Sitting of 2 December 1992

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Selective Assistance (London)
    Mr. Harry Greenway:: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what regional selective assistance has been given in the past 12 months in (a) west London and (b) Greater London, and in respect of how many intended new jobs; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister for Industry (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): The locations identified are not at present designated as assisted areas and, therefore, projects in those areas do not qualify for regional selective assistance. The assisted area map is being reviewed.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend accept that we in Ealing respect his effort for jobs in the east London corridor, but ask him to remember west London? Is he aware that 10 years ago all the Hoover jobs were sucked out of Ealing and went to Scotland and Wales and that it has taken us 10 years to get jobs back on that site, which we did last week with the opening of a Tesco store? Will he try in any way that he can to give proper help to west London, and especially to Ealing where we can do with it?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I am happy to assure my hon. Friend that I am looking carefully at the submissions from his London borough of Ealing and other west London boroughs. Those submissions will be carefully considered and the requests from west London will certainly not be overlooked.
    Mr. Soley: Is the Minister aware that London has never before needed the special pleading that it now needs as a result of the Government's economic policies? Will he bear in mind the Engineering Employers Federation view about London, which I fully share, that the lack of an industrial base is at the root not only of Britain's economic problems but of those of west London and London in general? Until the Government take engineering and manufacturing seriously and put real money into them, as other countries do, we shall continue to have a weak pound and a weak economy.
    Mr. Sainsbury: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the performance by British manufacturing industry and the extent to which it has improved not only its productivity but its output and, in particular, its exports over the past decade. He will be aware that manufacturing employment is important in London, but that it forms a
    248
    lower proportion of total employment than in most other areas. We shall certainly take account of unemployment in London and all other relevant facts when reviewing the matter.

    Leicester
    Mr. Janner: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will provide extra assistance for Leicester's traditional industries.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Technology (Mr. Edward Leigh): The DTI already has in place a number of schemes that are helping traditional industries and other companies in Leicester and elsewhere.
    Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that those schemes are totally inadequate and that while in previous recessions Leicester's traditional industries—knitwear, footwear, hosiery and textiles—survived well, they now face catastrophe and high unemployment, and businesses are closing by the day? What practical measures, if any, do the Government propose to help pull those industries and those who work in them out of this misery?
    Mr. Leigh: Leicester's economy has successfully diversified over the years and its unemployment rate is below the national and the regional average. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not mention in his usual litany of lament about Leicester that textile exports by one of Leicester's traditional industries jumped by 8 per cent. in the first half of this year to a value of £1·4 billion. He did not mention the measures in the autumn statement. We now have one of the lowest rates of inflation in the EC and the lowest rate of corporation tax. Those are the sort of measures that will promote business in Leicester, rather than the measures promoted by his party to allow secondary action and a minimum wage. I challenge the hon. and learned Gentleman to name one business man who is currently asking for a minimum wage.
    Mr. Jim Marshall: May I ask the Minister to allow his blood pressure to come down a little? Does he accept that one of the reasons for the textile industry being able to export in the manner in which he has outlined is that it has been assisted by the multi-fibre arrangement? There is some concern in the local textile industry about the phasing-out of that agreement as part of the new GATT arrangements. Could he tell the House and the industry whether that phasing out period started at the beginning of the present GATT negotiations or whether it will commence when the new agreement as a whole is signed?
    Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman can be assured that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will ensure that there are adequate safeguards for the textile industry in the period until the GATT review is agreed. Over the years, the textile industry has successfully restructured and that is how we have ensured its record level of exports in the first half of 1992.

    Pit Closures
    Mr. John Evans: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to meet the chairman of British Coal to discuss the review of the 10 collieries threatened with closure.
    The Minister for Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar): My right hon. Friend and I have meetings with the chairman of British Coal, as necessary, to discuss a range of coal industry matters.
    Mr. Evans: Before the President of the Board of Trade next meets the chairman, will he publish the Boyd report and then demand of the chairman why he included among the 10 pits for closure five collieries, including Parkside in my constituency, which that report identified as profitable pits with a viable future in Britain's deep-mine industry? Will he also use the meeting to condemn the chairman of British Coal for his niggardly and Scrooge-like attitude in stopping the attendance payments to the miners at the 10 collieries?
    Mr. Eggar: As I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows, as part of the review that is being carried out, Boyd has been engaged to give a full review of each of the collieries, both the 19 and the 21, and, as has already been made clear, that will be published as part of the review.
    Mrs. Peacock: Is my hon. Friend aware that some of the 10 collieries have specialised markets for their coal—I think that it is called niche marketing in anybody else's industry—and that there is great interest from the private sector in purchasing some of the mines? Is he also aware that British Coal is refusing to give any information about the collieries and is therefore making it difficult for people to put in bids?
    Mr. Eggar: I am very much aware of a point made by my hon. Friend, which has been made by a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House. This is a matter for British Coal, but it would not be appropriate for British Coal to be considering the sale or the licensing of pits in advance of either the statutory consultation period or the end of the review. Once that consultation period and the review have been completed, then, in the light of the review and the interest in the private sector, British Coal will have to consider how to respond. I dare say that, as a result of the review, the Government will make clear their position.
    Mr. Tipping: When the Minister meets the chairman of British Coal to talk about the 10 pits, will he remind him of the commitment given in the House that the review will be open and honest? Given that commitment, why will not the Minister instruct British Coal to share with the work force the financial statements—the F23s—for those pits? If the work force are to be able to put up a case for keeping those pits open, they need the figures. If the Minister is open and honest, he should give them.
    Mr. Eggar: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the matters to which he refers are the subject of a judicial review, so I must be careful about what I say. However, both my right hon. Friend and I have stressed that there must be full and proper consultation. It is our understanding that that is exactly what British Coal has pledged to do.
    Mr. Cash: When can I have a reply to the letter that I delivered to the President of the Board of Trade on the day of the pit closure debate, in which I asked a number of questions that, as yet, remain unanswered? Will my hon. Friend let me know whether any Minister has signed a public interest immunity certificate to prevent the disclosure of information that is relevant not only to that matter but to both the Select Committee review and the Government's review?
    250
    Will my hon. Friend make certain that the response that I had from the Secretary of State for Wales in an intervention during that debate, that British Coal must prove its case, will be carried out to the letter, and that those completely failed consultation procedures will be sorted out so that we know that the people who work in those pits are being properly looked after?
    Mr. Eggar: A reply to my hon. Friend's letter is on its way. [Laughter]. I may tell him and other hon. Friends that it may literally be in the post. A number of the issues that my hon. Friend raised, particularly with regard to Trentham, will be covered in the statutory consultation that is under way between British Coal and the unions. As to public interest immunity certificates, there has been a considerable degree of misreporting by the press in respect of the current judicial hearing, and I assure my hon. Friend that no such certificate has been signed by Ministers.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the Minister accept that many of the pits threatened with closure have substantial reserves? Does he agree that the cost of mothballing the pits would be between £3 million and £6 million a year, whereas the cost of reopening them would be about £400 million? Will the Minister ensure that an independent review of reserves will be undertaken and published before any pit is closed—and that if British Coal is not prepared to operate those pits, they should be offered to others who may be able to do so?
    Mr. Eggar: I note the hon. Gentleman's remarks about mothballing, but the figures may be rather lower and rather higher, depending on the particular pit. Mothballing will be considered in the review, and I presume that the Select Committee on Trade and Industry also will examine that aspect.
    Mr. Moss: Given that the electricity inter connector with France, through which we import huge amounts of subsidised French nuclear electricity, displaces the equivalent production of coal from the 10 pits in question, does my hon. Friend agree that it would be highly popular in coalfield communities and the country as a whole if that contract were renegotiated?
    Mr. Eggar: That undertaking, which was entered into by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), has potential consequences for the amount of coal burn in this country and is bound to be considered as part of the review. I dare say that it will also be taken into account by the Trade and Industry Select Committee.
    Mr. O'Neill: Does the Minister appreciate that there is widespread cynicism about the manner in which the 10 collieries appeared on the list? We know that negotiations about which collieries were to be included went on until 10 o'clock in the evening, or certainly until 4 o'clock in the afternoon—[Laughter.] I am sorry, Madam Speaker—I was thinking of another debate. Obviously the price was not high enough for a number of hon. Members who took part in the coal debate, as it was in the other debate. Seventy per cent. of Grimethorpe colliery's output does not go to the electricity industry, and that is true of 90 per cent. of Houghton Main's output. Betws produces anthracite and has no need to take account of the electricity generating industry. At least three of the 10 mines are completely independent of the electricity supply industry, so there is no reason why they should be

    251
    considered in any way uneconomic. They should immediately be reconsidered for inclusion among the 20 pits that are considered possible contenders for a long life in the coal industry.
    Mr. Eggar: I do not know the source of the hon. Gentleman's information, but given the accuracy with which he put it across at the Dispatch Box, I am sure that it is inaccurate. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that Betws is an anthracite mine, and he will have noted the exchange between the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) and myself during the debate on pit closures. As to the two other mines, the hon. Gentleman may be correct in claiming that some of their output potentially goes to domestic and industrial markets rather than to generators, but a significant amount goes into the generating market. None the less, I can categorically tell the hon. Gentleman that when the statutory consultation period ends—I am sure that he accepts that it would not be right for British Coal actively to consider the sale of either the 10 or 21 pits in advance of the consultation period for the 10 or the review of the 21 mines—British Coal will remain responsible for licensing coal mines and must consider applications from responsible organisations seeking licences. That must of course be subject to the current statutory limitations. It is a complicated subject, but I note the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
    Mr. Cormack: Does my hon. Friend realise that the answer that he has just given and that the answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss) begs a central question: will those 10 pits be in a state to be taken over? We do not want to leave it until too late. Will he please assure the House that if at the end of the review the 10 pits are still up for closure, there will be an opportunity for them to be taken over in a working condition by private owners?
    Mr. Eggar: I have heard what my hon. Friend said. British Coal has given a quite categorical assurance that the decision as to reopening will not in any way be influenced by any deterioration that may or may not have happened during the closure period.
    Mr. John Evans: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Due to the highly unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, it is my intention to seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment of the House at the earliest possible opportunity.

    Export Credit
    Mr. Raynsford:: To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what terms export credit guarantees are offered to British industry in respect of major south American countries.
    Mr. Leigh: Short-term credit insurance is available from the private sector. ECGD medium-term cover, on credit terms of two years or more is available for British exports to Chile, Colombia, Venezuela and Uruguay. At present, medium-term cover is not generally available for other south American countries, but the position on individual markets is kept under regular review.
    Mr. Raynsford: Does the Minister accept that the absence of export credit guarantee support in respect of Brazil and Argentina has severely prejudiced the prospects
    252
    of a world-beating firm that is based in my constituency—STC—which has sought to win an international submarine telecommunications contract in those countries? Will he review urgently the nature of the export credit guarantee scheme to ensure that British firms are no longer left at a disadvantage as against their overseas competitors, whose Governments give them far more effective support than ours do?
    Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to write to my right hon. Friend about the issue on 26 November. We replied to him yesterday. I hope that by now he has received the letter. I think that I see the hon. Gentleman nodding. What I said in that reply was that of course we keep all these matters under review. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I have already intervened on behalf of STC and that I wrote to the procurement group of companies to see whether any help could be given to the company, for which it was grateful. To put the matter into context, £800 million of Brazilian debt and £150 million of Argentinian debt has been rescheduled. There has to be a real possibility of the debt being repaid. It does not help UK Ltd. if exports are not paid for. To ignore economic reality would, to quote the hon. Gentleman's article on the anaesthetised, torpid Labour party, be to sleepwalk into oblivion. We are not prepared to do that.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: May I draw to my hon. Friend's attention the fact that we are losing many opportunities in the major countries of Latin America, due to the lack of capacity and flexibility of the Exports Credits Guarantee Department? I draw his attention also to the major city of Sao Paulo in Brazil which has always used the River Tietê to get rid of its sewage, with very smelly consequences. It is looking to Britain, to the example of what we have done to the River Thames, as a means of improving the position. That gives great opportunities to British water companies and to British technology. May I ask my hon. Friend to ensure that Britain is at the forefront of this activity in Brazil?
    Mr. Leigh: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The whole House recognises his expertise in south American affairs. The Minister for Energy, who is sitting on my left, met the governor of Sao Paulo last week. The competitive nature of ECGD generally has been improved by the additional £700 million of cover that has been obtained by the sterling efforts of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. Of course we shall keep these matters under review, but my hon. Friend will be aware of the difficult economic situation in Brazil.
    Mr. Bell: The Minister has not yet answered the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford). He talked about competition from our European competitors—our European counterparts. Is it not a fact that their interest rates are lower than ours and that their time scales are longer than ours? As we now have the presidency of the European Community, can the Minister tell the House what initiatives have been taken within that presidency to bring those rates and time scales into harmony, in the interests of British industry?
    Mr. Leigh: The Government continue to press ahead with initiatives in the EC and OECD to ensure that other agencies charge premiums that more closely reflect the

    253
    risk. In recent months, a number of agencies in Japan, France, the Netherlands and Belgium have announced increases in rates or have advised that they plan to do so.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: I recognise the generally excellent performance in the recession of British exporters to south America and elsewhere, but will my hon. Friend bear in mind the representations made by the CBI in "Making it in Britain" and by the Engineering Employers Federation in "Industrial Strategy"? Both ask for a more level playing field for export credit guarantees compared with their European competitors.
    Mr. Leigh: I take my hon. Friend's point, but repeat my point: my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade are committed to promoting British exports. In the spring, they secured the major achievement of cutting premium rates in more than 50 markets, since when we have obtained another £700 million of cover. They constantly strain every nerve to promote British exporters and exports. I am sure that my hon. Friend will accept that in these difficult markets there must be some realistic chance of the product and export being paid for; otherwise the taxpayer will lose out considerably. There is about £4 billion worth of debt outstanding on ECGD.

    Export Credits Guarantee Department (Civil Servants)
    Mr. Michael: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has to secure the future and effective deployment of civil servants in the Export Credits Guarantee Department who were not affected by the sale of the insurance section to NCM.
    The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Needham): I have endorsed the recommendations of the ECGD management board that there should be no major change to the distribution of functions between London and Cardiff for at least three years.
    Mr. Michael: Will the Minister acknowledge that moving jobs from Cardiff to London—now or in three years' time—would be against the Government's policy of dispersing civil service jobs from London to the regions, Wales and Scotland? Will he confirm, first, that the 200 jobs in Cardiff are safe and, secondly, that they will remain in Cardiff in the long term?
    Mr. Needham: When NCM took over the short-term credit arrangements of ECGD, everybody who wanted to move to NCM was given the opportunity of doing so. These 200 jobs are for staff who decided that they would not go to NCM. They were aware that there was bound to be a reduction in the number of jobs because some of their work was being taken over by NCM. The functions have been reviewed by ECGD. There will be a further small reduction, but the jobs will be there for three years, after which we shall reconsider.

    Magnox Power Stations
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his Department's policy in respect of the potential for extension of the life of the seven Magnox stations.
    Mr. Eggar: It is for the operators of Magnox stations to assess the practicality of life extensions, taking fully into
    254
    account the safety requirements of the nuclear installations inspectorate. The review announced by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 21 October will consider the implications of the statutory obligation on electricity suppliers to purchase non-fossil power, including that from nuclear sources.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister of State aware that Nuclear Electric's latest annual report shows that almost two thirds of the subsidy to the nuclear industry goes to prop up the operations of the Magnox stations, which were described by the President of the Board of Trade in an answer in October as being "old and unsafe", and of advanced gas-cooled reactors? How can the Government justify spending £783 million a year of taxpayers' money to bail out and keep going an old and unsafe nuclear industry, when perfectly up-to-date and safe coal mines are paying the price and being carved out of the electricity supply market?
    Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman is referring in particular to the Magnox stations, the future of which will be covered by the review.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: When considering energy policy overall, will my hon. Friend not allow the very unfortunate events at Chernobyl, which not surprisingly raised considerable anxiety in the minds of the public, to colour our energy policy, and recall that nuclear power is the most enviromentally friendly power source?
    Mr. Eggar: I have taken a careful note of what my hon. Friend said. Such issues will be covered by the review.
    Mr. Beggs: Is the Minister aware that the high cost of electricity now poses a threat to the future viability of large energy users? How does he propose to help to reduce the high cost of electricity to large-user industries, whether future electricity is generated using Magnox or other means?
    Mr. Eggar: I am aware that that is a matter for considerable concern to large users, both in the Province and in the rest of the United Kingdom. It is one of the issues that will be covered by the review, and we had received evidence, especially from Northern Ireland interests, by the deadline that expired yesterday.
    Mr. Mans: Will the Minister confirm that the cheapest electricity on the grid comes from nuclear power stations, and that by keeping them going longer we can spread the decommissioning costs over a longer period? Will my hon. Friend also confirm that the safety standards in nuclear stations are higher than those in coal-fired power stations, and that their accident record is better than that of coal-fired stations?
    Mr. Eggar: I hear what my hon. Friend says. Of course, safety standards are covered by the nuclear installations inspectorate. With regard to the statistics on the costs, it is true that Magnox stations have low current operating costs per kilowatt hour, but they have high front-end capital costs and high back-end decommissioning costs.
    Mr. Miller: Is the Minister aware that trade unions representing workers in the nuclear industry have given their commitment in writing to support the future of the coal mining industry in this country, and that they and their coal mining colleagues want a strategic energy review to be published? Members of the House, too, want such a

    255
    review to be published and want there to be a stated strategy, in the interests of supply from all sources throughout the energy industry.
    Mr. Eggar: I am aware of the concern expressed not only by the hon. Gentleman's constituents but by other constituents, especially those in the north-west, who are affected, especially with regard to their employment prospects, by the future of the nuclear industry.—
    Mr. Miller: And by coal.
    Mr. Eggar: And, of course, by coal. That is exactly why the review that my right hon. Friend is currently conducting will cover all those issues.
    Mr. Batiste: If the seven Magnox stations were closed, and the Government maintained their commitment to controlling atmospheric pollution, would not there be a threat to several coal-fired power stations and the pits that they support?
    Mr. Eggar: Undoubtedly one of the many issues that we shall have to consider in the review is the interaction between methods of electricity generation and the environmental obligations into which we have entered. I believe that my hon. Friend is saying that if we had less nuclear-generated electricity, and therefore more coal-generated electricity, there would be an impact on emission levels.

    Iraq
    Mr. Heppell: To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many trade missions to Iraq have been authorised by his Department involving Nottinghamshire chamber of commerce in each year since 1984.
    The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Heseltine): There were two in 1984, one in 1985, two in 1986, one in 1988, one in 1989, and two in 1990.
    Mr. Heppell: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that one of the authorised participants in the mission in 1989 was Sheffield Forgemasters, which was clearly against the 1988 guidelines, the 1985 guidelines and any other guidelines that the President may feel are in fashion at the moment? If there was no ministerial approval, will the right hon. Gentleman take action against senior DTI officials for breaching the Government guidelines, or will he turn a blind eye, as he and three other Ministers did in the past, to innocent business men who were set up, fitted up, in British courts?
    Mr. Heseltine: I do not see the gain involved for the hon. Gentleman in peddling a totally dishonest interpretation of what happened, presumably in an attempt to get some cheap publicity in his constituency.
    The issues that the hon. Gentleman raised will be fully examined by Lord Justice Scott, and I look forward to the report.

    Mining Equipment Firms
    Mr. Bennett: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what Government assistance is currently given to United Kingdom firms that produce mining equipment.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the future prospects for the British mining engineering industry.
    Mr. Eggar: The size of the domestic market for the mining equipment industry is largely determined by British Coal. Prospects in export markets are reflected in the 38 per cent. rise in exports last year.
    The industry is eligible for a wide range of Government assistance for exports, research and development, and new investment.
    Mr. Bennett: Does the Minister agree that the mining manufacturing industry in this country has an extremely good record in terms of exports? Perhaps he could tell the House how much foreign exchange they earn. If firms such as Oldham Batteries in my constituency lose the market for their mining lamps and helmets, they will find it increasingly difficult to compete on the world stage without that home market, because they will not have the money to invest in keeping themselves at the forefront of technology. Does the Minister realise that when the Government destroy British coal mines, they also destroy an important part of our manufacturing base?
    Mr. Eggar: I can confirm that the mining equipment industry has a good record. In 1991, it ran a positive trade surplus of some £46 million. It has been active in export markets.
    When I was in China recently, I took the opportunity to promote British mining equipment there. There is no doubt that British mining companies have a good reputation. I am currently working with the Export Credits Guarantee Department to see whether we can support a major export drive in China with formal bank lines of credit to support its initiatives.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: Is the Minister aware that since 1984 some 2,000-plus manufacturing jobs have been lost in my constituency alone? Many of those jobs were related to the export trade, and were directly earning for Britain. Does the Minister realise that when the Government destroy British pits, they also destroy the vital shop window that mining engineering companies need to display their products for the export market? What assessment have the Government made of the impact of the 13 October announcement on coal, especially as it relates to the export trade and mining engineering?
    Mr. Eggar: I have had meetings with individual mining equipment companies. I had arranged another meeting with MECO a week ahead. Unfortunately, the Chairman of the Select Committee on Employment has asked me to attend that Committee, but we will be rearranging the MECO meeting. I am aware of the problem. I recognise that there is a role for the Government to play in assisting.
    Mr. Luff: Will my hon. Friend confirm that representations from mining equipment manufacturers, such as MECO in my constituency of Worcester and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown), will be taken fully into account during the review of the coal mining industry? Will he further confirm that one of the major fears of mining equipment manufacturers is that the significant subsidies enjoyed by German coal producers

    257
    enable German mining manufacturers to develop a home market, which enables them to enhance their penetration of export markets?
    Mr. Eggar: My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) kindly sent MECO's evidence to the review. That evidence will be considered as part of the review. I have met the managing director of MECO on at least two occasions. Indeed, he accompanied me on a visit to the United States to see his and Gullick's equipment in operation in United States mines.
    Mr. Robin Cook: I have visited three of the coalfields that are at risk. The more I visit pits that have spent millions of pounds in orders to the British mining engineering industry and, as a result, can cut coal at a profit and at a competitive price, the more I marvel at the decision to close them.
    What would the Minister say to the men at Markham, who, as a result of that equipment and their efforts, have doubled productivity in eight years? Why should that dramatic success be met by closure? Will the Minister invite his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to go with him down some of the pits? Will they see for themselves the orders that the pits provide to British industry? Will the Minister then answer the question for the men whose jobs are at risk?
    Mr. Eggar: I imagine that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) was referring to Markham Main. Of course, Markham Main is one of the pits that are covered by the statutory consultation period. The consultation will be genuine.
    The Markham pit will be covered by the review. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that part of the review is a study by Boyds, which will be published. That study will make an independent assessment of the viability of the Markham pit.

    Steel Production
    Mr. Stevenson:: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the prospects for steel production in 1992 and in 1993; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Sainsbury: United Kingdom steel production totalled 11 million tonnes in the first nine months of 1992, equivalent to 14·7 million tonnes in a full year. The industry expects United Kingdom steel production in 1993 to be at the same level as it was in 1992.
    Mr. Stevenson: Is the Minister aware that his response will be seen as another example of the Government's attitude towards industry, which reeks of complacency? In the light of the recent statement by the chairman of British Steel that up to 50,000 additional jobs could be lost as a result of this Government-inspired recession and of the dumping of cheap steel imports, especially from eastern Europe, into the European market, will the Minister in his capacity as President of the European Council initiate an immediate inquiry into the dumping of cheap steel imported into the European market? In view of the similarities, will he do the same for cheap, dumped coal imports?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I am a little puzzled about how giving the facts about production this year and the forecast
    258
    production for next year could be complacent. We are well aware of the concerns about dumping. We also fully support the Commission's investigation into illegal state aids. We are working urgently with our European Community partners to explore what regime might be appropriate for the imports of steel from central European countries into the whole European Community from 1 Janaury next year.
    Mr. Knapman: Will my right hon. Friend bear it in mind that nationalised, subsidised Italian steel firms have gained the orders for the supply of steel to all the works in the second Severn crossing, in addition to embroiling British Steel, which stands on its own two feet, in a trade war with America? Will my right hon. Friend please intervene, if not before tea, at least before dinner?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I am well aware of the concerns of the industry about the contract to which my hon. Friend refers. My hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic has already written to the British Constructional Steelwork Association on that. My officials yesterday met the director of the association and explained the Government's present action to address those issues.
    Mr. Barry Jones: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman of the £50 million losses announced by British Steel, of its 20 per cent. cut, of the loss of 500 jobs at Shotton steel works and of the closure of Brymbo steel works with the loss of 1,100 jobs? What precisely will the Minister do to prevent the dumping of east European steel in Britain and in western Europe? May I remind the Minister of the vital part steel plays in Wales? We have given our blood. We cannot lose any more jobs. We look to the Minister and to the Government to help our steel industry.
    Mr. Sainsbury: I hope that hon. Members of all parties are aware of the achievements of the industry and of the dramatic improvements in efficiency which have made it, by all accounts, one of the world's most efficient steel industries. It would be nice to hear Opposition Members pay tribute to the achievement of the industry in increasing its exports again this year and for the first time achieving an export of more than 50 per cent. of its production.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Will my right hon. Friend gently remind Opposition Members that when they were running British Steel with their hands-on industrial strategy, British Steel was the world's largest loss maker and our balance in steel products was £1 billion a year in the red? Now, our balance of trade in steel products is £1 billion a year in surplus and British Steel is the most productive and efficient steel producer in western Europe.
    Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend has made his point effectively. I can add that in 1979, it took more than 13 man hours to produce a tonne of liquid steel. That is now being achieved by British Steel in fewer than five man hours.
    Mr. Hardy: Will the Minister look without delay into the trading position of the engineering steels industry, a large part of which is in my constituency, not least to ensure that we maintain our export record, especially in North America? Urgent consideration needs to be given to the matter.
    Mr. Sainsbury: I share the hon. Gentleman's disappointment about the action taken on steel imports by the American authorities. Countervailing duties have been imposed, but, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the duties on British steel are somewhat less than those on most of the competitors.
    I would say to the hon. Member that, as a highly efficient private sector company, British Steel expects to take its own commercial decisions, and the last thing it wants is to have the Government telling it how to run its business.

    Manufacturing
    Mr. Mudie: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to meet representatives of the Confederation of British Industry to discuss future prospects for the manufacturing sector; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Heseltine: Ministers and officials from my Department are in frequent contact with the Confederation of British Industry on a range of issues. I addressed the CBI national conference on 10 November.
    Mr. Mudie: Given that in the 1980s, 1,752,000 jobs were lost in the manufacturing sector and in the 1990s, 668,000 jobs have already disappeared in manufacturing, will the President confirm that he is aware of the CBI projection, backed up by other sources, that those job losses will continue at least until 1994? Will he agree that unless those losses are stopped and reversed, there will be no possibility of a sustained economic recovery?
    Mr. Heseltine: I agree that the CBI welcomed the Government's autumn statement, which was made with just the same intentions in mind that the hon. Member has referred to. The CBI welcomed the fact that we got rid of the car tax; that we increased capital allowances and reduced interest rates to the lowest level for 15 years, saving something like £10 billion a year from the costs of industry; that we preserved the capital programmes; and that we increased Export Credits Guarantee Department cover by £700 million. Those actions were a very considerable, determined step by the Government to help the policies the CBI wanted.
    Mrs. Chaplin: Does my right hon. Friend share my irritation at the constant denigration of manufacturing industry in this country by Labour Members who ignore the fact that £90 billion of exports from manufacturing industry will go out this year? Will he agree with me that the lower pound means not only that the industry can increase exports, but that it can recapture home markets?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend puts the case extremely well. The fact is that there is now considerable opportunity in export markets for British manufactures. Exports already are at an all-time high and they are set to increase further as a result of the opportunity. I also agree with my hon. Friend that Labour Members seek every opportunity to run down success, not only in manufacturing industry but anywhere they can find it.
    Mr. Orme: Will the Secretary of State have a look at the Engineering Employers Federation's devastating critique of the Government's policy and the failure of the
    260
    Government to provide for manufacturing industry? Has he discussed it with the federation? Has he discussed it with the CBI? Does he not think that it is about time he did?
    Mr. Heseltine: I spent some time last night reading the Engineering Employers Federation publication and I was delighted to see upon how many of their suggestions the Government have already acted.
    Mr. Riddick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the chattering classes, both in the media and the universities and sometimes on the Opposition Benches, talk about the importance of manufacturing industry, but one thing, for sure, that they do not want is for their children to go to work in manufacturing industry? Indeed it is fair to point out that very few Opposition Members have ever worked in manufacturing industry themselves, as I did.
    Can my right hon. Friend tell me what steps the Government have taken to bring home to schoolchildren and students the importance of working in manufacturing and the fact that a good career can be had in manufacturing industry?
    Mr. Heseltine: I agree with my hon. Friend, and the Government have taken significant measures during the 1980s to draw together manufacturing industry and the educational establishments in order to create just the improved atmosphere which he suggests.
    Mr. Robin Cook: Does the President recall telling the "Today" programme in October that he was putting in place the basis of a strategy for industry? While he was reading the Engineering Employers Federation document, did he notice that the federation produced its strategy in six weeks? As it is now seven weeks since the broadcast, eight months since he took the job and nearly 14 years since the Government took office, just when will the right hon. Gentleman produce a strategy for industry?
    Mr. Heseltine: The very successful conclusion of the EEF publication is that we have done so many of the things that it wanted us to do. We have done them because we had considered, perhaps even before the federation began to draft its report, the needs of manufacturing industry. I was delighted to see the warm reception that the autumn statement received from the CBI.

    Assisted Areas
    Mr. Willetts: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will now announce the conclusions of his review of the assisted areas map.
    Mr. Sainsbury: The Government's intention is to announce the results of the review of assisted areas as early as possible next year, taking account of the outcome of the coal review and after the necessary clearance of the European Commission.
    Mr. Willetts: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he confirm that the shrinkage of the defence industry is a factor which will be taken into account in his review? In that context, may I draw his attention to the compelling case for assisted area status put forward by Havant and Portsmouth councils?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I am happy to assure my hon. Friend that any closures or job losses resulting from "Options for Change" will be fully taken into account, together with all

    261
    other relevant factors, in the review. I am also happy to assure my hon. Friend that the particular presentation to which he referred will be very carefully considered.
    Mr. Barron: In the letter that the Minister sent to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury dated 1 September, he said that the mining communities would be seriously hit by the closure programme and he suggested, as he has just suggested, that assisted area status may help. Looking at those areas now, before the closures, does not the Minister believe that there are good economic grounds for them to have assisted area status now and not to have to wait until more coal mines are closed?
    Mr. Sainsbury: We are looking at all areas and we are taking into account the current unemployment situation and any known changes, including the coal review to which I have referred, which might affect that situation. We want to arrive at a balanced map that properly reflects the priorities across the whole country. I do not think that it would be very sensible in that context to try to anticipate the outcome of the review in respect of any single area.
    Mr. Hawkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that while it would clearly not be wise, as he has just said, to anticipate the findings and the announcement of the redrawn map, one of the great strengths of assisted area status has been that areas that have benefited from it in the past have improved on almost all the criteria applied to the previous map? Will he note that areas such as mine in Blackpool have particularly welcomed the very careful analysis by Baroness Denton, my right hon. Friend's ministerial colleague in another place, of all submissions made by those areas?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I am happy to assure my hon. Friend that the submissions received from his area and all others are being carefully considered by my officials. That is why we want to ensure that they are all taken into account so that we arrive at a fair new map that is right for the whole country and not just a review that takes account of one particular area.
    Mr. Fatchett: Is not it significant that the first demand for assisted area status should come from an hon. Gentleman who represents a southern constituency? Is not that an indication of how the Government, having ripped out the heart of manufacturing industry in the west midlands and the north of England in their first recession, have now done exactly the same to once-prosperous London and the south-east of England? Will the Minister give a guarantee that if he is to create new assisted areas in the once-prosperous parts of the United Kingdom, he will not do that at the expense of the north of England, the west midlands, Scotland and Wales, because those areas still need regional assistance?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is joining the usual catalogue of criticism of British industry that we hear from the Opposition Benches. I am also sorry that he feels that some parts of the country should be prejudiced in favour of other parts. The objective of the review is to determine which areas fall within the approximately one third that most justify the additional assistance that is available in an assisted area. If that reveals areas in the south, which may have suffered from changes in employment as a result of the defence review and "Options for Change", it is surprising that the hon.
    262
    Gentleman should believe that those issues should not be taken into account and that they should be prejudiced at the expense of some others.

    US Tariff Act
    Mr. Faber: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has made to the United States Government concerning section 337 of the US Tariff Act.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Neil Hamilton): Strong representations against this discriminatory legislation have been made to the United States Government on a number of occasions by the British Government and by the European Commission.
    Mr. Faber: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reply and for the news that the European Commission is also now involved. He will be aware of the company in my constituency, Bath Scientific Limited, of Melksham, which has traded successfully in the United States for the past six years and which now finds itself unexpectedly subject to extremely expensive litigation, because of this legislation, brought against it by a competitor. Will my hon. Friend continue to press the American Government on this issue and do what he can for my constituents?
    Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber) has made strenuous representations on behalf of Bath Scientific, based at Melksham in his constituency. I can confirm that the British Government will continue to make the strongest representations to the United States Government to ensure that section 337 of the US Tariff Act is repealed. The United States Government have said that they will act as soon as the Uruguay round is completed. That is yet another reason for ensuring that the current GATT negotiations are completed successfully and as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Rooney: Does the Minister accept that the United States, while in one arena preaching free trade, is in many ways the most protectionist economy in the world? Will he particularly note the 36 per cent. tariff on British textile goods that still destroys jobs in this country and take that into account when we reach the last stages of the Uruguay round?
    Mr. Hamilton: It is a bit rich of Opposition Members, who are great supporters of import controls and protectionism, to attempt to castigate the United States for its protectionist policy. The hon. Member knows that our Government, of all Governments in the European Community, have been the strongest supporter of GATT, and we will make every possible opportunity available to advocate the cause of British industry and free trade.
    Mr. Butcher: Does my hon. Friend recall that something like half of the total foreign earnings of the top 20 British manufacturers come from the North American market? At a time when some elements in Europe are becoming protectionist or anti-American, would it not be wise to consider new initiatives building on our right hon. Friend's undoubted success in GATT to reduce tariffs between the North American free trade area and the European Community, which would have immense benefit

    263
    for the economies of the eastern seaboard of North America and a certain large island off the western coast of Europe?
    Mr. Hamilton: Important as we know the European Community to be, my hon. Friend is right to remind us of the importance of our trade across the Atlantic. I can assure my hon. Friend that, under my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, we have not lost sight of this important element in Britain's foreign earnings.

    Technology Transfer
    Mr. Connarty: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what investment programmes are planned to assist the development of new products arising from technology transfer programmes; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Leigh: The Department has a number of technology transfer and investment programmes directed at encouraging industry to address the development of new products.
    To date there are no plans for further investment programmes.
    Mr. Connarty: That is a very disappointing reply. Is the Minister aware that much of the breakthrough in fibre optics technology was developed in the research laboratories of the United Kingdom? Does he share my concern and that of the Scottish business community that 50 per cent. of those awarded doctorates in fibre optronics in Scottish universities are working in the research laboratory of one United States telecommunications manufacturer? Will he give us an assurance, or any indication, that he has any programme at all to ensure that he will do better in the development of future industries for this country than he is doing at the moment in defence of our traditional industries?
    Mr. Leigh: Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman has implied, the United Kingdom spends about £3 billion a year on civil R and D, which is quite as much per head as
    264
    Japan. My own Department's programme amounts to about £100 million a year which is split between technology transfer—[Interruption.] It is no good the hon. Gentleman pointing his finger at me; he may learn something if he listens. One third goes on technology programmes, one third on pre-competitive research and one third on collaboration programmes. We have a programme which is effective and well targeted, but I am sure that, if the hon. Gentleman does not agree, the paltry two Labour Members who stood just now to announce that they had worked in manufacturing industry—unlike the rest of them—would accept that the best form of R and D is that funded and financed by industry itself.

    Exports
    Mrs. Angela Knight: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to increase support for British exporters; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Needham: Our plans for export promotion were set out in my export promotion strategy speech to the Institute of Export on Wednesday 25 November.
    Mrs. Knight: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Does he agree that some of our European partners have not reduced their aid and subsidies to industry to the same extent as the United Kingdom, despite agreeing to do so? Will my hon. Friend continue to do all that he can to ensure that there is a truly level playing field so that excellent and competitive British companies are not disadvantaged in their trade in Europe?
    Mr. Needham: Of course. The fact that we have reduced the value of the pound by 12 per cent., the fact that we are working toward a successful GATT round, and the fact that we are now working with industry in a partnership at local level, national level and overseas level mean that we now have in place just as good an export strategy as any other nation in Europe. It is high time that the Opposition read it.

Public Expenditure (Scotland)
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a statement about public expenditure in Scotland.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the Government's expenditure plans in his autumn statement on 12 November. On the same day, I announced my decisions for aggregate external finance for local authorities. I am publishing today details of the council tax transitional relief scheme which will accompany the introduction of the council tax in Scotland next year. As a result of settling the final details of that scheme, I have been able to increase the level of aggregate external finance available for distribution to local authorities from 3·2 per cent., as previously announced, to 3·5 per cent. I am also able to announce how I propose to allocate the remainder of the resources available for my programmes in Scotland. As usual, a table summarising my decisions will appear in Hansard. Full details will be included in my departmental report, which will be published in February.
My right hon. Friend made it clear that the Cabinet had set a remit for the public spending round which would keep public expenditure under firm control. The resulting overall settlement has, as a consequence, been a tight one. Nevertheless, the net public expenditure resources available to me for allocation in 1993–94 amount to no less than £13·45 billion. That is around £1 billion higher than last year's settlement and the largest ever annual spending total available to my departments, not just in cash but in real terms.
Our commitment to continue to fund growth in the health service in real terms, year by year, is an important one. But this year, with a tight public expenditure settlement, that is a demanding target. However, I am glad to say that, despite the tight limits on total resources and the priority given to economic recovery, I have once again been able this year to make substantial provision for the national health service and to plan for real growth in its funding. In 1993–94 the health programme will amount to more than £3·75 billion of net expenditure, an increase of £151 million over plans for the current year, and a real terms increase of 1·4 per cent. At that level, expenditure on the NHS in Scotland will be 47 per cent. higher in real terms than in 1979·80. That amounts to an all-time record of £744 per head in Scotland.
In deciding the disposition of the reminder of my resources among my various responsibilities, my first priority this year has been to invest in Scotland's economic recovery and longer-term growth. The House is already aware of the additional £340 million economic package for Scotland announced as part of my right hon. Friend's autumn statement. The promotion of economic recovery is also at the heart of the expenditure plans that I am announcing today.
Provision of national roads over the next three years will enable the programme of investment which we published last year to proceed as planned. More than £233 million will be invested in 1993–94, a 2 per cent. increase in real terms over plans for the present year. In addition, there will be new opportunities for the private sector to invest in Scotland's transport infrastructure. Resources available for local authority roads and other transport
266
programmes, including forecast receipts from the European regional development fund, are expected to increase in real terms to £206 million.
The private sector-led local enterprise companies have a central role to play in promoting enterprise development, training and environmental recovery throughout Scotland. The LECs are actively encouraged to seek private investment and their strength is not accordingly to be measured solely by the level of their public funding. This year there has been understandable speculation that, to help fund other programmes, Scottish Enterprise's budget would have to be cut—a cut of 10 per cent. has been quoted in the press. It is true that the training budget, which represents Scotland's share of the funding for programmes in Great Britain, has fallen. It is none the less right in the present economic circumstances that the Government should back the LECs' development efforts with substantial resources. I am happy therefore to announce that the budget for the enterprise and environment functions of the Scottish Enterprise network will increase by £27 million in 1993–94 compared with plans for the present year. This is an increase of almost 11 per cent. in real terms.
In addition, the LECs are attracting an increasing share of the available grants from the European regional development fund which are additional to the expenditure allocations announced today. As a result the total cash resources available to the Scottish Enterprise network are expected to exceed the £455 million planned for the present year. Provision for Highlands and Islands Enterprise will be maintained at £78 million and is expected to rise to over £80 million once forecast ERDF receipts are taken into account.
In seeking to ensure that, within a tight overall settlement, the resources at my disposal should, so far as possible, be directed towards stimulating economic recovery, I have ensured that, across my programmes as a whole, my plans provide for gross capital expenditure totalling over £2·5 billion next year and an aggregate of £7·8 billion over the survey period. Together with European regional development fund grants, this enables a higher level of activity to be undertaken in real terms for 1993–94 than previously planned.
Spending on agriculture and fisheries is vital to the rural economy. Provision will increase in 1993–94 by some £141 million. That is 43 per cent. growth in real terms compared with plans for the present year. These increases reflect the outcome of agreement earlier this year on reform of the common agricultural policy, which switched the emphasis from commodity price support to direct payments to farmers.
Investment in education is the key to longer-term economic strength. The budget of the Scottish Office Education Department will be increased by 80 per cent. to nearly £1·2 billion next year, reflecting not just growth, but also my new responsibilities for the older Scottish universities and my new direct funding responsibilities for further education colleges in Scotland.
Adjusted for these transfers, provision for education will rise by 5 per cent. in real terms next year with further real terms growth thereafter. Scottish participation in higher and further education will be maintained at record levels following the substantial increases of recent years.
I am also able to invest substantially in a better environment. Expenditure on environmental programmes will amount to £485 million. Provision for the water and

267
sewerage programme over the survey period amounts to some £728 million. This represents a doubling in the programe over five years. Local authorities will be able to add to these resources grants obtained from the European regional development fund.
In housing, local authority expenditure on private sector improvement grants will increase by 1·5 per cent. in real terms while expenditure on council housing can be maintained at the level of expenditure per house provided for in this year's provisional allocations. The resources available to Scottish Homes represent an

£ million

1992–93

1992–93

1993–94

1994–95

1995–96

estimated outturn

planned provision

planned provision

planned provision

planned provision

gross

net

gross

net

gross

net

gross

net

gross

net

Central Government's own expenditure (including public corporations other than nationalised industries) and local authority capital expenditure

Agriculture, fisheries and food

337

331

304

300

444

441

490

480

530

520

Industry, energy, trade and employment

626

544

617

535

615

530

630

580

650

600

Roads and transport

431

431

418

418

406

406

420

420

440

440

Housing

1,031

668

1,040

665

1,020

664

1,050

700

1,060

710

Other environmental services

488

387

477

376

485

361

490

360

500

370

Law, order and protective services

432

406

429

403

470

448

480

460

500

480

Education

636

636

628

628

1,167

1,167

1,220

1,220

1,270

1,270

Arts and libraries

49

49

47

47

54

54

60

60

60

60

Health

3,761

3,643

3,725

3,615

3,888

3,766

4,060

3,940

4,200

4,070

Social work services

62

62

62

62

63

63

70

70

70

70

Other public services

222

180

222

180

222

185

240

190

240

190

Total Central Government and local authority capital

8,073

7,337

7,968

7,229

8,834

8,085

9,200

8,470

9,500

8,760

Grants from the European regional development fund

—

0

—

0

—

120

—

120

—

120

Central Government support to local authorities' current expenditure

—

5,203

—

5,198

—

5,207

—

5,420

—

5,590

Nationalised industries financing limits

—

32

—

32

—

35

—

—20

—

—20

Total expenditure within the Secretary of State's responsibility

—

12,571

—

12,458

—

13,446

—

13,990

—

14,450

Forestry Commission

—

99

—

99

—

94

—

100

—

100

TOTAL

—

12,670

—

12,558

—

13,540

—

14,080

—

14,550

Notes
1. 1992–93 and 1993–94 rounded to nearest £1 million. 1994–95 and 1995–96 rounded to nearest £10 million.
2. Figures may not add due to rounding.
3. Central Government support to local authorities comprises revenue support grant, grants to local authorities for specific purposes, and income from non domestic rates.
4. Provision for industry, energy trade and employment includes that for tourism.
5. Provision for agriculture includes £96 million (1993–94), £102 million (1994–95) and £148 million (1995–96) included in the MAFF/IBEA programmes in the autumn statement but which forms part of agricultural spending in Scotland.
6. Comparisons between 1992–93 and 1993–94 are affected by transfers to Education from DFE and grants to local authorities and to grants to local authorities from DSS in respect of higher and further education and care in the community.
7. For 1992–93 expenditure financed by grants from the European regional development fund was included in the relevant programme total.
Mr. Henry McLeish: Is the Secretary of State aware that, four days after his second anniversary in the post, when facing the longest recession since the 1930s, with business and consumer confidence at rock bottom, this statement does not begin to deal with the real issues facing Scotland? It will do nothing to allay fears about unemployment, to help boost the economy, or to improve the quality of public services.
268
increase of £31 million in its investment resources compared with this year's plans—a real terms increase of almost 7 per cent.
The plans which I have announced today provide for the highest ever level of funding for Scottish Office programmes. They permit continuing real improvements in the provision of public services. They provide a framework for jobs and economic growth. I commend them to the House.
Following is the table:
The casual listener today might have been forgiven for thinking that Christmas had come early. When we consider the sleight of hand, manipulation of the figures and the inclusion of enormous transfers from other Departments, a very different picture will be revealed, which will put a different complexion on what has been announced. Any statement on expenditure must be assessed against the fragile condition of the Scottish economy.

269
The Secretary of State claims that there has been a real terms increase of 4 per cent. The Treasury says that, if one excludes transfers, there has been only a 1 per cent. increase in real terms. Will the Secretary of State clear up that confusion and confirm that he set out to use a different set of figures in his press release on 12 November, which was not a presentation shared by the Treasury?
The Secretary of State has virtually said that money is flowing from the Scottish Office into every nook and cranny of Scottish life. In that case, why is there a cut of 5 per cent. in real terms for industry, a cut of 8 per cent. for roads and transport, a cut of 3 per cent. in housing, and a cut of 9 per cent. in other environmental services? The right hon. Gentleman can tell us when he responds why his figures simply do not add up. The tables are more accurate than the Secretary of State's rhetoric.
Secondly, the Secretary of State talked about a £340 million recovery package. Will he confirm that next year all that we will get is £23 million of housing investment by Scottish Homes, and that that is the extent of his £340 million recovery package? If that is so, it does not begin to address the key issues which Labour Members appreciate but which are constantly ignored by the Secretary of State and his complacent friends in the Scottish Office.
Thirdly, will the Secretary of State tell the House why he has surrendered on the Barnett formula? For 13 years we have been led to believe that that is quite important and that it had an impact on the quality of public services and the volume of expenditure. Now the Secretary of State would like us to believe that the Barnett formula did not mean a great deal. He should come clean and tell us what it means in terms of future funding and expenditure.
The real tragedy of the statement, stripped of its hype and hypocrisy, is that it will do nothing for jobs, nothing for unemployment and nothing to tackle homelessness and the rising crime rate throughout Scotland.
When unemployment has risen in the past two years by 23 per cent. to nearly a quarter of a million, why has no emergency employment programme been announced in the statement? Have the Government given up on the unemployed? Are they not concerned about the one in four young Scots between the ages of 16 and 24 who are out of work? Is the Secretary of State not concerned about the one in 10 of our working population who are also out of work? By their actions today, the Government have shown that they have no interest in the unemployed.
The chief executive of Scottish Enterprise is alarmed about what might happen to his budget, but today we have been treated to the simplistic notion that the Secretary of State is increasing the budget. Would the Secretary of State like to come clean and tell us about the training elements of Scottish Enterprise, which he conveniently forgot to mention in his statement and his presentation to the House?
Training is a crucial item of the budget and the statement. One quarter of training places have been lost in the past two years. Nearly 9,000 young Scots are without a youth training guarantee. Surely the Secretary of State should come clean on the extent of the cut because it is vital for young people and adults and for Scotland's economic recovery.
Will the Secretary of State also consider that, in Scotland, 12 people are chasing every vacancy?
270
Bankruptcies have increased by 280 per cent. in the past two years. Faced with all that, why is the industry budget being cut by 5 per cent?
We have had no better definition of insanity in public policy than this afternoon's statement. Problems are mounting by the day and the budget for investment is declining by the day. It simply makes no sense, and the Secretary of State should comment on that.
The Opposition are not convinced that Scottish Enterprise has a healthy future in the hands of the Conservative party. Budget cuts are being imposed, morale is at rock bottom, and we now see the appointment of another representative of that cosy clique of Conservative cronies, Mr. McKay, the chairman of Scottish Enterprise. When will that placement approach to politics in Scotland stop? We need people who will tackle the Scottish Enterprise budget problems properly and who do not have such close affinities with the Conservative party.
Another issue that did not surface in the statement was crime. Why has the crime rate increased from 900,000 in the past two years to more than a million, yet the statement specified no figure to show why—
Madam Speaker: Order. As crime was not specifically mentioned in the statement, I remind the hon. Gentleman that the procedure restricts him to questioning the statement.
Mr. McLeish: The law and order issue is contained in the table that accompanies the statement, so it is germane to the Scottish Office's current expenditure, Madam Speaker.
When a crime is being committed every 30 seconds in Scotland, we should have a response about what the Government intend to do about the rising crime wave. Have they simply given up once again on crime, which stalks our streets and houses in Scotland?
The final point that was not dealt with in the statement was that of homelessness, which is now at record levels with 39,500 households having registered with local authorities as homeless. Why is there no vigorous improvement in investment in house builds? It cannot be right that nearly 100,000 Scots, according to the Government's latest figures for the past year, are now without a home. Why, therefore, has 3 per cent. been cut from the housing budget in today's statement?
Local government expenditure is also crucial because, once again, tucked away in the tables accompanying the statement is a 3 per cent. cut in the cash going to local authorities. Will not that mean that the 1·5 per cent. pay issue will simply disappear and that we shall have a pay freeze? Will it not mean the underfunding of care in the community, and council tax being set at artificially high levels because of the meanness of Government funding? Is it not a potentially lethal cocktail to suggest that vicious capping of local authorities will accompany inadequate funding to ensure that council tax levels remain reasonable at the expense of services and jobs?
The statement is not worthy of the problems in Scotland. The Secretary of State well knows that, when the transfers from other Departments to the Scottish Office are excluded and when we consider the increasing need in housing, crime and the economy, the statement will receive

271
no support from the Opposition. I urge him, even at this stage, to reconsider the unemployed and to give them a priority which, until now, they simply have not had.
Mr. Lang: I know that figures are not the strong point of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish), but he should take a closer look at the figures before making such comments.
I am glad that the Opposition have accepted my proposal that the Scottish. Grand Committee should meet to discuss the statement, because it covers many important issues that deserve debate. I assure the hon. Gentleman that my announcement, with all the real terms increases that I have listed, will lead to improved public services. There is no question of sleight of hand. For that, we look to the hon. Gentleman who, less than a month ago, suggested that the Government's spending on Scottish Enterprise was set to fall from £373 million to £340 million next year. The resources at Scottish Enterprise's disposal next year will be £455 million, which is rather different.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that capital allocations to local authorities would fall from £826 million to £810 million. The figure is likely to be nearer £900 million, so the hon. Gentleman has a bit of homework to do. He also questioned the unadjusted real terms increase—in other words, whether allowance was being made for the transfer of programmes to Scottish Office responsibility. Unadjusted, the programme expenditure increase is 5 per cent. in real terms, plan on plan. However, after taking out provision for higher education and care in the community, the increase is not the 1 per cent. that the hon. Gentleman suggests; it is a 2·7 per cent. plan-on-plan increase.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about Scottish Enterprise and about a cosy clique of cronies. Perhaps he was thinking of Monklands. He mentioned morale in Scottish Enterprise. He should speak to it following my announcement because it has had its enterprise and environment functions budget increased by £27 million, a rise of 11 per cent. in real terms. That returns Scottish Enterprise's total spend, after the reduction in the training budget to which I referred, to broadly the same level as for the current year. That is very different from the hon. Gentleman's figures.
The hon. Gentleman asked about roads and transport and suggested that there were cuts. The roads and transport programme will increase by 5 per cent. in cash terms and by 2 per cent. in real terms. The hon. Gentleman failed to take account of the European regional development fund share which will be allocated to those programmes in the year ahead.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the change in the Barnett formula. The updating of that formula took account of the population changes since it was introduced arising from the 1991 survey, thus bringing it back to the same broad level intended by the then Chief Secretary, Mr. Barnett. The impact on this year's total programme is about £12 million, which is less than one tenth of 1 per cent. of the total. Anyone who contrasts that with the £340 million package that I was able to secure outwith the block will begin to realise that I have secured about 10 times as much by that means.
The hon. Gentleman derided the £340 million package as though it had only one small component involving the Scottish Homes budget, but it comprises £70 million of resources in the current year for schools, hospitals, roads and a range of other areas which we have now spelt out
272
and published. It also includes the writing off of debt inherited from Scottish Homes' predecessors, and that will release about £70 million over the next three years. It also included the reduction of £68 million this year, carrying forward to future years, in Scottish business rates.
That is the emergency employment plan for which the hon. Gentleman called, and that and the more than £2·5 billion of capital spend will help to generate jobs and stimulate the economy.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about the law and order budget. We have not given up the fight against crime. That is why we are increasing the law and order budget by 11·6 per cent.
Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the substitute striker for the Opposition Front-Bench team, the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish), was offside for most of the game? He failed to understand or realise that in order to score goals he must make statements that will stick. Has the hon. Gentleman failed to notice how, since 1979, the Conservative Government have increased spending on the health service over and above the rate of inflation by 47 per cent.? Has he failed to notice that we are now spending much more on the environment, which has been targeted in the way that people want? Has he not noticed that the shift in emphasis on the way that Scottish Homes is to be financed will make a substantial contribution, especially in rural areas, to funding?
All that is against the background of a world recession. My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated, not condemned.
Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is quite right to point to the increase in expenditure on the health service in Scotland of 47 per cent. in real terms since 1979–80. That is dramatic evidence of our long-term commitment to improving the delivery of public services. My hon. Friend might also have said that expenditure on health in Scotland is 24 per cent. higher per head than in England. My hon. Friend is also right to draw attention to the environment budget. He may like to know that the budget for Scottish Natural Heritage is being increased to £36 million, a 5 per cent. real terms increase over the current year. The Scottish Homes budget is also being increased. My hon. Friend will also be pleased to know that there is provision in these figures for expenditure of £4 million on raspberries over the next three years.
Mr. James Wallace: Can the Secretary of State confirm that there is no increase whatever in the Scottish Enterprise budget for this year? What guarantees can he give that the increase announced for the environment and enterprise will not have to be siphoned off to allow the training guarantees to be met? Will he confirm that there is no increase in the budget for Highlands and Islands Enterprise? How can he justify that given the loss of jobs at Ardersier, Nigg and Dounreay?
The Minister implied that there would be a make up from the European regional development fund. Have those figures ever before been included in the statement, or is it just that he needs to put them in to give a gloss to the statement? Is he aware that the loss of the Barnett formula will continue year after year and the one-off that he managed to secure this year as part of an overall United Kingdom package will not make up for that?
Mr. Lang: I am happy to reassure the hon. Gentleman. The Scottish Enterprise budget has been increased on enterprise and environment functions by 11 per cent. in real terms, which makes up for the reduction in the Scottish Enterprise share of the Great Britain training budget. As to the budget of Highlands and Islands Enterprise, that will be over £80 million next year, higher than it is this year, and it may be as high as £83 million or £84 million, depending upon how much ERDF resources it receives.
The hon. Gentleman said that ERDF resources had not been included in the past. On the contrary, they have always been included. This year, we have responded to Commissioner Millan's request that they should be seen transparently and separately. Therefore, they are published separately in the tables. That is why they are shown in that way.
Mr. Phil Gallie: I share with my right hon. Friend the despair that he must feel at times at the Opposition's constant gloom during statements. Once again, he has confounded—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."]—he has confounded all of their expectations by increasing—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."]
Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members are asking that questions be asked. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will ask a direct question, and I also hope that hon. Members in all parts of the House will be ready with their questions, not comments. I call Mr. Gallie to ask a question.
Mr. Gallie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is great joy in Scotland at the continued drive towards the uniform business rate and the good use to which the £340 million mentioned in the Chancellor's statement is to be put? Will he join me in reminding Opposition Members that it was a Conservative Government who introduced the idea of the enterprise trusts in Scotland? Does he agree that there is a continuing commitment from him and his fellow Cabinet Ministers towards enterprise trusts?
Mr. Lang: I am happy to assure my hon. Friend of our continuing support for the good work done by enterprise trusts, working well with local enterprise companies. I am also grateful for his welcome for the business rates reduction of £68 million that I was able to announce for next year. That will bring to £348 million the resources put into bringing down business rates from the high levels set mainly by Labour-controlled local authorities to levels comparable to those in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Jimmy Wray: The figures used by the Secretary of State are misleading. If he were to tell the House the truth, he would have to calculate the figures going back to the level of 1978–79 prices. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities states quite clearly—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman heard me say a moment ago that I am not open to debate and comments. I am interested only in direct questions.
Mr. Wray: Is it not the case that, since 1978–79, there has been a cut in revenue support grant of £47 million, totalling over the years £600 million, with a total cost cumulatively, accordingly to the gross domestic product deflator, of £1·8 billion overall?
Mr. Lang: Next year, the support that I shall give to local authorities through the aggregate external finance
274
will be £5·2 billion. That is a higher figure than ever before. It represents an increase of 3·5 per cent. over the current year.
Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement. I assure him that, unlike Labour Members who came here ready to carp and criticise before they had even heard what he had to say, the people of Aberdeen will not be so dogmatic or blinkered, and will welcome the statement. Will he confirm, preferably in words of one syllable, that the statement sets out the largest amount of public spending ever announced in the House by any Scottish Secretary of State, not just in real terms or cash terms but in any terms?
Mr. Lang: I am happy to assure my hon. Friend that this is a record statement in every way. Coming as he does from Aberdeen, which has two universities, my hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that we have increased education provision by 5 per cent. in real terms, and our assumption for higher education numbers will increase from 100,000 this year to 107,000 next year.
Dr. Jeremy Bray: What consideration has the Secretary of State given to training programme cuts and their effects on Lanarkshire in particular? During the coming financial year, the training support for Lanarkshire steel workers received from European Community funds will expire. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the contribution to overheads will therefore bear heavily on the training provided for young people and for workers who have lost their jobs, who have never had the benefit of European Community funds?
Mr. Lang: I certainly recognise Lanarkshire's problems, which is why we have given special attention and resources to its interests, and why Scottish Enterprise and the Lanarkshire development agency have been specially funded. It is also why we have devoted resources to training in that area. We shall be able to continue to do so as a result of the increased funding that I have been able to generate for Scottish Enterprise, to top up the training budget that it receives as a result of the Great Britain training negotiations.
Dr. Bray: How much?
Madam Speaker: Mr. Kynoch.
Mr. George Kynoch: There are many things in my right hon. Friend's statement—
Dr. Bray rose—
Madam Speaker: Order.
Dr. Bray: I believe that the Secretary of State's last words were lost.
Madam Speaker: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will repeat them for the sake of the Official Report.
Mr. Lang: As an afterthought, to answer the hon. Gentleman's sedentary question, I said that the apportionment for local enterprise companies will be decided later.
Mr. Kynoch: There are many things in my right hon. Friend's statement to welcome, despite the comments of

275
Labour Members, who clearly wrote their speeches before they heard it. There are real increases across the board, although the Opposition and the media predicted cuts. I particularly draw attention to the £31 million extra for Scottish Homes, which is a 7 per cent. real increase. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that an adequate proportion of that money will be devoted to rural, developing areas of population, such as my own constituency of Kincardine and Deeside?
Mr. Lang: I am glad to assure my hon. Friend that Scottish Homes pays great attention to the housing needs of rural areas, and I feel sure that its resources will be directed at that, as at its other priorities. Scottish Homes will also devote some £7 million of its budget to the interests of care in the community—another subject to which I know my hon. Friend pays much attention.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: At a time when 100,000 Scots are homeless, how can the Government justify their persistent refusal to give local authorities the resources to build sufficient houses and at the same time propose to spend up to £60 million of taxpayers' money on Windsor castle? Does the Secretary of State agree with me that it would be absolutely unjustifiable for the Government to cut legal aid to those on low incomes when the Chancellor of the Exchequer—who lives in a rent-free house and has a salary of more than £63,000 a year—is receiving legal aid from the taxpayer?
Mr. Lang: As to housing, my hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) mentioned the 7 per cent. real increase for the budget of Scottish Homes. In addition, we announced £20 million as part of the package for 1992–93, from which £7·5 million will go to housing. Housing resources are, therefore, being effectively focused. Far from cutting the legal aid budget, we anticipate a 40 per cent. rise over the period of the survey.
Mr. David Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that ordinary Scottish people will benefit from the increased public expenditure in Scotland? In the Monklands district council area, much of the additional money seems to be going into the pockets of councillors and their families. Is my right hon. Friend aware that Monklands district council has approved legal fees to be paid—
Madam Speaker: Order. I am perfectly willing to hear a question on the statement from the hon. Gentleman, but only on that subject.
Mr. Shaw: I apologise, Madam Speaker, but I do not think that I was straying from the statement because—if I may finish the point—the decision was taken to spend money that my right hon. Friend has just announced is supposed to go to the Scottish people on legal fees to support a private action by Monklands district councillors. That would be an abuse of the money that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—
Madam Speaker: Order. I call the Secretary of State.
Mr. Lang: I am sure that the appropriate authorities will be able to investigate any misappropriation or wrongful use of resources by local authorities. However, I am pleased that local authority funding is increasing in the
276
way that it is and that, for example, the local authority capital spend on school buildings is going up from £74 million to £82 million.
Mr. William McKelvey: Several schools in Kilmarnock are crumbling because money is needed to repair them. How much of this money does the Secretary of State think will be directed towards that source? In general, how does he think that the life of the people in Kilmarnock will be improved by his announcement?
Mr. Lang: The allocation between authorities will be made in due course and the hon. Gentleman's anxieties will be set at rest. As to the improvement in the life of the people of Kilmarnock, I am sure that they will be pleased to hear that the advance works on the A77 should be able to start in 1993–94.
Mr. Brian Donohoe: Can the Secretary of State be more specific about the training budget? He referred to statements in the Scottish press about a 10 per cent. reduction, but, when asked, he avoided answering our question regarding the training budget for 1992–93.
Mr. Lang: The allocation of resources is a matter for Scottish Enterprise and the local enterprise companies. They can decide whether to reallocate resources or to apply operating surpluses to training, in addition to the existing budget. The youth training guarantee will be met. By levering in more private sector training resources—which is already happening, according to the survey carried out recently by the Confederation of British Industry—I would expect the funds committed to training in Scotland to continue to rise.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Has the Secretary of State really considered the problems of housing in Scotland? Has he considered how many local authority houses will be modernised and brought up to standard and how many new-build houses will be available as a result of this statement? What is the basis for university funding? Is it based on the Scottish population, or on the number of students that Scottish universities put through in a year?
Mr. Lang: The funding for university students is based on the number of students already in higher education and those anticipated to be in higher education. That number is anticipated to rise from about 100,000 this year to about 107,000 next year. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the specific housing figures that he requests, but the housing programme's gross capital expenditure will rise by £25 million more than was forecast.
Mr. Peter Atkinson: May I just—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order.
Hon. Members: The hon. Gentleman was not here for the statement.
Madam Speaker: Order. I have seen the hon. Gentleman rising to his feet for some time.
Mr. Atkinson: Thank you, Madam Speaker. [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. Do I understand that the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber for the statement?
Mr. Atkinson: Yes, Madam Speaker, I was.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on another bright spot in the statement—the settlement amounting to £440 million for Scotland's farmers, which is 44 per cent. up on the previous settlement. That will be warmly welcomed by Scottish farmers. May I use this opportunity to draw attention to the bargains that can be obtained in my constituency's livestock marts, just across the border, and hope that Scottish farmers will make full use of them?
Mr. Lang: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for the close interest that he takes in Scottish matters as a result of his membership of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. He will be glad to know that funding for the suckler cow premium is expected to rise from £26 million to £37 million in Scotland.
Mr. Michael J. Martin: The Secretary of State will know that many visitors to Glasgow are impressed by the rehabilitation of the older tenements as a result of the sandblasting and re-roofing that was done with Government and local authority grants. Can he tell me whether the statement means that more money will be available for that type of work? Many young couples and elderly people in the older tenements suffer from rain penetration and dampness in those tenements. They want to remain in them, but they will need assistance if they are to remain in those parts of Glasgow where they have lived for many years.
Mr. Lang: Expenditure on private sector improvement grants will rise by 1·5 per cent. in real terms over 1992–93 plans. Provision for housing expenditure assumes that £63 million will be spent on special needs.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: If training represents hope for the present and growth for the future, why are not the Government, who are giving £1·75 billion in a straight subsidy to London Transport, adequately funding training in Scotland? Does the Secretary of State understand that this package is woefully inadequate, given the reality of unemployment and the infrastructure needs of Scotland? It will neither get Scots off the dole queues nor build up the nation's infrastructure. The right hon. Gentleman has simply let Scotland down once again.
Mr. Lang: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should reflect on the fact that our expenditure on training is two and a half times as high in real terms as that of the previous Labour Government, whom his party supported in office. Perhaps he will also reflect on the fact that a comparison of the programmes covered by the Scottish Office block with those in England shows that expenditure in Scotland is 30 per cent. higher per head.
Mr. John McAllion: Last year, the Secretary of State announced an increase in the specific grants to local authorities for police to £243 million, which allowed for an additional 200 police and civilian staff. What is the increase this year, and how many additional police and civilian staff will it allow for in the face of the crime wave that is sweeping the country—which seems to have escaped his notice?
Mr. Lang: We have increased law and order provision by 11·6 per cent., which will provide for police, prisons,
278
legal aid and other aspects. The details of the specific grants have yet to be decided, but I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we have approved an increase in police manpower in the current year and that we shall not give up on crime.
Mr. Norman Hogg: As the Secretary of State has collective responsibility for economic policy with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will he say how he will tackle the horrendous problems of unemployment in Scotland, particularly among young people in the new towns? What changes does today's statement make to the funding of the five Scottish new towns, with particular reference to inward investment and the mechanisms that the Government use for that purpose?
Mr. Lang: The resources for Locate in Scotland, which encourages inward investment and is run jointly by the Scottish Office Industry Department and Scottish Enterprise, will be decided by Scottish Enterprise from the extra resources—up by £27 million, a real increase of 11 per cent.—that we have given for its enterprise and environment budgets. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that we have budgeted for a real terms increase of 10 per cent. in expenditure on the infrastructure of new towns.
Mr. John Maxton: Does the Secretary of State believe that the money that he intends to spend on housing will do anything to help to solve the problems of employment in the construction industry or of dampness in housing throughout Scotland and of homelessness? If he does, will he ensure that a fair proportion of the money goes to Glasgow district council so that it can improve housing in south-west Castlemilk and lift the threat of demolition from tenants in the Hangingshaw area of my constituency?
Mr. Lang: Yes, I believe that, and I shall bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's representations.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: When funds are apportioned to the local enterprise companies, will the Secretary of State ensure that sufficient funds are given to Renfrewshire Enterprise so that its officials can deal with the massive problems generated by continuing high unemployment in Inverclyde, particularly in Greenock and Port Glasgow? Many of those unemployed people are highly skilled adults and youngsters; they have been denied employment. They deserve a better chance in life from a so-called United Kingdom Government.
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman will know of the attention that we have given his constituency and its problems, not least in establishing an enterprise zone in the area. The budget of the local enterprise company is a matter for Scottish Enterprise, and I am sure that it will note his representations.
Mr. Ian Davidson: What hope is there in the Secretary of State's announcement for the people in my constituency who are experiencing difficulties? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me what hope was offered in his statement to young people without work, to people in damp, badly repaired houses, and especially to the elderly, who live in constant fear of crime?

279
Does not he agree that his statement contained far too little to meet the real difficulties faced by people in my area?
Mr. Lang: The hope that those people can derive from my statement comes from the fact that we have made resources available for housing, for the Scottish Enterprise initiative, for education, health and roads, for the environment and for a whole range of other things. As a result of my statement, spending in Scotland will be about £1 billion higher in 1993 than it was in 1992.
Mr. Adam Ingram: Will the Secretary of State tell the House what sum has been allocated for the new towns' transfer of housing stock, with reference to the capital consents that will have to be applied to the transfer to local authorities?
Mr. Lang: That matter has not yet been decided.
Mr. Thomas Graham: Not long ago the Secretary of State said at the Dispatch Box that we needed £5 billion to improve water and sewerage systems in Scotland. Yet today's announcement makes it look as though we shall continue to need £5 billion to fix the environment in our country. Why has the right hon. Gentleman not fought to ensure that the people of Scotland have proper water to drink which complies with EC standards? Why has he not introduced measures to improve our sewerage systems?
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman cannot have listened to my statement. I said that we were finding £728 million for water and sewerage over the survey period, including an increase of £16 million for the year ahead compared with the current year.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: As the Secretary of State has announced some increase for Scottish Homes but the planned outturn for housing this year is 11 per cent. above the projected provision for next year, by how much is the right hon. Gentleman cutting local authority spending on housing?
Mr. Lang: As I said in my statement, local authority expenditure on housing is being maintained on a per house basis. The hon. Gentleman is wrong to compare outturn with plan. The proper comparison is plan with plan.
Mr. Eric Clarke: Does the Secretary of State realise that he is being accused of, and is guilty of, the sin of omission? He has omitted from the statement many things that we would have liked to hear, one of which was community care. How much money is being allocated to community care—or is it now called care in the community, or hidden within some other nondescript phrase?
Mr. Lang: It was announced some time ago that the care in the community budget will be £41 million, £5 million more than was being spent in Scotland by other departments, plus a top-up of £20 million from the Scottish Office block, making £61 million. In 1994–95 we are planning for £106 million, and in 1995–96 for £158 million.
Mr. Michael Connarty: Does the Secretary of State really believe that he will get away with the sleight of hand on the housing budget? We have the absurd situation of the Secretary of State giving money to
280
local authorities theoretically to deal with homelessness, which means that between now and next March they will be scrabbling around for short-term solutions and buying short-term properties, while the statement announces a cut in real terms in the housing budget. Will the right hon. Gentleman admit to the people of Scotland that he has no long-term way of dealing with homelessness, because he will not give the local authorities the finance that they require to deal with homelessness by providing more homes?
Mr. Lang: I have already told the House that the homelessness budget was increased by £7·5 million within the current year, on top of existing resources. As I have also said, the Scottish Homes budget will increase by an extra £31 million next year, a 7 per cent. increase over and above the rise in the cost of living.
Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: Given that the outturn figure for health expenditure this year is £3·64 billion and that the figure announced for next year is £3·75 billion, is it not true to say that the increase in cash terms is barely 3 per cent.? Surely the Secretary of State realises that that is an inadequate figure which does not even cover general inflation, and totally ignores the facts that medical inflation runs at 2 per cent. higher than general inflation, and that 1 per cent. extra is needed just to cover developments in medical technology and the needs of an increasing elderly population.
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman should have heard the figures that I gave earlier. We are increasing health expenditure, plan on plan on the direct comparison, by 1·4 per cent. We do not know what the final outturn will be in the current year, which we are only halfway through, but on present estimates there will still be an increase in real terms, over and above the rise in inflation, of 0·6 per cent.
Dr. John Reid: May I impress on the Secretary of State the desperate need for continued investment in Lanarkshire, especially in the Motherwell district? Although I and others welcome the increase in capital allocations for 1991–92, does the Secretary of State recall that those allocations were made before the closure of Ravenscraig? Will he examine with sympathy the case that has been presented for the five-year development plan by Motherwell district council? In that context, can he make a statement about progress on the upgrading of the A8 to motorway status? He will recall that, for very good reasons, the upgrading was postponed earlier this year. He promised that he would make a statement before Christmas.
Mr. Lang: We hope that the A8 may feature in the roads programme. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased by the upgrading of the A74, which should be close to being two thirds completed by the end of the next financial year. That will be of major importance to not just Lanarkshire but the whole of Scotland.
Mr. George Foulkes: Will the Secretary of State and his sycophantic acolytes come away from the Westminster world into the real world? If he does, he will see that the Ayr sewerage scheme is delayed because of his cuts, that the bypasses in my constituency are further delayed because of his cuts, and that Scottish Homes cannot put money into Dailly and Drongan because of his cuts. Does he realise that,

281
unless he gives an assurance that all those projects will go ahead in the coming year, his pretence to act as Santa Claus will wear thin?
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman could not have been listening to a word I said. Over the next three years we will spend £728 million on water and sewerage. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to all the other increases in real terms that I announced across the range of programmes, he would have recognised that the extra £1 billion expenditure in Scotland for 1993–94 offers a real opportunity for progress.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Does the Secretary of State recognise the despair that the statement will cause in hospital wards throughout Scotland? In those wards nurses are so stretched that they are unable to take tea breaks, recovery is inadequate and patient health is at risk. Why will the Secretary of State not act on those matters?
Mr. Lang: The action that I will take is to say to the hon. Gentleman that this Government, with their 47 per cent. real-terms increase in health expenditure, have recruited hundreds more doctors and thousands more nurses than were employed by the Labour Government. The contrast between our achievements and the Labour Government's record of cutting nurses' wages and capital expenditure on the health service is dramatic.
Mr. Sam Galbraith: The Secretary of State said that £728 million will be available for sewerage over the next three years. How much of that money will be given to the Kelvin drainage scheme? Unless that scheme in my constituency is started immediately, we will not be able to fulfil the EC regulations.
Mr. Lang: I note the hon. Gentleman's representation. The matter will be borne in mind when it comes to apportioning resources.
Mr. Jimmy Hood: Does the Secretary of State accept that not one penny extra in real terms will be spent on housing, employment and health care? Unemployment will still incease in Clydesdale; the homeless will receive a poorer service from local agencies; and hospital lists will continue to grow. Is that not the effect of the statement? Frankly, it is a disgrace.
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on all three fronts. The budget for the enterprise and environment functions of Scottish Enterprise will increase by 11 per cent. in real terms; the budget for Scottish Homes will increase by 7 per cent. in real terms; and the overall health budget of £3·75 billion will increase by 1·4 per cent. in real terms.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: In the context of the budget for roads and transport, when will the Secretary of State be able to advise regional authorities of their allocation? That is especially important to those of us in the north-east and in the highlands of Scotland where communications are vital, especially against the background of the single market. Will there, for example, be additional funding to ensure the Fochabers bypass on the A96? Will the west highland railway line continue? Will the
282
Secretary of State go out fighting to ensure that Objective 1 is secured for the highlands and islands as that would have major implications for the infrastructure?
Mr. Lang: I am glad to be able to assure the hon. Lady that we are proud of our record of increasing trunk roads expenditure by 75 per cent. over the past five years, which is a 35 per cent. real terms increase. I hope that the A96 will be able to feature in our substantial roads programme over the next few years. I am glad to be able to assure the hon. Lady that the ferry schemes for the highlands and islands should be able to be maintained at the planned level of expenditure.
Mr. Barry Porter rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I did not see the hon. Gentleman in the Chamber during the statement. Do I understand that he was in the Chamber?
Mr. Porter: I was, Madam Speaker. I do not think that you were looking. I was here throughout the statement.
Madam Speaker: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says as he is an honourable gentleman.
Mr. Porter: I am very much obliged to you, Madam Speaker. I came here under the naive impression that I was a Member of the United Kingdom Parliament—
Madam Speaker: Order. All hon. Members have a right to ask questions. I insist that, before they do so, they should have been in the Chamber and have had the courtesy to hear the statement. That applies in all cases.
Mr. Porter: I would not disagree with that statement, as you know, Madam Speaker.
Does the Secretary of State agree that, whatever he offers by way of public expenditure in Scotland, it is never enough and will never be enough for the Opposition? Does he also agree that the north-west of England deserves something similar? The north-west has twice the population of Scotland—and, on the evidence available, twice the intelligence.
Mr. Lang: I suspect that my hon. Friend is right in pointing out that, whatever we announced, it would not be enough for Opposition Members. This is a substantial increase in resources. We have directed it towards programmes that will bring maximum benefit to Scotland's economic prosperity.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: In all the agonies with the Public Expenditure Survey Committee round and the tight financial position that he faces, has it ever occurred to the Secretary of State that he could make a considerable saving? What is to be the cost of all the proposed local government reform? Would not it be better to say to Eastwood district council, which is the tail that is wagging this dog, "Forget it."? The rest of us cannot face the added financial burden and all the problems that my hon. Friends have described of yet another change in local government reform. It is all about the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart). He should be told that he is wrong.
Mr. Lang: Far from adding to the cost of local government, the evidence suggests that the reform of local government to a single-tier structure will generate substantial savings which could be as high as £200 million a year. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will

283
be pleased to know that we have managed to increase the arts budget next year, in spite of the costs that we bear in various areas, which will enable the new museum of Scotland to go ahead. We have also been able to authorise the extension to the herbarium and library at the Royal Botanic gardens.
Mr. McLeish: The discussion has been interesting and has shown a number of things. Will the Secretary of State now concede that there will be massive cuts in the training budget of Scottish Enterprise? Will he acknowledge that his statement means cuts in the road programme, cuts in industry, cuts in housing and cuts in other environmental services? Will he accept that, despite his trying to create today an illusion of progress, he has failed? Will he now accept that there is a real programme of work to be addressed which simply is not included in the statement?
Mr. Lang: I said that figures were not the hon. Member's strong point. They are palpably his weak point. The roads programme, far from being cut, has been increased by 2 per cent. in real terms. The industry budget is broadly where it was with the enterprise and environment components increased by 11 per cent. in real terms. The Scottish Homes budget is being increased by 7 per cent. in real terms. On the question of other environmental services, he might like to know that Scottish Natural Heritage and Historic Scotland budgets are both being increased by 5 per cent. in real terms.
This is a programme which is carefully targeted to generate the maximum advantage and improvement of public services in Scotland and the delivery of economic growth and the creation of new jobs in Scotland. I am confident that it will deliver its objectives.

Cammell Laird
4.31 pm
Mr. Frank Field: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the proposed closure of Cammell Laird.
It is specific because only hours ago men and women who work there were told that their ranks would be attacked by wave upon wave of unemployment until July next year when the yard will close.
It is urgent because Cammell Laird is the foothold to the future, not just for my constituents in Birkenhead, not just for those who live in Merseyside, but in the north-west region generally. Without that centre of skill that foothold to the future will be denied to us.
It is important to remind the House that already in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms. Eagle) some areas already have an unemployment rate of 40 per cent. If this proposed closure goes through those rates will be compounded and it is an important matter because Cammell Laird is to British industry what a barium meal is to X-ray. It can highlight those aspects of national life which are life-threatening.
Today we are not only fighting for our jobs, but we fight to prevent another hammer blow against British industry. I seek the Adjournment of the House so that I and the friends of Cammell Laird in the House may begin the debate today and make a plea that the assets of this shipyard, which were bought from us taxpayers for a single pound, be returned and, secondly, that some of the very substantial profits that Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd has made in the past five years should be given as an endowment fund for a new company at Lairds.
We want in that debate to set out how we wish to attract the entrepreneurial skills so that there is a future rather than an end for Cammell Laird. We should like the opportunity in that debate to invite the Government to say how they would support us in that endeavour.
I do not need to remind you, Madam Speaker, representing the constituency that you do, what it is like for workers to be part of an industry and a firm that is dying around them. Today Cammell Laird has been told that it should quietly die in July. We have no intention of accepting that option. We seek your leave to move the Adjournment so that we can debate what that future will be. We believe it is right that that debate should take place and our plan for action given.
Madam Speaker: I have listened most carefully to what the hon. Member said and of course I have to give my decision without stating any reasons. I am afraid that I do not think that the matter he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order 20 and I cannot therefore submit his application to the House.

