  Grinkle Park (part), Whitby

  134·5

  Bass North Ltd

  £40,000

  1988

  Grinkle Park (part), Whitby

  35·8

  Cleveland Potash Ltd

  £20,000

  1988

  Skipster Hagg Wood, Pickering

  10·0

  1989

  Arden, Hawnby and Bilsdale, Helmsley

  225·0

  1989

  Back Plantation, Skipton

  13·4

  H. S. Davidson

  1989

  Birk Bank Wood, Helmsley

  14·9

  1989

  Black Beck Wood, Scarborough

  8·7

  1989

  Bullen Wood, Tadcaster

  17·1

  Mr. and Mrs. Richmond-Watson

  £21,501

  184
  1992–93. Decisions on the level of support for research in future years will be made after my right hon. Friend has announced in the near future his decisons on expenditure on higher education from 1993–94 onwards and in the light of the council's assessment of the needs of the higher education sector in Scotland.

  Forestry Commission Land
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list(a) the name, location and Ordnance Survey map reference and (b) the area in hectares of each piece of Forestry Commission land in North Yorkshire; and which of these are currently for sale.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 16 November 1992]: On 31 March 1992, the Forestry Commission managed 23,200 hectares of land in north Yorkshire, of which 20,300 hectares were woodland. The detailed information about each piece of land is not available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The woodlands which are currently for sale on the open market are listed; the sales of a further seven woodlands are currently being negotiated.

  Name of property

  Area (ha)

  Grid reference

  East Bank, Chop Gate

  27·0

  NZ 575 001

  Gateforth (East), Selby

  28·0

  SE 568 283

  Gateforth (Main/West), Selby

  46·5

  SE 548 283

  Kelfield, York

  14·0

  SE 586 395

  Longrush, York

  12·5

  SE 592 418

  Low Paradise Wood and Grazings, Boltby

  10·1

  SE 504 883

  Raisdale Estate, Stokesley

  180·0

  NZ 529 027

  Stillingfleet, York

  10·5

  SE 585 410

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list(a) the name, location and Ordnance Survey map reference, (b) the area in hectares, (c) the price obtained, (d) the name and address of the purchaser and (e) the date of sale for each piece of Forestry Commission land sold in the county of North Yorkshire since 1 January 1988.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 16 November 1992]: The areas of forest land sold between 1 January 1988 and 30 September 1992 are listed; details of sales of land other than forest land, and the grid references of forest land, are not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The Forestry Commission sought the purchaser's permission in each case to disclose the price paid and the name (but not the address) of the purchaser. Where such permission was given, the information is provided.
  185

  Year Sold

  Name and Location of Property

  Area (ha)

  Name of Purchaser

  Sale Price

  1989

  Camblesforth Woodlands, Selby

  43·8

  1989

  Constable Burton, Northallerton

  74·3

  M. C. A. Wyvill

  £130,000

  1989

  Elleron Lodge, Flamborough

  13·6

  1989

  Hollin Head and Piney Moor, Ripon

  29·9

  1989

  Pits Wood, Scarborough

  9·0

  1989

  Plumpton Wood, Helmsley

  7·7

  1990

  [No sales recorded]

  1991

  Burnt Gill Plantation, Helmsley

  11·4

  1991

  Darncombe Shelter Belt, Scarborough

  0·2

  1991

  Grimston Woods Lot 1, York

  5·0

  Landmatch PLC

  £26,527

  1991

  Grimston Woods Lot 2, York

  24·6

  1991

  Grove Wood, Terrington

  5·9

  1991

  Hambleton Hough, Selby

  1·0

  1991

  Hornby Freehold, Bedale

  56·1

  1991

  Naburn Wood, York

  18·0

  1991

  Osmotherley Catchment, Northallerton

  93·4

  1991

  Staker Wood, Selby

  4·0

  1992

  High Plumps, York

  8·3

  1992

  Miry Sike Wood and Paddock, Darncombe

  5·0

  Mr. A. Harford

  £18,000

  1992

  Fish Pond, Wet Carr and Hebdon Woods, Sawley

  27·6

  Community Care
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet representatives of local authority social work authorities to discuss the implementation of care in the community legislation in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 27 November 1992]: The secretary of State has no plans but Lord Fraser of Carmyllie met representatives of the COSLA social work committee on 2 October and the Association of Directors

  Land

  Buildings

  Non Operational Property

  Total

  £000

  £000

  £000

  £000

  Stracathro Hospital

  210

  9,629

  —

  9,839

  Arbroath Infirmary

  225

  3,175

  —

  3,400

  All other Tayside Health Board Property

  18,077

  255,321

  2,548

  275,946

  Tayside Health Board Total

  18,512

  268,125

  2,548

  289,185

  Recycling
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to encourage the newspaper and textile industries to promote and participate in recycling schemes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 27 November 1992]: The Government encourage recycling wherever it makes commercial and environmental sense, and have set the target of recycling 50 per cent. of the recyclable fraction of domestic waste by the year 2000. Paper accounts for approximately 33 per cent. of the domestic waste stream and textiles for around 5 per cent; high recycling rates for both materials will make a significant contribution towards achieving the target. In 1991, following discussions with the Government, the Newspaper
  186
  of Social Work on 20 November for discussions on community care matters. Further meetings will be arranged as the need arises.

  Land and Buildings
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the present capital values of land and buildings at(a) Stracather hospital, (b) Arbroath infirmary and (c) Tayside health board.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 26 November 1992]: The information requested is shown as at 1 April 1992.

  Publishers Association agreed to aim to increase the proportion of waste paper used in newsprint consumed in the United Kingdom to at least 40 per cent. by 2000. I am also aware that the textile reclamation industry has been actively pursuing with local authorities the means of increasing existing re-use and recycling rates.

  Children's Hospice
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to encourage or assist the development of a Scottish children's hospice; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 27 November 1992.] At the request of my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State, the Scottish Office Home and Health Department has been actively encouraging the various voluntary sector groups seeking to establish a children's hospice in Scotland

  187
  to combine their efforts. We hope that, as a result, agreement can be reached on a co-ordinated and united approach which provides a national facility conveniently located and fully integrated with local networks of care. We believe that this initiative is primarily for the voluntary sector, but the Government will continue to monitor developments. Until more definite proposals emerge any consideration of further Government assistance would be premature.

  National health service Average available staffed beds by selected specialty By health board area and hospital Quarter ending 30 June 1992

  Health board area/hospital

  General surgery

  Orthopaedic surgery

  General medicine1

  Scotland

  3,241

  2,302

  4,641

  Argyll and Clyde

  304

  141

  399

  Oban County Hospital

  —

  —

  41

  Dunoon and District General Hospital

  6

  3

  —

  Victoria Hospital

  6

  —

  —

  West Highland Hospital

  32

  1

  —

  Vale of Leven District General Hospital

  48

  3

  74

  Inverclyde Royal Hospital

  100

  61

  119

  Royal Alexandra Hospital

  112

  75

  166

  Ayrshire and Arran

  238

  200

  302

  Ayrshire Central and Maternity Hospital

  —

  —

  1

  Crosshouse Hospital

  118

  107

  167

  Ballochmyle Hospital

  45

  45

  43

  Ayr Hospital

  74

  48

  92

  Borders

  68

  46

  82

  Bordes General Hospital

  68

  46

  82

  Dumfries and Galloway

  107

  64

  93

  Dumfries and Galloway Royal Infirmary

  86

  64

  93

  Garrick Hospital

  21

  —

  —

  Fife

  168

  130

  170

  Cameron Hospital

  8

  17

  —

  Victoria Hospital

  76

  59

  90

  Hunter Hospital

  14

  —

  —

  Adamson Hospital

  —

  1

  —

  St. Andrews Memorial Hospital

  1

  1

  —

  Randolph Wemyss Memorial Hospital

  2

  —

  5

  Dunfermline and West Fife Hospital

  57

  43

  —

  Milesmark Hospital

  9

  10

  75

  Forth Valley

  138

  106

  181

  Falkirk and District Royal Infirmary

  64

  55

  88

  Stirling Royal Infirmary

  74

  51

  93

  Grampian

  266

  228

  475

  Aberdeen Royal Infirmary

  191

  78

  341

  Woodend General Hospital

  —

  132

  40

  City Hospital

  —

  —

  31

  Hyperbaric Centre

  —

  —

  1

  Royal Aberdeen Childrens Hospital

  —

  9

  —

  Tor-na-dee Hospital

  15

  8

  21

  Jubilee Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  Chalmers Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  Dr. Grays Hospital

  60

  —

  17

  Leanchoil Hospital

  —

  —

  24

  Greater Glasgow

  664

  449

  1,181

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary

  154

  92

  296

  Ruchill Hospital

  —

  —

  16

  Stobhill Hospital

  98

  36

  162

  Philipshill Hospital

  —

  69

  —

  Royal Samaritan Hospital

  35

  —

  54

  Victoria Infirmary

  120

  9

  135

  Southern General Hospital

  84

  79

  174

  Gartnavel General Hospital

  95

  99

  144

  Glasgow Homeopathic Hospital

  —

  —

  20

  Royal Hospital for Sick Children

  —

  25

  34

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the current numbers of staffed beds for(a) orthopaedic surgery, (b) general surgery and (c) general medicine for (i) each Scottish health board, (ii) in total for Scotland and (iii) for each hospital.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 26 November 1992]: The information requested is shown in the table.
  189

  Health board area/hospital

  General surgery

  Orthopaedic surgery

  General medicine1

  Glasgow Western Infirmary

  77

  40

  145

  Highland

  197

  99

  200

  Caithness General Hospital

  24

  —

  24

  Lawson Memorial Hospital

  7

  —

  —

  Raigmore Hospital

  119

  99

  122

  Town and County Hospital Nairn

  —

  —

  10

  Belford Hospital

  29

  —

  17

  Mackinnon Memorial Hospital

  18

  —

  2

  Ross Memorial Hospital

  —

  —

  10

  Nicolson Mackenzie Hospital

  —

  —

  15

  Lanarkshire

  341

  249

  412

  Monklands District General Hospital

  83

  72

  91

  Law Hospital

  119

  99

  164

  Hairmyres Hospital

  97

  45

  93

  Stonehouse Hospital

  43

  33

  63

  Lothian

  371

  333

  711

  Eastern General Hospital

  52

  —

  95

  Edenhall Hospital

  —

  —

  15

  Roodlands General Hospital

  8

  —

  14

  Western General Hospital

  89

  —

  166

  Astley Ainslie Hospital

  —

  24

  —

  Liberton Hospital

  8

  —

  —

  Princess Margaret Rose Hospital

  —

  184

  —

  Royal Infirmary

  151

  88

  345

  St. Johns Hospital at Howden

  63

  36

  75

  Orkney

  39

  —

  —

  Balfour Hospital

  39

  —

  —

  Shetland

  26

  —

  20

  Gilbert Bain Hospital

  26

  —

  20

  Tayside

  272

  258

  379

  Ninewells Hospital

  144

  —

  194

  Dundee Royal Infirmary

  —

  113

  —

  Royal Victoria Hospital

  2

  2

  3

  Dundee Limb Fitting Centre

  —

  17

  —

  Bridge of Earn Hospital

  —

  74

  —

  Perth Royal Infirmary

  77

  6

  86

  Arbroath Infirmary

  —

  —

  26

  Forfar Infirmary

  14

  —

  —

  Stracathro Hospital

  34

  47

  71

  Western Isles

  42

  —

  35

  Lewis Hospital

  35

  —

  27

  Daliburgh Hospital

  7

  —

  8

  1 Includes the following sub-specialties: Cardiology, Metabolic diseases, Gastroenterology, Poisons, Nephrology, Rheumatology, Genito-urinary medicine, Medical oncology, Haematology, Homeopathy.

  Foreign Landowners
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the proportion of the land area of Scotland, by region, owned by foreign nationals.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 27 November 1992]: None. Information on land transactions is however available from the registers of Scotland Executive Agency.

  Disability
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures he has in place to liaise regularly with representatives of disability interests; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 27 November 1992]: Officials have frequent contact, in meetings and more
  190
  informally, with many of the voluntary sector organisations representing people with disabilities. In particular, officials sit as assessors on the executive committee of Disability Scotland and on the council of the Scottish Society for Mental Health. They also sit as observers on Disability Scotland's Access and Mobility Committee and on the Disabled Person's Transport Advisory Committee.

  Police
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet representatives of serving(a) chief police officers and (b) the Scottish Police Federation to discuss community policing and combating crime; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 27 November 1992]: My right hon. Friend meets chief police officers and representatives of the Scottish Police Federation from time to time but has at present no plans for meetings on the lines proposed.
  191
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet the Chief Constable of Strathclyde police to discuss community policing and initiatives to combat crime; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 27 November 1992]: My right hon. Friend meets the chief constable of Strathclyde police from time to time, but has at present no plans for a meeting on the lines proposed.

  Court Refurbishment
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) when Aberdeen sheriff court will be equipped with closed circuit television and video recording equipment for use in trials;

  (2) how many sheriff courts in Scotland have (a) closed circuit television and (b) video recording equipment for use in trials.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 27 November 1992]: I refer to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) on 17 November at column 377 about closed circuit television links for child witnesses. Video playback equipment is provided by the party which wishes to use video material in evidence.

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what has been the total cost of court refurbishment work in Scotland since 1990;

  (2)what was the final cost for the refurbishment of Aberdeen sheriff court.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 27 November 1992]: I refer to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) on 17 November at column 377.

  Licensing Laws
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has available on any correlation between crime and licensing laws; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 27 November 1992]: Liquor licensing statistics for 1991 were published in August this year (Scottish Office Statistical Bulletin CRJ/1992/5) following the enactment of stricter statutory controls in the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990. Since 1 January 1991, licensing boards have been required to take account of tighter criteria for the grant of extensions of permitted hours and of any observations made on an application by the chief constable. There are indications that some boards have already reduced the numbers and/or length of regular extensions awarded in their areas. Any trends may become clearer when 1992 figures are available.

  Manufacturing Output, Paisley
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the percentage change in the output of the manufacturing sector in the Paisley postcode area for each of the past 15 years.
  192
  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 27 November 1992]: Gross output data for the manufacturing sector are available for the Paisley postcode area from 1984 onwards. These are set out in the table.

  Gross output1

  Per cent. change

  £m

  1984

  372·2

  —

  1985

  368·8

  —0·9

  1986

  356·3

  —3·4

  1987

  432·1

  21·3

  1988

  501·1

  16·0

  1989

  513·0

  2·4

  1 Only available in current prices.

  Source: Annual Census of Production 1984–1989.

  Poll Tax
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish, for the last three years for which information is available, a breakdown by poll tax collecting authority showing the number of warrants taken out against poll tax payers in arrears, the total cost involved in pursuing these warrants, the number and amount involved in warrants abandoned and subsequently written off, the number and value of warrants withdrawn due to error on the part of the local authority and the number and value withdrawn due to error on the part of the sheriff officials.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 27 November 1992]: This information is not available centrally.

  Carpet Industry
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the state of the carpet manufacturing industry in Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 27 November 1992]: Six carpet manufacturing plants currently operate in Scotland—four of which are owned by Stoddart Sekers International plc. Scotland also has several yarn spinning and dyeing companies which supply the carpet industry. Employment in the industry in Scotland is approximately 1,600.

  Community Care
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to ring-fence or earmark resources allocated under the care in the community legislation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 30 November 1992]: The sums announced by my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State on 2 October for implementation of our community care reforms will not be formally ring fenced but will be clearly identified in the distribution of grant-aided expenditure as resources which have been made available for local authorities to spend on community care. We expect local authorities in Scotland to spend all these resources on community care and will be monitoring the use of these resources carefully.

  Industrial Policy
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the initiatives taken on industrial policy and the governance of Scotland by him during the United Kingdom's presidency of the EC; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 30 November 1992]: On 12 November following the Chancellor's autumn statement, my right hon. Friend announced initiatives totalling some £340 million to boost the construction industry, to increase resources for housing and to reduce the rate burden on Scottish business.

  In the course of his stock taking on constitutional issues, the Prime Minister heard a useful range of views when he visited Scotland in September. He will be announcing his conclusions in due course.
  194
  As the hon. Member will be aware, the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs has been re-established.

  Forestry Commission Land
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the lands in Scotland proposed for sale by the Forestry Commission, access to which is over private land and for which agreements for continuation of access will not be concluded.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 25 November 1992]: The information is not available at present in the detail requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. I shall write to the hon. Member with the information within the next two months.

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

Grant-Maintained Schools: Capital Programme
Lord Howell Lord Howell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why the Department of Education wrote to all grant-maintained schools on 28th August informing them that in future swimming pools, sports halls, hard play areas and libraries must now rank as ineligible projects and what they calculate to be the effect of such a policy upon the community provision for sport and the arts and the role of the grant-maintained schools in contributing to such policies.
The Minister of State, Department of Education (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, my department's letter of 28th August invited grant-maintained schools to submit bids for the 1993–94 capital programme. In response to a request from schools themselves that advice should be given about priorities so that expenditure was not incurred in preparing bids which were unlikely to succeed, the letter indicated those projects which would not be eligible for funding. Priority areas such as essential health and safety work must take precedence.
Lord Howell: My Lords, although I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that explanation, may I ask her how grant-maintained schools can maintain their obligation under the curriculum requirements to provide physical education if they cannot provide hard play areas, playing fields, swimming baths and the like which are absolutely essential for physical education? If we add that to the problem with dual-use schools and to the recent threats of local authorities to sell playing fields (which resulted from the Chancellor's statement on capital receipts), may I ask the noble Baroness what policy the Government have on sport?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we know of no problems with grant-maintained schools in this respect. A survey of grant-maintained schools that was published on Friday shows that their sports pitches have been used by the wider public for football and lacrosse; gymnasiums and swimming pools have been made available for local people; premises have been used for adult education and other lettings; and music classes have been offered. Unfortunately, however, although some schools have said that they would like to extend their facilities even more, many local authorities simply will not allow it and are being obstructive.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, bearing in mind the importance of sport and recreational facilities in improving life for those who live in the inner cities, when the national lottery Bill is introduced will the Minister encourage allocating money that is raised from the national lottery to be used for sport and recreational facilities? Is the Minister aware that there is one indoor tennis court for every 136,000 people in Britain, compared to France and Germany where there is one indoor tennis court for every 9,000 and 18,000 people respectively?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that is not only a question for another of my noble colleagues; it is also a question for another department.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, following that last reply, does not the decision by an educational assets board to remove a sports centre from community use, together with the Chancellor's statement encouraging schools and local authorities to sell their sports fields, to which my noble friend Lord Howell referred, threaten to reverse 30 years of sports policy in the United Kingdom, which was to encourage community sports participation through the dual use of facilities? That has been the policy. It was the policy when I was a member of the national Sports Council a quarter of a century ago. May I ask the Minister who is actually deciding sports policy in this Government? Is it the Department of Education or the Treasury? Does the Department of National Heritage approve of a reversal of sports policy? When will the Minister responsible for sport speak up for sport?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there is no reversal of sports policy. Policy is determined by my department for national curriculum purposes. May I ask the noble Lord which decision has been taken to remove which sports hall from which local authority or from which school?
Lord Howell: My Lords, may I refer back to the noble Baroness's earlier answer to me about sports being played on the sports grounds of opted-out schools? I entirely agree with that, but all those facilities were supplied by local authorities before those schools opted out. What we are now talking about in this latest circular—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Howell: My Lords, is it not the case that what we are now talking about in the latest circular is how the opted-out schools will contribute to community sports policy in the future? I am sure that the noble Baroness will agree that that is absolutely essential when we have 1 million youngsters out of work. We need to attract them to recreational and sporting facilities.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the point that I made when I was answering the noble Lord is that, since those schools became grant-maintained, there has been a much wider use of their facilities, not only by the schools, but by the wider community.

VAT: Bloodstock Industry
2.41 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
What consideration they have given to bringing the VAT rate of the United Kingdom into line with those in force in France and the Irish Republic; and whether they have considered the consequences for the United Kingdom bloodstock industry if they do not do so.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, we prefer to maintain a single positive rate of VAT in the United Kingdom, but extensive discussions with UK bloodstock interests to find other ways of minimising any distortion of competition are continuing.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I wonder what my noble friend means by the verb "continuing". The discussions have been going on for a very long time. Do Ministers need to be reminded that we have two serious problems in this country: unemployment and the balance of payments? Does it not seem exceedingly foolish to allow either of those to suffer damage when an easy remedy is available—either a dual rate of purchase tax or the registration of owners? Either would do. It is no good my noble friend saying that discussions are continuing—1993 will alter the rules.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, discussions are continuing, but also a great deal has been achieved. We are working hard with the industry to find ways of helping it. We have introduced an agricultural flat rate scheme at the bloodstock industry's request. We introduced a reduction in betting duty in the last Budget worth £10 million to the industry, and we have encouraged the use of distance selling methods to get round the VAT regulations. I understand what my noble friend says about the state of the industry, but we are very keen to help it.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in view of the imminence of the Edinburgh summit at which all kinds of backstairs deals may conceivably be done, will the noble Lord give the House an assurance that the Government will adhere strictly to their often-repeated pledges of continuing zero rating in respect of food, fuel, transport, children's clothing and other items which are at present zero rated?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord hits on a very important point. It is the same European Community law that allows the Irish to set their low VAT rate on horses which protects our own very important British Government policy on zero rating.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that some 30 years ago when the bloodstock industry was having a very difficult time, a Conservative Government persuaded Parliament to introduce the horserace betting levy? That is still being paid, but VAT differential rates are having a very bad effect on the industry in spite of the levy. Although my noble
1250
friend has said that the Government are further considering the matter, can he say when a favourable decision will at last be reached?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thought I had indicated to the House that we have already achieved many things to help the industry. But VAT is not the only problem it faces. Overall, there are too many horses for too few owners; and the price of horses has dropped over the course of the past few years. That has reduced profits to the bloodstock industry. There are many other problems inherent within the industry than just VAT.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is it not a fact that the bloodstock industry is in a very parlous condition? A lot of its work is being transferred to Ireland because VAT there is very much lower. That is not right. Surely, this country ought to take into account VAT as it applies to an industry which is suffering from the threat of the loss of many jobs. This is an all-party matter.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, of course we take VAT into account; but even if it were possible under Community rules to allow a second low rate of VAT, it would be difficult to avoid making the argument for so many other industries. For example, the tourist industry, the car manufacturing industry and many other industries which believe that they have an important role in our national life.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that with so many studs closing, veterinary surgeons are having a very difficult time?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am grateful for that information. That indicates the problem which exists in the horseracing industry.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, and others about the problems of the bloodstock industry; but the first part of the Question relates to VAT as a whole. In that respect, the Minister insisted that government policy is to stick with a single positive rate. Will the introduction of the single market on 1st January have no consequences for government policy in that regard?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the Commission has decided on a Community framework of a standard rate of VAT of not less than 15 per cent. It is that which guides us. The Irish are protected on their low rate on the same basis as I answered the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. We are not sure that the French low rate is a legal rate. That is something that the Commission will have to take up through the European Court of Justice.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, what does the noble Lord estimate the loss to be in terms of revenue to this country should Messrs. Tattersall move their operations to Ireland? I believe it is their plan to do so.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we have no estimates of that figure. We regret the decision; but it is a commercial decision for them to make.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that whatever figure is produced now, we are losing a important and valuable industry in this country? The battle that is going on is a battle that the general public seems to think we are losing. What can we do about it?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the point is that there are many factors affecting the British horseracing industry. The British VAT rate is only one factor which buyers and breeders take into account when making their decisions as to where to purchase or sell horses. I have said that we have a great deal of anxiety for the industry and are continuing our discussions with it. We shall do what we can within existing VAT regulations to help the industry.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, will the Minister accept that the answer that "discussions are continuing" is totally unsatisfactory in the light of identical answers given to me by different Ministers on 15th January 1991 and 11th March 1992 of this year? The canary has changed but the song remains the same. It is not good enough. As the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, suggested, there are two clear potential solutions to that problem. The first is to adjust our bloodstock VAT levels to those prevailing among our European competitors in Ireland and France in order to create a level playing field. The second is to enable horse owners to register for VAT as a business. Given the existence of those solutions, why are the Government dithering while tens of thousands of jobs are at risk?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, as regards adjusting VAT rates, I believe that I have made the position clear, given our Community obligations. We must exist under the current framework. Racehorse owners can register for VAT if they can prove that they are a business. Until now racehorse owning has not been regarded as a business. However, I am advised by Customs and Excise that if those owners were to eat their horses and produce food from them, they could demonstrate that they are a food production business.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, before the Minister sits down—and I hope that he enjoyed his lunch—will he not agree that in eight of the 12 countries of the European Community racehorse owners are allowed to register for VAT as a business?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I have no information as to whether or not eight out of 12 is the accurate figure. I understand that the French get round the problem, but we all know about their particular culinary tastes. The European Commission has still to take up with the French Government as to whether or not their rules apply.
Lord Elton: My Lords, in the Minister's reply to my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls, he spoke as though it were only the buying and selling of horses which is in question. Will my noble friend register that it is concerned also with the training, racing and breeding of horses? That is a very much larger
1252
industry? A great deal is at risk and the House has demonstrated that all parties favour some emergency action.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, my noble friend is right. We are talking about the whole industry. However, this particular aspect of VAT affects only those people who are not registered for VAT as a business; that is, the owners who must pay VAT but cannot claim it back. Rather than allowing this discussion to continue further, I should say that I understand those anxieties which have been expressed to me today. I shall draw them to the attention of the Treasury in order to see whether or not something can be done.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, that at least gives me the opportunity to say "thank you". When my noble friend visits the Treasury, will he tell those Ministers who are not always receptive of communications that there is some surprise that they do not seem to have realised that 1st January 1993 will see a change in the rules of a very serious kind? Will he say also that there is some surprise that no assessment appears to have been made of the damage in terms of exports lost, revenue lost and jobs lost?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, my experience of discussing this question with Treasury Ministers and Customs and Excise officials leads me to believe that they are aware of what has been said.

Derelict Land Grant
2.55 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal Baroness Fisher of Rednal asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will increase derelict land grant allocations in order to speed up reclamation and redevelopment projects.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the resources for derelict land grant have been increased by more than 30 per cent. in real terms since 1989–90. The programme for the current year totals £106 million. We are maintaining that level of support for 1993–94 so that there will be no slackening in the rate at which land is reclaimed as the programme transfers to the Urban Regeneration Agency.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Will he tell the House what is involved as regards the agency which the Government have now set up? What are its terms of reference? What is its accountability? What is its relationship with the urban programmes and the city challenge programmes?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the agency will be given powers to acquire and develop land and buildings by agreement or compulsorily. It will issue grants and loans for reclamation and development of land. It will bring together the existing schemes of the derelict land grant, city grant and English Estates. I understand that there is no problem as regards the

1253
agency working in city challenge areas. A Bill is currently going through another place which will reach this House in due course.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, will the Minister agree that it is not the grants which are holding up development but the state of the property market? Will he tell us what steps the Government are taking in order to encourage the reclaiming of some of those sites for reasonable property development which will help the construction industry?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is the reduction in the price of the property which creates a great opportunity for local authorities to use the derelict land grant because they will be able to buy more land for their money.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, is it not the case that there are some 40,000 acres of derelict land in England and Wales? Is it not important that the Government should give every encouragement to the use of that land for development rather than using green field sites? Will the Minister assure the House that that aspect of the matter is continually in the Government's mind?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right. That is precisely why we are in the process of setting up the new Urban Regeneration Agency.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the Minister mean that the Urban Regeneration Agency will be yet another unelected quango which is able to override elected local authorities? Will there be no derelict land grant available to local authorities after the agency has opened for business? Is the noble Lord aware also that, if the Government are determined, as they seem to be determined, to shut down the British coal industry, there will be plenty of opportunities for the reclamation of derelict land and that local authorities will have a vital role to play in that area?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, of course local authorities have a vital role to play. The Urban Regeneration Agency will create partnerships between local authorities and the private sector to help reclaim derelict land and thus improve the quality of the environment to which the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, referred.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, will the noble Lord explain what he means by partnership? Does he mean that local authorities will be given more money or that the agency will bring its own money to extend the work already done by local authorities?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, there is every desire for the agency to work very closely with local authorities. There is an extremely important role for local authorities to play in the reclamation of derelict land.

Car Tax
2.58 p.m.
Lord Monson Lord Monson asked Her Majesty's Government:
What proportion of the tax revenue (approximately £750 million) which will be lost by the abolition of the 5 per cent. car sales tax is attributable to sales of cars manufactured abroad, and whether they intend to recoup this sum by taxing the British motorist.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, about 55 per cent. of new car registrations are in respect of imports. The burden was borne by British motorists irrespective of whether they were purchasing a British or a foreign produced car. The Chancellor has already confirmed that the cost of abolition from 1993–94 will have to be met from motoring taxes. The precise means will be considered as part of his next Budget.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for that very straightforward reply. Given that 55 per cent. of new car sales are accounted for by imported cars, will the noble Lord agree that the tax forgone on those imported cars as a result of the abolition of the car tax amounts to about £410 million per year? In order to compensate for that it will be necessary either to raise petrol tax or to raise the road fund licence by between £16 and £17 per year, in addition to the £13 per year by which it will be necessary to raise it in order to compensate for the tax forgone on British-made cars? Thus, the total will be raised by about £30 on top of the existing £110 per annum. Does that not demonstrate once again that the Government are favouring business motorists, who can normally afford to change their cars every year and write off their petrol and other expenses against tax, at the expense of private motorists, who cannot normally afford to change their cars very often and who must pay for petrol and road fund licences out of their own pockets?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, under our international trade obligations it would be impossible to discriminate between foreign manufactured cars and British manufactured cars, and we shall not do so. Between November this year and whenever the Chancellor makes his Budget announcement, the cost will be £100 million. That is a price worth paying to boost the vehicle industry. After that, it will be the British motorist who pays and again there is no discrimination between the business buyer and the private buyer.
Lord Richard: My Lords, the Minister has just said that it will be for the British motorist to pay. Can he confirm that if the cost of abolition were to be borne by vehicle excise duty alone, it would have to increase from £110 to £142 a year? If it were done by duty on petrol, the cost would be an additional 2.2p per litre on leaded petrol and 1.8p per litre on unleaded. It is a strange policy which, on the one hand, encourages people to buy cars and, on the other, makes it much more difficult for them to run their cars.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, of course these are decisions for the Chancellor to make. He has provided an opportunity during the past few months of this financial year for a fiscal boost to the car-buying public. I shall not quibble with the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition on the figures that he gives because they are broadly similar to those I possess. However, the announcement made by the Chancellor was clearly that the tax would be made up in the Budget.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there are far too many cars cluttering up our roads? Far from what the Leader of the Opposition said, the rate of vehicle excise duty has fallen behind other rates. In April 1975 when the party of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, was in power, the vehicle excise duty was set at £40. If that is adjusted for inflation, as all other taxes are, the vehicle excise duty today would be £166. In 1975 there were under 15 million cars; there are now about 22 million. If the Chancellor were to increase the vehicle excise duty from £110 to £166, he would receive an extra £1.2 billion. Would that not be a good idea?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am sure that that is precisely the kind of idea that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will examine closely early next year.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, is not the Minister sending the wrong signal to the prospective new car purchaser? He is saying today that there is a threat that the vehicle excise duty will be increased in the Budget next year, but the Chancellor was saying only two weeks ago that the abolition of the 5 per cent. sales tax was in order to assist the car industry.
Further, what does the Minister understand is a car manufactured abroad? The matter is much more complicated than appears at first sight, since part of the range of the Ford Motor Company is wholly manufactured abroad. If the Minister is suggesting that, for the same company, there should be two levels of taxation depending on where a car is manufactured, that will damage the British car industry.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, of course my right honourable friend the Chancellor made it quite clear in his announcement that this was a short-term measure to give a short-term boost to the vehicle industry in regard to cars being sold in this country.
As to the second part of the noble Lord's question, there is no question of the Government deciding on what are foreign manufactured cars and what are British manufactured cars. That was the thrust of the original Question from the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and I gave the same reply in my original Answer.

Criminal Justice Bill [H.L.]
3.4 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order—

Clauses 1 to 31,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 32 to 37,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 38 to 48,

Schedule 3,

Schedule 4.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

British Coal and British Rail (Transfer Proposals) Bill
3.4 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Power to act in relation to proposals for transfer of functions, property etc.]:
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 1, line 14, at end insert:
("(1N) The British Railways Board shall ensure that in exercising the powers conferred upon it in subsection (1) above it shall—

(a) consider the effect of any actions on services currently provided in rural areas; and

(b) publish a statement explaining such effects.").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move the amendment standing in my name and also those of my noble friend Lord Underhill and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. The debate concerns rural transport. Perhaps I may say at the outset that the Minister will know that concerns have been expressed to his department about the effects of privatisation on rural services. The Bill sets the tone and to some degree our debates enable anxieties to be expressed and, we hope, allayed by the Government. I hope that the Minister will not say in response that this is a purely technical privatisation Bill, because the issues are real.
No one should underestimate the value of rural rail services. Sometimes they represent the only link for thousands of people living in isolated communities. The anxieties to which I have already referred which pervade a number of rural communities—and a considerable number of representations have been made to me about the matter—relate to the fact, or at least the suspicion, that rural lines will become unattractive for private investors and therefore those services will be at risk.
Rural lines are at present subsidised through a public service obligation grant, as well as being cross-subsidised by other BR sectors. The anxiety is that since rural services will continue to require

1257
subsidy, with BR providing a service of last resort, presumably those lines could well be exposed to Treasury cost-cutting exercises.
Considerable interest has been evinced in the matter by the Central Transport Consultative Committee's report; with which, again, the Minister will be familiar. I wish to refer to one or two passages relating to rural transport in that report. Paragraph 23.4 states:
"There is one particular aspect of charging policy on which we do wish to comment at this stage and this concerns rural lines. The cost of running a train over a heavily trafficked route will inevitably be lower than that of operating a small number of trains per day over a single track line. There are high fixed costs, irrespective of how many trains are run and unless rail track cross-subsidises a large number of routes it seems unlikely that any company will be able to afford to bid for a franchise in rural Wales or northern Scotland without a very large subsidy or by proposing to charge higher fares. We trust that the charging rules will not result in pressure for higher fares on relatively lightly-used rural routes".
I, and I am sure the Committee, would like to know the Government's thinking about that representation. What response have the Government given so far, and if they have not given a response what response are they contemplating? Will the regulator be sensitive to these concerns? Will he be guided by an overall objective of ensuring that the interests of rail users—that should certainly include those using rural lines—are paramount? I am not altogether encouraged in that regard as I noted that in another place reference was made to an advertisement, published by the Department of Transport for the regulator, which specified,
"knowledge of public transport not essential".
That is a rather strange concept for the regulator who is supposed to be in charge of, or at least invigilating, our rail services in the future.
I also express concern that rail privatisation may have results comparable to those that occurred with bus deregulation. That was another point made by the Central Transport Consultative Committee, which is certainly not a Labour Party organisation. I have referred to this matter previously. What happened there—contrary to what was suggested would be the case—were reduced bus services and in some cases no services at all in rural areas. There have been increased fares and the abandonment of joint ticketing schemes which are of particular importance to rural communities. There is even the strange situation that where the better operators have tried to co-operate together in such joint ticketing schemes, the Office of Fair Trading has intervened and caused them to abandon those passenger-friendly amenities.
I realise that in the Government's calculations environmental costs simply do not figure. They do not appear on any balance sheet. Consequently, road traffic forecasts, which suggest a massive increase in car usage on country roads over the next 30 years—the estimate is for a quadrupling of car usage—have not been addressed in the White Paper. It should have addressed that issue.
I believe that there is another oversight. Community groups and individuals have helped to maintain railway infrastructures, notably stations, in rural areas. They have helped to refurbish station
1258
buildings; they have even printed extra timetables. They have maintained station gardens. They have raised money to cover maintenance and improvement costs. None of those community efforts can be valued simply in terms of assessing rural railways in a conventional business sense. I realise that the Government have undertaken to support by way of grant what they call socially necessary services. The White Paper states:
"There is no reason to believe that the proposals will lead to the closure of services".
However, that was said about bus privatisation. I refer again to the CTCC report. It states at paragraph 71.2, with regard to closures:
"It should not be for the franchising authority to determine that a service is no longer socially necessary. This would present a prima facie case for closure which the Secretary of State would find hard to overrule. The franchising authority should be required to make a case for closure but it should not be permitted to conclude that a service is no longer socially necessary".
That committee has expressed a positive view to the Government. I should be interested to know what the Government have to say to allay that particular anxiety. However, the committee also make the point that closures could occur regardless of social need. The committee states at paragraph 71.1 of the report:
"We feel that the Government need to make a stronger commitment about the size of the rail network".
The committee is referring particularly to rural services in that context.
This is an issue where the Government need to be much clearer than they have been in the White Paper. They say very little about rural services in the White Paper. I believe the Minister would have to concede that. I imagine he would say that it is all caught within the umbrella of social service provision that would be made in relation to privatisation. However, he needs to be much more specific. I await with interest what he has to say. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Ezra: I wish to support the amendment, as moved by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. It may well be argued that this is a matter which could be more exhaustively debated—as no doubt it will be—when the privatisation measures are put forward. Nonetheless it is a matter of such importance and of such concern for so many people in this country that an early statement of reassurance seems desirable.
The Committee will recall that in discussing previous privatisation measures, particularly those relating to telecommunications and electricity, the question of the maintenance of rural services loomed large. It is undoubtedly a matter of great concern. I hope that the Minister in replying to the amendment will give us the reassurance that we need.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: I speak not only as the bishop of a rural diocese but as the former vice-chairman of the Archbishops' Commission on Rural Areas. The report of that commission, entitled Faith in the Countryside, continues, three years on from its publication, to be widely used as an authoritative account of the factors which affect community life in rural areas. The decline in public transport services in rural areas has been well

1259
documented in the report and elsewhere. Its effects on the rural economy and the quality of life, especially for the young, the old and young families, are serious and well known. But because deprivation in rural areas is often masked by beautiful surroundings the uncomfortable facts tend to be quickly forgotten.
I remind the Committee that in rural areas 22 per cent. of households have no car. In 44 per cent. of households there is only one car which is usually not available during the day for members of the household other than the main user. Following the Transport Act 1985 and the deregulation of bus services, as the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has pointed out, the trend in this area has continued downward at an accelerating pace as county councils in particular have reduced their support of private initiatives. The rail services have already been cut almost to the bone. If there is any possibility of further cuts, it is vital that this is known because it will add yet another factor which is undermining or making impossible life in a village for all but the prosperous who can afford to be independent of public provision.
Transport is a key element in the viability of rural communities. It is wrong that economic arguments alone should be brought to bear in formulating policy which affects communities. We must ask ourselves what kind of society we want in the countryside. If we believe, as I hope we do, that villages should be balanced communities with a place for the young as well as the old and for those at work as well as the retired, the provision of public transport in rural areas will have to be given a far higher priority than it has been given so far. This amendment is a modest one: it seeks only that those important questions should be asked. I hope that the Committee agrees with me that the amendment deserves our wholehearted support.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: I very much wish to support what has been said. Living as I do in Scotland I realise the importance of the survival of rural communities. That applies not only to my interest in railways but also to my interest in forestry, which is well known. Has the Minister taken into account the importance to rural communities of feeder rail services which are connected to the InterCity lines? If the feeder services are withdrawn those communities are isolated from the InterCity network and main railway services.
I should also like to ask the Minister whether the existing procedures in respect of the closure of lines will apply under the new arrangements? I see that the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, who was my chairman when I served on the British Rail Board, is in his seat. As I understand it, there had to be a public inquiry into the closure of any branch station or branch line. I should like an assurance from the Minister that those provisions will continue. That is the purpose of the amendment before the Committee.
The existence of a healthy rural community is important to the balance of our general life in this country. I do not believe that one can have a healthy society when people are concentrated in cities and the opportunity for the kind of lifestyle which some people enjoy outside those heavy concentrations is neglected. That provides an important balance in our society. Therefore, I hope that the amendment will be
1260
accepted or that the Minister will give an assurance that communities will not be increasingly isolated and that services will be available.
The Earl of Caithness: As usual, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, was right. The amendment is essentially one for the main privatisation Bill. However, it raises an issue of great concern to Members of the Committee and it is only right that I should go into some detail as to our thinking on the matter.
I have to declare an interest to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, will know full well that I was brought up in a part of Scotland which is probably as far away from a mainline station as it is possible to be. I know the importance of feeder services to local communities. I say to the right reverend Prelate that there is no chance of my being able to ignore the question of transport in the rural areas of Norfolk. My parents-in-law live there. I shall be going there this weekend and I am sure that I shall be reminded forcefully of that point once again.
I say to the right reverend Prelate, however, that as a result of bus deregulation the bus service in the area of the Cotswolds where I live has improved out of all recognition. Villages which did not have bus services now have a service through the Villager bus service, which has linked villages and communities which were previously excluded from any possibility of a bus service under the old regime. There were considerable benefits from bus deregulation, not only in the area in which I am lucky enough to live but also in other parts of the country.
Without doubt, the question of rural services is a cause of concern to people living in the country who are affected by them. They rely on rural rail services and wish to see a modern and efficient railway with a sound and long-term future. The progressive franchising of passenger services, including rural rail services, will enable the efficiencies and flexibility of the private sector to be brought to bear on the operation of services.
When the privatisation of the railways was first being discussed many people were naturally worried that privatisation would lead to the closure of a large number of lines and fears were raised that services in rural areas, many of which are loss-making, would suffer most. However, we shall not just be franchising those passenger services which make a profit. There is no reason why only the profitable services should benefit from the improvements we believe the private sector will bring. We recognise that there are many services which are important locally but which do not make money, including many rural services. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, rightly reminded the Committee that the taxpayer, through the Government, provides a subsidy for those services now. In fact, the PSO grant to regional railways in 1991–92 was £550 million. The rail privatisation White Paper makes clear that the Government are committed to providing continuing subsidy to support those services, whoever operates them.
I believe that it would be for the benefit of the Committee if I were to read paragraph 71 of the White

1261
Paper. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, read just one sentence; I think that it would be helpful if I were to read the whole of it. It says:
"The Government has made clear that it will continue to make grant available to support socially necessary services. The fact that a service is operated by a franchisee will not affect the availability of grant".
I hope that that this is reassuring to the right reverend Prelate. It continues:
"There is no reason to believe that the Government's proposals will lead to closures of services. But if in future, as a result of change in demand, the Franchising Authority decided that a service was no longer socially necessary and there was no case for continuing that service then the same statutory closure procedures would apply as now".
I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, nods in appreciation at that.
I also wish to draw the Committee's attention to the last sentence of that paragraph, which reads:
"In such cases the final decision about whether a service should be retained or withdrawn will continue to be taken by the Secretary of State".
That is a firm commitment in the White Paper, which I hope allays the anxieties of many Members of the Committee.
I also take this opportunity to consider for a moment the existing closure procedures, which was an issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe. Currently, to withdraw completely a passenger service, either on a stretch of track or to a particular station, British Rail must comply with the closure provisions of the Transport Acts 1962 and 1968. That procedure requires that: British Rail publishes an advance notice of intent concerning the proposed closure; British Rail publishes the proposal for closure itself stating that objections may be lodged with the area Transport Users' Consultative Committee (the TUCC); any objection to the proposal must be sent to the relevant TUCC within six months; British Rail provides the TUCC with information on the proposal under a heads of information document and can make additional representations; the TUCC considers them and may hold a public hearing; BR is given an opportunity to comment on any objections and the objectors receive copies of BR's heads of information and comments; the TUCC reports to the Secretary of State on any hardship the proposed closure would cause and how it might be alleviated; the Secretary of State considers the TUCC report and any other relevant matters, including economic and social factors, before reaching a decision on whether to give his consent to closure.
Consent may be given with or without conditions, although the Transport Act 1985 empowers the Secretary of State to require BR to arrange a substitute bus service which would be paid for by BR. Such bus services are then also subject to the rail service closure procedure. There has been only one bus substitution condition to date, concerning the Tilbury Riverside service. By convention BR does not run down the level of service after giving notice of the intention to stop supporting a service. There is no statutory obligation to maintain the level of service after proposing closure but any reduction in frequency may result in a challenge to the validity of the proposal.
1262
That is a comprehensive summary of the Transport Acts 1962 and 1968. I repeat that in the main Bill which will come before your Lordships, I hope in the not too distant future, similar provisions will be made. I hope that that will allay the justifiable anxieties of the Committee.
It is fair to point out in summary that there are enormous benefits to be achieved through the franchising of rail services, not only for the profit-making lines but also for rural lines. Subsidy will continue to be paid where there is a need for it. As I said, the public service obligation grant for 1991–92 was £550 million. We have also written into the White Paper, as we shall into the main Bill, protection for those rural lines on a basis similar to the existing provisions.
Lord Clinton-Davis: The noble Lord was emollient. He is not always but he was on this occasion. Perhaps it was because of the presence of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich. But the fact is that he has not really answered some major points that I put to him, and most particularly the points that were raised in the consultative document of the Central Transport Consultative Committee itself or the representations that it made.
Specifically, in answer to the suggestion that the Secretary of State would be ultimately responsible, the committee said that the problem was that, because the franchising authority determines that a service is no longer socially necessary, that represents a prima facie case and it would be very difficult for the Secretary of State to overrule it. That may or may not be right. But it is a perfectly reasonable protestation made on behalf of an organisation with which it is to be hoped the Government have very close links. If it expresses that concern, then I do not believe that such fears will be totally allayed by what the Minister has said this afternoon.
The right reverend Prelate made a very strong case about rural services, but in particular he took the view, contrary to that of the Minister, that there has been a decline in the value of bus services so far as rural communities are concerned. This may not be the situation all over the country. But there is a very widespread anxiety about what has been happening. It is not good enough for the Minister to say, "Well, I am perfectly satisfied because in the Cotswolds things are different". I can assure the Minister from my peregrinations around the country during the general election that views expressed to me by people involved on both sides of the industry and by local authorities were far removed—not in all instances, but in many—from the point of view that has been expressed by the Minister.
Assurances have been given before. I am sure they were all given in good faith. But unfortunately perhaps the facts of life in the bus transport industry have done something to undermine the practicability of those assurances being brought into proper effect.
My noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe speaks with a considerable amount of experience in this industry. He raised certain issues. I just happen to believe that the Minister, despite the assurances he gave, has not answered those points. I fear that, while he is right and

1263
we shall come back to them later on, he has missed the opportunity to be much more specific. I do not feel that the Minister has carried conviction in the way in which he answered the debate. Consequently I think it appropriate that we should test the opinion of the Committee on this amendment.
3.34 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 27) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 113; Not-Contents, 162.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Jacques, L.

Airedale, L.

Jay, L.

Ardwick, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Jeger, B.

Attlee, E.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Aylestone, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Banks, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Judd, L.

Birk, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Blackstone, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Blease, L.

Lockwood, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Longford, E.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bottomley, L.

McNair, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Mar, C.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mishcon, L.

Carter, L.

Molloy, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Monson, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mulley, L.

Crook, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

David, B.

Nathan, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Nicol, B.

Desai, L.

Norwich, Bp.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Ogmore, L.

Donoughue, L.

Parry, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Peston, L.

Ennals, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Ezra, L.

Richard, L.

Falkender, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Falkland, V.

Rochester, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Fitt, L.

Seear, B.

Gallacher, L.

Serota, B.

Galpern, L.

Shackleton, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Stallard, L.

Glasgow, E.

Stedman, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Gregson, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Grey, E.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Grimond, L.

Thurlow, L.

Hampton, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Hamwee, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Varley, L.

Healey, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

White, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Wigoder, L.

Hooson, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Hunt, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Ingleby, V.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Addison, V.

Alport, L.

Aldington, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

1264

Arran, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Astor, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Kintore, E.

Barber, L.

Knollys, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Knutsford, V.