Points of Order
4.34 pm
Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, as a new and inexperienced Member I seek your guidance and a ruling. Is it not a contempt of this House for the leader of one of Scotland's principal parties, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), to absent himself from one of Scotland's biggest statements of the year—the Secretary of State's annual expenditure statement?
Madam Speaker: Frankly, I did not hear what the hon. Gentleman said. [Interruption.] Order. I think he was being facetious and wasting the time of the House.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, while I appreciate the decision you have just given to my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) in respect of Cammell Laird, would it be possible to use your good offices to ask the President of the Board of Trade, who once posed as a friend of Merseyside, to come to the House at 7 o'clock this evening to make a statement and answer questions which are vital for our constituents on Merseyside and elsewhere?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the Speaker has no authority to request or influence in requesting a Minister to come to the Dispatch Box. The situation is the other way round: a Minister informs the Speaker when a statement is to be made.
Mr. Barry Porter: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I risk mildly irritating you for a second time today. Further to the Standing Order No. 20 application made by my hon. Friend—and I use that term advisedly—the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) in relation to Cammell Laird, I accept your decision and I realise that you do not have to give a reason for that decision. However, might I ask as strongly as I can that, perhaps when you are taking a cup of tea, you might reconsider that decision in the light of the plea made eloquently, sensibly and with plenty of evidence by my hon. Friend?
Madam Speaker: I tell the hon. Gentleman and the House that I am not easily irritated. If I have a chance to have a cup of tea today, I will, as ever, take the Standing Order No. 20 application very seriously. I realise the seriousness of the situation.
Mr. Bryan Davies: Madam Speaker, my point of order is genuine and helpful to the Chair. You will recall the somewhat protracted exchanges that took place last week in respect of the proper use of Government and private money in the Chancellor's case to evict his tenant. Those protracted exchanges would have been brought to a much speedier conclusion which would have been helpful to our business if it had become clear early on that the Comptroller and Auditor General intended to examine the matter.
Has a Minister indicated to you that the Comptroller and Auditor General will also consider the use of important Government buildings for private purposes? In that regard, I refer to the use this morning of No. 11 Downing street for fund raising activities for the
286
Conservative party. Once again, that seemed to cross the line between public and private use. I have no doubt that exchanges on the matter in the House would be curtailed if we could be assured that the Comptroller and Auditor General will look into that matter to ensure that public moneys have been properly expended.
Madam Speaker: The use of official Government accommodation is a matter for hon. Members, who should pursue the matter with Ministers. It does not raise points of order for the Chair.
Ms. Angela Eagle: Further to the application under Standing Order No. 20 by my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), while I appreciate and respect your decision, Madam Speaker, would it be in order for me to ask you to look favourably on an application for an Adjournment debate on that extremely important issue given that the Speaker can choose one subject for an Adjournment debate a week?
Madam Speaker: I do not want to put myself in the position of encouraging hon. Members to make such applications to me across the Floor of the House because, if I did, I would have a rash of them. The hon. Lady had better leave it with me.
Mr. Tony Marlow: I am not sure, Madam Speaker, whether my point of order is genuine. No doubt you will put me right if it is not. I am a positive European which is why I have problems with the Maastricht treaty. Imagine my excitement when I discovered that there was a parliamentary group known as the positive Europeans. Knowing your interest in parliamentary groups, Madam Speaker, I went to the Library to find out about it. I was very excited because I was told that there were 75 members. When I went to the Library, I discovered that there were only five officers and one member. I am deeply concerned about that. Is it right and proper that people should say that there is a parliamentary group with 75 members when there are only five officers and the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett)? Is there something that you can do to clarify the matter because it seems that the House is being misled?
Mr. Ray Whitney rose—
Madam Speaker: Is it further to that point of order?
Mr. Whitney: Yes, Madam Speaker. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) is deficient in knowledge, but I will certainly ensure that a copy of the list of 79 members of the Positive European group is placed in the Library. It was already available to the Press Association. I am sorry that my hon. Friend and his collegues are so ill-informed on that matter.
Madam Speaker: That is the most helpful point of order that I have had for some time.

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

    FIREARMS (NORTHERN IRELAND)
    That the draft Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (Amendment) Regulations 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Boswell.]
    Question agreed to.

Commercial Debt Settlement
4.39 pm
Mr. Michael Bates: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that commercial debts shall carry interest after a specified period; to require publication in annual reports of details relating to the settlement of debts; and for connected purposes.
I am grateful for the opportunity to seek leave to bring before the House statutory measures to protect small businesses from the late payment of bills. In presenting the Bill I would like the House to be aware of the key facts that have convinced me of the need for legislation of this nature.
It is estimated that small businesses, that is, those employing fewer than 20 people, which constitute some 97 per cent. of all businesses, are presently owed some £145 billion in unpaid bills. On average, it takes 81 days from the date of invoice for the average business debt in the United Kingdom to be settled. Since we are in the middle of considering matters European, I should point out that only we and Ireland do not have legislation to protect small businesses from the late payment of bills. The United Kingdom's record of an average 51-day settlement following the normal 30-day payment period compares with 28 days in France and 18 days in Germany, Norway and Sweden. This places British business at a clear disadvantage to their main international competitors. According to a CBI/Cork Gully report in January 1991, nearly one in five small firms were on the verge of going out of business because of late payment of debts.
In a recent debate on the Adjournment of the House, I addressed the problem of banks failing to pass on interest rate reductions to their small business customers. I acknowledge, however, that business overdrafts are only a symptom. The Bill that I seek leave to present to the House today tries to address the cause which, more often than not, is the late payment of accounts for goods and services. The Midland bank conducted a survey of its small business accounts and found that, on average, businesses were owed three times as much by their customers as they themselves owed to the bank.
The House will be aware that I am not the first to attempt to present a solution to this growing problem. My hon. Friends the Members for Newark (Mr. Alexander), for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) and for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) have all brought these important issues before the House, and I am sufficient of a realist to acknowledge that I may not be the last. As far back as 1978 the Law Commission identified the problem. In 1982 my noble Friend Lord Stanley of Alderley moved an amendment to the Administration of Justice Act 1977, designed to ensure that the Law Commissioners' proposals of 1978 were fully implemented.
It is also true that these proposals have always been opposed by the CBI. I do not begrudge this because the CBI feels that it is protecting its interests—the interests of large and medium-sized businesses. I would, however, put it to the CBI that its true best interests lie in having a thriving small business sector which will compete for custom on the grounds of quality and service rather than on the ability to keep their heads above water the longest.
Many people have made suggestions which fall short of what I propose this afternoon. For example, why not allow VAT on purchases to be claimed when businesses have settled the accounts or invoices in question? This suggestion
288
contains a lot of common sense. However, with a VAT threshold of £35,000 it would not help the many small businesses which are not registered for VAT.
Some suggest voluntary codes of practice, and I acknowledge the role of documents such as the Government's leaflet "Prompt Payment Please" and the CBI's "Prompt Payers—A Code of Practice". From the fact that in 1986 privately owned business was owed £57 billion whereas in 1990 the figure had risen to £145 billion, an increase in real terms of almost 100 per cent., it is clear that this is not working. According to a survey by Dun and Bradstreet, only 5 per cent. of businesses are aware of these codes of practice.
Some say that it is up to the business itself to negotiate terms and conditions and to take businesses to court for late payment, but when a small business is desperate for work, as most are, and is offered settlement terms of 90 days only, what chance has it of levering a 30-day settlement period? It would only result in the contract going elsewhere. Moreover, what chance would the same small business stand of gaining repeat orders if it took the company to court? What chance has a small business man of taking on a multinational with its legions of commercial lawyers? None. That is why this Bill is so desperately needed by small businesses.
My Bill has four main provisions. It would establish a 30-day settlement period for contractual debts which would bring us into line with our main international competitors and ensure fair competition among suppliers on the basis of quality, service and price alone.
It would provide the right for statutory interest to be levied from the expiry of the 30-day settlement period. This would remove the financial incentive which currently exists for businesses to delay payment of bills.
It would establish a statutory rate of interest to be levied in accordance with judgment rates as laid down and amended from time to time by the Lord Chancellor. This would be fair, because the interest received on late settlement would be equivalent to that which would have been received had the matter been taken before the courts, and yet it would seek to avoid time-consuming and expensive litigation.
It would seek, through an amendment to the Companies Act 1989, to require all public limited companies to publish their settlement periods of accounts and invoices in their annual reports. This would open up the issue of prompt settlement to the scrutiny of shareholders and the public, and it would enable appropriate comparisons to be drawn.
I am grateful for the opportunity to present this Bill to the House. I believe that it is widely supported, inside and outside the House, as it is vitally needed by the businesses that it seeks to serve and whose interests it seeks to protect. I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Michael Bates, Mr. John Watts, Mr. John Sykes, Mr. Michael Alison, Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock, Mr. Peter Butler, Mr. Jonathan Evans, Mr. Raymond Robertson, Mrs. Angela Knight, Mr. Richard Spring, Mr. David Faber and Mr. Gary Streeter.

Commercial Debt Settlement
  COMMERCIAL DEBT SETTLEMENT
  Mr. Michael Bates accordingly presented a Bill to provide that commercial debts shall carry interest after a specified period; to require publication in annual reports of details relating to the settlement of debts; and for conected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 11 December and to be printed. [Bill. 93.]
Orders of the Day

  European Communities (Amendment) Bill
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 1 December].
  [MR. MICHAEL MORRIS IN THE CHAIR]
  4.48 pm
  Sir Russell Johnston: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. You have been exceptionally helpful in trying to enable us to conduct this debate in a reasonable and sensible fashion. Can you help in any way to overcome a problem which may become serious for all of us? As I understand it, you are quite circumscribed in the degree to which you can regulate the length of hon. Members' speeches. I understand that you can stop them for speaking away from the point—for example, talking about the north pole when they are supposed to be talking about Strasbourg. You can check hon. Members for being tedious and repetitious. However, for anybody who knows anything about the European Community, it is perfectly possible to speak about the European Community for days without being repetitious—absolutely for days without being repetitious. The only limitation is the state of the larynx and whether there is some water available.
  On the actual management of the debate, I compliment you, Mr. Morris, on dividing it into subjects so that we can have a rational discussion, or a succession of rational debates. I am sure that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) will not object if I relate that, as we came into the House by accident—pas hasard, if I may use that expression—together this morning, he remarked that, if one was called upon to speak about industrial, consumer, commercial, agricultural, and market issues, one could go on for a very long time and that, if one was not able to do that, one would be quite a duffer. We have a real problem. What do we do?
  There are three ways of dealing with the problem. First, Mr. Morris, you could have a timetable motion. You might say that that has nothing directly to do with you and that it is a matter for the Government at some stage to decide—they may at some stage so decide, although we have a problem with majorities. There are Members of Parliament such as the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) who would consider such a motion out of order, that it would not be appropriate because we are dealing with a constitutional issue and would raise that matter with you. That is a problem.
  The second way of dealing with the problem is for a closure motion to be moved by the Government or by hon. Members. There is talk that there might be a closure motion some time this evening—talk in the couloir. Let us suppose that the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) continues remorselessly, ineluctably, unrepetitiously—
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: And boringly.
  Sir Russell Johnston: "Boringly" is a word I did not use. Conservative Members might use it.
  290
  The proposal is brought to you, Mr. Morris, because you decide whether closures are appropriate. That would be very difficult for you, because only four hon. Members would have spoken, and no Labour Back-Bench Member would have spoken. That would be exceedingly difficult for you, despite the length of time for which the hon. Member for Stafford had spoken unrepetitiously, as I have said. That is a difficult matter.
  Thirdly, you could have a time limitation by agreement, Mr. Morris. That is done, as we all know, by the 10-minute limit on speeches, but it has not, as far as I know, ever been used in Committee. It might even be precluded in Committee; I do not know about that. It might be considered for a Committee; I do not know about that. For example, hon. Members say, "Yesterday, I spoke, according to the record"—
  The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. Gentleman brings 28 years' experience to the House. Hon. Members, not least those who have had fewer than 10 years in the House, will have listened to the hon. Gentleman. He is right to say that tedious repetition is out of order, as indeed is irrelevance. Water is not supplied to keep hon. Members going, and I am afraid that there is no 10-minute limit.
  However, we are making progress. Almost every hon. Member who has tabled an amendment in the first group has spoken. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) has covered all his matters. I imagine that he will just about be winding up and that we can make progress and look forward to contributions from Back-Bench Members.
  Sir Russell Johnston: Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris. I have raised, as far as I can remember, only three points of order in all my time in the House of Commons. [Interruption.] It is all very well hon. Members saying, "Hopefully." It is perfectly proper for you to hope that the hon. Member for Stafford will resume his seat in a short time. Unfortunately, it is true that, whatever his unique qualities, the hon. Gentleman is not the only hon. Member with loquacity, and others could imitate his capacity for speaking for two hours.
  Therefore, will you speak to the Procedure Committee to see whether there is any way in which one could deal with that? You can check hon. Members for repetition. There is a stage at which one could speak at length without repetition, but one would be going beyond a cogent argument. Perhaps you might look into that.
  Another point that you might consider, Mr. Morris, is whether you could talk to the parties or to the groups about a rational approach. Last night, I had a nightmare—
  The Chairman: Order. I thought that, with the House rising at 10.30 pm, the hon. Gentleman would have had an early night. Sadly, there is no Procedure Committee at the moment, so I cannot report anything to it. The hon. Member for Stafford tabled no fewer than six amendments. He took rather longer than normal, but he has obviously now covered them. I travel in hope—one has to travel in hope in this job.
  Mr. Nicholas Budgen rose—
  The Chairman: Is it a totally new point of order?
  Mr. Budgen: It is a new point of order, Mr. Morris.
  The Chairman: It had better be a new point of order.
  Mr. Budgen: I wonder whether you could give the Government an early opportunity to make a statement on the decision of the Bundestag, which, if I may say so, is of great importance—
  The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of Parliament long enough to know that I have absolutely no power to encourage the Government to make a statement about anything. Twice yesterday the hon. Gentleman raised bogus points of order. This is now the third bogus one. I am here to serve the House, but I want genuine points of order.
  Mr. Roger Knapman: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. It is my understanding, and perhaps it is yours also, that the treaty has to be ratified by all countries according to their constitutions. Does that mean according to the constitutions pertaining at the day that the agreement was reached, or does it take into account the various amendments and variations now affecting certain other constitutions, which are beginning to look suspiciously like opt-outs? I wonder—
  The Chairman: Order. That has nothing to do with me.
  Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. You are, of course, a servant of the House, as we all are, and not of the Government. I was a member of the Procedure Committee. Will you confirm that there is no question of a time limit being fixed by the Chair? Is it not usual, certainly in respect of controversial matters and not only in the House of Commons but in Committee—and nothing could possibly be more controversial than the Bill—that hon. Members debate and explore the Bill?
  It is foolish and wrong to say that that is filibustering. No doubt you will confirm that the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) was never out of order yesterday. He was exploring the details in the amendments. He was explaining his objections and putting forward proposals. He was very much in line with the amendments.
  Would it not be wrong if the feeling grew that, because the Government wish the Bill to progress as quickly as possible, hon. Members should be under any pressure whatsoever to say that we will not consider the detail of a Bill which we believe to be of the utmost constitutional significance?
  The Chairman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but there are more than 650 Members of Parliament. I am not sure whether I could call every hon. Member on each amendment.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. As it is freely admitted that the Government have presented to us a Bill on which we find difficulty in dealing with matters relative to the ratification of the treaty, surely, in your defence of every hon. Member as Chairman, you should permit hon. Members who are within order to speak, especially as the Government have tried to curtail the debate as best they can by the way in which they have drafted the Bill.
  The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman will have to wait to see how we progress. For the moment, we will start again on amendment No. 93.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Morris.
  The Chairman: Is it a new point of order?
  Mr. Marlow: It is a new point of order, Mr. Morris. I am grateful to you, as usual. You have just said that it would be impossible for every one of 650 Members to participate in every debate on every issue. That is obviously so. But you realise, Mr. Morris, as do other hon. Members, that this legislation may change fundamentally and put at risk the very powers of the House. Many hon. Members feel deeply about it.
  Obviously not every hon. Member will want to speak on every issue or every amendment, but you will be aware of the depth of feeling among hon. Members. You will also be aware that there is no desperate, tearing hurry to get the Bill on the statute book. Not even the Government want it until May 1994.
  The Chairman: I think that the hon. Gentleman made that speech yesterday. I agree that it is a different day, but perhaps in future the hon. Gentleman could make different speeches on different days.
  Mr. Tony Benn: On a point of order, Mr. Morris.
  The Chairman: Is it a new one?
  Mr. Benn: It is about the way in which a referendum might get on to the agenda.
  The Chairman: We had points of order about a referendum yesterday.
  Mr. Benn: It is a serious point. I spent most of the night considering how this might be done. One way in which it could be done would be to have a preamble to the Bill, declaratory in character, which said that, in view of the importance of the Bill, everybody should have an opportunity to express an opinion.
  There is no preamble to the Bill. Preambles are in order. The preamble which I have in mind would not affect the weight of the Bill but would simply declare that it was a matter on which the public would have a right to express an opinion. I wondered, Mr. Morris, whether you would be ready to consider amendments to the preamble so that the issue of public consent may somehow be introduced into our debates. That is the point that I wanted to make.
  The Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot read his mind. I should be grateful if he would put the amendment in writing. If something is in writing, I can consider it.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Morris.
  The Chairman: I hope it is a new one.
  Mr. Taylor: It is, Mr. Morris. Clearly it would be impossible for you to read anyone's mind, including that of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), on the point of a referendum. The decision must be for you when he presents the amendment in writing.
  Would you note that there have been many rulings in the House that a referendum attached to a Bill such as this would not be part of the legislative proceedings, and, indeed, could cause constitutional problems? The purpose of the House is to go through a Bill such as this in

  293
  Committee. That is why we are a parliamentary democracy. Many of us feel that a referendum is not appropriate in those circumstances.
  The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman made that point yesterday. There is little point in hon. Members making the same points of order, day in, day out.
  5 pm
  Sir Teddy Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. You kindly said yesterday, on a very important point, that it would be possible at any time for the Government to move a money resolution. As this is relevant to possible amendments and would help the Committee, can you say whether that would be in the nature of an amendment, or can you tell us how a money resolution would be placed in the Bill?
  The Chairman: It would be for the Government to decide the right way to do it. There are various methods which they could use. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman talks to the Minister if he wishes to progress that. It is not a matter for the Chair.
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Can you give me guidance on whether there can be included in this section of the debate, since the Bundestag requires a two thirds majority—
  The Chairman: Order. That is hypothetical. I have not called the hon. Lady yet. I call Mr. Cash on amendment No. 93, to which he has already spoken.

  European Communities (Amendment) Bill
    Clause 1

      TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION
      Amendment proposed [1 December], No. 93, in page 1, line 9, after 'Titles', insert 'I'.—[Sir Russell Johnston.]
      Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
      The Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are taking the following amendments: No. 108, in page 1, 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 'Titles', insert 'I (except Article D)'.

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

      Rev. Ian Paisley: On a further point of order, Mr. Morris. On the point made to you by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) about a preamble, are you suggesting to the Committee that, although we are on clause 1, you could take a proposition for a preamble to the Bill?
      The Chairman: I am not suggesting anything. When I have something in writing, I can have a look at it; until it is in writing, I cannot.
      Mr. William Cash: Last night, just before the Committee reported progress, I said that I was about to turn to article F3, which I had raised on a point of order earlier, but which I had not dealt with in my speech.
      I am deeply concerned about the provisions of article F3, which incidentally are also covered by an amendment which has been tabled by the Leader of the Opposition. I think that due weight needs to be given to that.
      Mr. George Robertson rose—
      Mr. Cash: I will give way, because I am always willing to play some kind of game with the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Robertson: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am not playing games, nor will I ask him a question which would prolong his speech. I simply repeat the point that I made yesterday. Amendment No. 108 in the names of my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition, other hon. Friends and myself is purely a probing amendment. At the appropriate time, we will seek the leave of the Committee to withdraw it. The hon. Gentleman should not read anything more into it than the fact that it is a probing amendment.
      Mr. Cash: That is typical of the cowardly way in which the hon. Gentleman treats these matters. This is an important provision in title I. I will read it out:
      "The Union shall provide itself with the means necessary"—
      The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting into the well-known habit of reading from the Bill or a text. Hon. Members have read the treaty. All he needs to do is refer to the point and make his comment. He does not have to keep quoting from the treaty.
      Mr. Cash: Indeed, Mr. Morris. As I have said, the union shall provide itself with the means necessary to carry out its objectives and to be able to carry out its policies. That is what article F3 says. If I happen to remember it, Mr. Morris, I hope that you will forgive me for repeating the point that I have already made.
      When the article refers to "the means necessary", we are dealing with questions which go to the very heart of these matters. Will the money be made available to achieve the objectives of the treaty and carry out its policies? Will it require disciplinary action? For example, we know of a proposal that the European Court of Justice should be able to fine countries which do not comply with the requirements of parts of the treaty. Disciplinary action may not be just a question of a fine.
      If the title includes such a vague provision, which is introduced under prerogative powers but is at the same time an international legal obligation, who is to say that it will not include in certain circumstances the use of force? What about the power to tax? In order to carry out a policy in line with an objective, and in order to be able to comply with that objective, money will be required. That raises another question which I raised earlier on a point of order, which is why and to what extent we are not being provided with a money resolution to cover these provisions. That is a very important point.
      Furthermore, a booklet entitled "Europe after Maastricht" has been published by the Foreign and

      295
      Commonwealth Office as a memorandum to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. I have made allegations that we have not been given the whole picture when, in the absence of a White Paper, there are documents like the notorious pamphlet written in Europe, which gives only half the picture.
      "Europe after Maastricht" is not merely a pamphlet but a memorandum to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs which purports to describe Europe after Maastricht. What does it say? I shall not have to refer to the document, because I can remember that it states that article F provides for the implementation of the European convention on human rights and that European union shall subscribe to ensuring that national identities and democracies shall be sustained.
      However, paragraph 10 of that important memorandum to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee does not mention the matter that I have just raised—the fact that the treaty says:
      "The Union shall provide itself with the means necessary"
      to ensure its economic objectives and to carry out its policies.
      Some people might say that that is misleading. Why should not the attention of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee be drawn to that important provision? The pamphlet is going to be published for the public—in the absence of any White Paper—so why are such things left out?
      The same argument applies to the pamphlet "Britain in Europe", which contains no reference to article F3. I included it in one of my amendments for that reason.
      Mr. Terry Dicks: My hon. Friend is talking about giving information to the public so as not to mislead them. Perhaps he should explain why he voted in favour of Europe in the six votes before the Maastricht vote. He was in favour of passing all those pieces of legislation—including the exchange rate mechanism. I have heard a story that he wants to become a Member of the European Parliament. Perhaps he can clarify that for public consumption, so that we understand the background to his arguments.
      Mr. Cash: I have no problem about that—I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his helpful intervention. I voted for the Single European Act because I genuinely believe in the European Community and want it to work properly. People want to participate in the processes of the Community because they want that Act to work properly. That is why I made recommendations to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry last year, to help it to look into the single market.
      The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is being tempted down a route that he should know better than to be tempted down. He should get back to the Bill.
      Mr. Cash: I assume that that was a no ball. If I hit it for six, I can make sure that it is notched up on my score.
      Mr. Ian Taylor: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that his view is far from unrepresentative of the people of Britain, who previously thought that all those Bills were a good idea and now realise that Maastricht will be the end of liberty and freedom? Does he appreciate that, instead of being attacked by hon. Members shouting from the Back Benches, he should say, "What I'm saying and doing is
      296
      what the people of Britain are saying—that this treaty is bad for Britain," and that the people want the right to have a say.
      Mr. Cash: In opinion poll after opinion poll, 68 per cent. of the British people have said just that.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      The Chairman: Order. No one has taken any vote anywhere yet on amendment No. 93. I ask the hon. Member for Stafford to make progress on his speech. He was making an important point about article F, and I think that the House wishes to hear it, rather than to hear him accepting diversions.
      Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I heard the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) talking about this, that and the other regarding the amendment. I was listening carefully. Then he was knocked off his subject by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks).
      Are you saying, Mr. Morris, that, when hon. Members are challenged about whether they are pro-European or pro-Common Market, they are not allowed to answer, because that was what the hon. Gentleman was attempting to do? He gave an answer with which I do not agree, but he should be allowed to answer. If you want to stop the debate, stop him—but remember the people of Northampton.
      The Chairman: Order. The people of Northampton remember me very well.
      Mr. Skinner: They do not like Maastricht.
      The Chairman: Order. I am enjoying it immensely.
      I want to make it clear to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and all hon. and right hon. Members that the hon. Member for Stafford was straying beyond the intervention. Mr. Cash—back to amendment No. 93 please.
      Mr. Cash: If I can deal with article F3—
      Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that no Member of the House has any right to impute motives to a Member of the European Parliament and say that, because he is an MEP, he cannot be against Maastricht? That is ridiculous.
      Mr. Cash: I could not agree more. The issues we are dealing with in the treaty and in the Bill are essential to the future of this country. It is a slur to imply such things of MEPs and I regard it as disgraceful, but I shall get back to article F3 immediately, Mr. Morris.
      5.15 pm
      Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has made a comprehensive and distinguished contribution to the debate so far. I hope that I may assist him in ending on a high note.
      Has he noticed that the provision of necessary resources in article F makes no mention of money and taxation? Nor is there any provision in the remainder of the treaty for the amendment of the treaty. Does it occur to the hon. Gentleman that many of those resources and powers might well be obtained under article 236 of the treaty of Rome,

      297
      and that those institutions might well expand their competence, powers and finances to fulfil the treaty of union—the two being close together?
      I hope that the Minister who replies to this debate, after full consideration, will respond to my queries: first, on the amendment; secondly, on resources; thirdly, on relations with the treaty of Rome.
      Mr. Cash: I am grateful for that intervention, which speaks for itself, and I agree with the basis upon which it was put.
      Article F is an important provision in the treaty. I saw Chancellor Kohl on the television this morning, stipulating the basis on which the Bundestag is proceeding. It does not surprise me that he gave economic and political union as its vision for Europe. That is the basis for the provisions of article F3, which talks of the "means necessary" to achieve those objectives and to carry out those policies. Those policies are part of the union which is referred to in title I—economic and political union.
      Furthermore, it does not surprise me to discover that the Bundestag has imposed another restriction on the powers of the German Government. It now insists on at least a two-thirds majority in both Houses of that Parliament to ensure that such provisions do not go through without its consent, and it will have a veto over a single currency. It is seeking to get that put back into the provisions—[HON. MEMBERS: "Illegally."] Yes, it is seeking to do so illegally. That raises essential questions on the money-raising powers of the union.
      Mr. Rupert Allason: Does my hon. Friend agree that article F3 has the most dire political implications for this country? Is it not a paradox that the article is wholly inconsistent with the lack of a money resolution attached to the Bill? Does my hon. Friend agree that article F3 and the inclusion of a cohesion fund, which is all part of Maastricht, will have political, economic and financial consequences for every family in this country? Can he explain why there is no money resolution?
      Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend is bang on the nail, as he always is, in both his public and his private life. No money resolution is attached to the provision because title I is dealt with under prerogative. Because it is not a part of the Bill, there will be no requirement for a money resolution.
      Article F3 is representative of my main objections to the Bill, as it represents political and economic defeatism. It is a withdrawal of political responsibility and a denial of parliamentary accountability. For those reasons, I object to the treaty.
      Mr. Peter Shore: The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) has made a useful contribution to the debate. He has opened up the subject matter of the treaties in a way that was not done by Front Bench spokesmen. Whatever may be said about the length of speeches, I believe that the hon. Gentleman has helped significantly our understanding of the treaties.
      This group of amendments, more than any other that has been selected, enables us to focus on the treaty's nature, character and purpose, which has eluded discussion. We are all capable of talking about the minutiae and major provisions of the treaty, but the totality of the treaty—what it is about and what sort of
      298
      creature European union is—is at the heart of the debate. Ultimately, that will determine not only how hon. Members feel about and react to the treaty, but how our fellow countrymen outside the House will come to judge the treaty of Maastricht, this treaty of union.
      Yesterday, several points were made about the Attorney-General's absence. I should like to reinforce those points because I believe that.we are faced, almost immediately, with the character and legal personality of the union that is being created by the treaty. It is not simply a further amendment, although it may partially take that form, of treaties with which we have become familiar, such as the European Community and various amendment Acts to that; it is a new creature—a European union.
      I submit that it is the aim of the new European union to become a new state embracing the 12 existing member states of the European Community. I also submit that I am not certain whether the treaty's existing provisions create such a state, but there should be no doubt about the purpose. That leads me to the paramount issue facing us all: whether we are content to see our future as a province of a united states of Europe or as an independent, democratic nation state.
      Mr. Winnick: Are not my right hon. Friend's arguments strengthened by article F, which contains the nearest reference to member states' national identities? Article F1 says:
      "The Union shall respect national identities of its Member States".
      That is all that it says. There is no mention of respecting member states' national sovereignty or institutions. Surely that illustrates only too well what my right hon. Friend has said. The treaty takes the federal road, which will lead to one state whereby national Parliaments, including the House of Commons, will have little more power than county councils.
      Mr. Shore: Furthermore, the phrasing of that paragraph—"the Union shall respect"—implies that that new entity, that superior body, will kindly respect nation states' national identities. That shows that a new creature of immense significance is facing our country.
      Sir Trevor Skeet: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Shore: No. I would rather make some progress. I do not intend to conduct a lecture on the treaties because that would carry my speech far beyond the compass which it is fair to inflict on the House after the admirable speech that we have already heard. I am conscious of the fact that I am only the second Back Bencher to be called and it is important that many more hon. Members are heard in this significant debate. The Committee must have an opportunity thoroughly to decide what kind of treaty we are dealing with and what its implications are.
      It is extraordinary that so many hon. Members—I am thinking in particular of the interrogation of the hon. Member for Stafford yesterday—fail to recognise that the Bill's purpose is to set up a European union and create a quasi state in the reasonably near future. We should understand that the House of Commons and the British public generally are totally out of tune with the thinking and discussions taking place on that issue in Europe today. It is only here that the assertion that a new state is being

      299
      created is being made, where the character of that state is open to discussion, and people seek to challenge it. Everywhere else in Europe it is taken for granted that we are at least talking about a federal union.
      Naturally, I understand why so many people are anxious not to accept that reality. Those include the people who are most enthusiastic about that purpose. The federalists long to conceal their commitment to federalism and the unitarists long to conceal their dedication to a European union. We therefore get the pretence at every stage of the European Community's development that nothing significant is happening and that those great issues are not involved.
      The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones): I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman but the "unitarists", as he calls them, throughout Europe have made it perfectly clear that they regard the Maastricht treaty as a significant setback for them. They have said so in public on numerous occasions.
      Mr. Shore: That is frankly open to the greatest dispute. The Minister is not the only Member of this House who has had contacts with European leaders in the past two or three years, indeed in the past year. I shall give evidence of the difference of view in a few minutes.
      Sir Jim Spicer: Is it not fair to say that Chancellor Kohl has said that the treaty is an essential step towards a united states of Europe?
      Mr. Shore: Yes. That was quoted only yesterday in the speech by the hon. Member for Stafford.
      What has eluded so many people in the country and the House has been the sea change in the Community's attitude towards federalism in the past two or three years. Federalism was always in the original treaties but it was a recessive rather than a dominant element. The dominant element was the view put forward, above all, by General de Gaulle about a "Europe des patries". That was the dominant view, but there was a great change and we should recognise it. It was the abandonment, by the French in particular, of a belief in a Europe de patrie following the reunification of Germany.
      5.30 pm
      One of the consequences of bringing down the Berlin wall and uniting east and west Germany was the abandonment by the French of that belief. They decided that they had to enwrap and enclose a united Germany in the bonds and other restrictions that they hoped a European federal treaty would impose upon an otherwise too powerful Germany. That is the basis of the whole change and if we do not understand that we shall not understand what is really happening.
      I shall illustrate the point. In December 1990 on the eve of the opening of the IGC on political union a joint letter and communique was issued by Mitterrand and Kohl. They said:
      "We express the wish that the IGC…should establish the basis and structures of a strong and mutually supportive Political Union, which pursues firmly, and with the people in mind, the course that corresponds to its Federal Vocation."
      The Commission opinion on political union which preceded that letter and communique by a couple of months refers without a blush to the course charted by the treaty of Rome leading eventually to a federal type organisation. Mr. Andreotti, at that time Prime Minister
      300
      of Italy, addressed the European Parliament on 22 November 1990. Speaking about the single currency, he said:
      "For the first time in the history of Europe we shall confer upon the Community one of the distinctive and essential competences on which national sovereignty is historically built."
      That is fairly clear evidence of intent, but what about the European Parliament itself? A report of its Institutions Committee dated 21 May 1992 refers, continually of course, to the federal purpose and intent and describes how it sees the evolution to the next stage, perhaps the final stage. Dealing with the Council of Ministers, which after all is the one remaining instrument, as it were, of a non-federal character among the European institutions, the committee states:
      "Its development into a second legislative chamber in the sense of a genuine chamber of states and alongside the European Parliament must be accelerated, with the Council of Ministers becoming a standing body of the union, its meetings on legislative matters—being held in public"—
      I agree with that,
      "and taking majority decisions with equal co-decision with the European Parliament, the qualified majority being redefined using new criteria…"
      Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): The right hon. Gentleman must remember as well as any hon. Member the immeasurable damage that was wrought in Europe by independent, competing foreign and defence and other policies. The whole of the past 50 years has been devoted to trying to find ways to achieve a different form of order in Europe that will avoid such damage. In view of his anxieties about the debate on the form of those structures, what are his alternative proposals for preventing Europe from again tearing itself to pieces?
      Mr. Shore: Oh, really. The guarantee of peace in Europe and in the world over the past 40 years or more has been the existence of NATO of which we are a member. It would be absurd to pretend that our future security within a European union which excluded the United States and Canada would be better than it is now. Peace has been due to NATO's existence and the fact that there is no separate German high command. The hon. Gentleman should think about that. There is no possibility of France, Germany, Britain or Italy ever engaging in aggression against each other. I hope that answers the hon. Gentleman. I was not seeking to establish merits and demerits but to offer the Committee evidence of the nature and purpose of the current union treaty. The hon. Gentleman's intervention did not in any way disprove my contention.
      Mr. Mike Gapes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his definition of federal is different from that of the Italians, Spaniards and Germans? Government in Germany is greatly decentralised and the system was introduced with the support of the British and other occupation forces and the British trade union movement. That system was designed to be internally decentralised. Does he also agree that many people in other European socialist parties fail to understand Britain's peculiar obsessions with some historical feelings and words? Almost every other socialist party in Europe is in favour of the Maastricht treaty.
      Mr. Shore: It is extraordinary that other European socialist parties are in favour of the Maastricht treaty and that they have agreed to a document which, apart from

      301
      anything else, inflicts by treaty deflation upon the whole of western Europe and undermines the central purposes for which democratic socialist parties exist. [Interruption.] I shall not be diverted because I wish to cover the subject in an orderly way.
      My last piece of evidence in support of what I said about the nature and character of the treaty is to remind the Committee that the first article in the treaty, right down to Maastricht itself, speaks about the federal destiny or goal of the treaty. The Prime Minister was desperately anxious to have those words removed and at the last minute he managed to persuade Europe by saying, "If I have to take that back to Britain I shall be in desperate difficulty, not only with my own side but with the British people and the British Parliament."
      Mr. Bowen Wells: The objective of France, Germany, Spain and Italy and other European countries was to create a federal union. However, the Maastricht treaty that emerged after the negotiations is far from being a federal treaty. It faced in both directions, but our Prime Minister managed to negotiate a treaty that is a step away from the federal objective.
      Mr. Shore: I do not think so, but I shall certainly deal with that matter later in my speech. The so-called pillars, which I prefer to call buttresses of the treaty, go a long way towards European union. I accept that they have not gone as far as to be totally incorporated within the machinery of the Rome treaty, but there should be no doubt about what our partners are up to or that resumed pressure will fall upon us.
      It is not only the sources that I have mentioned that give credibility, I hope, to my claim about the purpose and nature of the treaty. The other leaders of European countries are admitted federalists: they do not argue about it. The Prime Minister of Holland, Mr. Lubbers, is being considered, quite naturally, as a successor to Mr. Delors in the European Commission because he is a proper person for the Commission to choose. He shares every bit of the federal purpose, he wants it and wills it. So does Felipe Gonzales, the Prime Minister of Spain. We know from my quote from Mr. Andreotti's speech that that is also the purpose of the Italians. Beyond that there is a fringe of what one might almost call client states of Brussels which receive large subsidies and hope for even larger ones and are anxious to make progress with European treaties. We are in a difficult and isolated position, backed only by those stalwart people, the Danes.
      Sir Russell Johnston: The right hon. Gentleman will understand that I agree with what he is saying, but does it lead him to conclude that title I should be inserted in the Bill? That is what the amendment is about.
      Mr. Shore: The danger of inserting it into the Bill in the proposed manner—I hope that ingenuity can find a different way to deal with the treaty—is to make it a Community treaty; in other words, to make those parts that are not Community treaties into Community treaties and therefore even more binding and having even greater impact on our powers. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving us the opportunity, through the
      302
      amendment, to discuss the purpose of the treaty. However, I shall not be supporting him in his efforts to incorporate it, for the reasons that I have given.
      Mr. Marlow: Is not the beauty of including, through the amendment, title I in the Bill that there will be further debates on Report and that whereas it might be helpful to the Committee that title I was in the Bill and made things clearer, on Report we could pass amendments to take certain parts of title I out of the Bill? Therefore, we could select those parts of title I that the House then thought to be the most appropriate.
      Mr. Shore: I know that the hon. Gentleman has a liking for danger, but it would be a hazardous procedure to put in something that is clearly unwelcome in the hope that we may be able to remove it at a later stage.
      Against this background of trying to define what the treaty purpose is about, I move on to the provisions of title I.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: I have been listening to the debate and I cannot see what difference the insertion of title I will make. I have heard the Minister talk for an hour and I have heard Members of the Opposition talking. Apart from the psychological factor involved in that it will make us feel more European, will the insertion of title I make any difference to anyone, in Britain or in Europe? I shoud love to know the answer.
      Mr. Shore: It would have not only a psychological but a practical and legal effect if it were included as one of the Community treaties.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: How?
      Mr. Shore: It would then come within the normal procedures of the Rome treaty and be subject to the European Court, the Commission and so on even more strongly than would the treaty as it stands. For that reason, I am opposed to the amendment.
      I have made the case to establish the nature of the treaty because I believe that the articles in title I, from A to F, clearly spell out the federal intent. There is not only what it says about the union. It goes on to say:
      "This Treaty marks a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer union".
      It is a "new stage", and not just another amendment to European Community Acts. That new stage is union.
      The treaty then spells out the essence of the new stage. The first factor that it cites is economic and monetary union, and economic and monetary union, with a single federal bank and a single currency, is one of the most unifying of factors. According to Prime Minister Andreotti, previously that right has belonged only to a sovereign state, but now it characterises the new union.
      Secondly, the treaty speaks of establishing a Europe without frontiers. Although frontiers can be a nuisance, I am fairly relaxed about them. To abolish them and to say that we are all part of the same zone in terms of the movement of people, goods and everything else is to abandon one of the essential purposes and powers of a separate state. We would pass that power over to a new state, which would define who and what has the right to come into our country. That carries me far beyond my interest in the proper movement of trade and goods and of people looking for jobs, finding them and taking them. Our rights are to be shared with over 300 million Europeans.

      303
      5.45 pm
      Whether we like it or not, whether we have been consulted or not, whatever our views may be, we are now all to become citizens of the European union. Who has the right to claim citizens other than a state? What is the concept of citizenship? It would have been good to have had the Solicitor-General or another Law Officer here to answer some of those questions. Is not the very nature of the state the ability to create citizens or to have citizens? Citizens have not only rights but obligations and duties. Although this may appear to be a rather empty pillow case at the moment, before many Christmases are past, it will be stuffed with goodies by the European Commission and the Council of Ministers.
      Mrs. Edwina Currie: On the citizenship point, what is wrong with the notion that, for example, the French people who live in my constituency and pay taxes to the local authority should have the opportunity to vote in elections for that authority, or that I, who have a cottage in France and pay taxes to the commune, should be able to vote in the elections for it? What happened to the idea that there should be no taxation without representation?
      Mr. Shore: I have not mentioned those matters, nor shall I. Citizenship will confer rights on other Community nationals. It is not that these are particularly important rights but that they are to be conferred not by the British Parliament but by the European union as an authority. We must remember that, in the first instance, it will be offering only what appear to be attractive features. We have not yet reached the business of duties and obligations, which will be far less attractive.
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: On this point about citizenship, inasmuch as the right hon. Gentleman has identified a political state—the union—of which the United Kingdom is a subordinate constituent, does not that demonstrate that United Kingdom citizenship becomes subordinate in those areas where that union has competence and over which the European Court therefore has jurisdiction? Therefore, is it not a reflection in support of his argument that British citizenship is a lesser thing than European citizenship?
      Mr. Shore: I am not certain of the answer. That is another reason why we should have a legal presence on the Treasury Bench. I shall want to explore that point. There is a danger that that is so. We have to acknowledge the basic point that only states bestow citizenship.
      Article B says that an objective of the union shall be:
      "To assert its identity on the international scene".
      Again, that raises the question of whether it is a state, particularly as the assertion of identity will be through the implementation of a joint foreign policy, a joint security policy and, going a stage further, a joint defence policy. The characteristics of a state normally include control over external, foreign and, ultimately, defence policy.
      Mr. Stephen Milligan: The right hon. Gentleman makes the point that the assertion of identity is a property of a state. Only a moment ago he emphasised to one of my hon. Friends how successful NATO has been, and how the assertion of its identity has done so much to help us—but NATO is not a state.
      Mr. Shore: The hon. Gentleman reveals a woeful ignorance of the NATO treaty. It makes vital commitments, but NATO itself has never passed a single law. It is also a treaty from which we can withdraw at any time—and from which France substantially withdrew many years ago when General de Gaulle kicked NATO out of Versailles.
      Mr. Jim Marshall: My right hon. Friend is right to say that the treaty forms a new entity and that its common provisions distribute powers between the centre and member states. Many of my right hon. Friend's points about economic and monetary union and the power that Brussels will have are also correct. However, perhaps he fails to understand that the Government need not bring before the House for approval the other aspect that he is now addressing, which is one of the separate pillars and will not form part of the ultimate Act.
      The Government, acting through the intergovernmental conference, can continue to develop the entity or state without making any reference to Parliament or passing Acts of Parliament. In advancing his argument in terms of common defence, my right hon. Friend risks encouraging the Government to proceed even further down the intergovernmental conference road.
      Mr. Shore: It might so encourage the Government, but if that danger exists we must confront it when dealing with the present prerogative powers. We must bring them more under the control of our own Parliament, not abandon them to European Community treaties.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: Earlier, the right hon. Gentleman stressed the importance that he attaches, as do many right hon. and hon. Members, to the NATO alliance and to the contribution that it has long made to Europe's security. The treaties that established that alliance did not require any legislation before ratification by the United Kingdom. That expands on the point made by the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall).
      Mr. Shore: Although it might have been desirable to bring the NATO treaty before Parliament for ratification, it was no different from the 1,001 treaties that the United Kingdom signed over the years. The difference comes in the law-making and other major powers that the treaty will accord to the Community. That is an entirely different matter.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: That is precisely my point. The Bill is before the House so that we may take on board those aspects of the Maastricht treaty that affect the United Kingdom's domestic legislation. Any action taken by agreement among member states in respect of the intergovernmental pillars to which the hon. Member for Leicester, South referred would involve—if it meant changing United Kingdom legislation—a Bill being brought before the House.
      Mr. Shore: We would like both kinds of treaties brought before us.
      Mr. Benn: Even if there were no move towards Community institutions controlling defence and security policy, members of the armed forces and of the Foreign Office would be citizens with duties to the union. Those duties will apply to everybody—not just to the ordinary citizen but to those in the armed forces. The union proposal asserts that there must be a common

      305
      international identity and common security. It may be that Governments will claim that they have some rights in the matter, but soldiers and diplomats will have a duty to the union to carry through its policy. That aspect affects every citizen, and it should not be dealt with by the royal prerogative of ratification.
      Mr. Shore: That matter is of profound importance. As my right hon. Friend explained in his usual helpful and analytical way, the concept of European citizenship relates to the individual obligations that can be imposed on our people if we accede to the treaty's different heads.
      Mr. Spearing: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Shore: No—I would like to make a little progress.
      The question of whether or not the union should have the international personality that title I says we must promote is already being seriously discussed in the context of whether or not, in reforming the United Nations Security Council, the Community should be given a permanent place there. That debate is being conducted all over Europe, though that is not reflected here.
      If one knows that one is committed to a common foreign, security and a defence policy, how can one resist giving the Community—the superior body in the federal structure—a place on the Security Council? Ministers will have to face that argument before long, because it will be pressed very hard.
      The Minister and the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs emphasised again and again how important are the pillar arrangements for home affairs, justice affairs, and foreign and defence policy. I invite the Committee to re-examine article N.2, to which reference is made in title I, which refers to another intergovernmental conference in 1996. The IGC is already pointed at, in strengthening the provisions under articles A and B. The Euro-federalists know very well that they have not come to the end of the road but have merely taken a giant step forward, and are already preparing to launch a final assault to establish an entity that has all the powers of a state.
      The characteristics of a state are a single currency, federal or union bank, authority to decide external and defence policy, rights of entry in respect of citizenship, and—as the hon. Member for Stafford mentioned in one of his final points—means. The treaty states clearly and unambiguously that the union shall have the means necessary to perform the tasks that it sets itself in articles A to E.
      We are all familiar with the concept of means—it is the concept of own resources, stretched still further into the wealth and income of the nation states.
      Sir Russell Johnston: The right hon. Gentleman's list of definitions of the powers of a putative state did not include the right to conduct external trade, which the Community already has. Does he oppose that?
      Mr. Shore: No. We must accept that in the interests of commerce and trade, given that they will be ruled by the provisions of GATT. I have always taken a fairly liberal view of trade—except in times of great emergency, when it makes sense for nations to protect their interests and not be too heavily damaged by unrestricted competition in-world trade. I am broadly in favour of free world trade
      306
      —and therefore I am in favour of GATT and all that has followed from it, and of those parts of the treaty that reflect GATT.
      Sir Trevor Skeet: One of the Government documents states that the European union will not have an international legal personality. If it is to have no international legal personality, no persona, the difficulty will be that we shall have to work through the Commission. What are the implications of the fact that this body is to be all-powerful but that it cannot be all-powerful internationally? Ought not one of the Law Officers to come here to answer our questions on the very matter that we are considering this afternoon?
      6 pm
      Mr. Shore: Of course I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is an important point. My attention, however, was drawn to one of the articles in the treaty, article J.5, under the heading
      "Provisions on a common foreign and security policy."
      Paragraph 1 states that
      "The Presidency shall represent the Union in matters coming within the common foreign and security policy."
      It seems that we have already gone a very long way towards abandoning control over our own foreign policy.
      To pick up the point about federalism that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes), apparently we need not worry about federalism because it means something entirely different in other European countries; therefore, we should be entirely relaxed about it. My immediate comment is, rubbish. We understand very well what federalism is. We also understand that Germany in particular has a highly-developed form of federal state. We are also familiar with the concept of federalism in our own national experience, particularly when we drew up the constitutions for Canada and Australia and, before that, for India. They were all federal states. This country is probably the greatest architect or creator of federal states in the world.
      Mr. Derek Enright: And we can do it for ourselves.
      Mr. Shore: Yes, we are perfectly entitled to do it for ourselves, too. It must always, however, be within the context of a nation state arranging for the great devolution of power to different levels of government. To do that within one's own nation state is in no sense to abandon sovereignty and control over one's own affairs. What we are talking about now, however, is a new kind of federalism. It means abandoning the strategic power of control over one's own country and its Government to a higher level of government—a new, supra-federalism that would take the key decisions in future. That is my answer to my hon. Friend. I hope that he is satisfied with it.
      Mr. Gapes: Not at all.
      Mr. Shore: Very well.
      I turn to the second great excuse that is made for these arrangements. The first excuse is the pillars; the second excuse is subsidiarity. It is said that subsidiarity is a crucial part of the treaty and that it moves in the opposite direction from the direction that I say the thrust of the treaty is towards. Is that really so? I have something to say to hon. Members about this which I hope will interest them.

      307
      We are familiar with the basic concept of subsidiarity. We know that, in any serious clash, what is subsidiarity and what is not will be decided by the European Court. We know very well what the European Court will decide. We know exactly what the remit of the European Court of Justice is, but I want to turn to a second point which has not been made before.
      The Government claim that they have subsidiarity back to us and that. somehow, it has changed the course of the Community—that it has made a vast difference, that they fought for it and that, at last, the Community is beginning to change its mind. I am sure that hon. Members know that that is not so.
      When I looked at the Commission document, its Opinion on Political Union of 21 October 1990, which preceded the intergovernmental conference on political union and which was long before the Government were fighting desperately for subsidiarity, I found that it urged further great advances towards European union and political federalism. It says:
      "The question of subsidiarity is closely linked to the redefinition of certain powers. The Commission considers that this common-sense principle should be written into the Treaty, as suggested by Parliament in its draft treaty on European union. It should serve as a guideline to the institutions when, under a new article 235, freed from its purely economic purpose, they have to take a unanimous decision of principle on new Community action. Compliance with the principle could be checked by retrospective control of the institution's activities to ensure that there is no abuse of power."
      Here is the Commission, in part of its own document, driving forward towards a new union and saying, "Why shouldn't we have a bit of subsidiarity as well? We're for it. We'll put it in the treaty."
      It is not only the Commission that favours subsidiarity. To quote again from the speech that Mr. Andreotti made to the European Parliament on 20 November 1990. after referring to economic and monetary union and the single currency he went on to say that
      "European union should be founded upon the principle of subsidiarity but should also acquire a flexible but evoluted tool"—
      I do not know quite what that means—
      "in order to allow the acquisition of new competences."
      He saw no inhibition at all. He is a keen federalist. He was making a pro-federalist speech to the European Parliament and recommended that we should have subsidiarity. That was in October 1990, long before the Government in their desperate, marvellous struggle at Maastricht tried to claw back powers from the European Community and hand them to the nation states. It is a major fraud. I hope that the Committee understands just how much it is a fraud.
      Mr. Ray Whitney: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that he is out of date? He refers time and time again to issues that are at least two years old. 'What the right hon. Gentleman fails to recognise is the encouraging development of the concept of subsidiarity achieved at Maastricht and at Birmingham, a concept that will be further elaborated. Charming though he is, the right hon. Gentleman is art old-fashioned socialist and a deeply committed little-Englander whose out-of-dateness on this issue is in keeping with his antediluvian approach to the whole issue.
      Mr. Shore: I do not intend to swap abuse with the hon. Gentleman, but it is hardly antediluvian to quote what was said by the Prime Minister of Italy—
      Mr. Whitney: Two years ago.
      Mr. Shore:—and also by the President of the Commission and Commission members long before subsidiarity became a tremendous gain for the British Government. The Prime Minister of Italy conceded then that there should be subsidiarity as part of the great advance towards federal union in western Europe. I see that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) nods in agreement. He is an openly-declared federalist. He acknowledges that what I say is true. It is only those who are ashamed of their federalism and of their unionism who seek to deny it.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: May I try to help the right hon. Gentleman by quoting to him what was said by the President of the Commission post-Maastricht and post-article 3b:
      "In the Community system, national competence is the rule and Community competence the exception."
      That sort of comment flows from the inclusion of article 3b in the treaty.
      Mr. Shore: That is what the Minister maintains, but he and I know that members of the Commission are not lawyers but politicians. The Commission is aware of the Government's difficulty and is trying to be as helpful as possible. None of the arrogance of Mr. Delors' private office that we witnessed before the Danish treaty has been repeated, but we know very well that he was planning another major statement on the federal advance of the European union before the Danish referendum. Since the Danish referendum, the Commission has been drawing back and trying to pretend that it has had a change of heart and that things are different. Why? Because its members are politicians, and they know that they are in danger of defeat.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: It is perfectly clear that whenever anyone makes a statement with which the right hon. Gentleman does not agree it is a pretence, but whenever anyone makes a statement that reinforces his prejudice, even if it was made two or three years ago, it is gospel.
      Mr. Shore: I do not think that that will do. Less than two months ago, Mr. Bangemann—I believe he is a vice-president of the Community—said that subsidiarity presupposes a federal European state. Is that up to date? Yes, indeed it is, and I do not invite the Minister to comment because I have established my point.
      Mr. Llew Smith: Does my right hon. Friend accept that one of the institutions to which we would lose power is a European central bank, and is he concerned that the recent publication of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, "Britain in Europe", makes no reference to the fact that the bank will not be responsible to the Parliaments that make up the EC?
      Mr. Shore: I know that, and I have not gone into the horrors of economic and monetary union because I shall have another opportunity to raise them under title II. I have been seeking to establish the meaning of European union, because an essential preliminary to discussing the rest of the treaty is to know its thrust and purpose.

      309
      I conclude by asking the key question: do we want a federal culture? I know that we are a depressed nation and that we have suffered a lot of setbacks in recent years, but do we believe that we have reached such a state that we are no longer able, no longer have the will and no longer have the courage to govern ourselves as a free democracy?
      Mrs. Currie: I should like to make a fairly brief speech—probably the shortest in the debate so far, but that would not be difficult.
      I can well understand why the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) is keen to include title I in the Bill. His general approach, which has been consistent and for which I respect him, has been that he believes in a full federal Europe. I do not, which is one of the reasons why I think that he is wrong; but Ministers are right to oppose amendment No. 93.
      Conservative Members should be cautious about what the amendments propose. In principle, we should be cautious about what the Opposition's amendments propose. We should be cautious and suspicious of all proposals to change the law of the land. We should never enact unnecessary or repetitious legislation. We should be wary of proposals that increase the power of European institutions, and I say that as a supporter of the treaty.
      I am surprised, therefore, by the attitude of some of my hon. Friends, because the Government rightly oppose amendment No. 93 and the other half dozen being considered with it. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State has explained that they are not necessary, that the law that we need to change will be debated under different titles and that to accept title I would go too far, would create all sorts of legal complications and confusions, would delay the progress of the Bill and would offer in Britain opportunities for litigation that do not exist in countries that have already ratified. That attitude is perfectly clear. Therefore, some of my colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), are in the daft position of having tabled amendments that they do not agree with.
      Mr. Cash: Absolute nonsense. Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Mrs. Currie: In a minute. I listened to the hon. Gentleman for a long time.
      Mr. Cash: We listen to you all the time.
      Mrs. Currie: With respect, this place is the only spot in the country that has a surplus of cash at the moment. I am not giving way yet.
      6.15 pm
      My hon. Friends appear to have got themselves into a strange position. They tabled amendments—a pile of material—with which they do not agree and spent all yesterday evening and all day today, and presumably will spend yet more time, explaining to the nation why they do not agree with this stuff. One must ask, therefore, why table the amendments? They did not need to table them, because amendment No. 93 would have been more than sufficient for their purpose of holding a debate on the general principles of title I.
      The Labour party did not make that mistake. It tabled amendment No. 108, and no Labour Back Benchers have
      310
      tabled amendments. It is deeply disappointing to Conservative Members who support the treaty and the Bill that Labour Members—whose party conference supported the treaty and whose party would be introducing the Bill if it had won the election—have kept so quiet. Labour Members have been silent. The Labour party is allowing itself to be portrayed to the country, to Europe and to the Parliaments of the world as being hostile to Europe.
      Mr. Stuart Randall: The quietness of Labour Members does not suggest that they are not committed to a Europe comprising a group of nations co-operating for the betterment of the people of Europe and outside Europe.
      Mrs. Currie: I have justified my existence already: I have goaded Labour Members into getting to their feet and giving a bit of support. I hope that they will continue to do so.
      My hon. Friends are entitled to wish to debate the general principles of title I, but they are not entitled to hog the Floor or to give the impression that all Conservatives agree with them, which is not true. The House of Commons has voted on the general principles of the treaty and the Bill a number of times, and the majority of hon. Members have been firmly in favour. The only occasion when there was a small majority was when Opposition Members sought to make it an issue of confidence in the Government, and on that basis some Opposition Members felt able to vote in the no Lobby.
      We had a general election only a few months ago, at which all the main parties supported the treaty. The issue of Europe was not raised, and my hon. Friends must consider why all the main parties supported it. They did so because they regard it as being good for this country and for Europe that we should be part of this development and because they regard it as part of the development of the free world, of which we are lucky to be part.
      I have listened to the debate. I must apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford for not having listened to his closing comments this afternoon, but I reckoned that they would be much the same as we heard yesterday. I believe that I detected the techniques that he was using.
      Those techniques seem to have fallen into two main categories. First, my hon. Friend accuses everyone in the Committee of not having read the treaty. Well, most of us have read it. The second technique is to accuse us of not understanding the treaty. Most of us do understand it. The fact of the matter is that most of us do not agree with my hon. Friend, any more than we agree with the amendment of the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber, which would put an excess of federalism into the treaty and change British legislation in an inappropriate way.
      Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Can my hon. Friend produce one lawyer who can give a clear definition of subsidiarity?
      Mrs. Currie: I have the greatest respect for my hon. Friend, but I have to tell him that there is no lawyer in the country who can ever produce a clear definition of anything. That is not what lawyers do for a living. The more obfuscation there is, the more complex legislation that we pass, and the more often that those guys can charge the rest of us big fees when they get us into court one way or another, the better they like it.

      311
      The job of the House of Commons is not to put more legislation than is necessary on the statute book. If my hon. Friend agrees with me, I invite him to take the same view that I do on the amendment, which would do just that.
      Sir Russell Johnston: The hon. Lady says that she has read the treaty and understands the whole thing—that it is all pellucidly clear to her.
      Mrs. Currie: I did not say that.
      Sir Russell Johnston: There was the implication that everything was transparent to the hon. Lady. If that is so, could she explain to me what the Minister failed to explain? She says that if title I were introduced into the Bill it would make an extraordinary difference. Apparently it would do all sorts of things. Will she please give me one example?
      Mrs. Currie: With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, I should never dream of suggesting that any handiwork of human beings was perfect. The treaty is not perfect either. Any one of us could cite one line, one sentence or one paragraph that we would prefer not to be there—but what is on offer is a huge treaty negotiated by many people in the interests of all of us.
      I am not a lawyer, thank God, but I am advised that putting title I on the face of the Bill is unnecessary and would be confusing, because any parts of it that may be justiciable are already included in other titles. I am happy to accept the argument that putting more legislation on the statute book would be more confusing. That is axiomatic in much of what we get up to in this place.
      Several hon. Members from both sides of the Committee have produced evidence—although it tends to be the same stuff. Often it comes from just one speech made by Mr. Bangemann. I have no writ running for Bangemann; he is not a member of my party. The Labour party should have no writ running for him either, because he is not a member of their party either. He is a sort of German Liberal, a member of one of the minority parties, although much of what he says does not sound very liberal to me.
      Mr. Richard Shepherd rose—
      Mrs. Currie: I shall give way in a moment.
      In a continent containing so many people, it would not be difficult to find all sorts of opinions being expressed. Much "evidence" of what other people mean by, and want from, union is being called in aid. One need look no further than Members of the House. There are plenty of people here who believe all that—but I do not. I do not believe in a federal Europe—and the treaty does not mean that there will be a federal Europe.
      I tell the Committee, and especially my hon. Friends who oppose the Bill, that I believe that over the next few years Europe needs to develop a civil service or Commission that will take on board the best qualities of the British civil service, in that it will be totally non-political, and tend to keep quiet and to give advice rather than trying to dominate. I add one factor which I should see both in the Commission—
      Mr. Budgen rose—
      Mrs. Currie: I shall give way in a moment.
      Another factor which I should like to be incorporated
      312
      both into our civil service and into the Commission is that for 10 years after they leave those organisations staff should be banned from accepting posts in the public or the private sector related to their work in the civil service. That would get rid of any hint of corruption.
      Mr. Budgen: In view of my hon. Friend's expressed interest in the European Parliament, does she see the role of the Member of the European Parliament becoming more dynamic and active in future? I wondered whether that might have been one of the reasons that attracted her to that forum.
      Mrs. Currie: My hon. Friend flatters me. If I were to replace one of the Labour MEPs, I am sure that what my hon. Friend says would be the case—and I am sure that he would agree with that.
      Mr. Budgen: My hon. Friend knows that that is not the point.
      Mrs. Currie: My hon. Friend is refusing to pay me a compliment. Let us move on.
      Because several people are available to have their views quoted on European union, that does not mean that they are right about the way that things will go—except for one significant fact. If this country did not play a full part in the future of Europe, the people whose voices have been quoted would play a bigger part than they do now. Indeed, that is more likely if we are not involved.
      I have to tell my hon. Friends who oppose the Bill that I have been appalled to hear so much small-mindedness, bigotry, fear and ignorance expressed in the speeches that have been made so far from this side of the Committee. In fact, apart from mine, so far only one speech has been made by a Conservative Member.
      The world is in transition and we are in a time of considerable difficulty—[Interruption.] One has to ask what has happened—[Laughter.] The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) may think that that is funny, but I do not. One has to ask what has happened to this country's pride and self-confidence, and our awareness of what goes on in the world. We have always been members of alliances, and have always drawn our strength from them. We have never had any strength on our own. That has been true throughout our history, especially recently.
      The European Community already accounts for 340 million people. It is as large as the United States of America and Japan put together, and we are lucky to be part of it. We should think so. Our fellow Europeans think so. They know it, and they want us in the front rank.
      The Bill seeks to incorporate into United Kingdom law only those parts of the Maastricht treaty which require changes in United Kingdom law. That is the right approach. I congratulate the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), and assure him of my support.
      Mr. Enright: This is a mean Bill, and it typifies the Government's approach to Maastricht, which was also expressed by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie). Essentially, that approach says, "We have kept close to the Single European Act. We had to go a little further, because if we had not done so the wolves would have arisen on the continent and driven us out, and we should not have had the influence that we now have."

      313
      The Bill is mean not only because of the withdrawal from the social chapter and from monetary union—I favour monetary union—but because of the Government's approach. Nevertheless, there is much left in the Bill which can and should be supported.
      We are looking not for a oneness, or one state, but a diversity in unity. That diversity does not preclude a union. I have no qualms of conscience in saying that we are going into a union. That is clearly expressed; there is a commitment, and that is right and proper.
      The problem for hon. Members is that we are used to working with an unwritten constitution. The other day, when the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) was talking about the treaty, he said, "I am a lawyer, so I know." That is the exact problem of the hon. Member for Stafford, especially when discussing amendment No. 93. At present we are discussing the spirit of Maastricht. It is extremely important. It pervades the movement forward from what was a single market—essentially, a hypermarket—and will put some humanity into the European Community. Above all, that is what Maastricht tries to do.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said that we had moved from the days when France talked about a Europe des patries. That is true; France has moved on to talk about federalism. France has moved towards a federal system within its country. A short 15 years ago, France was the most centralised country on the continent. Today, it has gone a considerable way towards devolution.
      I am a citizen, first, of Yorkshire; secondly, of the United Kingdom; and, thirdly, of Europe. I find no tension among those three states. However, I have difficulty with what circumscribes our sovereignty in Yorkshire. Our sovereignty in Yorkshire is circumscribed by bodies such as the Department of the Environment.
      I well remember when I chaired the West Yorkshire metropolitan county council planning and transportation committee, and difficulties that I had with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney, who was in charge of such matters at that time. We were trying to do things that central Government did not want us to do. The position has become even worse since my right hon. Friend departed office. There is a centralised power in the United Kingdom which makes it difficult for us to accept, or even understand, the concept of federalism.
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman says that he is a citizen of the United Kingdom and that he rejoices in that fact. He is happy to become a citizen of Europe, and would rejoice equally in that. He is also a subject of Her Majesty the Queen. Would he be happy to be a subject of Mr. Jacques Delors?
      Mr. Enright: Leaving aside the false analogy, I should be delighted to be a subject of my good friend Jacques Delors. I enjoyed many good conversations and meals with him in the French Treasury when he was putting right the French economy. However, I digress.
      Dr. Norman A. Godman: I am interested to hear of my hon. Friend's friendship with Jacques Delors. As a citizen of the United Kingdom, does my hon. Friend agree that he is a citizen of a highly
      314
      centralised multinational state? Is he confident that the Government's interpretation of subsidiarity will lead to a dispersal of political power, as we have seen in France, Germany and Spain?
      Mr. Enright: I agree with my hon. Friend. We have recently shared the same platform. I have been impressed by the relaxed way in which the Scots nation shares its sovereignty with us. The way in which that is done is tremendous. Therefore, the Scots nation should have even more devolution under subsidiarity.
      Dr. Godman: May I disabuse my hon. Friend of his illusion about the Scottish Members of Parliament? The overwhelming majority of Scottish Members of Parliament want a Parliament established in Scotland. They want to establish powers of the sort that the 16 Lander in Germany enjoy. However, the establishment of such powers will not result from the Government's implementation and interpretation of article 3(b) of the treaty.
      Mr. Enright: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Our problem with sovereignty lies not with Brussels but with the Government. The problem lies with Conservative Members who support the Government, and that is an important matter.
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: Sovereignty only means constitutional independence. It is part of the sliding of meanings. By all means, let us use another word. How does one merge constitutional independence?
      Mr. Enright: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, because sovereignty has nothing to do with control over one's life. For ordinary people, control over their lives is important. That control is real, not an illusion. What control do we have over our currency now that we are away from economic and monetary union? We have moved away from the exchange rate mechanism.
      Several Hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Enright: I will give way when I have made my point.
      Since we moved out of the exchange rate mechanism, I have found that my hon. Friends do not blame the true culprit, which is Government policy. Government policy has ruined our economy and destroyed the pound. My hon. Friends prefer to give the Government an excuse—the exchange rate mechanism. That is untrue. I am an unashamed socialist, as I am an unashamed unionist in the sense of Europe. As a socialist, I believe in managing the exchange rate.
      It is extremely important to manage the exchange rate; otherwise, it is left to the speculators. The United Kingdom on its own cannot manage the pound or defend it. The rate at which we trade at present is the rate that is decided by a fickle market.
      Mr. Shore: It is difficult to take seriously my hon. Friend's assertion that we have no control over our currency and less freedom than when we were in the ERM. I am sure that he is aware that our interest rates were a minimum 10 per cent. when we were forced out of the ERM. To stay in the ERM, we had to raise interest rates to 15 per cent. We would have gone beyond that figure if necessary or if possible. The interest rates of the weaker currencies in Europe are 13 to 14 per cent.

      315
      Since we left the ERM, we not only have a more competitive pound, but we have been able to reduce interest rates by 3 per cent. According to many people, such a reduction was impossible before we left the ERM, because we were totally dominated by the deutschmark. Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends said that we had 20 minutes of currency freedom before we left the ERM.
      Mr. Enright: I am interested to hear my right hon. Friend suggest that devaluation at whatever is the market price is good. The market price is the price at which the speculators can make a profit.
      It was interesting to read in The Guardian the account of the possibility of changing the rate. The way in which the currency could have been managed—and, frankly, should have been managed—meant that we could have been a reliable trading country.
      I give my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney an example of what management of the currency means to ordinary people in the control of their lives. As a result of the state of the economy, our area must collect funds for a hospital scanner. The collections were going well as a result of the desirable lowering of the exchange rate. However, we must now find another £25,000. That is important in a poor area such as ours, and it is repeated time and again.
      Economic policy cannot be decided with short-term ends in view. One must look to at least a five-year cycle. I agree that a five-year cycle is difficult to maintain, but it must be thought through. However, that is an argument for another day.
      Mr. Austin Mitchell: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a better chance of keeping pits open when imported coal is dearer and therefore domestically produced coal is more competitive than it was when we were in the ERM? Does my hon. Friend also accept that the system that rewards the speculators is an exchange rate mechanism that requires the British Government to buy back any pounds they care to sell, at whatever profit?
      Mr. Enright: I am extremely pleased that my hon. Friend has brought up the subject of coal, which is my next topic. He will realise that energy is one of the new headings in the Maastricht treaty. What we should be doing for 1996 is putting some meat on the skeleton of energy policy. That is how we shall keep our coal pits open. An artificial means of money exchange will not keep them open.
      Mr. Bryan Gould: May I express the hope that my hon. Friend's regrets for what happened on 16 September do not mean that he believes that it was either desirable or possible for us to have adhered to the parity of DM2·95 to the pound which was required of us by the ERM? Will he at least recognise that that terrible burden was removed from us very much by the force of circumstances?
      Mr. Enright: My hon. Friend misunderstands the ERM. It did not require us to stay at that parity. When the exchange rate was fixed, it was a reasonable exchange rate, but because of the destruction of industry and of manufacturing, and because of the failure to pursue a successful economic policy, it had to go down. That could and should have been managed.
      Mr. Jim Marshall: I like the way in which my hon. Friend seeks to defend the impossible—the pound's valuation under the ERM. He says that devaluation could have taken place under the system, and clearly he is right. However, am I correct in saying that the maximum devaluation permitted was 7 per cent? The present indication is that the pound has devalued by substantially more than 7 per cent.
      Mr. Enright: No, that is not entirely correct. There are examples the other way. There is no problem here. It is relatively simple for ECOFIN to sit around the table and to produce sensible solutions.
      Mr. Marlow: If the hon. Gentleman has read today's evening paper, he will have seen that the French franc is under pressure and that the financial tanks are on the lawns of the Elysee palace. The hon. Gentleman is a great fan of the ERM—we understand that. What advice would he give the French President about the franc?
      Mr. Enright: I am grateful for the confidence that the hon. Gentleman reposes in me in that respect. It is not a question for me at all. I am sure that the French President will be able to deal with the matter in his own way.
      Mr. Knapman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Enright: No, because I want to make some progress.
      I turn now to co-operation in foreign policy. There is a great deal of misunderstanding about that. There are areas that should be examined in which practical co-operation will and should take place. Specifically mentioned in the treaty, far more strongly than in any other treaty, is development co-operation. It is clear that nonsense is going on in Africa, in Asia and in South America in terms of development aid. It regularly happens that six or seven of the member states of the EC set up their own programmes while the European Community is setting up its own programmes, and that the programmes are contradictory.
      Even worse is the insistence on selling certain goods. I give Guinea-Bissau as an example. British electrical generators were sold to Guinea-Bissau although the country already had German, French and Japanese generators. The British generators require a sophistication that is impossible in developing countries. The treaty is a practical way in which to come together to ensure that we do not destroy development in trying to assist it.
      6.45 pm
      I began by saying that the Bill was a mean Bill, because I believed that the Government's approach was mean. However, with the social chapter and the social dimension of what can be done under Maastricht, we shall be able to opt in, either when the Government see sense or when a Labour Government take over.
      Mr. Ted Rowlands: I am trying to clarify my hon. Friend's position. Do his comments mean that he does not support the present opt-out on economic and monetary union?
      Mr. Enright: I do not support the present opt-out. I take the line that 12 out of 12 socialist parties back Maastricht. The other 11 socialist parties say to this

      317
      socialist party, "Please do not annihilate Maastricht simply because of the opt-out. It will be easy for you to opt in to the social chapter."
      Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Does my hon. Friend agree that the fact that the Conservative Government are so extreme in their opposition to workers' rights that they opt out of the social chapter is no justification for us, by defeating Maastricht, to deny those rights to the working people of the other 11 countries?
      Mr. Enright: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. This country needs quality jobs, not cheapjack jobs.
      Mr. Giles Radice: Is it not totally illogical to argue that we should vote against the Bill because it does not contain the social chapter? That would not only deprive our friends on the continent of Europe of the social chapter, but would deprive us of any prospect of opting in.
      Mr. Enright: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. A further point was made to me by the managing director of a multinational firm. He said, "We are operating on the continent. We must operate the social chapter there. We shall operate it here." I am convinced that, ere long, the Government will be taken to court over the matter. I shall be entirely happy to surrender our sovereignty to the courts of Europe, which will give us justice under the social charter.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: I will not go over what the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) said. However, I make this appeal to him. If, as a socialist, he cares about working people, he should look at what is happening in Europe today. The evening paper says: "ERM in last stand as the franc plunges". The Danish currency is plunging. Interest rates are soaring in the countries of Europe.
      Who is suffering? The speculators do not suffer. The ERM was the best thing that ever came to the speculators. They have been making millions. The people who suffer are the working people of Europe who are put out of their jobs and out of their homes because of a mad policy of pretending that currencies are worth what they are not.
      I appreciate that there are always people who have held views for a long time with some sincerity. Even in the Church of England, one finds people who say, "Things have always been this way and I will stick to it." I find it sickening—I mean that sincerely, because I do not usually attack people—to hear a member of the Labour party—the party that has fought for working people, for human rights and for the ordinary people of Britain—support a policy that is destroying jobs and the communities of working people because of an absurd, irrelevant and artificial process.
      The Conservatives have learnt. We have learnt that the ERM is a load of rubbish. I very much doubt whether one could find anyone apart from a few residual fanatics who would say anything good about the ERM. It is nonsense. We all know that to try to pretend that the pound is worth something it is not or that the franc is worth something it is not means that one has to distort something else.
      It either means that, as we once had, we create artificial prosperity as happened with the previous Chancellor, or there is artificial inflation. Think what it means to the
      318
      people with homes and jobs—it is a policy of madness. While I accept that probably some people have rethought this, I am the last person in the world to support this absurd nonsense that, if they are working people, they are members of the British Labour party.
      Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way. While he is indulging in these flights of rhetoric, he needs to explain one thing: how can it be better for speculators to have a system of managed exchange rates than it is to have a system where all rates float? He needs to address that issue.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: The hon. Gentleman needs to look at what really happens, not at me, and not what he reads in books. The speculators try to keep a currency at an artificial level, and are pushing and pulling. If he looks not at books nor at me but at what is happening, he will see that the speculators have a wonderful time making millions of pounds because of this absurd policy. It is not the working people: it is the speculators.
      I am pleased that this party has woken up and realised that it is nonsense, but it is the socialists who are repeating this nonsense. I would say to anyone that, if they think that allowing the pound to find its market value is contrary to socialism, I just cannot see it.
      Mr. Knapman: Does my hon. Friend believe that 30 per cent. inflation at this time is helpful to the people of a country or to the speculators?
      Sir Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend has got it. How does it help the working people of Ireland, where they have 20 per cent. unemployment and interst rates of 30 per cent? What about people with homes, people who have borrowed money? How does it help them to see interest rates forced up, not to help the economy but basically to preserve an artificial exchange rate? Opposition Members have used a cloud of slogans and make people laugh, but they should rethink their position. There is plenty of room for honest political disagreement. There is nothing wrong with that, but to have someone supporting an absurd policy which only harms working people seems to me ridiculous and shameful.
      Mr. Tam Dalyell: I have had honest political disagreements with the hon. Gentleman for a quarter of a century, but will he just keep it cool and reflect on what the Community has been able to do for his own city of Glasgow and for the Strathclyde area? They think, rightly or wrongly, that they have received great good from the Community.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: Of course, and the people of Ireland like it as well as the people of Glasgow, but one has to appreciate that every pound that goes to Glasgow and to Ireland costs us £1·68p. While I appreciate that great things have been done in Glasgow, in the absurd business of taking in money and sloshing it around, someone is losing because of all the machinery. If people say that Europe has brought us a new factory or a new bridge, they should realise that they could have had twice as many bridges if we had not had this absurd nonsense of intervening.
      Mrs. Gorman: Is it not true that it is not just a matter of money sloshing about? Our net contribution to the EC

      319
      costs us about £50 million every week, and that will go up to £200 million a week if we go into Maastricht and get into the cohesion fund.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: It does not matter to me or to my hon. Friend, because we have worked hard all our lives and have savings and money. But what about the poor people who are paying £4 a week in membership? There are also the poor people, the pensioners and the unemployed, who are paying £18 a week extra for their food. She is quite right: we should be thinking of them. We should not be thinking just about the MPs and all the rest, but about the people with small incomes. However, we must get on with the amendment.
      Sir Russell Johnston: It becomes impossible to comprehend the hon. Member as a member of a party which has governed for 13 years, during which the differentiation between the rich and the poor has become greater than ever before. It is unfair of him to say this. If he is talking about the relationship in the exchange rate, he knows, as someone whose party supports business, that business wants to be able to project its prices ahead. That was one of the basic reasons for trying to achieve a controlled relationship.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: This idea that one can somehow fix everything—interest rates, prices and everything else—is the basis of a communist society. What happens when one does that? I ask the hon. Gentleman in all seriousness: if he says that about sums like £18 a week for poor families in Billericay and in Southend, what can I or he or the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition do about it? That is the issue of Maastricht. There is nothing we can do. People will vote in the next election. Remember how the people voted last time, but there is nothing we can do.
      The real tragedy is that people are being misled by MPs jumping up and down and saying, "I want an inquiry," and, "I want a rethink." I remember someone, some silly twit, saying the other day, "I want to stop the scandal of this pornography being sold." Hon. Members heard him, but I will not say who he was. He said that something had to be done. The fact is that the Minister who was in charge of standards until recently—my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor)—was basically saying, "There is nothing we can do." Yet the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition arid the Liberal Democrats all say, "We want to stop this pornography being sold in Britain, but we cannot do it because of the European broadcasting directives."
      Basically, one of the topics in considering this amendment—
      Mr. Marlow: I am sorry to intervene, but I am trying to save time by being helpful. A Labour Member has raised the question of the ERM and the speculators, so can we save time for the future and nail this business once and for all? Because we are in the ERM, our economy is moving at a different speed from those of other economies, and it is obvious that that currency at some stage or another has got to give.
      If it has to give, there is a one-way bet for the speculators, so they are going to make money. If there are floating exchange rates, so that the rates are going up and down according to the economies trading with each other, there is no one-way bet, because they will not know
      320
      whether it is to go up or down, but the speculators will make money out of the ERM and not out of the other systems.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: We are coming to that in considering future parts of the Bill. The only thing against what my hon. Friend says is Maastricht. Will we have to rejoin the ERM? The answer is that we do not know. At a packed meeting of Back Benchers, the Government said that we did not have to rejoin the ERM at all and some people went, clap, clap, clap.
      The Foreign Secretary, said, in a little pamphlet, that we would have to rejoin the ERM to sign the Maastricht treaty. Then a barrister said that we had to rejoin the ERM to sign Maastricht. The trouble is that no one knows. We have to wait until the European Court tells us. That is the fact that people must face.
      I must come to the amendment, because I have spoken for far too long. Basically, the amendment is saying that title I should go into the treaty. That is what it says: nothing more or less. if I were to ask, "Do I approve of title I?", the answer would be, "Absolutely not," because title I is damaging. It will damage Britain and democracy, and will do all kinds of bad things to our people and to their rights and freedoms.
      But of course, we are not debating whether we support this. We are supporting a simple little structural Liberal Democrat amendment, which says that we would like to put this into the Bill.
      I have listened for a day and a half to all the speeches, including one or two very unusual ones. What I would say to everyone is: "Please tell me: what difference is it going to make if we put this into the Bill?" I listened to the Minister, who spoke for an hour, which I thought was far too long, and I read his speech again this morning; then I read it a second time.
      Having read the Minister's speech, I asked myself what difference the amendment would make. The Minister said that things may go to court if the amendment were accepted. However, the preamble already applies if a case goes to the European Court. Even though it is not in British law, it will be considered by the European Court. In that respect, the amendment makes no difference.
      As every other country is incorporating the treaty into its domestic law, will we be in a speical position when cases go to the European Court? The answer to that is no. I do not criticise the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), who has made some interesting speeches—we are looking for his support and co-operation on other issues in future—but the hon. Member argued that we must cut down on unnecessary legislation. That was a splendid comment to come from a Labour party spokesman, and I hope that that will be Labour's policy in future.
      7 pm
      What legislation can be produced from a preamble? I have discussed that point with clever lawyers. I went to the Library and asked, "On the basis of the preamble, what law or regulations can be produced?" The answer was, "Nothing at all." What possible reason can there be for not incorporating the amendment in the Bill?
      The reasons given for the amendment by the Liberal Democrats are obvious and simple. They claim that the amendment will simply add "I" to "Titles II, III". If the amendment is accepted, the Liberal Democrats will feel