Bellwin, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Beloff, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Bessborough, E.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Blatch, B.

Long, V.

Blyth, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Boardman, L.

Lyell, L.

Borthwick, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Bridgeman, V.

Manton, L.

Brightman, L.

Margadale, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Marlesford, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Marsh, L.

Butterworth, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cadman, L.

Mersey, V.

Caithness, E.

Morris, L.

Caldecote, V.

Mottistone, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Moyne, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Munster, E.

Cawley, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cayzer, L.

Nelson, E.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Norfolk, D.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Orkney, E.

Cockfield, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Cox, B.

Park or Monmouth, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Pender, L.

Davidson, V.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Downshire, M.

Porritt, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Prentice, L.

Effingham, E.

Pym, L.

Elibank, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Elles, B.

Reay, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Erne, E.

Renton, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Richardson, L.

Faithfull, B.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Roskill, L.

Gainford, L.

St. Davids, V.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Gisborough, L.

Seccombe, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Shannon, E.

Goold, L.

Sharples, B.

Goschen, V.

Shrewsbury, E.

Gridley, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Strange, B.

Halsbury, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Swansea, L.

Haslam, L.

Terrington, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Teviot, L.

Henley, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Thorneycroft, L.

Holderness, L.

Trefgarne, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hood, V.

Ullswater, V.

Hothfield, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Howe, E.

Vivian, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Huntly, M.

Wakeham, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Inchyra, L.

Wise, L.

Ironside, L.

Wynford, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.44 p.m.
[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 1, line 14, at end insert:
("(1Q) Powers exercised under subsection (1) in so far as they relate to safety shall be exercised by the Secretary of State or relevant corporation in full and open consultation with representatives of the workforce and, in the case of railways, of passengers, and all advice received by any relevant corporation or the Secretary of State on safety shall be made available within one week to representatives of such workforce or passengers.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 30 and 35. Amendment No. 29 relates to consultation with passengers and the workforce. Amendment No. 30 deals with recognition of the Health and Safety Executive as the independent safety regulatory authority. Amendment No. 35, standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Donoughue, deals with the record of transferees in relation to employment, health and safety and public safety. My noble friend will deal with the amendment as regards coal mines and I will deal with the rail issues.
No one can doubt the significance of safety issues. Despite accidents on the railways the safety record is good overall because British Rail has applied itself to high safety standards. I appreciate that the Government too have applied their mind to that issue in the White Paper. Contrary to what the Minister said yesterday I have never suggested otherwise. It would be ridiculous for me to do so. Notwithstanding the fact that safety issues are referred to in the White Paper, we are addressing them because we believe that some need a different emphasis and approach.
I wish to refer again to the representations of the Central Transport Consultative Committee on the basis of the White Paper. Paragraph 8(a), which deals with safety, states:
"There are fears that standards could decline under the proposals. For example, a franchisee facing possible loss of franchise for failure to achieve quality standards could be tempted to take risks with safety to attain those quality standards. With the different foci of responsibility under the White Paper's proposals, safety could come to be seen as one factor among many others".
It is clear that constant vigilance and effective enforcement is required in dealing with the matter. Furthermore, the involvement of the workforce and passengers is a paramount necessity. The effective involvement of the workforce depends largely on the way in which it is treated generally. That is an issue about which in relation to some franchisees we expressed some anxiety, and I dealt with that in part yesterday.
Past experience suggests that some operators confronted by financial pressures would be prepared to ignore safety regulations and try to get away with it. They may not succeed; the Government may mount a successful enforcement process. But the risk exists and it is not without precedent. The CTCC introduced the experience of the bus industry and stated:
1266
"Experience in that industry suggests that some operators faced with financial pressures are prepared to ignore some of the safety regulations governing road vehicles. Similar deficiencies in a rail operation could have dire consequences".
That is the view of an enlightened committee and the Government must take strong account of it. But safety is costly and the Government must be prepared to put their money where their mouth is in order to ensure enhanced safety on the railways. Safety is contingent on the existence of effective co-ordination between track, signalling, trains and crew. The discipline of one operator with prime responsibility in this area will in future be divided between a number of different bodies. Again, the CTCC views that fragmentation with "grave misgivings", which was the phrase it used at paragraph 78. All that requires the clearest statutory undertaking for full and open consultation with trade unions and user organisations concerning safety.
I turn to the Health and Safety Executive. The White Paper indicated that there was to be an examination of the safety implications of rail privatisation which it vested with the Health and Safety Commission. Our view is that if we are to proceed with the legislation a safety framework should emerge which would recognise the HSE as the independent safety regulatory authority. But, more than that, the HSE would require a commitment from government that it would not be starved of adequate resources to carry out the effective enforcement of safety regulations. There is no such commitment in the White Paper. Perhaps the Minister will allude to that point in his reply. In parenthesis, I add that we should strongly oppose any form of privatisation of the HSE, which has been subject to close invigilation and has stood up very well to it.
I come to the subject of transferees' records of employment, health and safety practices. Fragmentation causes anxiety, as I have already said. Consequently, we require close investigation of the issues to which I am referring and which are contained in the amendment before the franchises are granted, and transparency is critical in that regard. There should be no doubt as to the validity of the records of anyone seeking to exercise a franchise in this area.
Finally, with regard to health issues, I should like to know whether the new undertakings will be responsible for past liabilities. I am aware that that involves primarily the point about the coal industry to which my noble friend will refer later, but it is a matter which also affects the railway industry. I hope that the Minister will be able to reply to the point. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: The amendments raise the extremely important issue of safety in the rail and coal industries. I can assure the Committee that there is absolutely no issue of principle between the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and the Government as far as safety is concerned. Safety issues must be paramount in preparing for the future of both the coal and rail industries. The Committee will recall I had a great deal to say about that yesterday when we discussed Amendment No. 3. I have rather more to

1267
say now. The amendments seek to impose requirements on the Secretary of State and the relevant corporations to ensure that no new owner or operator can come into those industries without demonstrating that they can do so safely and that there is full and open consultation on safety matters.
In both industries safety standards and investment in safety are given the highest priority. I am happy to reaffirm today, and I know that my noble friend Lady Denton concurs, that we regard safety as a matter of the highest importance in both the coal and the rail industries. The Government have made that clear on many occasions. The safety record of the British coal-mining industry is among the best in the world and rail travel remains one of the safest of all forms of surface transport. We intend that the present high levels of safety in both industries are maintained after privatisation. Indeed, that is critical. Safety considerations are therefore paramount.
There is no question of an operator being allowed to disregard established safety policies in either industry. That would not be tolerated today and it will not be tolerated in future. All new operators will therefore have to ensure that their approach to safety will fulfil high current standards. Simply because potential operators have a good safety record elsewhere does not mean that their methods of working will be subject to any less scrutiny than that of another operator with an inferior record. That clearly would be foolhardy. The essential issue is to ensure that we continue with the uniformly rigorous standards that apply to both industries.
The Government have been and will continue to be guided by advice from the Health and Safety Executive. When the rail privatisation White Paper was published, the HSC was invited to undertake a thorough study of the safety implications of our proposals and to make detailed recommendations. We await the findings of that study, but the Government have already given a commitment that the advice will he published (paragraph 77 of the White Paper). Our proposals for rail privatisation set out the framework for safety and made it clear that safety validation of all operators would be required. We have welcomed the comments that we have received on safety aspects.
Amendment No. 30 asks the Secretary of State to recognise the Health and Safety Executive as the independent safety regulatory authority. That is already the case for the coal and rail industries and I am not saying anything new when I say that that will continue to be so in the future. Indeed, the rail privatisation White Paper says so explicitly (paragraph 78(b)).
As far as the future of the coal industry is concerned, my honourable friend the Minister for Energy, Mr. Eggar, wrote to a number of interested parties, including representatives of the workforce, earlier in the year to seek their views. My honourable friend also wrote to the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission to seek its advice on safety matters in the context of coal privatisation. The commission was therefore given an early opportunity to consider that important issue. The chairman's reply is available in the Library. The commission is of course a tripartite
1268
body, with representatives from business, trade unions and local authorities. Proposed regulations, approved codes of practice, industry-wide committees or any other important safety initiatives that are approved by the commission are always issued to interested third parties as part of formal consultation. Trade unions are included in those formal consultations.
Anyone who becomes involved in operating mines or running rail services must have proper safety policies which will ensure that they meet the high standards of safety required for both industries. Of course we should not want anyone to become involved in those industries who disregards or seeks to undermine the vital role of safety and I can assure the Committee that we will not let that happen.
However, we are not at that stage yet. It would be premature to specify the mechanisms we need to put in place to ensure that only those able to meet the highest safety standards can become involved in the running and operation of coal and rail activities. It would not therefore be appropriate to have the amendments on the face of the paving Bill, although I hope that I have demonstrated that the Government are in sympathy with their spirit.
I hope I have also been able to demonstrate that the consultations that have taken place have been extensive and are continuing. Those consultations are valuable because the Government attach the highest importance to safety in the coal and rail industries and recognise that that issue is of general interest. The consultation process is open and has provided opportunities for trade unions, passenger representatives and others to express their views. I know that my right honourable friends the Secretary of State for Transport and the President of the Board of Trade will read with interest what the Committee has had to say on that matter and other matters connected with these industries. Our formal consultations with the HSC and HSE, our direct invitation to the coal trade unions, this summer's rail White Paper and the accompanying invitations to meetings with the rail trade unions and passenger representatives have enabled all interested parties to express their views on the proposals.
Lord Ezra: I was pleased to hear from the Minister the importance the Government attach to safety in both industries which are the subject of the Bill. It is clear that in relation to the railways the Government, as the Minister pointed out, in paragraph 77 of the White Paper have asked the HSC to arrange for a thorough study of the safety implications of the proposals set out in the White Paper for the privatisation of the railways. Will the Government be asking the HSC to conduct a similar inquiry in relation to coal once the privatisation measures are known?
4 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: I wish specifically to speak to Amendment No. 35 in my name, which requires that the Secretary of State obtain and publish records of potential purchasers in the areas of employment, and

1269
health and safety, both internationally as well as domestically. It asks that those records be examined and approved by the Health and Safety Executive.
I welcome the large number of assurances the Minister has given, many of them inevitably in general terms at this stage. I should, however, like the assurance that international as well as domestic safety records will be included. Some potential purchasers may be personally resident in this country but operate internationally in the mining area. It is most important that their records of safety and health overseas be examined.
The basic concern of the amendment is a fear that safety standards will inevitably fall after privatisation. We believe that that danger arises for two reasons. The first is the dominance of the profit motivation above the priority of safety. Secondly, the structure of safety regulation could be dangerously fragmented. I do not say that it will be, but much will depend on the structure of the industry after privatisation.
I should like to say a brief word on each of those aspects. With regard to profit motivation, the view that safety standards will fall after privatisation is not a doctrinal view. It is based on the evidence that faces us in the world. For example, in the mining world the private mines have the worst safety record. If one looks at the world's private mines with the best record—I am informed that they are in Australia—the fatal accident rate is double what it has been in the UK's nationalised mines. In the UK the accident rate in the private mines, over a longish period and omitting the odd year, is much worse than it is in the public sector. We are therefore concerned that after privatisation profit motivation will come before safety. We will look at the details of the relevant Bill when it comes before us to try to ensure that that is not the case.
The threat to the safety structure is the possible fragmentation of the industry after privatisation. Many Members of the Committee who know the industry well will know that the efficiency of the safety structure of the coal industry is, and has been for a long time, dependent upon the fact that it is nationally integrated. It is a complex organisation containing the national Health and Safety Commission, the Health and Safety Executive, the employers, who are national, the unions, which are national, the rescue services and the medical services. Altogether, it is nationally focused.
The role of that national structure is the establishment of general national safety policy and the exchange of information. It is within that national context that local pits have their own individual safety committees and the key body, the mines inspectorate, operates. The amendments collectively seek to establish that the national integrated safety structure be maintained. If possible we should like some assurance of that. We know that it is subject to the structure of the industry. I should like to know the Minister's reaction to that. We ask that it be statutorily entrenched. It would be helpful if the Minister could give some commitment in that direction.
1270
Finally, I turn to a specific point on the historic health liabilities for compensation in the mining industry. We know that large numbers of ex-miners are suffering especially from emphysema, bronchitis and diseases related to the lungs. Many test cases are either before or about to be brought before the courts. That could involve thousands or tens of thousands of claimants and liabilities running up to an estimated £1 billion. Can the Minister say who, after privatisation, statutorily will carry the liability for compensation on that scale?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The noble Lord suggests that privatisation would be likely to result in a diminution of safety standards. A number of industries in this country have been privatised in recent years. I am glad to see that we are proposing to privatise more. Can the noble Lord point to any of the industries of this country where, following privatisation, safety standards diminished? If the noble Lord cannot give those figures, it would seem that his apprehensions in that respect are not acute. I ask the noble Lord also to consider this. We have a private sector of British civil aviation and it is one of the safest in the world
Lord Donoughue: I am happy to answer that question. Much of the privatisation has been too recent for proper figures to be provided. The figures produced on bus privatisation suggest that safety standards have in fact declined. My basic point relates to coal. I am sure that Members of the Committee, if not the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, appreciate that coal is and always has been a special industry in relation to safety. This country has a magnificent record of which it can be proud. I was arguing solely in relation to the coal mining industry that according to facts and figures known from the world private industries have a worse record. In this country also private industries have a worse record of safety. That is the basis of our concern. I am sure that the Minister and the Government share that concern. The positive manner of his earlier response suggests that. Together we can approach the issue. But we need to look at it. It is a serious point.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Can the noble Lord quote the figures in respect of the bus industry on which he relies?
Lord Clinton-Davis: Perhaps the noble Lord will take the trouble to look at the report from which I quoted extensively. He will see the deep concerns expressed by an independent objective organisation—even the noble Lord, I believe, will not dispute that it comes within that category—which has expressed deep concern in regard to the way in which the bus industry has developed.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: But with no figures.
Lord Clinton-Davis: The noble Lord is saying that it is invalid. I suggest that he takes the trouble to read the report and then to consult with the organisation. I believe he will see that his concerns in that respect are not made out.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: But still no figures.
Lord Haslam: Perhaps I can return to coal. While I understand the Committee's concern with regard to safety, I do not believe that safety standards will fall. I have worked in many industries in my life. The commitment to safety in British Coal is outstanding. Further, it is a safety record which, as has been said, compares favourably with that of any mining operation in the world. It may be said that I am praising British Coal. But one must recognise that the safety factor is so inculcated into the management and the miners that it will survive any kind of change thrown at it. It is extremely positive.
We must recognise also that we have a fine mining inspectorate in this country which shares those high standards. I am sure that it will continue to administer the mining laws in a meticulous way. I believe that that too will not change following privatisation.
Much has been said about profitability leading to a falling-off in safety standards. That has not been true of British Coal where the level of profits has improved over the recent period, and with it in fact the safety standards have also improved. The reason is that it reflects two things happening. First, is mechanisation of the mining industry itself and, secondly, the productivity that flows from that development.
At the time I entered the mines there would be a coalface 200 metres long with 40 miners exposed to the roof, each of them filling off 10 or 15 tonnes of coal a day. They would have to set their own roof supports and as the face advanced they would have to withdraw progressively some of the roof supports, which was a dangerous operation. All that has now gone. There are small teams of men, five or six in number, working a 200 metre coalface. The supports are massive chocks which are moved forward hydraulically, so that miners are working in the safest possible conditions that can be devised; and one cannot see that changing.
The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, referred to the situation in the UK private mines. The private mines have not advanced to the stage that British Coal mines have in relation to mechanisation. If the new owners are interested in profitability they must embrace more mechanisation. That will improve safety standards. The noble Lord referred to the situation in Australia. In Australia most of the coal mining up to now has been opencast mines. They are only recently learning to work coal mines underground in Australia, whereas we have a long history of so doing. Therefore, I do not have the concerns that are being expressed under these various amendments.
Lord Ezra: The noble Lord, Lord Haslam, is right that the standards of safety in British mining as carried out in British Coal, previously in my time the National Coal Board, are very great indeed. It is difficult to consider that, with any change of ownership, that attention to safety would diminish. Nevertheless there are going to be structural changes, and it lends point to the question I asked the Minister earlier on; namely, would the Government be minded to ask the Health and Safety Commission to arrange the same sort of inquiry into the safety implications of the changes proposed on the privatisation of coal as they have in fact done in the case of the railways?
The Earl of Caithness: I think that the additional contributions to the debate have been most worthwhile. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter for balancing some of the remarks and statements that have alluded to the private sector being less safety conscious than the public sector. There are many instances where the private sector has shown the way, and particularly where privatisations have taken place. An area I know well is the aviation industry, where the private sector continues to set a high standard and a lead throughout the world.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, we are determined that, in consultation with the Health and Safety Commission and its executive, the current high standards and improvements to health and safety in the industry will be maintained after privatisation. That is why we have already formally approached the HSC to enable it to give early consideration to this important issue, and to ensure that a comprehensive and effective safety regime continues to operate in the British coal industry. As the noble Lord will be aware, the initial advice has been received and is available. The HSC has affirmed its commitment to the continuation of the strong safety culture in the British coal industry and the need to maintain and strengthen the existing regime where necessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, asked about compensation. I can give the noble Lord the assurance that privatisation of the coal industry will not affect the rights of current and former employees to claim compensation for ill health or other industrial injuries that have occurred during their employment with British Coal. We have made no decisions on the detail of privatisation, including the allocation of liability for meeting such claims, but just to repeat my assurance, there will be no effect on their rights. I am sure we shall wish to come back to that point at a future date.
The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, also asked whether we would publish information about the safety standards that occurred overseas, or apper-tained overseas, to any purchaser wishing to purchase either into British Coal or British Rail. Of course we will look at those standards, but the safety standards, as we have just been discussing, in each country tend to vary. What is important is that the safety standards we set in this country will have to be met by every purchaser.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: It is not the standards but the record; in other words, whether potential purchasers have a track record that is good or bad in their international operations.
The Earl of Caithness: To some extent the record depends on the standard, but on this issue of safety, raised by the noble Lord, there are three important points that I want to make. First, there is the question of standards. Those vary from country to country depending on the part of the world in which one lives; but, of course, one must set the highest standards. One must not skimp when it comes to safety.

1273
But standards alone are not good enough. It comes to the question of enforcement. Here the British system is an effective system and leads the way. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, it is not only the setting of standards but the enforcement thereof in this country that matters. Any purchasers of either a rail operation or a coal operation will know quite clearly from the beginning that they will have to meet a certain standard and, in addition, that the standard will be enforced regardless of what they have done in the past either here or overseas.
There is a third point, in regard to safety, which was brought out clearly by my noble friend Lord Haslam, with all his practical experience from which the Committee undoubtedly benefited in this debate; that is, the need to engender the notion of safety into all those who work in the industry. That is the key requirement for every operation. It is true not only in the case of coal and rail but also, as I can attest, in the aviation and shipping fields, with which I am well acquainted. Safety is now a culture that flows through the whole operation and in every person who works in those industries.
Safety needs to be encouraged and pursued. We are extremely grateful for the work that has been undertaken already, particularly in the coal-mining industry, which has set such a good example and which my noble friend knows so well. I believe that my noble friend was right when he said that it is now so ingrained into all those who work in the industry that it will not be shaken in the future, and we will not let it be.
Lord Clinton-Davis: The Committee acknowledges that in his two contributions the Minister has made positive comments about the issue of safety in both industries. I am the first to acknowledge that. I agree with him that no issue of principle divides us on that, and also on the point of enforcement. Of course, the question of enforcement in a changing situation could be quite different. As was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Haslam, and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, who held such distinguished offices in the coal industry and have vast experience in it, a culture of safety operates in the industry. Indeed, it also operates in the railway industry.
The problem is that with greater fragmentation there may be a possibility of attempts being made by some—I sincerely hope that it will not be the case—to cut corners, particularly when they are encountering financial difficulties. However effective an enforcement agency may be, and however well equipped in terms of resources it may be, unless that culture can be evinced in the industry as a whole to avoid the possibility of accidents, all it can do is to investigate the situation after the event.
What I want to see, and what I know the Minister wants to see, is that there is a deterrent value established so far as an effective enforcement agency is concerned, and that requires constant invigilation. Nothing can be taken for granted. In that way the culture of safety in the industry can be built up regardless of ownership. Nonetheless, we have these apprehensions. I was pleased to hear what the
1274
Minister said with regard to responsibility for past liabilities. The Committee will feel that that assurance is worthwhile, and I am glad that the point was raised.
I come back to the last point which was raised emphatically by my noble friend Lord Donoughue. It relates to the track records on safety of organisations which may have been established outside this country. I feel that the Minister has again given us assurances which are worth while. There have been serious breaches in certain instances in the United States, Canada and elsewhere. Therefore I hope that the Health and Safety Executive will ensure that those track records are not only investigated but, where appropriate, are made known to the public. Again, I feel that transparency is critically important in these matters. The workforce and the public are entitled to know. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 30 not moved.]
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 1, line 14, at end insert:
("(1 S) Before the British Railways Board shall exercise any of the powers vested in it in subsection (1) above, it shall consult the Central Transport Consultative Committee, Regional Transport Consultative Committees, local authorities, its workforce and such other organisations as the Secretary of State deems appropriate.").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 34 and 36. Amendment No. 31 relates to consultation concerning the railways, Amendment No. 34 concerns consultation with the coal industry and Amendment No. 36, which in many ways is the most critical, deals with consultation affecting the new undertakings.
Salutary lessons have to be learnt from the recent pit closures fiasco, particularly on the issue of consultation. Evidently it was deemed to be of little or no consequence so far as the President of the Board of Trade was concerned, together with others of authority. I suppose I ought not to say any more about that because so far as British Coal is concerned the matter is sub judice. However, it is of major importance that the duty of consultation in relation to this privatisation exercise and its consequences should be undertaken before it is too late. That duty should extend to all those referred to in Amendments Nos. 31 and 34.
I should not have to underline to your Lordships that, when it conies to people who have given long service to the industries, whether rail or coal, they are obviously intimately concerned with the need for consultation. But privatisation would also affect communities, local authorities and the users of railways. Consequently we believe that consultation is particularly important in these regards. Unless the duty to consult is made mandatory, I do not believe that it will always be observed. Apparently it is not always observed where it is already mandatory, but it is more likely to be observed in that instance. I do not propose to say anything more about this issue, but my noble friend may wish to say something about consultation in relation to the coal industry. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: These amendments refer to consultation, but I do not think this is something that needs to be imposed on either British Rail or British Coal because they will be fully aware of their obligations in this respect. I am sure that both organisations will accept the spirit of the amendments, but I do not believe that as a general principle amendments which are too prescriptive or exclusive should commend themselves to the Committee. It is also the case that the Bill enables both corporations to consult anybody they consider appropriate for the purposes of facilitating the implementation of these proposals. I am sure they will do so. Let me reassure the Committee that we too are aware of the importance of consultation in such circumstances.
On rail privatisation, I can tell the Committee that there have already been meetings between my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and my honourable friend the Minister for Transport with the CTCCs and the RTCCs, specifically mentioned in the amendment. They have the important role of representing the interests of rail users. At the time of the publication of the White Paper, my right honourable friend offered to meet the three main rail unions to discuss the privatisation proposals and what they mean for the employees they represent. Those meetings have now taken place. My right honourable friend and my honourable friend have also met with representatives of the PTAs and the PTEs. This consultation is a very important part of the process of working up the details of proposals for the main privatisation legislation which we shall introduce as soon as we are in a position to do so. Publication of the rail privatisation White Paper, setting out the Government's proposals for the privatisation of British Rail, has provided an opportunity for all interested parties to make their views known on the proposals, and we value this input.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, also emphasises the importance of consultation in ensuring that appropriate machinery is put in place for the settlement of terms and conditions of employment and questions relating to safety, health and welfare of employees likely to be involved in transfers. I am probably going to pre-empt the questions the noble Lord has in mind, but it might save him asking me those questions. These are key issues, the importance of which we have recognised in the earlier debates in this Committee. The rail privatisation White Paper emphasised that employees' rights and terms and conditions of employment, including pensions and concessionary travel, will be safeguarded on their transfer to new employment. That is in paragraph 86 of the White Paper.
On coal privatisation, I know that there has been extensive consultation, and this will no doubt continue. My honourable friend the Minister for Energy wrote to a number of organisations with an interest in the coal industry, including the Health and Safety Commission, to seek their views on privatisation. Replies were requested by the 22nd June. A list of the organisations written to is in the Libraries of both Houses, and a list of those who responded was given in another place in response to a question from
1276
the honourable Member for Sherwood. We are grateful for the replies that have been received and we are considering all the submissions carefully. We have also agreed to make public the details of all communications from the chairman of the Health and Safety Council on the safety consequences of rail privatisation, which we discussed at length earlier.
I hope I have been able to demonstrate to the Committee that we realise the importance of consultation. It is not lost on the Government, on British Coal or on British Rail.
Lord Donoughue: I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 34 and 36 standing in my name which relate to coal. If I may say so, I thought the Minister was a little complacent perhaps in what he has just said in the light of recent experience. The background to what we are seeking here is well known to all, and to some in the industry it is very painfully known.
As regards the recent proposals to close a large section of the coal industry, I accept that there was proper consultation earlier in the summer, but that was not about the closure of these mines. The proposals to throw tens of thousands of miners who have given years of service and commitment to the industry on to the industrial scrapheap were put forward with a deplorable lack of consultation, in my view and in the view of the miners and their representatives. Existing arrangements and understandings about consultation were ignored by British Coal. The modified colliery review procedure was brushed aside unilaterally. The understandings on voluntary redundancy policy were unilaterally broken. A compulsory redundancy programme, never agreed with the workers, was declared unilaterally. I think that experience is somewhat different from the tone of what the Minister said.
This recent appalling experience of what I think we must call mismanagement—it was temporary, and there have been many years of good management—appeared to abandon 50 years of progress on consultation and joint agreements in industry. British Coal suddenly began to behave as we fear private management might behave after privatisation, and it is after privatisation we are concerned with. I am not sure that the Minister's replies dealt with that.
The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that after privatisation at least the basic standards of management good practice in the modern world will be maintained in the private coal industry. In particular, under Amendment No. 36 we seek to ensure that the new owner has a statutory duty to have joint machinery for consulting on terms and conditions of employment, health and safety. The amendment also puts British Coal under a prior duty to consult the workforce on its proposals. These amendments are probing. I should like to ask the Minister what assurances we have for the future after privatisation and whether he thinks that within British Coal in the past two months best practices have been followed.
4.30 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, went into a little bit of history with regard to British Coal. As your Lordships will know, in this country legal advice is very expensive. When one is offered it freely one grabs it with both hands. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for saying that these matters are sub judice and it would be wrong for him to comment further. I follow the noble Lord and say that it would be wrong for me to comment further.
As to the future, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, will, with his usual care, read what I have said. I commented on the future and the consultations that my honourable friend the Minister for Energy had undertaken and the representations received. Those are being carefully considered. When one is carefully considering replies to questions it would be wrong to comment any further. I understand the concern that exists. Undoubtedly this is a matter to which we will return.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I do not propose to trespass on ground that is being covered by the courts at the present time, but I think it is wrong for the Minister to assert—because implicitly that is what he is doing—that British Coal needs no reminders about this. That is a matter upon which the courts will adjudicate.
I indicated that I thought Amendment No. 36 was in many ways the most important because it dealt with the new private sector interests that would evolve in the coal and rail industries. I know perfectly well that the Government have given an undertaking in paragraph 86 of the White Paper on the railways that trade unions will be consulted about matters affecting their members' employment. That is an undertaking which covers the Government in relation to the privatisation proposals. But the Minister does not go further than that: he does not indicate whether or not there will be a condition in relation to the franchises that will require such consultation to take place as far as the successor companies are concerned. That is what the Committee needs to hear from the Government. Since there was nothing said about it by the Minister I ask him to reply to that particular point.
There are quite a number of private employers who today do not recognise trade unions and who perhaps have their own in-house tame employee organisations. In the private sector there are some who take consultation very seriously, as I well know, but others do not. To give chapter and verse, I visited a plant in Plymouth where the question of consultation was dealt with in a rather derisory manner by the managing director of a very large group. He said, "Minister, I do not know why you are so concerned about consultation and participation because those people would not be where they are if they were of any value." That cannot be a proper or representative view of British industry. It was however a salutary thing for me to hear from the lips of someone who should have known a great deal better and whom I reported to his head office.
Unless there is a mandatory duty provided by the Bill for consultation it will not always be observed. I
1278
should like to hear from the Government their thinking on that point. I am not saying that we need to deal with the specific point now, but some assurances from the Minister need to be forthcoming. The matter is causing some concern.
The Earl of Caithness: The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, takes us back to a point we discussed in part yesterday, and it is appropriate to mention it again. In the White Paper we said that employees' rights and terms and conditions of employment would be safeguarded on the transfer to new employment. I can give an assurance to the noble Lord that we are currently working up the details of that. As he knows, the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations (colloquially known as TUPE) have to be considered. That is exactly what we are considering at the moment, and until we have finished that consideration it would be wrong for me to say anything further.
Lord Clinton-Davis: We shall obviously need to come back to this issue later, perhaps not necessarily within the scope of this Bill. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 32 to 36 not moved.]
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 1, line 14, at end insert:
("() In exercising the powers conferred by this section special regard shall be paid to the need—