      321
      happier. They will think that British law has been changed and "isn't that nice?" That will make them feel somehow more European, and for a Liberal Democrat, that is fair enough. If they want to do that kind of thing, good luck to them.
      However, are there any other reasons for the amendment? Another reason might be found in article B, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) referred in his splendid speech. Article B refers to the Community providing itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives. Although I am not an expert on these matters, is it not just possible that, if the amendment is incorporated in the Bill, we might have to have that dreadful thing—a money resolution?
      If we had a money resolution, that would be terrible. We all know that the treaty will cost us a fortune. As a result of the cohesion fund and the common agricultural policy, every family in Britain will have to pay at least another £2 a week. We will shove lots of money into grand schemes in Portugal and Spain, and into goodness knows what. It would be much better if a European plane dropped £10 notes or 10 ecu notes at random.
      Mr. Rowe: My hon. Friend has always been very anxious about the amount of money that the Community costs families. It is perhaps worth remembering that we are still recovering from the amount of money that we poured out in the last war. We poured out that money in an attempt to control dictatorships. When the European Community began, there were dictators in Spain, Portugal and Greece. There are no such dictators now. The European Community can take a great deal of the credit for having achieved that result.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: I have heard that argument before. In fact, my Euro-ladies whom I meet when I go to speak in constituencies around the country use the argument to reassure themselves about the Community. We joined the Community because it was supposed to help out trade. Sadly, that has turned out to be a great disaster. We have had a deficit of £50,000 million over the past five years. That is a disappointment.
      We were also told that joining the EC would somehow stop unemployment. It has not done that: unemployment is getting worse. We are now saying that we really joined Europe to promote peace. It is interesting to note that the only thing excluded from the treaty of Rome was defence. What has really preserved peace is NATO—a splendid voluntary organisation.
      While I appreciate the sincerity of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), and while I know that many other equally sincere Conservative ladies are trying to reassure themselves by saying that that was the real reason for the European Community, we know, sadly, that peace had nothing to do with it at all.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) reminds me of the recent occasion when the United Kingdom appealed to Belgium for help with weaponry and, in particular, ammunition to assist us against a dictator in Iraq. That country—Belgium—which happens to be a member of the European Community, refused to help us and, in the main, we had to fight that fight with our allies from north America. Perhaps we should look to north America to sustain peace and to wage wars against dictators.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
      Mr. Enright: Will the hon. Member accept that, at precisely the same time, the United Kingdom was selling arms to the dictator in Iraq?
      Sir Teddy Taylor: I will not be tempted down that road.
      Mr. Rowe: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. I want to make it quite clear that, despite what my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) has said, I really should not be described as another Conservative lady.
      Sir Teddy Taylor rose—
      Mr. Jim Marshall: I know that the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) does not wish to mislead the House. He said that the one thing missing from the original treaty of Rome was defence. He then went on to say that that was because NATO was responsible for peace and defence. He knows a lot about those issues, and he knows that that is incorrect.
      If the hon. Gentleman refreshes his memory about the modified Brussels treaty which established the Western European Union, he will recall that the WEU was originally established as an economic, social and defence organisation. When the European Community was originally formed, its economic and social aspects were transferred to the EC, and defence remained the prerogative of the WEU. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: The hon. Gentleman knows far more about that than most hon. Members. On the particular point about the WEU, he is right. However, I hope that he will accept my point that the WEU was not responsible for defence policy.
      Mr. Michael Stephen: My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) was right to point out that defence is excluded from the European Community. However, he is being less than fair. Surely the point of the European Coal and Steel Community was so to intermingle the coal and steel industries of France and Germany that those countries could never take up arms against each other again.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: It is odd to mention coal in this argument. We are in favour of free trade so that goods can cross frontiers easily. However, what is happening to British coal mines today? We are closing pits which are producing coal at £40 a tonne or less, when Germany is producing coal at more than £86 a tonne and other European countries are producing coal at more than £100 a tonne. They are doing that with artificial subsidies. After the British miners have produced cheaper coal, they have been kicked in the teeth, because we are not getting the free trade in Europe that we thought we would get.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) made a wise point about defence. Not only did the Belgians not provide the ammunition in that defence problem, but the Irish said that, because they were what they called an independent country, they were unable to implement United Nations resolutions.
      The French are delightful people, but they sent an army with severe restrictions imposed on it. The poor American commander panicked so much that he had to have the French army defend a sultan's palace because he was not

      323
      quite sure what to do with it. The Germans very strangely did the right thing, and 200 of their firms provided the poison gas and extended the Scud missiles for the Iraqis.
      The amendment does not make the slightest difference, unless the issue is the money resolution. The money resolution is the key. Why on earth can we not have a money resolution? We know that the Bill will cost us a fortune. Civil servants will be employed and many things will be done which will cost money. We do not have a money resolution, and we know that, by not having one, many of the things that we should be discussing in the Bill cannot be discussed. If Ministers and hon. Members knew the nightmares that other hon. Members, Labour and Conservative, have been engaged in, trying to find a form of words to enable us to have a debate on a referendum, they would realise why this is important.
      I see no objection to the amendment of the Liberal Democrats. It would not make the slightest difference one way or the other. It would not mean the Government promoting more legislation, it would by no means affect court decisions, and even in Europe, where it could affect court decisions to have this, it is going to be in the treaty anyway. On the other hand, the one thing that we must not say to the Liberal Democrats is that this means that we support it.
      I want to mention one particular proposal and one particular part of it—the question of citizenship. Some people have laughed at the citizenship concept, but citizenship of the European union contains symbolism of enormous power. The practical rights to be given to citizens of the European union could instead have been conferred on a reciprocal basis on the citizens of other member states. We could have had this question of being able to vote in elections, and all the rest of it. What has been introduced, however, is something very strange.
      It is, of course, argued that British citizens will remain British citizens even after they become citizens of the union. No doubt this is so, in the same way as British citizens are still citizens of London, Birmingham or wherever they happen to live. But the effect of this tiny amendment to take out this part is to remove from the treaty the commitment to what some people say as the unitary, and some people say is the federalist, nature of the European union.
      The notion of citizenship was introduced not by the Government but by Mr. Felipe Gonzalez, the Spanish Prime Minister, and endorsed by the Commission and others. The Commission considered that it would encourage a feeling of involvement in European integration. The Commission proposed that this should be written into the treaty—the rights of residence and of movement, and the right to take part in local and national elections stayed exactly the same.
      We must bear in mind that the establishment of a European union does not mean just that people will be able to vote in elections. Some of us think it a bit daft to say that because someone is French he should be able to vote in Derbyshire.
      Mrs. Currie: It is worth pointing out that we have lived happily for a very long time with the fact that Irish citizens can vote in all our elections and even become hon. Members. Perhaps my hon. Friend will explain to us what is so awful about the rights which are clearly set out under the citizenship articles and which are very simple: the right to vote and stand in local and European elections, the right
      324
      to diplomatic and consular protection, the right to petition the European Parliament and the creation of a new ombudsman.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: I hope that my hon. Friend will genuinely think about this. There is nothing wrong at all, if we want it, in saying that people should be able to vote in elections if they have a house here. An American, an Australian, a Pakistani or a Frenchman who has a house in Britain and pays local taxes should be able to vote in elections, and I have no objection to that. We can pass a law saying that they can do this. But we are not doing that. We are saying that if a Frenchman has a house in Derbyshire he can vote but an Australian or an American or someone else cannot. What can possibly be the logic of this kind of discrimination?
      Mr. Tim Devlin: That is not actually true. Australians, Canadians and other members of the Commonwealth can vote if based in Great Britain.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: My understanding is that a citizen of the United States is unable to.
      The point that I am trying to make is that even if we wanted to sort this out we could do so quite easily by some little provision in British law. The key element of the citizenship Bill is not whether one can vote or petition an ombudsman but what is contained at the end of the section, i.e., the Council of Ministers having the power to strengthen and add to the rights laid down. There is to be a three-year review of one's citizenship duties. If we let this go through, every three years there will be a complete review of the position and the Council of Ministers will be able to add anything it likes to the duties of European citizens. Hon. Members have been told in the past that the common agricultural policy would mean fair prices for the consumer and the housewife, and we have seen what happened. Hon. Members were told that the exchange rate mechanism would guarantee growth and stability, and we have seen what happened. We have been led down the garden path time and time again. We are told that citizenship will mean only certain things, but it will mean more. Hon. Members must wake up to the fact that the introduction of European citizenship will mean the basis of a unitary state with European citizens and not the establishment of a federal Europe—that would be a step forward from what we have. I can never understand why the Government keep on saying that they will fight against a federal Europe to the bitter end; a federal Europe would be a step forward.
      7.15 pm
      At leasd with a federal Europe some things would belong to us and some things to them. At present nothing is guaranteed for us at all, the way things are developing.
      Mrs. Gorman: Is it not a fact that already, whether or not other Europeans can vote in our country, whether or not they pay tax in our country, they can come and live here and receive the benefits of the welfare system of our country? It is possible for someone from Europe to retire to this country, never having contributed a halfpenny towards the taxes, and to draw income support and benefits which have been paid for by the British taxpayer.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, as always.
      Mr. Devlin: It is completely unfair to agree with one hon. Friend who makes a contention like that and not agree with the other contention which is also true, that British citizens can go and live in Spain, Portugal, France, Greece or any other country and draw their benefits and pensions in those countries as well. A great number of my constituents are currently taking advantage of this.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: I accept that my hon. Friend is a sincere person who has considered his views carefully. I hope that he will appreciate, with all these extra rights and entitlements, that if we had equal application of laws throughout a united Europe things would be much better for these people. Sadly, we do not have that equality of treatment. To illustrate what I mean, I ask him to look at agricultural policy and the way we have not equality but wide variation.
      I ask my hon. Friends to look at the citizenship issue. It is not just a small question; this is the big stuff. Listen to Bob Marley. It is all there. Perhaps hon. Members do not know that Bob Marley was a great singer, a Rastafarian, and some of his songs are the most wonderful one could have. One of them tells the whole story of what Government say to us year after year: please do not worry about anything because everything is going to be all right. That is what we have been told time and time again, and every time it has blown up in our faces. I say to those hon. Members who are not worried about citizenship that it does not just mean voting in council elections. I ask them to think about the three-year review and about the fact that the Council of Ministers will be able to act without limit.
      The Government may ask if we have no faith in them and in their ability to protect us, but that is not how the European Community works. The Government have to do nasty things to get agreement on other things. Hon. Members who doubt this should look at the 40-hour week directive. How many hon. Members know that we have already agreed that French bakers will be exempt but British bakers will not? Why? Not because we think it is sensible or right but because, in EC bargaining, one thing has to be given for another.
      I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will think about this matter. There is no reason why they should or should not vote for the Liberal Democrats' amendment. It will make not the slightest bit of difference to anyone. It will have no impact, except that it might just make a money resolution possible.
      I sincerely hope that, as they proceed through the Bill, hon. Members will think back to the Single European Act and all the pledges that were given, will think back to the treaty of Rome, and will think back to the time when the poor former Prime Minister was a great lady who said,"If you only give a wee bit more money to the CAP, we will wipe out all the mountains, we will start again, and the problems will not arise again." They are always going to arise.
      The people who suffer are not people such as myself—they are not politicians. The people who suffer are the ordinary people of Britain who have suffered hugely, who have lost jobs, and who have found that the economy is part of a declining area of the world. Europe's share of world trade is going down and down, the economies of Europe are going down and down, and the ordinary people of Europe are suffering. We have to find some other way out. The other way out for me is to say no to
      326
      Maastricht and then, in respect of our present Prime Minister, to say, "Let us promote a treaty on real subsidiarity which would take powers back."
      I am sorry that I have taken a bit longer than I expected, Mr. Lofthouse. You have seen that I was deliberately interrupted to try to keep the debate going. However, I should like to put across a simple message. Remember the threat to people, remember the injuries, and remember Bob Marley's song. If we remember that, we will remember that there is a big battle for the people of Britain, for democracy, for freedom and for liberty.
      Mr. Benn: After listening to the past two days of debate, one thing has become clear in my mind, and that is that this issue divides every party and every country and could, in certain circumstances, realign British politics. That point needs to be made because, if anyone imagines that commitment to either side of the argument is shallow, he is quite wrong. There are some who are passionately committed to the federal Europe in its most unitary sense and always have been, and there are those—I am one of them—who believe that we are Members of Parliament only because our electors sent us to Parliament and that their rights must be paramount. They are very deep matters. The House of Commons is not the place to reach that decision.
      After listening to the debate, with the many complex arguments—we have heard long and important speeches—it has become clear to me that those are matters that the public alone can determine.
      I cannot see any reason for speaking in the debate other than to try as best I can to explore what the treaty means, to clarify its implications and to explain to the people who sent me here, in particular, what effect the treaty will have upon their lives and upon their future. I am here only because they have lent me powers, and I have no moral authority to give them away. I have told the Opposition Chief Whip that nothing in the world would alter my conviction, because one cannot ask an hon. Member to give away what he does not own. That is my position, and I say it in a way that I am sure the Committee will understand.
      I am very glad that the Liberal Democrats have moved the amendment, because, whether people vote for or against it, it will make no difference; it will be embodied in the treaty. Therefore, the Liberal Democrats' amendment has merely provided for us the opportunity to have an extremely important debate which had to be held, and for that we must be grateful.
      Before we examine the question of European union, we should look at the position of the House of Commons in deciding how to deal with the Bill. Much will be made of the subject of ratification and of a money resolution, but the House of Commons has been held in check by the Crown. I am not talking about the Queen and the royal family; I am talking about the Crown as a legal institution since the 17th century. It is important to understand that none of us can be Members of Parliament without taking an oath of allegiance to the Crown. I am a republican.
      Mrs. Gorman: Yes.
      Mr. Benn: When I went to the Table after the April general election, I said, "As a committed republican, I solemnly declare and affirm that I will bear faithful and true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her

      327
      heirs and successors according to law," because that was what my electors told me to say when they elected me. At the same time, that was the Crown.
      I now refer to the treaty itself. The matter is not as obscure as it might have appeared when I tried to develop the argument. How was the Foreign Secretary able to go to Maastricht and sign the treaty? It was because he had the authority of the Crown to sign the treaty. The Queen had given plenipotentiary powers to the Foreign Secretary, so the treaty was initialled—it has not yet been ratified—by the Foreign Secretary under Crown powers. We are not even allowed to discuss the Bill without the Queen's consent—the Crown's consent—because it touches on the prerogatives of the Crown.
      I have introduced various Bills which touch on the prerogative, few of which have reached the statute book. I have had to write to the Home Secretary on each occasion and I have received letters from him saying that Her Majesty had graciously placed her prerogatives at the disposal of the House of Commons for the purpose of discussing this or that Bill. That is the next element of the Crown. Of course, if the Bill is passed, it will require the assent of the Crown—Royal Assent. We cannot have a referendum, we have been told, because the right to promote expenditure belongs to the Crown. That is why a money resolution cannot be tabled by a Back-Bench Member. Only the Crown, through the voice of a Secretary of State, can table a money resolution.
      If the Bill becomes law, it will confer upon British Ministers greater prerogative powers in Brussels than they now have. Those laws passed by treaty-making powers of the Crown will be capable of wiping out legislation passed by both Houses of Parliament and assented to in a subordinate way by the Crown.
      The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) gave an example of legislation that had been overridden by Common Market legislation—I think that it was the Bank of England Act 1946. I give him another example. In 1945, just after the atomic bomb was dropped, the post-war Government, with general consent, passed a resolution saying that all atomic material, including uranium, found in Britain belonged to the Government. Of course, Euratom is a federal system. When I raised the matter with Commissioner Brunner I was told, "I am sorry, but the Atomic Energy Act 1946 has now been subsumed in Euratom. Everything that we now do in Brussels is done by the Crown."
      The reason why the House of Commons is frustrated is that, in terms of legislation, we are back to where we were before 1649. [Laughter.] Conservative Members laugh. I was on the Council of Ministers for five years—I was once the president. Every time I assented to everything, I assented by the powers of the Crown. I am not trying to provoke anybody. I am trying to explain to people outside why the House of Commons is impotent in the matter. It is already impotent because of the treaty of Rome, but it is a fact that all laws that are made in the union—that is what it is—and made with the assent of British Ministers will represent a growth of prerogative power.
      Before we consider what the union might do to us in terms of our system of government, let us realise what that enterprise has done to us already in a strictly domestic context. The House of Commons has passed over to the Crown the powers of law making which it won hundreds of years ago, for which there is no parallel. In the first years in which I was a Member of Parliament, as far as I could
      328
      make out, there was no capacity for the Crown to make laws except within the very narrow domestic context as with security services, or whatever.
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: When I catch the Chairman's eye, I hope to continue discussion of some of these points, but does the right hon. Gentleman accept that if the House of Commons votes down and damns this lamentable Bill, the treaty will be killed? Therefore, we can affect the use of prerogative power and the effects which the Government seek to bring about.
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Benn: If we defeat the Bill, we can prevent the extension of prerogative power; but some of it has already slipped through our fingers, in 1972, without it ever being made explicit what was happening.
      The last point that I make about Crown powers—I hope nobody will understand me—is that when Government Whips press Back-Bench Members to support a Bill, one weapon which they use is the granting or withholding of patronage under the powers of the Crown. I do not know much about the Conservative party, but I dare say that an elderly Conservative Member, planning to retire at the next election, might find it harder to have a peerage given to him if he voted against the Maastricht treaty, because knighthoods, baronetcies and peerages may be withheld according to the discipline of the Whips.
      Indeed, for younger Members the prospect of getting a Crown appointment as a Minister of the Crown may be affected if there is disloyalty on the Maastricht treaty. I am told that in the Conservative party even an invitation to a royal garden party may be dangled or withdrawn if Members are not in line.
      The point I am trying to make—and I am doing little more than giving an account of how this place works—is that when we look at a story from the beginning, through the legislation, through the ratification which is done by Crown prerogative, through to the pressure of the Whips, the Commons has never completed the work which it began in 1688. Therefore, for that reason if for no other, it is not a body capable of dealing with this act of union for which the Bill provides.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: When the right hon. Gentleman was a distinguished holder of office under the Crown in the last, now distant, Labour Administration, had it become apparent to him at that time the way in which the Crown prerogative was being abused, and did he take steps at that time to make that known to his colleagues and try to rectify it, or has it become apparent to him, as it were, in later life?
      Mr. Benn: The right hon. Gentleman invites me to make a speech twice as long as the one I intended to make. I was thrown out of Parliament by Crown prerogative. My father was made a peer, and when he died I was thrown out of the House because that prerogative had given me a peerage. The Speaker would not let me in. The right hon. Gentleman should not try to tell me that I just learnt this to make a speech tonight. That is an insult to me but also an insult to a life-long commitment to the democratic principle that I hope people accept.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I do not think anyone would put that in doubt. Indeed, the battle that the right hon. Gentleman

      329
      fought in those days was admired and, I think, supported by some of my hon. Friends. The question that I was asking was about the time when he was a Minister of the Crown and was exercising Crown prerogative as a Minister of the Crown. That is the question to which I was seeking an answer. Certainly I would not seek to question the right hon. Gentleman's commitment to the democratic process. I hope he did not understand that in any way.
      Mr. Benn: I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman meant. If I responded strongly, it was because of the suggestion that I was cooking up a phoney argument to promote opposition to this Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman really wants to know, when I was made a Cabinet Minister and a Privy Councillor, and saw the Privy Councillor's oath, it was so revolting that I asked not to have to take it. It pledged me to all sorts of things about foreign prelates and potentates. The right hon. Gentleman has probably seen it. When I went to the Cabinet Office and it was read to me, I said at the end that I had never agreed to it. The clerk to the Privy Council said, "You do not have to agree." I said, "What do you mean?" He said, "I have administered the oath." I never knew that a Privy Councillor's oath was an injection. I did not want it; I did not agree; I got it administered, and all it does is occasionally, not always, give me a chance to speak in the House.
      This is a point of substance. In 1968 I argued for a referendum. I may sound like Harold Wilson in remembering where it was, but it was at the Welsh conference of the Labour party in Llandudno. Some Cabinet colleagues demanded that I be dismissed from the Cabinet for mentioning a referendum. In the end I persuaded my party to go for it. My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition voted for the referendum. The deputy Leader of the Opposition was a Whip who voted for a referendum. It all took time. We lost Roy Jenkins on the way. I do not know how to describe it, but he resigned because he did not want the public to be consulted.
      I should like to come back to my line of argument, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that both on the renunciation of the peerage and on the referendum my commitment for many years has been that the people should decide who is to be their Member of Parliament and whether he should go.
      Coming back to my argument, I can revert to my role as a lecturer for the Workers Educational Association. Let us look at what union would mean. There has been talk about citizenship and so on. Let me try to make it clear to those who might be watching the debate at home on television—the whole debate should be televised—that it makes a fundamental difference in the relationship between an elector and a Member of Parliament.
      One reason that we do not have many riots in Britain is that people can have a say. Over many years I have said, "Do not riot; vote. You can defeat the Government. In that way you can change policy and you will achieve what you want by peaceful means." People do not realise that democracy hangs on a very slender, delicate thread. If the link is broken and people realise that, no matter for whom they vote in an election, decisions will be taken by the European union, I do not say that they will riot, but we
      330
      could not argue against action taken directly by them because there was no democratic route for the solution to their problem.
      Mr. Michael Lord: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one precious thing about the House of Commons is the way in which we as Members of Parliament can talk to our constituents when we are in our constituencies and come back the next week and get hold of Ministers to get things done? If we have a problem about, say, roads or hospitals, we can grab the Minister responsible and get something done. I represent an agricultural constituency. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, because our agricultural powers have been given to Europe, I as a Member representing farmers now have great difficulty in getting anything done for the people whom I represent? It goes exactly to the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making; frustration builds up not just among Members but among constituents. In many ways I feel that I am unable to do the job that I was sent here to do.
      Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman points to a problem that has already arisen deriving from the treaty of Rome, which I do not want to go into because we are discussing its extension. He is right. The work of Members in their constituencies is one of the most unreported aspects of an hon. Member's life. I do not know how many letters other hon. Members receive. I assume that we all get approximately the same number. If they were grossed up, we would find that hundreds of thousands of representations made to hon. Members are never reported because the media is not interested in democracy but only in politicians, which is a different speciality.
      I have sat in Cabinets when papers have come from Ministers written by their civil servants. Other Ministers may say, "It may look good to the Department of Health but it would not deal with the problem that came up at my surgery last Friday." That relationship is important. It educates Members, and we represent our constituents' views.
      Another point which has not been touched on is that, because of the way law making is done in the Community, even if it is by qualified majority, it is easy to make a law but there has to be the same majority or unanimity to repeal it.
      For many years it has rightly been a principle of this House that no Parliament can bind its successors. In European union every decision binds its successors because one cannot change it. Even if a British Government were elected on the issue of repealing a piece of this legislation, prospective Members of Parliament would not be able to tell the electorate that they would repeal it because the mechanism to do so would not exist. European Community legislation is like a lobster pot—it is easy to get in but very difficult to get out.
      I do not have to dwell at great length on the second aspect of the treaty as I have dealt with it already. The Council of Ministers is a Parliament and not a Cabinet—it makes the laws. It is the only Parliament in the world to meet in secret.
      During the British presidency in 1977, I tabled a motion that the Council should meet in public. Ministers would have died rather than agree. They all went to the Council, saying that they were going to defend this or that. When they got there they did all the deals and did not want

      331
      anyone to know what happened. It is as if this Parliament met in secret. From that point of view the Council is totally undemocratic—but decisions made there by British Ministers are made by royal prerogative in any case.
      The third difference is that between the elected and appointed part of our constitution. Anyone who has been a Minister knows that civil servants work to a Minister. They may be difficult, but one can tell them, "I want this paper put to the Cabinet."
      At the Council of Ministers no one is allowed to submit a paper. Ministers can only act on the initiative of the Commission. I have sat on every committee that I can think of—from the local party to the national executive and the shadow Cabinet—but the Council of Ministers is the only committee where, even as president for energy, I could not submit a paper to the other Members because the powers of initiation are vested in the Commission. That will be a fundamental change and it is not altered in any way by the Maastricht treaty.
      At the Council, Ministers have to try to bully Commissioners who are appointed to submit a paper in the hope that their idea may come back before it.
      Mr. Spearing rose—
      Mr. Benn: I do not want to take too long, as I am trying to get a lot into one speech, but I shall give way.
      Mr. Spearing: Is not that argument vital? It is an illustration of why so many of us say that the European Community is intrinsically authoritarian. The authority for any initiative lies with the Commission. Furthermore, it is important for title I, as in articles A to F, and the two pillars—home and foreign affairs—it is written in the treaty that the Commission shall be fully associated with these matters and has the duty of co-ordinating the totality.
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Benn: My hon. Friend is opening up the question very fully. It is true that the Commission has great powers. I shall give the House two examples. Viscount Davignon, who was the Commissioner for industry, and Guido Brunner told me, when I was an elected Secretary of State, that I could not insist that North sea oil he refined in Britain, and that that oil should come under the terms of the treaty of Rome. Secondly, I tried to continue a scheme introduced by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) when he was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, whereby he supported Scottish industries working in North sea oil—it got a slightly lower rate of interest. [Interruption.]
      The First Deputy Chairman: Will those hon. Members holding a sub-committee on the other side of the Bar please hold it outside the Chamber?
      Mr. Benn: That is subsidiarity at work—one just goes on talking and no one takes any notice.
      The Commissioners told me that if I continued the scheme introduced by the former party leader they would take me to court—and they did. They chose polling day in 1979, when I was on my bicycle anyway.
      Do not think that the power of the Commission to initiate actions to frustrate an elected Government in Britain is not real—it is. I can imagine circumstances when a Government, elected by a huge majority—it does not matter of which party—to do something, did it and was
      332
      then told by civil servants, "I'm sorry, Minister, what you are doing is illegal." What would happen if the elected Government were not able to carry forward their policy? There would be a major constitutional crisis.
      Mrs. Gorman rose—
      Mr. Benn: I shall give way when I have finished the analysis.
      The treaty transfers power from politicians to the courts. In Europe, courts are different from those in Britain. They are political and do not pretend to be impartial, as they do here. The continental legal tradition is that law is a new way to implement constitutions and policies. Elected British Ministers could be taken to the court on citizenship, or on any other issue, and they would find that their power had been transferred—from the electorate and Parliament—to judges. Once one got into that situation, one would not be able to get out of it.
      I am not misery-mongering, but trying to look ahead at the nature of the constitution and of the political crises that could lie ahead if we made such changes.
      One only has to listen to some of the speeches on the issue to realise that the Bill is advocated by people of a managerial bent. I see myself as a representative: I am here to represent the people. I hear many of those who advocate the treaty say that they view the handling of Europe as the good management of Europe. They say that we must manage the exchange rate, trade, this or that. I have no doubt that most of them would be well qualified to be Commissioners. However, managers without consent never get very far, even in industry.
      Those five changes in relationship—between the electors and Members, between Members and the Government, between the legislature and the executive, between the Commons and the Commission, between the political and judicial and the representative and managerial—are all inherent in the treaty. People must not merely troop in at the end of the Third Reading; they must understand what the treaty is about. Because of the nature of the changes, I believe that the public and the electors, who put us here, must decide whether they wish them to be made.
      Mrs. Gorman: The right hon. Gentleman has in part dealt with my point—which is that there is a fundamental difference in the way in which law is construed in this country. We have the common law, by practice, from the people and upward. The continental system is decided by codes and handed down from above, as the right hon. Gentleman illustrated. In our system of government we have a tradition of "by the people and for the people", whereas they have a tradition of government of the people. That is quite different from the way in which we view our citizenship.
      Mr. Benn: If the hon. Lady heard what I said about the role of the Crown, she would realise that I do not share her view that we are very democratic; but that is another matter. The continental system is different and the laws cannot be changed by the mechanism with which we have become familiar for many years.
      Mr. Dalyell: I do not know whether it is a term of abuse, but I am surprised to be accused of being of "managerial bent". Does that bent also apply to the overwhelming majority at the Labour party conference?
      Mr. Benn: I shall come to the Labour party in a moment—I have to be delicate about it. If I had any doubt about my hon. Friend, it would be that his towering intellect may so induce him to observe the scene from the top that managerial ideas might enter into his mind, although I know that he is a good constituency Member of Parliament.
      To sum up, Bagehot, in his book on the English constitution, said that the Crown was the dignified and the House of Commons the effective part of the constitution. Now the Crown is the effective and the House of Commons is the dignified. Crown powers now determine our policy, but the Commons has all the glory of television, the Speaker and all the glamour of our debates. But we are simply performing a dignified function. That is the nature of the transformation that has taken place since 1972.
      Mr. Hoon: My right hon. Friend rightly criticises the fact that only the Commission currently has the right to initiate legislation in the European Community. Does that mean that he supports the provision in the Maastricht treaty that enhances the European Parliament's ability to initiate legislation? Does it follow from his criticism that he wants the European Parliament to initiate more legislation in the future?
      Mr. Benn: I want the Commission abolished, because no civilised democratic country would allow any power whatever to be in the hands of unelected people who cannot be removed. I have drafted a Bill, which my hon. Friend may have seen, called the Commonwealth of Europe Bill, under which we would have a secretary-general and would harmonise the 50 countries of Europe by consent through an assembly. The assembly would agree to conventions to which member states would adhere.
      The United States would never agree to be governed by commissioners. If we were to have a fully federal united states of Europe, the first casualty would be the Commission, the second would be the Council of Ministers, and the treaty of Maastricht would be burned as the British flag was burned in 1776. So please do not tell me that the treaty is a route to democracy. It is a pathway back to the feudal past.
      One of our difficulties is that all the party leaders agree about the Maastricht treaty. I realise that there is a difference on the social chapter and economic and monetary union, but if party leaders were in a Cabinet of all the talents, the Bill would go through in two minutes. The Labour leader would simply add the social chapter in the event of Labour winning an election, which is why the Opposition Front Bench is almost deserted. I think that the Opposition's tactics are to have a one-line Whip so that the Bill will go through with a Government majority. Otherwise, we would have a crowded Front Bench eager to hear my speech and make their own.
      I must explore the problem raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) about the Labour party's position. If we are to explore how decisions are reached, I must explore with him how the Labour party's decision was reached. I am on the national executive and have been for longer than anyone in the Labour party's history. I voted against the manifesto at the March meeting because we were told that the party was in favour of the Maastricht treaty, despite the fact that it
      334
      had not been signed at the time of the previous conference and had not even then been published in English. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and I made no fuss, but voted against the manifesto, as the executive record shows. When I went to Chesterfield, I took the precaution of getting somebody to make a video of my speech explaining my view on Europe. I honestly do not believe that there is Labour support for the Maastricht treaty.
      At the 1992 annual conference, a Bolsover delegate put forward a motion about a referendum. I argued for it at the conference and Alan Tuffin of the Union of Communication Workers argued and voted against it. I discovered later that his delegation had voted for the referendum.
      If we are to discuss how Parliament works, we had better also discuss how the party works. The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) may rub his hands, but the truth can never be harmful when we are discussing the future government of the country. I am lucky because I cannot be bullied by the Whips. If they offered me a peerage, they would be misjudging my ambitions. I do not need cash and will not get office. I am a free man. Had I known what fun it was to be 60 years old, I would have done it years ago. I intend to speak my mind. For me, the Bill is about whether we shall remain an imperfect democracy or become part of a Euro nationalism. Euro nationalism is being put around our necks under an authoritarian system.
      Mr. Michael Carttiss: I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman considers himself fortunate in a way that I would not normally have done: at least he had a party conference at which the members of his party had an opportunity to debate the issue and reach conclusions. That is more than what happened to my party.
      Mr. Benn: I once attended a Conservative party conference in 1955 for the BBC. Enoch Powell and I went along and I had a research assistant who is sitting behind me, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). I have never forgotten the atmosphere, which was quite different from that of the Labour party. Nobody discussed politics after the conference had adjourned. They all put on evening dress and had dinner.
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. This is all very entertaining, but the Committee has sufficient problems without dealing with party mechanics.
      Mr. Benn: I was responding to a problem put to me by the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) about his party. I was trying to explain that it is an old problem.
      I believe passionately in Europe. I lost a brother and many friends in the last world war and I share the view that Europe must get beyond nationalism. We must explore ways of co-operating.
      Europe contains 50 countries, not just 12. I want harmonisation to be at the pace of those who can go along with it, for a practical reason. It is already clear that, because of the existing Community institutions, when anything goes wrong people blame the Germans. It is the fault not of the Germans but of the treaty of Rome. There has been hostility towards the Italians. The awful wartime

      335
      language spoke of the huns, the wops, and the Iti's, and, reading The Sun, one sees that we are not far from that now.
      Democratic consent is delicate. Therefore, if we try to hurry beyond the capacity to absorb and accept the implications, I fear that the matter will end like Yugoslavia, which was an imposed federation, or the so-called "socialist camp" of communist countries, which was imposed. I know that it is not exactly the same. but the problems of unemployment are caused not by the Germans, but by the role of bankers in forcing down economic policy to the point where there is mass unemployment. We must keep our eye on the real issue and not allow it to degenerate into an attack on other nationalities.
      Why have the British people allowed the treaty to go so far? I am no historian, but we were conquered by a Roman, Julius Caesar; we were then conquered by William the Conqueror in 1066; James I was then brought down from Scotland; William III then came over from Holland; and George I, who was a German, then ruled. Indeed, until the first world war, the royal family was called Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. It changed its name to Windsor and got rid of some German dukes—the Duke of Cumberland was de-duked. I went into the matter to see whether I could get the same right. We now have a Prince of Wales whose father is a Greek.
      Thus, we have as a nation been trained to accept that we shall be governed by other nationalities. Because of the defect in our democracy, Britain has a culture of subservience that makes us accept that Jacques Delors should have those powers. When Jacques Delors came to Britain, the BBC asked him whether we were good Europeans, bowing and scraping to him like the Dimblebys bow and scrape to the royal family. We are a nation trained to bow and scrape, so, naturally, when we are told that the Crown prerogative will ratify the treaty, people say, "How could we be unkind to the Queen Mother?", as if she were ratifying the treaty. It will be ratified not by the Queen Mother but by the godfather in No. 10. It is a matter of national confidence.
      Hon. Members have asked how we can deny the Danes or other member states the right to the social chapter by voting against it. No rights were ever given to anybody from the top. All rights have been won. If the Danes want rights, they must elect a Government that will give them those rights and we should have to do the same. We sit at home watching "Newsnight" and Peter Snow with his ruddy computer and are told that Jacques Delors has given us social justice. That is absolute rubbish. All our rights, including the right to vote, to trade unions, to the welfare state and to full employment, were struggled for by our people using our mechanism.
      8 pm
      The idea that somehow the third world will benefit if we enter this arrangement is an illusion. It is not true, and it encourages the idea that we are no good. I have never believed in the conspiracy theory, but I do not believe that democracy is such a powerful force that some people have wanted to try to take it back. Not long ago the suffragettes had their problems. I put a plaque in the broom cupboard in the Crypt to the memory of Emily Wilding Davidson. There are no memorials in this place to the people who fought for democracy.
      336
      The best way to get round democracy is to pass the real power to someone who is not elected and cannot be removed. This treaty is an anti-chartist, anti-suffragette campaign. We have been told for years that this nation is not good enough to govern itself, that it has to be governed from Brussels. We have been told that we cannot defend ourselves but must have NATO, and that we cannot organise our economy and must have the IMF. We are told that this is a nation of lazy workers—militant shop stewards, inefficient managers and football hooligans—a nation waiting for discipline. Of course, the discipline will come from Europe.
      I apologise for making such a long speech, and I hope that no hon. Member will accuse me of trying to delay the debate. I genuinely try to argue without being offensive to anyone. These are big questions. I have spoken to Mr. Morris again about a referendum being paid for by the Community because we must find a way to give people that right. We are not entitled to decide this matter ourselves. If we do and people turn against the treaty, there will be no mechanism by which they could share the responsibility for a decision that affected their lives.
      I beg all hon. Members—those who are for, as well as those who are against, the Maastricht treaty—to agree with the principle that the matter must be determined by everybody in our land. All the arguments could be taken to the people, and they are not so foolish that they could not absorb and understand them. We are talking about their lives, not ours.
      Mr. John Butcher: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, which I assure you is a real one. Yesterday through the courtesy of the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), and with the indulgence of the Chair, there was a fairly complex exchange, almost an interrogation, on the question of whether title I bit on some parts of the treaty and prevented certain parts of it being enforceable in law in this country. I genuinely seek guidance on this point because it will determine whether title I of the treaty can be debated in the terms in which many of us wish it to be debated. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State was entirely correct to say that under article L, title I is not justiciable by the European Court. That is reported in columns 183–84 of yesterday's Official Report.
      There is contrary legal advice that it would be taken into account in interpreting all those parts of the treaty that are amendments to the treaty of Rome and subsequent associated treaties. Title I is binding in international law, and although it may not be justiciable in the terms that my right hon. Friend announced, that is not the same as saying that it is not binding. I have a document which should be tabled for our elucidation. It is the Van Gend En Loos judgment of the European Court of 5 February 1963. It follows—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. It is not the Chair's job to interpret the Bill or the law. Therefore, that is not a point of order for the Chair.
      Mr. Butcher: Further to that point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. Is it not a matter for the Chair that the debate should proceed on a basis of clear understanding of the constitutional implications of title I? I have a terrible fear that even in the area of foreign policy cited by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, the clauses, if traced

      337
      through the treaty, could bind us to foreign policy by majority voting. That should be explained to the Committee because we have been given the impression that that is not the case.
      The First Deputy Chairman: That is a matter that can be raised in the debate, and if the hon. Gentleman is successful in catching my eye he will be able to put that point.
      Mr. Hugh Dykes: As usual the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) delivered a fascinating and fundamental speech. He always treats us to such speeches and we are grateful. At the start of it he alluded to the amendments but did not reach them because he was carried away by other issues. Those of us who wished to refer to some of the themes presented in the amendment tabled by the Liberal Democrats and related amendments found, as we usually find, that the Committee descends, generally on the second day, into a general and broad Second Reading debate. Some hon. Members return to such issues as whether it is right to be a member of the Community while others, including me, say that it is a good idea.
      That is both good and bad, although it involves the constant tedious repetition of points that are made in almost every European debate. I exclude late night debates under the old system of scrutiny. If people outside pay attention to our debates, they do not seem to have become alarmed over the years about the so-called surrender of national and constitutional rights that were mentioned repeatedly by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield. I do not think that people as a whole share his anxieties.
      I have always paid tribute to the profundity of the right hon. Gentleman's thoughts and I recently re-read the excellent biography by Sydney Higgins about the right hon. Gentleman's political life and work. According to that writer, the right hon. Gentleman hardly ever did anything wrong. The right hon. Gentleman personifies the proud struggle for the achievement of parliamentary rights in the more modern context and more traditionally in his emotional and intellectual attachment to the old historical rights that Parliament has won.
      Those who are keen to see the legislation proceed rapidly feel entitled to complain about the Government's timidity and slowness in dealing with an entirely brief, routine technical Bill. It provides for certain provisions to enter United Kingdom law and the amendments to the treaties that we have already signed. That would be followed by ratification of the treaty, although that is not the subject of this debate.
      The Government could have proceeded much earlier this year after Second Reading. We know, either by speculation or from direct knowledge, the rather sad reasons why that was not done. That has given the right hon. Gentleman and others who see terrors in the gradual development of the European Community through this latest treaty the excuse or reason to say that the nightmare is developing beyond the control of the British people and constitution.
      Those of us who welcome the Maastricht treaty disagree profoundly and directly, as everybody knows. Our advantage is that the huge majority of hon. Members are on our side and that none of them shares the terrors,
      338
      anxieties and apprehensions of a small minority of hon. Members. At present most of that small minority are Conservatives, but the thread of the speech by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield was that the Labour party might start to unravel some of its solidarity on these matters and show that it is not quite capable of holding what appears to be the strong position of Labour Front-Bench spokesmen.
      I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) who delivered an excellent speech yesterday.
      Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: My hon. Friend was solid.
      Mr. Dykes: Perhaps the thread of the hon. Lady's thoughts will also turn out to be correct.
      The hon. Member for Hamilton explained why the amendments were incorrect and should not be accepted, in spite of the impeccable credentials of the Liberal Democrats in European matters. That is not the same as saying that the amendments were intrinsically faulty.
      Mrs. Ann Winterton: My hon. Friend may have forgotten that, although it may be only a small majority of Conservative Members who oppose the Maastricht Bill, the one thing that strengthens their case is that the majority of people outside this place support them. It is extremely arrogant for hon. Members to talk in that way when the people have not had their voice heard, nor been given an opportunity to voice their concerns. At the last general election, Maastricht was not an issue. The very fact that it was not discussed—the only issue at the last election was who should govern Britian, it was a simple election—meant the people of the country have not had a voice in this matter. They have also had no opportunity to make their voice heard through a referendum, which has been refused by the Government for the simple reason that they know that the issue would be defeated.
      Mr. Dykes: All that I can do is express a profound sense of shock that my hon. Friend wishes to undermine the sacred constitutional sovereignty of the House. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield is in favour of a referendum, as are a small number of hon. Members on both sides of the House—[Interruption.] Sedentary interruptions are often more disconcerting than standing ones, but for the moment I shall carry on. If the opportunity provides itself, I shall give way later to the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell).
      A small minority of Members of Parliament is in favour of a referendum, but I can think of nothing that more undermines the sacred constitutional sovereignty of the House of Commons—the centre and kernel of political parliamentary power as described by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield.
      Mrs. Winterton: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Dykes: No. My hon. Friend's intervention was lengthy and verging on the repetitious, and I must be allowed to reply. That a referendum would undermine the sovereignty of the House is a fundamental error in my hon. Friend's argument. The other mistake which is joined to that—[Interruption.] I am now facing the Chair, Mr. Lofthouse. I am placed in a difficult position because the line between my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) and the Chair is direct. The other

      339
      fundamental error made conjointly by those who are in favour of a referendum is that waiting for the Danes' opinion would also undermine our sacred constitutional sovereignty. I object to the idea that we must wait for the opinion of others before we decide what to do.
      I wish to emphasise to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield, lest he gets the wrong impression, that the pro-Europeans are in favour of the treaty because we do not feel that we are surrendering power to anybody else by signing it and by developing the Community further, and because we feel that it strengthens our sovereign power. The right hon. Gentleman explained the old theory of the House of Commons at work. His description was like one of those old books by Taylor, "The House of Commons At Work: How it Really Works". He was not explaining the real world. However, I agreed with his second reason for the slipping away of power from Members of Parliament with their sacred trusts and rights—the power of the whipping system. Unless one is part of the majority in the House, one does not have power and even if one is a member of the majority party, one does not have power in the complexity of modern politics in which power flows to governmental institutions.
      I am reassured about the developments, about signing the Maastricht treaty and about approving this excellent but short and technical Bill—a process that should not take so long, although I would not deny the House of Commons its rights—because none of those dangers and perils would occur if we went ahead with them. I see the sovereign member states of the European Community working much more together but gaining in individual national strength as a result of that process. I am surprised that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield, who years ago was an enthusiast for the European Community, has not begun to accept that explanation of the real world rather than the abstruse romantic theorising about the House of Commons as it was hoping to be several hundred years ago.
      Mr. Bill Walker: Did my hon. Friend support the referendum on the Scotland Act? If so, what was different about that?
      Mr. Dykes: There are many different complexities about those matters, and we are talking about a referendum on Europe in the context of what my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton said. She claimed that it was invalid just to take the views of Members of Parliament—a surprising assertion in view of the sacred nature of Members of Parliament in the constitutional process—if all the parties apparently agreed and the general election therefore did not provide the opportunity for the matters fully to be debated. I disagree with that. All that told me was that all the political parties agreed that signing Maastricht was a good thing, as was going ahead with European development.
      Mr. Ronnie Campbell: The hon. Gentleman is obviously a complete European and would vote for it if it came in a little package with a bow around it. Does he agree that the fundamental point for people in the United Kingdom is that the Maastricht treaty changes every aspect of their lives? Does he further agree that the decision on that should be taken by them and not by the House under the whipping system?
      8.15 pm
      Mr. Dykes: The House is the place where the decisions should be made. The hon. Gentleman and I, as true democrats, would lament the excessive power of the whipping system. The modern organisation of the state, and the need, in the intensity and complexity of modern politics, to marshal collective decision making by politicians in groups has meant the strengthening of the whipping system over the years.
      Several Hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Dykes: I shall not give way too much as Mr. Lofthouse will become impatient with me if I go on for too long, and I am trying to speak to the amendment.
      The hon. Member for Blyth Valley and I worry about the excessive power of the whipping system. We all know that we have little say in practical terms, but no hon. Member can assert that the treaty is the only treaty that the country has signed that has brought in relatively, fairly or reasonably profound changes. We have signed many treaties involving many changes. I reject the doom-laden assertion that there is something extra specially ominous and difficult about the Maastricht treaty. It is the logical conclusion of the preparation that this and other sovereign countries have made together, ever since the Stuttgart declaration of June 1983, to go forward to the development of European union, which had already been referred to in the treaty of Rome.
      Dr. Michael Clark: My hon. Friend has just suggested that a referendum would undermine the traditional sovereignty of the House. Does he not think that the traditional sovereignty of the House has been undermined by Members of Parliament who are not representing the country on this issue? If they were doing so, there would not be this call for a referendum. Because the House is failing the country, the country is seeking another way to express its view.
      Mr. Dykes: I reject that totally. I am saddened that my hon. Friend, who is also a personal friend, seeks to undermine what is left of the powers of the House—
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Exactly.
      Mr. Dykes: By that, I do not mean what is left because of Europe but what is left as a result of the practical reality of modern-day politics. The same pattern is repeated in every other country—the Executive have gained more and more power and Parliaments have become not just dignified and ceremonial, in the words of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield, but bodies in which individual Members of Parliament have lost their powers.
      Some people would say that it was ever thus because only in the last century or so have Parliaments developed from being advisory chambers of nobles, with monarchs running the country. Parliament has taken many decisions on behalf of the people, decisions of much greater profundity, moment and weight than the signing of an additional treaty, which flows from the treaty of Rome, the Stuttgart declaration and the Single European Act. That Act was a much more profound document—
      Mr. Harry Barnes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Dykes: I should like to develop this point, but I shall give way in a moment.

      341
      Admittedly the central legislative component of that Act was the single European market but all the others in the six key policy areas were anticipated and mentioned clearly and unequivocally in the Single European Act—and only one or two hon. Members called for a referendum.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Dykes: I will in a moment.
      Mr. Winterton: I have been trying to catch my hon. Friend's eye.
      Mr. Dykes: I am aware of that but, as my hon. Friend knows, I must address the Chair as part of the rules of this excellent and distinguished Chamber.
      One could say that war and peace are far more profound and should always be the subject of a referendum. It is nonsense to argue that there must be a referendum simply because all parties agree on a particular policy element. In all general elections, there are many policy areas where there is unanimity or broad agreement, and no one suggests that means there should be a referendum. I will refer to one other aspect of a referendum that has put off some Opposition Members after giving way to my hon. Friend.
      Mr. Ian Taylor: Many of my hon. Friends believe that the treaty is a matter for Parliament and not a suitable subject for a referendum. A referendum would not deal in detail with the complex nature of the Bill, which is shown by the number of amendments that have been tabled. Is my hon. Friend aware that he is supported in chapter 21 of "Erskine May", on page 523:
      "Amendments to a Bill proposing that the provisions of a Bill should be subject to a referendum have been ruled out of order as proposing changes in legislative procedure which would be contrary to constitutional practice."
      Referendums are not part of our country's constitutional practice. Ours is a parliamentary democracy, and this is the right place to debate the Bill.
      Mr. Dykes: To upstage even "Erskine May", no less an authority than my noble Friend Lady Thatcher denounced the idea of a referendum in 1974 and 1975, but one was imposed on a reluctant Parliament by the then Labour Government. I voted against a referendum then, and—[Interruption.]
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. It is noticeable that when one particular point of view is expressed, it is given a reasonable hearing but that a contrary point of view is not. Every right hon. and hon. Member must be given a fair hearing.
      Mr. Dykes: Equally, Mr. Lofthouse, I was anxious to give way as much as possible to interventions, which may have added to the excitement of the debate.
      I also want to show that not all right hon. and hon. Members will simply take the official line—though I wholeheartedly support my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Cabinet and in the Government, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in proposing that the treaty be ratified.
      Mr. Winnick: How surprising.
      Mr. Dykes: I suppose that is not at all surprising.
      Earlier this year, I warned Government colleagues about unnecessary hesitation in respect of this legislation. It is a most modest Bill. I am not being undemocratic in saying that. It is a routine, technical Bill, and I suggest that most of the amendments should have been ruled out of order.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I was speaking theoretically, Mr. Lofthouse, and did not mean to question the decision of the Chair. I wanted to emphasise that because of the Bill's purely technical nature, as it is simply the instrument for amending European legislation—
      Mr. Butcher rose—
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton rose—
      Mr. Dykes: I am entitled to express my personal view, which is also the view of others.
      The European Movement, of which I am chairman and whose members include European enthusiasts of all parties and none—including trade unionists, businessmen, and members of the young European movement—also warned that if the Government were negative about defending the Community and the treaty, more and more second thoughts would set in, which would naturally affect the public.
      It is interesting to crystallise and to explain public opinion. I do not believe that the public are intrinsically anti-European Community, but United Kingdom citizens of all backgrounds, professions, and trades have a grotesque fear, which I understand, of losing their jobs and of living and surviving in the recession. People naturally lose their enthusiasm for anything that they regard as irrelevant international exercises of one kind or another. In any event, such issues are always left to a small number of enthusiasts—
      Mr. Spearing rose—
      Mr. Ken Livingstone rose—
      Mr. Dykes: I will not give way for the moment.
      As the Government's hesitations and timidity—and I am sorry to use those words—gathered pace, the Bill became more and more delayed. Even five weeks ago my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said in a broadcast, "Let's get this Bill through before Christmas." Even five or six weeks ago, that seemed a reasonable aspiration.
      Mr. Terry Lewis: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he had not read it.
      Mr. Dykes: He said that he had not read the treaty. The Bill was then in draft form, and extremely brief. Presumably everyone read the one-page Bill.
      The Government's timidity and hesitation added to the problem of appearing to be legitimately enthusiastic about taking the treaty's policies forward.
      There have been ridiculous and absurd attacks on the European Commission. Only recently have my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and one or two other Ministers begun to defend it, saying that all the ridiculous stories about the Commission are either made up or so exaggerated as to be absurd.
      Mr. Spearing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way now?
      Mr. Dykes: I give way to the former Chairman of the European Legislation Select Committee.
      Mr. Spearing: The hon. Gentleman criticised my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) for going over broad ground that could have been covered at any time during the past 20 years. Has not the hon. Gentleman been doing much the same thing up to now? In his capacity as chairman of the European Movement—as the hon. Gentleman knows, I respect his opinion—will he explain why he and that movement advocate the provisions in articles A to F?
      Mr. Dykes: The hon. Gentleman is incorrect to suggest that I am not dealing with the elements in the amendments, because I am. I was giving the background to my reasons for considering them unrealistic. I do not know what will happen to the first cluster of Liberal Democrat amendments proposed yesterday. They may not be voted upon. They may be withdrawn—I cannot anticipate what will happen with them. That shows that the Committee is going through the motions as a result of the desperately anxious wishes of a small minority of hon. Members who want to go through all the original points again.
      Mr. Livingstone: The hon. Gentleman says that the Committee is going through the motions, but a moment ago mentioned fear of unemployment. Does he recall going through the Lobby to support the first stage of monetary union—Britain's entry into the exchange rate mechanism—after many right hon. and hon. Members warned that it would create another 1 million unemployed within a year or two? That is the reason for fear in this country. People see themselves being locked into permanently high unemployment and permanent recession. Does the hon. Gentleman agree it was wrong of him not to listen to us two years ago?
      Mr. Dykes: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken about the timing of this country's entry into the ERM. I was in favour of Britain's entering it much earlier—probably four years before, when we would have joined at a much more realistic valuation. The ERM is still working. Far too many of my right hon. and hon. Friends and Opposition Members imagine that the ERM means irrevocably fixed exchange rates, but it does not. It is a system of fixed but adjustable rates by agreement with all its participating members. I will give way to my patient hon. Friend.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend is a long-serving Member of Parliament, having entered it in 1970, so does he not recall that it has agreed to a range of referendums since then? I refer not only to the renegotiation of the treaty of Rome—albeit under a Labour Government—but devolution in Scotland, devolution in Wales and, on at least two occasions, devolution in Northern Ireland.
      In each instance, Parliament rightly asked the people who would be affected by those dramatic changes to voice their opinion. Will my hon. Friend give an honest answer as to why he believes that in the case of the Maastricht treaty, which will—as the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said—dramatically change the constitution and way of life of the people of this country, the people will not be allowed to cast their vote even in an advisory referendum so that Parliament will know their thoughts?
      344
      My hon. Friend has also told the House that he believes that there have been unnecessary and vicious attacks upon the Commission. Will he comment upon the extraordinarily partisan position adopted by the President of the Commission, Mr. Jacques Delors, to the Uruguay round and the GATT treaty, which is vital to free trade throughout the world, not just to free trade within Europe?
      Mr. Dykes: It is not my task in the debate to defend Jacques Delors.
      Mr. Winterton: My hon. Friend has been doing just that.
      8.30 pm
      Mr. Dykes: No. I was referring to the Commission as a body. The idea that the Commission is far too powerful is untrue. It is an inherently weak body. It has the constitutional task of proposing legislation to be submitted to the Council of Ministers, but the Council of Ministers is the boss; it makes the decisions. The Commission often grumbles about that reality. It would like those decisions to be more pan-European, and it is entitled to its aspirations. It is becoming more and more lumbered not with its own initiatives but with suggestions flowing from the Council of Ministers, the European Council and particularly from the most dangerous development of all—the grand Saturday night dinner at the European summit where such wonderful claret is consumed that they grow expansive and say, "Let's have another report from the Commission on such-and-such a subject."
      I have already referred to the referendum, and I do not propose to deal with it again.
      Mr. Winterton: Why not?
      Mr. Dykes: Because I have already referred to it.
      Mr. Winterton: But my hon. Friend has not answered the point.
      Mr. Dykes: I repeat that we made the mistake of entering the exchange rate mechanism too high and too late. The Government are unwilling now to confront what is effectively only a very small number of real hard-core rebels, some of whose arguments are dishonest and frighten the people outside this place. Those errors and omissions mean that the Bill is being debated now in Committee instead of several months ago. Although I have already made the point, it is legitimate to repeat briefly that I regret the slowness with which this issue has been dealt with.
      I regret, too, the timidity of the Government. As a keen European, I make no apologies for saying that. I want to reassure those who are terrified and trembling about what foreigners are planning for us next—probably fluoride in the water without the House being able to vote upon it—by saying that I believe that the activities of the House of Commons should, in the constitutional sense, be strengthened. Therefore, I very much welcome the greater participation and involvement of national Parliaments in the plurality and dispersal of power, the consideration of new policies and decision making. That is the hallmark of the European Community.
      Timidity is also shown in the document that I am holding. I make no complaint about its contents. It is helpful. It explains the background lucidly. It is similar to

      345
      the traditional notes on clauses. It reiterates also some of the elements, though in more detail, of a smaller pamphlet that again was issued rather late in the day. The pamphlet could have been published earlier this year. I do not understand why the Government took so long to publish it. Their printing system is supposed to be extremely efficient.
      The tone of this document is very negative, as though, once again, the Government are nervous and apprehensive about a small minority of little Englanders. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] They want to live in the past.
      Mr. Winterton: That is a cheap remark.
      Mr. Dykes: No, it is not a cheap remark. It shows the sad reality of the political situation.
      Mr. Winterton: It is arrogant.
      Mr. Dykes: No, it is not arrogant, either.
      Mr. Winterton: My hon. Friend is pompous.
      Mr. Dykes: The tone of the document is a little too negative. Apart from that, I commend it. Its tone, however, could be much more enthusiastic.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) is not in the Chamber. Perhaps he is rehearsing yet another blockbuster that will alienate even more opinion outside the House on European matters. My hon. Friend was interrupted constantly, just like me, so he did not have a chance to develop the theme, but in his closing remarks today—he obeyed the sagacious admonition of the Chair to be brief because he had had a blockbuster yesterday—he began to refer to what the Bundestag had decided. Again it was a wonderful example—I listened very carefully to my hon. Friend and I shall look tomorrow at what he said to make sure that I have got it right—of either deliberately or accidentally misleading the House. I use that phrase with reluctance. One does not like to say that about one's colleagues.
      Far be it from us to wait on what other national Parliaments may do. We have our own national self-confidence. We should not worry about what those wicked foreigners think, though it is funny how we are hanging so closely on what the Danes think. Last week I was in Copenhagen. Every person to whom I spoke in the Folketing asked me, "Why are the British waiting for us? Why don't they go ahead? It's nothing to do with us." They also said, "Yes, we confidently expect a yes result this time."
      Mr. Winnick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Dykes: No, not at the moment.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford gave the impression that the Bundestag had had massive second thoughts about Maastricht, ratification of the treaty and all the rest of it. Far from it. One should refer to the account of the debate that is already in the news media. Colleagues have told me about it while the debate proceeds. Ratification—the final stage in the Bundestag—was a triumphant endorsement of Maastricht. There was a huge majority for the Bill in the Bundestag. There were no second thoughts. All that they did in their debate was to clarify the particular relationship of the Bundesrat to the Bundestag and the relationship of the lander to the
      346
      federal Government and the federal constitution. There were no second thoughts. The final ministerial speech—details of it have been faxed to me, so I do not have it word for word—was an exhortation: now that we have ratified Maastricht, we hope that it will encourage the Danes and the British to do so as quickly as possible. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford—I shall tell him that I have referred to his remarks—did not say that at all. He said that the Germans had had huge second thoughts on Europe.
      Mr. Butcher: My hon. Friend has been most courteous in giving way, but he was very provocative when he said that this was a routine and technical Bill. I ask my hon. Friend to accept what the Government are telling us: that transfers of sovereignty are involved and that there is considerable dispute about whether sovereignty will be transferred in areas that so far have been described as being outside the treaty. It is not a routine and technical Bill. To pretend otherwise is to do my hon. Friend's own cause, which he has honourably espoused, a disservice. Let him be absolutely open about the move towards the transfer of further powers. Let us not pretend that the Bill is routine and technical.
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I deprecate very long interventions.
      Mr. Dykes: The problem is that I have to try to face you in your Chair, Dame Janet, and my hon. Friend. I think that my hon. Friend has misunderstood the position. I was not being discourteous when I said that the Bill was technical and brief, which it literally is. All I am saying is that all those arguments were presumably aired during the earlier stages, including Second Reading. The conclusion must therefore be that, in the absence of any significant change, the House overwhelmingly supports the legislation, which itself refers to consequential amendments, in the legislation of the European Community, to the treaty. I say no more than that. That is why I regret that, all too often, we return in our debates to the fundamental question as to whether membership of the European Community is a good idea.
      Mr. Winnick: Crucial to the debate on this group of amendments is the question of power and whether that power will be taken away from us. The hon. Gentleman keeps on saying that that is not so, but where in the treaty is there any suggestion that power, let alone more power, will remain with this Parliament? The reason why so much criticism was levelled at the treaty both before and during the two-day debate was that power will increasingly be taken away from this Parliament and given to Europe. That is why the hon. Gentleman ought to be as honest as the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) and the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston). Although the right hon. Gentleman is a great enthusiast for the treaty, he, unlike the hon. Gentleman, admits, defends and justifies the taking away of further powers from Parliament. Why is the hon. Gentleman not willing to admit that?
      Mr. Dykes: We all have our ways of explaining these things. I do not think that it is a transfer of power from one entity, a nation state, to another, Europe. It is a development of the collective power of all the sovereign

      347
      member states working together in the new concept of European union. I am grateful for the patience of the Chair—
      Mr. Dalyell rose—
      Mr. Dykes: I do not intend to give way again as it would be unfair to hon. Members who are waiting to speak.
      If the treaty proposed the creation of a single governmental entity or structure—a new European Government, presumably based in Brussels—to replace national Governments, that would be a different kettle of fish. That simply is not so.
      Mr. Winnick: It is in the treaty.
      Mr. Dykes: This is my answer. The hon. Gentleman may not like it, but he must accept it.
      The enhancement of intrinsic sovereign power for all member states comes from their collective, reciprocal sharing of that power, based increasingly on majority voting and the terrifying concept of democracy, which the anti-democrats in the anti-European camp do not accept or like.
      The amendments are illogical. The hon. Member for Hamilton amply explained why they do not fit and are not apposite and would have the opposite effect of that intended by the hon. Members who tabled them. That is why the House needs to settle down and accept that the vast majority of Members want the treaty to go ahead without further undue delay.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Dame Janet. A few minutes ago, you said that you deprecated long interventions. As a member of the Chairmen's Panel, I fully accept that ruling, but will you accept that hon. Members who have been sitting for many hours are deeply concerned that when the Minister, who is one of the great architects of this misguided treaty and policy, sits down, the closure motion will be moved?
      Hon. Members who have a valuable contribution to make to the debate have not had the opportunity to do so. The amendments allow Members on both sides of the Committee to debate the principle behind title I of the treaty and to articulate our fundamental opposition to what the House, under the guidance of the Government, is likely to be forced to do. Constitutional issues are being forced through, not in a free debate but on a three-line Whip. I ask you to say that you will allow the debate to go on after the Minister has sat down.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I shall deal with one point of order at a time.
      As a member of the Chairmen's Panel, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) will be well aware that, in Committee, the presence of a Minister at the Dispatch Box does not mean, as it would in an ordinary debate, the end of the debate. I cannot anticipate what might happen after that.
      Mr. Winnick: Further to that point of order, Dame Janet. You are aware of the importance of the debate and I know that you and your colleagues in the Chair wish to defend the integrity of the House and the Committee. You
      348
      said that the fact that the Minister intends to speak again does not mean that the debate will be concluded. As many hon. Members on both sides want to speak, if a closure motion is moved, I beg you, in defending the Committee and bearing in mind how crucial the debate is, not to accept it. The decision, I understand, lies with you.
      A rumour—it may be unfounded—is circulating that a closure motion will be moved shortly, certainly before 10 o'clock or just at 10 o'clock. In those circumstances, if you are in the Chair, Dame Janet, I beg you not to allow the motion to be moved, because it would make a mockery of the debate.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      8.45 pm
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I shall deal with this point of order first.
      I do not anticipate what may happen; I deal with what happens. I confirm that the acceptance of such a motion is entirely at my discretion.
      Mr. Devlin: Further to the points of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), Dame Janet. Some hon. Members sat here yesterday evening—as you know, because you accepted two points of order from me. A number of the hon. Members who are rising in their places have already intervened in long speeches. This is an extensive debate, with many amendments, and many hon. Members are keen to make progress. I therefore hope, with all the hope in my heart, that you will accept a closure as soon as possible so that we can get on.
      Mr. Rowlands: On a point of order, Dame Janet. I have sat here almost continuously from 3.30 pm to 10 pm yesterday and from 3.45 pm today until now. Like other hon. Members, I therefore feel able to make a plea to you.
      You said that the fact the Minister intends to speak again does not mean that the debate will be concluded. Some of us wish to follow up aspects of the Minister's speech and put some points to him, to which we should like a reply. Will you consider not calling the Minister so that other hon. Members can make their speeches and put some specific points to the Minister that arose from his speech yesterday afternoon?
      Mr. Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Dame Janet. We spent a considerable amount of time on this debate yesterday, and at 10 pm we will have devoted a whole day to it today. I would not for a minute suggest what you should do, but I merely point out that, by then, we will have had as long as we normally have on a Second Reading debate. It must surely be obvious to everyone that certain hon. Members, far from observing the 10-minute rule, have occupied—[Interruption.] I am as aware as anyone that there is no rule, but I also know, as you do, Dame Janet, that, when colleagues are anxious to let as many hon. Members speak as possible, they practise a little self-denial.
      Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Dame Janet. It is a convention of the House that speeches move from one side of the Chamber to the other. The last speaker was a Conservative Member, so it was confidently expected that a Labour Member would be called next. You called the Minister, which has given rise to a number of

      349
      fears. Indeed, the Minister had a brief conversation with the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) to indicate, from what I could tell, that he was going to get in immediately after the hon. Gentleman, and that he could curtail his remarks.
      The debate is being keenly argued, and many hon. Members want to speak, which is another consideration that Chairmen of Committees bear in mind. I was told that the Minister was going to speak at 8.30 pm, the closure would be moved, and it had all been set up. If that happened—I am sure that you, Dame Janet, would not be a party to it—it would provoke great anger.
      This is an important issue, and many hon. Members have a lot to say about it. Once we leave these amendments, we shall lose the opportunityy to talk about title I, which is important. This debate is vital to us all. I am not making any jokes about false points of order. If we do not have the opportunity to debate the treaty, I and many other hon. Members will be extremely angry about the Government conspiring to deny us the opportunity to speak. I hope that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench are not involved in that agreement, or consensus—because there is no consensus tonight.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: I know nothing of any private conversations or conspiracies—and if I did, they would not move me one iota.
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: On a point of order, Dame Janet. When the Chairman of Ways and Means, unusually, convened a meeting on Monday, he emphasised that he recognised the great importance of title I, and the fact that, as it constructed the architecture of the Bill, it gave us probably our only opportunity to view the treaty and the Bill in perspective.
      Some of us could not speak on Second Reading because of the demand of so many hon. Members to speak, and the Chairman of Ways and Means suggested that we would have the opportunity to come back. There is therefore a sense of alarm that the Minister is being called at such an early stage, when so few people have spoken. One has not had an opportunity—[Interruption.] The point is that Mr. Morris showed us that he recognised that the matters before us are terribly important. [Interruption.] If any hon. Member had spoken out of order, I am sure that the occupant of the Chair would have notified the individual concerned.
      There is a real sense of anxiety that we may be frustrating the purpose of the Committee stage, and our examination of the important title I. The amendment was moved by the Liberal Democrats, and it will be to the disadvantage of other hon. Members who wish to speak on the subject if we subvert the processes of proper debate.
      Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Dame Janet. The whole House recognises that if anyone claims to move the closure the occupant of the Chair has to make a decision in the circumstances at the time, and do a balancing act. May I, through this point of order, put to you two matters which I hope that you will bear in mind if that occasion should arise at any time during the debate on the amendments?
      As Mr. Morris said, and as the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) reminded us, this debate is in a sense a broad conspectus on the total
      350
      meaning of the treaty as contained in title I. The breadth and gravity of the matters concerned are considerable, and they affect this country's constitution.
      The Minister found some difficulty talking about those matters yesterday—
      Mr. Garel-Jones indicated dissent.
      Mr. Spearing: The Minister shakes his head, but I believe that there was some difficulty in the manner in which he replied to some of his hon. Friends, and to some Opposition Members. It is not appropriate for the Minister to speak again before some of us have had an opportunity to follow up those important matters—unless there will be another opportunity for us to speak, and the debate is to continue.
      I therefore hope that, if you have to make such a decision, Dame Janet, you will bear in mind that important consideration, and the fact that several of my hon. Friends and I have been in the Chamber all day yesterday and most of today, yet we have not had the opportunity even to comment on what the Minister said in his opening speech yesterday.
      Mr. Butcher: On a point of order, Dame Janet. The part of the Committee discussion which deals with title I is of fundamental constitutional importance. I readily concede that some over-lengthy speeches have been made in the House in the past two days, but some hon. Members who have an immense contribution to make to the debate have waited patiently to speak. There is a clash on the exact meaning and applicability of title I—and we may never have another chance to discuss it. Six or seven major questions remain in the air, and have not been resolved.
      If you were asked a question about the closure, would you think it fair to close the debate after the Minister had spoken? May I put that question to you now?
      The Second Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman may put the question, but I retain my discretion, and I do not answer hypothetical questions.
      Mr. Ian Taylor: On a point of order, Dame Janet. Will you give guidance to the Committee? It seems to me that the debate on title I and on the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) has contained many of the same points as were raised in earlier debates on the Bill.
      I am aware that we are in Committee, but many of the points raised in the debate have been raised at earlier stages, especially on Second Reading. That is important, because the Bill has already been discussed by the House for longer than all the stages of the Single European Act. There can be no question of there not having been a proper debate. If certain of my hon. Friends decided to make very long speeches covering all the points, naturally it will not be possible for other hon. Members to contribute if we are to make progress.
      I hope that we can make progress on the Bill, Dame Janet. Many of us would like to contribute to debates on amendments on the Order Paper, which will be discussed in later groups. This debate on the opening group has already been very long.
      Mr. George Robertson: On a point of order, Dame Janet. Unfortunately, you are embroiled in dealing with hypothetical situations, but may I offer you the information that it is my view, and that of my hon.

      351
      Friends, that the Opposition have not had an adequate opportunity to air our variety of views on the fundamental part of the debate which 'is now taking place? Lest there be confusion in anyone's mind, let me tell the House what I told the Minister earlier this evening: if the Government Whips choose to move the closure at this stage, we shall oppose it.
      Mr. Shore: The House has entirely legitimate anxieties about the Minister's intentions. Is it not possible for the Minister himself to rise on a point of order and allay those anxieties by assuring us that he has no intention of moving the closure—[HON. MEMBERS: "Or anyone else."]—yes, or anyone else on the Government Front Bench.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: That is, of course, not a matter for the Chair.
      Mr. Garel-Jones rose—
      Mr. Bill Walker rose—
      Hon. Members: Sit down.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: Further to that point of order, Dame Janet. I tell the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) that I have no notion what the intention of the business managers may be—
      Mr. Winnick: Why don't you ask them?
      Mr. Denzil Davies: On a point of order, Dame Janet.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I am taking a point of order from Mr. Davies. It is a point of order, I take it?
      Mr. Davies: Yes, Dame Janet. Like many of m y hon. Friends, I have sat here for almost two days. This debate is not the debate we had on Second Reading. We are discussing some difficult legal matters, including the justiciability of title I. The Minister of State made some important points, although he has not clarified many of the matters which we wish to raise. If the debate is closed after his second intervention, we will have no further opportunity to debate those matters.
      9 pm
      Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Dame Janet. We have had a two-day debate, and some of us have sat through the whole two days. You will notice that I represent one of the Scottish constituencies. Some aspects of title I must be addressed, as they affect the unitary Parliament and the Union. It is necessary for me to raise matters with the Minister and to get some sort of answer. I fail to see how I can do that if the Minister addresses the Committee now. It will give the Government no opportunity to answer the matters that I wish to put to the Minister. That would certainly send the wrong message to Scotland and to the rest of the country.
      Mr. Ron Leighton: On a point of order, Dame Janet. Can you explain why the Minister looks as if he is about to be called to speak again when other hon. Members have not spoken once, although they have sat through the whole debate? Some of us want to hear those other Members. Why have we broken the rule that we call hon. Members alternately from both sides of
      352
      the Chamber? Will two Conservative Members be called consecutively? Are you aware that our fears have been strengthened as a result of the non-assurance and the weasel words of the Minister?
      The Second Deputy Chairman: The right hon. Member I was about to call is the Minister in charge of the Bill.
      Mr. Budgen: On a point of order, Dame Janet. May I express my extreme distaste for the way in which the Minister of State dealt with the Committee a moment ago? He had an opportunity to calm the Committee and to offer a reasonably conciliatory gesture. However, he tried by a clever sleight of tongue to give an ambivalent answer to you, simply to irritate the Committee.
      With the exception of the Government, the Committee wishes the debate to continue. If we are to have satisfactory discussions, we must create some trust between the Minister who is dealing with the matter and the rest of the Committee. The Minister's ambivalent—I even go so far as to say impertinent—remark does nothing but create contempt.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: The Committee will appreciate that I am not responsible for the answers given by a Minister or, indeed, by any other hon. Member.
      Mr. Barnes: On a point of order, Dame Janet. We are in some difficulty because you have called the Minister to speak, and the points of order are an attempt to make you change your mind. I appreciate that you have already made your decision. In those circumstances, would it not be helpful if the Minister announced that he did not wish to speak at this stage, but that he would be willing to speak later? The Minister's remark was not helpful to the Committee. He can now rise on a point of order and assist us all.
      Mrs. Gorman: On a point of order, Dame Janet, I appeal to your sense of fairness in the matter. Many of us on the Back Benches, who, because we are not Privy Councillors and have not held offices that would enable us to attract the attention of the Chair in such a debate, have tried in vain many times to contribute to debates on Europe. That means that we sit for hours during such debates. On Second Reading, I tried to speak on the subject—[Interruption.]
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I have great difficulty in hearing, due to the sedentary comments of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie). That is not acceptable to me.
      Mrs. Currie: On a point of order, Dame Janet. I apologise; I merely wished to make the point that what was said by the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) was not a point of order; it was a load of humbug—
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I shall be the judge of what is a point of order; it is not for the hon. Lady to do so. Has the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) finished her point of order?
      Mrs. Gorman: The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) has spent more time out of the Chamber in the past two days than I have.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: That is not a point of order. I must move on to another point of order.
      Mr. Lewis: On a point of order, Dame Janet. The hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) and others have referred to the fact that we are in Committee. Is it not the case that, in Committee, extra time should be given to allow hon. Members on both sides to make their contributions?
      Mr. Christopher Gill: On a point of order, Dame Janet. I am sure you recognise that several hon. Members have sat through the whole two-day debate and have not been called. Although there is debate and argument about whether title I should be included in the Bill, the fact of the matter is that title I is an integral part of the treaty. Once the treaty is ratified, it will be interpreted as though title I stood part of it. Therefore, it is extremely important for the Committee to be given a full opportunity to debate the matter almost exhaustively, because it is of such fundamental constitutional importance.
      Mr. Livingstone: On a point of order, Dame Janet. Can you rule that it is completely out of order for hon. Members who have been called and made their speeches to try to curtail the debate? We have a noble tradition in the Labour movement that such action is completely out of order and insulting to everyone else.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: I am not aware of any such rule in the House of Commons.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Dame Janet. May I draw your attention to the fact that the other parts of the United Kingdom have a right to be heard in the debate on this constitutional matter? I am the only Northern Ireland Member who has attended the Committee both days. I believe that I have a duty to the people who sent me here and a duty to the overwhelming majority of voters of Northern Ireland who, on three occasions, have endorsed my view of the European Economic Community. I believe that I should have an opportunity to put my view.
      I have not spoken at length in this Committee. In the European Parliament, I spoke many times for many hours. In this Committee, I have always respected the Chair, and I have always done right by the Chair. I should feel very angry tonight if not one speaker from Northern Ireland was allowed to put his view.
      I have heard something of the plottings, and I have overheard remarks. It was disgraceful of the Minister to act as he did tonight. This is a constitutional issue. It will not affect us for 10 minutes or for an hour: it will affect our future, our families, our children and our grandchildren, and we have a right to be heard. The Bill was drafted in such a way as to gag us. What we could have said in order we shall not now be allowed to say.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Dame Janet. I appeal to you as someone who safeguards the interest of Back-Bench Members. May I remind you that the Minister said during these points of order that he had no knowledge whatever of what the business managers of the House intended? May I ask whether I and other long-serving Members are expected to believe that?
      The Second Deputy Chairman: As we are all supposedly honourable Members—I trust that we are—we must accept what another hon. Member has said.
      Mr. Budgen: Further to that point of order, Dame Janet. I dare say that there are right hon. and hon. Members who are generous enough to believe the Minister
      354
      of State when he says that he does not know what the business managers intend to do. As I speak, he has an opportunity to ask the Whips what their intentions are. If he cannot move the two feet necessary to get to the Whip, I am sure that the Whip is sufficiently athletic to move that two feet himself. The Minister might then be able to give the Committee some information. I repeat: the Minister's earlier reply was offensive to the Committee.
      Mr. Cash: Further to that point of order, Dame Janet. Is it in order for the Minister to say that he has had no contact with the Whips on this question when there are those in the Committee who have some access to other information? Would it be possible for us to be able to put it to you that the Minister may have information which he is not disclosing to the Committee about what is going on this evening in relation to the proceedings?
      The Second Deputy Chairman: The duties of the Chair are onerous enough, without checking every rumour or suggestion. The Chair cannot be involved in that.
      Mr. Leighton: Further to that point of order, Dame Janet. May I suggest that you adjourn the Committee for two minutes to allow the Minister to find out what the Whips intend to do?
      Mr. Budgen: Further to that point of order, Dame Janet. May I respectfully suggest that the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) has made an extremely sensible and helpful suggestion? The Committee is, in general, very fond of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. However, he has offended the Committee tonight. This is an opportunity for him to speak to the Chief Whip. It is sensible to suggest that the Committee might rise for a few minutes to enable my right hon. Friend the Minister to discuss the matter in a calm and civilised way.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: Further to that point of order, Dame Janet. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) and I have both done time in the Whips Office. It will not come as a surprise to him to be told that it is not infrequent in these matters that sometimes the last person the usual channels choose—[Interruption.]
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. As I understand it, the Minister seeks to answer a point of order. We do not have interventions on points of order.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: It is of course the case, as my hon. Friend was saying, that I have attempted in the course of the afternoon to ascertain what are the plans for the future, and I assure hon. Members that my whole purpose in seeking to intervene when I did was to hope that other hon. Members might be able to continue to speak after I had sat down.
      Notice being taken that strangers were present, The Second Deputy Chairman, pursuant to Standing Order No. 143 (Withdrawal of strangers from the House), put forthwith the Question, That strangers do withdraw:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes 416.

      Division No. 94]

      9.10 pm

      AYES

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Cash, William

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Etherington, Bill

      Sweeney, Walter

      355

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Mr. Ronnie Campbell and Mr. Harry Barnes.

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Cohen, Harry

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Colvin, Michael

      Adley, Robert

      Congdon, David

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Connarty, Michael

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Conway, Derek

      Alexander, Richard

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Alton, David

      Cormack, Patrick

      Amess, David

      Couchman, James

      Ancram, Michael

      Cousins, Jim

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Cryer, Bob

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Ashby, David

      Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Dafis, Cynog

      Atkins, Robert

      Dalyell, Tam

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Darling, Alistair

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Davidson, Ian

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Baldry, Tony

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

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

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Day, Stephen

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Barron, Kevin

      Devlin, Tim

      Bates, Michael

      Dicks, Terry

      Batiste, Spencer

      Dixon, Don

      Battle, John

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Bayley, Hugh

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Beckett, Margaret

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Beggs, Roy

      Dover, Den

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Duncan, Alan

      Belling ham, Henry

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Bennett, Andrew F.

      Dunn, Bob

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Booth, Hartley

      Dykes, Hugh

      Bottom ley, Peter (Eltham)

      Eastham, Ken

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Elletson, Harold

      Bowden, Andrew

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Bowis, John

      Enright, Derek

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Bradley, Keith

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Brazier, Julian

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Bright, Graham

      Evennett, David

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Faber, David

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Fabricant, Michael

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Fatchett, Derek

      Burden, Richard

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Burns, Simon

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Burt, Alistair

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Butler, Peter

      Forman, Nigel

      Butterfill, John

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Caborn, Richard

      Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

      Callaghan, Jim

      Forth, Eric

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

      Cann, Jamie

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

      Foulkes, George

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norrnan

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Freeman, Roger

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      French, Douglas

      Chaplin, Mrs Judith

      Gale, Roger

      Chapman, Sydney

      Gallie, Phil

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Gapes, Mike

      Clapham, Michael

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      Clappison, James

      Garnier, Edward

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Clelland, David

      Godsiff, Roger

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Coe, Sebastian

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Coffey, Ann

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      356

      Gordon, Mildred

      Leighton, Ron

      Gorst, John

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Graham, Thomas

      Lewis, Terry

      Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

      Lidington, David

      Greenway, Harry (Eating N)

      Lightbown, David

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Livingstone, Ken

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Grocort, Bruce

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Gunnell, John

      Loyden, Eddie

      Hague, William

      Luff, Peter

      Hain, Peter

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Hall, Mike

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

      McAllion, John

      Hanley, Jeremy

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Hannam, Sir John

      McCartney, Ian

      Hanson, David

      Macdonald, Calum

      Hardy, Peter

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      MacKay, Andrew

      Harris, David

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Harvey, Nick

      Maclean, David

      Haselhurst, Alan

      McLeish, Henry

      Hawkins, Nick

      Maclennan, Robert

      Hayes, Jerry

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Heald, Oliver

      McMaster, Gordon

      Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

      McNamara, Kevin

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Madden, Max

      Hendry, Charles

      Madel, David

      Heppell, John

      Mahon, Alice

      Hicks, Robert

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Hinchliffe, David

      Malone, Gerald

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Mans, Keith

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      Marland, Paul

      Home Robertson, John

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Horam, John

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

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

      Martlew, Eric

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Maxton, John

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Meale, Alan

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Merchant, Piers

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Michael, Alun

      Hunter, Andrew

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Hutton, John

      Milburn, Alan

      Ingram, Adam

      Miller, Andrew

      Jack, Michael

      Milligan, Stephen

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Mills, Iain

      Janner, Greville

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Morley, Elliot

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

      Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Mudie, George

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Mullin, Chris

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Needham, Richard

      Jowell, Tessa

      Nelson, Anthony

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Key, Robert

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Norris, Steve

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Olner, William

      Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Knox, David

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Ottaway, Richard

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Page, Richard

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Paice, James

      Legg, Barry

      Parry, Robert

      Leigh, Edward

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      357

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Pawsey, James

      Steen, Anthony

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Pendry, Tom

      Stephen, Michael

      Pickles, Eric

      Stern, Michael

      Pickthall, Colin

      Stewart, Allan

      Pike, Peter L.