(a) to safeguard the interests of present and future pensioners;

(b) to maintain standards of health and safety in the industry; and

(c) (in the case of coal) to maintain adequate facilities for continuing research into clean coal technology.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment covers three issues: safeguarding the interests of pensioners; maintaining standards of health and safety; and, in the case of coal, maintaining adequate facilities for continuing research into clean coal technology. I do not intend to say anything on the first two issues because they have already been dealt with under other amendments. I should like to spend a moment on research into clean coal technology. The future of the British coal industry, however it may be owned in future, depends upon two things: its competitiveness and the ability to burn or use coal in a way that is acceptable in the light of increasingly stringent environmental standards. Clean coal technology is intended to achieve that purpose.
When I was in the coal industry—I am sure that this applied also to the noble Lord, Lord Haslam—a lot of effort was put into developing those technologies. However, they were of such a long-term and wide-ranging nature that even with the concentration of coal mining within a single enterprise it was felt that they were too costly to be financed entirely by the coal industry. A degree of government support was therefore asked for and forthcoming; indeed, there was also some support from other enterprises and international organisations.
The risk as I see it under privatisation, particularly if it leads to a degree of fragmentation, is that the new owners may feel even less able than the old coal board

1279
entirely to finance this kind of research. They may even want to give it up all together. Therefore, I should like to ask what the Government have in mind in the case of this very basic and important research from the point of view of safeguarding the British coal industry—I do not use the expressions "British Coal" or "National Coal Board" because I am talking about the British coal industry—because its future depends essentially on the successful development of clean coal technologies. So, what sort of provision do the Government contemplate making when the privatisation Bill finally appears for ensuring that a satisfactory degree of resource is devoted to that sort of research? I feel that, unless it is continued on a combined basis (however much the industry might be fragmented at the time of privatisation), it is unlikely that the necessary effort could be put into it. This is a very important question for the future of the industry and I shall be glad to hear what the Minister has to say about it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): As has been made clear on a number of occasions, the basic purpose of this Bill is to enable British Coal and British Railways to do no more than act in relation to the proposals for the transfer of their functions, but the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, raises an issue about which I know that he has considerable anxiety. I am pleased to assure him that the Government also recognise the importance of the development of clean coal technology. We shall give careful consideration at a future date to the future of British Coal's research in this area. Perhaps I may point out that development work on the other key feature of the topping cycle technology—the partial gasification stage—is continuing at the moment. Obviously, all these matters will be considered at the appropriate time when the privatisation Bill is introduced.
Lord Ezra: I thank the noble Baroness for that reply and look forward to seeing how this issue will be dealt with when we see the draft legislation. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Donoughue Lord Donoughue moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 1, line 22, at end insert:
("() Every proposal made under subsection (1) above shall provide that all mineral rights shall revert to the Crown.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 38 which stands also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, concerns mineral rights and seeks to provide that those rights be returned to the Crown. At present, as I understand it, under the 1946 Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, the National Coal Board as it then was—now British Coal—owns all coal reserves, assets and mineral rights. In other words, a public corporation accountable to Parliament holds those rights. That will change on privatisation, especially the accountability element.
We are proposing that the right to ownership of the mineral coal is retained as Crown property. Obviously how that will operate is open to discussion. We might suggest for consideration that an independent agency
1280
be established which, on behalf of the Crown, might issue licences to let, lease or license the right to extract coal (deep or open cast). It is quite possible that the residual rump of British Coal could be retained in order to be involved in this activity. However, I believe that the agency's independence and its public accountability are very important and I look for firm assurances now on those matters.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I can well understand why the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, declined to move this quite astonishing amendment. I do not think that I am using excessive language when I say that it could be described as a "wrecking amendment". It apparently means that, where a privatisation takes place, the mineral rights in respect of which the privatisation is being arranged shall revert to the Crown—in other words, shall be renationalised. It is a most astonishing amendment. We have had no explanation of it from the noble Lord opposite. He has not agreed or disagreed with the interpretation which on reading the amendment I have put on it. As it stands, it seems to me a most damaging and very extreme amendment. Like the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, I feel no enthusiasm for it.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Ezra: It was not because I felt no enthusiasm for the amendment that I did not speak; it was simply because I thought that it was the turn of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, to move an amendment. I certainly support the amendment. I am a little surprised at the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, because if he throws his mind back to the period before 1946 he will no doubt recall that the mineral rights in coal were owned by a body known as the Coal Commission. The commission operated the licences for extracting coal in exactly the same way as at the moment licences are granted by the Crown for the exploitation for oil and gas reserves in the North Sea. It seemed to me to be an eminently sensible proposition that, now that the privatisation of the mines is contemplated, the Crown should take back the ownership of these mineral rights and should license their operation according to the same sort of conditions as in the case of oil and gas (given the different circumstances of the North Sea). I must repeat that I am very surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has objected to this. I normally listen with great attention to his words of wisdom.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I am interested in what the noble Lord says because I spoke in another place—although technically another place was in this place—against the nationalisation of the coal industry when this issue arose, as the noble Lord with his admirable memory will recall. Therefore, I have been not unfamiliar with this for quite a number of years.
If, when one is privatising an industry which has proceeded on the basis that the mineral rights belong not to the Crown but to a state organisation, one then makes the mineral rights on privatisation revert to the Crown, it seems to me that one is removing quite a large part of the privatisation which we are going to some trouble to legislate for. Therefore, I shall be

1281
interested to hear what my noble friend the Minister says. On the face of it, I find this the most surprising amendment that has been moved this afternoon.
Lord Swinfen: I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, can enlighten me when he responds. I assume that his amendment is intended to relate only to coal, but it refers to "all mineral rights". Does that include copper, lead, gravel or anything else of a mineral nature that might be mined?
Lord Donoughue: Perhaps I can help the noble Lord. I was referring to the mineral coal. I repeat that I was referring to coal, not to other minerals.
Lord Swinfen: I believe that the noble Lord's amendment covers all minerals rather than just mineral coal.
Lord Hylton: Under the precedent of the Crichel Down case, is there not an argument that these redundant assets that are now held by the state should be offered back to their former owners—that is, their former owners even before the Coal Commission came into being? I suppose that I should declare a mild interest as the grandson of a former very small mineral owner.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: Whatever else we may say about this amendment, it seems to have attracted considerable interest. Perhaps I may assure the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, that we recognise the importance of the issue of the ownership of mineral resources which is raised in the amendment and we had assumed that the noble Lord meant coal. However, my amazement is that the amendment would require that every proposal for a transfer of functions, rights and liabilities should also include proposals concerning the reversion of mineral rights to the Crown. As worded, the amendment would therefore mean that even a proposal relating to the interests of British Rail, or one concerning a coal issue unrelated to mineral rights, such as pensions, would have to include proposals relating to mineral ownership. I am sure that that is not what the noble Lord intended.
It is not possible for us to accept the amendment. The Bill allows no transfer not permitted under current powers. The time and place to bring about major changes in the ownership of coal would be in a comprehensive Bill designed to bring about the restructuring of the present framework of the coal industry. It is at that point that the issues of ownership would be discussed. However, I can perhaps give comfort to the noble Lord by saying that we recognise the need to avoid the potential conflict of interests inherent in the present system where British Coal owns a resource which it licenses to its own competitors. We will be coming forward with details of our plans in conjunction with the passage of the coal Bill planned for the future. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will be content to wait for those to be brought forward.
Lord Donoughue: I thank the Minister for showing a constructiveness and positiveness towards the
1282
amendment which was not necessarily 100 per cent. apparent elsewhere. The amendment is not dissimilar to an amendment moved in another place which led to a constructive discussion on the issue. That is what we were seeking. I take on board what the Minister says. The Government are obviously considering this matter seriously. At the appropriate time we will scrutinise the Bill very closely because, as the Minister quite rightly said, the potential conflict of interests is basically what concerns us. On that basis, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 2, line 10, at end insert:
("() Before exercising the powers contained in this section the British Railways Board shall in respect of any matter relating to rail services provided under or in accordance with section 20 of the Transport Act 1968 consult any organisation representative or Passenger Transport Authorities and Passenger Transport Executives in the metropolitan areas.").
The noble Lord said: I propose to take a little time developing the arguments on this issue because it is extremely important. Amendment No. 39 deals with the question of consultation with the PTAs and PTEs. Amendment No. 40 deals with their assets. At the outset I must declare an interest. I am the president of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. The AMA has made substantial representations to me, and, as the Minister is aware, it has had discussions with the Secretary of State. The AMA is not satisfied with the outcome of those discussions. So this is a useful opportunity to ventilate the issue here. I hope that the Minister can say that he will encourage further discussions. I am not proposing at this moment to do more than probe the matter; so the Minister can tell his Back-Benchers that they can go home, regardless of any other business.
The meeting that took place on 10th November with the Secretary of State was perfećtly friendly but there was no meeting of minds. The argument advanced by the AMA on behalf of the metropolitan authorities was that PTAs and PTEs should become local franchising authorities. The Secretary of State has not been able to accept that argument. He has said that he envisages a major continuing role for those bodies and that he wants the discussions to be continued in that context. But he has rejected the basic submission that they should become local franchising authorities. The association does not understand what precise role the Secretary of State envisages for the PTAs and PTEs other than as a kind of conduit for setting the subsidy for local rail services. I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify the situation more than the Secretary of State was able to do.
Perhaps I may now turn to the arguments in favour of enabling the PTAs and PTEs to become the local franchising authorities. Under Section 20 of the Transport Act 1968 the seven PTAs and PTEs specify and finance urban rail services. As a result such services have certainly grown over the years and plans are well advanced to continue that growth into the next century. In 1991 the authorities directly supported more than 150 million passenger journeys, 1,695,400 train journeys, more than 955 miles of track,

1283
516 stations and 1,320 rail carriages. The contribution that they have made to the development of the rail industry in this country is very considerable indeed. In urban areas—this is the purpose of the provisions of Section 20—rail policy is part and parcel of what is known as a unitary development process; an integrated transport system within the areas concerned. Policies in relation to buses, public transport and highway authorities as well as rail are taken in conjunction. That is an extremely good precedent which ought to be followed nationally.
Section 20 provision ensures that a locally accountable authority is responsible for decisions concerning the levels of service and the conditions and the decisions relating to investment. Those concerns were acknowledged as very important indeed and thoroughly legitimate by Mr. Freeman, the Minister of State, during the course of the Committee stage in another place.
What the Government have said is that these authorities will continue to be responsible for specifying and financing urban rail services but that it is the franchising authority that will have responsibility for deciding how to franchise services to private sector operators. Along with the AMA, we believe—it is also, I understand, the view of the Liberal Democrats—that this would erode the accountability of the PTAs and PTEs for their expenditure on local rail services. They would have no direct relationship with the operator. All negotiations over service specifications and delivery would have to be undertaken at arm's length and the ability of these authorities to be proactive in developing local rail services and to support wider objectives—local transport, social, economic and environmental—would be impaired.
I believe that a single franchising authority gives rise to considerable problems. Local needs and opportunities could be overlooked. One can conceive of different operational arrangements on local rail within a single PTA area. The PTAs' and the PTEs' monitoring of local rail performance and the ability to influence this area would be substantially reduced.
A franchising authority, without the local knowledge that those authorities currently possess, would be unlikely to take full or proper account of changing local needs and circumstances. It would not have the same accountability, or anything like it. Moreover, without that interface from the PTAs and PTEs, a franchising authority is likely to encounter difficulties when dealing with short-term marketing and ticketing initiatives.
So we argue that those authorities should become the local franchising authorities based on, among other things, their experience, local accountability and the need for integrated policies in the areas which relate to them. So far as concerns discussions with the Secretary of State, as I have indicated, the AMA has not been satisfied. It has submitted a note setting out its detailed concerns. I am sure that the Minister will agree that this is a matter of public importance. Perhaps I should just recount those essential concerns. The AMA believes that the expertise and experience of the PTAs and PTEs would be maximised if they could
1284
participate in decisions by the franchising authority as to how Section 20 services are to be grouped in franchises; if they were able to participate in the shortlisting of respondents to invitations of interest in franchising; if they could be involved in the negotiations with the franchising authority, Railtrack and the regulator, about train paths, timetabling and other such issues; and if they could specify in detail the services that they wished to support and determine precisely how they would feature in franchises. In addition, they should have a right to determine all fares on the services that they subsidise; they should have responsibility for setting performance standards for services that they support, monitoring performance on those services and imposing penalties where appropriate; they should have the right to agree any service developments and enhancements involving the services which they support. Finally, they should have a right of appeal against any decision by the franchising authority or regulator affecting local rail services. As I have said, the AMA has requested another meeting with the Secretary of State. I am sure that the Minister will agree that that would be desirable. At least, I hope so.
I come to the next amendment, which relates to the assets of PTAs and PTEs. It is important that past investments should be protected, but the authorities are also keen to ensure that passengers should continue to receive the benefit of publicly financed infrastructure and rolling stock investment. I hope that the Minister will be able to say whether the PTAs and PTEs will be able to insist that franchisees will be required to use new rolling stock now allocated to PTA services, especially when it is owned or used by a PTA.
Secondly, the franchising document, with respect, reveals a lack of clarity in the Government's thinking about the future role of PTAs and PTEs in grant-aiding rail investment. Paragraph 2.7 refers to PTEs continuing to have powers:
"to make capital grants, for infrastructuring projects such as station improvements or the purchase of assets such as new rolling stock".
Paragraph 2.11 cites Railtrack's continuing role in undertaking investment in infrastructure. Paragraph 3.4 floats the possibility of a franchisee investing in track and signalling and, in what I think is something of an understatement, paragraph 5.5 states:
"There will clearly need to be a degree of liaison between Railtrack, the Franchising Authority and franchisees on the planning of infrastructure investment".
As I said at the outset in dealing with this point, I am worried that the Government's thinking shows no clear reasoning. I shall listen with interest to the Minister. I am not sure which of them is to reply because the noble Earl is a little removed from the Dispatch Box.
The Earl of Caithness: I shall be there.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am glad that the Minister for Transport is replying to what is essentially a transport point. I beg to move.
Lord Teviot: I am one of those Back-Benchers who has not gone home whom the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has described. I agree with a great deal

1285
of what he said. He covered the subject fully. Perhaps I may dot the i's and cross the t's. Contrary to what one thought at the time, the PTEs established under the 1985 Act have been a remarkable success. However, I agree with the noble Lord that the Government might take a different view on whether they should be the franchising authorities. With the bus industry they have been extremely impartial authorities. They have in no way favoured the previous passenger transport companies. They have been impartial and a success.
Does my noble friend agree that this system will be more bureaucratic? Under the present Section 20 arrangement there are two parties involved—the PTE and BR. It will now be the PTE with the franchising authority which will have to consult the track authority until the other authorities, whose names I do not have, are established. The whole scheme is cumbersome and expensive. In one PTE the director responsible has a staff of four which deals with a £30 million budget and the two bodies—the PTEs and BR. If they have to take on this scheme, everything will grow like Topsy. More staff will be needed. Decisions will not be made and timetables will be stretched. It all sounds rather strange to me. That relates to Amendment No. 39.
Amendment No. 40 relates to the assets. Authorities could feel injured where they have sponsored the rolling stock and paid for this and that. Regard should be paid to them. Like the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, I am waiting to hear my noble friend's reply.
The Earl of Caithness: As has already been made clear, the Bill gives both corporations powers to consult anyone they consider appropriate for the purpose of facilitating the implementation of privatisation proposals. I believe that the Committee will agree with me that we can leave it to BR to carry out its consultations as best it sees fit. For the Government's part, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has met PTA and PTE representatives recently to discuss with them the privatisation proposals. I know that my honourable friend the Minister of State has been keeping in touch with those organisations' representatives.
I am sure that the Committee is aware that the PTEs and PTAs are involved in providing local rail services in seven conurbations. Under our privatisation proposals, the White Paper made it clear that the PTAs and PTEs will continue to be responsible for specifying the services to be provided in their areas. Services will continue to be run under contract, initially by BR. The franchising authority, taking the PTA/PTE specification, will be responsible for franchising those services to private sector operators.
Turning to Amendment No. 40, as the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, reminded the Committee, some PTEs and PTAs have invested, for example, in rolling stock. The treatment under our privatisation proposals of property or assets funded partly or in full by PTAs and PTEs is an important matter and one that is currently under consideration.
1286
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, declared his interest in the matter. The points he raised were the same issues as were put to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State at a meeting with the representatives on 10th November. I have to say that they are still very much under consideration. We are grateful for the points that were put forward and of course I note what the noble Lord said today. I can tell the Committee that we envisage that specific provisions on the role of PTAs and PTEs in the franchising process will be incorporated in the main legislation. I have no doubt that all of us will be discussing the issue again when we come to that legislation.
Given what I have said and the fact that there was a meeting less than a month ago and that we are considering the points that were put to us, I wish to say to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and my noble friend Lord Teviot that we have taken on board the points that have been made. I shall draw to the attention of my honourable friend the Minister with responsibility for transport what both noble Lords have said before we draw conclusions as to where we proceed from here.
Lord Teviot: Before my noble friend sits down and the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, winds up, I am heartened by much of what my noble friend said. However, I repeat that it is not as simple with the PTEs and the franchising authority. Whereas British Rail speaks with one voice, the franchising authority must talk to two or three other authorities before reaching a decision. The matter is still not cut and dried.
5.15 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: That is why we are considering the consultations. I am grateful to my noble friend for what he said and for his elucidation. I do not believe that the situation is quite as difficult as he portrayed, but we are considering it. We wish to work on it in the future.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am glad that the discussions are being encouraged by the Minister. That is one point with which I specifically asked the Minister to deal and consequently I take encouragement from his reply. I assume also that the issue of whether the PTAs and PTEs might be the local franchising authority is no longer ruled out of court by the Minister. I hope that he will specifically refer to that. It is one of the most important issues, which not only I, but also the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, in his intervention, raised.
The Minister said little about the protection of assets funded by passenger transport authorities and executives. The noble Earl will know that the investment they have undertaken in the rail network is very substantial. It relates to resignalling, electrifica-tion, new rolling stock, station improvements, the opening of new stations, and so on. One can cite many examples of the extraordinary work which has been undertaken.
The PTAs and PTEs are anxious and I therefore invite the Minister to say a little more when he speaks

1287
again, as I hope he will. They are concerned about the way in which the assets will be dealt with in the light of the Government's proposals.
Perhaps I may summarise the anxieties: there are three. The PTAs and PTEs wish to ensure that rail passengers and the areas that are covered continue to benefit from the improved levels of service which are being achieved as a result of the investment to which I referred. Secondly, they wish to ensure that no other organisation benefits financially from the disposal or transfer of locally funded assets. The Minister said nothing about that. Thirdly, they wish to ensure that the position concerning future investments is clarified as quickly as possible. On that point, I agree that it is a matter under discussion and I do not specifically ask the Minister to comment at this stage unless he chooses to do so. However, the first two points are ones which he should address.
The view of Mr. Roger Freeman was that these are problems that need to be addressed. He said in Standing Committee A of another place on 9th June 1992 at col. 50:
"We want to ensure that any changes that we propose are sensible in relation to their continuing responsibilities".
Quite a lot of time has elapsed since he said that and it would be helpful if the Minister could explain the position in that regard to the Committee now. The fact is that while the Minister now acknowledges that there is a problem, nothing is said about it in the White Paper.
The franchising consultation document acknowledges that the regional railways' partnership with local authorities has been in a way the driving force behind the development of the regional commuter networks. The document confirms that PTEs will continue to have powers to make capital grants towards rail investment. So far so good. But while the document also contains a good deal of detail on the rights of franchisees, it does not explain how the provisions relate to rolling stock which is funded by PTAs and PTEs. It does not indicate whether franchisees would be required to use rolling stock financed by a PTA or PTE as part of a package of improvements on a particular route.
While it is helpful that the Government should recognise that there is a continuing role for these authorities in grant-aiding rail investment, the gravamen of my observations today is that it is unclear at present how all that will work in practice. I would have hoped that the Minister would be able to be a little more forthcoming. Recognising the importance of the issue, as the department does, I would have hoped that the Minister would have seized the opportunity this afternoon to add to the clarity of the Government's thinking which leaves something to be desired.
I put those points to the Government again in the hope that the Minister will have something more to say. Of course, I recognise that many of the issues can also be regarded as matters of detail for further discussion. But I promise him that we shall come back to the issue at further stages of the Bill. Before I seek leave to withdraw the amendment, I invite the Minister to answer the points that I have just made.
The Earl of Caithness: The noble Lord would be wrong to assume that we have changed our minds as to who should be the franchising authority. That is not what I said. I said that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State had taken note of the points put to him and we are considering them. The noble Lord has explained his points in greater detail than perhaps on other amendments because of his anxiety. He is very knowledgeable on the matter. That highlights the difficulty of trying to raise such amendments before we come to the main legislation. I have tried to be as helpful as I can to the noble Lord, I said that we have listened with care to what the PTAs and PTEs said at the meeting on 10th November. I have listened with equal care to what the noble Lord and my noble friend Lord Teviot said today. We are considering the matter and have not reached firm conclusions.
It is difficult to give specific answers to specific questions when we are not dealing with the major legislation. We are on a paving Bill and have not come to a final conclusion. When we do so, it will then be clear what the decision is. I have absolutely no doubt that we shall discuss this and all the various other amendments that the noble Lord raised when we come to the main legislation.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Before the noble Earl sits down, I wish to clarify this point. I thought he was implying that all the issues were still open for debate as concerns the department. But he then went on to say that the Government had not changed their mind about the PTAs and PTEs being the local franchising authority. I wish to know now and the Committee will want to know whether the Government are still of the view that this is not an issue on which they will be capable of changing their minds. Are they absolutely rigidly adhering to the view that the PTAs and PTEs will not be the local franchising authority?
Lord Teviot: I must come to the defence of my noble friend. I was not expecting to do that. I think he has made himself perfectly clear. He has not made up his mind one way or the other. This is the paving Bill. I have not noticed a change of drift.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Teviot. He expressed the position rather better than I did. The Government's position is absolutely clear. When the noble Lord has read the White Paper and the other documents and has taken note of what the PTAs said when they reported back to him after the meeting with the Secretary of State, I believe he will find that the Government's position is clear. We have noted the points that have been made and we are still discussing the matter internally. Until we have reached a conclusion, how the heck can I answer the noble Lord?
Lord Clinton-Davis: The noble Earl has said that the Government have not changed their mind about the role of the PTAs and PTEs. That is the simple response to the point he has just made. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, I find the Minister startlingly unable to clarify this issue. I simply do not know where he stands on this matter. I have one further point to make. The arguments that I have

1289
adduced today are not simply the arguments of the AMA, as he knows, but are also the arguments of the Central Transport Consultative Committee. That is a statutory body. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, does not trust the arguments of that body. However, it is one that carries considerable authority. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 40 not moved.]
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 2, line 14, after ("thing") insert ("subject to subsection (4A) below").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 41, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 42. Environment and transport questions are matters which the Opposition consider very important. We wish to canvass some arguments this afternoon on those issues, notwithstanding the standard reply we shall receive from the Minister, or from both Ministers for that matter, as they are both in cahoots on this issue. They always have been in cahoots on privatisation paving measures. Nonetheless we are entitled to raise these issues and we shall do so.
We take the view that, if rail services are to continue to play a major role in economic, environmental and land use strategies, it is essential that broader policy criteria are reflected in a number of areas—for example in the Secretary of State's guidance to the franchise authority; in the factors taken into account in the Government's principles for access and for charging; in the factors taken into account in determining the duration and geographical extent of a franchise; in the capital grants made to Railtrack and the level of return which it is expected to make on its assets; in the qualitative criteria used by the franchising authority in shortlisting potential franchisees and in repackaging service specifications; and in the franchise authority's decision on which application for a franchise represents the,
"best overall value for money".
All those points are referred to specifically in the franchising consultation document.
I should have thought the Government would join with us in seeking reduced congestion, fewer accidents and more environmental benefits, but the trouble is that none of these issues is automatically reflected in the revenue raised by a rail operator, or by Railtrack for that matter; they have no direct interest in those factors. Do the Government propose to establish a mechanism whereby these issues will be taken into account in investment decisions? As regards environ-mental protection, no one can doubt the significant role which is undertaken by the railways in protecting the environment. Road congestion has been estimated by the CBI to cost British business £15 billion a year. That is a situation that will get worse.
The forecast increase in road traffic suggested by the Government themselves in their White Paper on the Environment was for growth between 1988 and the year 2025 of between 83 and 142 per cent. As regards greenhouse gases, the main greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, is likely to increase, according to
1290
calculations which have been made by reputable people, by between 60 and 120 per cent. by the year 2025. The Government are committed to stabilising carbon dioxide emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2005. That forecast is absolutely undermined by their own policies, particularly in relation to their emphasis on road transport as against rail. Exhaust emissions give rise to far greater costs for road than for rail transport. These matters are not reflected in balance sheets but they ought to be reflected in the Government's considerations. I beg to move.
Lord Donoughue: I wish to speak on the coal industry particularly as regards Amendment No. 42, which requires that the relevant corporations should have regard to the environmental effects of their actions and requires that they publish the details of any such effects. There are a number of serious environmental issues arising in relation to the coal industry. Those issues will be particularly noticeable after the privatisation of coal. Central to them are questions concerning the statutory responsibility for environmental hazards deriving from coal mines, whether open or closed. As one example of this—although there could be many—I refer to the matter of discharges from closed mines. These are often very toxic and acidic. Shafts fill with water which becomes polluted by metals and chemicals. In time that polluted water seeps out and pollutes our rivers. I believe that that is already a serious problem in South Wales.
The question is: who precisely will be responsible for cleaning up pollution and who is responsible now? I believe the National Rivers Authority says it is British Coal. Whose responsibility will it be after the privatisation of British Coal? I believe that at present there are no controls over discharges after closures. We shall witness a large number of closures. Who will be responsible for the environmental hazard of discharges after closure? There is a huge range of responsibilities that relate to environmental hazards from coal mines. There are the questions of water pumping, pit shaft capping, methane control, spontaneous combustion underground, land subsidence and the toxic pollution of land. After privatisation who will be responsible for those hazards? As I have said, even now it is often difficult to establish who is responsible. Have the Government yet formed any views about who will be responsible after the fragmentation of privatisation?
I wish now to consider a particular environmental aspect of British Coal land. I have already considered British Coal water. There is the question of derelict land. A recent Department of the Environment report identified over 20,000 hectares of land already made derelict by British Coal activities where there is no liability for reclamation. I believe that arrangements are under way for such land to be reclaimed following past and current closures. Therefore, that problem is being dealt with.
However, given the scale of potential difficulty after privatisation, what arrangements are there to ensure that private operators restore derelict land resulting from their future closures of mines? What if a private owner extracts coal, particularly if it is an opencast

1291
mine, takes his profit and then disappears and there is no continuing body which can be held responsible? Who then is responsible for the costs of restoring that derelict land?
This is an important and complex environmental problem. There already exists a huge inherited legacy of responsibilities for environmental safety relating to mines. The problem increases with the prospect of more closures after privatisation. It also becomes more problematic because of the uncertainties regarding responsibility for hazards and for compensation in relation to those hazards after the fragmentation—assuming it is fragmentation—of privatisation.
These are probing amendments, particularly Amendment No. 42. We are seeking from the Government the assignment of clear responsibility for environmental hazards deriving from mines. A body of some kind must ultimately be designated. That body must be accessible and accountable, and it will have to be properly funded.
Environmental duties have, I believe, been placed on British Coal's opencast activities but there is no equivalent duty in respect of deep mine operations. We urge the Government to establish such a statutory environmental duty and to establish a proper body to enforce it. Without it the Bill paves the way for an environmental disaster. We look to the Government to meet our concerns on that aspect. I look forward to hearing whether the Minister can give us any indication as to the Government's thinking.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, has touched on a point of real importance and substance, and I am very glad that he has done so. However, whether he has raised it in an appropriate way is a more open question.
Let us suppose that there were to be no steps to privatisation and the ownership of the coal industry continued as at present. It is obvious that there must be further pit closures. I agree that how many and how quickly is a matter for argument and discussion, but there must be some. The continuing closure of pits must give rise to questions of pollution and who should be responsible for remedying that pollution. As the coal corporation becomes smaller and poorer it is increasingly unlikely that it will be able, even if it so intended, to deal with those problems. Therefore, it is useful to raise the question as to what will happen in that respect whether privatisation goes ahead—as I hope it will—or whether it does not. It will be a problem in either case. I do not know whether my noble friend the Minister is fully briefed to answer that question.
Having said that, I do not consider that the amendment does much good. To place on a body the responsibility for "having regard" to likely effects is not an effective sanction. It is always possible to say, "Yes, of course I had regard to that, but I decided that nothing needed to be done". If one's obligation is simply to have regard to something that is an
1292
insubstantial and ineffective sanction. Therefore, I do not believe that the amendment copes with an important and serious situation.
if the amendment were pressed to a Division, which seems somewhat unlikely, I should vote against it. However, there is a serious question concerning how the increasing pollution deriving from the decline of the coal industry is to be dealt with. There are obvious limits to what my noble friend the Minister will be free to say at present, but I believe that the Committee will be interested to hear any reassurance that he can give us.
Lord Hylton: I support the general thrust of the amendments. I shall content myself simply with quoting two current examples concerning the mining of minerals. They happen to be examples drawn from the mining of base metals but similar considerations can apply to coal mines, particularly when pumping of underground water ceases on the closure of the mine.
The first example is in Cornwall. The former Wheal Jane mine, which is now closed, is presenting considerable and costly problems relating to water purification. The other example comes from the Continent. In former Yugoslavia a lead, zinc and cadmium mine is threatening the River Drina with toxic, corrosive and poisonous effluent, with possibly severe consequences for the whole of the Danube basin downstream. At present, as Members of the Committee may have read, efforts are being made to shore up a darn. We must all hope that they will he successful; otherwise the consequences will be horrendous.
Lord Haslam: The debate today suggests that we have never closed a coal mine. I have to remind the Committee that we have closed 120 mines since the miners' strike. I do not believe that that has created great difficulties in environmental terms. British Coal has endeavoured to do as much as it can to remove any dereliction after the closure of mines because that is the only way in which the land can be sold. That has been a firm policy.
I believe that any private owner closing mines in the future will have the same desire. Also, what has been said is somewhat contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, said yesterday about new owners "ripping us off" by selling such land. There is no way that that land can be sold until it has been restored.
The average opencast coal site in this country lasts about five years. The restoration of these sites is as good as anything one will see anywhere in the world. That is being achieved by a combination of private contractors and British Coal. Instead of just returning the land to agriculture local authorities may prefer a golf course or a nature reserve. British Coal and the contractors will endeavour to provide whatever local authorities want which fits the requirements of the local community. For example, a runway for a STOL airport has been laid out recently at Tinsley Park outside Sheffield.
On both counts British Coal has a good record. I believe that the profit motivation to which the noble

1293
Lord, Lord Donoughue, referred yesterday will ensure that any new owners will have to restore derelict land if they are to sell it.
Lord Ezra: The noble Lord, Lord Haslam, is absolutely right to emphasise the high regard for environmental issues exercised by the National Coal Board and, more recently, by British Coal. There is no doubt that, quite apart from the impact of closed mines on the environment, there has been consider-able regard for the way in which both deep mining and opencast operations have been conducted. The restoration of opencast land as operated by British Coal is of a very high standard.
What we are concerned about, as indicated clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, is what will happen in future. What standards will be applied and how will they be enforced? I feel that if there is to be some form of licensing of mining operations, which there might be, the way in which the new owners, the licensees, take account of environmental considerations, not only during the course of their current operations but when those operations cease, ought to be a condition of such licences. That is an important issue and we should all be pleased to have some elucidation.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for recognising the consistency between my noble friend and myself. I confirm that this is a paving Bill. It is solely concerned with making preparations for privatisation and in particular with removing any doubt that the corporations may act in relation to and advise on privatisation proposals.
As such, the action taken under the powers to be conferred by the Bill would not in itself have any environmental effects since those powers in themselves do not effect any substantive changes. These will be the powers that this Chamber will be invited to consider in later Bills. Nevertheless, I recognise that this amendment was an opportunity for Members opposite to raise issues of major concern and to identify their concerns, which will be subject to considerable discussion at a future date when the relevant Bills come forward.
I assure the Committee that the Government fully recognise the range and complexity of the environ-mental issues connected with coal mining and railway operations. We fully recognise the importance of securing that future coal mining activity proceeds only with proper regard to the environment and its protection, and that will be fully taken into account.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter suggested that I may not be fully briefed on these matters. On future matters, no; on the matters involved in the paving Bill, yes. But, I am happy to reassure him that we shall make absolutely certain that the responsibilities are identified and taken into account.
Perhaps I could draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that privatisation has in the past identified and quantified certain issues which had not fully been dealt with before the necessary regulation and study of privatisation. I think in particular of how
1294
the decommissioning costs of nuclear were brought forward. Without doubt in the case of both these Bills it will bring forward issues on which decisions will have to be made.
The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, raised the important matter of water pollution. That can be considered only when ideas of how to deal with it within the context of privatisation are brought forward. But I assure him that his views will be taken into account. Today's debate will obviously be well noted by my honourable friend the Minister of State for Energy.
All the Government's proposals for a new framework of working rights for the private sector coal industry will be brought forward in due course, taking into account the coal review. But full account will be taken of planning issues. All planning permissions for new mines or open cast developments will contain appropriate conditions as determined by the planning authorities for the restoration of the site etc. after the completion of coal extraction. Planning authorities have powers to enforce management schemes in respect of existing tips continuing in use.
My noble friend Lord Haslam pointed to the work which has already been done. I acknowledge that British Coal has a good record in site management and restoration. We certainly wish to make sure that future coal operators maintain equally high standards.
The Government are committed to a greener future in Britain. We want to see the railways play their part. We recognise that rail transport offers important environmental advantages over road. British Rail has published a policy statement about protecting the environment. It has a good record, both in terms of the environmental management of existing activities and in considering the environmental impact of new investment. We would want everyone who provides rail services to adopt standards which are at least as high. The rail privatisation White Paper makes clear that the Government intend to place appropriate duties on the rail regulator to ensure, through the requirements of a licensing system, that all new operators do just that.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, identified specific instances where issues of other mineral activities created problems. I note the seriousness of those matters. But in this instance I hope I have been able to reassure noble Lords that when in due course the relevant Bill comes forward they can be quite certain that the matters they raise will be treated with the highest of priorities. I hope that the amendments will be withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: The first speaker from the government side was the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. He acknowledged that this is an important issue. I am delighted to hear that. I can tell him that nothing could have given my noble friend Lord Donoughue greater pleasure—perhaps more pleasure than anything else he can recall—than to think that he has enjoyed the support of the noble

1295
Lord. I counselled him that if the noble Lord supports us on this issue, at least in principle, then he should take care. We may well be wrong.
The noble Lord, Lord Haslam, referred to the fact that British Coal had a good record. Nobody disputes that in the environmental field. The point was also made by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. But we wish to know—we shall come back to this point no doubt later on—the sort of conditions the Government have it in mind in imposing upon new entrants to the coal industry these environmental considerations. It is not always a matter of sale of the land, which was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Haslam. Land can become derelict and may remain unsold. It is important that the conditions should apply equally in that situation.
I noticed that the noble Baroness referred to the considerations after coal extraction had been completed. But it may not be completed. It may just be interrupted, perhaps for rather a long time. Those are matters on which we look forward to hearing more from Ministers in due course.
The noble Baroness referred briefly to the railways and acknowledged the part that they play in the development of environmental policy. The trouble with that, however, is that the Government's priority in relation to transport is still essentially—overwhel-mingly—based on roads. I quoted statistics earlier and gave the Committee information (which in any event is within its knowledge). The Government's vision of green issues is substantially blurred by reason of the damage that is continuously being done through the great emphasis given to road haulage as against rail freight. That will become even worse if we suffer major pit closures, since something like 60 per cent. of the freight carried by rail at the moment comes from the coal industry.
We were not entirely satisfied with the Ministers' responses—but neither would we have expected that. They were tied to the concept that they can say little about these issues until we have moved outside the paving Bill provisions. However, when issues about which the Government are seeking to consult are being discussed this Chamber is also entitled to be consulted. Therefore, I hope that they will not continue to talk about the Bill being a paving Bill, saying that it is inappropriate to raise these issues. Of course it is appropriate and we shall continue to do so. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 42 not moved]
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 2, line 17, after ("exercisable") insert ("subject to subsection (5A) below").
The noble Lord said: The amendment gives us the opportunity to look at the Government's franchising document. It has gone out to consultation but only on a limited basis. There is still considerable uncertainty about the way in which the franchising authority will operate. The document was aimed specifically at seeking views from prospective franchisees. Is that how the document is to be seen, or are the Government interested in the views of other organisations about its contents?
An area of uncertainty is the criteria to which the franchising authority will work. The White Paper casts no light on that matter. The consultation document refers to responses to requests for initial bids for franchises being "evaluated against a number of criteria". What are those criteria? How will they be set?
The document indicates that the Secretary of State will set high-level objectives on a range of issues, including the grouping of services in franchises and so forth. However, they do not appear to include the establishment of criteria for the assessment of bids. Why not? The consultation document also asserts that the authority will,
"be responsible for paying subsidy to franchisees where necessary within overall budgetary constraints set by the Secretary of State".
What criteria will the authority use in allocating resources? Will the Minister outline the consultation which the Secretary of State will carry out before issuing guidance to the authority? Will he also indicate the criteria which the authority will use in undertaking its work?
I turn now to an issue which was not dealt with in the White Paper; if I am wrong I stand to be corrected. It is the potential conflict between franchising and the concept of open access. The consultation document does not enlighten us further on that point. It indicates that a franchise will not protect a franchisee from competition from other operators. That provision muddies the water even further. Therefore, it is difficult to understand the Government's assumption that some operators will be prepared to pay the franchising authority for the right to operate profitable services under a franchise. We have open access provisions on the one hand and the fact that a franchise provides no protection from competition on the other. What are the circumstances in which that will happen? For the reasons that I mentioned briefly it is important that the Minister should try to cast light on that issue. This Chamber is entitled to be consulted on the question of franchising, as are other outside interests.
The manner in which the Government's proposed access and charging regimes operate in practice is bound to have a fundamental effect upon the nature of the rail services provided in this country. The White Paper referred to a major consultancy in that regard. The franchising consultation document states:
"The Government plans to make its decisions on the principles known by the end of 1992".
It is essential that there is full consultation on the results of the consultants' work before any final decisions are taken. Will the Minister confirm that that will be the case?
On the question of objectives, the Government believe that access and charging regimes should meet certain objectives relating to issues such as efficiency, competition and discrimination. If rail services are to play a major part in maintaining healthy regional and local economies, it is essential that the objectives should be drawn more widely. The range of objectives which are established in the White Paper—com-petition for track slots, in particular into main stations at peak times—could have the effect of squeezing out

1297
local commuter services. Perhaps the Minister will acknowledge that that will be most deleterious. We ask that the objectives shall relate to environmental, social and economic issues and to transport needs.
The fulfilment of the railways' contribution to land use and environmental policy hinges on investment. The volume of investment and the way in which it is planned and advanced are critical. The White Paper makes it clear that that will be the responsibility of Railtrack primarily but the document does not sufficiently reflect the urgency or significance of that issue.
Those are critical matters. I repeat that the Chamber is entitled to be consulted about the Government's thinking, as are the potential franchisees. It is incumbent on the Minister to be a little more open with the Committee than he has been in respect of other issues using as a camouflage the nature of the Bill as sufficient reason for not going into detail. The issue is different at the very least. He must acknowledge that on the basis that the franchising document has been issued for consultation.
Recent press reports have suggested that the Government no longer intend to publish the proposed Coopers & Lybrand report on access and charging principles. A report to that effect appeared in the Independent on 22nd November. The newspaper reported that the Government intend to publish their own report in the New Year setting out a financial regime for sharing track costs. Will the Minister say whether those press reports are accurate? Is there any reason why the Government should not publish the consultants' advice? Will he confirm that there will be full consultation on that aspect of the Government's proposals? I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, with great care. Unless I am mistaken his comments did not relate to the amendment. Perhaps he can explain that.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I thought that what I said was germane to the amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: I understand that the effect of the amendments will be that BR will have to exclude from its consideration and advice any proposal which involves the transfer of its functions, properties, rights or liabilities to Railtrack or to anyone who might become responsible for track or infrastructure, the rail regulator and the franchising authority. I do not recall the noble Lord moving that type of amendment. He spoke at length about the franchising document and I am happy to respond to some of the points that he raised. But, with due respect to the noble Lord, if he wishes to talk about a particular subject, it would be helpful if the amendment were relevant to that subject. That would help me to give him a fuller answer.
As regards franchising, the noble Lord said that he thought that the document had gone out for limited consultation. We sent out over 2,000 copies of the document and we have received useful responses from
1298
a wide range of parties, including nearly 50 expressions of interest. I was able to tell the Committee that yesterday.
As the noble Lord will be aware from reading the franchise document, it was deliberately set out in terms that we wanted to know what people who were likely to be interested in franchising services felt was important. We have given a great deal of thought to that area but we thought that it would be wrong to give a prescriptive set of rules in a document such as this. We believed it important that the matter should go out for consultation and we are considering the replies to the consultation document on franchising. We shall make a decision in due course on that. However, the responses that we have received have been extremely helpful.
I should have thought that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, would welcome that. If we had said, "This is exactly how the system will work despite all the various different types of services that are provided", the noble Lord would have said that the Government were being far too prescriptive. Having thought about it carefully, the Government have taken a very different approach and have set out some generalisations and asked for consultation. The noble Lord now wants more detail. I understand that, and he will be given more detail in due course.
I turn to the amendments as I understand them. As I said earlier, the effect of the amendments would be that British Rail would exclude from its considerations any advice on proposals—
6 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I do not wish to get off on the wrong track here. This Bill enables British Rail to facilitate government proposals to transfer its functions and assets to other people. In order to consider the merits of that, it is important that we should have a clear understanding of the likely functions of those transferees. The aim of this amendment is to probe the Government on that point. If the Minister did not understand that, it may be my fault because I did not make myself clear.
The Earl of Caithness: I am trying to help the noble Lord on that. Over the past two days my noble friend and I have been extremely constructive in trying to answer questions raised. The noble Lord knows that on some issues we cannot go very far because consultations are still taking place with various bodies, including the PTAs and the PTEs. In other areas we can be much more forthcoming because decisions have been taken. At this stage, by the very nature of the amendments before us, we must respond generally.
I shall deal with the amendments as I understand them. Members of the Committee will appreciate that it is important that we can have British Rail's input into our proposals for the establishment of Railtrack, the appointment of the rail regulator and the franchising authority, as into any other proposals that we make. Indeed, those are central elements of the privatisation proposals.