      Streeter, Gary

      Pope, Greg

      Sumberg, David

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Sykes, John

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Prescott, John

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Thomason, Roy

      Purchase, Ken

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Randall, Stuart

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Redwood, John

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Richards, Rod

      Thurnham, Peter

      Riddick, Graham

      Tipping, Paddy

      Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

      Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Tracey, Richard

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Tredinnick, David

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Trend, Michael

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Trimble, David

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Trotter, Neville

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Turner, Dennis

      Rogers, Allan

      Tyler, Paul

      Rooker, Jeff

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Rooney, Terry

      Wallace, James

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Waller, Gary

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Walley, Joan

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Ward, John

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Sackville, Tom

      Wareing, Robert N

      Sainsbury. Rt Hon Tim

      Waterson, Nigel

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Watson, Mike

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Watts, John

      Sheerman, Barry

      Wells, Bowen

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Welsh, Andrew

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Shersby, Michael

      Whitney, Ray

      Sims, Roger

      Whittingdale, John

      Skinner, Dennis

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Willetts, David

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Wilshire, David

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Wise, Audrey

      Soames, Nicholas

      Wolfson, Mark

      Spearing, Nigel

      Wood, Timothy

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Yeo, Tim

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Spring, Richard

      Sproat, Iain

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      Mr. James Arbuthnot and

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Mr. Tim Boswell.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Budgen: On a point of order, Dame Janet. May I make a suggestion? There seems to have been a slight misunderstanding between the Committee and the Minister of State. I am pleased that he has had the opportunity to have a discussion, perhaps with the Patronage Secretary, but the Patronage Secretary has a rather different and more partisan role than that of the Leader of the House. If the Leader of the House were to explain how he reconciled the rights of Back-Bench Members with the Government's wish to get on with the business, he might explain what the Government's plans are for the rest of this evening. I dare say that he would do that in a more conciliatory way than the Minister of State would.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: It is not for the Chair to ask or command any hon. Member to come to the Committee. No doubt the point will have been heard by Front-Bench Members. I call Mr. Garel-Jones.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I am grateful to you, Dame Janet, for recognising me.
      Over the past two days, several hon. Members have made the point that the Committee owes a debt to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) for moving his amendment which has enabled us to discuss the broad structure of the treaty. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) was quite correct to say that the amendment goes to the heart of our subsequent debates in Committee.
      We have spent some time discussing amendment No. 93, which proposes to include title I in the scope of the Bill. The plain fact is, however, as I stated at the start of the debate, that, for the purposes of our domestic legislation, those parts of title I which need to come within the scope of the Bill are already included. There is every value in a serious debate on the content of title I of the treaty. As I have said, we are indebted to the hon. Gentleman for moving the amendment. But, as the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) made clear, there is no need in our domestic legislation to accept the amendment as proposed.
      The Committee should recall—your predecessors in the Chair, Dame Janet, have reminded the Committee of this fact on several occasions—that we are not discussing ratification of the treaty.
      Sir Russell Johnston: Is the essence of the Minister of State's argument against our amendment that it is not necessary and that it would not make any difference? That has not been clear to me throughout our proceedings.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: No. There are several arguments against the hon. Gentleman's amendment, not least of which are those that were made by the hon. Member for Hamilton. In respect of our domestic legislation, it is completely otiose and it would create legal anomalies.
      Another aspect of the hon. Gentleman's amendment is worth considering, particularly by my hon. Friends. In one sense, it begins to chip away at—to collapse—the pillared intergovernmental structure of the union. To that extent, I can see why the hon. Gentleman tabled his amendment. He and his hon. Friends support a single structured Europe. Most of my hon. Friends and I do not support the Liberal Democrats' view of Europe. To that extent, I see what the amendment is aiming at. Even if one were a federalist, as the hon. Gentleman is, there are other legal arguments as to why his amendment should not be accepted.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I should like to make more progress and then I will give way. Points have been raised during the debate which I should like to respond to; then I will give way.
      Sir Russell Johnston rose—
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, whose amendment we are debating.
      Sir Russell Johnston: The Minister commends me to support my amendment because it is in the logic of my

      359
      party's position. I understand that. He then says that it may make a mess of legal matters, but throughout the debate no one has explained that. If he manages to do so, I will take great note of it.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I shall certainly do that.
      As I said, the Chair has reminded the Committee on several occasions that we are not discussing ratification of the treaty. We are engaged in detailed examination of a piece of domestic legislation required to incorporate into the framework of United Kingdom law those provisions of the treaty which need to be so incorporated. That means the provisions of titles II, III and IV and other provisions so far as they relate to those titles. That point was made effectively by the hon. Member for Hamilton in explaining to the Committee why the official Opposition would not be supporting the hon. Gentleman's amendment.
      The hon. Gentleman also noted that legislation in other countries covered the whole treaty and suggested that ours should do likewise. The constitutional requirements in Britain are the ones which I have addressed. Although he would wish it not to be the case, I am glad that we do not yet have harmonisation of constitutional practice throughout Europe. He might wish that but that wish is not shared by my right hon. and hon. Friends, nor, I believe, by—
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Garel-Jones: Not yet; I want to make a little more progress and then I will give way.
      The process of ratification, as distinct from the Bill, does not always require legislation to be enacted. Some important treaties over the years did not require legislation before ratification. I sought to make that point earlier. For example, the treaties establishing NATO and the Western European Union, and the recent "two plus four" treaty on the reunification of Germany, did not require legislation. In such cases the House was given the opportunity to examine the treaty which had been signed, subject to ratification, before it was ratified, in accordance with the Ponsonby procedures.
      When domestic legislation is required, as is the case here, prior to ratification, the legislative process subsumes that practice but does not replace it. That has been the practice followed for nearly 70 years. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber may not agree with that procedure and he may wish to see the day when the Community can impose different procedures upon us, but such procedures are not followed in this Parliament. Provisions which are not necessary would create confusion in our domestic legislation. The legislation already includes in its scope all that it needs to include in order that we can honour our obligations under the treaty.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I want to address points made by some of my hon. Friends. Then I shall sit down so that other hon. Members may take part in the debate.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher), who is not in his place but who has attended the debate assiduously, made the point that the common provisions of title I do not in themselves create new rights or obligations in Community law. I sought to make that point in response to interventions during my opening remarks. They are intended as an introduction to the main body of the treaty and, as such, refer in places to
      360
      activities outlined in the detail later. For example, article E refers to the Community institutions and to how they will exercise their powers. Nothing in the common provisions is inconsistent with the substantive articles later in the treaty.
      Although Community laws cannot be adopted under the common provisions, they can be taken into account by the European Court of Justice by reflecting the intentions of the drafters.
      Mr. Denzil Davies: The Minister has explained that parts of the first title will appear in the other titles and so the Bill will give them effect in domestic law. He then said that if those parts of title I which do not need to be given effect in domestic law were included in the Bill, it would chip away at the intergovernmental nature of those parts. Could he explain that? If they do not have to be incorporated into domestic law, how on earth can they chip away at anything?
      Mr. Garel-Jones: Because if the Committee were to support the amendment, it would make domestic law in Britain more federal and centralising, placing it ahead of the Maastricht treaty. That is why I hope that on reflection he will think that my other arguments outweigh that. That may be why he thinks that he would be wise to support his amendment, but I would be surprised if he or any of my hon. Friends were prepared to countenance putting provisions in United Kingdom domestic legislation that would make it more federalist and centralist than the Maastricht treaty.
      Mr. Enright: May we put it another way? Is it not the case that, if the amendment were included in our law, the intergovernmental conference would be more responsible to this body than it will be, and that it would also be more responsible to the European Parliament?
      Mr. Garel-Jones: I do not think that that would be the case. As the hon. Member for Hamilton said, there could be a danger that we were beginning a process whereby any action taken intergovernmentally by Ministers of the Crown that would provoke a change in the laws of the United Kingdom would prompt the introduction of a Bill to the House in the normal way. I am not sure what would be the effect were we to introduce that centralising measure into the body of the treaty, and I am not sure that it would produce the effects that the hon. Member mentions.
      Another issue has been raised by many of my hon. and right hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) in an intervention, when he inadvertently misread the word "means" as "money". I accept that it was an inadvertence on his part, and we both laughed about it. My 'hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) also mentioned it. Article F, paragraph 3, states:
      "The Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies."
      My hon. Friend is exercised about that paragraph because of the word "means", and he and a number of other hon. Members argue that that means, with the funds necessary, and that a money resolution should therefore be attached to the Bill.
      The union has no financial resources of its own. The commitment reflected in article F dates back to the Rome European Council and is a reference to means, in the broad sense of the word, available to the Community, through its Community and intergovernmental arms, to

      361
      carry out the purposes laid down. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills that the provision does not refer to financial means. I can well understand why hon. Members might have thought it did, because we have Mr. Morris, who is the "Chairman of Ways and Means."
      Some of my hon. Friends have made considerable jest about the occasional use of foreign words or phrases in the treaty. The phrase "acquis communautaire" has provided the Committee with much amusement. One must consider the fact that the treaty must be drafted in nine different languages by a profession called jurist-linguists. The French version of the treaty uses the word "moyens", which means "means" in the broadest sense rather than the revenue-raising sense.
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: I have not yet had an opportunity to develop an argument, which is part of the frustration of this process. I must deal with points on which, so far, I have not succeeded in catching the Chairman's eye to put forward an argument on the basis of what I understood was an amendment which should be thoroughly discussed. My right hon. Friend's rising at this stage and seeking to answer questions that have not been developed or put is an unfair and short-cut way to proceed, because he will not deal with all the points that I hoped to make.
      Mr. Garel-Jones: My hon. Friend did not take advantage of catching your eye, Mr. Morris, to ask me a question, so there is little that I can say in response.
      I listened with care—sometimes with interest and amusement—to the lengthy speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), who has tabled a series of amendments that are grouped with amendment No. 93. I would describe all those amendments as wrecking amendments; their purpose is to wreck the Bill.
      I was struck less by the content of my hon. Friend's speech than by two interventions in it. The first was by my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) and the second was by the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone). My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay believed that the Maastricht treaty, and therefore the Bill, was a communist plot, whereas the hon. Member for Brent, East believed that it was a capitalist plot. Those two interventions seemed to sum up the comment by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who said in his speech that he did not believe in the conspiracy theory. I thought that he invented it.
      Mrs. Gorman: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Garel-Jones: No. I wish to conclude now.
      A number of my hon. Friends believe that there is a conspiracy behind the treaty. There is no such conspiracy, and on that basis, when a Division is called, I invite hon. Members on both sides of the House to oppose the amendment.
      Mr. Archy Kirkwood rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
      Question put, That the Question be now put:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 296, Noes 164.

      Division No. 95]

      [9.42 pm

      AYES

      Adley, Robert

      Duncan, Alan

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Dykes, Hugh

      Alexander, Richard

      Eggar, Tim

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Elletson, Harold

      Alton, David

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Amess, David

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Ancram, Michael

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Evennett, David

      Ashby, David

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Faber, David

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Fabricant, Michael

      Atkins, Robert

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Baldry, Tony

      Forman, Nigel

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Forth, Eric

      Bates, Michael

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Freeman, Roger

      Booth, Hartley

      French, Douglas

      Boswell, Tim

      Gale, Roger

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Gallie, Phil

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      Bowden, Andrew

      Garnier, Edward

      Bowis, John

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Brazier, Julian

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Bright, Graham

      Gorst, John

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Burns, Simon

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Burt, Alistair

      Hague, William

      Butler, Peter

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Butterfill, John

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

      Hannam, Sir John

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Carrington, Matthew

      Harris, David

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Harvey, Nick

      Chaplin, Mrs Judith

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hawkins, Nick

      Churchill, Mr

      Hayes, Jerry

      Clappison, James

      Heald, Oliver

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

      Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Coe, Sebastian

      Hendry, Charles

      Colvin, Michael

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Congdon, David

      Hicks, Robert

      Conway, Derek

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Home Robertson, John

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Horam, John

      Cormack, Patrick

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Couchman, James

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

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

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Dafis, Cynog

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Day, Stephen

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Jack, Michael

      Devlin, Tim

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Dicks, Terry

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Dover, Den

      Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      363

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Robathan, Andrew

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Key, Robert

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Knox, David

      Sackville, Tom

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Leigh, Edward

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Lidington, David

      Shersby, Michael

      Lightbown, David

      Sims, Roger

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Soames, Nicholas

      Luff, Peter

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Spink, Dr Robert

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Spring, Richard

      MacKay, Andrew

      Sproat, Iain

      Maclean, David

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Steen, Anthony

      Madel, David

      Stephen, Michael

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Stern, Michael

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Stewart, Allan

      Malone, Gerald

      Streeter, Gary

      Mans, Keith

      Sumberg, David

      Marland, Paul

      Sykes, John

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Mates, Michael

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Thomason, Roy

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Merchant, Piers

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Milligan, Stephen

      Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

      Mills, Iain

      Tracey, Richard

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Tredinnick, David

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Trend, Michael

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Trotter, Neville

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Moss, Malcolm

      Tyler, Paul

      Needham, Richard

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Nelson, Anthony

      Wallace, James

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Ward, John

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Waterson, Nigel

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Watts, John

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Wells, Bowen

      Norris, Steve

      Welsh, Andrew

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Whitney, Ray

      Ottaway, Richard

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Page, Richard

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Paice, James

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Willerts, David

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Wilshire, David

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Wolfson, Mark

      Pickles, Eric

      Wood, Timothy

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Yeo, Tim

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Randall, Stuart

      Redwood, John

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Richards, Rod

      Mr. Archy Kirkwood and Mr. Simon Hughes.

      Riddick, Graham

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Barron, Kevin

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Battle, John

      Ainger, Nick

      Bayley, Hugh

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Beckett, Margaret

      Barnes, Harry

      Beggs, Roy

      364

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      McAllion, John

      Bennett, Andrew F.

      McCartney, Ian

      Body, Sir Richard

      Macdonald, Calum

      Bradley, Keith

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Budgen, Nicholas

      McLeish, Henry

      Burden, Richard

      McNamara, Kevin

      Butcher, John

      Madden, Max

      Callaghan, Jim

      Mahon, Alice

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Martlew, Eric

      Cann, Jamie

      Maxton, John

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Meale, Alan

      Clapham, Michael

      Michael, Alun

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Clelland, David

      Milburn, Alan

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Miller, Andrew

      Coffey, Ann

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Cohen, Harry

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Connarty, Michael

      Morley, Elliot

      Cousins, Jim

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

      Cryer, Bob

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Mudie, George

      Cunningham, Dr John (C'p'l'nd)

      Mullin, Chris

      Darling, Alistair

      O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

      Davidson, Ian

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Olner, William

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

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Dixon, Don

      Parry, Robert

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Pendry, Tom

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Pickthall, Colin

      Eastham, Ken

      Pike, Peter L.

      Enright, Derek

      Pope, Greg

      Etherington, Bill

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Fatchett, Derek

      Prescott, John

      Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

      Purchase, Ken

      Foulkes, George

      Raynsford, Nick

      Fyfe, Maria

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Gapes, Mike

      Rogers, Allan

      George, Bruce

      Rooney, Terry

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Ross, William (E Londonderry)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Rowlands, Ted

      Gordon, Mildred

      Sheerman, Barry

      Graham, Thomas

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Gunnell, John

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Hain, Peter

      Skinner, Dennis

      Hall, Mike

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Hanson, David

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Hardy, Peter

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Heppell, John

      Spearing, Nigel

      Hinchliffe, David

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Stott, Roger

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Hoyle, Doug

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Hutton, John

      Trimble, David

      Ingram, Adam

      Turner, Dennis

      Jamieson, David

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Janner, Greville

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Warded, Gareth (Gower)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Jowell, Tessa

      Watson, Mike

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Winnick, David

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Leighton, Ron

      Wise, Audrey

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Lewis, Terry

      Livingstone, Ken

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Mr. Gordon McMaster and Mr. Thomas McAvoy.

      Loyden, Eddie

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 28, Noes 392.

      Division No. 96]

      [9.56 pm

      AYES

      Alton, David

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Maclennan, Robert

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Body, Sir Richard

      Salmond, Alex

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Dafis, Cynog

      Tyler, Paul

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Wallace, James

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Welsh, Andrew

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Wilkinson, John

      Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross.C&S)

      Mr. Archy Kirkwood and Mr. Simon Hughes.

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Chaplin, Mrs Judith

      Adley, Robert

      Chapman, Sydney

      Ainger, Nick

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Churchill, Mr

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Clapham, Michael

      Alexander, Richard

      Clappison, James

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Amess, David

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

      Ancram, Michael

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Arbuthnot, James

      Coe, Sebastian

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Cohen, Harry

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Colvin, Michael

      Ashby, David

      Congdon, David

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Connarty, Michael

      Atkins, Robert

      Conway, Derek

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Baldry, Tony

      Cormack, Patrick

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Couchman, James

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Cousins, Jim

      Barnes, Harry

      Cryer, Bob

      Barron, Kevin

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Bates, Michael

      Cunningham, Dr John (C'p'l'nd)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

      Battle, John

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Beckett, Margaret

      Dalyell, Tam

      Bellingham, Henry

      Darling, Alistair

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Davidson, Ian

      Booth, Hartley

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

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

      Bowden, Andrew

      Day, Stephen

      Bowis, John

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Bradley, Keith

      Devlin, Tim

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Dicks, Terry

      Brazier, Julian

      Dixon, Don

      Bright, Graham

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Dover, Den

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Duncan, Alan

      Burns, Simon

      Dunn, Bob

      Burt, Alistair

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Butler, Peter

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Butterfill, John

      Dykes, Hugh

      Callaghan, Jim

      Eastham, Ken

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Eggar, Tim

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Elletson, Harold

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Cann, Jamie

      Enright, Derek

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Etherington, Bill

      Carrington, Matthew

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      366

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Hutton, John

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Ingram, Adam

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Jack, Michael

      Evennett, David

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Faber, David

      Jamieson, David

      Fabricant, Michael

      Janner, Greville

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Forman, Nigel

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Forth, Eric

      Keen, Alan

      Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Key, Robert

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Freeman, Roger

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      French, Douglas

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Fyfe, Maria

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Gale, Roger

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Gallie, Phil

      Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

      Gapes, Mike

      Knox, David

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Garnier, Edward

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      George, Bruce

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Leigh, Edward

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Gordon, Mildred

      Lewis, Terry

      Gorst, John

      Lidington, David

      Graham, Thomas

      Lightbown, David

      Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Livingstone, Ken

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Loyden, Eddie

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Luff, Peter

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Gunnell, John

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Hague, William

      McCartney, Ian

      Hain, Peter

      Macdonald, Calum

      Hall, Mike

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

      MacKay, Andrew

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Maclean, David

      Hanley, Jeremy

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Hannam, Sir John

      McMaster, Gordon

      Hanson, David

      McNamara, Kevin

      Hardy, Peter

      Madden, Max

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Madel, David

      Harris, David

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Hawkins, Nick

      Malone, Gerald

      Hayes, Jerry

      Mans, Keith

      Heald, Oliver

      Marland, Paul

      Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Hendry, Charles

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Heppell, John

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Martlew, Eric

      Hicks, Robert

      Mates, Michael

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Hinchliffe, David

      Maxton, John

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      Meale, Alan

      Home Robertson, John

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Merchant, Piers

      Horam, John

      Michael, Alun

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Milburn, Alan

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Miller, Andrew

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

      Milligan, Stephen

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Mills, Iain

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Hoyle, Doug

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Hunter, Andrew

      Morley, Elliot

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

      367

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Moss, Malcolm

      Sackville, Tom

      Mudie, George

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

      Mullin, Chris

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Needham, Richard

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Sheerman, Barry

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Shersby, Michael

      Norris, Steve

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

      Sims, Roger

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Skinner, Dennis

      O'Hara, Edward

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Olner, William

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Soames, Nicholas

      Page, Richard

      Spearing, Nigel

      Paice, James

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Parry, Robert

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Spring, Richard

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Sproat, Iain

      Pickles, Eric

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Pike, Peter L.

      Steen, Anthony

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Stephen, Michael

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Stern, Michael

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Stewart, Allan

      Randall, Stuart

      Stott, Roger

      Raynsford, Nick

      Streeter, Gary

      Redwood, John

      Sumberg, David

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Sykes, John

      Richards, Rod

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Riddick, Graham

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Thomason, Roy

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Rogers, Allan

      Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

      Rooney, Terry

      Tracey, Richard

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Tredinnick, David

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Trend, Michael

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Trotter, Neville

      368

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Willetts, David

      Waller, Gary

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Ward, John

      Wilshire, David

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Winnick, David

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Wise, Audrey

      Wareing, Robert N

      Wolfson, Mark

      Waterson, Nigel

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Watson, Mike

      Yeo, Tim

      Watts, John

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Wells, Bowen

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Whitney, Ray

      Mr. Tim Boswell and Mr. Timothy Wood.

      Whittingdale, John

      Question accordingly negatived.
      It being alter Ten o'clock THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
      Committee report Progress; to sit again tomorrow.
      Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During the Committee stage of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), said that he intended to make his remarks short because he wanted to leave time for other hon. Members to speak on the amendments—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. Member may have noticed that I have now assumed my role of deputising for Madam Speaker. I am no longer the Chairman, and Madam Speaker is not party to what has taken place in Committee, so there can be no discussion now of what happened then.

    PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR ADMINISTRATION
    Ordered,
    That Mr. Ronnie Campbell, Sir Anthony Durant, Mr. Michael Lord, Mr. David Nicholson, Mr. James Pawsey, Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock, Mrs. Bridget Prentice, Mr. Mike Watson and Dr. Tony Wright be members of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]

  Testbourne School
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
  10.12 pm
  Sir David Mitchell: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and, through you, I thank Madam Speaker for having selected for the Adjournment debate tonight the subject of Testbourne school and its application for grant-maintained status.
  I shall explain the background, take the Minister through events, ask him three questions, and seek certain assurances. It may be helpful if I start by saying that grant-maintained status is no discredit to a county education committee. Rather, it is a sign of success. Many county councils are proud of the fact that they have brought schools along to the point at which they can paddle their own canoes and manage their own affairs, with grant-maintained status. Indeed, almost all the schools that have moved in that direction have proved a great success.
  Testbourne is a successful school: 97 per cent. of the pupils gained five or more GCSEs, more than half of those with five or more A to C grades. That puts the school in the top 20 in Hampshire. The governors and the head are seekers after excellence, and recognise that grant-maintained status can help them, enabling them to take decisions more quickly, free of red tape. It would also give the school control over its total budget, with all the advantages of local decision making. It would give the school scope to shop around for the best value for its needs and, in doing so, to have more to spend on the pupils. The head and the governors become directly accountable to the parents and the local community.
  The idea of applying for grant-maintained status was given impetus by disagreement with the local education authority over funding. The disagreement was undoubtedly important, but it was more the trigger than the whole reason for the application.
  The sequence of events is interesting and worrying. On 10 August the chairman of the local education authority confirmed that the school was correctly funded within the overall limits of the authority's budget. On 1 September the governors passed the first resolution required for grant-maintained status. Shortly afterwards, the local education authority mysteriously found an additional £10,000 for 1993–94 and a further £10,000 for 1994–95. It is rather odd that that should happen. I should add that a condition of that money being available was that the application for grant-maintained status would not proceed.
  In Hampshire,11 secondary schools have successfully balloted for grant-maintained status. Curiously, none of those schools has been in the central educational division of Hampshire with its headquarters in Winchester. Three proposals have been defeated—all of them in the same division. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Malone) nodding his head. I know that he is also worried about the matter.
  There would have been a fourth unsuccessful ballot if it had not been for the courage, dedication and determination of the governors, the headmaster and many of the staff. The ballot for grant-maintained status was won with a poll of 78 per cent.—64 per cent. in favour and 36 per cent. against.
  370
  Tonight I want to expose some of the methods used by the council to influence the decision of the parents. I do so not for Testbourne, but to prevent inappropriate campaigning against future applications. Does the Minister consider that what has occurred is in line with the code of recommended practice on local authority publicity—that it should be objective, balanced, informative and accurate?
  At the end of October parents received a letter—paid for by public funds—that was signed by the county education officer and it made the following points. First, finance is the only reason for seeking grant-maintained status. I have partly dealt with that matter already. Secondly, a section set out a defence of the funding of the school and ended with the words:
  "It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the issue is not about finance but about management."
  That is a direct slur on the head and the governing body with not a shred of evidence that management was at fault. The school that we are talking about is 20th in the success rate on exam results in Hampshire.
  Thirdly, the letter further says that the school will be eligible to receive extra funding of at least £65,000 as part of a new management partnership scheme that the county is to introduce. However, that is simply not true. The scheme provides for the schools to have extra funds with which to buy services from the local education authority which were previously free.
  Fourthly, the letter seeks to scare parents by suggesting that Testbourne will be unable to replace the specialist services provided by the county local education authority. I quote the letter:
  "At present, expert local services, many of which are very specialised and difficult to obtain in the local market, are there when they are needed. In the future GM schools will experience increasing problems in obtaining the current range of support, not only from the education department, but also, for example, from the county architect, the treasurer and the secretary (for legal advice)."
  Then there is the chilling inquiry:
  "Where would this leave Testbourne?"
  The fifth complaint in this letter is that there has been little time for detailed consultation with the local community. In fact, there has been more consultation in the case of this school than there has been in the case of almost any other school in Hampshire. The original resolution was on 4 September and the ballot was held on 4 November. Nobody can say that there was a shortage of time.
  The letter ends by urging parents to vote against GM status.
  In addition, there have been meetings and campaigns focusing on parents of children in primary schools. You might ask, Mr. Deputy Speaker, what on earth a primary school has to do with the issue. Testbourne school is fed by a series of primary schools. It is an interesting fact that 20 per cent. of the parents who voted have children at primary schools. The essence of the campaign with the primary schools was that if the proposal went through the county's funds would be robbed and the primary schools would suffer as a result. That is a pretty low form of campaign.
  I have three questions for my hon. Friend the Minister. Is a letter such as I have described compatible with the proper provision of impartial advice from a senior county council official, or is it more in the nature of campaigning appropriate to elected politicians? Secondly, is my hon.

  371
  Friend aware that, far from losing out because of the alleged non-availability of LEA services in future, the school has already found that it can get most of the services currently provided by the LEA more economically elsewhere? It will get better value for money, so it will have more money to spend on the pupils. Thirdly, is it in order for officials who are not elected politicians to play on parents' fears of the unknown, to question the competence of governors, to question the competence of the senior management team, and to question financial competence?
  I make a final plea. The county secretary, in a letter to the deputy chairman of governors, ends by saying:
  "Now that the result of the ballot is known we can look forward to the Secretary of State approving grant maintained status for the school. The County Council will do all it can to assist an easy transition."
  We may feel like saying "Hear, hear." The House may be a little surprised to know that it has quietly been made known to the governors that the county proposes to use its statutory opportunity to object to the school's application for GMS going forward. That is in contradistinction to the county secretary saying that he looked forward to the Secretary of State approving grant-maintained status. I know what the appropriate word for that is, but I will not use it here.
  The school needs time to settle down in a period of calm. I hope that the process can now go forward constructively, sensibly and helpfully with co-operation on all sides—from the county and from the Department. My special plea to the Minister is that, when the application lands on his desk, he will turn it round quickly so that the uncertainty is ended.
  I have raised the matter tonight because, although I want to see the school launched calmly and quietly on calm waters, it is imperative that the matter should have been raised so that other schools do not have to go through the wringer as the board of management, the governors and the headmaster of Testbourne school have had to do.
  10.23 pm
  Mr. Gerald Malone rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Does the hon. Gentleman have the permission of the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) and of the Minister to speak?
  Sir David Mitchell: Yes.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Eric Forth): Yes.
  Mr. Malone: I am grateful to my hon. Friends for giving me the opportunity to intervene briefly in this Adjournment debate.
  I reiterate all that my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) said about what has happened at the school. My reason for intervening is that a number of the parents who send their children to Testbourne are my constituents. I have had strong representations from them about the establishment of a level playing field when gaining grant-maintained status, and I will concentrate on that point.
  I had always understood that officials at county level would ensure that a level playing field was established when such status was sought. Not only has this not been the case in Testbourne but in the case of a number of other schools a level playing field has not been established and
  372
  there has been partisan campaigning, and the instructions from the county education authority have not been adhered to by their officials.
  I wonder whether we shall ever get to that stage unless my hon. Friend the Minister decides to take further action in the Bill which he has currently before the House. May I simply make the suggestion that the Minister will listen to what my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire North-West and I have said this evening and understand that we have a difficult time within county authorities where one would normally expect that Government initiatives would be welcome and not thwarted at every turn. This is not the case, and perhaps he will consider putting some mechanism that guarantees that a level playing field is established in all attempts to obtain grant-maintained status in schools throughout the country and not just in Hampshire. It would be very welcome to my hon. Friend and myself if Hampshire could start this and become a precedent.
  I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has seen fit to be here for this important Adjournment debate, because one thing is certain: we are determined to make this policy stick of grant-maintained schools where the parents want them. We are determined, as a party and as a Government, to make it work and to allow it to be implemented in a way that parents want. This is at present being thwarted. I hope that my hon. Friend will assure us this evening that that will no longer be the case.
  10.26 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Eric Forth): In the traditional way, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) on having obtained this important debate on what is both a specific and a general matter. The fact that our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State saw fit, very unusually for an Adjournment debate, to attend this debate illustrates the importance that he attaches to the matter that my hon. Friends the Members for Hampshire, North-West and for Winchester (Mr. Malone) have raised. I can do no more than to say that to reinforce the importance that both my right hon. Friend and I attach to this matter.
  My hon. Friend and the schools in Hampshire and elsewhere need look no further than those schools which have already opted for grant-maintained status up and down the country. They are found usually to have been able to employ more teachers, almost inevitably have attracted more pupils, without exception have raised standards, have been found to have bought more books, and generally have been reported on more favourably when the inspectorate has looked at them.
  That is proof enough that any assertion that schools lose out in some way with grant-maintained status is completely unproven. Anyone who wants to establish the truth of this matter need do no more than to ask heads and boards of governors of schools which have become grant-maintained. They need not take the word of a local education authority or even of myself. It would be far better for them to ask a grant-maintained school. If there is any difficulty about that, I should be only too delighted to give them a long list of names of such schools which would be only too happy to give their experiences.

  373
  My hon. Friend asked whether it was in order for local education authorities to question the competence of governors and head teachers. I should have thought that it would be rather odd for a local education authority suddenly to find fault with governors whom they had had a part in appointing and heads whom they had had a role in appointing at the very time when there was a question of debate and a ballot about that new status. It would be extremely odd, I should have thought, if that same education authority had not seen fit to take action about such governors, heads, and others before and yet suddenly found fault with them and questioned their competence, if that was the case. That strikes me as being somewhat bizarre behaviour, to say the least, and I should certainly have thought that most parents would see through it.
  There must be some doubt about the attitude of the county council. I understood that Hampshire local education authority had claimed from time to time that it was not opposed to grant-maintained status in general. However, I have had a local newspaper report drawn to my attention in which Councillor Tim Macnamara said that, once what he called the initial cash bribe to GM schools had been withdrawn, even fewer would choose to go their own way. He was then alleged to have said:
  "I am disappointed when schools opt out and I think in the long term they are making a great mistake."
  That does not sound like someone who is neutral about the possibility of GM status for schools. If the report is true, it gives the lie to the attitude of that individual, although it is not for me to say whether he is speaking for the whole authority.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West asked whether we could speed this latest application on its way. I was delighted to hear the news that, with a 64 per cent. positive ballot, Testbourne school has elected to become grant-maintained. There will now be a two-month period during which objections and comments can be sent to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. That is the normal procedure. He will then have to consider whether to approve, reject or modify the proposals.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West will understand that I cannot say anything tonight that would in any way prejudge the decision of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. However, I can assure my hon. Friend that we will give the proposals very careful consideration and my right hon. Friend will reach his decision as soon as possible after the end of the statutory notice period consistent with full and proper consideration of the issues raised to any objections that may be received.
  We always aim to reach decisions as soon as possible. Although some are more complex than others, I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West that in the 12 months to May 1992 the average time for deciding grant-maintained proposals was four and a half months from the date of publication. Since May, the average time has been about three and three quarter months.
  The fact that there are 107 GM applications awaiting decision shows an acceleration of interest in GM status by schools around the country. We are confident that there
  374
  will be about 600 GM schools operating or approved by next April and our projections suggest 1,500 in April 1994. We are well on our way.
  Of the 107 applications now awaiting decision where there is not a linked LEA proposal, only two are more than three months old. When dealing with such applications, we are concerned to deal with them properly but expeditiously. Therefore, I assure my hon. Friend that the application will be dealt with as rapidly as is consistent with proper consideration and there should be no delays in the process.
  With regard to any misleading information produced during the very important process of consideration of a ballot by parents at a school, I want to make it clear that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State takes a very serious view of the allegations. We will want to look carefully at what my hon. Friend said tonight and at any evidence that he may want to bring before us. As recently as 3 November. a letter was sent at the request of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to all LEAs reminding them and their officers of what, in the Secretary of State's view, are the proper responsibilities and duties of the parties involved when parents seek GM status for their children's school.
  Each local authority has a particular duty to ensure that the arguments that they present for schools remaining under their control are presented in a way that does not mislead parents. My right hon. Friend and I regard it as intolerable that local education authorities or anyone else should try to scare parents by claiming falsely that by voting for GM status they will damage their children's education. It would also be totally unacceptable if authorities, as teachers' employers, sought to put pressure on staff to resist GM status by perhaps threatening job security or prospects as regrettably and shockingly has been reported from some parts of the country. We want to follow up all individual cases where we have received these reports to establish the truth of the matter and to see what further action can be taken.
  I am aware of the letter of 29 October that my hon. Friend has brought to the attention of the House this evening, and I must confess that I am surprised, to put it mildly, at the tone of the letter from an authority that has apparently professed that it is not in principle against GM schools. Certainly the terms of the letter will have to be looked at very closely indeed.
  In reply to what my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester asked, however, let me say that there will be provision in the Education Bill, now in Committee, to seek to ensure that in future we have the fairest and most even-handed possible treatment of GM ballots. In other words, it will seek to ensure that, at the very least, information is produced in an even-handed and impartial way, and that parents are given the maximum opportunity to consider the facts surrounding their school and the possibilities about GM status. That is our determination, and we will hope to find in that Bill the best way possible of ensuring just that.
  Until the Bill receives the Royal Assent and becomes effective, however, we in the Department for Education are determined to remain vigilant and to use whatever powers are available to us to ensure that all local education authorities, and particularly their officers, act in a proper way with regard to their responsibilities, and to ensure that all information produced for parents who are making this very important decision about GM status for their school

  375
  is full, fair and proper and is not misleading in any way. I would expect all professionals involved in education in local authorities to make it their business to ensure that that sort of information is provided, and we would want to be told of any cases where that was not so.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has sought to make it absolutely clear over and over again that he is determined to ensure that GM schools will always receive funding commensurate with the additional responsibilities that they take on when they opt for GM status. Any suggestion that they will in some way suffer as a result of becoming GM is groundless and should be seen as such.
  This is an important matter, and I am grateful to both my hon. Friends the Members for Hampshire, North-West and for Winchester for taking the trouble to raise it this evening. I am sure that not only will they have the gratitude of their constituents and of the parents of all their schoolchildren but that that gratitude will extend much more widely throughout Hampshire and the whole country, where the Secretary of State, the Minister of State
  376
  and I are well aware that widespread concern has surrounded many of the debates and the ballots on GM status for schools. It has often caused unnecessary bitterness and division simply because of misinformation and, regrettably, in some parts of the country, threats. That is deplorable and unacceptable conduct when we are talking about the education of our young people and children.
  My earnest hope is that in future we will ensure that all involved with education, as well as my hon. Friends, can be confident that the information available is impartial, even-handed, fair, honest and truthful, and that we trust parents then to make a proper decision on the education of their children. I trust parents to do that, my hon. Friends trust parents to do that, and I hope that all local education authorities, councillors, officers and others will also trust them to do that.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to Eleven o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

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

  The Attorney-General
  The premises occupied by the Law Officers' departments all form part of the estate of Property Holdings, which is part of the Department of the Environment, and is responsible for any refrigeration and air conditioning equipment incorporated in those premises.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Attorney-General 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.

  The Attorney-General
  The Law Officers' departments have no current plans for introducing a refrigerant recycling and reclaim policy. However, the departments are replacing halon fire extinguishers with ozone-friendly alternatives. Consideration will be given to the phasing-out of equipment such as refrigerators using CFCs and HCFCs where practicable alternatives exist. Small items of equipment using CFCs and HCFCs, such as refrigerators, will be disposed of in an approved manner which ensures the secure recovery of the gas.

  Matrix Churchill
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Attorney-General what precedents he considered in preparing his advice for Ministers to sign public interest immunity certificates in relation to the Matrix Churchill case.

  The Attorney-General
  I have already told the House of my legal advice on public interest immunity. The signing of the certificates falls within Lord Justice Scott's terms of reference and detailed questions about this matter are now a matter for his review.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Bereavement Training
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what training is made available to judges and magistrates in relation to defendants who may have suffered a bereavement; and if he will make a statement.
  196
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  No specific training is given. Written Answers to However, all members of the professional and lay judiciary are encouraged to be sensitive to the needs of those appearing before them.

  Ozone Depletion
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department 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. John M. Taylor
  It is already departmental policy not to procure new or replacement equipment which uses CFCs, and for existing equipment which uses them to be disposed of by qualified contractors when it is replaced. It is also departmental policy to convert and replace this equipment as the opportunity arises. The Department is committed to the targets for the reduction and elimination of CFCs and HCFCs established by the Montreal protocol.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department 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. John M. Taylor
  The operation and planned maintenance contracts for the Department's estate provide for the routine testing, including leak detection, of refrigeration and air conditioning equipment owned and operated by the Department. Since these arrangements are intended to reduce leakage to the minimum, ultimately the target is nil.

  Land Registry
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer of 2 November,Official Report, column 26, what has been the cost to the Exchequer of the chief executive of Her Majesty's Land Registry's visits to Australia and New Zealand during the last 12 months.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The hon. Member's question concerns a specific matter on which the chief executive of Her Majesty's Land Registry is best placed to provide an answer and I have accordingly asked the chief executive to reply direct.

  Letter from John Manthorpe to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 1 December 1992:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has asked me to reply to your question concerning the cost of the Exchequer of my fact finding visit to land registries in Australia and New Zealand in October 1991.
  The Land Registry is a self-financing agency that makes no call on the Exchequer. The visit, which was in response to an invitation to address the 19th Conference of Registrars of Title, was made at a total cost of £5,199·55.

  Records
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment the Public Record Office has made of the contribution made by family historians and genealogists to the world of archives and records in the United Kingdom since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The hon. Member's question concerns a specific matter on which the chief executive of the Public Record Office is best placed to provide an answer and I have accordingly asked the chief executive, the Keeper of Public Records, to reply direct.

  Letter from Sarah Tyacke to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 30 November 1992:
  As Chief Executive of the Public Record Office I am answering your Parliamentary Question, since it is a matter delegated to me under the terms of the Agency's Framework Document.
  My responsibilities as the Keeper of Public Records in the world of archives and records in the United Kingdom principally involve the supervision of the care and preservation of public records, as defined in the Public Records Acts and the management of the Public Record Office. The public records include those in places outside the Public Record Office appointed as places of deposit, for the most part local authority record offices. Such local places of deposit are under the management of the responsible local or other authority; and they hold many other historical records which are used by family historians and benefit greatly from their voluntary activities in cataloguing and indexing such records. The wider ambit of local record offices and other repositories means that it would not be appropriate for the Public Record Office to make an assessment of the kind which you envisage.
  Family historians and genealogists have since 1979, and earlier, represented an increasingly strong element in the readership of the Public Record Office as well as other record offices. The Office has well established links with the major societies and other institutions representing interests in this field. It takes into account these interests in its approach to the selection of records. The growing interest in using the records for these purposes has been a major factor in the making of improvements to the finding aids to the records, and in the planning of reader services both at Kew and Chancery Lane, most notably in the opening of new reading rooms at Chancery Lane for the population census returns in 1990, in their expansion in 1991, and their opening on Saturdays from July 1992.
  Family history interest is represented on the Advisory Council on Public Records and also among the Friends of the Public Record Office, set up in 1988, whose secretary is currently also a member of the Advisory Council. Much valuable work is being undertaken by volunteers, many of whom are family historians, under the aegis of the Friends, in indexing and listing records in the Public Record Office. The contribution made by family historians is thus of considerable benefit in the field of historical research.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what arrangements he is considering to safeguard county record offices for local historians and genealogists in the event of local government reorganisation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  No decisions have yet been made on local government reorganisation in either England or Wales. It is, therefore, too early to be able to assess the implications of reorganisation for county record offices. In the context of the Lord Chancellor's responsibility for public records, the Lord Chancellor will in due course be 198
  considering any advice offered to him by his Advisory Council on Public Records about any implications for the provision of archive services.

  Mortgage Repossessions
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the number of mortgage repossession orders in each local authority in England and Wales in each year since 1987.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Information cannot be provided on the basis of local authority areas. Mortgage possession statistics are collected from county courts the catchment areas of which cannot be easily related to the boundaries of local authority areas. The number of orders for each court, county and standard economic region are published quarterly and placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Fraud Cases
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to accept the recommendation of the Roskill report that complex fraud cases should be tried by a tribunal comprising a judge and two lay members.

  Mr. Jack
  Legislation would be required before this recommendation could be implemented. We have no current plans to introduce such legislation, but the procedures for serious fraud cases will be kept under review, taking into account any relevant conclusions or recommendations from the Royal Commission on criminal justice when it reports next year.

  Jurors (Challenges)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will introduce legislation to restore the right of defendants to challenge jurors without giving reasons.

  Mr. Jack
  I have been asked to reply.

  We have no plans to do so.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Alerce Timber (Customs Seizure)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he intends to take legal action following the Customs and Excise's seizure of a quantity of alerce timber in Oxfordshire in May; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  Decisions on whether to institute legal proceedings are a matter for the Commissioners of Customs and Excise. I understand that the commissioners, on the basis of the evidence before them, do not feel that they would be justified in instituting criminal proceedings in this case.

  Mortgage Interest Tax Relief
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the costs to the Treasury of mortgage interest tax relief and its year-on-year projected costs through to 1995–96, displayed at current prices; and what would be the effect on these costs of a 1 per cent. fall in interest rates.
  199
  Mr. Dorrell
  The cost of mortgage interest tax relief in 1992–93 is provisionally estimated to be £5·2 billion based on the conventional assumption of no further changes in interest rates. A further one percentage point fall in interest rates—if assumed to take effect from 1 January 1993—would reduce the cost to about £5·1 billion.

  The cost in future years will depend on the pattern of borrowing, the eligibility of borrowers for mortgage interest tax relief, tax rates and interest rates.

  Imports
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the United Kingdom percentage deficit total in trade of imports for the current and last financial year; and what percentage of this deficit derives from EEC partners.

  Mr. Nelson
  Information about visible trade is published regularly in the Central Statistical Office's "Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics", and is also available on the Central Statistical Office database, which may be accessed by the House of Commons Library.

  Manufacturing Output
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the percentage rise in the United Kingdom's manufacturing output during 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Nelson
  Indices of United Kingdom manufacturing output can be found on the CSO databank, which can be accessed by the House of Commons Library. Information is currently available for months up to September 1992.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the planned real terms increases in the following components of public expenditure for 1993–94 compared with the latest estimates for 1992–93 of(a) general Government expenditure excluding privatisation proceeds, (b) the new control total, (c) central Government expenditure, (d) central Government support for local authorities in England, (e) local authorities' self-financed expenditure in England and (f) total standard spending for local authorities in England.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 27 November 1992]: The information requested, consistent with the autumn statement, is set out in the table.

  Per cent. real growth in 1993–94 on 1992–93

  Public expenditure plans and projections

  Estimated outturn

  General Government expenditure (excluding privatisation proceeds)

  3·75

  New control total

  2·30

  Central Government expenditure within the new control total

  10·40

  Support to local authorities in England

  2n/a

  Local authorities' self-financed expenditure in England

  3n/a

  Local authorities' standard spending in England

  40·4

  1 Growth rate after adjusting for transfers and classification changes.

  2 Figures for total central Government support for local authorities in England are not available at this stage. A detailed break-down will be published in the Statistical Supplement to the

  200
  Autumn Statement.

  3 Local authorities self-financed expenditure is projected on a United Kingdom basis, and no figures are available for England alone.

  4 Growth on TSS set in 1992–93, after allowing for transfers of functions.

  Independent Taxation
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many new offices were built to accommodate staff handling the work flowing from the changes introduced in 1990 in relation to independent taxation for married women and the associated changes relating to bank and building society interest; where these new offices are located; what the cost of these offices was; and how many of these offices have subsequently been closed.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 30 November 1992]: Twenty-four Inland Revenue offices were set up to deal with the very substantial growth in claims for tax repayments that was expected to follow the introduction of independent taxation in 1990 and the abolition of composite rate tax on bank and building society interest in 1991. These offices are located in Barnsley; Barnstaple; Belfast (two offices); Birkenhead; Bolton; Bootle; Dundee; Falkirk; Glenrothes; Great Yarmouth; Hull; Leicester; Manchester; Middlesbrough; Nottingham (two offices); Plymouth; St. Austell; Southampton; Sunderland; Swansea; Telford; and Wrexham.

  Eleven of the buildings that house these offices were purchased, for a total cost of some £55 million, with the remainder being rented. Nineteen offices are to be closed, because tax repayment claims have not been received on the scale we expected. In all but four cases, the Inland Revenue is to re-use the buildings for other work.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  Health and Safety
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-on-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission what steps have been taken to implement new health and safety measures in the Palace of Westminster in respect of the provision of suitable office furniture, lighting and ventilation as well as eye tests in respect of VDU users for(a) staff employed by the Commission and (b) staff employed by hon. Members.

  Mr. Beith
  All possible steps are being taken to ensure that the House complies with the new health and safety measures in respect of the provision of suitable office furniture, light and ventilation in the Palace of Westminster and the parliamentary outbuildings. All office furniture being purchased for use in conjunction with VDUs in the Palace of Westminster complies with the minimum requirements set out in European Community Council directive 9/270/EEC.

  An expanded occupational health service has been in place in the Palace of Westminster since September 1991, to deal with health and safety issues with particular emphasis on pending legislation including the EC directive on VDU users. The occupational health adviser is available to all staff employed by the House of Commons Commission and staff employed by right hon. and hon. Members to assess and advise on working environments,

  201
  light and ventilation, the ergonomics of individual work stations and work patterns, with a view to making recommendations as appropriate. In addition, VDU eye tests are freely available to all the above staff; appointments for these should be made direct with the occupational health adviser.

  Official Report (CD-ROM)
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Chairman of the Information Committee when the Official Report for 1991–92 will be available to hon. Members on CD-ROM.

  Mr. Waller
  A CD-ROM version of the Official Report for 1991–92 is expected to be available for purchase by individuals later this month and will be made accessible to hon. Members via the Library in early 1993. The question of supply through the Vote Office to those hon. Members who wish to receive it, as an alternative to the bound volumes, is under consideration.

ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE

  Early-day Motions
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what was the estimated cost to the House of printing and publishing early-day motions in(a) Session 1991–92 and (b) Session 1992–93 up to the summer adjournment.

  Mr. Michael Martin
  The estimated cost to the House of printing and publishing early-day motions in:(a) Session 1991–1992 is £860,000, and (b) Session 1992–1993 up to the summer adjournment is £485,000.

TRANSPORT

  Passenger Rail Services
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received concerning the consultation document "The Franchising of Passenger Rail Services"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Over 100 responses have been received to the consultation document, including more than 50 expressing interest in operating passenger rail services under franchise. The replies are being considered and various points are being pursued and clarified with some of the respondents. We hope to be able to announce early next year the first services or groups of services that will be prepared for franchising.

  Citizens Charter
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress made by his Department on setting targets under the citizens charter.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department has made significant progress in establishing an effective framework of targets across its areas of responsibility. These are detailed in the recently published White Paper "The Citizen's Charter, First Report: 1992" (Cm 2101). Nationalised industries and executive agencies sponsored by the Department have published their targets in individual charters and service guides; further details can be found in the bibliography of the White Paper.

  Employee Transport Schemes
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to establish pump priming funds for companies wishing to establish company employee transport schemes.

  Mr. Freeman
  No. Transport to places of employment is a matter for the individuals and companies concerned.

  A5
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action has been taken by his Department in connection with the rate assessment and scheme identification study into the A5 from Old Stratford to the M42 announced in the "Roads for Prosperity" White Paper of May 1989.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The report on the scheme identification study for the length of A5 between Old Stratford in Buckinghamshire and the M42 near Tamworth is under consideration.

  Road Humps
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from(a) resident's associations, (b) local highways authorities, (c) individual members of the public and (d) bus operators on the effect of road humps on traffic in (i) the streets where they are sited and (ii) the nearest streets without road humps which provide alternative routes.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  No central record is kept of the number of such representations and it would not be economic to produce such figures. Road humps are installed on local roads, for which local authorities have responsibility. For this reason, the majority of the approaches I received on road humps are from local highway authorities seeking technical advice.

  M1
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects contracts to be placed for the widening of the M1 from junction 1 to its junction with the M6.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Apart from the scheme for widening between junctions 9 and 10 (northbound) on which work will start next year, it is too early to predict with any certainty when contracts might be placed for the other four schemes which make up the proposed widening of the M1 between the M25 (junction 6A) and the M6 (junction 19). Preparation work is proceeding satisfactorily. The public were consulted on proposals for widening the length between the M25 and junction 10 in September and on the length between junctions 10 and 15 earlier this month. Consultations on proposals for junction 19 and for the length between junctions 15 and 19 are expected to take place around the middle of next year. We will make every effort to announce our preferred option for each scheme within as short a time as possible.

  Emergency Telephones, Motorways
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to eliminate traffic noise from the emergency telephones on motorways.
  203
  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  It is not possible totally to eliminate the effects on motorway telephones of noise generated by passing traffic. All new telephones are equipped with noise-cancelling microphones to reduce the effects of noise.

  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to reduce the distance between emergency telephones on motorways.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I have no plans to reduce the distance between emergency telephones on motorways.

  A1
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce whether the new policy on motorway service areas will apply to the A1 when it has been upgraded to motorway standard.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I hope to make an announcement before Christmas.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many civil servants are currently employed by his Department(a) in London and (b) elsewhere.

  Mr. Norris
  Sixteen thousand and seventy six civil servants are currently employed by the Department, including its executive agencies; 2,594 are in inner London, 695 in the intermediate and outer London area, and 12,787 elsewhere.

  Railway Viaduct, Colne
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the annual cost to British Rail of maintaining the railway viaduct at Colne, Lancashire.

  Mr. Freeman
  Detailed costs of the maintenance of individual structures on lines are a matter for British Rail.

  Foreign Underground Systems
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies he has commissioned of foreign underground transport systems as a means of improving(a) the operational efficiency (b) the number of passengers carried by and (c) the financial outturn of London Transport.

  Mr. Norris
  None. London Underground Ltd. has close links with other metro systems worldwide, and draws on their experience, where appropriate, to improve its own performance.

  Highway Authorities (Liaison)
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the level of liaison between highway authorities when one highway authority is proposing a road scheme that has an indirect effect on a neighbouring authority.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The level of liaison is a matter for authorities themselves to determine. In deciding whether to accept a particular scheme for transport supplementary 204
  grant support, the Secretary of State considers all aspects including the supporting information provided in the authority's transport policies and programme submission.

  London Transport (Passengers Charter)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the improvements which have been made by London Transport as a result of the passengers charter provisions on(a) avoidance of delays and disruption of passengers, (b) paying of compensation to passengers whose journeys have been delayed or disrupted and (c) providing timely information to passengers about delays and disruption.

  Mr. Norris
  London Underground's customer charter introduced a refund scheme for customers whose journeys are delayed for 20 minutes or more for reasons within LUL's control. The number of such delays is now lower than it was when the scheme was launched in July. On information, my Department has set London Underground targets to improve by 1 April 1993 the quality of information provided on trains and at stations, so that 78 per cent. and 76 per cent. of customers respectively rate it as acceptable or better. Both these targets are now being met.

  M66 (Middleton-Denton)
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what future date it is proposed to start construction on the Middleton-Denton section of the M66 motorway.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I expect work at the northern end of the scheme from the River Irk to the junction of the existing M66 with the M62 motorway to start next March. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport are considering the inspector's report of the public inquiry into revised orders and compulsory purchase orders for the central and southern sections of the scheme which ended last February. Subject to that, work could start on the Tameside section south of the River Medlock in 1995 and on the final section between the River Medlock and the River Irk in 1996.

  A38 (Departmental Survey)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he now expects to publish the survey of the A38 undertaken by his Department; when the survey was originally intended to be published; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 1 December 1992]: The study into the long-term needs of the A38 between Exeter and Plymouth, which was announced in the White Paper "Roads for Prosperity", was always regarded as a longer-term project, and no date for its commencement or completion was set.

  I now intend to invite fee competition bids for this study early next year.

  Village Bypass Schemes
  Mr. Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many village bypass schemes not on primary routes have been accepted for transport supplementary grant during the most recent five years for which information is available.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 1 December 1992]: Following is the information:

  Year

  Number of schemes

  1988–89

  13

  1989–90

  12

  1990–91

  10

  1991–92

  7

  1992–93

  11

  Mr. Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport in what circumstances his Department could be expected favourably to consider for transport supplementary grant a village bypass scheme which is not on a designated primary route; what guidance he has issued to local highways authorities about this matter beyond the published criteria for transport supplementary grant; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 1 December 1992]: My Department receives annual bids for eligible schemes from the 108 English local highway authorities. They are considered on their overall merits in competition. The number accepted for TSG depends on the level of resources available.

  The Department issues an annual circular explaining the operation of the TSG system. The latest edition is local authority circular 3/92. It contains details of the eligibility criteria. All roads which are of more than local importance are eligible for TSG. In addition, guidance notes on the completion of the finance forms used to support bids for TSG are issued to each local highway authority. These notes include particulars of information required to support bids for TSG on individual major schemes.

  Q Registration System
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will consider reforms of the Q registration system for motor vehicles to prevent abuses.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Yes. The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency is currently reviewing the system for the allocation of Q registration marks in consultation with the police and other interested parties.

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Authorities, Lancashire
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each local authority in Lancashire the capital receipts held by them resulting from the sale of land, property and other assets.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The total usable receipts held by each local authority in Lancashire as at 31 March 1992 are shown in the table. Information disaggregated into receipts from sale of land, property and other assets is not available.
  206

  £'000s

  Blackburn

  0

  Blackpool

  1,797

  Burnley

  1,103

  Chorley

  600

  Fylde

  282

  Hyndburn

  259

  Lancaster

  385

  Pendle

  675

  Preston

  138

  Ribble Valley

  1,044

  Rossendale

  0

  South Ribble

  178

  West Lancashire

  1,237

  Wyre

  840

  Lancashire county council

  1,961

  Source: Latest local authority returns.

  Local Government Finance
  Ms. Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list, by local authority area in England and Wales, the value of capital receipts held by those authorities, and the annual interest attracted on those capital receipts for revenue spending.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  No information is held centrally on the interest attracted on usable capital receipts for each local authority. I have arranged for the latest available information on the usable capital receipts held by authorities in England at 31 March 1992 to be placed in the Library of the House. Information for Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Solar Energy
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to adopt passive solar designs for all Government buildings.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Department of the Environment encourages all forms of energy efficiency measures in Government buildings, including that of passive solar design where appropriate. However, the application of such measures is the responsibility of individual Departments.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the settlement figure to local authorities from the financial year 1984–85 to 1991–92; and what was the percentage increase from 1984–85 to 1991–92.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information is as follows:

  English local authority settlement figures

  Year

  Grant related expenditure £ million

  1984–85

  19,882

  1985–86

  21,221

  1986–87

  22,790

  1987–88

  23,742

  1988–89

  26,006

  1989–90

  27,662

  207

  Year

  Net total standard spending £ million

  1990–91

  29,805

  1991–92

  35,587

  The increase from 1984–85 to 1991–92 was 84·3 per cent. taking into account changes of responsibilities with the introduction of the community charge system. Net total standard spending is equal to the aggregate of standard spending assessments and is broadly comparable with grant-related expenditure.

  Timber
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he has taken following the seizure in Oxfordshire of convention on international trade in endangered species appendix 1 listed timber in May 1992.

  Mr. Maclean
  This is a matter for Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, who are primarily responsible for the enforcement of CITES controls in the United Kingdom. I understand that an extensive investigation was carried out by their officers, but insufficient evidence was discovered to support a prosecution. Customs action has therefore been confined to the seizure of the timber.

  Leaseholds
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements he proposes to make for the establishment of a new advisory agency to assist leaseholders seeking enfranchisement.

  Sir George Young
  I announced on 17 November, during a sitting of Standing Committee B on the Housing and Urban Development Bill, that the Government would be prepared to contribute towards the costs of a leasehold enfranchisement advisory agency for an initial period. The Leasehold Reform Co-ordinating Committee is working on a scheme for such an agency and hopes to submit proposals shortly.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many civil servants are currently employed by his Department(a) in London and (b) elsewhere.

  Mr. Howard
  The Department of the Environment currently employs 4,012 civil servants in London, 686 of them in agencies; 2,722 civil servants are employed elsewhere, 721 of them in agencies.

  Elephants
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy towards the conservation of elephants.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government share the widespread international concern about any threat to the survival of the elephant, and we have given strong support to efforts to conserve the species. For example, we are contributing 208
  £600,000 this year to a number of elephant conservation projects in Africa, in addition to our substantial support for general wildlife projects which also benefit elephants. We are committed to maintaining the current ban on the ivory trade for as long as necessary, and at the conference of the parties to the convention on international trade in endangered species in March, we played a leading part in opposing moves to allow a resumption of trade.

  We also supported proposals made at the conference for more discussion between elephant range states and non-range states on the complex questions of elephant management and trade. To this end, one of the Department's senior officials is at present leading an EC fact-finding mission to Africa; they will meet policy makers, wildlife managers, conservationists and nongovernmental organisations in a number of countries.

  Urban Development Corporations
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce the budget for urban development corporations for 1993–94.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The 1993–94 budget for UDCs will be announced as soon as the figures have been finalised.

  City Challenge
  Ms. Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the planned expenditure on the urban programme in 1993–94; how much of this is to be diverted to city challenge; what plans there are to make city challenge available to all urban programme authorities; and what assessment he has made of the reduction in the number of jobs to be created resulting from the change in the urban programme funding.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The answer is:(a) A total of £ 176 million is to be made available to urban programme authorities in 199–94; (b) None. City challenge resources for next year are additional to the £176 million; (c) All 57 urban programme authorities were invited to compete in round 2 of city challenge. The future of city challenge will be considered in the light of next year's review of urban needs and progress in the areas successful in the first two competitions; (d) Taking city challenge together with the urban programme, resources will rise from £319 million in 1992–93 to £408 million in 1993–94. I would therefore expect to see a corresponding increase in the number of jobs created as a result of this expenditure.

  Urban Programme (Rochdale)
  Ms. Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much of the funds allocated to the urban programme for 1993–94 Rochdale will receive; and how much of Rochdale's allocation will be financed through(a) the sale of council houses and (b) the sale of council owned land.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Local authorities' provisional urban programme allocations for 1993–94 will be announced next January as usual. Allocations will cover continuing commitments entered into in 1992–93 and prior years.

  It is for the local authority to decide how to finance the 25 per cent. contribution it is required to make to urban programme revenue expenditure.

  In assessing bids for the urban partnership fund in 1993–94, we will take account of the authority's willingness and ability to provide part of the finance from usable capital receipts.
  209
  Ms. Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many jobs have been created in the Rochdale area as a result of urban programmes in the last five years.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The estimated number of jobs created/preserved in the Rochdale area as a result of urban programmes (UP) in the last five years is as follows:

  Number

  1988–89

  215

  1989–90

  693

  1990–91

  663

  1991–92

  4,900

  11992–93

  150

  1 Interim estimate.

  Sources: Annual reports for Rochdale UP 1988–89 to 1991–92 and Rochdale UP submission for 1992–93.

  Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has yet considered the response of Sefton metropolitan borough council to the notice served on the authority on 24 August under section 19A of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. and learned Friend has given careful consideration to the response which Sefton metropolitan borough council has made to the notice served on the authority on 24 August, and has today given a direction under section 19B of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. The effect of the direction is that, after 1 June 1993, the authority will cease to have the power itself to carry out highways maintenance work as described in the authority's document entitled "Annual Service Contract No. 7".

  He has also today served a notice on the council under section 19A of the 1980 Act setting out his view that in 1990–91 the authority had failed to achieve the required rate of return in carrying out the work described in section 10(2)(d) of the Act—maintenance work, other than such works of maintenance in connection with highways or the maintenance of a sewer. The authority is required to respond to the notice by 13 January 1993.

  Direct Labour Organisations
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he proposes to take against those local authorities whose direct labour organisations made significant financial losses in 1990–91.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Statutory notices under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 and the Local Government Act 1988 were served on 36 local authorities between July and September of this year in respect of financial failure in 1990–91. My right hon. and learned Friend has now considered the responses of the 10 authorities on which notices were served on 16 July. He has today given directions under section 19B of the 1980 Act to Canterbury city council in respect of new construction work and to Halton borough council in respect of highways and sewerage work.

  He has decided to take no further action in respect of financial failure in 1990–91 by Aylesbury Vale district
  210
  council (building maintenance), Blackburn borough council (other cleaning), Gillingham borough council (building maintenance), Hampshire county council (ground maintenance), Kerrier district council (building cleaning), South Bedfordshire district council (building maintenance) and Wear Valley district council (building maintenance). In all these cases, either the relevant work is now being carried out by private contractors or the authority has demonstrated to my right hon. and learned Friend's satisfaction that it has taken the necessary remedial measures to ensure that statutory requirement were met in 1991–92 or are likely to be met in the current financial year.

  Similarly, he has decided to take no further action for the present against the London borough of Tower Hamlets (building maintenance) and Halton district council (building maintenance), pending receipt of further quarterly financial returns. He is still considering responses from the remaining 26 authorities on which notices were served during August and September.

  Airport Sales
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if a local authority will be entitled to spend all the capital receipts it receives from an airport sale; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 26 November 1992]: Under regulations which came into force on 13 November 1992, local authorities may spend in full the capital receipts obtained between that date and 31 December 1993 from sales of most assets, including share or loan capital in airport companies acquired before 15 February 1989.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment 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 despatch of the substantive reply.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 1 December 1992]: It is not possible to identify from my Department's records an arithmetical average length of time taken to reply to an hon. Member's letter. Figures from my Department will be published in the Official Report, and made available in the House Libraries, early next year, showing the volume of ministerial correspondence from hon. Members in 1992, the targets set for reply and the percentage of replies within target. My Department's objective is to reply within three weeks of receipt, and this target was achieved for 58 per cent. of letters for hon. Members received in the first nine months of this year.

  The table shows information for each of the first three quarters of 1992, and the year to date:

  Within 3 weeks Per cent.

  Within 4 weeks Per cent.

  Within 5 weeks Per cent.

  1st quarter

  65

  84

  95

  2nd quarter

  58

  75

  90

  3rd quarter

  48

  69

  85

  Overall

  58

  76

  91

  Sheltered Housing
  Ms. Joan Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the retention of sheltered housing incorporating a warden service.

  Mr. Baldry
  Clauses in the Housing Urban Development Bill will give housing authorities the powers to provide welfare services for the tenants and account for the costs within the housing revenue account. These powers would avoid disruption to these services following a Court of Appeal judgment. However, our policy is that the HRA should be a landlord account, and our intention is that these powers should remain in force only until local authorities have had an opportunity to make new arrangements for these services. Before we take any decisions about changes to the arrangements, there will be full consultation with all interested parties, early in the new year.

  The Department has received approximately 130 representations about this subject from local authorities, their organisations and others. The powers in the Bill for housing authorities to provide welfare services and account for their costs in the HRA have been widely welcomed. Many of them suggest that welfare services should continue to be provided by housing authorities as part of the housing service, or at least until local government reorganisation is complete. These representations will be considered along with those received in response to next year's consultation exercise.

  Government Car Service
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many organisations submitted tenders for the contract of supplying vehicles under the Government car service; which company won the contract; when the tender for the contract will next be advertised; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have been asked to reply.

  Cars for the Government car service are generally purchased by the Department of the Environment through a number of running contracts placed by the Ministry of Defence with vehicle manufactures. The requirements are advertised at approximately three-yearly intervals. The next advertisement is likely to be placed in 1994–95.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Maastricht Treaty
  Mr. Legg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out the differences between the European Economic Community established under the treaty of Rome and the union to be established by the treaty of Maastricht.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The union embraces both intergovernmental co-operation—in the fields of common foreign and security policy and justice/home affairs—and co-operation under the treaty of Rome. The Community institutions will act in the former fields under the provisions of titles V and VI of the Maastricht treaty, which sets out different rules from those applicable under the treaty of Rome.
  212
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the articles in the Maastricht treaty which he expects to give rise to the need for domestic legislation in each year from 1993 to 1999.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  It is not possible to predict in which areas co-operation with the other member states in the period 1993–99 will give rise to a need for domestic legislation.

  Esperanto
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received regarding the use of Esperanto as a means of resolving linguistic problems within the European Community consequent on accession of Scandinavian and eastern European countries.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  None. We would expect the rules governing the languages of the institutions of the Community to be a matter for consideration in the course of accession negotiations.

  Languages (Convention)
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the countries which have signed the Council of Europe convention for minority or regional languages, together with those eligible which have not signed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The following countries have signed the Council of Europe convention on regional or minority languages: Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway and Spain.

  The following countries are eligible but have not signed: Belgium, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, France, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Portugal, San Marino, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and the United Kingdom.

  We are still considering whether to sign the European charter on regional or minority languages.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many civil servants are currently employed by his Department(a) in London and (b) elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Goodlad
  On 31 October 1992, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office employed 3,679·5 staff in London and 3,613·5 staff elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

  Foreign and Security Policy
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the application of article J.5 of the provisions on a common foreign and security policy of the proposed treaty on European union in circumstances where United Kingdom policy or interests differ from the policy of the union as represented by the presidency.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Article J.5 of the treaty on European union provides for the presidency to represent the union
  213
  on the basis of common positions within the common foreign and security policy. In order for there to be a common position, all member states must agree to it. Where there is no common position, member states speak for themselves. Article J.5(4) specifically safeguards the United Kingdom's ability to fulfil effectively its responsibilities as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy towards the enforcement by military means of a no-fly zone over Bosnia; and if he will make a statement.

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

  There have been no confirmed reports of combat activity involving aircraft over Bosnia-Herzegovina since 13 October. The Security Council resolutions have therefore had an effect. We are, however, concerned about reports from the United Nations Secretary-General of
  214
  other flights over Bosnia-Herzegovina, apparently violating the ban. The Security Council made clear in SCR 786 its determination to consider urgently further measures to enforce the ban in the case of such violations.

  Public Works
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, if he will list the dates on which regulations equivalent to the Public Works Contracts Regulations 1991 were enacted or came into force in each other EC member state.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Council directive 89/440/EEC of 18 July 1989 was implemented in the United Kingdom by the Public Works Contracts Regulations of 21 December 1991. Latest information available from the European Commission on implementation for directive 89/440/EEC in other member states is as follows:

  Denmark—8 June 1990 (further measures 14 August 1990 and 25 June 1991)

  Germany—19 July 1990

  Belgium—1 August 1990

  Portugal—11 December 1990

  France—3 January 1991 (further measures 31 March 1992)

  Spain—18 April 1991

  Netherlands—11 September 1991

  Italy—27 December 1991

  Ireland—1992

  As at 28 September 1992, no notification of implementation had been received by the Commission from Greece or Luxembourg.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Third-country Nationals (Visas)
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government in respect of whether the determination of which nationals of third countries will require visas to enter the United Kingdom should be made by the Council of the union acting by a qualified majority after 1 January 1996.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The Government accept article 100c—to be inserted into the treaty of Rome when the treaty on European union enters into force—which provides for member states to agree a common list of countries whose nationals will require a visa when crossing the external borders of member states.

  Primates (Allegations)
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the outcome of investigations into allegations by the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection in respect of the treatment of primates at Shamrock (GB) Ltd. and Hazleton UK.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Home Office animals (scientific procedures) inspectorate has investigated the allegations contained in written and video material sent to the Home Office by the BUAV, in respect of the treatment of animals at Shamrock Farms and Hazleton UK. The results of that investigation have been reported to the Animal Procedures Committee and to me, and I have had the benefit of the APC's comments on those conclusions.

  The investigation found evidence of poor standards of care and handling at Shamrock Farms, and a lack of effective managerial control. Insufficient attention was paid to the maintenance of a regime in which animals are treated at all times with due dignity and respect, and in which the physical and emotional needs of the animals are given proper emphasis. My conclusion is that poor technique and over-forceful handling may have resulted in avoidable stress and possible suffering.

  I have concluded that these findings represent a significant failure on the part of the named day-to-day care person at Shamrock, and I have directed that Shamrock's certificate of designation be amended to appoint a new person to that role.

  Other measures are being taken in the light of the report:

  (i) I have concluded that new and existing staff at Shamrock should be trained in the wider ethical and legal issues associated with animal use: the nature and content of that training will be agreed between the management and the Home Office inspectorate.

  (ii) Some aspects of the accommodation at both Shamrock and Hazleton fall short of desirable standards, and programmes of improvement and replacement of facilities have been developed or accelerated.

  (iii) Another member of staff at Shamrock will be excluded from duties involving any further animal contact until he has satisfactorily completed the retraining already mentioned.

  I am satisfied that other allegations are misconceived, may be based on a misinterpretation of legitimate procedures or are incapable of being proved one way or the other. All staff in the two establishments have been
  216
  made aware, however, of the importance of the proper treatment of animals in their care, and the seriousness with which alleged breaches will be regarded.

  The response which is being made to problems uncovered as a result of these allegations is firm, fair and designed to deal effectively with public concerns. I recognise that the use of primates in research causes particular anxiety, and I am pleased that the APC is considering the general questions raised. I look forward to hearing their conclusions.

  Fire Cover, Cumbria
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment his advisers on fire services have made of the adequacy of the fire services provided by Cumbria county council; and what advice they have given on maintaining adequate cover within the standard spending assessment.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Fire Services is satisfied that the Cumbria fire service provides effective and efficient fire services. It is for Cumbria county council to decide, in the light of its statutory responsibilities and of its standard spending assessment each year, on the level of provision which is allocated to the Cumbria fire service.

  Domestic Violence (Northumbria)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Northumbria as to the number of officers in his force who have received training in dealing with domestic violence.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Eighteen officers have undergone specialist training. The subject is covered at a more general level in other training within the force.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many wives were(a) murdered and (b) assaulted by their husbands in the area covered by the Northumbria police force in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Jack
  The number of wives who were the victims of offences currently recorded as homicide committed by their husbands in the Northumbria police force area in each of the last five years is a follows:

  Year

  Number

  1987

  1

  1988

  1

  1989

  1

  1990

  1

  1991

  —

  Information on assaults of wives by their husbands is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ask the chief constable of Northumbria to list the domestic violence units in the area covered by his force.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  There is currently one such unit, situated at South Shields police station.
  217
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many husbands were(a) killed or (b) assaulted by their wives in the area covered by the Northumbria force in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Jack
  The number of husbands who were the victims of offences currently recorded as homicide committed by their wives in the Northumbria police force area in each of the last five years is as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1987

  —

  1988

  —

  1989

  1

  1990

  —

  1991

  —

  Information on assaults of husbands by their wives is not collected centrally.

  Convicted Teenagers
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many teenagers are in secure accommodation following criminal proceedings.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  According to records held centrally, which are approximate, there were 4,800 prisoners aged 14 to 19 in secure prison service establishments on 30 June 1992.

  Information supplied by the Department of Health shows that, on 31 October 1992, there were 119 teenagers serving sentences under section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 in secure community homes or youth treatment centres. On 31 March 1991, the latest date for which such information is available, there were 12 teenagers subject to criminal care orders and 51 teenagers remanded to the care of a local authority held in secure accommodation.

  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many young people in young offenders institutions are(a) convicted and (b) on remand.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The table shows how many under 21-year-olds were held in prison service establishments in England and Wales on 27 November 1992.

  Establishment type

  Sentenced young persons

  Unsentenced young persons

  Total

  Local prison

  129

  128

  257

  Remand centre

  1,224

  1,487

  2,711

  YO institution

  4,214

  0

  4,214

  Female establishment

  50

  48

  98

  Total

  5,617

  1,663

  7,280

  The figures for the unsentenced include remand, trial and convicted but unsentenced young persons.

  Marriage Guidance
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement following his review of the funding of marriage guidance.
  218
  Mr. Jack
  The marriage guidance organisations which receive grants from the Home Office will be notified shortly about their levels of grant for 1993–94.

  Dyslexic Offenders
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to record the number of young offenders in remand centres or young offenders institutions who suffer from dyslexia.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The prison service has no plans to keep separate records of the number of young offenders who suffer from dyslexia. Particular emphasis is, however, placed upon assisting those young offenders in custody who have a range of learning difficulties. The White Paper "Custody, Care and Justice" (Cm 1647), published in September 1991, states that the first priority for education programmes in prisons must be to identify and provide help for those prisoners who have difficulty reading or writing, and who are unable to do simple arithmetic.

  Guildford Four
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what public interest immunity certificates he has signed in respect of documents supplied by his Department to Sir John May's inquiry.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  None.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Metropolitan police as to what documentary evidence they have supplied to Sir John May's inquiry into the Guildford Four convictions; and on what terms.

  Mr. Jack
  No. Questions about the disclosure of documents held by the Metropolitan police are the responsibility of the Commissioner and not of my right hon. and learned Friend.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to publish all oral evidence taken by Sir John May in his inquiry into the Guildford Four convictions when the inquiry is completed.

  Mr. Jack
  As was the case in connection with the oral evidence given to his inquiry into the convictions of the Maguire family and those convicted with them, it will be for Sir John May to decide whether to take any oral evidence in connection with his inquiry into the convictions of the Guildford Four, and whether and in what form any such evidence should be included in his report to my right hon. and learned Friends or otherwise made public.

  Forensic Science Service
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 3 November,Official Report, columns 129–30, what has been the cost to the Exchequer of the chief executive of the Forensic Science Service's visits to the Netherlands during the last 12 months.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  This is a matter for which the Forensic Science Service is responsible and I have asked the chief executive to arrange for a reply to be given.
  219
  Letter from Dr. Janet Thompson to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 1 December 1992:
  You recently tabled a Parliamentary Question about my visit to the Netherlands. As you know, the arrangement now is that the Chief Executive of an Executive Agency, with the agreement of the Minister, replies to Members of Parliament on operational matters. I am therefore replying on behalf of the Forensic Science Service (FSS).
  The one day visit to the Netherlands took place on 24 June. Its main purpose was a meeting of some of the heads of European Forensic Science organisations to discuss the possible establishment of a European Network of Forensic Institutes and the issues that were of common interest. The visit included a tour of the laboratory. The costs amounted to £305.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many former asylum seekers have been granted work permits in each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 1 December 1992]: Comprehensive information on the number of asylum seekers who have withdrawn their application or have been refused asylum, and have subsequently been granted a work permit by the Department of Employment, is not available and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Asylum seekers in the United Kingdom whose applications have not yet been decided may apply after six months from the date of application for authorisation to seek employment without a work permit. Persons granted asylum or exceptional leave are granted such authorisation at the time of the grant.

  Commonwealth Exchange of Prisoners Treaty
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the Nigerian Government in respect of ratifying the Commonwealth exchange of prisoners treaty; and what progress has been made in reaching bilateral agreements on sentencing and deportation.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 23 November 1992]: The United Kingdom and Nigeria are both party to the multilateral scheme for the transfer of convicted offenders within the Commonwealth. There have been no bilateral discussions with the Nigerians about the scheme, or about agreements on sentencing and deportation.

PRIME MINISTER

  Iraq
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will agree to order that copies of all documents that are made available by Government Department's to Lord Justice Scott's inquiry in the export of arms, components and machine tools to Iraq shall also be made available on request to those committees of the Congress of the United States conducting comparable inquiries or investigation.

  The Prime Minister
  No, but requests for information will be considered on their merits.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister whether the briefing material relating to United Kingdom exports to 220
  Iraq, prepared for the Foreign Secretary's meeting with Tariq Aziz, the Iraqi Foreign Minister in September 1989, still exists; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  Yes. The brief referred to British media interest in Iraqi procurement activities in the United Kingdom, naming Learfan and Matrix Churchill as examples. No further details were given and there was no other reference to United Kingdom defence exports to Iraq.

  Civil List
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list all the occasions since 1972 on which a reimbursement by Her Majesty the Queen of civil list annuities to the Treasury in relation to other members of the royal family has taken place and what sums were involved in each case.

  The Prime Minister
  Since 1975 Her Majesty the Queen has fully reimbursed the Consolidated Fund for the annuities paid under section 3 of the Civil List Act 1972. I will arrange for the right hon. Gentleman to have the detail of each refund.

  Her Majesty The Queen (Taxation)
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer to the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) of 26 November,Official Report, column 982, when the discussions with Her Majesty the Queen on taxation of her income began; and what consideration was given to the timing of the announcement.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 1 December 1992]: Her Majesty indicated to me some months ago before the summer recess that she wished consideration to be given to the basis on which she might voluntarily pay tax. Once discussion had reached a stage where it was clear that arrangements could be put in place for next year, I agreed with Her Majesty that I should notify the House as soon as possible.

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Prime Minister how many tublic interest immunity certificates have been signed by Ministers in each of the last six months; and in what circumstances.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 24 November 1992]: Ministers signed two public interest immunity certificates in June, two in July, six in September, three in October and two in November.

EMPLOYMENT

  Training
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State fin Employment what proposals she has to improve arid extend employment training schemes in areas directly affected by coal mine closures; and what age groups such schemes will cover.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The training and enterprise councils in areas affected by potential coal mine closures have
  221
  submitted action plans giving their proposals for a range of labour market measures. All unemployed people in areas most affected by pit closures and any redundant miners who live outside them will be eligible for assistance, including training, as appropriate. Local arrangements will depend on final action agreed with TECs.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals she has to increase the availability of statistics on the number of young people seeking a youth training place by district.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) on 1 December 1992,Official Report, columns 127–28.

  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what considerations underlie her policy of restricting places on the employment training scheme to unemployed people between the ages of 18 and 49 years; and if she will raise the upper limit.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Employment training is open to unemployed people up to the age of 59 who meet the general eligibility conditions. However, those aged 50 and over do not fall within any of the categories of unemployed people who have priority for places. Under training for work, which is to replace employment training from April 1993, age will not be a factor in determining priority.

  Accidents
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to her answer of 19 October,Official Report, column 114, what sorts of information relating to accidents at installations covered by the Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1984 are held by the Health and Safety Executive; what arrangements have been made for the analysis of information relating to accidents at such sites; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  In respect of accidents at an installation subject to the Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazard Regulations 1984—CIMAH—that are defined as major accidents by regulation 2, the Health and Safety Executive—HSE—holds information provided by manufacturers in accordance with regulation 5(1). This requires that where a major accident occurs on a site, the manufacturer should notify the HSE and provide the following information as soon as it becomes available:

  The circumstances of the accident;

  The dangerous substances involved;

  The data available for assessing the effects of the accident on persons and the environment;

  The emergency measures taken;

  A statement of the steps envisaged to alleviate the medium or long term effects of the major accident, if any and the steps necessary to prevent a recurrence.

  In accordance with regulation 5(2) of CIMAH, the HSE is responsible for collecting information about major accidents to enable a full analysis to be made. The HSE complies with this requirement by investigating every major accident that occurs on a site subject to CIMAH, determining the cause, collecting information and sending a report to the European Commission for entering on a database used for accident prevention purposes. An analysis of such reports is sent to the competent authorities annually.
  222
  In respect of sites subject to CIMAH, the HSE also holds information on other accidents and dangerous occurrences not reportable under CIMAH, but which may be reportable to the HSE under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985. These are included in the statistical analysis published by the HSE in its annual reports.

  Additionally the HSE uses the major hazard incident data service maintained by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority's safety and reliability directorate—SRD—funded jointly by the HSE and SRD.

  Wages Councils
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to her answer on wages councils on 26 November,Official Report, column 820, when the decision to abolish wages councils was first published.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Government's decision to abolish the wages councils was published on 5 November.

  Factory Inspectorate
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the maximum current annual quota of factory inspectorate new recruits; and if he will ensure that the capacity for training recruits is not an artificial barrier to recruitment.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Health and Safety Executive estimates that it is possible at maximum to train 90 newly recruited factory and agricultural inspectors effectively each year.

  There have been two competitions per annum in recent years to enable planned targets to be met. The rate at which new inspectors can be absorbed into the system is determined not only by institutional training capacity but also by the time of qualified inspectors taken up in training them on the job.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  May Inquiry
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what public interest immunity certificates he has signed in respect of documents supplied by his Department to Sir John May's inquiry.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  None.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will call for a report from the Royal Ulster Constabulary on what documents they have supplied to Sir John May's inquiry and on what terms.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  No. Questions about the disclosure of documents held by the Royal Ulster Constabulary are the responsibility of the Chief Constable and not myself.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Slaughterhouses
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received on behalf of small slaughterhouses since 1 October; and what measures he proposes to enable such businesses to survive in the single European market.

  Mr. Gummer
  Many right hon. and hon. Members have written to me about small slaughterhouses.

  The Government welcomes the EC fresh meat directive 91/497 which will ensure that all meat traded in the single market is produced to common standards of hygiene and inspection—standards which have applied for almost 30 years to meat moving in international trade. It is high time for the same standards to be applied to meat intended for our domestic market.

  The single market hygiene legislation is not intended to destroy traditional small businesses, which play an important part in the rural economy. My Department has taken a number of steps to ensure that this directive can be implemented sensibly and without imposing unnecessary burdens. During the EC negotiations, we secured agreement that very small abattoirs did not need to comply with all the detailed structural requirements and that all meat premises would be eligible for temporary derogations of up to three years from 1 January 1993 to enable them to upgrade their premises to meet the new standards.

  The Agriculture Departments, as licensing authorities, have made arrangements for all operators to receive advice on what is required, and for ensuring consistent and sensible decisions on licensing. Our veterinary field staff have been instructed to be flexible and realistic in seeking solutions to structural and hygiene problems.

  As a further safeguard, I have asked two independent experts in meat hygiene to assess hygiene standards in a small cross-section of plants and to advise whether the improvements being required exceed what is necessary to rectify structure-related hygiene problems.

  My Department has this week issued further guidance to local authorities on the provision of veterinary supervision at slaughterhouses. This guidance, which has been placed in the Library, should reduce the estimated cost of the inspection service substantially at some plants. My Department believes that the cost to the industry as a whole should be reduced by some £2 million, compared with estimates made by independent consultants on behalf of MAFF earlier this year.

  Local authorities have considerable flexibility to arrange provision of the inspection service in the way which is most appropriate to their local circumstances subject to the overriding need to achieve adequate veterinary supervision. Pending transfer of responsibility for meat inspection to the proposed national meat hygiene service, I shall monitor inspection charges very closely, and will continue to encourage plant operators to discuss with their local authority any possible options for reducing costs. Local authorities have discretion to recover less than the full cost of the inspection service if they so choose, provided the amount recovered complies with the relevant EC legislation. In the longer term, the national meat hygiene service will be required to provide an efficient and cost-effective service to the industry.

  Despite all these measures, I am aware that there remains considerable concern about the impact of the new
  224
  legislation on small slaughterhouses. This concern is not confined to the United Kingdom, and I am therefore arranging for the December Council of Agriculture Ministers to consider whether any further action at Community level is required to safeguard small traditional slaughtering businesses.

  Oilseed Products
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for what reasons the European Economic Community rejected the appeal from the United States of America for a third party to determine by arbitration the level of damage to its interests occasioned by the subsidised production of oilseed products; at what meeting of the Council of Ministers this decision was made; and under what voting requirements.

  Mr. Curry
  The United States proposal for binding arbitration to settle the oilseeds dispute was rejected by the Commission after consultation with a committee of senior trade officials from member states, meeting under United Kingdom chairmanship during our presidency, because of doubts about its consistency with general agreement on tariffs and trade arbitration rules and because other approaches seemed to offer wider scope for an acceptable settlement. The proposal was not put to the Council of Ministers for a formal decision. A number of further options were put forward by both sides during bilateral negotiations before agreement was reached on a satisfactory compromise.

  CAP and GATT
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give an estimate of the effect on job numbers in rural areas of(a) the current common agricultural policy reform package and (b) further changes arising from the general agreement on tariffs and trade agreement; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The impact of the common agricultural policy measures agreed in May on employment in rural communities will depend on the response of the farming community over the next few years. The draft general agreement on tariffs and trade settlement is consonant with reforms already agreed and should therefore have no specific impact on employment in rural communities.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the progress establishing new environmentally sensitive areas; and what management commitments and financial remuneration he is proposing.

  Mr. Curry
  In January of next year we plan to launch new environmentally sensitive areas in the Avon valley, Exmoor, lake District, north Kent marshes, south Wessex downs and South West Peak. Full details of the management terms and financial remuneration will be published at the time of the launch. We also plan early next year to hold consultations on a further six new English environmentally sensitive areas which we hope to introduce in the following winter.

  "A Fair Assessment"
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received against the National Rivers Authority's discussion document, "A Fair Assessment"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The Ministry has received a small number of letters about the National Rivers Authority's discussion document. The authority is now considering the comments received in response to the document and, we understand, is looking at more detailed proposals for public consultation.

  Intervention Cereal
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has on the level of cereal production held in intervention stocks in the Republic of Ireland.

  Mr. Curry
  At 22 November 1992, information provided by the EC Commission showed that the level of cereals intervention stocks held in the Republic of Ireland was 81,182 tonnes.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of confirmed cases of BSE by county, for November.

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested from 1 November to 27 November 1992 for Great Britain is as follows. These cases will have a date of report and date of clinical onset of disease before 1 November.

  County/Region

  Confirmed cases

  England

  Avon

  89

  Bedfordshire

  34

  Berkshire

  14

  Buckinghamshire

  0

  Cambridgeshire

  7

  Cheshire

  120

  Cleveland

  6

  Cornwall

  181

  Cumbria

  105

  Derbyshire

  86

  Devon

  247

  Dorset

  180

  Durham

  15

  Essex

  18

  Gloucestershire

  64

  Hampshire

  65

  Hereford and Worcester

  23

  Hertfordshire

  9

  Humberside

  11

  Isle of Wight

  9

  Kent

  32

  Lancashire

  125

  Leicestershire

  58

  Lincolnshire

  9

  London

  1

  Manchester

  10

  Merseyside

  5

  Norfolk

  50

  Northamptonshire

  25

  Northumberland

  30

  Nottinghamshire

  28

  Oxfordshire

  28

  Shropshire

  64

  226

  County/Region

  Confirmed cases

  Somerset

  298

  Staffordshire

  65

  Suffolk

  25

  Surrey

  16

  Sussex East

  27

  Sussex West

  46

  Tyne and Wear

  1

  Warwickshire

  17

  West Midlands

  2

  Wiltshire

  66

  Yorkshire North

  108

  Yorkshire South

  15

  Yorkshire West

  16

  Wales

  Clwyd

  46

  Dyfed

  120

  Glamorgan Mid

  5

  Glamorgan South

  11

  Glamorgan West

  2

  Gwent

  27

  Gwynedd

  17

  Powys

  45

  Scotland

  Borders

  9

  Central

  5

  Dumfries

  51

  Fife

  4

  Grampian

  29

  Highland

  7

  Lothian

  6

  Orkney

  3

  Shetland

  0

  Strathclyde

  39

  Tayside

  13

  Western Isles

  0

  Live Horses for Slaughter
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will use his role as President of the Council of Agriculture Ministers to prevent the introduction of the European Commission's proposal establishing a compulsory EC free trade area for live horses for slaughter after 31 December.

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 1 December 1992 at column 159.

  Coastal Wildlife
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the impact of his coastal defence policies on the loss of coastal wildlife habitats.

  Mr. Gummer
  The primary aim of both flood and coastal defence is to protect life and to reduce the risk of flooding or erosion causing damage to the natural and built environment. In pursuit of these objectives, MAFF gives financial support to capital schemes for flood and coastal defence which are cost-beneficial, technically sound and environmentally acceptable.

  I share the concerns about the loss of coastal habitats and am determined to ensure that our policies for coastal defences help to tackle this problem. It is already well established that all coast and sea defences must take environmental considerations into account. The grant aid arrangements have been extended to facilitate the use of

  227
  "soft" defence measures such as beach replenishment. However, in addition, in order to help stop the decline in the area of wildlife habitats around our coasts, I want the potential impact on coastal habitats to be a key consideration in examining proposed schemes; and there will be a clear presumption in considering applications for grant aid that, except where life or important natural or man-made assets are at risk, natural coastal processes should not be disrupted. I also want to see thorough consideration given in all appropriate cases to whether retreat from the existing line of defence could be managed in such a way as to bring environmental and/or engineering benefits.

  This new approach will be reflected in the strategy for flood and coast defence which I am developing in consultation with the operating authorities and environmental interests, and I look forward to discussing this with them.

  Meat (Inspections)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to ensure that there is an adequate number of official veterinary surgeons for slaughterhouse inspection; how many additional veterinary surgeons have been recruited by his Department; at what cost; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 26 November 1992]: Until the proposed national meat hygiene service is established, local authorities are responsible for employing official veterinary surgeons for the purposes specified in the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1992 and the Poultry Meat (Hygiene) Regulations 1976. My Department runs courses for veterinary surgeons seeking designation as official veterinary surgeons. Some 300 veterinary surgeons have completed the red meat course in the last four years, and over 80 more are booked to attend the course in the new year.

  The Department is discussing with the local authority associations ways in which MAFF might assist local authorities wishing to explore the possibility of recruiting veterinary surgeons from other member states where there is a surplus.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the additional costs to the meat industry of implementing the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 26 November 1992]: Work carried out by independent consultants on behalf of the Agriculture Departments in March and April 1992 estimated the cost of implementing the supervision requirements in the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1992 as £33 million per annum, compared with £25 million previously—both figures based on 1991 costs and slaughterhouse numbers. The additional cost of veterinary supervision in medium-sized slaughterhouses was estimated to represent £5·4 million of this increase. However, we estimate that the guidance on veterinary supervision levels issued by the Department on 30 November would reduce this to £3·4 million. A copy of this guidance has been placed in the Library of the House.

  The total costs to the industry of complying with the structural requirements of the new legislation, many of
  228
  which were already contained in or implied by previous Great Britain legislation, will depend on the commercial decisions taken by individual slaughterhouse operators.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to suspend implementation of the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1992 until he has received satisfactory assurances from each other EC country that they have implemented similar regulations.

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answers 26 November 1992]: No. The Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1992 are an important part of the Department's programme of improving the safety and hygiene of British meat and enhancing the protection offered to the consumer.

  My right hon. Friend the Minister is, however, arranging for the December Council of Agriculture Ministers to discuss progress with implementation of the fresh meat directive 91/497, in particular as it relates to small slaughterhouses.

  Cereals
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations she has made to the European Commission to have the cereal support system in Northern Ireland based upon individual cereal farms; which other community countries have indicated that they prefer the cereal support scheme to be based upon individual cereal farms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  I have been asked to reply.

  No representations have been made to the European Commission to have the cereal support system in Northern Ireland based upon individual cereal farms. The EC regulation establishing a support system for cereal producers makes allowance for base areas, but not yields, to be established on either a regional or an individual holding basis. No member states are operating individual base areas this year.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Charterline
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer of 13 November,Official Report, column 982, what is the cost of the contract with Price Waterhouse to pilot the charterline service.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  It is not our practice to reveal the cost of such contracts, as it could prejudice Her Majesty's Government's position when negotiating other contracts.

  All payments are, of course, open to scrutiny by the National Audit Office.

  Next Steps
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the progress of the next steps initiative.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Next steps is progressing well. More than half the civil service is now working on next steps lines and next steps is delivering measurable improvements in efficiency, productivity and value for money.
  229
  The Government today published the third annual review of next steps agencies (Cm 2111). The annual review brings together information on all 76 established agencies, together with the 30 executive units of Customs and Excise and the 34 executive offices of Inland Revenue. The review shows performance against targets in 1991–92 and lists key targets for 1992–93. It shows that agencies have continued to perform well and have met three out of four of their targets in the last year. It gives many examples of the ways in which agencies are providing the better service to the public which is at the heart of the citizens charter and describes the many improvements which have been brought about for the benefit of taxpayers and staff.

  Factory Inspectorate (Recruitment)
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many applications were received in the recent round of recruitment to the factory inspectorate; how many were recruited; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I have been asked to reply.

  The number of factory inspectorate applications received for the autumn 1992 recruitment competition was 1,846. Of these, 360 have been selected for interview during December 1992 and January 1993, and the Health and Safety Executive expects to offer up to 45 factory inspector posts nationally.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many retired civil servants from the Health and Safety Executive have been subsequently reemployed; and what is the executive's policy on such re-employments.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are currently 16 retired civil servants from the Health and Safety Executive who have been re-employed. The HSE re-employs those who have retired, in accordance with civil service rules, where there is a clear need for particular skills or experience that is not otherwise available.

  Mr. E. Whybrew
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when the former Director of Personnel and Development in the Department of Employment, Mr. E. Whybrew, was re-employed by the civil service as a part-time officer in the Certification Office of Trade Unions; and whether the post he now occupies was advertised externally.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Mr. Whybrew's appointment as certification officer for trade unions and employers' associations took effect from 6 October 1992. The appointment was made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State after consultation with the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service; the post was not advertised externally.

HEALTH

  Research Units
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration she has given to the report of the team which reviewed the role and funding of her Department's research units; and whether she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I have now considered the report of the review team chaired by Dr. Peter Williams, which outlines a strategy for the funding of long-term health services research. A copy of the report is available in the Library.

  I accept the review team's view that some larger centres of multidisciplinary excellence could offer an improved career structure and a more secure base for research. We shall set up such a centre as a pilot project. Some smaller units will remain and current units producing excellent high priority research will be granted fixed-term programme contracts in place of their existing rolling contract.

  Peer review and site visits to all units will take place over the next eighteen months. This process will be led by Professor Michael Peckham, the director of research and development.

  Custody (Alternatives)
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, in respect of each social services department, how many teenagers are on alternative-to-custody programmes, run by social services and/or the voluntary sector, following conviction for a criminal offence, on the last date for which information is available.

  Mr. Yeo
  Information is not available centrally in the form requested. Some information about young people involved in social service provision is published in "Supervision Orders and Intermediate Treatment; England" and in "Children in Care of Local Authorities; England". The most recent publications, for the year ending 31 March 1991, are in the Library.

  Children's Homes (Schools)
  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are being taken to amend the Children Act Regulations to provide exemption for small weekly boarding schools from registration as children's homes with the social services department.

  Mr. Yeo
  We are considering how this might be achieved.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many civil servants are employed by her Department(a) in London and (b) elsewhere.

  Mr. Sackville
  At 1 November 1992, the latest date for which detailed information is available, the Department of Health employed 3,013 whole-time equivalent civil servants in London and 1,725 whole-time equivalent civil servants elsewhere.

  Limited List Prescribing
  Sir Michael Grylls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health upon what basis she identified the 10 new categories of product which are now to be included in the limited list prescribing system for pharmaceutical products.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The categories were chosen because they covered a range of products of varying price levels and therefore offered scope for savings while enabling all clinical needs to continue to be met.

  Wigs
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when a rate was set to cover the cost of NHS wigs; how much it was; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Charges for national health service wigs were introduced in April 1971. The charge for a bespoke wig was £7·50 and £2·50 for a stock wig.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children received NHS wigs for medical conditions for each year since 1987; and if she will state for each year the number of wigs costing(a) less than £50, (b) between £50 and £60, (c) between £60 and £70, (d) between £70 and £80, (e) between £80 and £90, (f) between £90 and £100 and (g) over £100.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what response her Department has made to the fourth biennial report of the Mental Health Act Commission.

  Mr. Yeo
  I have written to Sir Louis Blom-Cooper, chairman of the Mental Health Act Commission, thanking the commission for the valuable work reflected in its fourth biennial report, which my right hon. Friend laid before the House on 16 December last. I have included with my letter our detailed responses to specific points made in the report, which have been agreed with my right hon. Friends so far as the Home Office and Welsh Office are concerned. I have today placed copies of my letter and the other documents in the Library.

  Hearing Aids
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research has been commissioned to consider the benefits to be gained from hearing aids.

  Mr. Yeo
  We have asked the Medical Research Council's Institute of Hearing Research to commence work on a research project: "Multiple outcome measures for evaluating hearing aid fitting". This work will investigate the benefit that people with a hearing impairment derive from an aid and how effective the aid is in alleviating disability. The research will take three years.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Attendance Allowance
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the number of people(a) currently in receipt of the lower rate of attendance allowance whose claims for medium or higher level allowance have been rejected but who are currently appealing against that decision and (b) currently assessed as eligible for the medium and higher rates of attendance allowance but not yet in receipt or notified of that award; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Christmas Bonus
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will increase the Christmas bonus to take account of the rise in prices or in average earnings, in each year since its introduction; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  No. Because the Christmas bonus is paid to all regardless of income, any increase in the amount would be a poorly targeted use of resources.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for what reasons local statistics on cold weather payments prior to 1 November 1991 were destroyed without being recorded on microfiche; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of the social fund is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and a copy will he placed in the Library.

  Letter from Michael Richard to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 1 December 1992:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about cold weather payment statistics.
  As you know, some local statistics had been destroyed in accordance with standing instructions. These instructions have been drawn up over some time (and applied before the Agency was formed). There is clearly a requirement to keep national information about Social Security benefits for a reasonable period of time, but in respect of local information, we need to balance this requirement against their diminishing relevance and the expenditure of public funds in the upkeep of excessive archives. This would include the transfer of records to microfiche.
  It is against this background that no local statistics are held prior to the financial year 1991–92. Information covering the former DHSS North Eastern Region (which includes Doncaster local offices) is, however, in the Library.
  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report. Copies are also being placed in the Library.

  Crisis Payments
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many crisis payments have been made to the victims of the Isledon road flood in Islington by the Euston district social security office.
  233
  Mr. Scott
  The administration of the social fund is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, dated 1 December 1992:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about Social Fund crisis loan payments in Euston District.
  Staff at Euston District acted immediately in response to the flood in Isledon Road that occurred on the evening of 15 October. A team of Social Fund Officers went to a local neighbourhood centre the following day and took applications to the Social Fund. Thirteen Social Fund awards were decided and paid on the same day in response to this crisis.
  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report. Copies are also being placed in the Library.

  Independent Living Fund
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on future arrangements for independent living for the most severely disabled people.

  Mr. Scott
  [pursuant to his reply, 24 November 1992, cols. 597–98]: A total of £4 million—on a United Kingdom basis—will be made available in 1993–94 to enable the new fund to provide cash payments to new applications from the most severely disabled people of working age. In 1994–95 the allocation will be £11 million and in 1995–96 it will be £17 million. It is expected that new awards will be made to around 1,500 severely disabled people each year.

  This allocation is in addition to the sums earmarked for the fund to continue cash payments to around 22,000 cases which the ILF is expected to be paying by April 1993. These amounts—again on a United Kingdom basis—are £117 million in 1993–94. £119 million in 1994–95 and £121 million in 1995–96.

  The allocation for new cases recognises the primary role of local authorities under the community care arrangements from April 1993. On 26 November the Secretary of State for Health announced increases to the community care special transitional grant—the means by which local authorities will initially be funded for their new community care responsibilities—in England of £26 million in 1993–94, £64 million in 1994–95 and £100 million in 1995–96. These increases reflect the further responsibilities for disabled people resulting from the planned changes to the ILF. Announcements will be made shortly about the specific allocations in the rest of the United Kingdom.

EDUCATION

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many civil servants from his Department have been relocated from London to other parts of the United Kingdom(a) in the last five years and (b) in the last 10 years; and to where they were relocated.

  Mr. Forman
  The Department has relocated 101 posts from London in the last five years, and 104 in the last ten. All relocations were to Darlington.
  234
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many civil servants are currently employed by his Department(a) in London and (b) elsewhere.

  Mr. Forman
  The Department currently employs 1,398 full-time equivalent civil servants in London and 728 in Darlington. The Darlington figure includes 304 staff in the Teachers Pensions Agency.

  Relocation to Darlington of some of the Department's work related to grant-maintained schools will result in a reduction by 58 FTE staff in London and an increase by 69 in Darlington by March 1993.

  School Playing Fields
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) when he expects to complete his consultation on the disposal of school playing fields, arising out of his document issued on 19 December 1991; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what is his policy in regard to the selling off of playing fields for private development and the assessment of the long-term need for school or community use of those playing fields.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend expects shortly to inform local education authorities (LEAs) and others of his conclusions arising from this consultation exercise.

  Any decision as to whether or not to dispose of school playing fields is a matter for the LEA concerned. It is the Government's policy to encourage LEAs to dispose of surplus land and buildings in order to avoid unnecessary expenditure and to realise capital receipts for debt redemption and reinvestment in education capital schemes. However, when considering decisions about the disposal of school playing fields we would expect LEAs to balance these considerations against the need to preserve facilities for potential future use.

  School Buildings
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many children currently receive their education in buildings that have been assessed as being in need of substantial repair as a result of inspection by Her Majesty's inspector of schools or otherwise.

  Mr. Forth
  This information is not available centrally. The repair and maintenance of school buildings is a matter for those with direct responsibility for the schools: local education authorities in the case of county and voluntary-controlled schools and governing bodies in the case of voluntary-aided and grant-maintained schools.

  Salaries
  Ms. Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on his policy on salary settlements for academic and related staff(a) in the past three years and (b) in the light of the autumn statement.

  Mr. Forman
  Over the past three years the Government have looked to employers in higher education to settle the pay of academic and related staff. The Government have however influenced pay and conditions of service as necessary in the wider public interest through the level of funding provided for the higher education funding
  235
  councils—for example, to support the introduction of performance-related pay. Under the policy of pay restraint in the public sector introduced in the autumn statement, the employers will still be responsible for resolving pay for academic and related staff, but will have to ensure that no more than 1·5 per cent. is added to their pay bill.

  Esperanto
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what advice and assistance he gives to the teaching of Esperanto as a contribution to the linguistic problems of the single European market.

  Mr. Forth
  None. National curriculum requirements for modern foreign language learning give priority to the working languages of the European Community, and the other specified 11 languages of commercial or cultural significance, and any advice or assistance provided nationally is geared to those.

  School Meals
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will include in the revised version of the parents charter the right to a nutritious school meal.

  Mr. Forth
  No.

  Education Inspectors
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the total cost of(a) salaries and (b) office accommodation for Her Majesty's inspectorate of education in 1988–89, 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested is as follows:

  £million

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  (a) Salaries

  16·1

  17·9

  19·8

  21·8

  (b) Accommodation

  1·1

  1·2

  1·4

  1·5

  The figures given at (a) relate to HMI and its support staff, and include overtime and national insurance. The accommodation costs are those incurred at HMI divisional and local offices only. The accommodation costs of HMI and support staff stationed centrally were included within the Department's total running costs and could not be disaggregated without disproportionate cost.

  Office for Standards in Education
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many staff are currently employed by Ofsted; and what is its 1992–93 budget for(a) staff and (b) office accommodation.

  Mr. Forth
  When Ofsted was created on 1 September 1992, it had an initial budget for the remainder of the 1992–93 financial year of £11·7 million and staff, including HMI and support staff, of 550. Finance and staffing of Ofsted from 1 September are the responsibility of Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools.

  Education Inspectors
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many of Her Majesty's inspectors of education are(a) to retire or (b) be made redundant on 1 April 1993.
  236
  Mr. Forth
  The number of Her Majesty's inspectors employed by the Department and planned to be made redundant on 1 April 1993 is 89. There are no retirements on that date.

  I understand that no HMI employed by Ofsted will be made redundant or retire on 1 April 1993.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Public Record Office
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Lord President of the Council, pursuant to his answer of 12 November,Official Report, column 880, how long the Privy Council Office has had on loan from the Public Record Office (a) three volumes of Privy Council papers dating from the early 18th century and (b) papers relating to chartered corporations founded in the 19th century; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  The material referred to was held for six weeks and three years respectively. All the papers have now been returned to the Public Record Office.

  Universities
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many university statutes and charters are currently being considered by the Privy Council.

  Mr. Newton
  The Privy Council is currently considering seven applications from universities for changes in charters and statutes.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will list the number of changes to university statutes and charters made by the Privy Council in each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Newton
  Changes to the charters and statutes of universities and colleges dealt with by the Privy Council Office for the years in question were as follows:

  Year

  Cases

  1983

  11

  1984

  15

  1985

  15

  1986

  11

  1987

  14

  1988

  18

  1989

  14

  1990

  18

  1991

  15

  11992

  254

  1 To date.

  2 Includes modifications made by the University Commissioners under section 204 of the Education Reform Act 1988.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make it his policy that the Privy Council should not approve any further university charters and statutes which require each student to belong to a students' union.

  Mr. Newton
  It has not been the practice for university charters and statutes to require students to belong to a students' union.

SCOTLAND

  Dental Caries
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the figures for the incidence of dental caries since 1979 in children(a) under primary school age, (b) primary school age and (c) secondary school age in (i) Dumbarton district, (ii) Inverclyde district, (iii) Argyll and Bute district and (iv) Renfrew district.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information requested is not available.

  Tooth Extractions
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many tooth extractions are carried out each year since 1979 on children(a) under primary school age, (b) primary school age and (c) secondary school age in (i) Dumbarton district, (ii) Inverclyde district, (iii) Argyll and Bute district and (iv) Renfrew district.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information requested is not available.

  NHS Expenditure
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the average national health service expenditure since 1979 per patient using Argyll and Clyde dental services in(a) Dumbarton district, (b) Inverclyde district, (c) Argyll and Bute district and (d) Renfrew district.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information requested is not available.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will announce details of his proposals for providing a council tax transitional relief scheme to accompany introduction of the council tax in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  The change in the system of local taxation in Scotland will result in a redistribution of the burden of local taxation between households. While many households should gain from the change or face only a small increase in the contribution which they have to make, some households will have to bear a significantly larger share of the tax burden than they do under the community charge. We have provided temporary assistance for households required to pay more under the community charge and I believe it is reasonable to provide such assistance in Scotland in the change to the council tax.

  I therefore intend introducing a council tax transitional relief scheme in Scotland similar to the scheme already announced for England by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. Under this, households in the lowest council tax band, band A, would be required to pay only the first £1·75 per week of the increase in bills due to the change in tax system, and households in the bands above this would be required to pay an additional 25p per week in each successive band, so that households in the highest band, band H, would be required to pay the first £3·50 per week due to the change in the tax system. The extra amount households would be expected to pay for each band are as follows.
  238

  Range of property values in band (at 1 April 1991)

  £ per week

  Band A Up to £27,000

  1·75

  Band B Over £27,000 and up to £35,000

  2·00

  Band C Over £35,000 and up to £45,000

  2·25

  Band D Over £45,000 and up to £58,000

  2·50

  Band E Over £58,000 and up to £80,000

  2·75

  Band F Over £80,000 and up to £106,000

  3·00

  Band G Over £106,000 and up to £212,000

  3·25

  Band H Over £212,000

  3·50

  The calculation of reductions will be based on whichever is the lower of an authority's actual council tax for the valuation band concerned and its scheme council tax for that band. The cost of such a scheme next year is estimated to be up to £28 million and this cost will be reimbursed to local authorities under the scheme. I have asked my officials to consult with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on the details of the scheme. The scheme will then be implemented under regulations which I hope will be laid before the House shortly.

  As a consequence of settling on the details of the council tax transitional relief scheme I am able to increase by £15 million the level of aggregate external finance for 1993–94 which I previously announced on 12 November. I can also announce today that I plan to add a further £2·8 million to both the Government-supported expenditure and AEF figures for next year in recognition of the additional responsibilities which local authorities will face from next April as a consequence of changes to the independent living fund which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security announced on 24 November. The result of these changes is that aggregate external finance next year will be £5,165·1 million, an increase of 3·5 per cent. on the equivalent figure for this year.

  Environmental Education
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the provision of training for teachers on cross-curricular themes, with particular reference to the theme of environmental education.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 27 November 1992]: In his guidelines for the construction of initial teacher training courses, my right hon. Friend requires that courses for primary teachers must include environmental studies as a significant element of the course. In addition, there are in-service training courses on environmental studies for teachers which may lead to the award of the primary environmental studies certificate. In-service training on the five to 14 curriculum development programme and the primary education development project also have significant elements related to environmental matters. Environmental education is included within the specific grant scheme for the in-service training of teachers, which supports education authorities' costs for such training in priority subject areas.

DEFENCE

  RAF (Market-testing)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how the higher formation costs of RAF Support Command will be taken into account in respect of in-house bids in the market-testing competition for RAF establishments.

  Mr. Aitken
  The market-testing procedures provide for in-house costs to be compared with the prices offered by tenderers on a realistic and consistent footing. Only the resource costs that could be expected to change in the event of contractorisation are included in the in-house bid. The higher formation costs of RAF Support Command would be taken into account only to the extent that they would be affected were a given service or facility to be contractorised.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has to ring-fence the higher costs of service men to ensure that in-house bids have a fair chance in the market-testing competition announced for RAF establishments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  As part of the market test, the in-house operation is encouraged to offer efficiency improvements, such as replacing more expensive military personnel with civilians, in order to become more competitive. Bids will be assessed on that basis. In-house bidders will also be encouraged to engage outside consultants to help with the preparation of their bids.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has to ensure that there is a level playing field for in-house bids in the market-testing competition announced for RAF establishments.

  Mr. Aitken
  I have arranged to place a copy of the procedures for market-testing in the Library of the House. They require the in-house bid to be prepared against the same requirements, time scale and, so far as is practicable, contract conditions as the commercial tenders. The evaluation of tenders is carried out by officials in a neutral and objective position, and we are currently considering the means by which we can introduce independent observers into the process, as guarantees of fairness.

  Ozone Depletion
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. Aitken
  My Department's policy is to prevent leakage of ozone-depleting refrigerants to the atmosphere wherever possible. Special equipment is used during maintenance and repair to avoid venting to the atmosphere. Also, although no targets are published regular monitoring of refrigerants enables leakages to be detected and action taken.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will implement a refrigerant recycling and 240
  reclaim policy covering all departmental equipment currently using chloroflurocarbons 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. Aitken
  My Department is fully committed to the Government's policy for reducing the use of all substances controlled under the Montreal protocol. We already have a programme for refrigerant recycling and reclaim. We have no plans to publish targets but this will be carried out in accordance with the terms of the protocol. All equipment using CFCs and HCFCs is being identified and will either be replaced or converted to suitable alternatives. As an interim measure some will be supported by a bank of recycled substances.

  Defence Research Agency
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 3 November,Official Report, columns 105–11, what has been the cost to the Exchequer of the chief executive of the Defence Research Agency's visits to (a) the United States and (b) France during the last 12 months.

  Mr. Aitken
  This is a matter delegated to the Defence Research Agency under its framework document. I have therefore asked the chief executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Letter from J. A. R. Chisholm to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 2 December 1992:
  In today's written answer the Minister of State for Defence Procurement informed you that I would be replying directly to your question regarding the cost to the exchequer of my visits, as Chief Executive of the Defence Research Agency. to (a) the United States and (b) France during the last 12 months.
  I visited the United States on two occasions and France on one occasion. The total costs for myself and accompanying official were as follows:

  Total cost £

  (a) 18–19 March 1992

  United States

  1,926

  10–17 June 1992

  United States

  6,202

  (b) 1–2 April 1992

  France

  923

  I hope you will find this information useful.

  Meteorological Office
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 3 November,Official Report, columns 105–6, what has been the cost to the exchequer of the chief executive of the Meteorological Office's visits to (a) Geneva, (b) China, (c) France and (d) Norway during the last 12 months.

  Mr. Aitken
  This is a matter delegated to the Meteorological Office under its framework document. I have therefore asked the chief executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.
  241
  Letter from J. C. R. Hunt to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 1 December 1992:
  The costs to the exchequer were approximately (a) £2,300 (total for 3 visits), (b) £2,500, (c) £2,100 (total for 4 visits) and (d) £900. Reports are available on the visits if required.
  You will be aware that international collaboration in meteorology is of crucial importance. As a leading climate and numerical weather prediction centre, with a large supporting research programme, and as one of two World Area Forecast Centres for civil aviation, the Met. Office plays a major role in these international activities which are co-ordinated through the World Meteorological Organisation, an agency of the United Nations. Furthermore, by sharing experience and collaborating with other scientific and commercial organisations and national meteorological services, the Met. Office is able to improve its efficiency and cost effectiveness.
  A copy of the Met. Office's 1991–92 Annual Review is enclosed for your interest. Please do not hesitate to ask if you require further information.

  Maintenance Group
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 3 November,Official Report, columns 105–11, what has been the cost to the Exchequer of the chief executive of the Maintenance Group Defence Support Agency's visit to Hanover on 12 to 13 March.

  Mr. Aitken
  This is a matter delegated to the Maintenance Group Defence Support Agency under its framework document. I have therefore asked the chief executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Air Vice-Marshal D. R. French to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 30 November 1992:
  In response to your Parliamentary Question of 24 November, the cost of my visit to Hanover on 12–13 March was £111·60.

  Guildford and Woolwich Bombings
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what public interest immunity certificates he has signed in relation to documents provided by his Department to Sir John May's inquiry.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  None.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many flights over Bosnia in contravention of the United Nations no-fly zone have been identified by radar surveillance deployed to monitor that zone; how many such flights have been directly involved in offensive missions; and what action has been taken in response to such flights.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Monitoring of compliance with the no-fly zone imposed on the airspace of Bosnia-Herzegovina in Security Council resolution 781 of 9 October is being conducted by aircraft of NATO's airborne early warning force and by ground monitors deployed at airfields in Bosnia, Croatia and Serbia/ Montenegro by the United Nations protection force and the EC monitor mission. Immediately following the passage of the resolution there were a number of sorties by fixed-wing aircraft, which included the use of aircraft for ground attack. From 13 October to date, there have been no confirmed reports of any use of aircraft for ground 242
  attack or other combat purpose, by either fixed-wing aircraft or helicopters. The ban on flights in SCR 781 applies only to flights with a military purpose. Provision was made for exemptions, subject to prior approval by the United Nations protection force, for flights for humanitarian purposes or in pursuance of the peace process. In his periodic reports to the Security Council, the United Nations Secretary-General has reported that a total of 204 flights, predominantly by helicopters, have been recorded up to 26 November, other than those for which exemptions have been given, but that there has not been evidence on which to judge whether the flights were of a military nature. Action is being taken to remind the parties concerned of the requirement and procedures for the authorisation of flights. SCR 781 provides that, in the event of evident violations of the ban, the Security Council will consider urgently the further measures necessary to enforce it.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what examination his Department has carried out of the feasibility of the enforcement by military means of a no-fly zone over Bosnia.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  United Nations Security Council resolution 781 of 9 October 1992 banned flights with a military purpose by the warring parties in the airspace of Bosnia-Herzegovina. It did not itself contain provision for enforcement, but provided for regular reports by the Secretary-General on compliance with the ban, and for the Security Council to consider urgently the further measures needed to enforce the ban in the event of violations. The Security Council made clear in SCR 786 of 11 November its determination to do so if necessary.

WALES

  Capital Receipts
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total of accumulated capital receipts held by Welsh district councils resulting from the sale of council houses.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The latest information relates to 31 March 1992. At that date, local councils held £27·4 million of usable housing capital receipts. At the same date, after allowing for redemption, Welsh local councils had net outstanding loan debt of £984·4 million.

  Hospital Construction
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list the hospital(a) building programmes and (b) extension and unit programmes currently under way in Wales;

  (2) if he will list the hospital extension programmes and new units that are planned for Wales by the year 2000;

  (3) if he will list the new hospitals that are planned to be completed in Wales by the year 2000.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The following lists of schemes give the centrally funded capital building programme for 1992–93 and, separately, those new hospital schemes included in the All Wales capital programme for completion by the year 2000. Minor works' programmes are for determination by district health authorities from their minor discretionary capital allocations. Proposals for
  243
  major hospital extensions and new units are considered annually for inclusion in future years and district health authorities and NHS trusts are invited to submit bids for appropriate schemes. These will still be subject to the usual planning procedures.

  Major Hospital Building Programme 1992–93

  Deeside Community Hospital

  Ysbyty Maelor Wrexham Phase 2A

  Ysbyty Glan Clwyd Phase 2

  Royal Gwent Scheme VI

  Area Laundry

  Royal Gwent kitchens/X-ray department

  Ebbw Vale Community Hospital

  Torfaen Community Hospital

  Ysbyty Gwynedd Phase II

  West Mon Community Hospital

  North Merionnydd Community Hospital

  Ysbyty George Thomas

  Prince Charles Phase II

  New Hospital for Taff Ely and Rhondda

  Brecon War Memorial Hospital Development

  UHW replacement energy sources

  UHW improvements to fire precautions

  Barry Neighbourhood Hospital

  Cardiff Neighbourhood Hospital (St. David's)

  UHW Cardiac Expansion Programme

  Singleton West Ward Block

  Singleton Linear Accelerator Suite

  Tonna Redevelopment

  Morriston Pathology Department

  New Hospital for Neath and Port Talbot

  Morriston Hospital, Scheme IV

  New Hospital Proposals for Completion by the year 2000

  Ebbw Vale Community Hospital

  Torfaen Community Hospital

  West Mon Community Hospital

  North Meirionnydd Community Hospital

  Taff Ely and Rhondda

  Barry Neighbourhood Hospital

  St. David's Neighbourhood Hospital

  Ncath and Port Talbot

  Unemployment
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people in each Welsh constituency have been unemployed for(a) more than six months and (b) more than one year.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The unemployment data requested are available from the NOMIS database, which can be accessed on-line by House of Commons Library staff.

  Cars
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the total number of registered cars in Wales in each of the last five years; and if he will publish figures showing the number of cars owned per adult in Wales in each year.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The numbers of private and light goods vehicles registered in Wales and the numbers owned per adult in Wales are given in the table.

  Year

  1All private and light goods vehicles registered in Wales (thousands)

  2 Private and light goods vehicles owned per adult in Wales (number)

  1987

  926·2

  0·43

  1988

  979·7

  0·45

  1989

  1,018·1

  0·46

  1990

  1,058·3

  0·48

  19913

  1,052·2

  0·47

  244
  1 Source: Department of Transport.

  2 Adults aged 18 years and over.

  3 1991 population figures are provisional.

  Road Safety
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will provide funding to Clwyd county council to enable them to fund road safety personnel on the A55 at Hawarden high school, following diversion of traffic from the A494.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Hawarden high school is on the B5125. The B5125 is not being signed as a diversionary route as part of the A494 Aston hill reconstruction works. The local highway authority for the B5125 is Clwyd county council and it is responsible for all matters relating to road safety, including funding on that road.

  Car Owners
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of people in Wales classified within the lowest 25 per cent. income bracket own cars.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Over the two-year period 1990 to 1991, an estimated 14 per cent. of those households in Wales with the lowest 25 per cent. of incomes owned at least one car. (Source: Family Expenditure Surveys).

  Health Authority Funding
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 19 November,Official Report, columns 317–20, (1) what monitoring his Department has undertaken of each of the allocations made to Clwyd health authority in respect of the number of extra patients treated; and if he will list the relevant figures;

  (2) what monitoring his Department has undertaken of each of the allocations made to East Dyfed health authority in respect of the number of extra patients treated; and if he will list the relevant figures.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Early initiatives were assessed on the basis of reports prepared by the health authorities involved. The 1991–92 and 1992–93 initiatives are being monitored by NHS Wales' value-for-money unit on behalf of the Department. The additional throughput facilitated by the initiatives for Clwyd and East Dyfed is as follows:

  Additional throughput contracted for Clywd and East Dyfed health authorities

  Clwyd

  1989–90 20 hip replacements

  1990–91 240 ENT patients

  1991–92 300 urology patients

  East Dyfed

  1989–90 1,150 dermatology patients

  1990–91 550 dermatology patients

  1991–92 120 ophthalmology patients

  40 urology patients

  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to issue guidelines to local authorities in Wales allowing them to confine lorries over 17 tonnes over 12 m long to motorways, most A roads and certain other designated roads.
  245
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Guidance on lorry controls has been issued to local authorities in Welsh Office circular 24/82.

  Financial Sector Jobs
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many jobs were created in the financial sector in Wales in each year since 1989.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Between June 1989 and 1992 the number of employees employed in the banking, insurance and finance sector increased by 21,000. While comprehensive information on total jobs created is not available, levels of employment in this sector in Wales each year are given in the following table:

  Employees in banking, insurance and finance

  Year

  Thousands at June

  1989

  68

  1990

  74

  1991

  90

  1992

  89

  Source: Employment Department, Quarterly estimate series.

  A487, Gwynedd
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the latest estimate of the commencement date for the Llanllyfwi Penygroes and Groeslow bypass scheme on the A487 trunk road in Gwynedd; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The A487 Penygroes-Llanllyfni bypass scheme is planned to start between April 1995 and March 1998.

  Training Schemes
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people in Wales are currently on training schemes sponsored by local government.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information requested is not available centrally. Local training provision, including any through training schemes sponsored by local government, is negotiated between providers and individual training and enterprise councils.

  Travel Statistics
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what figures he has showing the average length of journey in Wales from home to(a) hospital, (b) leisure facilities, (c) shopping facilities and (d) the place of work in Wales during each of the last 15 years, nationally and by local authority.

  Number of confirmed cases of BSE in Wales by month of service of form A at 30 November 1992

  Clwyd

  Dyfed

  Mid Glamorgan

  South Glamorgan

  West Glamorgan

  Gwent

  Gwynedd

  Powys

  Total

  January 1990

  7

  30

  0

  0

  0

  10

  4

  9

  60

  February 1990

  10

  49

  4

  0

  1

  9

  0

  9

  82

  March 1990

  14

  75

  4

  0

  1

  10

  3

  15

  122

  April 1990

  11

  48

  4

  2

  0

  3

  3

  12

  83

  May 1990

  15

  44

  4

  1

  0

  4

  1

  14

  83

  June 1990

  9

  38

  4

  3

  1

  5

  3

  4

  67

  246
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Information on the average length of journeys is available only for Wales as a whole from the national travel survey. Figures from the latest survey for which Welsh results are available are given in the table.

  Average length of journey in Wales, by purpose, 1985–86

  Miles All journeys

  From home to:

  Leisure facilities

  Social/Entertainment

  6·3

  Holidays/Day trips

  14·7

  Shopping facilities

  4·9

  Place of work

  5·8

  Carry out personal medical business1

  6·2

  All2

  6·2

  Source: 1985–86 National Travel Survey, Department of Transport.

  1 No data are available for hospital visits specifically.

  2 Includes journeys in the course of work, for education purposes and other personal business.

  Cancer Centre
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the siting of the north Wales cancer centre.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The establishment of a dedicated cancer treatment centre in north Wales is dependent upon the outcome of the investment appraisal currently under way.

  "This Common Inheritance"
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the likely cost of local authorities in Wales of implementing recycling plans to meet the targets set out in "This Common Inheritance"; and what percentage of those costs will be met by his Department by specific grant.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information will not be available until local authorities have prepared their recycling plans in accordance with section 49 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The costs will be funded through the unhypothecated element of the local government revenue settlement.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of confirmed cases of BSE by county, in each month since January 1990.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The number of confirmed cases of BSE by county, in each month since January 1990 is shown in the following table:
  247

  Clwyd

  Dyfed

  Mid Glamorgan

  South Glamorgan

  West Glamorgan

  Gwent

  Gwynedd

  Powys

  Total

  July 1990

  12

  36

  0

  5

  0

  5

  2

  5

  65

  August 1990

  9

  46

  3

  3

  2

  4

  2

  10

  79

  September 1990

  17

  46

  6

  0

  0

  12

  2

  9

  92

  October 1990

  24

  58

  4

  5

  2

  13

  3

  12

  121

  November 1990

  30

  58

  2

  2

  1

  4

  5

  19

  121

  December 1990

  24

  55

  2

  1

  0

  11

  2

  13

  108

  January 1991

  37

  99

  2

  4

  0

  10

  4

  18

  174

  February 1991

  21

  62

  2

  2

  2

  9

  4

  14

  116

  March 1991

  24

  79

  8

  0

  1

  14

  5

  15

  146

  April 1991

  29

  102

  5

  9

  1

  11

  6

  14

  177

  May 1991

  20

  75

  0

  5

  1

  11

  2

  23

  137

  June 1991

  30

  84

  3

  6

  1

  10

  3

  11

  148

  July 1991

  36

  92

  0

  3

  0

  14

  6

  10

  161

  August 1991

  30

  122

  3

  3

  0

  10

  5

  27

  200

  September 1991

  35

  130

  2

  5

  0

  14

  7

  21

  214

  October 1991

  41

  135

  5

  6

  2

  17

  15

  28

  249

  November 1991

  42

  146

  5

  6

  1

  16

  17

  37

  270

  December 1991

  37

  130

  6

  9

  1

  18

  7

  34

  242

  January 1992

  44

  197

  3

  8

  1

  24

  10

  33

  320

  February 1992

  52

  156

  2

  16

  2

  30

  15

  38

  311

  March 1992

  59

  201

  3

  9

  1

  24

  17

  55

  369

  April 1992

  43

  190

  4

  6

  7

  10

  9

  42

  311

  May 1992

  31

  125

  3

  4

  2

  23

  5

  29

  222

  June 1992

  32

  123

  1

  9

  2

  9

  12

  37

  225

  July 1992

  43

  155

  5

  9

  1

  23

  15

  34

  285

  August 1992

  31

  147

  3

  14

  6

  14

  11

  35

  261

  September 1992

  40

  147

  5

  7

  1

  21

  12

  39

  272

  October 1992

  28

  83

  4

  8

  1

  16

  14

  36

  190

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Exports (Single Market)
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement on progress towards the removal, in the context of the single market, of bureaucratic impediments to exports.

  Mr. Needham
  Good progress has been made towards completion of the single market, including free movement of goods within the Community. The single market will indeed be open for business by the end of 1992 target date.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will place in the Library a copy of the letter dated 20 June 1990 from his predecessor's principal private secretary to the private secretary to the chairman of the Commissoners for Her Majesty's Customs and Excise.

  Mr. Heseltine
  No. The letter is one of the documents disclosed to the defence for use in connection with the Matrix Churchill trial. Lord Justice Scott will of course have full access to all relevant papers.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his Department's role in the approval of Matrix Churchill exports to Iraq, and his signing of public interest immunity certificates relating to documents relevant to the conduct of the prosecution of Matrix Churchill executives.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I refer the hon. Member to the speech I made in the House on 23 November, at columns 640–53. It is now for Lord Justice Scott to consider this issue under the terms of his inquiry.

  Trading Standards Officers
  Ms. Rachel Squire
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the current shortfall in the number of trading standards officers; and what estimate he has made of its impact on the consumer protection service.

  Mr. Leigh
  The total number of trading standards officers in post in local authorities at 1 April 1992 was 288 below complement. This is a shortfall of 15 per cent. The size of the shortfall and its impact varies from authority to authority.

  Small Finns Merit Award for Research and Technology
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many companies in the south of England have won SMART awards.

  Mr. Leigh
  A total of 241 projects have been supported in the South of England—152 in the south-east—under the small firms merit award for research and technology since 1988.

  Small Businesses
  Mr.Gunnell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the level of Government financial assistance to small businesses in each year since 1990–91, expressed in 1990 prices; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Government provides assistance for small businesses in many ways. Interest rates are at their lowest level since 1978 and are the lowest in the European Community. Inflation has been below the EC average for over a year. We have one of the most favourable corporation tax structures in the major industrialised countries. We have increased capital allowances to bring forward investment. In addition, specific help provided by the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department of
  249
  Employment and the Scottish and Welsh Offices, including assistance provided via training and enterprise councils, local enterprise companies and other agencies, was £302 million in 1990–91, £292 million in 1991–92 and a planned £277 million in 1992–93, expressed in 1990 prices.

  Microwave Modules
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what meetings took place between his Department and Microwave Modules, or Microwave Modules International, between 1985 and 1990.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Representatives of my Department have had meetings and other contracts with representatives of these companies covering a variety of subjects for which my Department is responsible.

  Newspaper Distribution
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects the Director General of Fair Trading to complete his inquiries into newspaper distribution practices.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The Director General of Fair Trading referred the supply of newspapers from publishers to wholesalers, and wholesalers to retailers, in England and Wales to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on 19 August this year. The commission was asked to report to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade within 12 months.

  Manufacturing
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what new proposals he has to assist manufacturing industry.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The autumn statement contained a wide range of measures to help industry. It increased capital allowances, protected major public sector capital projects, encouraged private sector finance for public sector projects, provided £700 million extra help for exporters and abolished special car tax. In addition, I have restructured my Department so as to provide a more immediate response to the needs of industry. This includes major new initiatives on deregulation and in support of exports.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to assist the manufacturing industries in the northern region.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) on 16 November, at columns 71–72. The importance of manufacturing industry in the north is recognised by the wide range of the Department of Trade and Industry's services available to the region.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will meet representatives from the Confederation of British Industry's manufacturing council to discuss the key findings of its recent report on manufacturing.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The launch of the CBI manufacturing council report was accompanied by a debate on 250
  10 November at its conference. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade took part in that debate, replying on behalf of the Government.

  Foam-filled Furniture
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what further representations he has made to the European Commission to ensure that United Nations consumers continue to receive protection against dangerous foam-filled furniture.

  Mr. Leigh
  In May 1991 the Commission announced its decision to suspend further work on the preparation of directive on the fire behaviour of upholstered furniture pending research to establish criteria for test methods. In informal contacts with the Commission, my Department has continued to make it clear that the United Kingdom will retain its furniture regulations until there is agreement on a directive which will afford a level of fire protection commensurate with our prevailing requirements for furniture containing foam and other filling material.

  Pit Closures
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he was made aware of the inclusion of the Point of Ayr colliery in the list of coal mines proposed for closure by British Coal.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. Friend and I were informed by British Coal of the names of the 31 pits which it proposed for closure, which included Point of Ayr, on 12 October.

  Clean Coal Technology
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received since 1 October concerning the future development of clean coal technology; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department has received a number of letters supporting the development of clean coal technologies since 1 October. The Government recognise the importance of developing clean coal technologies and my Department is supporting a wide range of clean coal projects in partnership with the British Coal Corporation, UK industry, the European Commission and the International Energy Agency. At present, around 30 projects are under way, with a contract value of over £100 million. A number of further projects are at the planning stage.

  The development of clean coal technologies are of worldwide interest and my Department has taken the lead in establishing a number of international agreements covering information exchange and collaborative R and D under the auspicies of the International Energy Agency, European Commission R and D programmes and with the United States Department of Energy.

  Single Market
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the progress being made with the completion of the single market; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  Progress on completing the Commission's White Paper is good, with over 90 per cent.
  251
  of the measures agreed by the member states. Under the United Kingdom presidency we are seeking agreement, where possible, on the remainder, although it is recognised that some have a low priority and that agreement will not be reached on all. There has, in addition, been agreement on a large number of other measures, not included in the White Paper.

  These measures should offer major benefits for industry enabling British firms to offer a wide range of goods and services throughout the Community unimpeded by different national rules, standards or testing practices.

  However, these benefits will be felt only if there is effective enforcement of these rules in all member states. To this end, the United Kingdom presidency has initiated and obtained agreement on a resolution on making the single market work. This lays down practical steps to ensure the effective appliction, operation and enforcement of EC legislation in all member states.

  Balance of Payments
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has to enable the United Kingdom balance of payments to benefit from the depreciation of pound sterling where(a) there are no United Kingdom suppliers of manufactured components and (b) where the United Kingdom supplies are of low quality.

  Mr. Needham
  My Department helps United Kingdom manufacturers to identify and take full advantage of market opportunities at home and abroad by stimulating innovation and encouraging best practice in quality, design and management.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will meet NUM representatives to discuss the future plans for the coal industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I will meet a delegation from the National Union of Mineworkers on 7 December.

  Telephone Sex Line Services
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what further representations have been made by his Department to Oftel about the influence of telephone sex line services.

  Mr. Leigh
  None. The independent committee for the supervision of standards of telephone information services—ICSTIS—is an effective regulator of the premium rate telephone service industry. The ICSTIS code is kept continuously under review and it was further strengthened this year. Therefore, we believe adult premium rate telephone services are strictly controlled.

  Coal Imports
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the latest available figures for coal imports for 1992.

  Mr. Eggar
  The amount of coal imported into the United Kingdom in 1992 up to the end of September was 15,972,000 tonnes.

  Departmental Subcontractors
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many small businesses subcontracted to carry out work for his Department have currently not received payment for work invoiced more than 30 days ago.

  Mr. Leigh
  This information is not available and could be provided only at disporportionate cost.

  However, I can assure the hon. Member that I do recognise the importance of prompt payment of bills, especially to small businesses. The Government should set an example in this.

  In accordance with Treasury guidelines, my Department requires its suppliers or contractors to settle all invoices with its subcontractors within the agreed credit terms or, where no credit terms have been agreed, within 30 days of receipt of an approved invoice.

  Plant and Equipment
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to encourage investment in new manufacturing plant and development by United Kingdom-owned companies.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Investment will be encouraged by the profitable and competitive manufacturing base which our policies are designed to ensure.

  Aerospace Industry
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his Department's assistance to the British aerospace industry.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Since 1979 the Department of Trade and Industry has provided over £1·5 billion in support to the United Kingdom aerospace industry.

  Laboratory of the Government Chemist
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will list by(a) date, (b) destination and (c) cost to the Exchequer of the chief executive of the Laboratory of the Government Chemist's visits to Europe since he was appointed in May 1991;

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 9 November, Official Report, columns 603–5, what has been the cost to the Exchequer of the chief executive of the Laboratory of the Government Chemist's visits to (a) Japan and (b) the United States since he was appointed in May 1991.

  Mr. Eggar
  As this is an operational matter, I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from R. D. Worswick to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 30 November 1992:

  As these questions complement one another, it is more constructive for me to cover them in one reply.

  The details of my overseas visits are as follows:

  Destination and date

  Cost (£K)

  Europe

  Eurolab, Berlin—22–24 May 1991

  Community Bureau of Reference (BCR),

  Brussels—5–6 June 1991

  BCR, Brussels—15–16 January 1991

  Eurolab, Strasbourg—29–31 January 1992

  253

  Destination and date

  Cost (£K)

  Central Bureau of Nuclear Measurements, Geel—11–13 November 1992

  TOTAL

  2·4

  USA

  Association of Analytical Chemists (AOAC), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and Analytical Laboratory Managers Association (ALMA)—21·25 October 1991

  2·7

  Japan

  High Level Mission—29 August/6 September 1991

  4·4

  The cost comprises travel and subsistence.

  Many of the visits to Europe and the USA were made in connection with the Validity of Analytical Measurement initiative. The Laboratory undertakes this work for the Department of Trade and Industry on a customer-contractor basis. I am a UK representative on the BCR Management Committee and the Eurolab General Assembly. The High Level Mission to Japan was funded under the DTI's Overseas Science and Technology Expert Mission Scheme (OSTEMS). A report on this Mission was published in January 1992.

  I hope this information is of assistance.

  Radiocommunications Agency
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 9 November,Official Report, columns 603–5, what has been the cost to the exchequer of the chief executive of the Radiocommunications Agency's visits to Australia and New Zealand during the last 12 months.

  Mr. Leigh
  As this is an operational matter for the agency, I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from M. J. Michell to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 26 November 1992:
  The total cost of the visit I made earlier this year to Australia and New Zealand to discuss questions of spectrum management policy, accompanied by a colleague, was £6,550. As a net running costs agency, the Radiocommunications Agency's operating costs are met by its income. This is received from fees charged to users of radio transmission equipment and certain other sources.

  Middle East (Exports)
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assistance is provided by his Department for exporters looking to open up markets in the middle east.

  Mr. Needham
  The Government's overseas trade services are available for most middle east markets and many exporters use them. This year the DTI is supporting 26 trade missions and a United Kingdom presence at 24 trade fairs in the area. It is particularly encouraging that a substantial number of participating companies are new exporters to the region. Export Credits Guarantee Department support is also available for credit-worthy middle east markets. We also see considerable scope in these markets, which last year took United Kingdom exports of £7 billion, for using some of the 100 secondees my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade plans to recruit from industry to assist with the promotion of United Kingdom exports.

  Exports
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what evidence he has of improved British export performance in the last 10 weeks.

  Mr. Needham
  United Kingdom figures are not available on a weekly basis. In the three months to October 1992, United Kingdom exports had increased by 2 per cent. by value, and 4 per cent. in volume terms, compared with a year earlier.

  Consumers Affairs Council
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the outcome of the Council of Ministers (Consumer Affairs) held in Brussels on 3 November.

  Mr. Leigh
  My noble Friend the Baroness Denton, the Minister for Consumer Affairs and Small Firms, was in the chair for the meeting of the Council on 3 November.

  The Council reached political agreement to a common position on the proposed sixth amendment to the directive on the approximation of the legislation of the member states on cosmetic products. This was made possible by the incorporation of a presidency proposal: a ban of the use of ingredients tested on animals for cosmetics after 1998 but with an obligation on the Commission on scientific advice to make a proposal to the appropriate regulatory committee to postpone this ban if alternative tests have not been developed in time.

  The Council held an orientation discussion on the proposed directive on timeshare which revealed strong support for the measure from members of the Council. There was useful clarification of the positions of member states on four key issues—the scope of the directive, the information in the brochure and contract, withdrawal periods and reimbursement upon withdrawal. It is likely that political agreement will be reached during the Danish presidency.

  There was a short debate on the proposed directive on distance selling which highlighted the reservations voiced by several member states, particularly as to whether or not services, and most notably financial services, should be included within the scope of the directive. The permanent representatives committee will continue to examine the proposal, with particular reference to the opinion of the European Parliament.

  Commissioner Van Miert gave a presentation to the Council on the consumer aspects of the report by the high-level group chaired by Peter Sutherland on the operation of the single market.

  In addition, on the basis of a paper from the presidency, the Council explored the question of the need for increased co-operation between enforcement authorities in member states in order to secure the benefit of the single market for consumers. Discussion revealed that delegations were interested in such co-operation, particularly based on existing national structures.

  The Commission described progress that had been made on the implementation of the Community scheme for the rapid exchange of information on dangers arising from the use of consumer products and outlined the current state of work on the European home and leisure accident surveillance system.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish details of Government spending on renewables research and development for the current financial year broken down by the energy source.

  Mr. Eggar
  The estimates provision for the renewable energy research and development programme for 1992–93 is detailed in table 7 of "The Government's Expenditure Plans within the Energy Sector 1992–93 to 1994–95".

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish the names of the members of the Renewable Energy Advisory Group together with their credentials; and if he will make a statement on their agenda for the current financial year.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Renewable Energy Advisory Group was appointed in 1991 to review the Government's strategy to stimulate the development and application of renewable energy technologies wherever they have prospects of economic viability and environmental acceptability. Its report will contribute to the Government's overall review of renewable energy and will be published shortly.

  Membership of the group is as follows:

  Dr. Martin Holdgate1 Chairman

  Director General, International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources; formerly Deputy Secretary, Environment Protection and Chief Environment Scientist, Department of the Environment.

  Dr. Mary Archer

  Chairman, National Energy Foundation.

  Mr. John Bellak

  Chairman, Severn Trent plc.

  Professor Sir Hermann Bondi

  Fellow, formerly Master, of Churchill College, Cambridge; formerly Chief Scientific Adviser, Department of Energy and Chairman, Natural Environment Research Council.

  Mr. Peter Goldsworthy

  Director of Electricity Generation, NORWEB plc.

  Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory2

  Formerly, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy.

  Mr. Gerald Leach

  Senior Research Fellow, Stockholm Environment Institute.

  Dr. David Lindley, Managing Director, National Wind Power Ltd.

  Mr. Colin Moynihan3

  Formerly, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy.

  Mr. Peter Oppenheimer

  Student in Economics, Christ Church, Oxford; Chairman Caminus Energy Ltd.

  Mr. Jeremy Sainsbury

  Sole agent, Fred Olsen Ltd.

  Professor Arnold Wolfendale

  Astronomer Royal, and Professor of Physics at Durham University.

  1 Chairman from June 1992.

  2 Member until April 1992.

  3 Chairman and Member until April 1992.
  256
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his policy for market-based support for the renewable energy technology through the non-fossil fuel obligation and the fossil fuel levy, with percentage and cash figures for each.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. Friend's policy is to make renewables orders during the 1990s to support 700 MW of renewable generating capacity; the amount of support required through the levy will depend upon the contribution to generators' costs made by revenue from market sales. My right hon. Friend will review this policy in the light of the report from the Renewable Energy Advisory Group, taking into account the coal review now in progress.

  Waste to Energy
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the present level of subsidy for electricity per kilowatt hour through the non-fossil fuel obligation; and how much this represents per tonne of waste incinerated in waste to energy schemes.

  Mr. Eggar
  The details of the price support arrangements differ from order to order, and from technology to technology. However, for municipal waste incineration projects contracted by the regional electricity companies in fulfilment of the 1991 renewables order, a price of 6·55p/kWh will be paid from the due commissioning date until 1998. Assuming an electricity pool price of 3p/kWh, the premium above the pool price approximates to £17 per tonne of waste incinerated until 1998.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what price per kWh is currently paid by regional electricity companies for electricity generated from(a) coal and (b) municipal waste.

  Mr. Eggar
  The terms of contracts are a commercial matter for the companies concerned.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the quantity of electricity that may be generated from waste to energy incineration projects by the year 2000; and what quantity of coal is needed to generate an equivalent amount.

  Mr. Eggar
  No firm estimates have been produced of the capacity of electricity generation plant likely to be generated from waste to energy incineration projects by the year 2000. However, if all the domestic waste incineration projects contracted under the first two rounds of the non-fossil fuel obligation came to fruition, the total capacity in place would be over 300 MW. This capacity would generate approximately the same amount of electricity per year as could be generated from 1 million tonnes of coal.

  Electricity
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will estimate the cost to the coal industry of the subsidy given through the non-fossil fuel obligation for electricity generated by(a) nuclear power, (b) waste incineration and (c) renewables, including wind, wave, tide and solar power.
  257
  Mr. Eggar
  The above-market element of the price paid to generators contracted under the non-fossil fuel obligation is financed through a fossil fuel levy paid by electricity consumers.

  Car Advertisements
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will introduce new guidelines for the Advertising Standards Agency limiting references to engine performance and speed acceleration in car advertisements.

  Mr. Leigh
  The Advertising Standards Authority requires that all advertisements should be legal, decent, honest and truthful and should conform to its British code of advertising practice.

  The Advertising Standards Authority already monitors car advertisements for claims relating to speed, power, acceleration and performance. Its April 1992 survey confirmed an overall improvement in compliance with British code of advertising practice of car performance advertisements.

  The Advertising Standards Authority will investigate any written complaint about advertisements, and if the hon. Gentleman has details of any particular advertisement, I suggest that he contact the Advertising Standards Authority direct.

  The British code of advertising practice is due to be substantially reviewed early next year. Although the terms of reference for that revision have yet to be decided, the Advertising Standards Authority says that they are likely to be wide ranging.

  Oil and Gas
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures he is taking to reduce the burden of regulation on United Kingdom oil and gas field development and production; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  On 22 October I published the report of a recent scrutiny by my Department which recommended a number of measures to reduce the burden of regulation in this area. A copy of the report was placed in the Library of the House. I will be implementing the changed procedures recommended in the report in full. They have been welcomed by the oil and gas industry.

  Debt Payments
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 18 November,Official Report, column 225, on late payments to small businesses, what is the value of his Department's financial support for the pilot prompt payment initiatives; and if he will list the three trade associations involved in the initiatives.

  Mr. Leigh
  The three trade associations contracted for the prompt payment initiatives are:

  The Mechanical and Metal Trades Confederation

  Walsall Chamber of Commerce and Industry

  The Federation of Master Builders

  Funding will be met as required, subject to a maximum spend by the Department of £90,000.

  German Coal Industry
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has made to the EC about subsidies paid by Germany to the German coal industry; and what EC rules and conditions apply to them.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have made representations to the Commission about contract arrangements in Germany which could have the effect of excluding other Community producers, including British producers. All aids by member states to their coal industries must be approved by the Commission within the terms of decision 2064/86/ECSC.

  Nuclear Power Stations
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what separate provision Nuclear Electric has made for decommissioning of nuclear power stations.

  Mr. Eggar
  Nuclear Electric's 1991–92 report and accounts show that the company's balance sheet at 31 March 1992 contained total nuclear provisions of £9,883 million. Of that total, some £1,699 million represented provisions in respect of the decommissioning of the company's nuclear power stations.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many civil servants are currently employed by his Department(a) in London, (b) in Scotland and (c) elsewhere.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information is as follows. Figures relate to staff in post on 1 October 1992—part-time staff are counted as half.

  Number

  London

  7,030

  Scotland

  525

  Elsewhere

  4,405

  Collaborative R&D Projects
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will list the name of each company which received an award from his Department under the LINK scheme, the programme area of each award granted and its value, in each year since 1990–91;

  (2) if he will list the name of each company which received an award from his Department under the small firms merit award for research and technology scheme, the project title of each award granted and its value, in each year since 1990–91;

  (3) if he will list the title of each advanced technology programme, the value of each programme and the names of each organisation involved in the programmes, in each year since 1990–91;

  (4) if he will list the name of each company which received an award from his Department under the EUREKA programme, the project title of each award granted and its value, in each financial year since 1990–91;

  (5) if he will list the name of each company which received an award from his Department under the support for products under research scheme, the project title or process name of each award granted and its value, in each year since 1990–91.
  259
  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 1 December 1992]: It is not the normal practice of the Department of Trade and Industry to publish names of recipients of grants for collaborative research and development projects. Such information is treated as commercial-in-confidence. However, under the SMART competition and the support for products under research—SPUR—scheme, companies specifically agree to disclosure of their names, and in the case of SPUR they also agree to disclosure of the value of the grants.

  Recipients of grant offers under SMART and SPUR are listed, with grant values in the case of SPUR. For LINK and advanced technology programmes the names of programmes are given, together with the value of grant offers made by financial year. For EUREKA, DTI-funded projects are listed—the "EUREKA year" begins in June.

  Value of DTI grant offers made (£)

  LINK Programmes

  Programme titles

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93 to date

  Advanced Semiconductor Materials

  4,616,076

  1,531,499

  1,790

  Agro-Food Quality

  0

  1,445,300

  61,700

  Asymmetric Synthesis

  0

  353,800

  0

  Biochemical Engineering

  1,012,752

  1,065,226

  678,261

  Biotransformations

  715,702

  0

  254,680

  Control of Plant Metabolism

  68,890

  27,358

  0

  Crops for Industrial Use

  52,990

  0

  0

  Design of High Speed Machinery

  326,107

  2,102,868

  193,078

  Enabling Technologies for Advanced Rotorcraft

  0

  116,000

  0

  Enhanced Engineering Materials

  0

  0

  14,184

  Eukaryotic Genetic Engineering

  388,852

  169,829

  24,130

  Food Processing Sciences

  1,336,368

  1,635,545

  100,300

  Hydrocarbon Reservoirs

  0

  511,000

  333,000

  Industrial Measurement Systems

  587,219

  1,389,358

  118,411

  Medical Implants

  590,370

  205,740

  7,200

  Molecular Electronics

  622,600

  0

  0

  Molecular Sensors

  282,702

  236,740

  0

  Nanotechnology

  808,120

  2,910,000

  790,120

  New Catalysts and Catalytic Processes

  610,653

  674,312

  0

  Optoelectronic Systems

  4,795,194

  4,055,033

  1,909,430

  Personal Communications

  400,000

  1,300,000

  250,000

  Power Electronic Devices and Derived Systems

  376,700

  877,300

  411,200

  Protein Engineering

  243,686

  1,704,400

  312,500

  Selective Drug Delivery and Targeting

  0

  0

  0

  Structural Composites

  628,007

  1,693,169

  344,074

  Technology for Analytical and Physical Measurement

  1,414,443

  1,218,607

  186,737

  Technologies for Sustainable Farming Systems

  0

  0

  0·0

  Ventilation, Air Conditioning and Refrigeration

  425,150

  266,009

  0·0

  Value of Grant Offers made for Projects within Programmes

  20,302,581

  25,489,093

  5,990,795

  Consultancy, Awareness and Training

  483,027

  673,472

  265,777

  Total value of DTI grant offers made

  20,785,608

  26,162,565

  6,256,572

  The names of the businesses, and the project titles, which have received awards under the small firms merit award for research and technology (SMART) scheme in 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93 to date are listed. The value of each award is commercial in confidence.

  1990–91—Stage 1

  A. K. & E. M. Campbell Trust

  Aerating Plant

  1Abbey Biosystems Limited

  Brain Oxygenation Monitor

  ABR Partnership

  Treatment of Leachates

  1Abwood Machine Tools Limited

  High Performance Grinding Machine

  Add Control Limited

  Specialised Motor Controllers

  260
  The values of DTI grant offers made for each scheme are as follows:

  Value of DTI grant offers made

  £ million

  1990–91

  1991–92

  11992–93

  LINK

  20·8

  26·2

  6·3

  EUREKA

  22·2

  15·1

  3·4

  Advanced Technology Programmes

  20·1

  42·3

  12·8

  SMART

  10·6

  12·6

  27·9

  SPUR

  —

  12·4

  7·2

  1 To date.

  2 Estimated.

  1Advanced Design and Manufacture Limited

  High Temperature Plastic Heat Exchanger

  Alfas Industries Limited

  Intumescent Sealant Tape

  1Ampys Limited

  Amplitude Limited

  1Andor Technology Limited

  Miniature Spectral Analyser

  1Animax Limited

  Animax Fermentation Project

  1Applied Sensor Research Limited

  Intelligent Vehicle Monitoring

  1Argon Electronics

  Simulation Radiation Dosimeter

  1Bafbox Limited

  Injection Mould Tool

  Ball Burnishing Machine Tools Limited

  Trib-Joints

  1F. Bamford (Instruments) Limited

  High Pressure Transducer

  261

  Bank House Practice and Med Lab Service

  Evaluation of Leucocyte Activity

  1Beran Instruments Limited

  Alternative Data Transmission

  1Biosyn Limited

  Novel Milk Assay System

  1Botham Engineenng Limited

  Large Structure Memory Management

  R J Burston

  Fibre Optics

  Cambrian Plastics Limited

  Camplas "Fiberloc" System

  1Cambridge Antibody Technology

  Small Molecule Detection

  1Capital HPLC Specialists

  Capillary Columns Development

  1Caraderm Limited

  Novel Skin Application

  Cell Adhesion Research and Development

  Design of Bioreactors

  Cell Systems Limited

  Freeze Drying Sperm and Blood

  CFM Metal Fax Limited

  Liquid Ring Machine

  Cheema Technology Limited

  Coatings—Pharmaceutical Industry

  Chemical Management Services Limited

  Synthesis of Hydrofluorocarbons

  1John Chubb Instrumentation

  Test Shielding Capabilities

  Clarinet Systems Limited

  Handheld Electronic Map on CD

  1Clinicaid Limited

  Novel Range of ECG Electrodes

  1 Clive Durose Woodturners Limited

  Woodturning Lathe

  Colebrand Limited

  Crack-sealing

  Columbus Positioning Limited

  Vehicular Positioning System

  1Cryogenic Technology Limited

  Intra Organ Cryosurgery

  CSE (Nottingham) Limited

  Telemetry System

  1D B Electronics Limited

  Standard—C. Fax

  1Danbiosyst UK Limited

  Vaginal Hydrogel Polymer System

  1 Dena Technology Limited

  Colloidal Mixing Techniques

  1Dextra Laboratories Limited

  Oligosaccharides

  1 Digital Real Time Systems Limited

  Digital Signal Processing

  1Digitrol Limited

  Disk Eraser

  1 DSP Consultants Limited

  Digital Audio Noise Reduction

  E & L Instruments Limited

  Logic Array Trainer

  1E R & F Turner Limited

  Computerised Flaking Machinery

  1 Edgley Aeronautics Limited

  All Composite Wing Spar Lug

  1 Edinburgh Sensors Limited

  Carbon Dioxide Detector

  Electronic Systems (Notts) Limited

  Fluorescent Light Controller

  Eng Measurement Analysis and Test

  Ship Propulsion by Wind Power

  ER Fluid Developments Limited

  Variable Displacement Pump

  1Europa Scientific Limited

  Metabolite Detector

  1Exotherm Products Limited

  Polystyrene Waste Densification System

  1Extek Limited

  Extek X1000 Telephone

  1FFR Ultrasonics

  Ultrasonic Plate Fastener

  1Firmac Limited

  Production of Bends in Ducting

  Flowercrete Systems Limited

  Flowscreed

  Formold Limited

  Pallet Trays for Glassware

  Formtheme Limited

  Ambulatory Data Logger

  Fosse Limited

  The Fosse Filler

  Foster Findlay Associates Limited

  Image Analysis Software

  1Fred Limited

  Wind Powered Water Treatment

  Fungal Control Systems Limited

  AIB Development

  Gallex Limited

  Fibre Optics for Robotics

  1Dr Jason Gardosi

  Novel IUCD

  Gilden Research

  Radar Transponder Product Line

  Green Marine Lymington Limited

  Pultruded Composite Yacht Spar

  1Gwent Electronic Materials Limited

  Dielectric Materials

  1Robin Hamilton

  ET2-Litter Collecting Vehicle

  HE Associates

  Dental Bridges

  262

  1Helix Biotechnology

  Products for Gene Technology

  1High Force Research Limited

  Aqueous Phenolic Effluents Treatment

  Owen Holland

  Neural Network Control System

  1Holmes Newman Associates

  Food Quality Control

  1Hughes & McLeod Limited

  Synthetic Reeds

  1Hycontrol Technology Limited

  Industrial Microwave Systems

  Iden Croft Herbs Limited

  Preservation of Edible Flowers

  1Immune Systems Limited

  Cell Culture Priming

  1Index Data Systems Limited

  Mosaic

  Industrial Development Bangor (UCNW)

  Membrane Instrument

  Industrial Health Limited

  Multi-sensor Instruments

  1Ingenion Design Limited

  Low-cost Optical Transducer

  Instrument Transformers Limited

  Optical Techniques

  1Integral Vision

  Beam Straightness Machine

  1Integrated Display Systems Limited

  Clavis Belt Tensioning Equipment

  Integrated Silicon Systems Limited

  Signal Processing Chip

  1Intelligent Applications Limited

  Electronics Troubleshooting

  Interactive Meetings Limited

  Tablet

  Interdive Limited

  Submersible Diving System

  1Jennings Winch & Foundry Co. Limited

  Electro Conductive Resins

  1Jestar Limited

  Inverted Brushless DC Machine

  Keepers Developments Limited

  H P Biotech Cell Disrupter

  Kilim Plastics

  Heat Transfer System

  Kindbrisk Limited

  Atom Probe

  1Knowledge Based Services

  Food (Formal Object Oriented

  Limited

  Design)

  Koral Scientific Limited

  Electron Microscope Module

  1Laser Hire

  Colour Laser Scanning System

  1 Link Technologies Limited

  ImprovedLinkerMolecules/ DNA

  1Linhoff March Limited

  Separation Technology

  1Liquid Levers Innovation Limited

  Reflecting Road Stud

  1Magna Industrials Limited

  Magnabond B Alumino Silica

  1 Magstim Co. Limited

  Novel Nerve Electromyograph

  1 Mangar Aids Limited

  Perairscope

  1 Marcher Enterprises Limited

  OphthalmicCamerafor Glaucoma

  1 Marine Inertial Systems Limited

  Inertial Sensing Unit

  1 Maritime Dynamics Limited

  Prototype Container Crane

  Marline (General Engineering) Limited

  Sports Turf Compaction Relief

  1 Mass Transfer Limited

  Biological Effluent Treatment

  Matrix Systems

  Micro-Plate Incubator

  Medcen Consultancies

  Ophthalmic Diagnostic Imaging

  Medical Laser Technologies Limited

  Isotropic Optical Probes

  Metal Crystals and Oxides Limited

  Crystals for Acousto-optics

  Micronomy Limited

  Remote Printer Driver

  1 Microplotter Engineering Limited

  Non-Contact Bar Code Reader

  Microsys Consultants Limited

  Icon Based Software System

  Microsystem Design Specialists Limited

  Gas-Phase Sensor

  MIE Medical Research Limited

  Clinical Gait Analysis System

  Minima Industrial Model Making

  Optical Connectors

  1 Mirage Inks Limited

  Detoxification of Printing Ink

  G. W. Mitchell

  Steering System for Trailers

  MLC Limited

  Colour Dry Silver Imager

  Moonstone Computers Limited

  Proximity Sensing Keypad

  1Motorised Air Products Limited

  Fire Safety Damper

  1 Multitech Limited

  Silver Photochemical Machining

  M4 Data Limited

  Optical Recording F/Study

  1Neural Solutions

  Automatic Equipment Monitor

  263

  Operating Theatre Systems

  Opcheck

  1Oretech Marine System Limited

  'Rapid'

  Dr. R. M. Parkin

  High Speed Inspection

  1Pathology Management Services Limited

  Microbiology Control

  1Photoware Limited

  Chemolog/Chemomaster

  Planar Projects

  Planar Research Project

  Polymedica Industries UK Limited

  Novel Gas

  I. T. Power Limited

  Hydro-Turbine

  1Proven Engineering Products Limited

  Wind Turbine Blade System

  PWM Drives Limited

  Fluid Infusion System

  PWS Research and Developments Limited

  Low Alcohol Drinks

  1Q-Par Angus Limited

  Microwave Components

  1Quantec Image Processing Limited

  Measurement of Components

  1Radicode Clocks

  Frequency Synchronisation System

  1Ravensworth Limited

  Heat Resistant Polymer

  Real Photographic Limited

  Microfiche Duplicator

  Reddish Electronics Limited

  Mass Analysis Profiler

  Remonsys Limited

  Electronic monitoring/fridges

  Reredos Limited

  Hi-loch sculling oars

  Roaton Design Consultants

  Tele-nav

  Rockwell Hitec Limited

  Recycle Photographic Chemicals

  Rodar Developments

  Monitoring of land-fill sites

  1Safe Training Systems Limited

  Radiation Monitor Simulation

  1Salford Technology PLC

  Optical Character Recognition

  1Julia Schofield Limited

  DML—A Presentation Manager

  Sense and Vision Electronic

  Electronic Fertility Assessment

  Systems Limited

  1Sensit Limited

  Novel Load Cell

  1SES Technology Consultants

  Laser Glass

  Shorfast Limited

  Garment Transport System

  Sifran Structural Glazing Limited

  Structural Glazing System PT4

  1Sirius Analytical Instruments Limited

  pKa Analyser

  Sprayforming Developments Limited

  Layered Silicon Steel Strip

  1St. Andrews Electronics Limited

  Data Calculators

  Stone Heroes Limited

  Marezzo Moulded Marble

  Structure Testing Services (UK) Limited

  Surface Penetrating Radar

  Swift 943 Limited

  Portable Electronic Notepad

  1Swiftlogic Limited

  Cad Tool for EMI Analysis PCBS

  1System Silicon PLC

  Speech compression

  1Systems Eng (Lancaster) Limited

  Multi-purpose Sonar

  1Tangent Technology Design Association Limited

  Portable IT Device

  Thermal Engineering Systems Limited

  High Humidity Heat Exchequer

  Thermal Measurement Systems

  Thermosure

  1Tor Systems Limited

  High Speed Personalised Ticket Dispenser

  Tri-Vac Dispense Limited

  Beverage Dispensers

  1Valeport Marine Scientific Limited

  Molecular and Optical Sensors

  1Vignan Medical Technology Limited

  Caries Detector

  1VLS Limited

  Auto Visual Inspection System

  Warwick Design Consultants Limited

  Ceramic Swash Plate Motor

  'Watersearch Limited

  Marine Hazard Warning Device

  264

  1Wolfson Microelectronics Limited

  Enhanced Analogue Components

  >1E. Wood Limited

  Polymer Coatings

  Worthington Richardson Designs

  Colour Change Medical Gloves

  1M. J. R. Young and R. Bradnock

  Removal of Plastic Bone Cement

  Zetetic International Limited

  Electromagnetic Signature ID System

  1 Received Stage 2 awards in 1991–92.

  1990–91 Stage 2

  Abbey Biosystems Limited

  Blood Glucose Monitor

  Abbey Instruments Limited

  Bacterial Colony Counter

  Advanced Technology

  Control and Optimising System

  Manufacturing Systems Limited

  Air Safety Products Limited

  Life Support and Location System

  Anthony Best Dynamics Limited

  Novel Noise Source

  Barnard Microsystems Limited

  Integrated Microwave Circuit

  Biocell Research Limited

  Gold Labelled DNA

  Biopharm (UK) Limited

  Dissolution of Blood Clots

  Biosyn Limited

  Safe Diagnostic Kits

  Biotechnology Process Services Limited

  Chromatographic Media

  Bodymedic Limited

  Remote Blood Pressure Monitor

  Boverton Electronics Limited

  Skin Tissue Condition Monitor

  Bradford University Research Limited

  NOAA Receiving System

  Burkard Manufacturing Co. Limited

  Microbiological Air Sampler

  M. H. Butterfield

  Machine Reading of Handwriting

  Camera Alive Limited

  Realtime Camera

  Cedeta Research Limited

  Electronic Pain Relief Device

  Cell Adhesion Research and Development

  Measurement of Cell Adhesion

  Centripetal Technology Limited

  Industrial Scale Cole Vacuum

  Cirrus Research Limited

  Technology Area Noise Monitor

  Clyde Product Technology Limited

  Protection for Printed Circuit

  Crossflow Microfiltration Limited

  Treatment of Rural Waters

  CSE (Nottingham) Limited

  Telemetry Slip Ring

  D. C. Clarke

  Extensible Pneumatic Cylinders

  Danbiosyst UK Limited

  Polymeric Peptide Delivery System

  Edinburgh Instruments Limited

  Microscope Based Spectrometers

  Ensigma Limited

  A Speaker Verifier

  Enzymatix Limited

  Therapeutic Phospholipids

  EST Research Limited

  Power System Development

  Exotech Limited

  Ultrasonic Stud Monitoring

  Fermentech Medical Limited

  Hyaluronic Acid in Joints

  Fiox Limited

  Fibre Optic Image Inverter

  Friction Technology Limited

  Thin Geometry Tooling

  Fyne Designs Limited

  Aqua-Nova Bathing Facility

  Giltech Limited

  Novel Dialysis Fluid

  Green Land Systems Limited

  Green Land Compost

  Haser Co. Limited

  Haser

  Hereford Herbs Limited

  Herb and Spice Beads

  Hi-Tec Metals R&D Limited

  Low Pressure Casting System

  Human Machine Interfaces Limited

  Electronic Energy Analyser

  Hydramotion Limited

  Sonic Plane Density Sensor

  Insight Logistics Limited

  Automatic Interactive Visual Scheduling

  Integrated Sensors Limited

  Detector of Charged Particles

  Intellemetrics Limited

  Impact Emission Spectroscopy

  Ion Tech Limited

  RF Excited Ion Beam Source

  265

  Isle Optics

  All Solid State Laser

  Knight Scientific

  Bioluminescent Materials

  KX Technology Limited

  Low Temp Cooling System

  Lancashire Fittings Limited

  Lead-free Soft-Solder

  Logicflit Limited

  Combined Elemental Mass Spec. System

  Marchbanks Measurement Systems Limited

  Cerebral and Cochlear Fluid Pressure Measurement

  Marine Inertial Systems Limited

  Heave Independent Motion

  MCA Services

  Micronised Silver Chloride

  McFairmond Advanced Technology Limited

  Fast Burn Technology

  Medix Limited

  Novel Insulin Delivery System

  Micrograph Design Limited

  Pressure Measuring Instruments

  MJA Dynamics Limited

  Analysis of Rotating Machinery

  Molecular Products Limited

  Novel Absorbent

  Newcastle Photometric Systems Limited

  Multi-point Low Light Detector

  Novocastra Laboratories Limited

  Monoclonal Antibodies

  Optics & Vision Limited

  Innovative Binoculars

  Oxford Positron Systems Limited

  A Low Cost Hidac Camera

  Oxford Sensor Technology Limited

  Automatic Windscreen Insertion

  Paxdata Limited

  Data Comms

  Prometheus Developments Limited

  Polymeric Intumescent Compound

  PWM Drives Limited

  Microelectronic Controller

  Quatro Biosystems Limited

  Detection of Drug Abuse

  Reeve Analytical Limited

  Chromatographic Data Systems

  S&C Thermofluids Limited

  Exhaust Powered Air Inducers

  S. L. Electrotech Limited

  Intelligent Fire Sensor System

  Salford Ultrafine Chemicals and Research Limited

  Preparations of Morphine

  Seescan PLC

  Exportable Image Analysis System

  Sensit Limited

  Micro Based Transducer Display

  Sherwood Technology Development Limited

  New X-Ray Substrate

  Shrinemark Limited

  Conductive Composite Tubing

  Somerset Fruit Machinery Limited

  Fruit Collector

  Stoneleigh Associates Limited

  Precision Imaging

  Systems Solutions Limited

  Guided Vehicle System

  Tetronics Research and Development Co.