1299
The Government are proposing that one part of BR will become a track authority—to be known as Railtrack—with responsibility for operating all track and infrastructure. Reference to that can be found at paragraph 16 of the White Paper. The franchising authority will be responsible for negotiating, awarding and monitoring franchises and will therefore have a key role in the future passenger railway. The rail regulator too will have an essential role in overseeing the application of arrangements for track access and charging, for promoting competition, preventing abuse of monopoly power and anti-competitive practices, promoting the interests of consumers and ensuring that network benefits are maintained.
It is clear to me that those three bodies are critical to the successful privatisation of the railways and that it is important not to exclude BR from playing its full part in providing input into our detailed proposals in that respect. BR's input can only be to the benefit of the privatisation process. I realise that the noble Lord does not like that process.
Lord Clinton-Davis: The Minister can never spare himself the little shaft at the end of his remarks, although it is rather unimportant and trivial. The Minister has failed to respond to two very important points which I raised. First, he says that 2,000 consultation documents have been sent out. To what category of organisation has that document been sent or has it been sent generally to everybody interested in rail transport? Perhaps the Minister can give an indication on that.
Secondly, I asked about the Coopers & Lybrand report, on which he was completely silent. Perhaps the Minister will respond to that before I indicate what I propose to do as regards the amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: Coopers & Lybrand have been providing advice to the department as part of the work on the charging regime. That work is still under consideration. The results will be published shortly.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am glad to hear that the results are to be published, because that refutes the story in the Independent on Sunday. The Committee will thank the Minister for that information. The noble Earl has not responded as regards the other matter and I invite him to tell me about the general nature of the organisations to which the consultation document was sent.
The Earl of Caithness: As I said, 2,000 copies of the document were sent out from the department. They were available on demand but I do not have with me—and I apologise to the noble Lord—a complete list of the 2,000 recipients of the document.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am not asking for a complete list. I am interested in the general nature of the people to whom it was sent. I am glad to know that the document is available. Will the Minister take into account the views of people other than potential franchisees?
The Earl of Caithness: As I said, the document was available on demand. It was open to anybody to ask
1300
for a copy and that person or organisation would have received a copy and would have then sent in a reply which would have been considered.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am delighted with that response from the Minister. In his usual benign manner he has eventually given me a reply. It is always very difficult to extract that from him. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 44 and 45 not moved.]
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 2, line 19, at end insert:
("(5C) It shall be the duty of the British Railways Board and the British Coal Corporation to communicate their intentions to the Secretary of State who, within four weeks, shall present a report of such proposals which shall be laid before Parliament.
(5D) Any intentions in subsection (5C) above, which require action under subsection (1) above shall only be made by order of the Secretary of State.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 51. This amendment deals with the question of how accountability to Parliament will be met within the terms of the Bill. Amendment No. 46 deals with the requirements on the part of British Rail and British Coal. Amendment No. 51 deals with the obligations of the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: The noble Lord was refreshingly brief in moving the amendment and I hope that I have understood the point of his remarks. It may be that the noble Lord is anxious that without this amendment Parliament will be unable to scrutinise privatisation plans in detail before they are implemented. I am pleased to assure the noble Lord that that anxiety is misplaced. Parliament will have ample opportunity to debate the Government's plans as regards both these industries when substantive proposals are brought forward.
In the meantime, this Bill does not allow privatisation schemes to be implemented. That can only happen under the main privatisation legislation. I should add one further important point, which applies to British Coal. It is possible that in the coal review, options will be considered. For example, it may be that British Coal will wish to make an input as regards the extraordinary opportunities for the private sector in the production of coal. The amendment would hinder their making a full contribution to the development of such options. I cannot believe that the Committee wishes to put such obstacles in the way of British Coal making a contribution to developments which may be helpful to the nation's coal mining industry. I hope that I can reassure the noble Lord that there will be ample opportunity for both Houses to consider the issues of privatisation.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I like the reassurances given by the noble Baroness; they are much nicer than those given by her noble friend. I shall consider her remarks and in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 47 and 48 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Lord Donoughue Lord Donoughue moved Amendment No. 49:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Research and welfare
. Before any proposal is made under section 1(1) of this Act in relation to the coal mining industry, regard shall be had to the need for the application out of any proceeds of sale or transfer of the property and assets involved of sufficient funds for the following purposes, namely—

(i) the maintenance of the Coal Research Establishment on the basis of an actuarial calculation of its requirements at the date of implementation of the proposal; and

(ii) the maintenance of the Coal Industry Welfare Organisation on the basis of an actuarial calculation of its requirements at the date of implementation of the proposal; and

(iii) suitable arrangements for the sale or transfer to ensure the continued supply of concessionary coal to any person entitled to such coal as a result of his or her spouse's employment at any coal mine affected.").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 49, standing in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, seeks that before the implementation of Clause 1, the proceeds of privatisation should be used for three specific purposes among others—to maintain the Coal Research Establishment, to maintain the Coal Industry Welfare Organisation and to maintain the continued provision of concessionary coal. I shall speak briefly on each point.
I believe that the Coal Research Establishment is the only research centre undertaking research into coal utilisation in the British Coal industry. It is apparently funded from diverse sources. British Coal contributes around £8 million per annum net; the private sector, particularly the power plant manufacturers and operators, contribute and there are some EC grants. The total investment is already inadequate. British Coal's research and development expenditure is only one-twentieth of that in Germany. It is less than that in the United States. We bear in mind the sad experience of Grimethorpe and note that the United Kingdom is the only OECD major coal producer with no operational clean coal power technology.
Our fears are that research and development—already inadequate—will disappear altogether after privatisation, as we know happened in electricity where the CEGB research centre closed down. With that fear in mind we suggest the establishment of an endowment fund from the proceeds of privatisation to endow the Coal Research Establishment permanently.
The Coal Industry Welfare Organisation originated with the Acts of 1920 and 1952. It is financed by a levy on tonnage produced. Can the Minister say whether that levy will continue after privatisation? It is important that those valued welfare activities, especially in relation to the disabled, should continue in the devastated mining communities. Therefore, again we suggest the setting up of an endowment fund. However, these are probing amendments. We are not committed rigidly to the suggestions but wish to give the Government an opportunity to say that they are committed to the continuation of the Coal Industry Welfare Organisation.
Concessionary fuel is a major item. It affects around 260,000 beneficiaries. The future liability costs are astronomical. I believe that it was estimated by the Rothschild Report—we have not officially seen that report but I am sure the Minister has—that through to the year 2000 it will cost £785 million. Can the Minister give an assurance that that concession, on such a scale, will continue after privatisation. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: For the sake of the record I must repeat that this paving Bill is not the method by which the privatisation of the coal industry will be achieved. No sale or transfer of assets that is not already possible under existing legislation can take place until further legislation has been passed by both this Chamber and another place. Therefore the paving Bill is not an appropriate place for the detailed provisions such as those contained in the amendment.
However, I acknowledge that the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, raises important issues. I should like to set out the Government's thinking on them, as I hope I did on the question of research and development in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, when I was able to assure the Committee that privatisation considerations will include careful attention to the future of the research work carried out by British Coal and to the future of the Coal Research Establishment. I can assure the Committee that we will take account of the points raised both yesterday and today on the question of research.
With regard to concessionary coal arrangements, my honourable friend the Minister for Energy gave categoric assurances on the subject in another place. I shall repeat them now. Entitlement to concessionary fuel will be safeguarded. The Government recognise the importance of the coal industry's social welfare arrangements which contribute to the wellbeing of miners, former miners, their families and mining and former mining communities. The Coal Industry Welfare Organisation plays a valuable role in co-ordinating, administering and funding social welfare arrangements and activities. It provides direct benefits and services.
In the context of privatisation the Government will want to be as responsive as possible to the anxieties about the future of the coal industry social welfare arrangements and will be giving careful consideration to the importance of the sensitive issues involved, including funding.
The points raised are important. I acknowledge that those and the points raised during the discussion of the Bill in Committee are matters which concern the Committee and were raised for that purpose. In relation to Amendment No. 49 I hope that the noble Lord will recognise that it is not appropriate for this Bill and will agree to withdraw it.
Lord Donoughue: We are grateful for the positive and characteristically constructive way in which the Minister approached what she rightly saw as an opportunity to raise the issues. We note with pleasure that she gave firm assurances on two points and a

1303
categoric assurance on the third. At whatever is the later stage that is appropriate for the Government to state what they have in mind, we look forward to receiving categoric assurances on all three issues. With that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Short title, financial provision and extent]:
[Amendment No. 50 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 51 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 52 to 54 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

Income Support (General) Amendment (No. 3) Regulations
6.20 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar rose to move to resolve, That, in the light of the report by the Social Security Advisory Committee that the Income Support (General) Amendment (No. 3) Regulations 1992 (S.I. 1992 No. 2804) should not be proceeded with, this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to take account of further evidence on the effect of the changes proposed by the regulations and accordingly to reconsider the desirability of the regulations.
The noble Countess said: My Lords, the Secretary of State for Social Security believes that the effect of these regulations,
"will be to ensure that single people and couples without dependent children who are not actively seeking work will have no access to benefits for the unemployed, including income support hardship payments."
There are to be three exceptions. Where the partner of an unemployed person is in receipt of income support disability premium, where a claimant is pregnant or is the partner of a pregnant woman, and where there are dependent children or young people in the family, existing access to hardship payments will he retained. The latter two were accepted upon the advice of the Social Security Advisory Committee.
In all the years that I have been in your Lordships' House I cannot recall another instance of a government proceeding with regulations when the Social Security Advisory Committee has recommended,
"that the proposed regulations are not proceeded with".
It will be the first time since the Poor Law of 1601 that individuals are left with no means of state support. It will also be the first time that a distinction between the deserving and the undeserving poor is made and written into our statute book.
I agree with the Government that individuals who are unemployed should make a concerted effort to find work and that they should be receptive to advice and assistance if they do not know how to apply for jobs. What disturbs me about the regulations is that, like the fishermen who operate illegally, the Government's mesh in their fishing net is too small. Despite the Secretary of State's denial that the regulations are to catch the New Age travellers who seem so blatantly to flout the existing law, it seems to all who have studied
1304
the evidence that this is what spurred the Government into action. Unfortunately, it would appear that a great many more people than those who have no intention to seek work will be caught in the new net. I have my doubts that the regulations will be any more effective than the existing ones in achieving their objective. We must remember that those who intend not to look for work often have enough intelligence to "work the system". It will be the honest and the borderline people who suffer. Other speakers will no doubt give the noble Lord the Minister examples.
Until October of this year claimants of unemployment benefit, who were suspected of not actively seeking work, were sent a warning letter following an interview with an employment service officer. If the claimant failed to furnish the interviewing officer with satisfactory evidence of his job-seeking activity, the case would be referred to an unemployment benefit officer who could suspend payment of benefit. The claimant should have been advised that he could claim income support hardship payments until his case was determined by an adjudicator. It does not appear that this advice was always given, for in the year ending March 1992 there were only 1,493 applications for severe hardship payments from claimants who had failed the actively-seeking-work test, and of those only 850 applicants succeeded. In that same year over 25,097 warning letters were issued and 6,333 cases were referred to an adjudication officer. Of those, 1,768 were disallowed benefit.
Even considering that more than one warning letter may have been sent to some claimants, the number of people judged guilty without evidence is considerable. Since October 1992 warning letters have not been issued unless the unemployment benefit officer considers that the claimant has genuinely failed to understand the rules. The letters were withdrawn because the department believed them to be ineffective. The figures I have just quoted would appear to belie that.
The issue of warning letters is an administrative procedure. However, the letters give claimants clear warnings that they must produce evidence that they are actively seeking work. May I ask the noble Lord the Minister whether he is absolutely satisfied that the new procedures will provide sufficient safeguards for those who are not deliberately seeking to flout the regulations? May I ask him to bear in mind particularly the report of the chief adjudication officer?
The Secretary of State at paragraph 7 of his reply said:
"I am bound to take account of the results available from the research and evaluation undertaken which have demonstrated a clear need to modify the legislation to curb abuse by those who claim benefits on the basis that they want to work but make no effort to do so".
I ask the noble Lord the Minister: what research has been done and where may the published results be found? Without that evidence we have only the memorandum of the Policy Studies Institute to the SSAC in which it states:
"Our own research identified a very high commitment on the part of claimants to effective job search. There was strong

1305
evidence that claimants were flexible in the type of work they sought, and that they took the steps to seek work expected of them in the legislation".
That would appear to be corroborated by the evidence that only 0.2 per cent. of those claiming unemployment benefit each year have their benefit disallowed because they have failed the actively-seeking-work test. Does the Government's evidence contradict that?
Those claimants who are thought not to be actively seeking work will be asked verbally to provide proof that they have been doing so. Other speakers will elaborate on the circumstances when such proof is not immediately available. Lack of proof of an active job search would oblige the unemployment benefit officer to suspend payment of benefit and to refer the case to the adjudication officer. There may be a considerable delay before the claimant's case is reviewed. In the meantime the claimant loses not only his unemployment benefit but his housing benefit, community charge benefit, and passported items like free prescriptions because he has no entitlement to income support.
The SSAC expressed its concern about,
"the wider implications of leaving people without any visible means of support for a period including possible homelessness and resort to crime".
The Secretary of State's response is,
"Those who seek to evade their personal responsibility to look for work and turn to crime will face the full force of the law".
How is a person with no income to feed, clothe and house himself unless he turns to crime? Cynically, I could say that if he does so he will be arrested and probably imprisoned, there to receive the succour of the state at a much greater cost to the taxpayer than that of severe hardship payments or even of unemployment benefit. The SSAC clearly outlines the "perceived problem". It deals with the difficulties created by suspension of benefit and the operation of the safety net and goes on to state that the means of dealing with the problem are already in place. I have no doubt that the noble Lord the Minister will have read them very carefully.
The SSAC recommended,
"that the proposed regulations are not proceeded with and that the administrative measures introduced are monitored and kept under review".
The committee anticipated that the Government might not accept its recommendations by adding four groups of people who should receive additional safeguards. As I said, the Government have accepted that pregnant women and 16 to 19 year-olds dependent upon their parents should be protected.
I live in hope that the noble Lord the Minister will feel able to ask his right honourable friend the Secretary of State to reconsider his decision in the light of the information he is given tonight and that he will be able to reassure me and many of the SSAC respondents who perceived that the withdrawal of the warning letter was,
"an indication that the Government had decided to proceed with the regulations in advance of the Committee's report",
for I fear that this exercise may be another example of the Government's pseudo-democracy. I beg to move.
Moved, That, in the light of the report by the Social Security Advisory Committee that the Income
1306
Support (General) Amendment (No. 3) Regulations 1992 (S.I. 1992 No. 2804) should not be proceeded with, this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to take account of further evidence on the effect of the changes proposed by the regulations and accordingly to reconsider the desirability of the regulations. (The Countess of Mar.)
6.28 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Countess, Lady Mar, for introducing this Motion tonight. Had she not done so these regulations for policing the work-shy would have come into force on Thursday without debate. What these regulations do, as the noble Countess has said, is to withdraw hardship payments to those available for, but not actively seeking, work.
I want to suggest tonight that this is perverse, indeed one of the most perverse changes in regulations that it has been our misfortune to encounter. It is perverse because it assumes first that there is a labour shortage; that is, that we need these reluctant workers in work. Secondly, it assumes that unemployed claimants are qualified to fit those vacancies, but that, thirdly, they are failing to do so because they are work-shy. It assumes that they can afford to be work-shy because benefits are too generous, and that therefore abuse and fraud of the system is on the increase. Finally, it assumes that if, to quote the Minister's phrase, a short, sharp shock is administered, claimants will alter their behaviour, and actively seek, and presumably find, work, thereby saving the taxpayer money and improving their own moral fibre.
Every one of those propositions, in my view, is false. Every pressure group, charity, church, local authority association, the research of the Institute of Policy Studies, on which I have drawn, and above all the Government's own Social Security Advisory Committee have told them so and have called on the Government not to implement these changed regulations. Why? First, the changed regulations assume a labour shortage but, as a claimant in Newport said, "If the jobs ain't there, you won't find them, will you?" Competition is intense, and that same benefit office in Newport found that 82 per cent. of all job vacancies were filled within one week of being listed. As of June 1992, there were something like 3 million claimants and a stock of 124,000 registered vacancies. One can multiply by three perhaps to get the total vacancies in the country but you still have eight claimants for every job. If one claimant takes a job, another person becomes a claimant. As the Social Security Advisory Committee itself says, in times of high unemployment the actively-seeking-work rules should be eased and not tightened. To tighten them is cruel and perverse.
Secondly, the changed regulations assume that claimants are able to fill the vacancies, but employers want skilled and experienced people. Many employers will not use job centres precisely because many claimants are illiterate, innumerate or inexperienced, and, if they do use the job centres, employers find themselves deluged with applications which they cannot field. Indeed the claimant's request for

1307
evidence that they are actively seeking work from employers is actually deterring employers from using the job centres themselves. No matter how hard claimants may search, they cannot thereby alter how suitable they are to an employer who wants the requisite qualifications and experience. Indeed, as nearly half all the vacancies notified are in any case part time, and anyone seeking work actively must seek a full-time job, I think one can see that this is irrelevant.
Notwithstanding that, the Government apparently believe that many claimants remain claimants because they are work-shy. On the contrary, as the noble Countess, Lady Mar, has said, all the evidence suggests that they are desperate for work. What stops them working, then? It is the stigma of being, in the eyes of employers, one of the long-term unemployed. It is their lack of basic skills, their poor health, their lack of money to job search, to travel, to have respectable clothes. It is sometimes discrimination: by age, by gender, by race and by where they live in the countryside perhaps. For many people it is the problem especially of the vicious cycle of joblessness and homelessness, but, above all, it is the lack of jobs—a 3 million lack of jobs.
That is why the marginal are unable to re-enter the labour market: not because they are choosy, not because they are work-shy and not because they demand too-high wages, but because they face unemployment such as they have never known. For these men and women, as the Policy Studies Institute has pointed out, the actively-seeking-work rules are seen as an irritant which contributes not to job seeking but to a pointless recording of fruitless efforts chasing non-existent jobs for which they are probably not qualified.
Yet the Government insist perversely that there is a core of the work-shy, presumably kept afloat by a benefit system and hardship payments at 60 per cent. of income support rates which are thought to be sufficiently generous to encourage scrounging. A single person gets £25 per week hardship payment, with £49 a week for a couple. But, given, as the noble Countess, Lady Mar, has said, that claimants almost invariably responded to the Government's warning letters about needing evidence to show that claimants are actively seeking work, it is clear that they do recognise that benefits depend on a willingness to work. Now of course the Government have seen fit to withdraw the warning letters.
Why? For heaven's sake, why? It means that many more people will unwittingly fall foul of the actively-seeking-work rules, will be referred to an adjudicating office and will, while their case is being considered, have benefits suspended and will not now after Thursday—unless your Lordships see fit to alter the situation—be eligible for hardship payments. They will therefore be destitute. The Government appear to believe either that benefit is generous, which it is not, or that fraud is increasing, which it is not. Indeed, the number of fraud cases handled by the benefits agency not only is not increasing but has actually fallen. The number of benefits suspended during 1989 was 104,000; that is now down to 67,000.
1308
What is worse is that when a benefit officer has doubts about a claimant actively seeking work, benefit is suspended until the case is determined. In two-thirds of all cases involving availability and actively seeking work, the original decision has been found to be wrong. As a result, 300,000 innocent people per year have lost benefit and will in future have no recourse to hardship payments and, with that, the passport to benefits for housing and community charge. The chief adjudicating officer is extremely worried about this. In his 1989/90 report he commented:
"Too often time is wasted on an appeal to an appeal tribunal when the original decision was clearly wrong and ought to have been revised".
There were 300,000 people losing benefit who should not have done. Now, if these regulations go through, they will have no access to hardship payments while their claims are being investigated. In other words, it is not a problem of people claiming benefit when they should not have it but of claimants losing benefit when they should continue to receive it.
But at least we have had the fail-safe of hardship payment, even though only one in five of those who were entitled to it actually applied for it. That suggests there is no evidence of "feather bedding". Now, under these regulations, there is nothing at all: no buffer between an unsafe decision and destitution. As the Social Security Advisory Committee itself says—and I read from its report at paragraph 26:
"This is a severe penalty to suffer on the basis of a doubt about which, until the Employment Service adjudication officer has decided the matter, the person has no redress. We regard"—
this is the Government's own advisory committee—
"leaving a person without even a reduced level of income whilst the doubt is considered as unjust and we urge the Secretary of State to reconsider this proposal. We regard it as unacceptable to put at risk an unknown number of people in order to deal with the problem of New Age travellers. We are concerned about the wider implications of leaving people without any visible means of support for a period including possible homelessness and resort to crime".
What do we expect? Do we expect destitute people to starve quietly or do we instead expect them to beg, pilfer or steal? The Government assume that the withdrawal of benefit and hardship payments will modify the behaviour of claimants and will administer a short, sharp shock, especially to the New Age travellers. I am not, by any stretch of the imagination, here tonight defending New Age travellers. What I will argue is that these people will not he caught by these regulations. They are sufficiently streetwise to produce evidence that they have indeed sought work but were refused. They can engineer refusals. Indeed, if they were probably not available for work in the first place as well as not actively seeking it, they will continue to be available and to apply for hardship payments under Regulation 8(3). So these regulations will not catch the travellers. Who will they catch?
They will catch the honest, the foolish and the fragile; they will catch the marginally employable—those who are illiterate and therefore do not keep records of actively seeking work. They will catch the million people with learning difficulties who may not know that they need to keep records. They will catch those for whom English is not their first language and who therefore do not keep records in English. They

1309
will catch those who have mental and physical difficulties in holding down work, those recently discharged from long-stay hospitals and those who experience severe depression. They will catch those who are partially sighted, those with hearing problems, those suffering from epilepsy and those with chest and heart conditions; or indeed those actively visiting people in hospitals or who are themselves carers in the home. They will catch those who dare not actively seek work, such as battered wives in hostels without their children who are avoiding rough husbands. They will catch those with AIDS who are shunned by the labour market.
Who else will the regulations catch? They will catch the unskilled, long-term unemployed older man in an area of high structural unemployment who has gone through several bouts of employment training, been rejected from countless jobs and who is now among the ranks of the discouraged workers. One is insisting that such people undergo yet further rebuffs.
We believe that the regulations will catch 30,000 such people: the vulnerable, the marginal, the isolated, the partially-disabled adult with low self-esteem and few skills at the very edge of the labour market, from whom for the first time in 400 years government will withdraw all visible and legitimate means of financial support. In this context, to talk about a short, sharp shock is cynical and callous.
Will we have more examples like the following? I cite the case of a man with three children who failed the availability for work test because he had spent one day per week in hospital having his kidneys matched for a kidney transplant to his sick brother. He lost his benefit. I cite the case of a woman who was on invalidity benefit for two years and was taken off by the DHSS on the 26th December without being told about it. She learned of it on 19th January, applied for benefit and was refused on the ground that she had not been actively seeking work during the previous three weeks when she had not known that she needed to. I give an example from my own city, Norwich, which occurred in July 1990. Youngsters who were training for heavy goods vehicle licences to make themselves marketable lost their benefit because they undertook training.
I could go on and on by referring to dozens of such cases. What I hope they show is that the regulations and the assumptions on which they are based are deeply and profoundly perverse—the most perverse regulations it has been my misfortune to encounter. It is my misfortune but claimants' misery. For those who lose not only their income support but housing benefit and hardship payments, such perversity will make them destitute and perhaps homeless, unless your Lordships will otherwise tonight. We plead with government to think again.
6.43 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Countess for introducing the debate. I hope that the Government do not regard it as a minor matter to leave people without visible means of support. I must express my regret that a change of this magnitude is
1310
being brought in by regulation. Not for the first time it raises the question of how this House should discharge its duties as a revising Chamber in relation to regulations, but I shall not detain the House with that now.
The regulations were brought forward with a fanfare of publicity about travellers. I am unsympathetic to travellers for the good Liberal reason that they have a lifestyle which interferes with the liberty of others. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, will confirm that I wrote to him in August suggesting possible ways of dealing with the problem of travellers. Like the Social Security Advisory Committee, on the whole I was looking in the public order direction. I do not believe that he found my remarks unhelpful, whether or not they were practical. But this is not the right way to address the problem of travellers. Travellers are by definition itinerant; benefit officers are stationary. I believe there will be some difficulty in catching up with travellers.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, suggested, the regulations will catch only the artless dodgers. As the Social Security Advisory Committee put it in paragraph 19 of its report:
"We understand that it is not possible to draw up regulations in such a way as to identify precisely those people who clearly have no intention of actively seeking work and who seek to maintain an alternative lifestyle supported by state benefits".
Most of the people caught by the regulations will not be travellers. As a response to the genuine problem of travellers it will be about as effective as pursuing a pickpocket down Oxford Street with a shotgun. If the regulations are in the event withdrawn, I hope that the Government will pay attention to various alternative routes to tackle the problem of travellers. We agree that there is a problem that needs to be tackled.
I object to these measures on three different grounds. First, there is a list of people withdrawn from exemption on whom the requirement actively to seek work is now placed when it was not before: for example, childless women in refuges. My noble friend Lady Hamwee intends to speak further on this. What she will say will be said with the full support of these Benches. I say only this: that this is a subject on which I have hitherto spoken warmly of government policy. I would be very sorry to have to cease to do so. In addition, the actively-seeking-work regulations are being applied to those with minor disabilities insufficient for a premium—for example, people who are educationally subnormal. That has caused considerable concern to Mencap and many others. To my surprise, it applies to the newly disabled. Being newly disabled is in every meaning of that overworked word traumatic. It takes most people a little while to know what work they will be fit for after becoming disabled and whether they should register as disabled. The effect of the regulations will be to make people register as disabled when they might not otherwise have needed to do so.
The second matter that concerns me is the total withdrawal of the safety net, which is the most serious aspect of all. One is talking of £20.15 a week. If that is a perverse incentive it is a very little one. I cannot think of many people who would change their whole