  Preparation of Ferro Titanium Alloy

  Translift Engineering Limited

  Space Saving Fork Truck

  Tribotics Limited

  Research Affecting Chromosome Separation

  Ultra Laboratories Limited

  Industrial First Aid Dressing

  Vetstream (Development) Limited

  Info Management System—Vets

  Voltech Instruments Limited

  Portable Power Analyser

  Warwick Design Consultants Limited

  Open Water Dive Trainer

  1991–92 Stage 1

  A. W. Technology

  Infra Red Sensing

  Abbotsbury Software Limited

  Diver Management System

  Acorn Chemical Limited

  The Biocote Project

  Actuated Controls Limited

  Ultra Low Pressure Instrument

  Advanced Fluid Systems Limited

  Electro-Rheological Decelerators

  Advanced Insulation Products Limited

  Foam Dispense System

  Aerogen Co. Limited

  Aerofume

  Algotronix Limited

  Digital Workbench

  Andover Software Kits

  Speech Processing Transceiver

  266

  Antig Engineering

  Hypocycloidal Engine

  Aston Molecules Limited

  Anti-Tumour Agent

  Baugh and Weedon Limited

  Hand Held Flaw Detector

  Bede Scientific Instruments Limited

  Miniature X-Ray Detectors

  Bendoran Boatyard

  Submersible Shellfish Platform

  Anthony Best Dynamics Limited

  Testing of Vehicle Bodies

  Bio-Diagnostics Limited

  Assay for Nephrology

  Bioprocessing Limited

  Affinity System

  A. Bissell

  Real-time Scan Conversion

  Bookham Technology Limited

  Silicon Integrated Optics

  Z. Brierley Limited

  Tool and Cutter Grinder

  Cairngorm Climbing Rope Limited

  Strain Indicative Climbing Rope

  Cambridge Radiation Technology Limited

  Horizontal Drilling System

  Cardio Carbon Limited

  Percutaneous Access Device

  Castle Associates Limited

  Hand and Arm Risk Measurement

  Celect Electronics

  Remote Thermal Sensor

  Centre for Software Maintenance Limited

  Inverse Engineering for Software

  Ceratex 3D

  Ceratex 3D Transfers

  Clinical Product Development Limited

  Intra-Operative Suction

  Contra Vision

  Polyester Processing

  Counting Technology

  Portable Particle Analyser

  Cytocell

  DNA Probe for Cystic Fibrosis

  Definitive Projects

  The Intelligent Claw

  Dian Micro Systems Limited

  Data Acquisition System

  Digital Engineering Limited

  ISDN Terminal Adaptor/ Modem

  Digital Imaging Systems Limited

  Neural Network Image Processor

  DLB Systems Limited

  Clinical Trial Data Management System

  Drew Scientific Limited

  Micro Albumen Urea Analyser

  Ecossensors Limited

  Disposable Environment Sensors

  Elara Associates

  Exhaust Gas Monitor

  Elimax Limited

  Robotics in Protein Crystallisation

  Encrypta Electronics Limited

  The Re-Usable Security Seal

  Energy Technology and Control Limited

  Combustion Control Coal Boiler

  Envirotech Partnership

  Fluid Separator Prototype

  Euro Dental

  A New Dental Filling Material

  Exoptek Limited

  Machine Vision Depth Encoding

  Faxbase

  Faxbank

  Flow Simulation International Limited

  4GL Field Modelling Tool

  Focusopen Limited

  Symbol Agglutination Reader

  Formal Systems (Europe) Limited

  Tank Quantity Modelling System

  Gaeltec Limited

  Telemetry Transducer Link

  Geoquip Limited

  Perimeter Security Sensor

  Glance Information Systems Limited

  Elapsed Event Display

  Gratek Manufacturing Limited

  Microfilm Imaging Project

  Gwilym Jenkins and Partners Limited

  Scenario Testing Software

  Gyrotech Limited

  Rotaflex

  Gyrus Medical Limited

  Acid-Check

  Hallmarket Limited

  Turf Harvester

  Henrob Limited

  High Speed Rivet Collation

  Hirst Magnetic Instruments Limited

  Permanent Magnet Measurement

  Holscot Industrial Linings Limited

  Fluoroplastic Material

  Roger Hurrey

  Microprocessor Project

  Immune Systems Limited

  A Monoclonal Antibody

  267

  Immunodiagnostic Systems Limited

  Diagnostic Technology for Vitamin C

  Innovadent Technics Limited

  Magnetisable Cap Component

  Innovative Technology Limited

  Note Acceptor NA-1

  Integrated Design Techniques Limited

  Non Linear Search Algorithms

  Integrated Micro Products Limited

  Predictable Open Systems

  Intelligent Applications Limited

  Expert System Based Energy Auditor

  Intelligent Solutions Partnership

  Process Optimisation

  Inventions Limited

  Node Neural Networks

  J. P. J. Engineering Services Limited

  Ceramic Energy Saving Tuyere

  Kayvar Engineering and Automation Limited

  Solid State Current Correction System

  Kern Electrical Components Limited

  EMC Components for new EC Regulations

  Knight Scientific

  Automated "Abel" Monitoring

  Knudsen Computer Products

  Portable Reader

  Kudos Corporation Limited

  Exhaust Conditioning System

  KX Technology Limited

  Platinum-in-Ore Analyser

  Life Support Engineering Limited

  Long Duration Breathing Apparatus

  Lightwork Design Limited

  Computer Graphics Simulator

  Liquid Crystal Technology Limited

  Low Cost LCD Animation

  Liquids Research

  High Quality Ferrofluids

  W. G. Lucas and Son Limited

  Electronic Sewing Machine

  Macon Management and Design

  High Speed Encoder

  Marbco Engineering Limited

  Filling for Fire Extinguishers

  Marine Data International Limited

  Split Ship Sea Going Canal Vessel

  Marine Project Development Limited

  Detensioner Device

  Marshall Biotechnology Limited

  Solid State Temperature Control

  Maxys Circuit Technology Limited

  Neural Accelerator System

  Mecon

  Math Modellers Work Bench

  Medical Advice Service for Travellers Abroad

  A new live typhoid vaccine

  Medical Document Imaging Systems Limited

  Project "VAST"

  Medical Express (UK) Limited

  Preservatives in Toiletries

  Meter Controls International Limited

  Domestic Hot Water Controller

  Metropolitan Business Services

  Heating Device to Strip Paint

  Jonathan A. Michaels

  Devices for Medical Laser Applications

  Microbial Systems Limited

  Microbial Colony Discriminator

  Miller Dent

  Pressure Regulator

  Modular Mouldings

  Firebird II

  D. Moore

  Pipemaster

  MRP Electronics Limited

  Survivor

  Multilyte Limited

  MultiAnalyte Immunoassay System

  Mumed Limited

  Pulmonary Function Monitor

  Neptune Sonar Limited

  Diver Communication System

  New Metals and Chemicals Limited

  Carbon Fibre Reinforcement

  Novocastra Laboratories Limited

  Monoclonal Antibodies

  R. J. and R. S. Nunny—T/A Sea Sediments

  Seabed Stability

  Oilfield Chemical Technology

  Drilling Fluid Development

  Oldham Controls

  Yarnspec Equilength

  Optical Metrology Limited

  Optical Distance Measurement

  Orion Gas Seals Limited

  Front Depression Dry Gas Seal

  Oxford Lensats Limited

  Variable Focus Lenses and Mirror

  Oxford Metrics Limited

  Analysis of Himan Kinematics

  Oxford Sensor Technology Limited

  Optical Tracker Robot Welding

  268

  Pacer Systems Limited

  High speed scalloping of lace

  Pennine Automation Limited

  New Generation Machine Tool

  Pentagram Technical Services Limited

  Automated Drive for Microwave

  Perifleur Products Limited

  Orbital Plant System

  Alfred Peters Limited

  New Technology Audiometer

  Peterson Holographies

  Hologram Lighting System

  Pharmaceutical Proteins Limited

  Trojan Sperm

  Pitchline Transmissions Limited

  Gear Coupling and Test Rig

  Pixel Power Limited

  Graphics Supercomputer

  Planck Instruments (UK) Limited

  Chemical Analysis

  Pollution Control and Measurement Limited

  Portable Optical Dust Monitor

  Power Electronics Controls

  Electric Arc Sensing

  Precision Drilling Limited

  Super Saw Project

  Prendergast and Hickey

  Voice Driven Machine Interface

  Prestek Limited

  High Speed Label Printer

  Prometheus Developments Limited

  Self Reinforcing Plastics

  Quality Systems and Technology Limited

  Open Net

  Quatro Biosystems Limited

  Auto Feed Sampler

  Quest Refrigeration Manufacturing Limited

  Rotational Moulding

  RAD Scientific

  Photodynamic Cancer Diagnosis

  Radiocode Clocks

  Precision time and frequency Distributing System

  Radicontact Limited

  Zonal Intrusion Detection

  Rapaway Energy Limited

  Energy Reduction for Castings

  Research Instruments

  Cell Wall Penetration Technique

  Rhodes Technology

  Refinement of Herbal Therapy

  Robotec Limited

  Low Level Palletizer

  Rockfield Software Limited

  Mesh Generating System

  Rowan Technologies

  Corrosion Monitoring

  Russell Paterson

  Membrane Characterisation

  Sea-Tek Limited

  Fish Counting Biomass Measurement

  Seatron Limited

  Laser Nocturnal Simulator

  Selective Antibodies Limited

  Monoclonal Selective Antibody

  SES Technology Consultants

  Fast Radiosotope Imager

  Sonic Systems

  Electromagnetic Coupling

  Specialists Refractory Service

  Dental Investment Materials

  Spring Research and Manufacturing Association Limited

  Auto Spring-End Coning Machine

  Springco (NI) Limited

  Abrasive Belt Grinding Machine

  Stakesolve Limited

  Intelligent Bar Code

  Sterling Design International

  U Tube Control Tool

  Sulcated Springs Limited

  Sulcated Spring Development

  Surface Active Limited

  Monoclonal Anti-Body Detection System

  System Products Limited

  Electronic Tennis Trainer

  Systems Solutions Limited

  Auto Test Equipment

  T-Plan Systems Limited

  The M Plan Applicator Generator

  Tailor Made Systems Limited

  Predictive Lighting Maintenance

  Adam Thatcher Limited

  Real time monitoring of fall discharge

  Tilt Measurement Limited

  Roll Free Tilt Sensor

  TINT

  Ion Mobility Spectrometer

  Total Temperature Control Limited

  Electronic Control

  Track Analysis Systems Limited

  Radon and Thoron Dosemeter

  Transeise

  Seismic Process/Geophysical

  Trent Valley Water Systems Limited

  Solar Water Sterilisation Unit

  Tritec Developments Limited

  Fibre Tip Power Meter

  UK Plant Services Limited

  Low Emission Waste Gas Burner

  Viking Designs Limited

  Radiotherapy X-Ray Detector

  Viridian Bioprocessing Limited

  Biotreatment Organic Compounds

  269

  Waller Designs

  Ultrasonic Power Unit

  Warren Logic Limited

  Underwater Communication System

  Roger West Laboratories Limited

  Truck Self Weighing System

  Worthington-Richardson Designs

  Surgical Laser Structure

  X-Tek Systems Limited

  Pulsed X-Ray Source

  York Equimed Limited

  Infra Fred Heart Rate Meter

  York Software Engineering Limited

  Zeta Feasibility Study

  Zeta Controls Limited

  Smart Controls

  Zytek Systems Limited

  Battery Car—Computer Control

  2V Microsystems Limited

  Wind Generator Kits

  3D Scanners Limited

  Pantina—the "Colour 3D Scanner"

  1992–95 Stage 1

  A. Carter & P. Tilsley T/A Computer PK

  The Signal Centre

  A. G. Designs Limited

  Non-Contact Strip Gauge

  ABN Engines

  Concept Compression Ignition

  Acorn Business Company Limited

  Solar Heat Engineer (SHE) Pump

  Airborne Particle Classification

  Airborne Particle Classifier

  Airrite Building Services Limited

  Variable Area Diffuser

  AL-ECO Systems Limited

  Modular Hydroponic Product Panel

  Alan G. Jones

  Chemical Bond Based Microchip

  Animax Limited

  Materials Technology Project

  Apex Developments Limited

  Development of Oxygen Sensors

  Applied Technology Developments Limited

  H/Speed Piezo Electric Valve

  April Agri-Biologicals Limited

  Centrifugal Fabric Generator

  Armstrong Projects Limited

  Orthrobot

  Arnage Design Engineering Limited

  Mini Neutral Buoyant Manipulator

  Atlantech Technologies Limited

  High Speed Local Loop Modem

  Avimar Systems & Components Limited

  Advanced Hardware Marine Radar

  Bath Analytical

  Drug Sensitivity Testing

  Beran Instruments Limited

  Hardwood Railway Sleepers

  Bio Tools

  Genome Placement System

  Biocell Research Laboratories

  Metallic Particle Labell, Assay

  Biocolor

  Glycan Assay Kits

  Biopharm (UK) Limited

  Leech Salivary Hyaluronase

  Blackwater Electronics

  Electronic Hydrometer

  Bunting Titanium Limited

  Titanium Valve

  Cabtrac Electronics

  A Mains Paging System

  Cal Gavin Limited

  Enhanced—2 Phase Flow—Tube

  Cambridge Antibody Technology

  Blood Test for Prenatal Screen

  Cambridge Concept Limited

  Vehicle Immobilizer System

  Cambridge Optical Sciences

  Demultiplexer

  Ceramic Developments (Midlands) Limited

  UV Curing Ceramics/Polymers

  Chiprack Electronic Systems Limited

  High Density Modular PC

  Cirrus Research Limited

  A Noise Dose Badge

  Cogent Diagnostics Limited

  Rheumatoid Dipstick Assay

  Computer Industry Research Unit

  Multipoint Audio Video

  Copeland Fluid Power Limited

  Development of Fluidic Motor

  Cryogenic Limited

  A Low Cost MRI Magnet

  Customflex Limited

  Spinal Disc Replacement

  D. G. Teer Coating Services Limited

  Self Lubricating Hard Casting

  David James Cundall

  Solar Energy Battery

  De Montfort Management Limited

  "SERRA" A New Kind of Mirror

  Dextra Laboratories Limited

  Carbohydrate Antigens

  270

  Digital Real Time Systems Limited

  Modular Active Control System

  Don Whitley Scientific Limited

  On-Line Microbial Sensors

  Dr. Cross and Dr. Binner

  Water Potential Meter

  Dr. Paul A. Clifton

  Manufacture of Metal Alkyls

  Dr. R. G. Bardsley

  Genetic Profiling Kit

  E. M. Electronics Limited

  Low Level Isolated Measuring

  East Riding Laboratories Limited

  Hydrogel Drug Delivery System

  Economobile Projects Limited

  Variable Geometry Turbocharger

  Edgley Aeronautics Limited

  Composites in Aircraft

  Edinburgh Instruments Limited

  Surf Structure Port Analyser

  Eident Limited

  Laser Based Depilatory System

  Eldon Technology Limited

  16:9 Display Small Signals SEC

  Electron Microscope Services

  D.L.C. on Glass Knives

  Environics Limited

  Mass Emissions Meter

  Evans Engineering Limited

  High Speed Water Turbine

  Everlastings

  Preserving Plant Materials

  Filtec Limited

  Cenosphere Classification

  Fred Limited

  Pulsed Delivery for AGR Sprays

  FSL Electronics Limited

  Street Light Fault Monitoring

  Fulleon Limited

  High Efficiency Sounder Transd

  Global Specialities Corporation (UK) Limited

  Intelligent Signal Analyser

  Goodwin Air Plasma Limited

  New Plasma Technology

  GPE (Bulk Solids Handling) Limited

  Vacuum Aerator Feed Nozzle

  Gwent Electronic Materials Limited

  Al Inks for Auto Glass

  Gwernafalau Cyfyngedig

  Improved Method-Rapid Prototype

  H. E. Associates

  Unleaded Glass Crystal System

  Haematest Limited

  Development of Visualiser

  Harley Scientific Instruments

  Fibrous Aerosol Detector

  HDP Consultant Engineers

  Sign Capture and Verification

  High Force Research Limited

  Fluorinated Aids Anticorrosion

  Holmes Newman Associates

  Automatic Meat Quality Measure

  Hughes Whitlock Limited

  Detection of Microbial Contaminants

  Image Processing & Vision Company Limited

  Dental Imaging System

  Index Data Systems Limited

  Artemis

  Inflammatory Bowel Disease Study Group

  Treatment of Crohn's Disease

  Infra-Therm Limited

  Thermal Mannequin

  Innervision MRI

  Small MRI

  Intec Design Limited

  Centrifuge with Sealable Rotor

  Integral Solutions Limited

  Clementine Data Mining System

  Integrated Bus Networks Limited

  Architecture Data Comm Router

  Integrated Display Systems Limited

  Moving Belt Tension Measurement

  International Telesystems Limited

  Voice Recognition Development

  Interstellar Systems Limited

  Simultaneous Windows

  Iomed

  Non Invasive Test

  Ion Vac Technology Limited

  Pollution Free Vacuum Coating

  Isle Optics

  Laser Control Devices

  Janner Enterprises Limited

  Q Nect Connector

  JME Limited

  X-ray Stress Analysis

  John Ashworth & Partners

  Decorative Pyrophytic Coatings

  K. & L. Engineering

  Tube Filling Machine

  L. Jankovic

  Self Learning Electronic Chip

  Leading Edge Research Limited

  Fibre Optic Sensor Bushing

  Less Common Metals Limited

  High Purity Indium Production

  Lexcel Technology

  Lithium Sulphur Trioxide Battery

  Lightdatec Fibre Optic Comms. Limited

  Peripheral Shaving Using Radio

  Lloyd Doyle Limited

  High Speed Optical inspection

  271

  Magna Industrials Limited

  Isostatic Pressing (Dry Bag)

  Marvell Consultants Limited

  On-Line Particle Analysis

  MCA Services

  Novel Biosensor Electrodes

  Medicina Limited

  Gastric Tonometer

  Medimech International Limited

  Sharps Protection Feature

  Metals Research Semiconductors Limited

  Novel Multi-Wafer Movpe System

  Michael J. Billingham Limited

  Silicone Rubber Patterns

  Microbial Developments Limited

  Microbial Control

  Microlight Systems Limited

  Mini Computers

  Microsurgical Equipment Limited

  Joining Blood Vessels

  Midland Valley Exploration

  Landslip Prediction Software

  Milmcga Limited

  Solid State Power Amplifiers

  Minster Composite Industries Limited

  D. S. C. M. Development

  Mirage Inks Limited

  U. V. Curable Ink Food Packaging

  MJA Dynamics Limited

  Diagnose Serious Faults

  Molecular Light Technology Research

  Multiple Virus Screening Tests

  Moredun Animal Health

  Diagnosis/Animal Disease Kits

  Mounture Race Engines

  Hydraulic/Electronic Valve Control

  Mupor Limited

  Surface Morphology Membrane

  Natural Technology Limited

  Aquatic Weed Harvester

  Newtech Limited

  Ultra High Speed CNC Machines

  Nicholas Electronic Design

  Safe Inspection Light

  Nima Technology Limited

  An Intelligent Gas Sensor

  Novocastra Laboratories Limited

  Genetic Engineering

  Objective Software Technology Limited

  Message Base Test

  Omicron Development Limited

  Flat Loudspeaker

  Optoken Instruments Limited

  Alumina Size Exclusion Membrane

  Optolink

  Electronic Health System

  Optomech Limited

  High Power DPSS Laser

  Oswel DNA Service

  DNA & RNA Clinical Samples

  Oxford Applied Research

  Focused Ion Beam Technology

  Oxford Asymmetry Limited

  Automatic Asymmetric Synthesis

  Oxford Optronix

  Blood Flow & Oxygenation

  P. C. Maritime Limited

  Integrated Navigation System

  Parallax Solutions Limited

  Identify Validation

  Permarock Products Limited

  Water Based Conductive Coating

  Photek Limited

  3–5 Hybrid Photomultipliers

  Pi Logic Limited

  Multiparameter Sensor Mattress

  PL Coatings Limited

  Refractive Photometric Monitor

  Pollution Monitoring Systems

  Multi Gas Air Pollution Monitor

  Preformed Rib Markings Limited

  Road Marking Machine

  Advanced technology programmes ' Value of DTI grant offers made (£)

  Programme titles

  1990–91 £

  1991–92 £

  1992–93 to date £

  Advanced Robotics

  0

  2,891,102

  394,935

  Advanced Silicon Technology

  0

  0

  2,467,973

  Compounds Semiconductor Technology

  0

  684,624

  790,708

  Competitive Manufacturing: Information Gathering

  0

  0

  9,940

  Computer Aided Engineering

  1,014,469

  1,345,659

  629,961

  Gallium Arsenide

  4,335,800

  274,376

  0

  Information Engineering

  9,663,596

  7,136,310

  0

  Manufacturing Organisation, People and Systems

  0

  506,209

  727,155

  National Electronics Research Initiatives

  0

  85,000

  900,000

  Open Distributed Systems Architecture

  0

  786,700

  0

  Parallel Applications

  0

  13,000,000

  0

  Safety Critical Systems

  15,000

  7,195,154

  102,226

  Speech and Language Technology

  0

  0

  3,467

  Superconductivity

  312,815

  772,388

  1,326,837

  Systems Technology and Integration

  282,000

  2,119,910

  0

  272

  PRISM

  Continuous Reactor Processing

  Pyramis Limited

  Vital Signs Monitor

  Quantum Vision Limited

  Bio-Medical Imaging Detector

  R. M. Brown T/A Compojet

  Miniature Gas Turbine

  RDM Consultants Limited

  Brain Monitor Development

  Richard H. R. Abbott

  Hydroponic System

  Roger Hurrey

  High Speed Microprocessor

  Rombo Productions

  Multi-Media Development

  Roy Venton-Walters

  Advanced Light Aircraft

  S & C Thermofluids Limited

  Floating Booms—Oil Spillage

  S. Henderson

  The "MAC" Project

  Savawatt (UK) Limited

  Project Ashpic

  Selective Antibodies Limited

  Enhanced Specificity Immunoassay

  Semimetrics

  Materials Quality Testing

  Sintex Limited

  Sinterforming Waste Polymers

  SJB Engineering

  Extensiometers: Creep and Fatigue

  Spatial Image Systems Limited

  New Type of Computer Screen

  Specialist Micro Technology

  Solid State Disc Drive Design

  Spectrum 2000

  Advanced Position Sensors

  Sterimedix Limited

  Small Incision Nucleus Removal

  Swift 943 Limited

  Divemap

  Synpro M. I. Limited

  Gearless Print Roller Drive

  Systems Eng. (Lancaster) Limited

  Hand Held Diver Sonar

  Systems Eng. & Assessment Limited

  Tissue Characterisation

  Team Management Systems Limited

  Improvement in Orthodontics

  Teledictor Limited

  Ultrasonic Thickness Gauge

  Thermatec Engineering

  Electron Beam Welder

  TIC

  Interfaces For Specific Needs

  TJP Electronics Limited

  Automatic Tube Cutting

  Tom Wielkopolski

  Stepless Gear Drive

  Traffic Safety Systems Limited

  Traffic Light Video Camera

  Transmed Limited

  Improved Brain Function Monitor

  Trevor Holroyd T/A Sound

  Acoustic Testing Machine

  Advice

  Visible Sound

  Deaf Vocabulary Training

  Vista Optics Limited

  Deposit Resistant Material

  Vitronix

  Glass Ceramic Semiconductors

  Vuman Limited

  Anaesthesia/Sedation Monitor

  Welland Medical Limited

  Disposal Stoma Bag

  XL Technology Limited

  Inflatable Packer

  3D Research

  3D Digitizer

  3A Biotechnology

  Phonocardiometer

  3D Instruments Limited

  Motion Tolerant Compass

  Judging of Stage 2 entries has yet to be completed.

  273

  Programme titles

  1990–91 £

  1991–92 £

  1992–93 to date £

  Wealth From The Oceans

  2,093,282

  2,272,947

  1,284,068

  VLSI Design Automation

  0

  0

  2,478,996

  Value of grant offers made for projects within programmes

  17,716,962

  39,070,379

  11,116,266

  Consultancy, Awareness and Training

  2,369,015

  3,279,364

  1,703,179

  Total value of grant offers made

  20,085,977

  42,349,743

  12,819,445

  DTI funded EUREKA projects

  FY 1990–91:

  EUI87HYPASSE

  EU358 FORECAST

  EU409 EUROMAR SMURV

  EU462 PEPITE

  EU463 PCW

  EU465 ASSYSTO

  EU466 RUBPLAS

  EU468 EUROCOMP

  EU569 PARTIPRO

  EU574 SUMMIT

  EU584 RIVERMAN

  EU597 IPDOCS

  EU605 UNIPOS

  EU613 CUSOFT

  EU616 EURORIM

  EU625 VADIS

  EU630 QMIS

  EU637 PAL-PLUS

  EU645 MEDICINE

  EU661 SELECT

  FY 1991–92:

  EU99 HALIOS

  EU411 CERAM 2000

  EU487 ENVINET-INFOSYST

  EU568 M EDISENS

  EU579 JAMIE

  EU606 ACROPOL

  EU610 GRAPHICS

  1990–91

  Nil

  1991–92

  £ thousands

  Advanced Design Systems Ltd.

  Auto Robotic Loading System

  16·5

  Aerospace Systems & Technologies Ltd.

  Flash

  150·0

  AES Engineering Ltd.

  Bellows Seals

  43·8

  Aircraft Maintenance Supply Services

  Airconditioning Trolly

  106·2

  Alval Engineering Co. Ltd.

  Pervaporator

  39·0

  Anson Ltd.

  Metlock Union

  46·6

  Apple Engineering Ltd.

  Food Processing

  52·5

  Applied Vision Ltd.

  Ophthalmic Coating

  57·1

  Avondale Property (Holding) Ltd.

  Glass Reinforced Composite

  95·0

  BDS Biologicals Ltd.

  Coated Particle Immunoassays

  41·4

  Beta Instrument Co. Ltd.

  Integrated Process Control

  150·0

  BJM Insulation Products Ltd.

  CFC·Free Foam Manufacture

  38·4

  Boiler Management Systems Ltd.

  Automatic Boiler System

  28·6

  Boxford Ltd.

  Low Cost Lathe/Milling Machine

  70·9

  Boxstrong Ltd.

  Sheet Prismatic Reflector

  22·5

  Bracken Enterprises Ltd.

  Computer Aided Pattern Technique

  69·9

  Bradford University Software Services

  Computer Soft Graphics

  22·5

  Bradley Electronics Ltd.

  Tacan Ground Beacon

  150·0

  Carmichael Design & Engineering

  Roll Fed Labelling Machine

  150·0

  Carver & Co. (Eng.) Ltd.

  Combination Heater

  71·7

  Chilworth Technology Ltd.

  Calorimeter

  87·3

  Colourgen Ltd.

  Metallic Paint Matching System

  30·0

  Concorde Packaging Specialists

  Multi·Station Spooling Unit

  99·0

  274

  EU611 NEFO

  EU626 MUSHROOM FACTORY

  EU636 EUROPICON EU638 PARSIM

  EU643 SAFETY-INDAL

  EU673 TEPREN

  EU674 MOBILE ANALYSIS LAB

  EU681 HONEYCOMP PANELS

  EU690 ALASCA

  EU692 HADRIAN

  EU699 UBIQUITY

  EU701 MAESTRO

  EU710 ECMA PCTE

  EU7I6 QUASIAT

  EU721 BIOGENIE

  EU727 FRAIT

  EU742 E-AUTO

  EU745 EUROVOLTAIC

  EU747 ROFOMAG

  EU755 DIATOOLS

  EU775 TV-MIX

  EU291 LAMA

  EU730 PREMEC

  EU750 PORK MIDDLE

  EU776 CARP

  EU829 DECAY CONTROL

  The names of the businesses which have received grant offers under the support for products under research (SPUR) scheme are listed as follows with the project title and value in the years 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93 to date.
  275

  £ thousands

  Condition Monitoring Ltd.

  Machine Condition Software

  52·8

  Cooperheat (UK) Ltd.

  Solid State Power Source

  20·4

  Creos International Ltd.

  HF Generator

  128·7

  CSA Ltd.

  Antennae for PC Networks

  150·0

  Darron Tool and Engineering Ltd.

  Multi-Action Circulation Sub

  84·0

  Denford Machine Tools Ltd.

  CNC Desk Top Tutor

  30·0

  Depac Glideflare Systems Ltd.

  Modified Wood Fibre

  119·1

  Diomed Ltd.

  HP Portable Medical Laser

  150·0

  Disc Maintenance Services Ltd.

  High Speed Disc Drive

  121·7

  Don Whitley Scientific Ltd.

  Microbial Growth Monitoring

  62·5

  Edgley Aeronautics Ltd.

  Glider Fuselage

  95·4

  Edinburgh Instruments Ltd.

  Power Ultimate Reliability

  126·9

  Elkay Electrical Manufacturing

  Cable Glands

  64·8

  Emerson & Renwick Ltd.

  High Speed Cut Off Mechanism

  73·4

  Epichem Ltd.

  Monosilane Production

  54·2

  European Colour (Pigments) Ltd.

  Food Colours Based on NICA

  150·0

  Fabric Care Research Association

  Improved Processes for Laundry Industry

  51·7

  Fermentech Medical Ltd.

  Holoderm

  38·7

  Fernau Avionics Ltd.

  Precision DME Development

  147·1

  Fibrecast (UK) Ltd.

  Injection Moulding Resin

  100·3

  Film Technology

  Water Destructible Film

  141·8

  First Class Developments Ltd.

  Edible Holography

  136·5

  Forward Group pic

  Inspection and Test from Data

  150·0

  Geotechnical Instruments (UK) Ltd.

  Ultrasonic Dipmeter

  26·1

  GHB (Holding) Ltd.

  Rotary Letterpress

  27·0

  Giltech Ltd.

  Antibacterial Agent

  150·0

  Gledhill (Water Storage) Ltd.

  Thermal Storage Package

  42·9

  Graff Electronic Machines Ltd.

  Visual System for Simulation

  150·0

  GSPK Ltd.

  Plugging THP Holes

  42·6

  Herga Electric Ltd.

  Intrinsic Fibre Optic

  150·0

  Hocking NDT Ltd.

  Digital Signal Processing

  150·0

  HST Developments Ltd.

  New Kind of High Speed Tractor

  54·2

  Hycontrol Ltd.

  Ultrasonic Transducer

  70·5

  Hydraulic Analysis Ltd.

  Lead Detection in Pipe Lines

  57·3

  Imaging Technology Ltd.

  Microfilm Scanning Camera

  125·1

  Industrial Copolymers Ltd.

  Synthetic Resins

  32·2

  Industrial Electronic Automation

  Tempcheck

  104·3

  Informatics (Europe) Ltd.

  Patient Data Management

  150·0

  Integrated Control Technologies Ltd.

  Joystick Module Family

  18·4

  Integrated Optical Components Ltd.

  Lithium Niobate Component

  126·5

  Intercoat Industrial Paints Ltd.

  Pigmented Paint Finish

  146·3

  Interdri Ltd.

  Vacuum/Radiant Drying System

  105·6

  Interprise Ltd.

  Growth Promoter Animal Feed

  82·0

  J. F. Turkington (Eng) Ltd.

  Parcel Sorting Device

  21·3

  J. L. Automation Ltd.

  Larvis

  57·3

  John McGavigan & Co. Ltd.

  Membrane Car Horn Switch

  48·6

  John Woodhead (Dobroyd Mills) Ltd.

  Fibre Control System

  45·9

  Kays Electronics Ltd.

  Network 500

  4·7

  Ken Mills Eng. Co. Ltd.

  Fibre Bailing

  21·2

  KT Industrial Rubber Products

  Laminow Development

  46·2

  Laboratory Impex Ltd.

  Bactocyte

  150·0

  Lamberton & Co. Ltd.

  Numerical Controller

  117·9

  Lancashire Fittings Ltd.

  Stainless Steel Pipe Fittings

  150·0

  Laser Ecosse Ltd.

  Carbon Dioxide Laser

  135·0

  Longdin & Browning (Surveys) Ltd.

  Development of Clear Count

  44·4

  MacFarlane Smith Ltd.

  Animal Repellent Products

  150·0

  Magnex Scientific Ltd.

  Mini MRI Magnet System

  128·6

  Mast Laboratories Ltd.

  Infection Assessment Device

  52·0

  Materials & Corrosion Technology

  Monitoring Concrete Structures

  36·0

  MCC Engines Ltd.

  Merritt Engine Hybrid

  150·0

  Mutual Systems Ltd.

  Control & Monitoring S&H Ware

  30·0

  M4 Data Ltd.

  Optical & Magnetic Data

  150·0

  N. A. Software Ltd.

  Parallel Signal Processing Toolset

  120·9

  Netlon Ltd.

  Advanced Georgrids

  150·0

  New Tech Ltd.

  Dacromet Coating

  115·0

  276 277

  £ thousands

  Oakdale Batteries Ltd.

  Novel Battery

  94·5

  Oxford Lasers Ltd.

  Copper Laser R&D Programme

  78·6

  Oxley Developments Co. Ltd.

  Multiway Filters

  52·0

  P. G. Technology Ltd.

  Non Contact Measuring Module

  93·3

  Pascall Microwave Ltd.

  Advanced Microwave Amplifier

  31·7

  Pathtrace Engineering Systems Ltd.

  Advanced Manufacturing System

  150·0

  Pegson Ltd.

  Cone Crushers

  150·0

  Penn Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

  Lyophilisation Activies

  29·2

  Pennine Metronics Ltd.

  Child Security Tagging System

  25·4

  Pharmaceutical Proteins Ltd.

  Human Milk From Transgenic Cow

  150·0

  Polymer Laboratories Ltd.

  Torsional Rheometer

  102·5

  R. S. Clare & Co. Ltd.

  Aquaflex Road Markings

  46·1

  RDS Technology Ltd.

  Geographical Information Systems

  105·6

  Recognition Research Ltd.

  Novel Neural Network Software

  50·9

  Reekie Manufacturing Ltd.

  Stone and Clod Separator

  150·0

  Resource Conservation pic

  Wind Turbine Control Electrics

  64·5

  Reynolds Boughton Ltd.

  Mounted Container Handling System

  112·5

  Reynolds Medical Ltd.

  ECG Ambulatory Monitoring

  150·0

  Ridge way Science Ltd.

  On·Farm Heat Detection Kit

  28·5

  RIG Technology Ltd.

  Fluid Quality Control

  69·3

  Robinson Instruments Ltd.

  Stress Control Termination

  31·2

  Romag Glass Products Ltd.

  Furnace for Film Coating Glass

  107·2

  S. H. Wire & Tube Products Ltd.

  Coathangers

  35·9

  S. & D. Rivet Ltd.

  Portable Applicators

  150·0

  Sarclad International Ltd.

  Condition Monitoring System

  134·4

  Sauflon Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

  Contact Lens Neutralisation

  49·5

  Servomex (UK) Ltd.

  Gas Analysis

  133·9

  Shering Weighing Ltd.

  Digital Loadcell Project

  60·1

  Sifam Ltd.

  Fibre Optics Communications

  135·0

  Sira Ltd.

  Optical Measurement of Products

  131·0

  Snell & Wilcox Ltd.

  UP Converter for HDTV

  133·7

  Spectra·Tek Holdings Ltd.

  Distributed Database Flow

  94·3

  Steelpress Ltd.

  Coating Integrity of Steel

  37·0

  Sterotech Ltd.

  Sterile Solution

  30·5

  Submetrix Ltd.

  Interferometric Seabed Sonar

  76·6

  Surface Technology Systems Ltd.

  Plasma Wafer Processing

  58·9

  T. A. Savery & Co. Ltd.

  Pressure Balanced Pump

  43·8

  TDS Digitizers Ltd.

  Cordless Digitizing Stylus

  57·0

  Team Precision Engineering Ltd.

  DOUBLE

  19·5

  Tele-Trading International Sales

  DASAP 128i

  150·0

  Test Automation Ltd.

  Series 2000 Replacement

  37·8

  Timberliner Ltd.

  Slurry Injection Project

  39·0

  TQC Ltd.

  Process Control Simulation

  60·3

  TRL Technology Ltd.

  INMARSAT-M/B Modem Design

  39·8

  UCC International Ltd.

  On Line Viscosity Fluid

  56·4

  Usatt International Ltd.

  Power Station Simulator

  45·6

  Valeport Marine Scientific Ltd.

  400 Oceanographic Instrument

  149·0

  Voltech Instruments Ltd.

  3-phase Power Analyser

  46·2

  W. H. Dunn & Sons Ltd.

  "Wagtail' High Speed Product

  138·2

  Western Equipment Development Ltd.

  Multi-Cassette Wafer Sorters

  144·9

  Wicks & Wilson Ltd.

  Duplication of Aperture Cards

  150·0

  Willett Systems Ltd.

  Non·Porous Impulse Jet Printer

  150·0

  Wolfson Microelectronics Ltd.

  Mobile Communications

  98·3

  Zytek Systems Ltd.

  Engine Management Systems

  72·8

  3E Research

  XXEN

  73·7

  1992–93 to date

  £ thousands

  A B Automation Limited

  Control System and Soft/Hardware

  32·6

  Acro-Vu Limited

  Magazine CNC Bar Feed

  94·2

  Adams-Hydraulics Limited

  Membrane in X-Flow Filtration

  105·2

  Agropharm Limited

  Enrichment of Sesame Seed Oil

  58·7

  Akebia Limited

  High Speed Image Generator

  61·1

  Ascada Limited

  Open Computer System

  135·0

  Aztec Developments

  Soft Drink Mixture Control

  81·0

  Blow Moulding Controls Limited

  Electrical Leak Detection

  45·6

  278 279

  £ thousands

  Braid Systems Limited

  Image Messaging System

  150·0

  Branlow Builders Limited

  Branlow Probe Development

  59·9

  British Bio-Technology Products Limited

  R&D of 2 Enzymeimmunoassays

  140·0

  C M Microdat Limited

  Automated Cask Beer Racker

  30·7

  Calder Hydraulic Co. Limited

  VDR

  16·5

  Calluna Technology Limited

  High Performance 1·8 Hard Disc

  150·0

  Castle Care-Tech Limited

  Electronic Alarm Control

  96·9

  Caswell & Co. Limited

  Water Based Contact Adhesives

  48·7

  Chas E Goad Limited

  Geographical Information System

  87·0

  Computionics Limited

  Intelligent Call System

  104·1

  Copystatic Systems Limited

  Parts Forecasting Logistics

  138·5

  Crombie Anderson Associates Limited

  Automatic Aircraft Components

  128·2

  Datel Technology Limited

  Patient Management System

  106·9

  Delta-T Devices Limited

  Modular Data-Logger

  88·7

  Denne Developments Limited

  New Actuator System

  41·6

  Development Plastics Limited

  Residential Door System

  92·6

  Direct Technology Limited

  Automator QA For Windows

  81·9

  Donprint Label Systems Limited

  Radiation Curing Surface Coat

  49·0

  EBAC Limited

  Develop A Water Cooler

  71·0

  Eden Design Group Limited

  Advanced Pen Computer

  150·0

  Electro Automat (UK) Limited

  Switch Mode Charger Control

  18·0

  Equator Wheels & Sections Limited

  Dry Rolling of Aluminium

  24·0

  Europa Crown Limited

  Edible Oil Deodoriser Dev

  73·9

  Everitt Fabrications Limited

  Structural Steel Connections

  72·2

  Ex-Or Limited

  Fluorescent Ballast

  150·0

  First Inertia Switch Limited

  Inertia Fuel Pump Controller

  150·0

  Galatrek International Ltd.

  Powermaster

  145·2

  GBL Ltd.

  Polymer Photoreceptor Drums

  127·1

  GST Holdings Pic

  Windfall

  150·0

  H E Electronics

  Eng Control Inst—Gas Turbine

  34·1

  Hamech Ltd.

  E3 Reach Truck

  94·2

  Highlife Development Co. Ltd.

  Energy Housing Modular

  82·8

  Holroyd Associates Ltd.

  Polymer/Carbon Black Aid

  119·6

  Ilchester Cheese Co. Ltd.

  Pilot Plant for Waxed Cheese

  33·0

  Innovative Technologies Ltd.

  Advanced Wound Dressings

  84·8

  Interconnect Ltd.

  G3 Digital Telephone System

  150·0

  James Proctor Ltd.

  Biomass Mechanical Feeder

  27·3

  Jesse Brough & Co. (Recycling) Limited

  100 per cent. Recycling of Dross

  49·3

  K S Process Eng Ltd.

  Anvil Stamping Machine

  39·4

  Karrimore International Ltd.

  Load Carrying System

  150·0

  Kewill-Xetal Systems Ltd.

  EDI Clearing House

  88·7

  King & Fowler Ltd.

  Aluminium Surface Coating

  150·0

  Lindley Flowtech Ltd.

  Fluid Paniculate Monitor

  43·5

  Loctronic International Ltd.

  Fresh Potato Selector

  60·0

  Manufacturing Electrical Design Cons

  An Ex Loudspeaker

  28·5

  Mark Tyzack & Sons Ltd.

  Autogyro Project

  56·7

  Marl International Ltd.

  Extruded Liquid Optics

  117·0

  Medicina Ltd.

  Gastric Tonometer

  43·4

  Midland Chromium Plating Co. Ltd.

  Durable Electrolytic Finishers

  111·6

  Moor Instruments Ltd.

  Neuropathy Assessment Monitor

  58·6

  Navico Ltd.

  Networked Electronics 4 Boats

  150·0

  Nordiko Ltd.

  Frequency Ion Source

  72·7

  North West Roller Services Ltd.

  Laser Routing System

  46·5

  Pheonix Scientific Industries

  Close Coupled Inert Gas Atomiser

  52·8

  Planner Products Ltd.

  Bio Cryopreservation System

  45·9

  Polymeters Response International Ltd.

  Single Phase Electricity Meter

  150·0

  Precision Manufacturing Services Ltd.

  Saw Blade Grinder

  31·5

  Pulse Service Centre Ltd.

  Mini Servotrack Writers

  45·0

  Rayleigh Instruments Ltd.

  Electromagnetic Communication

  28·8

  Reddiplex Ltd.

  Polypropylene Machinery

  97·7

  Remote Technology Ltd.

  Fatigue Testing Rig

  16·2

  Storechange Ltd.

  Road Cone Sleeves Manufacture

  43·5

  Techlok Limited

  Novel Techring Flange System

  114·6

  280 281

  £ thousands

  Technology Systems Limited

  Laser Based Dot Matrix Coding

  150·0

  Textile Computer Systems (TCS) Limited

  True Colour/Shademaster

  48·0

  Transense Technologies Pic

  Electric Power Steering System

  46·9

  Trifid Software Limited

  Simultaneous Engineering Control

  150·0

  TRL Technology Limited

  Inmarsat M/B & Mes-B

  42·2

  Value Added Medical Products Limited

  Dev of Integ Med Management System

  150·0

  Ventron Technology Limited

  Synthesise Organotin Compounds

  146·7

  VLSI Vision Limited

  Colour Image Sensing

  150·0

  Webster Machine Development Limited

  The Webster Boom

  118·8

  Wellman Furnaces Limited

  Auto Metal Stacker/Pallet Feed

  71·9

  Weston Electric Units Limited

  High Speed Machining

  50·4

  Zeal Holdings Limited

  Glass Marking Laser/Monomer

  37·1

  Technology Transfer
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what responsibilities his Department has for the promotion of technology transfer from the public sector research base into industry.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 1 December 1992]: As part of improving the competitiveness of United Kingdom industry the Department of Trade and Industry seeks to optimise the benefits to industry of work carried out in the science base. Technology transfer is an important aspect of this process.

  The Department of Trade and Industry encourages technology transfer by offering direct help through a range of generic technology transfer programmes, for example, in biotechnology and information technology and also by
  282
  improving education/industry links, for example, the teaching company scheme. Overall, the Department spends some £100 million per year in support of technology transfer.

  Parcelforce
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will ensure that after the privatisation of Parcelforce a uniform tariff will be maintained.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 1 December 1992]: In the statement by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to the House on 15 July, Official Report, column 1137, of his intention to privatise Parcelforce, he stated that an essential requirement for the Government would be a continued universal parcel service at a uniform and affordable tariff. This remains the case.

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.

London Voluntary Bodies: Funding
Baroness David Baroness David asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will continue for a further period the three-year interim funding provided to London voluntary bodies for work with young people after the abolition of the Inner London Education Authority.
The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I am pleased to announce that the Government have agreed in principle to provide some further support to certain London-wide educational voluntary organisations in partnership with the London Boroughs Grants Committee.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister, because when she wrote to me some two months ago the answer was not quite the same. I should like to emphasise how very anxious the London services are and to ask whether she knows that already there have been tremendous cuts in the London region. Greenwich has seen a cut in its youth service of £350,000 and Newham has had a cut of £200,000. The number of inner London youth workers has fallen from 907 in 1989–90 to 608 in 1992–93, a loss of 33 per cent.
Noble Lords: Question!
Baroness David: My Lords, I am asking a question. The introduction was a question. Is it not madness to cut down on the service when crime rates in London are rising prodigiously?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, when I wrote to the noble Baroness two months ago I was talking about the end of the interim scheme. There is to be an end to the interim scheme. What I have referred to today is a wholly new scheme, which was in response to the London Boroughs Grants Unit. It asked for a partnership arrangement which would taper off. That is precisely what we have responded to. As for cuts, many of the points made by the noble Baroness have a lot to do with the priorities of local authorities in London themselves.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, in view of the rising crime rate and the need to divert youth from crime, can the Government say whether the funding of the new scheme is equivalent to the funding of the previous schemes? Perhaps the Government should be increasing their funding of these schemes and not just leaving local authorities to struggle.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the tackling of youth crime generally has a great deal to do with many other aspects of education, including the national curriculum. We are addressing some of those issues in the national curriculum. There are criteria to he established and discussions are going on at the moment between my department, the London Boroughs Association and the Association of London Authorities. They will produce the criteria. We shall publish the details both of the funding and of the criteria as soon as possible, and place the information in the Library.
Lord Judd: My Lords, can the noble Baroness clarify whether there is to be a cut in the level of central government support? Does she recall that both her ministerial colleague in another place, Nigel Forman, and the assistant commissioner of police have pointed out that the youth service is an invaluable way of achieving one of the Government's objectives, which is to preserve law and order?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is difficult to be precise in answering the noble Lord because the money that is going to the local authorities which will have money for the youth service is already known. However, we do not yet know the priorities within that. The money that goes to support the voluntary organisations, which have responsibility for 59 per cent. of provision for youth in London, will rise from £2.3 million to £2.8 million. There will be an additional £400,000 for the National Youth Agency, which will be the agent for giving government grants. There will be another £30,000 which will be given in each of three years to provide pump-priming ideas for the regional youth service. The scheme to which I have referred today is new money—additional money—to that which has gone before.
Baroness David: My Lords, I wish to get this quite clear. Will the new money to which the Minister has referred amount to more than the amount that was given during the three-year interim funding after the abolition of ILEA?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we are talking about two wholly different schemes. One is the tapering system. The local authorities knew that it was a tapering system and that it was time limited. That scheme will come to an end at the end of the financial year. There is a wholly new scheme. I have already said that the funding and the criteria for the application of that funding are yet to be established. We are having very good productive discussions with the London Boroughs Grants Unit, the London Boroughs Association and the Association of London Authorities. We shall place details in the Library as soon as possible.
Lord Elton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this is a welcome announcement on her part but that her reference to the tapering of funding over the past three years, as though that enabled the voluntary sector to find other resources in its place, is not altogether reassuring? The voluntary charitable foundations generally are averse to providing core

1335
funding for bodies which, if they do not have core funding, will not exist to raise charitable funds for their other activities with the result that voluntary sector activity will sharply decline unless the Government address this question.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I understand what my noble friend is saying. It is almost precisely because of our understanding of that difficulty that we have put a new scheme in place. The new scheme, in response to the London Boroughs Grants Unit, will be for a period and will be tapering to allow more time to establish proper funding for those national bodies.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, I speak as chairman of the Attlee Foundation, in the East End of London, which caters for young people, especially from Bangladesh. It is terribly short of money. Tower Hamlets Council does all that it can to help but it is still short of money. Cannot the Government do something to help?
Baroness BlatchMy Lords, with the understanding that whatever money there is there is a finite sum, it is important that we establish proper priorities. My department values greatly the work done in the voluntary sector. It is the majority provider of services for youth in London. I have already said that its budget will go from £2.3 million to £2.8 million.

Alcohol, Drug Crisis and Rehabilitation Centres
2.43 p.m.
Viscount Mersey Viscount Mersey asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they will be reducing payments to alcohol and drug crisis and rehabilitation centres by up to 50 per cent.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, the Government are not reducing the amount of funding available for alcohol and drug crisis and rehabilitation centres. Rather than clients being funded through income support, from April 1993 local authorities will become responsible for assessing and meeting their needs, and for collecting a means-tested contribution from the client where appropriate.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer, but there is now a large local element involved. Is she aware that many of the people about whom we are talking are homeless, and that it is, in practice, difficult to get their original local authority to accept any responsibility for them? Let us take the case of a young man sleeping rough on the Embankment who decides to take treatment in Lambeth and who claims to come from Dagenham. Will he be able to persuade the Dagenham local authority to pay £130 a week to Lambeth? That is what it must be. Surely Dagenham will be tempted to say something like, "We have never heard of this chap". The whole crisis is not a local one; it is a national issue. It should be funded entirely nationally.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that it is funded nationally in that the money is given to local government from the revenue support grant. The Government appreciate that this is a very special group of clients, and the concerns expressed by my noble friend are accepted by the Government. We are establishing good practice with local authorities. We have asked them to identify a particular scheme that they can operate to ensure that out-of-area referrals are taken into consideration, are followed up, and that those people are not disbanded.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that good practice is fine, but it is fine only if those centres can stay in existence? Does she recognise that there are many centres, especially residential ones, dealing with drug abuse and alcohol abuse cases that are fearful that after 1st April they will not be in business? This is not something that until now local government has had as its responsibility. The ending of ring-fencing for those projects is putting many of them in grave danger.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. This is a very difficult area. It is a new area for us. From 1st April next year it will be the local authorities' responsibility totally, with social security funding. The Government are very well aware of those problems, and have introduced a special monitoring system for the first three months of this scheme. It will be independent monitoring and from then on the Social Services Inspectorate will take on the monitoring. So we are keeping a very close eye on it.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, with the crime rate having risen by 45 per cent. in some areas, and thought to be drug-oriented, does the Minister think that the prisons will fill up if the rehabilitation centres have to close?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it is the Government's intention that no rehabilitation services that are offering a good service will close. That is why the new monitoring system has been introduced.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that the answers she has given today will not give great comfort to this area of the voluntary sector? Bearing in mind that the arguments put forward were agreed by her right honourable friend the present Home Secretary, then Secretary of State for Health, after considerable work in your Lordships' House and in another place during the passage of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill, we find it slightly galling that the Government have reversed completely that well-debated policy, without having the courtesy to bring it to the Floor of either House.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Mancroft will be aware that when the ring-fencing was first introduced the total sum of money for community care was not ring-fenced. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has gone further. She has ring-fenced the entire amount of money for community care. As one who has worked in local government, perhaps I may say that I am aware that local government does not like targeted,

1337
ring-fenced, small amounts of money because that does not enable it to exercise its own discretion. To local government ring-fencing is a little bit like what King Herod was to Mothercare.
Lord Desai: My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind that the agencies will have to write to many local authorities and that delays in payment by local authorities can cause a serious problem? What steps will the Government take to speed up the payment of moneys due to such agencies?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the Government have written to local authorities. My honourable friend the Minister has met voluntary organisations and together they are working out a fast-track assessment procedure so that just the sort of instance that the noble Lord has raised will not happen.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that, should the Government's new arrangements prove too cumbersome, with more people living on the streets needing treatment, that will inevitably lead to a rise in homelessness and people living rough?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the whole strategy that has been adopted to start on 1st April next year is to ensure that there are not more homeless people on the streets. It is to ensure that those who need the services for alcohol and drug misuse will be catered for. We believe that the new system will do that.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, will not the new arrangements starting in April impose an extra and unwanted burden on carers, who, in any case, are overworked?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I do not believe that that is the case.

Drugs: Local Authority Co-ordinators
2.50 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they have decided to cut drug health education co-ordinator posts in local authorities.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, what we are doing is bringing to an end, on schedule, our grant to local education authorities for preventive health education. It was made clear to LEAs when the grant was introduced in 1990–91 that it was pump-priming and limited to three years. There is, however, nothing to prevent them from continuing to employ local co-ordinators.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is she aware that these co-ordinators were an important link between the Health and Education Departments? Does she agree that government departments do not always work together as well as they should? It is sad that this decision was taken last week, in European Drug Prevention Week.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the decision was not just taken then, it was determined right at the beginning of the scheme. It was a three-year grant and everyone knew that it would finish at the end of this financial year. What we have said is that it is important work. The point that my noble friend makes —and I believe it is important—is the way in which everyone works together. Local authorities work with district health authorities, making sure that the important work is not neglected.
Lord Judd: My Lords, can the noble Baroness clarify whether or not the Government regard drug prevention as a high priority? If they do, how can they begin to justify this ill-judged cut in a dedicated and effective auxiliary educational service when teachers themselves are so hard-pressed by the new curricula and other matters? They simply have no time, let alone the energy, to devote to essentials of this kind.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we take this work very seriously. It is important to understand the role of education. We have worked through the National Curriculum Council to provide detailed guidance for teachers for that very work in schools. That is where the educational process should start; that is where we should promote and encourage and educate for better lifestyles among our young children. We are talking about one health co-ordinator for each local authority. That was pump-priming, it is the essence of our grant-giving in this sphere. If local authorities believe that it is important and a good way to work, they can pick up that work in the normal budgeting process.
Lord Judd: My Lords, has the noble Baroness looked at how effective these people were before that decision was taken?
Baroness Blatch: Yes, my Lords, we have seen how effective they were. The grant has been in existence since it was introduced in 1986 for drugs. It then moved on to alcohol and the scope was widened. The work is well established, it was pump-priming. In those authorities where it has worked and the method is supported, that method will be picked up by the local authorities.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, can the Minister say how many co-ordinators there are at present and how many are likely to lose their jobs when the grant comes to an end?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I understand that as it relates to this scheme it is about one per local authority. How many there are will be a matter for local authorities who may well employ more than one. My understanding is that they are so important to local authorities that they will continue to use them in that way. It is only one aspect of the work that is supported, local authorities use these co-ordinators for much wider health education purposes.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, will the Minister accept that, when this excellent grant was first introduced, such a great increase in drug abuse was not expected. In view of the Government's concern and the

1339
Minister's assurance this afternoon, should not the matter be reconsidered? Does she really believe that most local authorities will continue this post out of their own money? Has she not heard of the many local authorities who will not do so and will she reconsider the decision?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, if I believed that this was the only source of money that was applied to the education for lifestyle for young people, I would agree with the noble Lord. However, this is a small part of it. There appears to be a misunderstanding in the House of how the GEST programme works. They are grants for educational support and training and from year to year the priorities change. If there are new ones, then local authorities pick up the money and feed it into the normal budgeting process. Then we will move on to pump-priming in another area which may also be important to the work of local authorities.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, will my noble friend accept from me that what is not needed is more health education co-ordinators because the form of drug prevention as discussed in the House today is of no consequence? It does not prevent any child from doing anything. What is needed is a system of education which teaches children to take responsibility for their lives and their health.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. I think I have already said that it is a matter for education and that the National Curriculum Council is issuing detailed guidelines for teachers to help schools plan a comprehensive programme of health education for all pupils, promoting always within a spiritual and moral context that they should learn to live healthier lifestyles.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, does the noble Baroness remember introducing a Bill into the House last year on the inspection of schools? Under that legislation the inspection of schools, which is now extremely costly, was to be borne by local authorities themselves out of money which they previously spent on their advisory services. How on earth does she expect them to appoint drug co-ordinators or any other kind of advisory service?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the premise on which the noble Lord makes those comments is wrong. The money for school inspection was, I think from memory, about £72 million. Only half that money has been removed from local authorities and it will be fed back to them as the inspection takes place. The inspection will not be at a cost to local authorities, the money is in the system. Indeed, more money has been added to it.
When the inspections take place the inspectors will monitor what is most important—that is, the output of the work. It is no good saying that health education should take place in schools unless there is an inspection system to make sure that it is happening to a standard that has an impact on the lives of young people.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the drug pushers are cunning and are targeting the schools and even giving the children free drugs so that they become hooked? Does she agree that it is a serious problem?
Baroness Blatch: Yes, my Lords, I absolutely agree with that. To that end, I believe that we all have a part to play: parents, schools, teachers and, where possible, the policies of local authorities. But one health co-ordinator does not tackle the whole of the problem.
Lord Russell of Liverpool: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that officials from her department are at present speaking to their counterparts in the Department of Health? They are trying to ensure that there are local collaborative arrangements and agreements between local education authorities and regional health authorities to make sure that where that is working it continues in one form or another and, where it is not working, that they do something about it.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I can give an absolute assurance on that point. We are discussing with our health colleagues continued central government encouragement of effective action in the general field of preventive health education about drugs, alcohol and smoking, as well as HIV and AIDS in particular, in the light of the publication of the White Paper The Health of the Nation.

Security and Intelligence Services
2.58 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter Lord Bonham-Carter asked Her Majesty's Government:
By what percentage the budget of the security services has been reduced following the collapse of communism in the Eastern bloc.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, it has been the policy of successive governments not to comment on matters relating to the operation of the security and intelligence agencies.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her Answer, which can hardly be regarded as either surprising or satisfactory. However, it does not conform with the Prime Minister's statement of 6th May 1992 that:
"We will sweep away many of the cobwebs of secrecy which needlessly veil too much of government business".
He then asked his right honourable friend the Chancellor to identify other areas where there may be excessive secrecy. Is not this an area where excessive secrecy exists which has nothing directly to reveal about operational matters? Will the Minister agree that it is obvious that with the collapse of the Soviet empire some drop in the budget for the security services must follow? Is it not reasonable for those of us who have to pay for these security services to know the order of reduction which has been made?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I remind the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, just as my right

1341
honourable friend the Prime Minister said in his statement on 6th May, that the security services have a continuing role in providing foreign intelligence and overseas support in furtherance of the Government's foreign, defence, security and economic policies. That continuing role in the protection of our national security is extremely important. I cite one clear piece of evidence for this and that is the contribution which they can make in the fight against this awful terrorism with which the world is still plagued.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the collapse of communism, as the Question put it, has in no way removed the dangers that seem to have followed in the wake of that collapse? Things are as disturbed, difficult and dangerous as ever they were.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble friend is right. I can assure him that we shall make sure that the budgets of the security and intelligence agencies are subjected to detailed scrutiny at all times. But there is no way in which any responsible government should let up in their fight against terrorism in this uncertain and unstable world. Good and timely intelligence is essential to deal with the threats and challenges which face us.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, for purely security reasons, the Minister may not be able to comment in any detail on the role of the security services. However, when giving consideration to the subject matter of the noble Lord's Question, will she bear in mind that at the present time there are ominous signs of the growth of fascism in Europe, partly due to the fragmentation of the old communist empire and partly because of mass unemployment? Will she take steps to ensure, without necessarily commenting publicly upon them now, that the security services are purged of some of the obsolete ideologies that they themselves held and address themselves to the menace of fascism?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am quite certain that everyone in this House, in another place and in the whole security service will address themselves forcefully to the evils of fascism. However, I shall note what the noble Lord has said, and I shall make sure that it is seen by those who should see what he has said.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, will the noble Baroness accept that it is increasingly my conviction, having twice been nominally in charge of MI5, that the security services in several fields cause more trouble than they are worth? In my experience, they occupied far more of Ministers' time with their own internecine quarrels than with any effective information which they provided. Is the noble Baroness aware that my advice to any new Minister in a sensitive department would be never to sign automatically anything coming up from the security services, and to be pretty cautious about signing it at all? In those circumstances, would it not be reasonable that the security services should be subject to normal financial stringency?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I note what the noble Lord has just said. I am always a cautious person and I shall be cautious in replying to the noble Lord and simply say to him that I am sure that for all his experience, others have experience which is contrary to that.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that at a time when we are moving from a single monolithic threat to our security to a world of multiple threats and multiple dangers, and at a time when we are reducing our own military establishment, this would be the most foolish time of all to start to reduce the amount of resources which we devote to our intelligence and security services?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, is right. We must consider with the greatest care where we can make reductions or where we may not be able to make reductions but where we have to do more work, in particular on counter-terrorism.
Lord Richard: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware—I am sure she is—that there is a widespread and I believe increasing feeling in many parts of the country that while secrecy is extremely important in the operation of the security services, it has perhaps become a little too all-pervading? Can the noble Baroness tell us whether there are any plans for the Comptroller and Auditor-General, who scrutinises the activities of the secret services, to make an annual report which could be debated in Parliament; and, if not, what proposals do the Government have for giving the British public more information about what is done in their name, and indeed for which they pay?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the right time for a discussion of this matter is when we bring the Bill before your Lordships' House. As the noble Lord, Lord Richard, knows, that is planned for this Session of Parliament. I would simply say that the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee made it quite clear in another place on 27th January 1987 that the Comptroller and Auditor-General would consult with him about the handling of highly classified projects within the Public Accounts Committee. We can debate the exact manner in which this is done, as the noble Lord has indicated just now.
Lord Elton: My Lords, if we are to have the information the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, requires us to have, would it not save money and add to public enjoyment if it could be edited and written by John le Carre and sold to defray costs?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, what a wonderful idea!
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the only time the security forces have agreed with each other is when they were trying to unseat the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, when he was the Prime Minister of this country? That is about the measure of their uselessness. I believe this is the first

1343
time in history—or at least in recent history—that I am entirely in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead.

Business: Timed Debate
3.7 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to say a word about the length of speeches in today's debate standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Annan. As the debate has been limited to five hours, all speeches should be limited to a maximum of six minutes, apart from the mover and the Minister in reply. If any noble Lord should speak at greater length he would be doing so at the expense of other speakers in the debate. As we are in a day which may be dominated to an extent by the art of précis, it may be worth drawing to your Lordships' attention the fact that when the sixth minute is indicated on the digital clock, on which no numbers at this moment are present, that indicates that the seventh minute has already begun.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I hope I may point out to the House that there are 39 speakers due to speak in the debate today. There would have been several more had there not been such a large number of speakers on the list. I for one withdrew my own name as I consider that to have spoken for anything less than six minutes would not be serious. Does the Minister recognise that there is an enormous amount of interest in this subject, particularly as regards the future of some of our very great hospitals? Does he accept that there should be more time for debate, preferably two days in government time, so that noble Lords with all their experience can apply their minds to this issue?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sure that with the great experience that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has on these matters he will not wish to overcome or re-erect the delicate organisation of the usual channels as they have existed for so long in both Houses to great, and I hope purposeful, effect and to the benefit of all Members of both Houses.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, however indelicate it may be to ask my noble friend, does he consider that, when so large a number of noble Lords indicate that they wish to speak on a subject of importance, it is up to the House authorities to secure that they have adequate time, and six minutes is not adequate time? Is there any reason why, when there is this number of applicants to speak in a debate of this kind, a second day should not be provided?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the truth of the matter is that the proposer in whose name the debate stands did not address himself to me on this subject. If an address had been made to myself that would of course have to have been adjusted through the usual channels. It is difficult to expect the Government at this late hour to respond on something which had been arranged to the satisfaction of those concerned as the best we could achieve in the circumstances.
Lord Alport: My Lords, is it not the duty of both Chief Whips to manage this House in what they regard as the interests of the House as a whole? They should not wait for an initiative to be taken by a private Member of the House who has initiated a debate when they can see quite well that six minutes is not sufficient for a subject which is of great interest and concern to a great many Members of this House?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, as the Government Chief Whip I have to take into account the views and aspirations of all Members of your Lordships' House. One crime of which I believe I am not guilty is that of being able to anticipate a week ahead the number of speakers whose names will be put down for a particular debate. I have also to give consideration to those whose names have been put down to speak on business which follows the debate and who may also have made commitments in the light of what they understood to be the timetable. That consideration is of equal importance.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, perhaps I may come to the aid of the noble Lord the Chief Whip. There is a problem in your Lordships' House when this type of situation arises. It would be equally unfair to those noble Lords who have set down their names to speak in the debate and who anticipated that they would be able to leave your Lordships' House at about eight o'clock this evening if they were to find that they had to stay on until 10 o'clock or 11 o'clock or had to return tomorrow to continue the debate. The decision to limit the time for each speaker to six minutes could only be made in the light of the number of names which were put down to speak. It has become clear only in the last 36 hours that there was a problem. It was then too late for everybody to be informed of the possibility of allowing extra time. I feel that the noble Lord the Chief Whip is coming under the lash for something that is not his fault.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, will the House accept that in raising the matter I did not seek to criticise any Chief Whip, all of whom appear to be hanging together at present? I asked that, bearing in mind the enormous interest in the subject and the interests of those who might have wished to add their names to or who took their names off the list, the usual channels should recognise that interest and should create an opportunity for a two-day debate as was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter.
Baroness Hylton-Foster: My Lords, the mover of the Motion and others were consulted as to whether they would like an open-ended debate or a five-hour debate. As only a limited number of names had been put down it was decided to have a five-hour debate. After that decision was taken, a number of additional names were put down but there was no possibility of changing that decision.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I have been privy to the swiftly moving scene over the past two days. The House should recognise the problems facing not only the Government Chief Whip but also others in trying to be fair to the House. When the decision

1345
was made to limit the debate to five hours—by no one other than the person in whose name the Motion was tabled—that was done in order to allow an adequate amount of time for those who at that time had indicated a wish to speak. In the past two days almost half the number of speakers on the list added their names.
The Procedure Committee is due to meet soon. I suggest to the House that we should learn from our experience and attempt the impossible—to satisfy those who would like to speak while bearing in mind that some people will wish to speak but sometimes do not stay until the end of the debate. All those aspects need to be taken into account and I suggest that the matter should be considered by the Procedure Committee when it meets next week.