1311
lifestyle for the sake of £20.15 a week. Some people have already been deprived of the safety net. It seems to me important—and unfortunate —that we do not know what has happened to them. No research has been done on it and we are destitute of information. That seems to me to be a little incurious of the Government, and I hope they will not reply like Goldfinger, who said, "She left my employment". We should know what happens to people without the safety net before we propose to put a large number into that category.
But on both sides of the House I think we must face the fact that in some respects we are experiencing here a clash between right and right. We on these Benches support the requirement that people should actively seek work. We do not regard it as acceptable that people should simply take benefit and do nothing. But that is not the only factor we regard as right. We also believe it is right that people should not die of starvation and that the use of starvation as an instrument of policy is unacceptable. If we deliberately decide to withdraw sustenance from other people, we diminish ourselves.
One of my friends was once catching a train from Waterloo when she slipped and fell. She was wedged between the train and the platform. The train was just about to move, which naturally caused her anxiety. She called for help, but the other passengers on the platform just looked at her and walked away. I think that the people who did that were diminished by doing it. Similarly, if we see people absolutely without means of support and do nothing we risk diminishing ourselves.
So, how do we solve this clash of right and right? Depriving people totally of benefit is like switching off a life-support machine. One can make a powerful case for saying that that should never be done, but that is not what I intend to do. What I intend to do is to say that, rightly, those who wish to switch off a life-support machine must shoulder a very heavy burden of proof. It is that burden of proof which I do not think that this Government at present can shoulder.
Let us look, for example, at the way in which the Government are applying the actively-seeking-work test now. They are disentitling people—the citizens' advice bureaux have reported a number of cases—for not showing written records of job applications even when they are illiterate. I raised the possibility that this might happen when the actively-seeking-work regula-tions were introduced in 1989. I told the story of the occasion which is seared on my childish consciousness—when my father was refused a ration book on the grounds that he was illiterate. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, who was at the Dispatch Box replied:
"If the claimant cannot read or write, we shall not expect him to write letters to employers or indeed to read advertisements in newspapers".—[Official Report, 22/6/89; col. 392.]
In the light of that assurance, I hope that my noble kinsman will consider whether more guidance is needed on the question of the illiterate. I could make similar points about the mentally handicapped, and many similar points about those with an undiagnosed mental illness. There is a lot of evidence to suggest that
1312
that is common among people on benefits, but I shall invoke only what noble Lords have seen on our streets.
On the question of the burden of proof, which is the one the Government must answer, the crucial evidence to me is the withdrawal of the warning letter, which is not even in the regulations. It is a Department of Employment circular of last August. This makes it seem like what the first Lord Burghley described as,
"rather a device to seek for offenders than to reform any".
In fact, it prompts in my mind the suspicion that what is at issue here is not the moral principle—not even the travellers—but a financial savings target connected with what we know has been a very tough public spending round. Of course, I know that savings are needed, but we might consider whether savings will actually be achieved. If these people become disentitled to benefit they will disappear from the records of the Department of Social Security, but they will not, I hope, instantly disappear from the globe. Something else will happen—and whatever that something else is, it may have cost implications.
The Secretary of State says that he hopes that when they have received their short sharp shock these people will behave in a more socially responsible manner. He did not say,"Get a job"; he used language in a more socially responsible manner. This is not just because there are no jobs; it is also because actively seeking work is a very expensive process. My two sons have been doing it recently. In London it costs them something over £10 a week. I know that because I audited it. I heard recently from a voter in South Molton explaining that in South Molton actively seeking work is impossible unless one has a car. Those of your Lordships who know South Molton, will, I am sure, find that believable. However, one does not run a car on no visible means of support. So, if one physically cannot actively seek work, one will not.
I have tried to estimate the net costs. It is a hypothetical question, but one must try. I do not think that more than 5 per cent. of those involved are likely to get work. I have estimated a saving in the region of £55 million—perhaps £1 million more as a result of tax and national insurance contributions from those who get work. A certain number will, of course, sponge. Some, ironically, will become New Age travellers and create public order costs which I have made no attempt to quantify.
Perhaps about 25 per cent. will become ill. It seems likely that we shall be dealing with about 25,000 people, so that means 6,250 people becoming ill. Here we have something a little like the old procedure of ducking witches. It always seemed to me unfair that the innocent witch sank and was in danger of drowning and the guilty witch floated and was quite safe. Those who are not prepared to behave illegally are those who are liable to become ill. As a hypothesis—and this is not unreasonable—I have assumed that of those 6,250 people, 10 per cent. may become mental hospital patients. According to the Mental Health Foundation, that would cost £26,280 a year per patient. For 625 people, that would amount to £16.5 million, and one could probably add on £5 million in

1313
administration costs. I have not costed those who will rely on anti-depressants. That is rather tricky, but it is a real figure.
Perhaps about 50 per cent. will turn to crime. The MORI report on 16 and 17 year-olds and the case studies that I have recently received from the Nottingham Young People's Benefit Campaign show that theft, drug pushing and prostitution will be among the crimes selected. The Secretary of State says that they will feel the full rigour of the law. Fair enough, but he has to catch them first. More of these crimes will lower the detection rate. I shall not dwell on the risks of the bankruptcy of a major insurance company, but it is not impossible. Shoplifting may put up prices. My noble kinsmen can tell me what it would cost the Department of Social Security to have a 0.1 per cent. increase in the retail prices index. I think that it would wipe out all his savings. Putting someone in prison costs £4,779 a year. If 10 per cent. of these people were imprisoned, that would cost some £6 million.
Some will go into prostitution, and some of those are likely to get AIDS. I have used an estimate here of perhaps 125 people. This is out of an initial sample of 25,000 people. I have assumed—and this is not an unrealistic assumption to make about prostitutes—that each of these 125 might infect 50 people. The cost of treating an AIDS sufferer in a hospice is £104,025 a year, which adds another £13 million. That means that £40 million of the £55 million saving has gone in identifiable costs. I have not calculated the police costs, the GPs' costs or the security costs.
We are often told that humanity is all very well but we have to count the cost. I agree that we have to count the cost and I think that humanity is the best policy.
7 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, not for the first time I find myself wishing to support this Motion and also the Government's order. I am sure that many, if not most, of your Lordships have been in a similar position. The problem—or perhaps the privilege —of sitting on these Benches is that the Whips do not put pressure on us to vote against our consciences, so I get no help from them. If I decide wrongly, I hope that I am the guilty witch and not the innocent one.
I have tried to tackle the problem as follows; first, is the intention behind the order correct? Secondly, does the order encourage the right methods to achieve its intention? Thirdly, what improvements, if any, can your Lordships make to either the intention or the method? Many of your Lordships have implored the Government to do something about people who exploit the welfare state, in particular New Age travellers. I have pressed, and will continue to press, the Government to make it more difficult for New Age travellers to disrupt and exploit the lives of the public. I am pleased to hear that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and my noble kinsman Lord Russell take a similar view so far as concerns New Age travellers. The order certainly makes an attempt to do that. I hope that other measures will be forthcoming. I must
1314
therefore come to the conclusion that the intention behind the order is correct. I had hoped that all noble Lords would agree, but I fear that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, does not. Perhaps I interpreted what she said too narrowly.
I turn to my second question. Does the order encourage the right methods to achieve its intention? Having listened to your Lordships and read brief after brief from many organisations which are experts in the field of social security, I am not so sure. I am inclined to think that the order may catch the innocent helpless person rather than the New Age traveller for whom, as I have already said, I have absolutely no financial sympathy. But I am probably one of the least knowledgeable of your Lordships on the workings of social security payments so I am not in a position to judge. Assuming the worst, as any farmer always does, that the method advocated in the order is at fault, what can your Lordships do to encourage the right method to achieve the order's objective, with which I am fully in agreement?
As I see it, your Lordships have an alternative: to press the Motion or to accept what my noble kinsman Lord Henley is going to say. I hope that my noble kinsman will spell out what action the Government could take if they find the order flawed. I shall listen to him very carefully.
I support the intention behind the order. I am worried as to whether the method is correct, but even if its method is flawed we cannot and should not overturn the order. Apart from anything else it has a financial aspect. However, the Motion before us does not do that but its effect if agreed would have no practical result in altering the order. It might even discourage the department from keeping the matter under review, which is what I hope the Government will do. Certainly I shall be extremely worried if that is not said by the Government.
Therefore I come to the conclusion, for better or worse, that the best way forward is to make sure that the Government keep the matter under review. To press the Motion would be childish; it might be petty; but it certainly would be pointless.
7.5 p.m.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, I wish to support the Motion of my noble friend Lady Mar. I find it strange that the Government should ask the Social Security Advisory Committee to advise on the Income Support (General) Amendment (No. 3) Regulations 1992, and have then refused to accept many of its recommendations. I cannot agree with fraud in the social security system in any sense, but, reading the report of the SSAC, it would appear that there are already sufficient regulations to achieve the Government's object.
The present system penalises those people who have been referred to the Employment Service adjudicating officer for a decision on "actively seeking work" and are later found to satisfy the test. Under the present regulations, if the adjudicating officer believes that any of these people would suffer hardship, he may agree to a reduced payment of income support while awaiting a decision. However, under the proposed changes, they would be left without any income. Such people

1315
constitute a significant proportion of those referred to the adjudicating officer. In the six months to March 1991, a high percentage of those referred had their claims allowed. The proposed regulations would remove any discretion to make a hardship payment to a single person or a couple without dependants, even if hardship would result, while awaiting an appeal hearing. Would the Minister not agree that this could force people into crime? In suspending benefit while an adjudicating officer decides on a case, surely then the person concerned is treated as guilty before any decision has been made which is appealable. Is this not contrary to the spirit of English justice?
Many of the voluntary agencies dealing with persons of varying disabilities are concerned that the interviewing officer may not fully understand their particular difficulties, such as those with physical, sensory or learning difficulties, in seeking work. The two latter disabilities may not be obvious, particularly those with learning difficulties, who may well not understand the need to keep a record of job applications. The withdrawal of the warning letter, except where the person is considered genuinely to have misunderstood what is expected of him, may cause the disabled further distress.
The Social Services Advisory Committee also suggested that one letter of warning would be sufficient in any period of unemployment before any further action was taken. This would at least warn people of the need to take action. The Association of County Councils fears that the Government's proposals will affect a large number of disadvantaged and vulnerable people, such as those of no fixed abode, whose mental and emotional health may be poor and who are on the margins of unemployment/sickness benefit. The effect may well worsen the very marginalised destitute single people.
The Spastics Society feels that the Government's proposal to remove access to hardship payments of income support from certain groups of claimants, while appreciating their attempt to protect disabled people from these charges, breaks the "safety net" in the social security system and is afraid that some disabled people will not be protected by the exclusions. MIND finds that inquiries to mental health work schemes for help when benefit is under threat of suspension indicate that people in this group do need the chance which the warning letter gives them to avoid this action. The knowledge that suspension of benefit can be done in this way can heighten the anxieties of claimants and be detrimental to those with a psychiatric history.
The CABs are reporting considerable hardship under existing rules, when benefit is suspended if a doubt arises about entitlement to unemployment benefit, when it is believed that they have left work voluntarily without good cause, or appear not to be actively seeking work. At present an unemployed person can apply for a hardship payment, but under the new regulations an unemployed person whose case is before an adjudicating officer will have no recourse to any payment. What do they live on? Thin air?
A CAB in North London reports the case of someone whose local unemployment benefit office
1316
insisted upon him completing a written job search record, despite his having stated that he could neither read nor write. What will happen in such cases if these new regulations come into force? Should not the interviewing officers perhaps be encouraged to help claimants such as the case I have just mentioned?
One group of people who may find it hard to prove that they are actively seeking work are women without children who are in a refuge because of sexual abuse and violence. This group may find it very difficult to show evidence of actively seeking work, because of their need to be as discreet as possible of their whereabouts. The SSAC believes that some discretion to make hardship payments should be retained where fear and the need for protection makes it more difficult actively to seek work. I hope that the Minister will agree to bring this point to the attention of his right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
My noble friend Lord Rix, who is unfortunately unable to be here this evening, has asked me to speak of the worries that the charity Mencap has with regard to people with mild disability, with no educational qualifications, little or no literacy, and deficient in social skills, struggling to live independently and falling outside the scope of services increasingly focused on those with a more severe learning disability. They may be very anxious to work, but quite unable to organise their affairs and present their case in a way which will defend their benefit interests. It would be a tragedy if these people were to fall through the safety net.
Finally, perhaps I may remind your Lordships that 20th November was the 50th anniversary of the publication of the Beveridge Report on social security. Are we now to go backwards?
7.12 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I support the Motion. One of the few things that has been said in the debate with which I do not agree is the analogy of my noble friend Lord Russell. He said that the regulations were comparable to using a shotgun to catch a pickpocket in Oxford Street. I believe that a different weapon would be the correct analogy—one whose shot is scattered more widely; or perhaps a fishing net which catches many minnows but does not necessarily catch the big fish. Among the minnows are the women to whom reference has already been made by a number of your Lordships who are in refuges and who have suffered from domestic violence. They are single women and women without children.
I should like to expand a little upon the recommendations of the advisory committee with regard to those whom it describes as vulnerable women. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I concentrate upon that group. It should not be taken as an indication that I do not support the anxieties expressed about other groups.
Not all residents of refuges have children. There are many single women—"single" as defined in the regulations. They may be young women who are especially vulnerable due to family violence or sexual abuse, older women who have endured many years of violence and who finally leave home when their

1317
children can lead independent lives or women who have left home in such desperation that they have gone without their children and who claim as single individuals until their circumstances are sorted out.
Women in those circumstances may need to go a long way from home to find sanctuary. They may need to move several times to find a secure environment where abusing partners cannot easily track them down. I fear that the new regulations will limit the mobility of those women because they will need to stay in one place to find work, if that is possible. For reasons that I shall mention, the ability to look for work is especially difficult in their cases.
I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I use language which may seem extreme, but the situation of those victims is extreme. Abusing partners are known to track down women through a variety of means. Recently a man was convicted of murdering his wife, who had escaped to a refuge far from home. Men are—this is a disgrace, but it appears to be the case—able to obtain information about their wives through DSS benefit offices. There are countless stories of men who have turned up in places of employment. Many single women escaping domestic violence feel forced to give up their jobs through fear. The intention cannot be to say to such women, "You have no ties. Why should we assist you? You have given up your job. You are young and able-bodied". If that is the line of argument, it does not take into account the trauma experienced by single, abused women. They are not "able" in the same way as a single person not suffering from such a background is "able" to seek work. They are often not in a fit state to seek work.
It may be said that such women can go to their GPs for a medical certificate. They would have to rely upon the discretion of their GPs, but shame, humiliation and embarrassment often prevent women in those circumstances from disclosing their abuse. Nor should we underestimate the effects of fear. Many women who have experienced extensive periods of violence and intimidation feel so frightened that they will give up their jobs.
I have heard from a worker in one refuge—we have over 200 refuges, but that is not enough—that during a period of four years she knew at least 50 women who had given up their jobs through fear. An anecdote was repeated to me about a woman and a daughter who had been abused by the husband and father. The daughter worked for a building society. She plucked up the courage to tell the personnel department about the position. It gave her compassionate leave and helped her to move to another branch; but within six weeks the father had found her. There is a limit to the number of times an employer can be expected to relocate an employee, even if that is possible in the first place.
The knock-on effect of the regulations on housing benefit has been mentioned. It presents a genuine dilemma. Either the women or the refuges will suffer. The refuges which are in receipt of housing benefit for such women will be affected adversely. They may find it difficult to accommodate single women who will not
1318
be eligible for benefit. They may need to reconsider whether to provide such accommodation. Such women cannot easily or appropriately be assessed on whether they are likely to be able actively to seek work when they apply to a refuge.
It is not possible to ask a woman who is using a crisis line telephone number whether she is able actively to seek work. Such an interrogation would be inappropriate. On arrival at a refuge, in all humanity, that cannot be the first consideration. I am sure that your Lordships can envisage the situation and will understand the anxieties that I am expressing.
The Secretary of State's reply to the advisory committee, when rejecting its recommendation that the entitlement be retained in the case of women in the care of refuges or similar agencies, stated that current legislation required an adjudication officer to take all the circumstances of a case into account. I understand that, but the adjudication officer will be faced with enormously difficult judgments and will need to have an extremely wide knowledge in order to make a safe, reliable decision in such a case. Reference has already been made to the report of the chief adjudication officer.
I urge the Minister to consider the need for guidance and for training adjudication officers so that they can understand the scale and effect of domestic violence. I have to say that this is very much a fall-back position. I should not like to think that it would be necessary to apply such a judgment. It is too precarious a situation for the relatively small number of women who are affected. But if they remain within the regulations, I hope that adjudication officers will have the necessary training to enable them to assess the circumstances. However, I strongly urge reconsideration of the regulations.
7.21 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I wish to join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Countess, Lady Mar, for bringing the subject to your Lordships' House. I support the Income Support (General) Amendment (No.3) Regulations as applied to New Age travellers. I suggest that many of them are available for work and could actively seek it, but many will know how to get out of it. Therefore, many who should be brought before the adjudication officer will know how to work the system and I am not sure that the regulations will affect those people to any great extent.
I agree with the statement in the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee that:
"The Committee has every interest in preventing fraud in the Social Security system".
However, the report goes on to state:
"We believe that the proposed regulations would not achieve the Government's objectives but would be likely to create potential hardship to a vulnerable group of people".
I am bound to ask my noble friend why the department has set up this advisory committee only to disregard its views and reports. It seems strange and perhaps a waste of money to have a good committee with knowledgeable people and then to refuse to accept its recommendations. I should like to know

1319
what reason the Minister can give for refusing the recommendation of the Social Security Advisory Committee.
In Paragraph 2 of the regulations Her Majesty's Government are using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The regulations will not achieve what the Government are setting out to do and it is not clear which groups of vulnerable people the Government are targeting. I imagine that it is those whose mental and emotional health may be poor, the destitute single people, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, those with limited education and few capabilities.
We are suffering a recession and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said, there are few jobs for the many people requiring them. I contend that not only are we experiencing a recession, we are experiencing an industrial revolution. In this age, manual workers are being replaced by those with technical skills and many vulnerable people in our society do not possess technical skills, they are mostly manual workers.
I give one example. I placed a boy with the Oxford City Council to keep St Giles's clean and he kept it very clean, but it took him the whole week to do it. Along came the Audit Commission which said, "This is very expensive". So a machine was bought which cleans St Giles's in two days and as a result the boy with manual skills was given notice and is now out of work. That is being applied throughout the country to many people, particularly the vulnerable.
Are not the regulations putting on to adjudication officers unrealistic responsibilities? How can they know the personal histories and capabilities of clients? I have much sympathy with the staff of social security offices; they have a hard task. I cannot believe that they can always know the exact backgrounds of those with whom they deal.
The regulations will apply to the most vulnerable. What considerations have been given by the Department of Social Security to their future? They will, I fear, become the flotsam and jetsam of society. As has been said by other noble Lords, they will find themselves without sustenance and without work and without a place to sleep. What will happen then? They will become a responsibility for other departments and will be more costly to the country as a whole. It is worrying that departments work separately, in isolation, instead of with each other. I have to say that I consider that the Department of Social Security should have consulted the Minister for Health concerning the social services departments.
I realise that it is 15 years since I was a director of social services, but in time gone by there used to be industrial training units. They were workshops where the mentally handicapped and people without great skills could be trained and helped to earn a living. It is true that many social services departments have closed the workshops, but some still have them. I cite the Oxfordshire social services department which applied to the European Social Fund for training for those with disabilities. I think they are called the blind handicapped industrial workshops. Sheltered work-shops are provided for people who seek, where possible, practical sheltered employment, if the client can be placed in employment.
1320
If these regulations are to be brought in there must be a safety net for these very vulnerable people. Furthermore, we must not lose them in a kind of morass where they do nothing and ultimately become a greater charge on the state. We must use what capabilities they have; we must train and help them.
I cannot understand how it is that one department can bring in these regulations without consulting another department as to who will deal with those people, who will help them and who will creatively and positively give them work. That would be possible but, I have to say, over a period of time. Therefore, in all humanity, to bring in these regulations without a safety net damages the people themselves, but ultimately it will also be at great cost to the country in other areas, and certainly to the young people.
Like my noble friend Lord Stanley, I find myself in some difficulty. I hope that my noble friend the Minister can give your Lordships the assurance that these regulations will not be brought into play until a safety net and creative help are provided by another department to help those vulnerable people who need help, training, support and advice. Unless that assurance is forthcoming I find myself unable to support him.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I am very happy to follow the noble Baroness whose speech shows the deep unease felt throughout the House and not simply on the Benches from which speeches have hitherto been delivered. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, although less committed, was critical of the effect of the regulations, if not the intent. However, I should remind him that hell is sometimes paved with good intentions.
After those powerful speeches there is not very much left for me to say that is new. However, like others, I wish to express my disappointment and dismay that the Government, or the Secretary of State, should have seen fit absolutely to reject the carefully argued principal recommendation of the Social Security Advisory Committee and all but reject the subsidiary recommendations. Like the noble Baroness, I wonder what the purpose of the Social Security Advisory Committee is if its carefully considered recommendations are to be summarily dismissed in that way.
The regulations were sold to the public as measures to deal with the plague of so-called New Age travellers. As we have heard, they do not seem capable of doing so. I have to differ unfortunately from the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. Like other speakers, I feel that the plague of the New Age travellers cannot be cured in this way. I do not need to elaborate. The Minister knows, as I do, because we live in the same county, about the plague of travellers which very nearly came our way. I may say it came nearer to me than to him.
The travellers were diverted—here I entirely agree with the noble Earl, Lord Russell—by a combination of public alertness combined with police co-operation. To my mind that is the route for dealing with this undoubted plague—not through social security. I feel