European Communities Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Hunt of Tanworth be appointed to the committee in place of the Lord Chalfont.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Health Care in London: Tomlinson Report
3.14 p.m.
Lord Annan Lord Annan rose to call attention to the Tomlinson Report and to the case for the modernisation and development of the facilities for general practitioners in London and for the reorganisation of teaching and research in the inner London hospitals; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Motion I am moving should be as much in the name of my noble friend Lord Hunter of Newington as in my name, since he and others who will speak this afternoon are far more qualified to move it. The only melancholy qualification which I have is that from my experience in the University of London, with its then 14 medical schools and 11 medical institutions, I know how prodigiously difficult it is to persuade the consultants and practitioners in teaching hospitals to adopt the conclusions of any report.
The nub of the Tomlinson Report is this. London's historic teaching hospitals are mostly in the centre of London. Unfortunately, too few people live there. Those hospitals are all expensive and the money spent on them is needed to relieve London's inadequate and often squalid primary health care. There are numbers of consulting rooms without basin, lavatory or couch on which to examine patients. London is full of the homeless, refugees and very poor people, speaking 50 languages. The turnover in population is high. In some wards 15 per cent. are not registered with a general practitioner. London needs local health centres because a higher proportion of general
1346
practitioners than elsewhere are over 65 or work single-handed. The report says that it will cost £140 million to bring primary health care up to standard.
Where is the money to come from? Sir Bernard declares that fewer beds will be needed in central London, partly because fewer outpatients from the suburbs are likely to be treated as the district health authorities will find it cheaper under the new system of purchasing services to buy those services locally rather than in the great teaching hospitals; and also partly because techniques in medical care are changing and patients are hospitalised for shorter periods.
Therefore Sir Bernard recommends that 2,500 beds should be closed, the number of medical schools reduced to four and the number of medical students reduced by 150, to between 500 and 600. Furthermore, he recommends that the students should be taught more in community settings with general practitioners and in the peripheral hospitals which serve more densely populated areas. Even more ominous for the teaching hospitals is his recommendation that the special increment for teaching and research (SIFTR) should be shared with those peripheral hospitals. Sir Bernard hopes that the money saved by the rationalisation of the teaching hospitals and the sale of their sites will be available for improving primary care and for restructuring the medical schools.
This is the third time in 25 years that a report has been made recommending that savings could be made by merging London's teaching hospitals. The 1968 Royal Commission of the noble Lord, Lord Todd, reported in those heady days of great expenditure on universities. He envisaged the purchase of sites and the erection of gleaming buildings running into many millions of pounds. They were to be the wedding gifts to the brides and grooms he had proposed should marry. But when the dowries were not forthcoming it was a case of "the marriage arranged will not now take place".
Then came the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, and his working party in 1980. They were far more successful. The marriage between the Westminster and Charing Cross was actually consummated and the Middlesex and University College Hospital formed joint departments. What is more, St. Mary's looked across Hyde Park and fell into the arms of Imperial College. But Guy's and St. Thomas's, though they went to the altar, did not cohabit. Bart's, though it was compelled to merge its pre-clinical medical school with Queen Mary's Westfield, did not unite its clinical departments with those of the Royal London. Once again the Royal Free declined all offers of marriage and remained a spinster.
Why did those two initiatives fail? The first reason can be summed up in the word "turf". Consultants refuse to surrender what they call "my beds" and therefore refuse to merge their department with that in another hospital. In paragraphs 148 and 149 of the report Sir Bernard gives examples of shameful duplication of services and specialties that continue because consultants continue to cling to their turf.
The second reason flows from the first. Whitehall tried to make the tail wag the dog. The Department of Health was always hoping that the University of

1347
London would solve its problem for it, because if some medical schools could be closed, the hospitals could be closed. The only place where that was on the cards was Westminster. So long as a hospital was not under direct financial threat, why should a medical school sacrifice itself? But under Tomlinson the main onus for success or failure will rest on the Department of Health.
The only way economies can ever be made in London medicine is by applying financial sanctions. In 1970 I implored the principal and the court of the University of London to produce a financial shotgun to induce the medical schools to marry. They would not do so. Today it is equally vain to hope that the University of London will do so. The university is saddled with a constitution which in my judgment is incapable of taking unpopular and contentious decisions. Indeed, the University of London no longer has the power to do so because the big multi-faculty schools are now financially independent. The Universities Funding Council is therefore now making separate deals with the four main multi-faculty schools under which the medical schools are to be grouped. As a result, the vice-chancellor and Sir Colin Dollery, who are trying to co-ordinate policy, find that medical schools tell them one thing and without consultation they and their parent multi-faculty school tell the Universities Funding Council or the Department of Health something quite different.
But even more alarming to me is the attitude of the Universities Funding Council. Mr. Graham Davies, so I understand, has reassured medical schools that he will not employ financial pressures to compel them to amalgamate and save resources. So on the academic side there will be little pressure to change.
I do not want to be unfair. There has been a change of heart in the medical schools. I do not doubt that Guy's and Thomas's are now willing to merge with King's and even accept that one or other site will have to be vacated. As for the smaller specialist hospitals, St. Mark's, for instance, goes all the way with the report in its recommendation—a very sensible one it is too—that St. Mark's should move to Northwick Park and separate from Bart's.
The pressure to change, the report argues, will come from the Department of Health provided that the Secretary of State is firm. The pressure—so Tomlinson thinks—is inevitable because the new policy in the NHS of forcing district health authorities to purchase services in the cheapest market has opened a gap between the purchaser and the teaching hospitals that until now provided those services. The gap is now £70 million to £80 million and the deficit in those hospitals is forecast to rise soon to £130 million. So the report assumes that at last the shy spinsters, such as St. Bartholomew's and the Royal Free, will recognise that they must embrace the suitor that has been waiting for them for the past 25 years.
That brings me to my main criticism of the report. For a report that is financially driven, it has a negligible amount of financial reasoning. The report's main argument is that the savings made by amalgamating teaching hospitals will then be
1348
available to improve primary care. Can naivety go further? Whoever heard of the Treasury agreeing to a swap of that kind? Again, does anyone believe that British Rail is financially in a position to buy poor quality buildings from St. Mary's?
Indeed, will there be any savings visible? I hope that the Secretary of State will not urge the move of the Royal Marsden and the Royal Brompton into Charing Cross. It would cost anything between £50 million and £80 million. I hope, however, that she will compel them to merge financially and administratively and to merge their pathology departments. Savings of that kind can be made. Some specialist hospitals in central London could sell their sites, but not until the big teaching hospital sites have been rebuilt. The trouble about rationalisation—it is always the same —is that it nearly always requires more expenditure today to bring about real savings tomorrow.
The University of London accepts that primary health care must come first and that the decisions on teaching hospitals will follow. But the university naturally says that very large sums will be needed to bring about the change—for redundancy, for vast alterations to premises and, above all, for the preservation of London as the national centre for clinical research. Some of these claims are valid. If King's College is to teach the pre-clinical students of the combined schools of King's, Guy's and Thomas's, those pre-clinical departments must have new premises on the St. Thomas's or the Guy's site. At UCH there is the vacant Odeon site, as it is called. Build on that, refurbish the remaining buildings on that site, and most of the Middlesex site could then be sold. The cruciform building, listed as an historic object, could be left closed until later; then it could be refurbished to bring in institutes and beds for child health, ear, nose and throat, neurology and ophthalmology.
I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to confirm that like a wise squirrel she has been hiding a store of funds to start some of these schemes. It would be disastrous if after all this work nothing could be done to keep the momentum going. I hope too that the noble Baroness will give some indication about the future of the Bart's site, which contains historic and listed buildings. If it must merge, could not that great institution house specialist centres and become a polyclinic serving out-patients from the commuters to the City of London?
There has to be some change in London medicine. But at the same time the report contains some other contentious assumptions with which I hope the noble Baroness will deal. Is health care in London so much more expensive than elsewhere? Noble Lords from north of the Border will not, I hope, mind me mentioning that the cost of the NHS in Scotland is 30 per cent. higher than in England and Wales. In London 14.7 per cent. of patients, Tomlinson admits, wait more than a year for a bed. In fact, London has only 4 per cent. more beds than the national average. The report admits that the special needs of London are 5 per cent. above the average. Does that not balance the account?
I do not neglect the anguish which rationalisations of this kind cause. There are more lawyers than doctors in this House. I ask them: how would they react were it proposed that the Inner and Middle Temples should merge, that the Middle Temples be demolished, the site sold and a quarter of the barristers and their pupils sent on to the northern circuit? We are discussing today an issue which rouses the strongest emotions. I could feel the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, breathing down my neck—I cannot feel it any longer, because he has left his place—every time I mentioned the word Guy's. Whatever I say does not diminish my sympathy for those whose professional status and livelihood are threatened. Doctors are fanatically loyal to their hospitals as are officers to their regiments. But there is this difference: officers are trained to obey orders from above.
Loyalty to hospitals is not confined to the medical profession. We too are fanatically loyal to the hospital of our choice. Some of the worst mistakes in medical planning can be laid at the door of Members here and in another place. Was it not loyalty to the Westminster Hospital that led to the erection of the vast new hospital on the Fulham Road which no one, except the inhabitants of Fulham, now wants and which has led Tomlinson to recommend that Charing Cross Hospital only a short distance away should be closed? I implore your Lordships—those who have come here to make a plea that their favourite hospital should not be touched —to put forward a practical alternative.
I am trying to speak for less than my permitted time in order to give my noble friend Lord Hunter an additional few minutes. However, I wish to add one further point. I hope that an argument that I have heard expressed on several occasions will not be pressed. It is that there must be an accident and emergency centre to meet cases of cardiac arrest, cerebral thrombosis or other grave injuries occurring in the Westminster and Whitehall area. It would be cheaper and more effective to have a small paramedic unit in or near the Palace of Westminster than to keep a whole hospital in being. The public accepts that outside London a 30-minute ambulance journey to hospital is par for the course. We are still within 15 minutes by ambulance of UCH or the new Westminster and Chelsea Hospital. On that sombre note, my Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.32 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for giving us the opportunity to debate this issue. Its importance is indicated by the number of noble Lords who have put down their names to speak. Indeed, we are looking forward to hearing some splendid maiden speeches. In the short time at my disposal I shall concentrate on some general principles rather than talk about particular hospitals or areas.
London has long-standing problems which are outlined in the Tomlinson Report. It lists previous reports which have also pointed out that London's two major problems are an inadequate provision of primary health care and an over-concentration of
1350
hospitals in inner city areas. If those problems have existed for so long—that is, before and during the NHS—why have they suddenly become rather urgent?
In some ways the arrangements have stood the market test. The health status of people in London, especially in the deprived inner city areas, is no worse —indeed, it is better—than that of people in deprived areas elsewhere. That is shown by the King's Fund Report. The problems have become urgent not because they are new. The new development is the changed mode of financing. The Tomlinson Report and the King's Fund Report have not addressed themselves to the real radical question of whether, if one has an internal quasi market, the present system is the best system for creating that. At the root of some of the problems which are today urgent for London but which tomorrow will affect every large urban area in the country is the system of financing; the method of providing the money. Until we examine that issue we shall no doubt reach the wrong conclusions. Those conclusions may be persuasive in the light of the given financing arrangements, but I believe that they must questioned.
London is not over-bedded nor is it overtly unhealthy. However, we are told that health care in London is expensive. As regards the private market, London's theatres and restaurants are more expensive than those outside. Indeed, anything one does in London costs more than anywhere else. The private market, whose virtues are extolled by Members opposite, has a nice logic; it sets different prices for different commodities provided in different areas. But that logic is not available to a bureaucratic quasi market, which sets the same price. The problem is that having cut ourselves off from the universal entitlement in the NHS so that people do not have to worry about prices except in an overall budget context, we now have to set prices. Setting one price is inadequate; one has to set a separate price for different districts and areas and for people differing in age, health, gender and so on. That is what the market does but we have not done that. The result is the strange belief that London is too expensive and something must be done about its hospitals. Let us remember that through the 1980s many small hospitals in London were closed down or merged. Now one of the conclusions is that London needs more small hospitals. Therefore, having closed down several small hospitals we now need more new small ones. We must check against hasty reform.
Furthermore, in pricing services and making capitation grants we have, first, adopted a simple mode and, secondly, we have forgotten that teaching hospitals need patients as a resource. They do not represent only a cost; they are a resource for future research and an asset. That is another principle that is hard to remember. My time is running out. All I can say is that radical reasoning is required. We must think again and think carefully about re-examining not only London's hospitals but the financing of health care throughout the country.
3.37 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I have only six minutes and so I too shall endeavour to dismiss the universe in a few easy phrases. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Annan. for giving us the first bite at a large cherry. Perhaps it would he appropriate to describe the subject as a whole hunch of cherries. I am certain that your Lordships will need many debates on the subject during which we shall have more than six minutes to discuss individual topics. There are many issues to be discussed in great detail before they are finally resolved and I am sure that by one means or another—whether as a result of the Government or others providing time—we shall have many debates on the subject. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, who has already had his six minutes to discuss the matter, but in another way, that he will have many more opportunities in the future.
I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Annan, on wording his Motion in such a way as to invite us to study this complicated subject in a logical fashion. He has asked us to look first at the needs of domiciliary and community care in London. I am sure that he was right in doing so. I also thank Sir Bernard Tomlinson for his report, which was published speedily. It appears to be a little short on evidence but has much to commend it in certain of its conclusions. I welcome the fact that the report is the first I have seen which begins with a summary. The summary is very interesting. It states:
"Primary and community health services are comparatively underdeveloped in London. Resources need to be diverted from the hospital sector into these services in order to bring standards up to those found elsewhere, and to enable the rationalisation of hospital services in inner London. In particular, additional funds need to be made available for raising the standard of GP premises in inner London. Greater flexibility needs to be introduced into the General Medical Services so that within designated 'primary care development zones', FHSAs will he able more effectively to secure strategic health objectives".
At the very beginning of the report Sir Bernard directs us to what is absolutely crucial.
In my mind there is no question but that there is a great deal wrong with community and domiciliary care and family health services in London. In March 1990, 60,000 people in the city were in temporary accommodation or sleeping rough. There are now more than 26,000 homeless people in the capital. Those people have almost no access to family health services, but they should have such access.
Some noble Lords may remember that a report published some time ago said that there should be an experiment with salaried doctors; that there should be full-time salaried GPs. The experiment was never conducted. The Labour Party, which liked the idea of a salaried service, realised that that was only possible in a system of health centre practices. From a capital investment point of view it would have been utterly impossible to establish health centre practices in every part of Britain. Therefore, no attempt at that experiment was ever conducted.
Now we have an example. The Government have appointed salaried dentists in certain areas to supply National Health Service dental treatment in places where it is not otherwise available. I suggest that there
1352
should be an experiment with salaried GPs in certain areas to ensure that homeless people or those in bed and breakfast accommodation at least have an opportunity of access to GP services.
Much else is wrong with community services in London. Almost half—that is, 46 per cent.—of general practitioner services in London fall below the Government's minimum standard. The capital has twice the proportion of singlehanded GPs and three times the national average who are over retirement age. Not only must GP practices in London be brought up to a decent standard but they must be designed in an appropriate way for the use of the elderly, disabled and those chronically ill who are no longer to receive hospital treatment and hospital care. That is absolutely vital.
I come from Manchester. I qualified in medicine at Manchester University. I then worked in hospitals in Manchester. It would be an impertinence for me to start talking about London hospitals and I should not dream of doing so. The situation in London hospitals has developed historically. Able and talented people have inevitably moved to London and therefore there have been centres of excellence in London hospitals. But we have had them elsewhere—in Newcastle, Liverpool and Manchester. In London they were concentrated.
The Government should begin on the first task; namely, to improve community and domiciliary care in London. They should realise that that will cost money but the money is there to be obtained later when they move to the second part of the exercise. They will obtain the money from the re-organisation of the hospital teaching and research services in hospitals in London. I hope that the Government will proceed in that way.
I look forward to hearing the maiden speeches today, in particular that of the noble Lord, Lord Hayhoe. I believe that he escaped from office before the review of the National Health Service by the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, was written. I do not know. Perhaps he was responsible for it.
3.44 p.m.
Lord Hayhoe: My Lords, first, I must say how grateful I am for the warm and friendly welcome that I have received from noble Lords in all parts of the House. I thank also the Clerk of the Parliaments, Black Rod and officers and staff of the House for their help and advice.
The contrast in coming here from another place is quite distinct, if not as sharp, as that noted by Mrs Patrick Campbell on her marriage when she spoke of exchanging "the hurly burly of the chaise-longue" for "the deep, deep peace of the double bed", although I do not suggest that there is any feather bedding in your Lordships' House. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Annan. His Motion has tempted me to override my natural caution and the advice given by, I think, Disraeli to a new Member who asked when and how often he should speak. "Better for people to wonder why you do not speak, rather than why you do", was the reply.

1353
The Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, is correctly focused on the essential elements of the Tomlinson Report, unlike so much of the superficial media comment. The Motion lays stress on the need to improve primary care and on the major reforms of medical education and research in inner London hospitals which must also be carried through after proper consultation and with real sensitivity. I should declare an interest as a trustee of a medical charity and a non-executive director of an international health care company.
Of course, the patchwork pattern of London's great medical schools should have been transformed many years ago, as the noble Lord, Lord Annan, indicated, but their defences were strong, their traditions much respected and their trustees and patrons powerful and well placed. But times have changed. It is now just plain wrong to resist what I believe are constructive and necessary pressures for reform.
Account must be taken of the undoubted fact that hospitals in inner London consume much more than their fair share of NHS resources in England. Costs are too high and efficiency and effectiveness are too low. What a pity that greater care, or perhaps more effective control, was not exercised over major hospital building projects in inner London in recent years. Arguments about recent capital expenditure must not mask consideration of revenue costs, which are invariably more significant in the long run. What was concealed by the special funding arrangements of the past is being stripped bare as the recent "purchaser/provider" split of the NHS reforms takes effect. Sensible purchasers will not be prepared to pay the excessive cost of hospital treatment in inner London. The consequential reduced activity will make matters worse. We should never forget that patients usually much prefer to be treated locally whenever possible.
The status quo is not an option. While due weight must be given to the many closely-argued representations being made —and we have all received them in every post-bag—I hope that the anguished cries for special pleading for particular institutions or specific causes will not drown out the more resonant and responsible rumbles of support for long-awaited and much-needed reform.
In the context of special pleading, I must express my anxiety about the reported use of charitable funds for public relations companies on what is essentially polemical if not political campaigning. Patients are much more important than institutions. Primary care provision in London is extremely patchy. It is superb in some areas but too often it is well below national standards elsewhere, as the noble Lord, Lord Annan, so eloquently pointed out. The facts are well-known. There are too many aged GPs who are too frequently working single-handed with above average patient lists. They are working from inadequate premises with too little professional support among communities with many disadvantaged groups requiring special attention. It is no wonder that so many local residents, as well as many homeless people, seek medical help from the accident and emergency departments of their local hospitals, often waiting hours for simple
1354
treatment that should be readily and speedily available from a GP. That highly unsatisfactory state of affairs has been tolerated for far too long. I welcome the Tomlinson proposals for dealing with that deep-rooted problem.
As the report makes clear, money up front will be required to improve primary care, particularly GP practice premises. Essential action is needed to facilitate the cost-effective transfer of resources from the hospital sector to primary and community care.
Medical education and clinical research are of immense importance. Reorganisation must protect and enhance those centres of excellence for which London is rightly renowned. But the London medical schools and research institutions have no monopoly on excellence and proposals for change must be seen in a national context. I commend Malcolm Green's interesting British Medical Journal article and I welcome the co-operative progress being made by, for example, University College Hospital and the Middlesex.
The general thrust of Tomlinson is in harmony with the excellent King's Fund London Commission Report. The BMA, the RCN and much other informed opinion is generally in step. There is even the imprimatur of a Guardian editorial.
None of that will be easy. Special interests, Treasury control, the collapse of land values, the sheer inertia of deeply entrenched institutions will all combine to resist significant change. But change there must be. I used to think that reorganising the British Army—amalgamating historic regiments and the like —was one of the most difficult tasks. That was before I encountered the British medical establishment. But I have confidence in the persuasive powers and determination of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health and her ministerial colleagues. I wish them well in their tasks.
3.51 p.m.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, my first and most pleasant task is to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hayhoe, on behalf of the whole House for what must have been one of the most stimulating addresses we have heard—stimulating but not controversial. On behalf of the House I say, "Hasten back and speak to us again soon".
I should like also to congratulate Sir Bernard Tomlinson and his colleagues on a remarkable report which I hope will stimulate profitable discussion among those concerned. I was first concerned with the matter in 1968 when I was chairman of the medical sub-committee of the University Grants Committee and wrote a report on the London teaching hospitals —after Todd. As far as I know it had no influence whatever. Since then there have been a number of other reports. I think it is wise for the House to note at this early stage of our discussion the timescale of some events in London.
Sir Bernard Tomlinson is to be congratulated. He took some of the principles regarding general practice secondary care centres, suggested originally many years ago by Lord Dawson of Penn, and developed them in a remarkable and positive way. I must confess

1355
that not being a Londoner there are many aspects of the teaching hospital recommendations which I feel I cannot profitably discuss, but there are many people here who will do so.
What requires to be achieved? Whatever the outcome, London teaching hospitals and medical schools must maintain their position of eminence and high quality; but also, as has been said, the patients in London and the general practitioners who hold responsibilities for them must also be considered, otherwise the whole business will be inefficient and of poor quality. That includes the training of doctors.
Some 10 years ago the Acheson report made it clear that London practitioners had large numbers of patients, fewer staff and offered fewer specialist services. The urgent question is whether there should be an increased number of group practices with secondary care facilities, and that means accommodation which has always proved difficult.
Two years ago I had occasion to examine the costs of eye testing. I give only one example of the changes. For a patient to be examined in an optician's clinic, perhaps by a medically qualified person, the cost is around £10 per head. To send the same patient to the hospital for the same examination by an ophthalmologist, the cost was £23 per head. In the past there was little that ophthalmologists could do for their patients. Now there is a whole battery of special services; lens replacement, laser treatment and other scientific advances have revolutionised the position. That is only an example of what is happening in a whole range of other situations. When I was a young doctor doing general practice we sent patients to hospitals for almost all investigations. Now what is required is better services in the general practice group which offers a range of facilities. That is not only satisfactory to the patient, as has been said, but it costs less.
The Tomlinson report states,
"We are aware that there are also serious inadequacies in primary health services in inner London. The difficulty in securing good quality premises lies at the root of many of the problems surrounding general practice in inner London".
Paragraph 37 states:
"We have been told that DHAs [district health authorities] and trusts are sometimes reluctant to cooperate by selling surplus hospital estate for conversion into facilities suitable for the development of primary care".
One of the most important priorities and probably the key priority in a major reorganisation of capital resources in London is that it provides an opportunity for cost effective re-use of assets. One also wonders whether the director of research and development should be involved at an early stage in the discussions with the objective of determining the best and most effective ways of providing secondary care services.
Will the Minister encourage the director of research and development to explore, with representatives of GPs, the production of what Tomlinson calls "primary care development zones"? I believe that the director of research and development should be involved in the matter and be a member of the implementation group, because whatever happens in London in the development of general practice will have the greatest importance and significance for other parts of the country. I should like to suggest that
1356
there should be several experimental practice groups within the inner London area and a serious attempt should be made to determine which modern facilities of diagnosis can be accommodated and adequately used within a six to 10 group practice. That could include a wide range of provision including pharmacy.
Last year the National Health Service drug bill rose to £3 billion. One of the consequences of practices becoming fund holders is that they are now becoming aware of that. Overhauling of practices' prescribing policy should be a top priority with doctors whenever they decide to become fund holders. The majority of prescribing in the Health Service is done in general practice. It is in that area that the greatest potential for reducing the drugs bill exists, with the present structure of general practice, as we have suggested, involving shared patient care between doctors.
Tomlinson's detailed proposals for the hospital changes suggest that bed capacity in London should be reduced and in some cases whole hospital sites taken out of use altogether. It is urgent that the programme should start soon but it should be done in a way which inspires confidence in the staff. In some ways that is the most difficult task because, whatever happens, the quality of the service given by those people must be maintained and their eminence in clinical teaching preserved. In the past caring was the prime concern of doctors, nurses and others in contact with the patients. New management structure requires collaboration between management and those concerned with patients.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, order! Time, gentlemen, please.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I did ask that my time, which I deliberately did not extend beyond 20 minutes, could be given to my noble friend Lord Hunter.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, my final point is that one has to remember the health services Act of 1990 and the reforms that were introduced as regards purchaser choice and provider competition. Tomlinson is a planned approach to health care to be carried out by management. The skills and medical advisory system of the director of research and development is required to advise the management board on the implementation. How does one provide stability for specialised services and at the same time the benefits of purchaser choice and provider competition? Perhaps the Minister would like to say something about that.
4 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for introducing this debate and also my noble friend Lord Desai for his speech. They were two good speeches which set us on a good road.
The Tomlinson report is an extraordinarily valuable document for those of us who are interested in the National Health Service. I learnt so much when reading through it. I am not going to say that I agree

1357
with everything, but it is a valuable document. In the little time at my disposal, I shall concentrate on two hospitals in the London area about which I know quite a good deal. One is the Royal Brompton Hospital and the other is Bart's. There is so much that makes sense in the Tomlinson Report and so much to which I believe the Minister will give attention.
At the same time one cannot find a document during one's lifetime of the width and breadth of Tomlinson, and then agree with every single word and recommendation contained in it. It would be an error to do away with the Royal Brompton Hospital which was opened only last year by Her Majesty the Queen at a cost of £45 million. I am informed that it is one of the finest heart and lung specialist hospitals in the world.
The same applies to Bart's. Wherever one travels, whether in America, Australia or Europe, and questions as regards hospitals arise (usually in connection with the National Health Service) Bart's is always mentioned as a great hospital. It has special trustees. They have committed £14 million from Bart's endowments to its now famous medical college, the college of nursing and midwifery. I cannot imagine that anyone who agrees with modern medicine deploring or disagreeing with that wonderful endeavour by Bart's. That hospital serves the City, Hackney and the commuters. Its trustees are of the opinion that while Tomlinson contains so many good things, its vulnerability tests are somewhat flawed.
I also believe that the Royal Brompton Hospital and Bart's recognise the need to rationalise London's health facilities, but not to destroy British hospitals well-known worldwide which serve our nation and London. Bart's, as one of the United Kingdom's great hospitals, has a worldwide reputation and it is linked with Homerton Hospital. If Bart's is closed then Homerton will also be closed. Over £100 million has been given in charitable donations and all that may be lost if those hospitals are abolished.
The Tomlinson Report states that the survival of London's hospitals will depend on efficiency. That is a good and admirable test. If such a test were even on a worldwide basis, let alone a British one, Bart's would survive. The evidence for that should be examined. Before Bart's is destroyed, I hope that the staff, doctors, nurses and teachers who work there will be consulted about their views. In my discussions with them they have taken a very admirable point of view. They agree so much with Tomlinson, but they are unable to accept some of the recommendations. Tomlinson ignored the evidence about Bart's world-renowned efficiency and its massive service to North-East London. That service provides for people from all over Great Britain. The City and Londoners want Bart's kept. Let us not wilfully destroy that great hospital which is renowned throughout the world.
Bart's and the Homerton Hospital trustees expect to be constantly consulted because they believe—and I agree with them—that they have produced one of the most efficient systems of hospitalisation that mankind has seen. Are we going to destroy that just because of a quick report which has so much good in it, but which destroys very quickly? Change can be implemented
1358
from many parts of Tomlinson; but we must avoid disaster. It would he a disaster both for London and the nation if these two great hospitals which I have mentioned were destroyed.
In conclusion, let us have the best of the Tomlinson recommendations and the courage to reject those about which we are somewhat apprehensive. Some of our great hospitals should be maintained and in that number I include St. Bartholomew's. Therefore, if we can have the best of Tomlinson, let us make sure that we in no way destroy great hospitals which have already been proven beyond peradventure as being great assets to this country and great guides to other nations.
4.6 p.m.
Lord Braine of Wheatley: My Lords, when I look back over my 42 years of continuous membership of the House of Commons, I can honestly say that my most rewarding experience was serving as Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry of Health in the early 1960s under the inspired leadership of Enoch Powell when he launched his massive hospital building programme and a major reform of our local authority services. What was done then was timely and right. I found it immensely exciting. It laid the foundation for better medical care for all our people.
But medical science does not stand still. As the years advance more illnesses are diagnosed and new methods of treatment are introduced. Government have a responsibility and a continuing duty to see that the best possible care is provided for the sick, disabled and the elderly, and to make the necessary changes. At the same time I agree with a great deal of what was said by my noble friend Lord Hayhoe.
For those reasons I do not question the timing or the purpose of Sir Bernard Tomlinson's report on health provision in London. But I am deeply concerned about some of his recommendations. I must speak as I feel. Since of necessity I must be brief, I shall refer to just one recommendation; namely, that St. Bartholomew's Hospital, which has long enjoyed a worldwide reputation for excellence, should be closed with no regard whatever being paid to the fact that over the past five years some £60 million has been spent on providing it with new wards and operating theatres which match the best in Europe.
Without providing any convincing figures, the report asserts that London has an excess of beds. At least, that is without foundation where Bart's is concerned because 40 per cent. of its specialist services are for local London patients. A further 36 per cent. is for patients from elsewhere and the North East Thames Region. Currently, Bart's has a long waiting list for routine admissions, which is hardly surprising for a hospital with such an excellent reputation.
Let us consider the achievements of this very remarkable hospital. In the past 13 years, although the actual number of beds has been reduced by 44 per cent., 53 per cent. more in-patients have been treated as a result of improved methods and more day surgery. The number of patients treated as day cases has increased by 123 per cent. Yet Tomlinson recommends closure and merger with another

1359
hospital. Closure would threaten the work done at Bart's for patients with cancer, including children with cancer; the care of those with cardiac disorders, heart surgery, the treatment of AIDS and the provision of transplantation services. I am advised that Tomlinson did not even bother to visit the hospital's research campus before making his recommendations, although closing Bart's will inevitably damage its internationally-acclaimed research; nor did he make more than a fleeting mention of the quality of medical care; and he totally ignored patient and general practitioner choice. I would urge the Government therefore, before any decision is reached on this matter, to seek the views of general practitioners in London and in the north-east Thames area who send their patients to Bart's or who would like to do so.
Finally, in my view it would be the height of folly to endanger the highly specialised work which is done at this remarkable hospital. For example, one-third of adult patients treated there for acute myoblastic leukaemia, formerly a fatal condition, are alive 10 years later, as compared to a national average of less than one-quarter. Also, Bart's provides the only comprehensive service in the country specialising in children's eye cancer, a condition which can lead to blindness. Tomlinson ignored the fact that Bart's is not just a London hospital. One in five eye cancer cases treated there comes from abroad.
I have tried to measure my words carefully but frankly, in my view, it would be disastrous to interfere with work of this calibre, built up with enormous expertise over the years and, if I may say so, with loving care over the last few decades. Surely commonsense calls for the rejection of this ill-considered and insensitive proposal.
4.11 p.m.
Lord Richardson: My Lords, I am honoured to be allowed to voice on your behalf gratitude and congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Braine of Wheatley, for his very vigorous maiden speech. I am particularly in his debt because it is my strong desire to talk about St. Thomas's Hospital, not in the same terms as he has talked about Bart's, although the name, "St. Thomas's" could have been substituted for "Bart's" all the way through with equal truth and I should be delighted if it was with equal effect.
I should like to point out to your Lordships that one of the most self-evident but nevertheless important aspects of all medical care, and one in which administrators, doctors and indeed government are most vulnerable, is the adequacy of accident and emergency hospital services. Their effectiveness and adequacy depends to a very large extent on their location. The location of our accident and emergency unit, for those who are privileged to work in the Palace of Westminster, is across the river. That is a remarkably valuable position for dealing with perhaps one of the most vulnerable and certainly one of the most significant areas in the whole of this kingdom; namely, Westminster. It is quite unnecessary to point out the fact that other hospitals could do the work most admirably, but our position across the river
1360
happens to have what has been gauged by a method called the isochrone. Doubtless your Lordships know what that means. In essence it means that it takes 10 minutes in time from the point of the accident to the department. The isochrones for St. Thomas's Hospital include the whole of Westminster, the Royal palaces and the great railway stations of Waterloo and Charing Cross.
What has St. Thomas's to offer to meet this demand which is placed upon it through the time factor? It has already 70,000 patients a year to serve and the number will be 100,000 when the Westminster casualty department is closed. It is in the process of being enlarged and refurbished at a considerable cost (£3.2 million). It is supported by a very effective hospital; a hospital that not only treats patients on a national basis but—and this is extremely important in relation to London—treats those who are locally related to it. Therefore, two-thirds of patients at St. Thomas's come from the district, in the old-fashioned sense of the term, and of the money that is given to the hospital through the Treasury the percentage is again extremely high at 88 per cent.—much higher than some other hospitals—thus indicating the necessity for the hospital to be dealing with the local population.
The hospital is strongly supported in its position there by the general practitioners of Lambeth, Westminster and Southwark. Indeed, over 50 per cent. would regard it as a disaster or a near-disaster if it were to be closed. Thus, on that one point alone—that extremely important point—I feel that St. Thomas's will have to be considered as a "must" very carefully indeed by Ministers when they are taking their very difficult decisions.
Finally, I should like to point out that with the many admirable features of Tomlinson, the timing seems to me to be suspect: perhaps a better word would be "optimistic". To feel that general practice can be raised to the standard required to replace what is being done already by the great teaching hospitals is very optimistic indeed. It can be done and it will be done, but it takes time and it takes training.
4.18 p.m.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, Tomlinson states on page 3 that the intention is to develop,
"a programme for change from the 'bottom up', building upon consensus, rather than merely devising our own blueprint".
I want to use my few minutes to speak very much from the bottom of the scale. I feel that the "bottomers" have not received much consideration in the report. In fact, there seems to me a total lacuna about patients' wishes. If the gentleman from Newcastle had walked past University College Hospital today or if he had received some of the petitions that many of us have been receiving I think he might have put in a few paragraphs on the matter.
I never progressed further in these matters, except by marriage, than to become a very keen if not very efficient VAD at a casualty clearing station in the last war. I have a strange sort of memory of those days.

1361
We did not have time to look at the buildings or to count the costs because we were only concerned with looking after patients.
Hospitals are rather like coal mines. Any fool can shut them down but it takes something in advance of genius to resurrect them. I should have thought we would have learnt lessons from the past. I can remember when the fashion was to close the cottage hospitals because only the big teaching hospitals were important. What a pity that was. We could do with those small local hospitals now for use as hospices and in all sorts of other ways. After that the fashion switched to closing down the mental hospitals. What happened to the patients? We had to slow down the programme because of the distress among patients and difficulties for the police, the prison officers and magistrates. All that resulted from the mania for shutting down hospitals. Many of us are now worried about the switch to more community care. We are not sure that the infrastructure will be in place before the local authorities have to take on those onerous tasks.
I read carefully a report from the Association of Local Authorities. The association is puzzled, as I am, by the extraordinary statement that there are too many beds in London when London waiting lists are the longest in the country. An interesting letter to The Times yesterday from a professor at St. Thomas's stated that junior doctors recruited from outside London were totally "gobsmacked" on their first day at the amount of work they had to do and at the impossibility of admitting patients when their previous experience would have led them to agree that those patients needed to be admitted. Many of us are puzzled. We cannot find a hospital in London that does not have a waiting list both for in-patients and out-patients.
I know a lot of doctors, thankfully. I do not know of one who has been able to find a hospital where the junior doctors work the number of hours recognised even by this Government as ideal. The overtime still continues. We are talking today about a report with some good suggestions in it. I am not trying to be totally destructive. I seek only that the good things and the changes that need to come about are somehow managed in a way that does not mean just closing down hospitals in a negative way when they still have a great deal to do.
I am encouraged to say this because last week in the other place there was much talk about patient choice, about charters galore. There was a Minister singing like a psalmist trying to sell the ark of the covenant about how patients should choose and how passengers should choose. Choice was to be the watchword of this Government for the future. I cannot imagine a greater deprivation of choice than to deny people the chance to attend the hospital of their choice, a phrase often used in the last election. Sadly, these proposals, if carried out, would mean a total absence of choice. That cannot be right.
There has been no request from the Royal Marsden patients that their hospital should be shut down. All the indications are to the contrary. Let us keep our hospital. If the Government and some other people are to take the view that doctor knows best and
1362
Ministers know best, well that is not a fair assessment of the real needs and real wishes and what would be a good future for our hospital services.
4.23 p.m.
Lord Joseph: My Lords, I regret that I cannot stay for quite the whole debate because of a long-standing commitment later today. The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, has touched the conscience of many of us who have been involved in some of the changes dictated by the fashions and best opinions of the time in taking out of action some of our old institutions. But I call the noble Baroness's attention to paragraphs 89 to 93 of the Tomlinson Report, which talk about the scope of some of the hospitals in London, even the most famous, for increasing their turn-round of patients, which would of course have some effect on waiting lists. Who am I to make any criticisms? I am not making criticisms. But Tomlinson devotes several paragraphs to precisely the subject of reducing waiting lists through improved efficiency.
I want to speak of the inadequate primary services in London, to which Tomlinson gives his main purpose. I note that on precisely the same subject the Acheson group produced a large report in great detail on precisely the same subject 10 years ago. I call the attention of noble Lords to an article in the British Medical Journal two weeks ago by Brian Jarman and Nick Bosanquet, pointing out that London's primary services have improved in the last 10 years since Acheson. But, alas, they have improved only as part of an overall improvement of primary care in the country as a whole. In other words, the Acheson Report on the inadequacies of London primary services 10 years ago has not achieved the London improvements it recommended.
I do not need to describe to your Lordships the inadequacies of London's primary medical and related services in relation to the unique scale in the United Kingdom of London's medical and related needs, so well described by Tomlinson. My noble friend Lord Hayhoe, in a notable maiden speech, made it the main subject of what he was saying, as of course did the noble Lords, Lord Annan and Lord Hunter.
Tomlinson proposes financing the improved primary services in London that we all regard as so necessary by savings from rationalising some of the hospital services. I hope that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health and her colleagues will be able to surmount some of the hurdles in obtaining the money for the improvements that Tomlinson recommends. My noble friend Lord Braine, in his maiden speech, gave an example of some of the passionate defences that will be mounted before Tomlinson can garner some of the savings from which he recommends improvements in the primary services can be financed.
Let me add a few. We know that the medical profession will erect all sorts of resistances—no doubt honourable resistances—to the devotion of any savings achieved just to services in London. They will want the benefit to be shared in the whole country. That is what is likely to happen. I am giving away no

1363
secrets when I say that on my way to your Lordships' Chamber a Scottish friend said to me, "My interest is to see whether we can get some of those savings for Scotland." Well, good luck to that noble Lord, but it is going to be a problem for my noble friend and the Government to overcome.
Extra money is needed to set the whole process of Tomlinson in motion. That will be a problem too, and so is the sordid but real fact that different budgets are involved in relation to hospitals on the one hand and primary services on the other. We have to ask ourselves, as the noble Lord, Lord Annan, invites us to do, why there have been no results for primary services in London first from Todd, then Flowers, then Acheson, and whether there now will be from Tomlinson. I wish my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health and her team great resolution and luck in carrying out Tomlinson. I wish them well.
4.28 p.m.
The Duke of Gloucester: My Lords, I am speaking this afternoon as president of St. Bartholomew's Hospital, an honorary position that I hold with great pride, as did my father before me and indeed Prince Albert in the days when so much was donated by private subscriptions. I am speaking on behalf of St. Bartholomew's and its other hospital at Homerton, which serves its community in the East End so effectively. I cannot speak for the other hospitals threatened because Bart's is the only one with which I have been familiar for many years, and I am frankly amazed that its future should be in any doubt.
This period has been set aside as a period of consultation on these proposals. Yet I wonder whether it is an adequately long period to demonstrate that a number of the premises on which the report was based have proved mistaken, at least so far as concerns the section referring to the destruction of St. Bartholomew's.
I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to five points of error in the Tomlinson Report. The first point concerns the catchment area. The report describes Bart's as having a catchment area of 35,000 whereas in reality it is 220,000, including South Islington and South Hackney. A very high proportion are, for demographic reasons, elderly people, in an area with virtually no medical facilities specially for the elderly. This number is boosted to half a million every working day by commuters to the City. Bart's not only provides them with emergency cover but also provides treatment for minor ailments that can be dealt with in a few minutes during the lunch hour, rather than taking a whole day off work to visit their local hospital.
The second point of error is demand. Tomlinson implies that the fact that a larger than normal proportion of patients come from outside the catchment area is a negative quality, whereas in the real world it would imply that its reputation for effective medicine is a positive strength. There is a strong demand for Bart's medicine, partly I suspect because of the reputation that Bart's has for being in
1364
the forefront of world research in so many fields—a fact totally ignored in the report. Specifically, cancer, eye cancer, heart disease, hormone disorders, AIDS and inflammatory bowel disease in children are all fields in which the pre-eminence of Bart's is recognised. Not surprisingly, Bart's is second only to Oxford as a receiver of medical research grants. It has been suggested that this talent could easily be dispersed to other hospitals, but I feel it is unlikely that doctors who have built up over many years a reputation that has resulted in the provision of the most modern facilities costing £60 million should meekly retire to the suburbs to start again and risk seeing their life work again disbanded in the name of efficiency. No, that talent will gravitate to excellence and to where it is valued, for medicine knows no national boundaries. It will be lost to London, and probably this country.
The third point to raise is that of efficiency. Whichever way one measures efficiency, Bart's has a fine and improving record for patient care. A carefully constructed day care centre has ensured that not only is appropriate medicine provided in purpose-built surroundings but that the community is served in a cost effective manner. Tomlinson ignored the region's own figures that "bed use" at Bart's was the most efficient of all in central London.
The fourth point is location. Tomlinson implies that London would be adequately served by emergency services without Bart's. It uses figures to prove this, including the assumption that Bayswater to Bart's is only a 10 minute journey. This is not possible, I suggest, even with a police escort. London, as we all know, is hugely congested, and it is no good applying standards suitable for a new town type road system to heavy city congestion and then being disappointed by the consequence.
The City has its fair share of disasters, as demonstrated by Tube crashes and terrorist bombs. Imagine what would have happened if the IRA had managed to get its bomb to the Lord Mayor's show. Sadly, there will continue to be accidents and the City needs its hospital.
Lastly, the report implies that our site would be highly valuable for redevelopment. This assumption is based on the hope that developers would want to build office blocks. No developer would want to touch such a problem site. First, it is in a conservation area; secondly, 75 per cent. of the hospital is composed of listed historic buildings. The main blocks were designed by Gibbs in the early 18th century and are listed Grade 1. As a commissioner for English Heritage, I know that we would be failing in our statutory duty if we allowed any alteration to these buildings of anything but a very minor nature. They thrive as hospital buildings; they would be inconvenient and inflexible as office buildings. The whole site is severely constrained because of its archaeological significance; the Roman Wall, the mediaeval buildings—for any developer a nightmare. The north block which is such a blessing for the hospital is also for good measure scheduled as an ancient monument.

1365
It is difficult to see it appealing to any commercial organisation and it would be impossible to build any large new buildings on the site.
London is now so full of surplus office blocks that it would be at least 20 years before anyone would voluntarily tackle this problem site. Who will look after it meanwhile? No, Sir Bernard, the sale of this site will not fund the millions for redundancy that you propose. It will instead become a drain on national and City funds until some new use can be found—perhaps a museum of pioneering medical practices that this country used to lead the world in.
Bart's is not afraid of the chill wind of accountancy which is blowing through the health service. It has stood up to the tests of demand and efficiency. Its complaint is not that they should not be applied to it; it is that they have not been applied accurately and impassionately.
I beg for a stay of execution for Bart's, an institution whose crime it seems is to have tried too hard, if not too politically, to serve its community as well as possible. It has a plan of its own for the future. Please consider it. It is prepared for change but not extinction.
4.36 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I should like to give my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for giving us the opportunity to debate the Tomlinson Report today. It is a very timely moment to do so because I am increasingly finding in London, as these proposals are more widely acknowledged and more and more understood, that there is growing apprehension and concern about the proposals. I should like to echo what was said by my noble friend Lady Jeger about the emphasis that must be put on the wishes and needs of patients. Any change which the Government propose to introduce on the basis of the Tomlinson Report must focus on the needs of Londoners, must have their confidence and must be properly planned and gradually introduced. At the moment there is considerable scepticism and concern that change will simply mean a reduction in services.
Other noble Lords have drawn attention to the inadequacy of general practitioner services and primary care services in London. Given the time constraints this afternoon, I do not need to repeat them. However, I think it is important to repeat some of the details of the population with which those GPs and family practitioners are dealing. They are dealing with a population in the inner city where mobility and social deprivation often make it impossible to establish traditional patterns of primary care. If you are a single parent in bedsit accommodation, or if you are one of the 66,000 people who are now assumed to he sleeping rough in London, it is unlikely that you will develop the kind of cosy secure relationship with a family doctor which may happen in more settled communities. That is why Londoners often use hospital out-patient departments in what are seen as inappropriate ways by health service managers. Accidents and emergency services are used in ways which certainly would not be used in other centres.
1366
Perhaps I may give an example which is close to my knowledge. It concerns the St. Charles Hospital in North Kensington where I am a member of the local district health authority. A recent survey of patients using the accident and emergency services at the hospital showed that more than half were those who could more appropriately be categorised as people who needed primary care. They should have been looked after by family doctors, but the family doctors are not there. Now it is proposed—for reasons that have little to do with Tomlinson—that the accident and emergency department should he closed. What will happen then to the large number of people who have used it for primary care?
St. Charles Hospital is a microcosm of the general problem about primary care which has been highlighted in the Tomlinson Report. In North Kensington we are now beginning to draw up new plans to create primary care services. But that will take time and money, and to do this across London will take a great deal of time and a great deal of money. I hope that when the noble Baroness replies she will be able to give us some indication that adequate new resources will be available to fill the gaps which must be created in primary care if some of these accident and emergency departments and other facilities are to close.
The King's Fund London Commission Report on London hospital services in 2010, which has also been referred to this afternoon—the Minister was a member of the commission that did that report—stated a few months ago that £250 million would be needed to finance any kind of respectable upgrading of primary care services. The figures which are now being rumoured about the Government's spending plans in that area are considerably and alarmingly lower. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that primary care investment will be up to the figure that she recommended earlier.
The other vital question relates to timing. If Londoners are to have confidence that their services are not just being cut, the new investment must be made before and not after changes are made in the hospital sector. Sir Bernard Tomlinson underlined that by noting that hospital expenditure is not flexible in the short-term, so:
"redirection of resources can only be achieved by providing new money to facilitate change".
The Tomlinson Report could provide an exciting catalyst for change in primary care services in London. Well-equipped local health care centres, staffed by nurse practitioners, GPs and perhaps a peripatetic consultant could begin to redefine the traditional boundaries between primary and secondary care; for example, minor surgery or looking after the chronically ill. But such change can only be achieved gradually because it requires not just financial investment but careful planning, retraining, and indeed a change in the culture of medical practice and health services in the capital.
It will be reassuring if the Minister can tell us when she replies that pilot schemes will be developed. Here I was interested in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, about involving the director of research

1367
and development for the health service in that process. That has the potential for some interesting ideas. If we can have some pilot schemes, change will not occur universally, uncomfortably and overnight as it did two years ago when the NHS created the internal market.
At the moment Londoners are apprehensive because they are doubtful that adequate resources will be found to finance primary care before hospital closures happen. They are concerned that changes will be made, based upon decisions about institutions rather than upon a broad assessment of population needs.
4.42 p.m.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, I too start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for giving us this opportunity to debate the Tomlinson Report, and most warmly congratulate our two maiden speakers, my noble friends Lord Hayhoe and Lord Braine of Wheatley. Perhaps I may say to them at a selfish level what a pleasure it is to be rejoined by them here in the calmer seas of your Lordships' Chamber after many years in another place.
Because of time constraints, I intend to mention briefly just four headline points, all confined to general principles and not the recommendations about particular hospitals. My first headline point is that I believe strongly that the report's basic analysis and its consequent diagnosis of the problem to be solved is unanswerable and we must accept it—that is, there is an urgent need that must be met for more and better primary care throughout London; and, secondly, there is a need and scope to reduce the number of acute hospital beds in the London area.
It is therefore clear that radical action will have to be taken. Radical action always produces opposition. In order to meet such opposition successfully, we must be as sure as we can be that the action taken is soundly based. That brings me to my second headline point; namely, the report's detailed recommendations for the rationalisation of London's hospitals. Those recommendations do not fill me with the same confidence in their solidity as does the report's analysis. I feel that the committee's methodology in assessing the prospects of different hospitals needs close further scrutiny. In addition, while I agree with the report that the whole of the reduction in beds cannot be achieved by piecemeal bed closures and savings in each hospital, I believe that as much as possible should be achieved in that way, and as little as possible by the closure of whole sites and the relocation of essential special services from one place to another.
I cannot but feel that the report has come down too heavily on the side of upheaval, of complete closures and numerous major relocations. I do not believe that the committee appreciated the full costs of carrying out all those proposed wholesale closures and relocations. If it has, it has not disclosed them. The costs are enormous. That is not made clear in the report.
I also feel that the report shows a too easy confidence in the practicability—even if it were
1368
desirable—of selling abandoned buildings or converting them to alternative uses. That would be difficult at any time, but with the property market as it is at the moment and is likely to be for some years to come, the problems have been under-estimated. To embark on that programme could well lead to disaster.
My third headline point relates to where we should start with those major difficult reforms. The reforms will be expensive, however skillfully they are thought out and done. In the end, they should produce economies, but the spending will come first and the savings will come a long way down the road. That presents a difficult financing problem for any organisation, most of all for a Government with Treasury methods of annual control, and so forth. I feel that I must say to the Government that to carry through that radical reform successfully they must start by providing for improvements in primary medical care. They must give to the people of London, the doctors and hospital staffs, a real taste in their mouths of those improvements before they will successfully carry through more controversial, naturally suspect and unpopular parts of the hospital rationalisations. If my noble friend the Minister does not have sufficient money to do that, I say to her, "Please do not start until you have, because to start before you have could lead to a serious problem".
That brings me to my fourth headline point. I cannot help but express my dismay—I cannot think of a less strong word that I am prepared to use—that the review by the Tomlinson Committee did not include a review of the top hamper of health service administration in the London area. In the report the committee said that it could not recommend an extra layer. It went on to say, as a self-evident assertion, and without any argument, that it could not recommend a single London health authority. It then went on to say that, nevertheless, it must have such a one to put over the four existing authorities in the implementation group, although the committee says that is to be temporary and not statutory, but temporary things have a habit of lasting, and we cannot afford yet one more layer in the top hamper of administration.
I am aware that there are difficulties. I know that it may need primary legislation. I do not in any way belittle the work done by those who head and work in the four regional hospital boards, but on any managerial principles that set up is crazy and there will not be the release of full energy at operating levels nor a proper reduction in overheads until that matter is tackled, and sooner or later—sooner rather than later —tackled it will have to be.
4.48 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, at a time of severe and, as yet, unyielding economic recession, I am sufficient of a realist to recognise that no government of any political complexion would ever find it possible to introduce that massive infusion of resources which the NHS could so effectively deploy in meeting the needs of an ageing population, of major developments in medicine, and of increasing—as we know is long awaited—the consultant establishment. We must

1369
therefore concentrate on what can be done within the resources available, and so the NHS must be seen to provide full value for money.
As Tomlinson has pointed out, as the population of central London has declined so the unit cost of treatment for mundane conditions in the city's fine teaching hospitals with their long and distinguished history continues to rise. In the case of many conditions, quality care can be more readily and cheaply provided in the periphery. Tomlinson has also shown that far too many specialist units exist in the present teaching hospitals, often requiring costly ancillary diagnostic facilities which could be concentrated more efficiently in larger integrated units for the so-called super specialties.
Of course, we all acknowledge the importance in Britain of our historical and cultural heritage and of the contribution made to medical care, teaching and research by hospitals like Bart's, Guy's, St. Thomas's and the others. One cannot be deaf to the clamour of the voices raised by staff and former patients who strenuously resist any proposal that these hospitals should lose their identity and in some cases their very existence.
We must also acknowledge the remarkable contributions made to national and international medical life and particularly to postgraduate education and research by the many special hospitals in London coming under the special health authorities and under the British Postgraduate Medical Federation. However, even these and other centres of educational and research excellence have sometimes suffered from their comparative isolation from mainstream university life and from hospitals providing general medical services.
For these and for many other compelling reasons, I must say that I have to support many of the proposals in Sir Bernard's report in principle, while accepting that the implementation group will be faced with an exceptionally difficult task. I also accept that those primarily involved have made several constructive and statesmanlike proposals for change which that group would do well to consider.
Since the introduction of vocational training, as many noble Lords have pointed out, the quality of general practice throughout the United Kingdom has improved beyond recognition. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, and others have said, recent articles in the British Medical Journal have pointed out that, despite some improvement in London, the major and long overdue recommendations of the Acheson Report published 11 years ago have not been implemented. The quality and organisation of general practice and community care in the capital lags far behind that in other parts of the country.
However, the necessary improvements cannot be achieved overnight. New premises and the development of group practices will help, but some retraining and an imaginative recruitment programme will take time.
In relation to hospital care, plainly some beds offering routine treatment which can be provided equally effectively in hospitals in outer London must be closed and small specialised units should be
1370
concentrated into fewer of the central London hospitals. Four larger medical schools, each firmly linked to multi-faculty colleges of London University, should also he created. But I see no compelling reason why, with the increasing use of peripheral hospitals and the community for teaching, it will be necessary to reduce medical student numbers. The consequential reduction in university funding could well have a devastating and unacceptable effect on teaching and research.
If we were to lose the expertise of many of those whose contributions to innovations in treatment and research in the capital, not least in the special hospitals, has been so outstanding, this would have an appalling long-term effect on the national and international standing of British medicine.
Redeployment and some relocation of scarce medical, teaching, nursing and technical skills rather than redundancy must surely he the order of the day. I believe that the university must be intimately involved in the implementation process.
Purposely, in the time available, I do not propose to comment upon the specific proposals made by Tomlinson relating to the future of individual, general and special hospitals. But I have to say that personally I am convinced that the decision to build the new Westminster and Chelsea Hospital, with its ravenous over-consumption of capital funds, so near to Charing Cross, was a serious misjudgment. Tomlinson is, however, right in recommending a closer integration between the special hospitals and the university on the one hand and a reduced number of general hospitals on the other. That is right, I am in no doubt.
Last but by no means least, the Government must recognise that if these proposals, or something along these lines, as finally recommended by the implementation group, are to go ahead, there will in the long term be some saving of recurrent resources. But in the first instance, major capital expenditure and substantial additional recurrent funds will be needed. This opportunity to plan and integrate medical care, teaching and research for London in the 21st century, as cogently argued by Tomlinson, must now he grasped. If not, London medicine can only he faced with a progressive process of random attrition and decay which surely none of us would wish to contemplate.
4.55 p.m.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, last July your Lordships debated an Unstarred Question on the policy of the Government for the future of St. Mark's Hospital in City Road. A recurring theme of all who then spoke was the urgency of maintaining that hospital as a centre of excellence for scientifically-based clinical research, for postgraduate and subsequent training and for the care and treatment of patients suffering from cancer and other problems of the nether regions.
Subsequently, a deputation drawn from those who had taken part in the debate waited upon the Secretary of State for Health and received assurances from him. It is gratifying that paragraph 143 of the Tomlinson Report, to which the noble Lord, Lord Annan,

1371
referred approvingly, recommends, in line with St. Mark's own wishes, that it should move "with all speed" to Northwick Park. I understand that this has now been agreed by all the relevant administrative bodies, including the department. All that remains to give assurance to the staff who have to prepare for the move is a clear undertaking from the Government that they will provide a grant to cover the costs of relocation. I told the Minister's office yesterday that I should be asking for this assurance today and I shall be grateful if the noble Baroness will give it when she replies.
It will emerge that the Tomlinson recommendation on St. Mark's is almost the only one which I regard as persuasive in the whole report. It opens with the statement that,
"we were specifically asked not to produce a voluminous report".
That is reasonable, but any report, however short, on such important issues must be based on detailed evidence to which the reader is given access in separate volumes or appendices. From this point of view, I find the Tomlinson report unworthy of its subject. In many places, it is impossible for the reader to discover the demographic, financial or educational evidence on which recommendations are made. There is no discussion of the significance of London in Britain, other than that it is said to be unique for the volume and density of its population and the squalor of its primary health care. It is unique also for a host of other factors relevant to its university and teaching hospitals which are nowhere examined in the report.
My concern about the bases of information used in the report dissolved into incredulity in respect of some recommendations which affect the institutions about which many laymen have sufficient knowledge to form sensible judgments. Indeed, several speakers have already illustrated this from the recommendation in paragraph 119 that,
"We do not believe there is a long-term future for a major hospital [Bart's] on the West Smithfield site".
The report says that the survival of hospitals in London will depend on their efficiency. The evidence of the North East Thames Regional Health Authority to Tomlinson demonstrates that the Bart's trust is the most efficient of all the hospitals Tomlinson examined in north-east London. Yet the report ignores this evidence when recommending the closure of Bart's. No wonder that Lord Rayner has described the report as "profoundly unbusinesslike". The demographic basis of the report's examination of patients treated at Bart's on a day basis and in other ways is so inadequate as to be positively misleading.
Several of your Lordships have already spoken of the consequences of the report's implementation in its present form. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, referred to the losses which would be incurred if the recommendations of the report in respect of the Royal Marsden and the Royal Brompton were carried out. They would amount to some £70 million. In the case of Bart's there would be wastage of £60 million on the refurnishing and refurbishment of operating theatres and the like which has been spent within the past five years. Of course, no one would maintain for a moment
1372
that the reconstruction of the London health services is unnecessary or is not indeed long overdue. But Tomlinson's scheme is not the only form of reconstruction. Indeed, as a number of speakers have pointed out, the scheme is so unsatisfactory that it merits another, more detailed and urgent inquiry.
There can be no justification for the destruction of centres of such excellence as will result from the implementation of this report without further inquiry. A reform resulting in the loss of related medical, scientific and clinical research such as was built up at Bart's—as it can only be built up over long years and which is greatly admired in other countries—will be a long-term disaster for patients in all parts of the country. Are we so poor a country that we cannot sustain such centres of excellence as well as providing good community medical provision? If it be said that I have made a special pleading, I would ask the following: have we as a country today so much in the way of centres of excellence that we ought not to plead specially for such as we have?
5.2 p.m.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, as I stand to address your Lordships I am much aware that the boomerang that I threw has come back to hit me because it was I who originally tabled a Motion in your Lordships' House to draw attention to London's teaching hospitals anticipating the publication of the Tomlinson Report. When the noble Lord, Lord Annan, tabled his Motion restricted to issues in the Tomlinson Report, it was I who persuaded the noble Lord, Lord Annan, to widen his Motion, which he graciously did, to allow your Lordships to consider the Tomlinson Report in its entirety.
Some 42 noble Lords today wish to consider the Tomlinson Report in its entirety. I have the daunting task in the five and a half minutes that remain to me to mention matters of concern to the London teaching hospitals. If I and other noble Lords who have to compress our words have a daunting challenge, none is more daunting than the challenge that faced my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health. The daunting challenge that faces her is not of her making but one which falls to her as the recipient of a report advocating changes which, as the noble Lord, Lord Annan, has said, should have taken place, or most certainly executed, long, ago.
It seems to me that the only way forward is to proceed by establishing some simple criteria. The first has already been much mentioned in this debate and it is the preservation of excellence. But how is that to be achieved? Let us for a moment look at the position of the special health authorities; for example, the position of the Royal Brompton Hospital and the Royal Marsden. Tomlinson in his report suggests that the way to preserve their excellence is to move them on to the Charing Cross site and therefore integrate them into a teaching hospital. The question to be asked is: is that the right solution? I tested that out today when I spoke to the chief executive of the Brompton hospital. I asked him how many cases he needed to refer from his hospital to other hospitals for the continuation of patients' treatment. His answer was

1373
one in 1,000. I hesitate to criticise the Tomlinson Report because in many ways it is a rational and sensible report but it has to be recorded that it lacks a clear factual basis. The preservation of excellence should also be considered among the many achievements and many highly successful units in the teaching hospitals. The question is: how can that be achieved? There is no answer in Tomlinson.
The second criterion is that costs should be balanced against the interests of patients, medical research and education. But again how is that to be achieved? Is, for example, the costing which has been aligned against the London hospitals a fair criterion? It does not require much intelligence to recognise that if a hospital, a SHA or a major London teaching hospital gives major surgery to a patient, that patient is likely to remain in hospital a great deal longer and take up much more bed time than a patient who is undergoing simpler surgery. Further, the costing criterion is hardly fair on the London teaching hospitals which often have to keep patients in their hospitals because of the poor social conditions outside.
The third criterion I draw to the attention of your Lordships is that the major acute centres in the London hospitals, albeit consolidated, should remain here in London. It seems to me to make no sense, and certainly to cause great expenditure, to move those units outside London, probably to places of less convenient access. It is interesting to note how many of the London hospitals are situated close to major railway stations.
The fourth criterion should be that the reduction in capacity of London hospitals should be matched by an improvement in primary care. We all acknowledge the achievements of this Government in applying to medicine the discipline of the market. I now change from boomerangs to balls. Now the ball is thrown back to the Government. May we have a White Paper which incidentally will give us an opportunity to return to these important matters? Can we have from the Government their criteria for the future of London's teaching hospitals and for the choice of sites? Can they give us a clear timetable? Can they give us early decisions on mergers—I emphasise the word "mergers" and not closures of hospitals—and then make the decisions on the sites? This is an occasion for us to work together. It is not an occasion for doctors to fight doctors and hospitals to fight hospitals.
5.8 p.m.
Lord Spens: My Lords, it is eight years to the week that my father died. I regret very much the delay in taking up my seat here. As other noble Lords will know, I have been somewhat engaged elsewhere. However, having said that, in the 50 hours I have been here I wish to thank the officers of the House for all the help they have given me.
I am able to speak on this subject with a certain degree of emotion because I have been on the operating tables of three of the hospitals in question which are in the vulnerability table. They are St. Bartholomew's, St. Thomas's, and Guy's. Indeed a
1374
few months ago a heart surgeon from Guy's held my heart in his hands. Therefore I have great emotional commitment to those hospitals.
I took the report home to read, and I found to my horror that it is written in code. So I employed my Enigma machine —my wife, who can do The Times crossword in under 10 minutes—to help me decipher it. Believe it or not, there are some 40 plus acronyms in the report. When analysed those acronyms break down approximately 20:20— 20 representing what I would call bureaucracy: the health authorities, service companies, councils and committees. That is a mind-boggling number of bureaucracies for any organisation to cope with. Given the experience of doctors and the centres of excellence which they represent in dealing with those bureaucracies, it is remarkable that we have a health service of such quality at all. The conclusions on page 57 of the report make no comment on reducing that manpower. It does not appear that any consideration has been given to that possibility.
If noble Lords were in a different situation and, for example, Oxford colleges—and I say Oxford colleges because Cambridge colleges are light and airy—were dealt with in a similar report which had reached similar conclusions and those colleges were under threat as centres of excellence, I wonder what the reaction would be.
It appears to me that this report does not go halfway to analysing the problem. I do not believe that at the end of the day any of the conclusions which the report has produced will resolve the particular problems which London faces.
5.11 p.m.
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, on behalf of the whole House I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Spens, on the speech he has just made. I hope that there will not be such a long gap as the one to which he referred before he gives us the benefit of his views again. I should also like to say how sorry I am that my noble friend Lord McColl of Dulwich appears after me in the order of speakers as I regard him as my mentor on questions such as this.
At present, inner London has a unique mix of excellent hospitals and, by and large, the worst primary care services in the country. The noble Lord, Lord Joseph, spoke about that and the recent paper by Professors Jarman and Bosanquet in the British Medical Journal. It has been generally agreed so far in the debate that if hospitals are closed without prior action being taken that already bad situation will get worse. That is especially so because at present the excellent hospitals to some extent make up for the poor primary care services. Their accident and emergency departments serve tens of thousands of people who are not registered with GPs for one reason or another—the homeless, refugees, tourists, transients and commuters, who may be registered with GPs but not in London.
There is a feasible, or at least partially feasible, alternative if resources are made available. If the primary care services of inner London were reorganised with London's special needs in mind and

1375
a great deal more spent on them, perhaps those people who make London's needs so different from any other part of the country would be properly served by new GPs, nurse-practitioners and other types of nurse based outside hospitals. Good GP-based primary care will have been built up to take up the slack.
However, as already pointed out, it all depends on the timing and on primary care services being built up before hospitals are closed and not afterwards, as my noble friend Lady Jay said. That will take years to achieve. Old surgeries need to be refurbished, and new ones need to be built. Doctors in single-handed practices need to be persuaded to join with others, and young doctors who have, with wonderful exceptions, shunned inner London for so long need to be persuaded to work in London. That will only happen if they see signs of more resources being available for them. It will take years, and it is relevant that Professors Jarman and Bosanquet have shown how little progress has been made in the 10 years up to now. That is surely a good enough reason for delaying wholesale closures until the new services are in place.
Another approach which could be both quicker and cheaper is to base on the hospitals and their outreach centres a good part of the new primary care services that are needed. I have already mentioned the accident and emergency departments. In a new form they could be part and parcel of a new primary care service, tailor made to meet the special needs of inner London. Tomlinson himself makes favourable mention of GP projects at King's College Hospital and at the Lewisham Hospital, which is linked with Guy's, where GPs have moved into the accident and emergency departments to undertake some of the GP-type work which those departments see every day and night. Tomlinson does at least recognise the value of that initiative and how particularly important such an approach could be as a means of improving the education and training which future GPs receive in teaching hospitals.
Another good proposal is that an extended health centre should be set up on the Smithfield site—but, unfortunately, after Bart's has closed. That could be most valuable, but it would be much more effective and valuable if it was linked to a hospital which also remained on the site. I should like to associate myself with what has been said by noble Lords about the case for not closing the buildings at Bart's at least until a great deal more preparation has been undertaken.
The larger case against the Tomlinson proposals is that the new financing arrangements for hospitals have hardly got going yet. Much is obscure. A great deal more work surely needs to be done on the costing of treatments before anyone can be sure what is happening or should happen. Tomlinson was, as most people admit, extraordinarily short of vital figures on which to make a good judgment. It would surely be better to wait until there is more experience and the Department of Health has more evidence about the way its reforms are bedding down before drastic and irreversible decisions are made. Surely there should not be summary executions before the new financial system has been given its chance to show what it can
1376
do and before the hospitals' proposals for adjustment and for saving money have been given a fair and decent trial.
5.18 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, my first reading of the report led me to believe that the Government, unaccustomed as they ordinarily are to haste, had put undue pressure on Tomlinson to get on with the job. Many of the comments contained in the report appear to be evidence of lack of time and opportunity to look into the details more carefully.
One misfortune resulting from the time limit imposed in such debates as this is that I cannot spend as much time as I would wish either in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Annan, or in congratulating my two noble friends and the noble Lord, Lord Spens, on their admirable maiden speeches. One also tends to focus on those areas of the report which give one grounds for unease rather than on applauding the parts with which one agrees.
I would like to concentrate my remarks on three particular hospitals. Perhaps I can be forgiven for saying that to all three the charitable foundation of which I am chairman has given, and continues to give, substantial support. They are the Royal Marsden, the Royal Brompton and the Charing Cross. The first two are undoubted centres of excellence. They enjoy a world-wide reputation for both the clinical and the research work which they carry out. Bearing in mind the horrors of London navigation, they are comparatively easy of access. Huge and costly improvements have been carried out in both.
In saying what I am going to say now, I mean absolutely no reflection upon, or criticism of, the work carried out at the Charing Cross Hospital. In so far as I am aware of it I think it is excellent. But it is a fairly horrible building on an inaccessible site. I know not who the architect responsible for it was, but every time I go there I reflect upon its defects.
The idea of uprooting those parts of the Royal Marsden and the Royal Brompton that can be moved and squeezing them, or as much of them as there is room for, into Charing Cross is a notion of nightmare quality. I very much hope that the Government will drop the idea. Centres of excellence are not frequent phenomena in our country today. To persist with the move would involve not only a loss of beds, but a huge cost—the cost not only of moving but of what would inevitably be left behind. There would be damage to morale and to reputation. There would be immense disturbance and concern to patients. There would be —I believe that this should be mentioned—profound disappointment and unease, to put it mildly, on the part of those who had made tremendous efforts to raise money and who had given substantial sums. I hope that the Government will not dismiss that matter lightly because more and more, it seems, patients are going to be dependent upon charity in our hospitals.
If the Government persist with what is to my mind a very ill-conceived notion, there will be no magic adhesive available to bind together into a new coherent unit the three units they will be putting

1377
together which have such disparate backgrounds. I repeat that to take them away and put them into that building on that site would be folly.
5.24 p.m.
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff: My Lords, I wish to add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for giving us this opportunity for debate in the very short period of consultation that we have so that we can voice our support for the Tomlinson Report and our reservations and concerns. Many of us in this House have a sense of déjá vu, having lived through various reports. I served on the Royal Commission on the National Health Service which reported in 1979. To this day I recall interviewing general practitioners from London and visiting, with horror, some of their premises. At the end of that report we recommended that there should be an inquiry into health care in London and that it should be conducted with some urgency. I have a sense of satisfaction that after 13 years we now have a report.
I add my congratulations to those of many noble Lords who have already spoken before for the very positive suggestions in the Tomlinson Report. I welcome the recommendations of the report as they affect primary care facilities for general practitioners. It contains innovative suggestions for the expansion of primary care; the need to test alternative models of primary care that suit the needs of London; and suggestions for extended access and availability of service.
But I have reservations. I must add my name to the list of noble Lords who have questioned the database from which conclusions have been drawn. This has been emphasised many times in this afternoon's debate. I should like to give just one example. The estimate for funding the changes in primary care as given in the Tomlinson Report is £140 million. The estimate given in the King Edward Hospital Fund report, Health Care in London, 2010, is £250 million. That leaves me with no confidence about what has been costed, what has been left out and what is the timescale.
Secondly, I believe that the report is weak on the nursing implications. I believe that district nurses, health visitors, practice nurses and nurse practitioners will play a key role in the provision of primary health care in London. There is, however, no indication of manpower requirements and the desirable skill mixes.
It is perhaps a pity that we have to await a separate report, promised last month, to see what the implications might be for community nursing, and we cannot include that in our total purview of the report.
We have to remember that district nursing services, for instance, in London cost 11 per cent. more than they do elsewhere. But there are fewer district nurses per head of population. Non-London inner deprived districts employ nearly 50 per cent. more district nurses than their inner London equivalents, and the national average is some 23 per cent. higher. Not only that, but the recruitment of district nurses and health visitors from the four Thames regions has fallen, with 12 per cent. fewer health visitor students and 21 per
1378
cent. fewer district nurse students in 1990–91. This seems to be no way to pave the way for improved primary care.
Thirdly, I want to look at the rationalisation of hospital provision, and in particular at the work of St. Bartholomew's Hospital. I have a vested interest, because it was there that I trained as a nurse.
The particular claims of St. Bartholomew's Hospital were so eloquently put by the noble Duke and by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, that I have no need in the short time available to reiterate them. But I want to pull out some of those features of excellence in that place—and I stress excellence, not elitism—that seem particularly to apply to the objectives that we now have in the National Health Service. There are the newly opened Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, the one and only institute of its kind in the country; the William Harvey Research Institute, headed by a Nobel prizewinner and in the forefront of international research into cardiovascular diseases; the only professor of paediatric oncology; a professorial department of general practice spearheading the kind of innovative changes needed in inner city areas; and a leading centre for the treatment of HIV and AIDS. I believe that that cannot be lost. We cannot pick up an institution and place it down elsewhere.
For me health care is not a game of Monopoly in which, by the toss of a dice, one is told to go to Charing Cross or to Whitechapel, or to get caught in an isochrome on the way to casualty. Health care is about caring for each other not only in contract and in charters but in covenant.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the report appears to us to be looking at the heart of the National Health Service. But it looks like that to others too. Indeed, in an important sense it is the heart of the National Health Service. Clinical research is recognised not only here but worldwide to be a principal strength of the service and its hallmark. In that it is still a world leader. No less than half of all that research is done in London.
The impact of that research is enormous. The first product is, of course, a steady improvement in the care and cure of patients. If that were the only result it would still be necessary to maintain and to protect that effort. But there are others. British primacy in that work is, for instance, one of the most important factors in securing to our pharmaceutical industry exports which, at £2.6 billion, represent 3 per cent. of all United Kingdom manufacturing exports. That creates jobs and stimulates the economy wherever in the country the industry and its supplies are based. So this is one of the rare occasions when it would be reassuring rather than the reverse to know that the Treasury will be involved. Will the Minister tell us, please, how the Treasury will be involved and what cost-benefit analysis will be made?
The economic benefits of clinical research do not end with exports. Other effects are noticeable here in London. The primacy in this field, not just of Britain but of London, is recognised worldwide. That is a powerful magnet. Patients come to London from all

1379
over the world. Most go to the private sector but they do so because of the work in the public sector. They come here, they are treated and they pay. Their families come here and stay in our hotels. They buy our goods and they pay too. The benefit of that to the economy of greater London alone is about £1 billion per year.
As there is now no widely-recognised body to voice the interest of London as a whole in this consultation, will the Minister tell us whether a copy of this report has been sent, with an invitation to comment, to the London Forum? That body was recently founded for this purpose under the chairmanship of Sir Alan Shephard. If not, would she please arrange for that to be done?
The benefits do not end there. Doctors, trained here at a balance of payments benefit of £5.5 million per annum, carry home not just their skills but their experience. They have experience of British practices, British institutions and British products. In that strictly non-colonial sense trade still follows the flag. Our role in clinical research is a vital factor in the achievement of that £2.6 billion of pharmaceutical exports.
We do not have the job of training those people as of right. It is not some easily retained legacy from our imperial past. We maintain it in the face of real and increasing foreign competition. We shall keep it only for as long as we remain a leading first world country in terms of clinical medical research. It is clear, is it not, that clinical research is good not only for the health of the nation but for the wealth of the nation as well? It must therefore be sheltered in the impending process of change because what we are dealing with is not a mechanism but an organism—and a symbiotic organism at that.
Clinical research, as the noble Lord, Lord Desai, pointed out, requires the security of supply of patients over a period of years in a highly-specialised environment, supporting collaborative multidisciplinary teams. It takes not years but decades to build those teams. If they are broken up specific and costly provisions will be needed to repair the damage. That in itself dictates a steady not a precipitate programme. Will my noble friend please remind the Treasury that, if it pursues short-term savings to the exclusion of long-term gains, it will for that reason kill the system altogether?
The debate on how SHAs are next to be funded is critical but it may be premature. Following your Lordships' Select Committee Report in 1989 Professor Michael Peckham set up within a new unit in the Department of Health a review of NHS-funded research. That debate cannot be properly conducted without knowledge of his work. Is it now available and if so where? If not, will my noble friend please tell the House how and when it will be brought into the current consultation process?
Paragraph 87 of the report refers to the overhead cost of SHA research as "notional". That word has two current uses; one conveys that the figure is not reliable and the other that it does not matter. In which sense do the Government take that word? Neither
1380
seems to be appropriate. The figure is generally thought to be about half the costs of SHAs. That is not significant, nor must it rest on uncertain calculations. The urgent need now is to obtain a firm costing. That will be critical to the viability of competition between the SHAs, or their successors, and other providers in the NHS market. I follow the noble Lord, Lord Annan—whom I have time to thank warmly for introducing the debate so eloquently and elegantly —in saying that to lose the sum in general capitation, as is proposed, would be to cast aside the only means so far established of securing a competitive and therefore viable clinical research sector in the United Kingdom. If it is not viable we shall lose all the advantages that flow from clinical research. Will the Government please proceed with very great care?
5.37 p.m.
Lord Smith: My Lords, we are all greatly indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for introducing the debate. The subject is of wide public interest and is of great concern to all health workers, in particular doctors. I am a surgeon but during my early professional years while working for my final FRCS degree I was a general practitioner in London. Therefore, I have limited experience in the primary care of patients as well as consultant care in hospitals.
I am in favour—I believe that all doctors are in favour —of improving the standard of the primary care of patients in London. Nevertheless, the Tomlinson Report implies that we can best do that at the expense of the hospital sector. If we pursue that course we should proceed with much care and circumspection and we should look askance at some of the recommendations in the report.
The closure of hospitals would, in some cases, inevitably lead to the breakup of clinical teaching and research teams. The money available would not necessarily be spent on primary care. Much of it would be spent on redundancies and on reshaping what hospital services would remain. Doctors are not obstructive to necessary change but we must support some hospitals. I should have thought that any government would have done much to avoid going down in history with a stigma for abolishing Bart's. But I am not a Bart's man. Improving primary care is a worthy objective in itself, but it must be managed without seriously affecting the fundamental effectiveness in hospital treatment; otherwise, we should in truth be losing the baby with the bath water, because primary care is a mere preliminary to hospital care in severe illness. Nevertheless, the Government will have much support if they aim to improve the lot of general practitioners. But it will not be easy or inexpensive.
Time is short and I can but summarise the considerations which I believe the Government should at least take into account: the provision of health centres; the mobility and transport of doctors, nurses, technicians and equipment for home care; provision of beds for patients of general practitioners; specialist visits to patients' homes. All those factors must be individually considered.
I close my remarks by referring briefly to research in general practice. Primary care must include

1381
research into the wider implications of the cause of ill-health. There is no doubt that poverty, bad housing, unemployment and poor education must be factors, and research in primary health care should be invaluable.
I wish the Government well in this most difficult task of trying to improve upon the primary care of patients in London. I believe that major additional funding must precede any hospital rationalisation programme. We must not devalue the fundamental clinical teaching and research teams which have been built up over the years at our teaching hospitals, which are the best in the world.
5.41 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, one theme has run through the Tomlinson Report and many of the speeches that we have heard this afternoon; namely, the need to improve primary care and community health services. In introducing the debate the noble Lord, Lord Annan, stressed primary care but I add always the words "and community health services" because they are as important in the delivery of health care as are the general practitioners whom one normally recognises in primary care. That has been widely reflected in the speeches this afternoon.
Although there have been criticisms of individual recommendations, there has been broad support for the thrust of the Tomlinson Report. I have said to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State that I believe that with this report she has the wind in her sails in a way that no previous report covering the reform of the health service in London has provided.
As regards the Acheson Report, I should say to the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane of Llandaff, that I implemented that Royal Commission recommendation when I appointed Sir Donald Acheson and he did report, albeit to my successor and not to me. It is right that his recommendations should have been picked up by Tomlinson.
At this stage of a debate one does not wish to repeat generalities. I should like to single out one aspect on which I do not believe Tomlinson has recognised the truth of the need to focus services on the community and on primary care. That is referred to at paragraphs 48 to 54 of the report dealing with integrated trusts. Tomlinson has come down very firmly against trusts being responsible both for acute hospital and community health services. I do not believe that in this he has followed the logic of the main thrust of the report.
I have referred previously in your Lordships' House to the Forest Health Care Trust, of which I have the honour of being the chairman. It is a whole-district, integrated trust. We have abandoned what I call the Tomlinson model, which has a very firm door at the hospital that separates the community services, on the one hand, and hospital in-patient care, on the other. Our management cuts right across that. Care is concentrated on the patient—on patient care groups, with the managers, clinical directors and teams of doctors and nurses straddling what I describe to my
1382
managers as "the seamless robe" between acute care in the hospital and care in the community and support for general practitioners.
It seems to me—and I pick up what a number of noble Lords have said—that we should not choose one single model because in inner London that model has been shown to be deeply flawed. I am sure that Tomlinson is right that where there is that separation, the strength of the teaching hospitals has been to suck in resources to the detriment of community health services. That is perhaps the most important single thing which Tomlinson said. However, that does not necessarily mean that there must be separate management. On the contrary, everything is to be said for a unified management provided that it is absolutely clear what one is trying to achieve.
Our purchasers wish to see more care in the community and strengthened primary care. Therefore, as a provider—and Forest Health Care Trust is a provider—that must be at the heart of what we are trying to do. I have here example after example of how, because we are managing people and managing resources as a single team across the whole spectrum of the service, we are now switching care into the community. We have had to trim back acute care on non-urgent operations in order to fulfil our statutory duty to break even. Even so, we are switching another £0.25 million into community care.
As the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, commented, we are working to get GPs into our accident and emergency units. Consultants are beginning to give out-patient treatment in health centres. We are beginning to have community paediatric teams which work both in the hospital, in the children's wards and out in the community. A midwife is attached to the patient in the primary care sector in the community and the same midwife works in the hospital. We can do that because it is all under the same management. The same is happening with geriatric services. That has greatly improved the discharge arrangements and the transfer of patients from acute to longer stay care and eventually into the community.
Therefore, I find it absolutely astonishing that faced with all that—and we gave evidence to Tomlinson about it—Tomlinson still recommends strongly that the integrated trusts should be unpicked. He says, perhaps in obeisance in our direction, that perhaps in outer London the arguments are not quite so strong. The arguments are strong for an experimental approach, a variety of solutions, and in particular for our solution which manifestly is seen to be working well and has the support of the local medical committee, the GPs and our purchasers. That work should not be unpicked in trying to go back to the closed door between acute and community services. That is what Tomlinson is about. If my noble friend or her honourable friends try to unpick me, I shall be very cross indeed!
5.49 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, one of the greatest weaknesses in the Tomlinson Report and that of the King's Fund is that there seems to be no

1383
user-patient input. I should like to quote from a letter that I have received from the Lane-Fox Respiratory Union Patients' Association at St Thomas's Hospital:
"As with all people concerned with the main London hospitals our members are concerned at the outcome of the recommendations when the report has been considered by the Ministers".
I hope that the Minister's advisers will be unbiased and honourable.
I hope that the Government do not rush into taking action which they will deeply regret when it is too late. I had my life saved in a specialised centre of excellence. I saw, first hand, patients who were eventually referred to other hospitals because district general hospitals had made a mess. In the long run, it is to the benefit of all that the GPs and hospitals which do not know how to proceed further with an acute patient's treatment can refer patients to specialised units in order to receive advice from them.
For research purposes to progress and develop new treatments and to combat some of the life-threatening conditions which take away so many of our dearest friends and children, one must have enough patients and congenial working conditions to attract the highest possible research workers. It is not only in London that there is anxiety in the research world. I have a cousin who is a research doctor in Leeds. In a letter he recently wrote to me, he said,
"It has not been a particularly pleasant experience answering to two institutions (university and hospital) that hold two conflicting sets of priorities. Clinical services are deteriorating, promising research projects are losing their momentum and the teaching commitment goes well beyond reasonable limits. Small wonder then that I am considering an offer from the University of Singapore—I would honestly prefer to stay in Leeds if at all possible, but I fear that the current environment is becoming increasingly hostile to the combination of service ethic and clinical leadership for which I have trained".
It will be a great loss if we lose our up-and-coming doctors to countries which can offer them more job satisfaction and appreciation.
I hope that the Secretary of State will not go along with some of Tomlinson's suggestions, otherwise there will be demoralisation of and indignation from many people. I witnessed the sheer disbelief on the faces of some of the people who raised £2 million in these difficult times to upgrade the world-famous Royal Marsden Hospital when they heard that it was on the "hit list". It seems madness that the new Royal Brompton National Heart and Lung Hospital, opened last year by Her Majesty the Queen, may close. It has special catheter laboratories next to the theatres, lead-lined walls built around the hi-tech equipment and special copper-lined walls for the magnetic resonance unit. There has been expertise training for the medical, nursing and technical staff to work in such a critical and specialised hospital.
Last but not by any means least, one of the best known and much loved hospitals which is the oldest in London—founded in 1123—and which has served the poor free all its life, is St. Bartholomew's. It was founded in a spirit of service and giving. It does not serve only the local catchment area. With its expertise
1384
in leukaemia and other complex conditions it serves the whole country and is world renowned for its medical school and excellent nursing school.
Surely this Government cannot be responsible for the destruction of one of our heritage gems with the best tradition of care which has been passed down from generation to generation of doctors and nurses. That inheritance cannot be picked up and put down in some dreary modern block. Part of the history lives in the aura which surrounds the buildings. Bart's survived the fire of London and Hitler's bombs; can it now be closed or sold to Saudi Arabia? With modern communication the world is small and we will be thought crazy.
I believe many busy people who come up to work in the City of London and thereabouts need a good hospital that they can attend near to their place of work so that too much time off work is not taken. Have the disasters such as Moorgate, Kings Cross, the IRA City bombing and the recent air crash in Amsterdam not taught us how important it is to have highly skilled medical care with full back-up and beds easily available in a city choked with traffic? With the shadow of AIDS spreading throughout the world and increasing, as announced yesterday by the World Health Organisation, it is quite extraordinary that we should be appealing for the retention of our best hospitals when they are so often our only lifeline.
5.54 p.m.
Baroness Eccles of Moulton: My Lords, perhaps I may start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for giving us this opportunity to debate the Tomlinson Report and also to add my congratulations to those already made on the excellent maiden speeches we heard this afternoon. As chairman of an outer London health authority I am particularly interested in how the recommendations might affect the outer London ring.
It has been said many times already that we are at a stage when the pressure for change in London is great and that will intensify as the effects of capitation funding and the internal market take hold. It would be wrong to imply that no efforts have been made to adjust the imbalance between London and the rest of the country before the concept of money following the patient was introduced. Before reform-stimulated information was available, the Thames regions knew that there was a distortion in funding between London and the Shires, and the Resource Allocation Working Party, better known as RAWP, was an attempt to adjust the imbalance. No doubt it has helped, but it is necessary to get at the cause.
The cause has two main features which are interrelated. As has been stated many times, in central London there is inadequate primary and community care, both in quality and quantity, and too many high-cost low-volume hospital beds for the population it serves: I had a lot more to say on that but I shall move on. It has been clearly demonstrated that improvements must be made in primary and community care in order to reduce the inappropriate use of hospital beds; that would include more nursing homes to relieve acute beds that are being used at