1321
that the whole exercise is being adopted vainly because it will not catch the New Age travellers. Instead it will put in peril and in fear something like 25,000 of the most vulnerable people in our society.
The regulations represent a tear, a rent, in the safety net which the Secretary of State, Peter Lilley, curiously enough claimed so proudly that we had. He said we had a safety net as,
"comprehensive and secure as any of the other members of the European Community".
This rent in the ultimate safety net is surely a rather cynical way of celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Beveridge Report, to which the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, drew our attention. It is indeed a cynical measure because it reduces the final net in the complex of nets which we have enjoyed in our society. It is a further rent, in addition to other recent holes which have been torn in the net, not only by the removal of single payments and the substitution of that leaky sieve, the social fund, but also by the removal of benefit altogether from young people who have just left home or school, the 16 and 17 year-olds who can, by the gracious leave of the Government, receive, if they fulfil certain conditions, half the payment which anyone else can receive. However, that only applies if they can prove they have been actively seeking work. I believe they receive a mere £25.25. To add to those rents in the safety nets, we now have no hardship payment for those alleged not to be seeking work.
We have heard much about the lack of evidence to support the Government's taking of such a drastic and inhumane step. There has been so much said that I hope the Government will take note of all the evidence which has been adduced during the debate up to now, including unpublished evidence from the Minister's own department and from the Employment Service, which the Secretary of State does not seem to have taken account of. All this hard evidence which we have, and which the House has heard of this evening, points to the fact that the number of those not actively seeking work is very small. Indeed it is so small as not to be worth the elaborate machinery and effort for such a small and pathetic catch. It is a very small and pathetic catch that will eventually be drawn up. However, 25,000 people or so are put in fear and are put at risk by the measure. That is a large number of people. As we have heard, most are inadequate people. The really "fly" ones can easily get round the regulations if they wish to. The large number of inadequate people I have referred to are being targeted, unfortunately, by the regulations. And at what cost? The noble Earl, Lord Russell, touched on the matter. He made some attempt at a cost benefit analysis. Have the Government made any attempt at a cost benefit analysis? We have not heard how much this elaborate fishing expedition will cost.
The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, told us—I entirely agree with her—that the Secretary of State seems to have embarked on the regulations without consulting his colleagues in the Government. If he had done so, he would have realised what huge potential costs will be incurred by the Government if the regulations are put into effect. Among the large
1322
number of departments incurring costs will be local authority social services departments, which were mentioned by the noble Baroness. There will certainly be increased pressure on hostels for the homeless. There will be increased pressure on the National Health Service; on the police; on prison cells; on the courts; on legal aid; and on the prison service. All those are very expensive. The total cost must hugely outweigh any benefit which could conceivably accrue to the Government from chasing a few inadequate people and putting in fear some 25,000 inadequate people.
It is late so I shall not speak for much longer. I wish only to say that during the employment debate of 26th November my noble friend Lord Harris of High Cross, in his usual rather naughty way, referred to the moral hazards of social benefits. I ask the Government to weigh against those supposed hazards the undoubted moral hazard of the destitution to which the regulations will bring a large number of inadequate people without catching the so-called New Age travellers.
I am sure that we are all grateful that the right reverend Prelate will be speaking. He will be able to help the noble Lord on the Front Bench by giving some moral guidance on the question.
If Her Majesty's Government cannot be persuaded to reconsider the regulations in terms of the human cost, will they not at least reconsider the regulations on the basis of the cost in cash terms?
7.41 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I say a word before the right reverend Prelate speaks. I had not intended to speak but I believe that your Lordships have given insufficient emphasis to certain issues during the debate.
Noble Lords have quite rightly identified the many groups about whom they are concerned. A number of those groups were represented in letters about the order sent to your Lordships. There are fears that those people will be caught by a measure which is intended for a different purpose, a purpose with which everybody on all sides of the House appears to agree. It is the purpose of catching the people to whom the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, referred as the work-shy. It is right and it is the duty of this House to express those fears. We shall all listen with the greatest possible care to the Minister's reply.
There is one point, however, which seems to have been forgotten by most speakers—namely, the skill, concern and care of the people in the employment service who interview claimants and discuss with them whether they are looking for work. Do noble Lords really suggest that those people in the employment service do not have the skill, experience and perception to identify the vulnerable and ensure that they receive their payments? Should mistakes be made—and they are made sometimes—do noble Lords suggest that the adjudicator will not, likewise, have great skill and understanding? I believe that it is important not to underestimate the professionalism of these people. It should not be suggested that they are

1323
there just as a matter of form and do not do a wonderful job. My experience of the Employment Service, having been present at some interviews, is very much to the contrary. The staff are greatly to be admired and we should support them.
Are speakers not forgetting all those people who are in work and who much resent seeing the money which they earn and which they pay in tax being handed over to people who could work but make no attempt to do so? We must remember those people. They are one of the reasons why the change is being made. The advisory committee naturally emphasised the other side of the argument, but elected representatives know the point of view of those people, who resent the illicit claiming of benefits. That viewpoint was expressed very well by Mr. David Blunkett, who was reported in the Daily Express in June 1992 as saying:
"Labour has been linked to freeloaders for too long. I was brought up on a council estate and know ordinary folk expect rewards for hard work. They have no time for people who lie in bed when they are fit and able to get a job".
We must also be concerned with the people Mr. Blunkett talked about. I shall listen to the Minister with interest but please let us remember, besides the vulnerable, those other people on whom we depend for so much.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may ask whether she really believes that, with the pressure resulting from the number of people who are unemployed now, the staff in social security offices will be able to deal with every case on its merits in the kind and considerate way she mentioned.
7.45 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, in supporting the Motion of the noble Countess, Lady Mar, I shall not repeat the detailed arguments and persuasive statistics which have already been mentioned in the debate. I simply wish to make two general but not unimportant points.
I have read with care the advice given to Her Majesty's Government by its own Social Security Advisory Committee. Clearly the membership of that committee is highly qualified and experienced in a variety of disciplines and has researched its subject thoroughly. The report reveals, as one would expect, a clear and sympathetic understanding of the problems faced by the Government in this matter. Its conclusion is carefully argued and it is emphatic in its recommendation.
I may be dense, but I am comforted to know that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, shares my difficulty. I find it impossible to understand why the Government choose to ignore the chief recommendation and the authoritative voice of that eminent and knowledgeable committee.
My second point concerns the way in which moral judgments are made. Moral choices, both for individuals and institutions, are rarely simple choices between right and wrong and between good and evil. They are usually much more complex, and often involve weighing the good against the better or else
1324
judging which is the lesser of two evils. In this issue the Government are faced with just such an ethical dilemma.
The purpose of the legislation is to counter an abuse of the benefit system. That is a good objective which deserves support. But the moral issue is not simple because all the evidence, including the evidence of the Government's own advisory committee, points to a greater evil which the legislation, despite its good intentions, would bring about. The advisory committee summarises that starkly in paragraph 12 of the report. The report considers a likely consequence of the regulations to be an increase in socially unacceptable factors such as homelessness and crime. By any standards, even the possibility of such a consequence is a far greater moral evil than the abuse of welfare by some people. I believe that there is a clear moral choice facing Her Majesty's Government in this matter.
7.48 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, it might be helpful if I begin by reminding the House what the amendment regulations are not about. First, they are not about the actively-seeking-work test itself—despite what the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said—which has been a fundamental condition of entitlement to benefits for unemployment for some three years now, since the Social Security Act 1989. All the evidence suggests that during that time the test has become accepted as fair and reasonable by the public, including unemployed people themselves.
In passing, perhaps I may refer to evidence that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has looked at. The noble Countess, Lady Mar, and the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, both asked on what evidence my right honourable friend had based his decisions and what were the research and evaluation that he had referred to in the Social Security Advisory Committee's report. I answered a Question for Written Answer on this matter only last week, on 26th November, from my noble kinsman Lord Russell. I listed there three major pieces of research—one commissioned by my department, the Department of Social Security, and two commissioned by the Employment Department—that my right honourable friend had examined. So I believe I can say that this is not something we have jumped into blind; it is not something we have jumped into without any research at all.
These regulations will impose a tougher penalty on a very small minority of people who are not taking reasonable steps to find work. On that we are quite clear.
The second point I would like to make, about what the regulations are not about, is that they are not, despite what my noble kinsman said, in any way an attempt to save money. They are not a savings measure. On the contrary, it would seem obvious that if what we are trying to achieve was achieved and we encouraged more people actively to seek work, we would increase expenditure, as those who do actively

1325
seek work will obviously be entitled to full employment benefit or income support, whichever is appropriate in their conditions.
Thirdly, the regulations are not exclusively concerned with New Age travellers. I think everyone would agree that there is no way in legislation that one could particularly isolate such a group. I would also say that the New Age travellers are not primarily a social security problem. Quite rightly, as my noble kinsman Lord Russell said, the main issues relate to public order and illegal and anti-social behaviour, and they are matters for other government departments. Bearing in mind what has been said by many noble Lords on the occasion of this debate, I am sure that all other government departments will note what has been said and what might possibly be done to deal with problems relating to New Age travellers.
The Government have made no secret of the fact that the so-called travellers who openly flout the rules are one of the main targets of these regulations. But they are not the only target.
Let me now say a few words about the Social Security Advisory Committee and its report. The noble Countess, Lady Mar, my noble friend Lady Faithfull and the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, as well as the right reverend Prelate, all seemed to imply that we were riding roughshod over what the Social Security Advisory Committee had said. That is quite simply not the case. The Social Security Advisory Committee, as is its duty, made a number of recommendations to my right honourable friend. My right honourable friend, as is quite right, responded in due course. I refer the House to the response of my right honourable friend and particularly the response in paragraph 3 of the statement by the Secretary of State for Social Security where he says that he rejects the primary recommendation but does accept:
"two of the secondary recommendations made by the Committee: namely cases involving pregnancy or young persons should be added to those claimants exempted from the requirement actively to seek work".
In response to that, my right honourable friend amended the regulations that are now being debated before the House.
One has to say that in the end it is not a matter for the Social Security Advisory Committee to make decisions. It is a matter for Ministers and Parliament to decide.
I also say to my noble friend Lady Faithfull that of course other government departments have been consulted. They always are. I should also stress that the local authorities, if not consulted by the Social Security Advisory Committee, certainly were able to make their submissions to the Social Security Advisory Committee which were taken on board by that committee in coming to its views.
The Government are determined to step up efforts to counter fraud and abuse. Those deliberately not looking for work should not expect open-ended support from the taxpayer as a right. As my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour said, that would be an insult to both employers and people in work, upon whom the burden of state support largely falls. It would be an insult to the vast majority of unemployed
1326
people who are desperate to get back into work and make every effort to do so. So the tougher penalties that we propose will rightly extend to most single people and childless couples. Bona fide travellers who move around in search of work and satisfy the normal conditions of entitlement will quite rightly remain eligible for financial support when they are unemployed.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord will give way. He has twice mentioned the word "penalties". If he looks at the statement by the Secretary of State for Social Security on the report of the SSAC, he will see in paragraph 11:
"Nothing in the regulations imposes any penalty".
Lord Henley: My Lords, that is quite right. Nothing in the regulations imposes any penalty. The noble Lord failed to read the next five words:
"for failing to find work".
We are talking about a failure to actively seek work. A failure to find work makes no difference at all. All we ask is that people should actively seek work. Failure to find work is deeply tragic, but it is not relevant to the regulations now before us. If the noble Lord is to start quoting from that document, it would help to include the relevant words that I quoted.
Many of those who have spoken expressed concern that the regulations will hit many vulnerable people whose ability actively to seek work has been affected by their personal circumstances; for example, the homeless, or women forced to take refuge from violent partners. The Government fully recognise and share those concerns. I shall try to deal with as many as possible.
I start by referring briefly to a document which I received only late this afternoon. It is a Labour Party press release. I must thank the noble Baroness for failing to send me any copies of it in advance, as is customary on these occasions. That document was quite simply scaremongering. There is no evidence whatsoever that under the existing regulations the vulnerable unemployed people—for example, people with learning difficulties or women living in refuges without children—are currently having their benefit reduced because of doubts about their job search. The same is true of the illiterate and the newly disabled. It is simply mischievous scaremongering to suggest that from tomorrow employment service staff will single out such people for harsh treatment. That is exactly what the Opposition said would happen in 1989 when we brought in the "actively seeking work" test and it is exactly what has not happened. It will not happen now because we are not changing the regulations in that respect.
I believe my noble kinsman Lord Russell quoted my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale as saying that illiterates should not be made by their employment advisers in the employment service agencies to read newspapers for advertisements. I accept that that is the case and should be the case.
The noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, quoted examples from the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux of illiterate people being, in their job search, made to read and write. That simply cannot be right.

1327
I stress that it should not be happening. If the noble Lady can give me details of the particular case I shall be more than pleased to look at it.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will give way. Does he accept that, under these proposed changes of regulation, when a reasonable doubt has been raised about whether a person—such as someone in a refuge, someone partially disabled, someone partially sighted or illiterate—is actively seeking work, even though subsequently the adjudication officer has discretion to take all those factors into account and benefit will be awarded, nonetheless, during the period in which that doubt is being considered all those groups will have lost not only their benefit but their hardship payments? All the evidence shows that in two-thirds of the cases where benefit was lost during the adjudication officer's review the people were subsequently found to be "innocent".
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Baroness has hold of the wrong end of the stick. Perhaps I may begin with the example of the woman living in a refuge in fear of violence. She is living on her own, and we accept that if children are involved she will have full entitlement to income support. That woman living in a refuge in fear of violence cannot go out actively to seek work. Therefore, the first test that one must apply has nothing to do with actively seeking work; it is to ascertain whether she is available for work. The first thing that an employment adviser would have to say was, "If you have a genuine fear—and that is up to me to decide—you are not therefore available for work and the regulations do not apply". We are talking not about the availability for work test but the actively-seeking-work test. The two are very different.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, appeared to say that the actively-seeking-work test was not worth bothering about. I was grateful to receive some support for that test from the Liberal Democrat Benches. It is primarily about motivating people to look for work. It is right that unemployed people should take a personal responsibility to look for work. As I said previously to the noble Lord, there is no penalty for failing to find a job.
I was pressed on why we did not follow the other secondary recommendations to retain the hardship provisions for women in refuges, those with disabilities insufficient to qualify for a disability premium, the newly disabled and others at the discretion of an adjudication officer. It is for that officer to take into account all the circumstances when deciding what steps are reasonable for a person to take actively to seek work. But as I said in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, there are those such as carers, women in refuges and the newly disabled who because of their circumstances are quite simply not available for work.
Perhaps in passing I may stress in answer to a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that men should not be able to get details from either my department or the employment service of the whereabouts or the jobs of their estranged wives. If the noble Baroness has examples of such cases I shall be
1328
more than happy to look at them. Obviously in organisations as large as the Department of Social Security and the employment service mistakes can happen. People who work in such organisations are only human. However, we try our hardest to make sure that mistakes do not happen, and if the noble Baroness will give me the evidence I am prepared to look at it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, gave an example of a man failing the actively-seeking-work test because he attended hospital for only one day to receive renal dialysis. I stress that the test is a weekly test and does not have to be satisfied on a daily basis. I should be prepared to look at any cases which the noble Baroness has relating to someone who has been refused benefit on the basis that they attended hospital for one day. I shall make inquiries into any examples.
The noble Baroness went on to suggest that the New Age travellers are sophisticated people and will try to avoid work by saying that they are not available for work. If such a person failed to provide any reason for unavailability for work, the availability question would be put to the adjudication officer. In the case of a New Age traveller taking such a line, it would be quite fair to conclude that a hardship payment should not be awarded. The person could simply avoid hardship by making himself available for work and look for work.
It was further suggested by the noble Countess and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, that this is the first time in 400 years that benefit has been suspended in such a way. That is not so. The right to suspend benefit is not new. The Secretary of State has power to suspend payment where there is a doubt about whether conditions of benefit have been fulfilled. However, the decision to suspend will be taken only after a detailed personal interview in which individuals will have been given every opportunity to make their case. In any case, where benefit is suspended the adjudication officer must be asked to reach a decision as soon as possible and certainly within 14 days where possible.
I ought to emphasise that a benefit suspension because of a doubt about active job search is for a maximum of two weeks only. If at the next signing-on day the normal conditions to entitlement are satisfied, payment of benefit will resume irrespective of whether the adjudication officer has reached a decision in relation to the period to which the suspension related. People will not therefore be suspended if there is a delay in the adjudication process.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene but I should be grateful if my noble kinsman could tell me whether he has any evidence to show what happens to such people during those two weeks.
Lord Henley: My Lords, as we have made clear, those people in vulnerable groups will be protected. However, we do not see a case for protecting those who fail quite blatantly without making any effort whatever actively to seek work. If they are prepared actively to seek work they will receive benefit; if they are not there will be no benefit. It is as simple as that.

1329
My noble friend Lady Faithfull asked about industrial training units. They were replaced by skill centres during the 1970s and have recently been replaced by employment training and employment action. Help on the government employment and training programmes for unemployed people is being increased by almost 500,000 opportunities during the next year. That is a rise of some 50 per cent.
The noble Countess was the first to refer to the removal of the warning letter, and other noble Lords followed. When the actively-seeking-work test was first introduced in 1989 we thought it right to undertake that people would be given a written warning if their job search was inadequate. We have fully honoured that commitment. However, the test has been in operation now for some three years. It has been accepted as fair and reasonable by the public, including unemployed people.
All newly-unemployed people now receive a detailed interview at which the actively-seeking-work test is explained to them. A personal back-to-work plan is devised and the consequences of failing to look for work are also explained. Those who genuinely misunderstand, or who appear to be in a position of not being able to understand what is happening to them, as was suggested by the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, will continue to receive written warnings. But others will no longer be able to exploit the warning letter regularly to evade their responsibility to look for work.
Employment service research using a sample of almost 900 people showed that 16 per cent. were warned at least twice and some five times or more during the same spell of unemployment. The new administrative arrangements will end that open abuse of the system. Again I wish to stress to the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, that the interviewing officers, the employment advisers and others will be instructed to treat with especial care all those who are illiterate or who have learning difficulties. The policy is quite clear. Those officers must take into account the personal abilities of any individual unemployed person.
The actively-seeking-work regulations require the officer to have regard to all the circumstances of any individual's case. In response to the intervention of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, I am happy to say that officials in the employment services agency and those in the Department of Social Security who are involved to a lesser extent, can deal with those matters even now in a time of recession in a sensitive, capable and caring manner.
There is also specific provision in the regulations to allow the homeless to seek accommodation. Those built-in safeguards have worked very well and they are unaffected by the amendment regulations being debated this evening. Moreover, the Government have been careful to ensure that those people whose availability for work is in doubt because of their personal circumstances will remain eligible for the reduced rate of income support if they or a member of their family would otherwise suffer hardship. Despite what was said in the Labour Party press release, the safety net will remain for carers who are not
1330
automatically exempt from the requirement to be available for work but whose prospects of work are adversely affected by their caring responsibilities.
At this point I turn to the regulations themselves. As I mentioned earlier, their effect will be to ensure that most single people and childless couples who fail actively to seek work will not be entitled to income support. But, where a person has the care of a child or a young person or is pregnant, entitlement to a reduced rate of income support will continue if an adjudication officer is satisfied that the child or young person or pregnant person will suffer hardship. We have also provided similar protection where a disability premium is paid. There is no change here for those people. It is simply that those single and childless couples who fail actively to seek work will not be entitled to income support.
The principle is clear. It is right that the Government should continue to protect those who are unable to support themselves but able-bodied adults without family responsibilities who are capable of work but unwilling to look for it cannot expect open-ended support at the taxpayers' expense.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, will the Minister confirm again that, while those queries about whether someone is actively seeking work are being investigated, the person or couple being investigated will, for that period of time, not only lose benefit, as now, but will also lose hardship payments even though, for two-thirds of them, the doubt was not valid?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not accept the second part of the noble Baroness's premise but I can confirm that those single people or childless couples who are fit and capable of work but who fail actively to seek it will not receive benefit during that two-week period. However, as long as they have made that effort actively to seek work, in the next two-week period they will regain their entitlement to unemployment benefit.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, just before the intervention of the noble Baroness, the noble Lord referred to able-bodied men and women. Does he include among those able-bodied men and women a person who must attend on one day a week for dialysis treatment?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I cannot deal with that off the cuff but my view would be that in that case the person would not be able bodied. He would have some entitlement. He must attend hospital and his availability for work is somewhat restricted, although I must stress that the actively-seeking-work test is a weekly test. I suspect that in that case there would be an entitlement to benefit. We are talking about those who are able, active, single or, in the case of childless couples, without responsibilities for children. I see no reason why such people should obtain an entitlement to benefit and play the system as has been done in the past and continue to receive benefit. Those who combine that unwillingness to look for work with

1331
anti-social and illegal behaviour, often at the expense of local communities, should forfeit their right to benefit.
As I stress, income support is only lost for a short, past period—usually two weeks, in line with the fortnightly signing-on cycle. As my right honourable friend made quite clear in his response to the Social Security Advisory Committee, the intention is to administer a short, sharp shock to those who fail to help themselves. People will not lose out if the adjudication takes too long and, if it is not settled two weeks later when they sign on again, they can regain entitlement to income support by actively seeking work.
It is even more important in the present labour market conditions that unemployed people should maintain their efforts to find work. I totally reject the suggestion made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, that now is the time to relax the actively-seeking-work rule.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I was simply quoting the Government's own Social Security Advisory Committee's comment.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I take it then that it is not the view of the noble Baroness that now is the time to relax the actively-seeking-work rule and I welcome her support for that rule. I would go further and say that now is the time that people should be looking even harder for work. I stress to the noble Baroness that some two-thirds of the newly unemployed find jobs within six months. Now is the time when it is most important for those unemployed to retain their job-seeking skills. Even during a recession, there are jobs to be had. As the noble Baroness will probably know, employment services have already placed some 700,000 people in work in the current financial year.
1332
The Motion standing in the name of the noble Countess that we are debating this evening asks first that the Government should take account of further evidence about the effect of the changes proposed and accordingly asks us to reconsider the desirability of the regulations. As always, I can give the House a categorical assurance that, as regards the first part of the Motion, we shall take all and any evidence into account as we continue to monitor and review those regulations. We shall take account also of any submissions, suggestions and comments from local authorities—referred to by my noble friend Lady Faithfull—or from any body affected by the system. if necessary, we shall bring forward changes.
As regards the second part of the Motion, we intend to go forward with the regulations on 3rd December. On the basis of the evidence before us now, we are satisfied with the desirability of those regulations. But, if there were further evidence that these regulations are catching those whom it is not intended to catch and not dealing with those who consciously and deliberately fail actively to seek work, obviously we would then reconsider—in the words of the Motion—their desirability. On that basis, we do not intend this evening to oppose the Motion.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord. He has rather taken the wind out of my sails, as I was about to take issue with him on many of his remarks. In the circumstances, I should say that I am extremely grateful for their reassuring speeches to all noble Lords who have taken part. In spite of what the noble Lord said. I wish to test the feeling of the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes past eight o'clock.

  DANGEROUS DOGS ACT 1991
  DANGEROUS DOGS ACT 1991
  REMAND PRISONERS: CUSTODIAL SENTENCES
  REMAND PRISONERS: CUSTODIAL SENTENCES
  PRISONERS REMANDED BY MAGISTRATES: ACQUITTALS
  PRISONERS REMANDED BY MAGISTRATES: ACQUITTALS
  AIR CARRIERS IN THE EC: COMPULSORY INSURANCE
  AIR CARRIERS IN THE EC: COMPULSORY INSURANCE
  LONDON UNDERGROUND: FINANCIAL SUPPORT
  LONDON UNDERGROUND: FINANCIAL SUPPORT
  PUBLIC TRANSPORT
  PUBLIC TRANSPORT
  EDUCATION AND THE EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN
  EDUCATION AND THE EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN
  EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN
  EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN
  DRIFT NET FISHING LICENCES
  DRIFT NET FISHING LICENCES
  NON-DOMESTIC RATES: DISTRIBUTABLE AMOUNT
  NON-DOMESTIC RATES: DISTRIBUTABLE AMOUNT
  WILDLIFE TRADE: CONTROLS
  WILDLIFE TRADE: CONTROLS