1385
present mainly for social care. Because of circumstances peculiar to a great inner city, innovative and imaginative ways must be found. The solution cannot be confined to bricks and mortar, important though they are; initiatives are needed from doctors across the spectrum to discover new and different ways of providing the service. The Government may also have to look at innovative ways of funding the transition.
First of all, there will have to be investment in improved primary and community care which will reduce the demand on beds. There will also need to be found funds covering the costs associated with amalgamating hospitals—assuming, of course, that the recommendations are implemented. Then there will be a time lag before the payback of lower overheads in the acute sector and potential capital receipts can be realised. Therefore one solution may be a capital pool out of which bridging arrangements could be made.
What of the effects on outer London? Faster throughput and more day case work—both the result of progress in medical technology and both incidentally better for the patient—are resulting in falling acute bed demand in outer London. Although the move to weighted capita funding is not yet complete, health authorities are entering into contracts on behalf of their resident populations and seeking to get the best value for money at the highest standards possible. Inevitably there is a substantial move away from contracts with high cost London teaching hospitals for treatment that can be carried out at lower cost nearer home. There is a high degree of support from both patients and GPs for this policy as hospitals in outer London now have better facilities and a wider range of medical expertise than used to be the case.
As the effects of the Tomlinson recommendations bite, the results will be patchy in different parts of outer London depending on the effects of patient flows, existing outer London specialties, the scope for development and so forth. A big impact would be the closure of a nearby accident and emergency department and the effect it would have on the work load of neighbouring hospitals.
The greatest benefits that the outer London ring will receive from a rationalisation in Inner London is in funding and inpatient access. As we well know, last year's funding included a generous amount for growth in the funding round. Too much of that was soaked up in keeping the big, expensive teaching hospitals going and there are many statistics to support that. There is so much that we can do to improve the services, again with emphasis on primary and community care. In particular, our new partnership with the local authority, which will take effect next April, very much increases the need for all health moneys to be used economically and effectively.
The public is our severest judge wherever we work. However, judgment will tend to be set against traditional patterns of service with bed numbers writ large. We have much to do to build public commitment to an emphasis on primary care and family health services. We must make sure that real service benefits are achieved.
6 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for introducing this debate. As an employee of the University of London, like an employee of the European Community, I must declare not one interest but many. Since in 27 years as a Londoner I have also had a variety of needs as a patient, I am tempted to wonder whether perhaps I have so many interests that I might become impartial.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, put it, a teaching hospital is two conflicting institutions with two conflicting priorities. It is both a university and a hospital. A teaching hospital is in fact like a centaur; it cannot be adequately fed on a diet which consists of nothing but oats. In 1989 we introduced a system with the purchaser-provider split and money following the patient. That is the system of disbursement. That conflicts with the needs of teaching and research which are essentially needs for concentration. Excellence is well-known to feed off other excellence and to benefit from being concentrated in one place.
Nobody—least of all an academic—should argue that the needs of research should automatically be paramount. The new system has come in and it would be foolish to think of reversing it. I wonder whether quite enough thought has been given to exactly how the balance should be struck because, although we cannot give primacy to the needs of teaching and research, I do not believe that we should ignore them either.
We are getting something in the region of £1 billion a year from overseas patients and about £12.4 billion a year from related income from the pharmaceutical industry. That is serious money. I believe that Dr. Malcolm Green is right that a top London hospital is not only concerned with patient care. The Tomlinson Report, considering almost exclusively patient flow, has not necessarily got the whole picture, although it has got a very important part of it.
The report talks constantly about mergers. I listened with a great deal of agreement to what the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, had to say about them. I have some experience of mergers in the University of London. If one thing is clear about them, it is that the costs are certain and the savings are uncertain. Some of your Lordships may have read the recent correspondence, which is still continuing this morning, about the sale of the pictures at the Royal Holloway & Bedford New College. That does not result from academic vandalism, but from an under-funded merger. That is a story that may be repeated.
I agree strongly with what the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane of Llandaff, said about breaking up teams. Emigration has been mentioned. I have emigrated myself. It was not just to avoid a merger. However, I admit that the thought of being moved out to Egham entered into my calculations. So this is not a matter to be dismissed altogether. The foundation of evidence on which the Tomlinson Report relies is not perhaps of the thickest. The report itself states at Paragraph 110:

1387
"Our analysis of the vulnerability and natural catchments of the main inner London hospitals is fairly crude".
For example, the conclusion that the West Smithfield site is inevitably to be run down seems to be produced like a rabbit out of a hat and I cannot really follow exactly what the conjurer has been doing in the paragraphs immediately before.
Above all, I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, said about costs. There is also a slightly selective use of evidence which tends to underrate the excellence involved. The UFC rankings are quoted in a slightly selective way. One would not guess that two out of the four highest-ranked medical schools in that ranking exercise are in London.
But, above all, it is the cost point which matters. The noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, said that, if we have not got the money to meet the costs, we should not start. Even if we agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hayhoe—whose maiden speech I listened to with great pleasure—that the status quo is not an option, that should be said with the qualification which the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, put on it. If we do not pay for the reorganisation it will be a mess and then we shall lose something which should not be lost.
6.6 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, perhaps I may first declare an interest, but not a financial one. I am a governor of Nuffield Hospital. I should like to add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for initiating this debate. It gives us an excellent opportunity to discuss this important report which has been so eagerly awaited.
Our National Health Service is quite rightly regarded with great affection in Britain and it is very much respected abroad. Just as the NHS has set standards in health care for the world, so often have London's health services within it. The capital's health service has, over the years, trained thousands of NHS staff to the highest standards. It has been at the forefront of research. As professionals, its staff have always adapted well to changing circumstances and to new opportunities.
Less than two years' ago the health service was subject to wide-ranging reforms. Since that time those working in the London NHS have responded well. In fact, in the four Thames regions the number of patients waiting over a year for treatment has fallen by nearly 35,000. In those regions the number waiting over two years has dropped dramatically from more than 20,000 to just 5,000 since the reforms were introduced. I am sure that the whole House will acknowledge that these achievements are testimony to the hard work of hospital staff in London and the surrounding counties.
We can also acknowledge the recent improvement in family doctor services in the capital. Under the system of deprivation payments introduced as part of the GP contracts, the greater demands and needs of patients living in deprived areas are now beginning to be met. More inner city practices are reported to be meeting their targets for cancer screening and immunisation.
1388
People living in a city which has contributed so much to health care should be able themselves to rely on top quality services provided by family doctors or within the community. Although less glamorous than some of the treatments provided by the teaching hospitals, these services are no less essential. London's population and its requirements have changed over the past 50 years and the capital's health services must adapt accordingly. There now appears to be something approaching a consensus that, as a result of these long-term trends, a disproportionate amount of London's health resources are spent on hospital services. That was the conclusion of the Tomlinson Report and it is one which is shared by many others.
A reduction in the proportion of NHS resources in London which is spent on hospital services would free money for further improvement in primary and community care. The report also presents an opportunity for these sectors to work much more closely together, providing a continuation of care tailored to the needs of the patient; and more consultants to visit health centres in the community. It is pleasing to see that some fund holders are encouraging them to visit their surgeries. Meanwhile, GPs could assist in accident and emergency departments.
The first official report which concluded that London has too many hospitals was published in 1892, and now it is 1992. Consultation is important, but even by civil service standards I think that after 100 years the period for reflection may well be nearing its end. The time for reform is now approaching. I believe that London's NHS will adapt well to such reform. The ability to do so is a characteristic of all great institutions, and the principles contained in the Tomlinson Report will fashion an NHS in London which looks forward to the future and not just back at the glories of the past.
6.11 p.m.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for giving us an opportunity to discuss Sir Bernard's report. Perhaps I might take as my text a phrase which he used:
"Where is the money to come from?"
It is a phrase which is frequently heard in political circles, but basically this debate is about resources and how they are used. My noble friend Lord Dean has already drawn your Lordships' attention to the scandal of the Wessex computer system and the millions of pounds that have gone down the drain there. It is terribly important that while we can kick concepts and ideas about we have the financial resources to buttress action.
Sir Bernard's report refers to the disposal of a number of sites. On 10th November I had a Question answered by the Minister who is to reply today. I asked her what valuations of sites and buildings were made during the preparation of the Tomlinson Report and what was the date of those valuations. The reply was:
"I understand that, in preparing his report, Sir Bernard Tomlinson took into account information about the NHS estate in London from a number of sources, including the

1389
NHS Estates Agency, the Valuation Office Executive Agency, the Thames regional health authorities, the King's Fund Working Paper No. 11, and individual hospitals".
It is not exactly crisp and to the point in relation to what I actually inquired, but I do not complain about that: I have been in the trade myself in the past. Perhaps it was the normal civil service caution and possibly they might clutch to the bosom the excuse of commercial confidentiality, or possibly the valuations which were done earlier might be rather embarrassing compared with the valuations done later. The noble Lord, Lord Hayhoe, whose speech I much enjoyed, referred to the collapse in land values. The same point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Carr, when he referred to the present state of the property market.
In paragraph 227 of the Tomlinson Report, when referring to NHS capital disposals, Sir Bernard says:
"during the transitional period of reorganisation … the suspension of the presumption that the proceeds of assets disposals should remain in the hands of the trusts concerned. Such disposals should normally be seen as windfall capital gains, and should be recycled for the benefit of the reorganisation of the NHS in London as a whole".
My understanding of "windfall" is that it is something which comes unexpectedly—and here I must say that my understanding is purely theoretical, I am afraid. But I should like to know just how much reliance the Government are building into their financial calculations about the income from disposals. Is it all now nicely stitched up without any income from disposals? Is it just "bunce" or is it an integral part of the calculations on which these changes are based?
The Government have introduced their own joker into this pack because we are now to have a register of contaminated land. There is a great deal of concern in property and development circles about this because of the blight which might be attached to areas. In fact it has come to light recently that the Department of the Environment in Marsham Street is built on the site of an old Victorian gasworks. I will not make any obvious comments about this as time is too short, but the noble Duke, the Duke of Gloucester, pointed out that superimposed on any possible contamination of sites is the question of whether buildings are listed. He went into some detail about the unsuitability of Bart's Hospital for any other purposes. That was buttressed by evidence to the Government which has been submitted by the special trustees of Bart's and St. Mark's Hospitals after the publication of the report. It applies elsewhere. The question of archaeological remains is always pertinent in London. We never know when the clammy hand of English Heritage is going to stretch out and someone is going to say that some particular vestige has got to be kept for posterity.
Therefore, it must surely be totally unrealistic to expect any very substantial financial benefit to implement these proposals from the disposal of existing assets. I raise this point now because I do not want to sit here in years to come, witnessing some hand-wringing going on and voices saying, "If only we had known". Let it be quite clear that not only I but other speakers have raised this point with the
1390
Government and that we will not in any future discussions on this matter listen to the excuse, "Well, of course, these were unforeseen circumstances".
6.16 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for this timely opportunity to discuss the changes confronting health care in London. I deeply regret that I will have to leave before the end of the debate due to a longstanding commitment. I shall read with great interest the contributions it will be my misfortune to miss.
I must declare two interests. I serve on the board of the West Lambeth NHS Community Care Trust and I am a vice-president of the Royal College of Nursing. In both capacities, I and my colleagues welcome the proposals designed to bring about a reorientation towards more resources for primary health care in London.
There is inevitable anxiety about the future of specific institutions and of individual posts, which merits sensitive attention. But many of my colleagues support very strongly the general principles and premises of the Tomlinson Report, which are consistent with the general conclusions of the King's Fund Report published in June. They accept the analysis that too many teaching hospitals are serving a declining population, that there is a duplication of expensive specialist departments and that resources have been diverted away from local hospitals, general practitioner and community services.
Speaking from my experience in West Lambeth Community Care Trust, I have great confidence in the ability of staff in the community to rise to the challenge of changing health needs and to adapt local health services accordingly. For example, responding to the increase in the numbers of confused elderly people suffering from Alzheimer's disease, Lambeth has established a night respite care centre. The demands of caring for a confused, elderly relative put great stress on families, and constant lack of sleep is one of the most frequent reasons for families requesting a relative's admission to residential care, often with great reluctance and feelings of guilt. But Lambeth's Crest Night Respite Centre has helped many families to keep their elderly relatives living with them at home. This initiative is care effective and cost effective: it is one example of the imaginative ways in which health professionals in the community are responding to the changing needs of the populations they serve, reflecting that theme of the need for innovation which was mentioned by my noble friend Lady Eccles.
In West Lambeth Community Care Trust, morale is generally very high; and although there are formidable challenges, staff in all grades of service—medical, nursing and paramedical, and in vital areas of service such as those serving in laundries, kitchens, transport and communications —are all responding magnificently to the new autonomy and developing numerous initiatives, which enhance the quality of care they provide.
However, there are inevitably some anxieties. The first is over the timing of the allocation of resources. It

1391
is imperative that the Government invest in staff and facilities in primary and community health care services before the transfer of responsibilities, in order to prevent a hiatus in which some of our most vulnerable people would suffer. There is a need to invest in the most precious resource that the National Health Service has: people.
Perhaps I may especially highlight some of the problems confronting nurses. They are the backbone of care both in the hospitals and in the community. Hospital-based nurses should not be seen as surplus to requirements and made redundant. They should follow, where possible, patients and clients into the community. But community nursing requires different skills from hospital nursing. There is therefore a need for carefully planned education programmes on a pan-London basis, rather than on the current regional basis, which is causing problems in inner London as the regions are not co-ordinating their policies.
The Royal College of Nursing's report, London Needs All Its Nurses, endorses the proposals for the shift to the community but emphasises again the need for adequate funding. For example, there has been a serious decline in recruitment of community nurses in London, with a drop of 21 per cent. of district nursing students between 1990 and 1991, because health authorities have reduced sponsorship. This is especially disturbing when the workload of community nurses is increasing, and when there are opportunities for the development of exciting new roles, such as nurse practitioners, so ably advocated by my noble friend the Minister in a previous incarnation.
In conclusion, I ask my noble friend two questions. First, the Tomlinson Report recommends a total review of weighted capitation. This is critical. The current formula does not take adequate account of key issues such as homelessness, quality of housing, numbers of people suffering from HIV or Aids, drug abuse, and so on. An area such as Lambeth has some of the highest indices of social deprivation and health needs in the country. We therefore urge that the review of the system of weighted capitation be accepted. I should be grateful if my noble friend the Minister could give reassurance on this.
Secondly, and finally, can my noble friend give assurances that the allocation of resources to primary and community healthcare will be made, and made in time, so that the generally very welcome proposals of the Tomlinson Report will be implemented in ways which achieve their objectives of providing more and better health care in the community at the point of need to the benefit of all concerned: patients, clients, families, and the dedicated staff who serve them.
6.22 p.m.
Lord Dainton: My Lords, I fear that I cannot go as far back in time as the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, but the problems of maldistribution of health care provision within the four Thames regional health authorities, and especially inner London, are longstanding. Eighty years ago some of the clearest perceptions of London medicine came from outsiders
1392
like the young Yorkshire doctor turned politician, the progressive Christopher Addison, who gave us National Health insurance, and the distinguished American medical reformer, Abraham Flexner, from Johns Hopkins University.
I confess that I too am an outsider. I am not even a doctor, but from my past experience as chairman of the UGC trying to build up the numbers of medical students in London and trying to couple, if that is a not an inappropriate term, medical schools under the beneficent parentage of pre-clinical training afforded by multi-faculty institutions, I am afraid that I am inclined to share some of the scepticism of Addison and Flexner when I hear the not infrequent claims for the uniform excellence of London medicine.
Seen from my experience and vantage point, and from the excellent report of the King's Fund that has already been referred to, I have no doubt that the Tomlinson Report is correct in its diagnosis of the London problems and in the general thrust of its proposed changes. The present balance between primary care and specialist acute facilities is tipped far too far in favour of the latter and is especially inappropriate to inner London's needs. That must be rectified.
The proposals for merger of the undergraduate medical schools and their clustering in multi-faculty institutions, with the exception of St. George's at Tooting, are clearly sensible. No one should stand in the way of those changes, at least in principle, although I do not consider that the case has been made for the recommended reduction of the medical intake by 150. In any case, the issue of medical student entry seems to me of much lower priority for implementation than many of the other recommendations.
There is a strong case for the question of student numbers to be further studied by the implementation group, which should certainly be established as quickly as possible by the Secretary of State and which should have as one of its members a person who is knowledgeable about the University of London. That university has an extremely important place in medical education and research in this country. Those activities are bound to be much affected by changes in the provision of hospitals. It has occurred to me that perhaps the present director of research in the Department of Health, who was formerly a director of the British Postgraduate Medical Federation, would make an admirable member of the committee. It is obvious that if teaching hospitals are closed because of reducing numbers, then both teaching and research space will be lost.
In that context I should like to make the general observation that there is always a danger that the "planners", with their minds focused on better health care today, can, in the course of executing their reforms, almost inadvertently remove the infrastructure so essential to good research and teaching; an infrastructure which, once destroyed, is so difficult to replace. Those planners should remember that the medical research community have had to endure and accept many changes in recent years, and that those changes have inevitably affected the morale and commitment of able research scientists. If any further

1393
changes are called for, and I expect they will be, they should only be arrived at and managed after the widest consultation not only with the leaders of those scientists but with the Medical Research Council and with the major medical research charities.
That brings me naturally to another feature which is peculiar to London; namely, the dedicated postgraduate clinical research institutes of the University of London and the Royal Postgraduate Medical School—about which, as its president, I must declare an interest—and the special health authorities which are the unique channels through which the associated hospitals receive financial support directly from the Department of Health. It is in dealing with these matters that the report is least convincing, in considerable measure because the conclusions are based upon assertions largely unsupported by any accompanying evidence.
For example, in paragraph 157 it is stated:
"Single-specialty hospitals are, on the whole, less than ideal for patient care, and for research and teaching".
That statement is not buttressed by any argument. Nor can such a conclusion be supported by overseas experience. Nor does any careful financial analysis underpin other statements.
I am of course always open to be persuaded on the assertions but only if the matter is much more carefully documented than appears to be the case in the report. In particular, if the special health authorities would, under this proposal, become trusts, then one has to think that while the special increment for teaching and research may increase their income from that source, it would still leave them with at least two-thirds of their income open to market forces. This may lead to a patient mix that is totally inappropriate to their main mission, and that cannot be right for those institutions which are in the forefront of medical research.
In deference to the eminently fair, self-denying ordinance under which we are to limit our speeches, I shall conclude simply by saying that I too hope that the implementation group will be nominated without delay, but I would add the rider that the Secretary of State should not instruct the implementation group to implement every Tomlinson recommendation as it stands, but that the group must have the right to test against ascertained facts or wide experience the validity of those recommendations which are doubtful, and have the right too to come to different conclusions.
Also as part of this deliberation, the evidence for taking any steps which would significantly change the roles of any institution must be discussed with its representatives because, at the end of the day, the quality of the service, whether patient care, education of students or research, is crucially dependent on the quality and morale of those persons who carry it out, and they will not commit themselves wholeheartedly unless they can be convinced that decisions on the organisation and funding have been arrived at on the basis of transparent, rational arguments, securely based on published data which are accepted generally as being valid.
1394
With these reservations I would commend the Tomlinson Report as a valiant attempt by yet another "outsider" to wrestle with difficult problems in London. As the noble Lord, Lord Walton, said, the opportunity to improve medical care in London must not be missed this time, even though the management of change will be difficult, particularly that of getting the sequence of events right.
6.30 p.m.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for introducing this debate. I was a little surprised that he should start off by attacking the consultants. After all, it was the consultants who managed to achieve agreement on the closure of a cardiac unit in London —no mean achievement. Who was it who threw a spanner in the works? The local MP in whose constituency the cardiac unit was situated. I am also a little surprised that the noble Lord should make the remarks that he did about Bart's, Guy's and St. Thomas's. Those institutions are doing very well in furthering advances and co-operating with some of the proposals. But I ask myself who was in charge of all these medical schools. Was it not a vice-chancellor? Why did not the noble Lord, Lord Annan, himself use his power to force change when he held office?
London has by default done itself a disservice over the past 10 or 20 years by allowing its resources to be spread too thinly over too many hospitals. But slimming down all these hospitals is simply not an option because that would lead to a deterioration in patient care, teaching and research. Furthermore, it would increase unit costs which would make the hospitals even less viable. With the increasing complexity of medical care the specialties are becoming increasingly dependent on one another and they need to be situated either within the curtilage of a general hospital or grouped together closely on one campus. One suggestion made by Sir Bernard Tomlinson was that the Marsden and the Brompton and their institutes should be closely grouped together with the Royal Westminster and Chelsea Hospital. Their research could be enhanced by close ties with the nearby Imperial College.
The Government are currently putting in £50 million a year simply to make up for the overspending of the excessive hospitals in London. This money comes from the rest of the country, and the rest of the country is none too pleased with this arrangement continuing. All this means that mergers and the regrouping of hospitals in London are inevitable.
One of the problems in London is that the elderly tend to end up in acute hospitals where they stay simply because there is nowhere else for them to go. We may need fewer acute beds in general hospitals, but there must be provision for the elderly in more suitable accommodation—in nursing homes, of which London is extraordinarily short. The domination of patient care by the hospital sector has to give place to a much more rational scene with greater emphasis on primary care and community care, and a great deal of money will have to be found to do this and to build much better GP premises. Until such premises are

1395
available, I am attracted by the suggestion of my friend the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, that accident and emergency departments, specially run by general practitioners, could help in this way.
Mental health services have never received the attention they need, but putting them into separate trusts will greatly improve matters, provided that the trust business plans include the hospital as a base and pivot for community links, day care and that essential ingredient, respite care.
There is a genuine worry about the recommendation that special health authorities should no longer have their special arrangement whereby their services are free to the purchasing health authorities. This is regarded by many as unfair competition which is drawing patients away from similar units in teaching hospitals whose services are not free to the purchasing health authorities. This present arrangement is threatening the viability of those units within the teaching hospitals and possibly the hospitals themselves. Tomlinson's solution to this problem is for the special health authorities to receive the same financial help as the teaching hospitals enjoy to cover the extra costs of research and teaching on their patients. With this extra payment many undergraduate teaching hospitals outside London achieve high levels of research as judged by the assessment of the universities. There could of course be a difficulty with research into rare disorders, but these could be protected, as Sir Bernard has suggested, by supplements available from central funds to any hospital with high quality research.
When it comes to implementing this report it is essential in my view that decisions should be made crisply and with no fudging. As has been said for many years, Guy's and St. Thomas's should fuse on one site. First of all, the management should fuse and then decide, on objective data, which site should be the hospital. The other site could then be used for a single academic centre for the medical schools of Guy's, St. Thomas's and the life science from King's College in the Strand, together with the school of nursing and midwifery. This would make a most attractive campus. The worst possible bureaucratic nightmare would result if the managements were to be fused and then for both sites to continue as hospitals.
Failure to implement this report would condemn all London hospitals to death by a thousand cuts. We need urgent, radical solutions to these problems in order to improve the quality of care in hospitals, in general practice and in community services. This will lead to better patient care, better teaching and better research. Sir Bernard Tomlinson's report provides the answers. We neglect them at our peril.
6.36 p.m.
The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for giving the House the opportunity to debate this important subject, I must apologise to the House for being unable to be in my place for the whole of the debate, but I have a prior commitment which, as it is helping the University of
1396
Strathclyde with the development of postgraduate programmes, will, I trust, be close to the noble Lord's heart.
The Government appear to be committed to the concept of centres of excellence in their proposals to reorganise teaching and research in the inner London hospitals, as outlined in the Tomlinson report. And yet included in those proposals is the suggestion that London's, Britain's, and indeed Europe's newest and most advanced teaching and research hospital for the treatment of heart and lung illnesses should be closed and moved. The Royal Brompton National Heart and Lungs Hospital, in Sydney Street in Chelsea, was constructed to the highest standards to take advantage of the latest developments in keyhole surgery in all of its operating theatres, and already 50 per cent. of the operations undertaken use this technique. Involving as it does the continuous use of complex X-ray observation to obviate the need for traditional invasive surgery, the walls, floors and ceilings have to be constructed with the appropriate radiation shielding as part of the basic structure. You cannot just pick up such a thing and move it down to Charing Cross Hospital, where, even if such a unit were to be established, there could never be the capability to achieve the critical mass of 2,000 plus operations a year needed to maintain a research base competitive with Johns Hopkins, Boston or Texas.
With the Royal Marsden, the new Westminster and Chelsea Hospital—St. Stephen's to you and I, my Lords—and the Imperial College grouping that includes St. Mary's, we have a unique opportunity to provide a medical campus to rival any in the world, a point already raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and by my noble friend Lord McColl. What is more, an independent survey by Ernst & Young, which is to be published, I believe, later this week, will show this solution to be the more cost-effective both in patient care and in management terms. Clearly, west central London is over-provided as the Tomlinson report has indicated, but in common with my noble friend Lord Peyton, I would put it to the Government that it is the unsatisfactory, already outdated and inefficient Charing Cross Hospital that should be closed and the resources devoted to the world-class centre of excellence that exists on what I now call the Kensington and Chelsea campus.
6.40 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for giving us the opportunity to debate the Tomlinson Report. The 33rd speaker will have had all his foxes shot, so it remains only to reinforce certain points. I wish to talk mainly about primary care, but before that I have a couple of questions about hospitals.
My first question relates to genito-urinary medicine and its clinics. At present all major hospitals run such a clinic. They have been an important bastion in the control of sexually transmitted diseases, not least HIV and AIDS. Of the larger EC countries, we have been by far and away the most successful in controlling the AIDS epidemic. Confidential walk-in clinics have played a vital role in that success, not just for London

1397
residents but for its 1.3 million daily commuters. Under these plans, such clinics will almost inevitably be reduced. Have the Government given any thought to what will replace them?
My second point relates to administration and manpower. An eventual reduction of something like 25 per cent. to 30 per cent. in London's hospital doctors seems to be envisaged. It was widely reported that between 1987 and 1991 the number of managers had increased by over 1,000 per cent. across the country. Will London management bear its share of that weight-reducing regime? The noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, was also worried about the administrative load. Shall we still need four Thames regional health authorities post-Tomlinson?
I turn now to primary care and the pursuit of some elusive figures. The philosophy of Tomlinson and the King's Fund Commission Report, which has been mentioned, is that the big general hospitals are the dreadnoughts of the service, and in any case there are too many of them in the Port of London. If that is accepted, many questions arise on how the transfer to lighter craft is to be made. Both Tomlinson and the King's Fund agree on the relatively poor state of primary and community health care in London, which has worse premises, more single-handed GPs, fewer practice nurses and other ancillary staff than the rest of the country. That was referred to by a number of noble Lords including the noble Lords, Lord Hayhoe, Lord Walton and Lord Young.
Writing in the British Medical Journal of 7th November, David Metcalfe, professor of general practice at Manchester, sets out his priorities for making the shift to primary care in inner cities a reality. It is worth reading. Encouragingly, he writes that there is an increasing number of highly idealistic young GPs who see the inner city as a professional challenge to be tackled head-on, but there are enormous obstacles. The primary sector is already under-resourced and overloaded. There is a high burn-out of practice nurses and staff. In some violent areas, even their physical safety is at risk. Professor Metcalfe wants not merely an improvement in premises, but a van-based service with a driver for the practice team, an expansion of community and cottage hospital beds, and the maintenance of, say, one out of every five or six practices on a 24-hour basis to cope with emergencies.
Tomlinson also wants neighbourhood nursing teams and other things such as nursing homes and day centres for the mentally ill and frail. As the list of community health requirements grows, it becomes clear that this revolution will not come cheap in the short and medium term. In paragraph 49, Tomlinson refers to a systematic transfer of resources over a period of years, but he then recommends that there should be a transitional increase of funding to build up the community health service in advance of a reduction of acute sector capacity. That is an important phrase. It is the crucial point. It was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Carr, and the noble Lord, Lord Young. It makes sense to have one's new facilities in place before closing the old, but one will not yet have any help from closures or site sales.
1398
Tomlinson puts no overall figure on those transitional policies, so I turned to the King's Fund Report which recommends a £250 million primary and community health care development programme for London. Some feel that that is inadequate but it depends upon what it is meant to cover.
Appendix 4 of the King's Fund Report estimates a release of £200 million a year from the acute sector, but that may not help us for several years. In the meantime, the King's Fund wants £216 million for capital costs and £164 million annual revenue costs for 90 new community-based health centres. That tots up to something over £1 billion over five years. Tomlinson has spoken only of £140 million over that period, mainly for improving existing premises. There is a big discrepancy here, and I am inclined to put more faith in the King's Fund figures.
Tomlinson is, of course, an architect's preliminary drawing only. We have yet no measured working drawings to give to the masons. Tomlinson recommends an implementation group with, I think, sector working parties to report within six months. We seriously need to see its more detailed and, one hopes, more accurately costed proposals, over which I suggest a good accountant should have crawled with a magnifying glass.
We are extremely fortunate in having the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, as the health Minister in this House. She is more alive to the problems than most of us. She was, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, said, a member of the King's Fund Commission until the general election, when the Secretary of State for Health sensibly persuaded her to accept this appointment. Will she give us an assurance that the Government will return to Parliament with a clear statement of the stages of the plan, the timescale and the transitional finance available? It is not just a question of Parliament. This is more than a reorganisation. It is a cultural revolution, and the confidence of everyone concerned, not least the patients and the staff, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, said, has to be won before we embark upon this worthwhile but difficult adventure.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for giving us the opportunity to have this debate. I must confess that when I read the Tomlinson Report and noted its aim to shift more care from the secondary to the primary sector in London, I was thrilled. There is an opportunity for imaginative innovations in general practice in London. If seized, the medical services in London can be improved dramatically. Life would be improved for the people of the many races and cultures who together form the community of London.
That, frankly, was my first reaction. Then I remembered that in London the primary sector is already under-resourced and overloaded. I realised that the essential improvements required in primary and community care in London could take place only if sufficient funds were made available. I further remembered the lasting effects on London of the

1399
extensive closures of long-stay psychiatric hospitals over the past decade, and the totally inadequate alternative provision made for the continuing care of the patients who were thus decanted into the community. At that moment, my enthusiasm waned.
I began to think and to dig more deeply. I decided to examine the waiting lists. I found that for general surgery, 44.8 per cent. of district health authorities in London had long waiting lists compared with 29.5 per cent. for England as a whole; and that for traumatic orthopaedic surgery 51.7 per cent. of district health authorities in London had long waiting lists, compared with 33.9 per cent. for England as a whole. Then again, I discovered that on 31st March 1992 there were 256,517 people on the waiting lists of the four Thames region authorities, and, that of those, 28,340 had been waiting for more than a year. Then I remembered that in August I read a report about the horrible state of the casualty department at King's College Hospital; of people lying on trolleys for hours and of people falling off the trolleys and dying. I became less willing to accept bed closures in London.
Then I thought of the problems being faced by junior doctors who have to work exceptionally long hours, with the realisation that their situation can be improved only if more consultants are appointed. Then I found it equally difficult to defend a reduction in the number of consultant posts.
I therefore join other noble Lords who have spoken in appealing to the Government to take the state of the health service on board and, while accepting the thrust of the Tomlinson Report, to make plans to remedy the known defects in its services before effecting these changes.
The improvement in the primary sector should precede any action on the closure of hospitals and the removal of beds. Other Members have made the point and I underline it because, frankly, that is the commitment we need from the Government. The sum required should be raised by borrowing and should be spent on improving the primary sector in the knowledge that part of it will be recouped by the selling of sites—but only part. In any case, an improvement in primary care service will reduce the overall costs of the health service in London.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Annan, about the Royal Marsden, and disagree with him about Thomas's. Thomas's is our hospital, it is the only one we now have where we once had four. Tomlinson said that the choice between the two hospitals, Guy's and Thomas's, was, in his own words, "finely balanced". I think that the balance should be tipped in favour of Thomas's in view of our needs.
I had intended to say something about Bart's because my daughter was an anaesthetist there, in charge of the intensive care unit on the day of the bomb in the Tower of London. She would have expected me to say something, but I can write to tell her that other people said so much about it that there was no need for me to say anything other than that I agree. I hope that when the Minister replies she will be able to assuage some of my fears.
6.52 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, in joining in the thanks that have been universally expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, I must include a reservation. I do not thank him for what I believe was a piece of misjudgment in confining the debate to five hours. Those of us who sat through this afternoon—
Lord Annan: My Lords, I must intervene. I had no hand at all in that. I was asked by my noble convener whether I should be willing for the debate to go on beyond five hours. I said that I was willing, but it was she who held conversations with the normal channels. They took the decision; I had nothing to do with it.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, but that was not the impression we were given earlier this afternoon by the Whips. However, the reason that I regret the limitation is simply that we have all heard many interesting speeches enlightening us on aspects of these important problems. Most speakers, I felt—and I suspect other noble Lords did also—would have benefited if they had been able to flesh out their arguments rather than necessarily speaking in shorthand. That is particularly the case because we are dealing with a document, the Tomlinson Report, which is very like that. It is written as though there was a time limit or word limit. Statements are made for which adequate argument is often not adduced.
My only purpose in rising is to do what I was condemned to do as a schoolboy—namely, to field at longstop—because I wish to be longstop to two noble Lords who have already spoken. In the first place I am longstop to the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, who talked about St. Mark's Hospital. I took part in the delegation to the previous Secretary of State to whom he referred and I share the noble Lord's pleasure in the fact that the Tomlinson Report endorses the principle of moving St. Mark's to the district general hospital at Northwick Park where substantial accommodation is being made available.
Like the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, I hope that when the noble Baroness winds up she will be able to say that the sum necessary for the cost of the move into these new quarters, which I understand is in the region of £8.5 million, will be found as part of the general exercise. That would mean that one important centre of excellence, world-famed both in teaching research and patient care, would have a permanent and rosy future.
I also wish to act as longstop to my noble friend Lord Elton in regretting—I am not sure that he put it that way—the absence of any emphasis on research in the report. The word "research" appears in the title of the report, but nowhere in it is there, as one might expect, a discussion of what is necessary for a flourishing research community or the importance of such a community in London.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, referred, rightly and advisedly, to the economic advantages which the country and London in particular derive from its worldwide fame as perhaps the major concentration of

1401
clinical research anywhere in the world. It seems to me that a report on health in London might have given a little more emphasis to that fact.
Quite apart from the economic advantages, I think noble Lords would also feel that there should be some stress on the pride which this country—which has many problems about which it grieves—can still have and would maintain in having in its capital such a major centre of clinical research. It is a balm to our spirits at times that there are spheres in which we still lead the world.
Therefore, one wonders why there is this downgrading of the research element. As noble Lords will be aware, I am always inclined to look for the dead hand of the Treasury whenever I come across something I find uncomfortable. But I suspect that research may also be suffering from the idealism of the medical profession. I pointed out to someone who was defending en bloc the Tomlinson Report that some people were worried that it might lead to the dissolution, break up or disappearance of famous teams in medical research. He said, "Oh, it doesn't matter, they can go and do the research in America or elsewhere". No doubt from a global point of view that is correct. But from the national point of view I should have thought that keeping these centres of excellence and teams engaged in pushing forward the frontiers of medical knowledge is something we ought to stick to at all costs.
6.57 p.m.
Lord Harmsworth: My Lords, I wish to join those who thanked the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for introducing the debate. There can be few who are more qualified to do so. What will particularly commend him to your Lordships in this debate is his former position as provost of the first institution to open, in the 1830s, a hospital built especially for teaching purposes—University College, London—and his later vice-chancellorship of the University of London. On the fourth day of the debate on the loyal Address, he said that he was a reformer. I very much hope that having heard your Lordships this afternoon he will be able to help us in that area.
I am unapologetic in my support for action over London's health service, medical education and research, broadly along the lines espoused by Sir Bernard Tomlinson. I wholeheartedly welcome the report and I also commend the stance taken on it at this stage by the Government. Let us think carefully and use well-established NHS consultation procedures before taking any major decisions.
A top-down prescription for London health care and education has been an imperative for many years and was needed well before the 1990 health Act. But up till now the way ahead has been less easy to discern with any detailed clarity. The 1990 health Act reforms have, as indeed they were intended to do, sharpened the focus. Distortions have been made plainer. It is now much more certain how and why rationalisation should take place. Essentially health services should follow the people. They should also adapt to the
1402
circumstances. At hospital level I would cite as a shining example St George's in its move from Hyde Park Corner to Tooting.
Over the centuries health provision has been haphazard and unco-ordinated. It was largely in the gift of monasteries in the middle ages; the sovereign on their dissolution; and the civic authorities in the middle of the 16th century; and they were funded then from a hotch-potch of sources—charities, the sovereign, rent, fees and tolls. In London for the next two centuries there were only two real hospitals: Bart's and St Thomas's. Many of the fine establishments covered by the Tomlinson Report—St George's, Guy's, London, Middlesex and Westminster hospitals —were general hospitals founded in the 18th century. That was the age of the general hospital. Those specialist hospitals mentioned may claim descent from the 19th century —the age of the specialist hospital. It is small wonder that loyalties are strong and that feelings run deep. Feelings ran deep when many fine regiments amalgamated. Who would have countenanced the idea, as National Service was ending, that my own regiment, the Royal Horse Guards, ("the Blues"), would later amalgamate with the Royals? One would have said, perish the thought! However, a happy marriage it became.
The recommendations made by Professor Tomlinson are detailed, comprehensive, far reaching, radical, complex and urgent. Some of the foundation stones on which parts of the new edifice will stand have not yet been fully fashioned. Let that be no cause for delay. Some of those on the supply side will be far from sure that the moment is right. Ideally, more time for preparation would be desirable, they say. Some will take issue over the detail of the recommendations. Some will say that the new ground is too untested for such radical change of emphasis. I have a folio of letters testifying to all of this. I also have many in support.
The report is not new either, in an historical context or in its approach and findings. Just after World War One a committee, under Viscount Cave, reported on the voluntary hospitals. Of the 672 hospitals considered, 378 were in debt. It was recommended that voluntary hospital committees should be set up covering the whole country, dividing it into 46 areas, each charged with encouraging co-operation between hospitals and investigating hospital needs for the area.
The 1929 Local Government Act gave local authorities wider powers to provide hospitals and required them to consult voluntary hospital committees on hospital provision. Again, in a 1937 report Viscount Sankey recommended a top-down regional approach to hospital provision and funding based around central hospitals. That same year Political and Economic Planning published a survey of British health services based on the work of 200 investigators. It drew attention, among other things, to the large number of agencies, competition and overlapping.
I do not envy the Minister the long hours she may spend studying critical-path charts if the Tomlinson Report recommendations are implemented, which I sincerely hope they will be. Such a sea change in London health provision and medical education and

1403
research will demand the best and most competent management skills. When I first read this report I sensed a dichotomy. On the one hand there is an urgent need to reduce inner London hospital beds capacity, the better to match supply and demand, and to rationalise education and research. On the other hand there is a need to restructure health service provision in favour of primary and community health services which are currently underdeveloped and which in London trail behind their provincial counterparts.
Let us as much as possible—I hope that the forthcoming consultations will focus on this—form a view, however tenuous, on roughly what we want to end up with, particularly in the areas of education and research. That way management of the changes will be the easier to handle. I see this largely as a handling exercise and less as a debate about basic need. One way or another, changes there will be. Let us manage those changes.
7.5 p.m.
Lord Broadbridge: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Annan, on bringing forward this very timely debate. However, I am appalled at the prospect of having to deal with Tomlinson in six minutes. I shall therefore largely confine my remarks to his hospital proposals, and within that, to his proposed murder of St. Bartholomew's which is 869 years old this year. It has been in continuous operation on its present site since 1123. Bart's is, with the possible exception of a hospital in Padua, the oldest hospital in the world. One has to be pretty virile to survive that long and I hope to show that Bart's is no less virile now than in the past.
But when considering new proposals of great breadth, it is better, I believe, to move from the general to the particular before drawing up one's own personal conclusions. I am a believer that prevention in the first place is a better strategy than cure after things have become serious. In this spirit I welcome the main thrust of the report which is to recommend a greater emphasis on primary and community care. It is not with what Tomlinson is trying to do as just stated that I find a problem: it is with how he is proposing to do it that I part company with him. What he has not produced is an arguable and acceptable solution. As a business consultant, what strikes me forcibly is that, having put his proposals up for discussion, he submits no business and financial plan. How on earth can strategy be confidentially recommended without first following its implications through? Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness who is to reply whether such is happening as part of the Government's announced policy of no decisions before full consultation.
I now come to Bart's. I must speak plainly as a local and former patient. As far as I and many respected voices are concerned, Tomlinson's assessment of Bart's is that of an intellectual dwarf. His basic statistics are wrong and his assumptions are wrong. Therefore I urge that his recommendation; namely, at paragraph 122, which is the,
1404
"orderly run-down and disposal"
of the Smithfield site be disregarded.
First, he relies upon Bart's having an exclusive (that is, local) population to serve of 34,775. But the chief executive of Bart's, Professor Besser, told me last Friday that Bart's provides for 539,000 drawn from South Hackney, South Islington, 5,000 living in the City, mainly the Barbican, and the City's own estimate of 314,000 daily commuters and visitors. That is 15½ times the Tomlinson figure, and Tomlinson deduced from his own fallacious exclusive population figure a prime reason for Bart's being closed in that it will be unable to fill beds and therefore be non-viable in the new NHS market.
Bart's is also very importantly the almost exclusive recourse for City accident and emergency cases, handling 39,713 at Smithfield in the year to March 1992. That is over 100 a day. In accidents and emergencies, minutes are often literally vital. The 10 minute isochrones at the back of the report showing alternative suitable hospitals are disputed by Bart's and the London ambulance service.
Secondly, in paragraph 119 Bart's is said to be in severe recurrent financial difficulties; at present some £4 million. But this deficit only and shamefully results from providers not paying for Bart's services. The hospital is on course to exceed its contract provision by an astonishing 27 per cent. or 13,000 patients this year, and if money was truly following the patient, Bart's would have received £22 million extra revenue at full cost or £4.4 million at marginal cost. So much for the working of the internal market.
Thirdly, Tomlinson argues that Bart's, in comparison with other inner North-East London hospitals, ranks second highest in its level of excess costs, and it has the highest capital charges. Perhaps a major reason is that Bart's has, quite inequitably and amazingly, to incorporate the full notional rental value of its City site in its costs—a staggering impediment over its competitors. The buildings are indestructible, the main block recently requiring its first external renovation for 240 years. They are also adaptable—although Tomlinson says that there is limited scope for development and rationalisation—in that £60 million has been agreed as worthwhile spending in the past five years. That includes, as we have heard, the most advanced operating theatre in Europe.
Fourthly, Bart's is efficient. That is one of Tomlinson's main criteria for comparative hospital assessment. Income per clinical academic post is among the three highest in the UK at £135,000. One in three patients at Bart's is now treated as a day case, a recognised measure of efficiency and progressive clinical practice. That is more than double the level of its competitors.
The North-East Thames Regional Health Authority gave Tomlinson evidence on possible future improvements in efficiency but he chose not to use that evidence in his report. He recommends the closure of the hospital with the best record of efficiency. Bart's has contracts with 55 purchasing authorities. Its nearest London rival has 35.

1405
Fifthly, when ill and overcome, one has to be able to get to one's hospital. Bart's enjoys probably the best public communications network one could hope for, unlike the Royal London in Whitechapel and Mile End, to which Tomlinson recommends it be removed.
Sixthly, the professor spent three and a half days at his old hospital of UCH and five hours at Bart's. He did not visit Bart's 400-strong research establishment at Charterhouse Square and refused to go to its associated Homerton Hospital at all. Is that evidence of a balanced approach?
In conclusion, Bart's stands on its own very demonstrable merits. So far a quarter of a million people have signed a petition to save Bart's. To dissolve it would produce a tide of deep resentment at an injustice done among its half million users—and voters—which, for many of them, would sweep the Government's health plans en bloc into the mental dustbin. As I am sure the Government know, the dustbin is not a good place to be.
7.12 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, at the outset I should like to thank my noble friend the Minister, who wrote me a letter, which she topped and tailed, and sent me an excellent copy of the report inviting me to read it. So I did, and that is why I am standing here today. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for giving us the opportunity to hear what has been a marvellous debate, even though time limited. I assure my noble friend on the Front Bench that I shall not be long.
The four headings on page 1 of the report seem very clear to me. The strategic aims of what the report set out to discover were also fairly clear. It seemed that the timescale of the report was only five years in some aspects, and perhaps longer in respect of other recommendations. However, what scared me considerably was the colossal geographical area covered by the medical services discussed in the report. I had no idea of that until I looked at the report.
Perhaps I am the only one out of 38 speakers not to have a special interest in the report. In paragraph 8 of the report your Lordships will see, printed in heavy type for the short of sight like myself, a warning of serious and haphazard deterioration in the health services in London if some of the report's recommendations are not taken seriously. I do not think that the Government are likely not to take them seriously.
The acute service is referred to in the summary of recommendations in paragraph 13. Above all, the fall in the use of what are called in-patient beds is dealt with. First, there is a move to cheaper local alternatives, perhaps outwith the area covered by the report. Secondly, the continuing efficiency of the acute sector is an objective of the report. My noble friends, Lady Eccles and Lord McColl, covered that aspect.
I was somewhat startled to read in paragraph 55, relating to community health services, of a new concept—primary health care teams. The noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, referred to those teams, as did my noble friend Lord Jenkin. I am sure that all
1406
of us are grateful to those teams for all that they do in improving the overall health care of everybody in London, not just the 2.5 million people who are said to live within the area covered by the report but also the 1.3 million daily commuters who have been referred to in relation to the St. Bartholomew's catchment area.
It was when I came to study the acute sector in detail that I became slightly scared. I think that I have managed to understand some of what was spelt out; but I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will be able to explain to me —if not tonight then perhaps in a letter or at a later stage—what is meant in paragraph 90 on page 24. In all my studies of accountancy I have not yet come across "episodes of acute care". I am sure that that means something to medical specialists dealing with the acute sector. It gradually became clearer to me as I read through the report. I did not want to put a human face on those episodes,. and I shall not do so tonight.
Also in connection with the acute sector, I looked at paragraphs 107 and 108 which deal with the current financial pressures. The one point which stood out was the considerable financial pressures on all the different specialist sectors found in the huge area covered by the report.
I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister whether there is a practical solution to the problem which was raised with me in relation to the Royal Marsden Hospital, Charing Cross Hospital and the Royal Brompton Hospital. I hope that there is. Of course my noble friend will not be able to go into detail tonight. Perhaps it may take a little longer than five years, but I hope that a solution will be found.
Paragraph 119 on page 32 deals with one other fascinating subject, which was touched on by the noble Duke, concerning a 10 minute isochrone. I believe that I am right in thinking that that is the area within which a person—perhaps an episode of acute care—could be moved to a centre of acute care within 10 minutes. I believe that everything relating to the acute sector covered that 10 minute factor.
I should like to congratulate Sir Bernard Tomlinson on the report. It made a great deal of sense to me as an accountant. I await the wise words of my noble friend, the Minister.
7.18 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, because of the time factor I am afraid that I shall have to omit some of the customary courtesies. However, as we are doing rather well for time I shall, with the leave of your Lordships' House, speak for a little longer than six minutes. Nevertheless, I shall try to be brief and, luckily for your Lordships, I shall omit a funny story with which I had originally intended to begin. Also because of the time factor I shall not be able to mention certain rather important aspects of the report.
As an aside on the discussion we have had about the short time for each noble Lord to speak, I differ from the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. I believe that the discipline of having to produce one's thoughts in six

1407
minutes has been rather useful. It has made the debate rather more interesting and less dull than many I have sat through.
Yesterday evening I attended a crowded British Medical Association meeting together with some 400 other doctors. That meeting was addressed by Sir Bernard Tomlinson. After outlining his report to us, Sir Bernard answered some questions. When asked why the report contained so little statistical backing he said that everyone loved to destroy a report based on statistics. When so much is at stake I feel that that attitude, while perhaps good for a laugh at a meeting, is irresponsible. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, and the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, who drew attention to the shallow academic base of the report and its poor documentation and referencing.
In a letter to the British Medical Journal on 21st November (the same issue that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, referred to but in a different section) Professor Brian Jarman, on whose very careful work the Department of Health has relied in the past, wrote:
"Bed usage by London residents if geriatric services are included (they were omitted in the Tomlinson and King's Fund analyses)"—
and that is quite a revelation
"is no greater than the national average. In inner London usage is lower than (and bed supply about equal to) other comparable areas".
That point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, in his opening speech.
I raised the letter of Professor Jarman with Sir Bernard, who said that it did not really alter his main recommendation to reduce bed numbers in inner London by closure of some whole hospitals. I must say that I disagreed with him, and disagreed with him quite fundamentally.
At present, London's hospitals are under acute pressure. My noble friend Lord Pitt mentioned how long the waiting lists are. It is my opinion, and the opinion of nearly all other GPs to whom I have spoken in London, that it is more difficult to admit patients to London hospitals than it has been for some years. It is true that one reason for this, as Sir Bernard pointed out in his report, is that some of the inner London beds are used by outer London residents. There is indeed an excessive concentration of highly specialised units in inner London, leaving less room for run-of-the-mill acute services. Even if these problems are addressed and all those matters are taken into account, using Professor Jarman's figures, there will still not be any great surplus of beds.
London's hospitals are, and will continue to be, more expensive than other hospitals. Some of the extra cost is possibly avoidable. For instance, there is a very high staffing ratio in teaching and specialised units. That could possibly be brought down through rationalisation of the specialised services between hospitals, moving some units elsewhere, as Sir Bernard suggests, to outer London where those services do not exist. St. Mark's, of course, is one.
Other costs which accrue in London are at present unavoidable—not capitation weighting but, for instance, salary weighting in London whereby people
1408
are paid a little bit extra, and the capital charges that were imposed on hospitals after the last National Health Service Act. Here I definitely follow the noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge: this is a rod that the Government have made for their own back. In my opinion, inner London hospitals should be compensated for their unavoidable additional costs. A figure of between £50 million and £100 million—I believe the noble Lord, Lord Annan, mentioned £70 million—is the extra cost of keeping the London teaching hospitals going. Some people might say that that is rather a reasonable bargain, considering the very high standard of work that those hospitals do. I think it is true that some high-cost beds could be converted to low dependency, low-cost use. As many noble Lords have mentioned, general practitioners could be involved in running those beds, as they could be and are being involved in accident and emergency services. In fact, 70 per cent. of the work in many accident and emergency services is general practice. But closure of whole hospitals and selling off sites is, in my view, entirely the wrong approach if a good service, locally accessible to Londoners, is the aim.
This Government, as we all know, are a poor guardian of the nation's assets. In this case, following the analogy drawn by the first Lord Stockton of the rather nice furniture in the sitting room, we are talking perhaps of the servants' quarters and perhaps (because of the fall in property values) even the west wing of the stately home. Rather surprisingly, Sir Bernard does not recommend selling off the folly in the garden, which I think is not a very unkind description of the UCH cruciform building.
The expansion and modernisation of primary care in London, as suggested by Sir Bernard and almost every noble Lord who has spoken, is long overdue. I greatly welcome, and these Benches as a whole greatly welcome, this section of his report, whatever happens to London's hospitals. But to expect even the best units in primary care, run with a full team of nurses and other health professionals, quickly to bring London's hospital bed usage down to a lower than national level is however quite unrealistic.
Good premises are, of course, a basic need in good primary care. The only cost mentioned in Sir Bernard's report is £140 million over several years relating to premises alone. In the King's Fund Report £250 million was mentioned, as the noble Baroness knows well. But it is much easier and cheaper to construct a building than an effective primary care team. The skills to man the secondary care centres mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, and others would take many years to develop—at least five years, and more likely 10 or 20 years.
When asked why he had not costed his recommendations, Sir Bernard said at the meeting last night that he did not have the time and that it would be very speculative to do costings. That is partly true.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would sit down. I am in the hands of the House. I realise that extra time has become available but in such a long debate perhaps

1409
your Lordships might like to give the Minister more time to answer all the questions. I hope the noble Lord will forgive me if I ask him to give way to the Minister.
Lord Rea: My Lords, let me make some concluding remarks. Perhaps I may draw the noble Baroness's attention to Sir Bernard's own words in paragraph 30, summarising much of what other noble Lords have said:
"Recognising, however, that hospital expenditure is not flexible in the short term, we believe that in the early stages, this re-direction of resources"—
from hospital to community—
"can only be achieved by providing new money in order to facilitate change".
Can we please have from the noble Baroness her commitment to the fact that this new money will be available and can we see a demonstration of this before any beds are closed down?
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am grateful, to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for initiating today's debate. As a distinguished former Vice-Chancellor of London University he is well-versed in the issues surrounding education and research; and as a former trustee of the British Museum he will not only have a sense of history but a knowledge of the burden of ancient monuments.
I share the view of my noble friend Lord Lyell that this has been a splendid debate and of great value to the Government. I welcome too the contributions of the three illustrious "maidens". My noble friend Lord Braine of Wheatley, although a new arrival in your Lordships' House, is a much-respected Father of another House. His experience in representing the constituents of Castle Point for 42 years will have made him aware of the capacity of London to draw in resources to the detriment of other local services. The noble Lord, Lord Spens, brings a wealth of knowledge to this Chamber from the City and from other areas. I hope that his personal and intimate experience of the National Health Service will diminish from now on. Perhaps I should confess to my noble friend Lord Hayhoe that, unlike Mrs. Patrick Campbell, I have, alas, no experience of a chaise longue but at the age of 17 sank blissfully into a matrimonial bed, sadly without a substantial dowry.
That anecdote is not entirely disconnected with today's debate since, as the noble Lord, Lord Annan, pointed out, much of the Tomlinson strategy centres on arranged marriages to which some parties are consenting but others are the most reluctant of brides, as is their right. Rarely can a subject for debate have attracted so distinguished a list of speakers, and the causes of concern been made so plain. It is therefore with relief that I can give a categorical assurance that the Government have an open mind on many of the issues raised tonight and will take them into consideration when they respond to the Tomlinson proposals in the New Year.
Before I come to answer the individual views expressed by your Lordships I should, first, like to place on record the Government's gratitude to Sir Bernard Tomlinson and his team. I understand some
1410
of the reservations expressed by your Lordships, including the noble Lord, Lord Rea, who made his first appearance at the Dispatch Box, which I welcome.
However, I am disappointed by some commentators who have sought not to debate the report but to cloud the issues by discrediting the report and the detail of its findings and recommendations. In doing so they ignore its major and inescapable conclusion; that the status quo is no longer an option for London. This urgent need for change was also the main finding of the report published by the independent King's Fund Commission in June which was based on a wealth of research. The Government are determined to face squarely the issue of rejecting the status quo. If London's problems are not addressed the prospect of a spiral of decline for the capital's health services—about which Sir Bernard warns—is very real.
The Government welcome the general thrust of Sir Bernard's report and are now listening to all the views expressed before making our response early in the New Year to the detailed proposals. We have already announced the Government's acceptance of the main recommendations to improve medical teaching and research. Moreover, we have accepted the need for a series of specialty reviews which we shall initiate as quickly as possible. Those reviews will address the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, and the powerful point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton. This is because we accept the need to consolidate and thereby strengthen specialty provision in the capital. Only by doing so can we ensure that London will continue to have world class centres of excellence in the next century.
We are setting up a special implementation group, already mentioned tonight, under the chairmanship of Mr. Tim Chessels to carry forward a programme of change. The noble Lords, Lord Walton and Lord Dainton, will be pleased to learn that a member of the Universities Funding Council will be a member of that group. Although no decisions regarding hospital closures or mergers have yet been taken, nor will they be without using the well-established NHS consultation procedures, the Government have sought to ensure that there will be a means of implementing London's new strategy when it has been agreed.
My noble friend Lord Carr and the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, can rest assured that the group is not another tier of administration but a speedy and accurate tool for change. Nor is it a decision-making body. It is for the Government to decide. The group will implement.
I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, that this is not an urgent issue. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, my noble friends Lord Carr, Lord Hacking, Lady Seccombe, Lord McColl and Lord Harmsworth, who believe that it is urgent.
Over a period of decades London's health services have become increasingly out of step with the needs of Londoners. As my noble friend Lord Hayhoe so eloquently pointed out, the large expensive teaching hospitals, most of which were built before the decline in London's population, have swallowed up the lion's

1411
share of resources while health services delivered by GPs, community nurses and others in the community and primary care areas have remained poorly developed.
Several speakers today have spoken eloquently in defence of London's teaching hospitals. Although the Government value tradition and recognise the respect and affection which those great institutions generate, they also recognise that it is simply not sufficient to rest on past glories. London's institutions must adapt to change if we are to achieve the improvements in London's health services which are widely agreed to be necessary.
We were privileged today to hear the president of Bart's the noble Duke, the Duke of Gloucester. My noble friend Lord Braine of Wheatley and the noble Lords, Lord Molloy, Lord McGregor, Lord Spens, the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, and the noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, cogently put the case for St. Bartholomew's Hospital. But the position of Bart's is no different from any other institution covered in the Tomlinson Report. As with the rest of London the Government seek the solution which will safeguard the health and health care interests of London and Londoners.
Whatever the solution there are a number of key issues that have to be addressed. Bart's is running a very large deficit; a minimum of £5 million this year. Financial management in the hospital leaves a lot to be desired. Bart's has the smallest exclusive population of any London hospital. It is very vulnerable to patient withdrawal. Between 30 and 40 per cent. of its patients come from outside its own or immediately neighbouring districts. Bart's is expensive; it has the second highest level of excess costs in London, making it even more vulnerable to patient withdrawal. The Government are fully aware of the symbolic importance of St. Bartholomew's Hospital to London and the affection in which it is held nationally. It has made an enormous contribution to the development of medical science in the United Kingdom. Some units—for instance, the oncology, endocrinology and surgical units—are world renowned. However, the Government are charged with developing a strategy for London well into the next century. In shaping it we must look to Londoners' future needs.
The noble Lord, Lord Richardson, spoke with great authority on the strength of St. Thomas's Hospital, as did the noble Lord, Lord Pitt. I have great sympathy with their view which will be taken into account when the Government reach their conclusions on the detail of the report. As regards the move of St. Mark's Hospital, I can assure my noble friend Lord Beloff and the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, that we are aware of the capital costs and we are seeking to resolve that issue.
I accept that for many people, particularly Londoners, it is hard to see how reducing hospital beds will improve services. However, there is a London paradox. More money is spent on the health care of Londoners than on people living in any other part of the country. Yet Londoners have to wait
1412
longer than others for some operations and there are persistent problems with emergency admissions to hospitals in inner London. People in outer London have to travel long distances for specialist care.
Against that background, proposals to reduce beds make little sense to most people. However, many of those problems of access stem from the concentration of specialty provision in inner London. The Tomlinson Report documents 14 regional cardiac specialty services; 13 specialty centres for cancer; 13 for neurosciences; 11 renal units; and 9 units for plastic surgery. All are in the centre of the city.
In addition, the pattern of care in inner London is skewed with a higher proportion of elective work to emergencies. Given that, it is clear that we need to look not just at absolute numbers of beds but, sparing Mrs. Campbell's blushes, at what goes on in those beds. Londoners, particularly those with common conditions and frail elderly people who were mentioned by many noble Lords, have not been well served by this concentration on specialty services and on elective work. Mergers and confederation of specialist units are needed to counteract wasteful fragmentation and safeguard excellence. As that is done, the Government are confident that a better pattern of care for Londoners can emerge as well.
As my noble friend Lady Eccles of Moulton pointed out, there is a revolution occurring in medical practice. Many more conditions are treated as day cases. Other conditions can be treated at home or in the GP surgery. Throughout the NHS there is a steady trend towards greater efficiency in the use of hospital resources: length of stay and turnover interval are shortening everywhere. Sir Bernard Tomlinson has found that inner London hospitals are significantly less efficient in their area of resources than those elsewhere, even after allowing for the effects of their care-mix and teaching commitments. That too suggests that a consolidation of services can take place without adverse effects on Londoners, as London's use of resources improves.
As my noble friends Lady Eccles and Lord Harmsworth suggested, that excellence is not just to be found in London. The greatest achievement which has happened in my lifetime has been the establishment of centres of excellence throughout the length and breadth of the UK. People in the South West no longer look to London as they did in 1948. They go to Bristol and to Exeter—a point that was made better by my noble friend Lord McColl. The NHS reforms are now enabling health authorities outside London to seek more local, and more cost-effective care for their residents. All that is leading to a sharp drop in demand for hospital beds at London's teaching hospitals.
Those changes are already having a powerful impact. Several hospitals are facing serious financial problems as they can no longer match their costs to their contract income. The University College/Middlesex Hospital, for example, is facing a deficit this year of some £13 million. Other hospitals are in a similar position. I must make it clear that these problems are not due to under funding. Sir Bernard Tomlinson has documented the fact that, when all due

1413
allowance is made for the excess costs of operating in the capital, London's costs remain some 20 per cent. above the national average. That is compelling purchasers to seek better value for money elsewhere.
I turn now to primary care or perhaps I should take my cue from a former Secretary of State, my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding and add the word "community". I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Winstanley and Lord Young of Dartington, for pointing out startling facts about the level of primary care and the challenges of working in inner London.
London has some quite outstanding and innovative general practitioners: Professor Bryan Jarman (already mentioned in the debate this evening), Dr. Patrick Patroni, my noble friend Lord Rea who has practised with John Horder, one of the founders of the Royal College of General Practitioners, to name but a few. But those beacons of excellence stand out in a service that is below that commonly found in other parts of the country. We recognise, of course, the difficult circumstances in which many GPs and community nurses carry out their work: the inadequate premises, the high costs of living, the traffic congestion, the need for protection when making home visits and the challenging health and social needs, which are so evident in some parts of London. But many GPs offer very limited services to their patients. As the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, pointed out, access is poor. As for many Londoners the first point of call is the accident and emergency department of their local hospital. Clearly, that must change.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, highlighted the very real issues as regards primary care. I am sure that the noble Baroness and others will welcome Sir Bernard's imaginative package of measures for improving family health services in the capital, including employment of GPs in accident and emergency departments. I assure the House, and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, and the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, that we are giving Sir Bernard's proposals and other models of primary care very serious consideration.
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, my noble friends Lord Joseph and Lord Hayhoe, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and the noble Lords, Lord Pitt, Lord Kilmarnock, Lord Smith, and Lord Young of Dartington, and my noble friend Lady Cox were all anxious about resources and asked where the money is to come from. In the long term, it will come from a better organised, cost-effective and more efficient use of acute services. However, I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, must exercise his good humour and patience before we reveal the total figure.
In the short term, the Government recognise that they will have to lubricate the wheels of change. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State, always a doughty fighter for the NHS, secured an extra £1 billion for next year. The Government will use some of that money to begin to build the new structures necessary for primary care and for a new configuration of acute services in London. She will announce those figures in the new year. Change will
1414
not take place overnight. It will be incremental. We shall need to ensure that there is a steady injection of funds over a period of years.
I should like to address briefly the discrepancy raised between the King's Fund and Tomlinson figures as regards primary care. There are two issues: first, the timescale, because both reports were working to very different timescales; and, secondly, the type of services envisaged, because again the two bodies had a different profile of future primary and community care in London.
I can give the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, the assurances that he seeks as to timetabling and the other issues he raised.
As the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, a recent president of the General Medical Council, pointed out, the basis of medical teaching is changing. In the past, too much attention has been concentrated on London's 11 teaching hospitals, incredibly all within a six-mile radius. Other hospitals outside central London provide good services giving better value, and can be used for teaching medical students. London University is already making use of these hospitals. But more needs to be done so that teaching follows the patient into general hospitals and increasingly into primary and community care. With one-third of all medical students being trained in London, it will prove difficult, if not impossible, to ensure that they get the necessary experience in general practice during their course of study.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, that linking medical schools to university colleges with strong departments of life sciences should strengthen both teaching and research. Integrated medical schools will be better able to provide the range of subjects required for medical students in future. At present, the costs of clinical teaching in London are some 15 per cent. higher than the national average. But the schools which are already part of multi-disciplinary colleges have below-average costs, so there are both academic and financial benefits to integrating medical schools in the university.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, and my noble friend Lord Elton quite rightly pointed to the economic benefits of research. My noble friend asked how the Treasury will be involved. In my very short experience of government I have yet to find a sacrosanct area in which the Treasury is not involved.
The great progress currently being made in medical research, for example in genetics, is science-based not clinically-based. To achieve high-quality clinical research the bond between universities and medical schools must be strong. That is reinforced by the evidence of the quality of research. London attracts half of all clinical research income, and the average research income per academic is around one-third higher than the national average. However, the Universities Funding Council, which assesses the quality of research, has rated only University College of the nine general medical schools in London as being above average, whereas six non-London schools were above average. It is commonsense to build on the most successful pattern of organisation and to judge on results actually achieved.

1415
The thrust of the changes suggested by Sir Bernard is to strengthen both teaching and research in London. It is a fact that the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, was pressing for many of these changes as far back as 1980 in his excellent report. I am glad that his successor, the present Vice-Chancellor, has welcomed many of the changes in the report.
The Brompton and the Royal Marsden special hospitals were particularly lauded tonight by my noble friends Lord Hacking, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, Lord Stockton, the noble Baroness Lady Masham of Ilton and my noble friend Lord Lyell. The Government recognise that many of the London postgraduate institutes are highly rated both by the patients and the UFC. But that rating depends on the facilities provided by the special health authority hospitals which are currently not part of the NHS market.
We are determined to maintain and reinforce the best research. But much of the NHS work in the special health authority hospitals meets specific patient needs and can be funded through the NHS market with support for the extra service costs of research. I can assure my noble friend Lord Elton that the Government will exercise the greatest care in ensuring that the new arrangements reinforce the best research in those centres while allowing high quality institutions outside London to benefit from NHS support for research. As my noble friend Lord McColl pointed out, the present rules are discriminatory and unfair.
Several noble Lords referred to the need for the detailed research implications of the Tomlinson Report to be re-examined. To enable the Government to come to the right decision for the special health authorities we have started a comprehensive review of their research. The special health authorities have been asked to provide evidence to Professor Peckham, the director of research and development, and it will be examined by international and national experts.
In conclusion, London is Europe's largest city and the capital of this country. In the next century it will be vital for it to provide its citizens with world class specialist health services and top flight primary care. To safeguard excellence and build quality services the Government are convinced that a major programme of change must be devised and implemented for the capital, in consultation with the professions, health and local authorities, provider organisations and other interested parties—most notably Londoners themselves.
That is a most formidable challenge. But to fail to confront it would be to invite the "spiral of decline" which the Tomlinson Report so eloquently describes. London deserves better—much better. That is why the Government will be announcing their response to Sir Bernard's recommendations in the New Year. We are confident that our plans will permit new and better health services to develop in London—ones that will build on the excellence of the past while meeting the changing needs and expectations of tomorrow's patients.
7.52 p.m.
Lord Annan: My Lords, it remains for me to thank the noble Baroness for summing up in such a splendid and full fashion and to thank everybody who took part in the debate for exercising enormous restraint upon their own eloquence. Time has obviously been a tiresome and telling problem for them.
Naturally, I particularly want to thank the maiden speakers who gave such admirable speeches today —the noble Lord, Lord Hayhoe, for his courageous logic; the noble Lord, Lord Braine, for the sincerity and forcefulness with which he expressed his dissent; and the noble Lord, Lord Spens, for an uncompromising conclusion. One remark he made I particularly liked, which was that he, like myself, experienced some difficulty with the acronyms in the report.
The report is about the future. That is something that is difficult to predict. Many of the conclusions in the report are based on what best informed opinion thinks is likely to be the pattern at the end of the century. I am sorry that I nettled the noble Lord, Lord McColl. I hope he knows that I have always greatly admired what he has done to put his shoulder behind the wheel of change and reform. If he felt that there was any kind of personal criticism meant, he is quite mistaken.
When he asked why, when I was Vice-Chancellor of the University of London, I was unable to obtain reforms, I can only answer that while I obtained agreement among the deans of the medical schools —a feat of no mean ability—the Senate of the university, which was composed of 50 to 60 people, few of whom were doctors, threw out the recommendations of the report. That is what happens in political life. Therefore may I conclude by begging leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Gas (Exempt Supplies) Bill [H.L.]
Report received.

Broadcasting: Impartiality
7.54 p.m.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford Lord Wyatt of Weeford rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the arrangements made by the Independent Television Commission to implement Section 6 of the Broadcasting Act 1990 and by the Radio Authority to implement Section 90 of the Act with regard to impartiality.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, just over two years ago your Lordships were debating the 1990 Broadcasting Bill. Your Lordships can claim that the Act was considerably improved in the final version by the important amendments passed in this House and accepted by the Government, in particular those setting out strong obligations on the ITC and the Radio Authority to draw up adequate codes on the exercise of due impartiality. Those will be in full force

1417
from 1st January 1993, though of course the codes of conduct largely based on the Broadcasting Act 1981 continue to operate.
The BBC has pledged to take "due cognisance" of the codes. Also, in its 1992 Guide to the BBC, it declares that the Corporation cannot,
"express its own editorial opinion on current affairs or matters of public policy".
It adds that the BBC,
"undertakes to maintain overall impartiality and fairness".
I should like to give three cheers for the Independent Radio Authority code. It goes as far as insisting that,
"Impartiality within a daily series must be achieved within a fortnight: within a weekly series within three weeks: and within a monthly series within three months"
otherwise one off programmes must be impartial within themselves.
The Independent Radio Authority has done much better than the other broadcasting organisations and taken its obligations far more seriously. Already the Radio Authority has fined six licensees for breaches of its code and upheld 57 of the 326 complaints. Records of upheld complaints will be a serious factor in considering the re-awarding of new licences.
I can find no record of the BBC being much bothered about breaches of its code, although on paper it looks admirable. Nor does the Independent Television Commission galvanise itself to discipline offenders against its code. For example, on 26th April this year there were subliminal insertions in a musical video programme by Granada. That was just before the local council elections and voters were told to vote Labour. That broke the law—not only under the 1990 Act, but also under the Broadcasting Act 1981. It was the duty of the ITC to prosecute Granada for that offence. Astonishingly—or perhaps not so astonishingly —it did not. Nor did the Government take any action as they should have done.
On paper the ITC code looks fairly good. I concede that the code issued in March 1991 has since been improved, but it is still inadequate. For example, there are wriggles on the impartiality required on major matters of political or industrial controversy. Your Lordships will remember the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, eliciting a clear statement from the Government that though a subject being dealt with happened in the past, nevertheless the rules of impartiality still applied and apply.
There was, and is, no licence to re-write history from a slanted angle. A Marxist account of the Civil War or fulsome praise of Mr. Scargill's behaviour in the 1984 coal strike are simply not allowed. Consequently, this part of the ITC code does not comply with the Broadcasting Act 1990.
In 1991 there was a vivid illustration of that. A few years previously the BBC refused to broadcast the last programme in a series called "Secret Society". That final programme called "Cabinet" consisted of an onslaught on the Conservative Party for attacking the CND campaign for nuclear disarmament during 1982–83. Even the BBC considered this too biased to be shown. In 1991 Channel 4 did a remake of "Cabinet" by the ultra Left-wing Duncan Campbell who had been responsible for the programme which
1418
the BBC would not show. Typically, Channel 4 billed that programme under the heading "Banned". The updated version included attacks on Mr. Winston Churchill and Dr. Julian Lewis who were both denied a place in the programme.
They complained to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. That mysterious body reported that the programme was misleading in a number of respect; but it refused to say whether the complaints were upheld or not as your Lordships heard recently at Question Time in this House. So a fat lot of good it is complaining to the amorphous Broadcasting Complaints Commission. Who was it who arranged for the programme to be broadcast by Granada? It was a lady called Liz Forgan, Channel 4's director of programmes. It is strongly rumoured that she is about to be made deputy director-general to the new director-general of the BBC, Mr. John Birt to whom, by the way, I give a cautious welcome and for whom I have modest hopes.
I shall be obliged if the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, can tell us that there is no intention, ever, of employing Liz Forgan in any public affairs capacity whatever at the BBC. She epitomises the obstacles that there are in the way of the BBC and the ITC having any codes of impartiality implemented under any broadcasting Acts. This fearsome lady denounced the provisions of the 1990 Act and blames in particular the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, and myself for most of the provisions which she did not like in it. We did not mind that because it showed that we must have been right all along.
Miss Forgan proclaimed that the rules on impartiality would lead to a spate of legal actions jamming up the courts which of course they did not and will not, because of the enormous cost of any private person bringing such an action.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I wonder if the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. I am a great upholder of Parliamentary privilege and I do not believe that it should be derogated in any way. But when we move from attacks on people for their opinions to personal attacks, as we have just heard from the noble Lord, are we not going a little far?
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, not at all. Miss Forgan has been very free with her attacks on me and they have been far more violent than the terms in which I am referring to her.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if the noble Lord wishes to respond to her attacks he has the power to do so through the courts, but she does not.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, that is absolute nonsense. I do not claim that she has said anything libellous about me and I am not saying anything libellous about her. There is an absurd touchiness on the part of those people who do not want impartiality imposed on broadcasting.
Miss Forgan also said that the impartiality provisions were unworkable. By that she means that she, and many others like her, do not mean to observe them. In my view she is not fit to be in charge of any programmes anywhere which have any bearing on

1419
matters of political or industrial controversy. However, she might do well on gardening programmes although the flowers will be mostly red, with a few yellow and none blue.
This lady has made numerous statements that she intends to break the law. She is a staunchly Left-wing person. She pleads in her defence that about 10 years ago she was responsible for a series sympathetically discussing ideas of the new and radical right. She did another series with the Right arguing with the further-Right, whatever that may be. That does not balance the huge weight of her biased programmes neither do the pathetic "Right of Reply" that she offers amount to anything at all serious.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, perhaps I may follow up what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. Some of the recent sentences which the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, has uttered, if made outside, I would certainly consider actionable. Is it not an abuse of the privilege of this House?
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, nonsense. If noble Lords wish it, I will take steps to republish outside what I have said. If she cares to bring a libel action she will find herself at the wrong end of the stick.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not believe that the noble Lord is aware of the condition of privilege in this House. If he republishes what he has said in this House he still has privilege available to him.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, I do not know why the Opposition is getting so touchy about this. Obviously I am touching on a raw nerve. The Opposition knows very well that Miss Forgan is breaking the law, has broken the law and intends to continue doing so. Miss Forgan believes that however slanted and Left-wing—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the noble Lord be no longer heard.
Moved, That the noble Lord be no longer heard. —(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
Viscount Astor: My Lords, this is a debate that we should have, and in which we are all prepared to speak. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has a view. After all, it is his noble friend Lord Donoughue who will be replying on behalf of his party. We should allow this debate to go forward.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Motion that I have moved is a debatable one. I suggest to your Lordships that this is the most flagrant abuse of the privilege of this House which I have heard in the 10 years that I have been here. The noble Lord is deliberately making actionable statements against Miss Liz Forgan, the controller of programmes at Channel 4. He knows perfectly well that if he were to make these statements outside this House he would be liable to action from her. He is doing so with a callous disregard for the warnings that have been given to him which initially were polite warnings; but now I am
1420
afraid that it is necessary for us to go further with the matter. I persist in my Motion that the noble Lord be no longer heard.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, I am very surprised that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has suddenly become wedded to censorship. I have said that I am quite prepared to make the same statements about this lady outside Parliament as well as inside this House. I can recouch them in different words. If she wants to bring a libel action she can. May we get on now or is that not allowed?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Motion before the House is the one in my name.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I do not want to take any part or any side in the argument between the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh and Lord Wyatt. We are in the middle of the debate. It is obviously a matter of strongly felt opinion between the two noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, has made his position clear and I believe that he has been quite helpful. I fully understand the anxieties of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. However, in the light of that, I hope that the noble Lord will allow us—as is customary in this House—to proceed with the business. I beseech him to do that. It sets a rather unenviable precedent for the future that a debate should be suddenly cut short because of some disagreement.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I yield only to the view of the Minister. In no way do I retract anything that I have said about the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt. His behaviour in this matter has deserved the Motion that he be no longer heard. I do not believe that he has treated the House properly. It is because of the view of the Government Front Bench that I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I have a very great admiration for him actually and have always felt he is a fair and reasonable person, but I suppose he is not quite so reasonable on these matters of broadcasting. If I may continue, Miss Forgan believes that, however slanted and Left-wing producers and presenters are, they should be allowed complete freedom over what is shown. In an article in The Times of 28th June 1990 advocating this, she wrote:
"Nobody suggests that Lord Wyatt's pungent News of the World column, 'The Voice of Reason', should be followed by a column expressing the quite commonly held view that he represents the voice of prejudice".
I am sure the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will be pleased by that observation. However, in saying what she did she has missed the entire point of why impartiality is a necessary legal requirement on those responsible for broadcasting. They have a Government-given monopoly, which cannot be attacked by others who might like to start profitable TV or radio stations. If I were to set one up without government authority, I should be prosecuted and put in gaol, as no doubt some of my not so friendly friends would like. But the "licences to print money" as the noble Lord, Lord Thompson of Fleet, once described

1421
them, are jealously protected by the government authorities awarding them. Even attempts to start radio stations at sea are eventually sabotaged.
This is the whole difference between what can be written in newspapers and what can be broadcast. There are many newspapers of varying political outlooks, and anybody can start one; and many do. For example, the successful Independent required no government licence and therefore it can say what it jolly well likes. Actually, journalists like myself frequently write in contradiction of the views of the editors and proprietors concerned. However, if I were responsible for a programme on the BBC or the ITC it would soon be "off with my head" if I put out programmes disagreeing with those who paid my fees on a contractual basis. You can be sure of that.
Whenever I talk to BBC producers or presenters, they tell me that they have an absolute and inalienable right to deluge the public with any views they choose. I have never met one who has read the BBC or ITC codes, and they would not take any notice of them if they had. The crew which the notorious Miss Forgan, director of programmes of Channel 4, sent here to make the "send-up" programme on your Lordships' House called "Cutting Edge" had clearly never heard of the impartiality code. Of course there should, as the law requires, be another programme showing all the immensely good, serious and hard work your Lordships do on the Floor of the House and in Committees, to show the other side. But it is not surprising that both Miss Forgan and Channel 4 reject this plea for impartiality, as the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, will explain in more detail.
Politicians are not the only people who suffer from the BBC's lack of impartiality. Just before eight a.m. on BBC's Radio 4 last Thursday, during the "Today" programme, I was startled to hear a BBC announcer advertising a discussion programme to follow the 9 a.m. News by saying these words:
"You and I and every other taxpayer in the country are going to have to pay to restore the fabric of Windsor Castle and the family that lives there, arguably one of the richest, certainly one of the most privileged in the world, will not have to pay a penny towards it. For many it is the speed with which the Government has offered as much of our money as it takes to make it perfect again that has raised a coachload of questions about the privileged status of the Royal Family, particularly its immunity to tax, about the status of supposedly national treasures, private often when it comes to people seeing them, public when it comes to paying the bills".
The announcer went on:
"Is Windsor Castle more important than paying £60 million worth on our decaying schools? Should the Royal Family, whose bills seem rarely to be questioned, be at the top of our spending priorities when there are so many crying and desperate needs in our society? Our "Moral Maze" live this morning: who should pay for the rebuilding of Windsor Castle?"
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I wonder if the noble Lord will forgive me? I apologise to the House but the noble Lord's own Question refers to the Broadcasting Act and the Independent Television Commission rather than to the BBC. Would it not be helpful to the House if he restricted his remarks to that issue?
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord's zeal has overtaken him. I explained
1422
right at the beginning exactly why the BBC would be covered in this debate, because it has agreed to adhere to the codes provided and to observe all the same rules; so one is obliged to ask: are the BBC actually doing this?
Now may I get on? I hope that I am not going to be taken up again by the noble Lord. There was no hint of another side to the Windsor story or of the fact that it was only the staterooms used by the Queen for state purposes that were damaged and that the private apartments were unaffected.
In its manner of reporting the BBC has been part of the more or less republican campaign against the Queen. Yet the BBC loves to boast its superiority to all other broadcasters because it operates under a Royal Charter given by the Queen. Also, the Queen in Council appoints the governors of the BBC. There could hardly be greater disloyalty, and the governors of the BBC should be ashamed of themselves. In honour, they should resign. It would not matter much if they did, because they make a very poor job of running the BBC and their staff ignore them. But at the very least they should write a humble apology to Her Majesty.
I do not want to annoy the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, again, but I have to raise another point. The BBC has a code for interviewers. This is:
"Interviewers should avoid impressions of bias … The BBC should be known for a dispassionate approach to contentious issues. Questions such as 'Are you in this mess because you are stupid or just foolish'?' are out of place at the BBC".
That is what the supercilious Jeremy Paxman of BBC "Newsnight" asks all the time. The BBC code goes on:
"Interviewers must always be well mannered, not aggressive, hectoring or rude".
Obviously interviewers like Jonathan Dimbleby, Jeremy Paxman, Brian Redhead, John Humphries, and company, never read the BBC's rules for interviewing or, if they do, they know they can safely ignore them. Interviewers like Brian Walden, Robin Day and David Dimbleby are well informed, firm but impartial and courteous. Both the BBC and the ITC are in breach of their own codes by not seeing that all are.
I am not in the least impressed by figures put out by the BBC and the ITC, claiming that the majority of their audiences believe them to be unbiased. It is a ridiculous statistic. The simple art of being biased is to omit or play down matters favourable to one side of an argument and to highlight and allow more coverage to matters, true or false, favourable to the preferred side. It is as easy as winking to conceal from the public what the true facts are —as, by the way, the announcement I have just read out referring to a programme just before the eight a.m. News has made clear.
In the case of the BBC and the ITC, we all know that the Left-wing producers and presenters overwhelmingly dominate the affairs of both organisations and they are solidly anti-Government. They appear not to be to the general public, by their manipulation of what the audience sees and hears. In the example I have just given of the BBC announcer talking about Windsor Castle, the public could have had no conception of how biased the BBC was being.

1423
I hope that others in this very short debate will deal with the flagrant breaches of the codes on violence. Our screens are spattered with blood, and filled with murders, guns and all kinds of sex maniacs and so forth—Even the programmes, I regret to say, of BSkyB, part-owned by News International, which employs me to write for them. The other owner is the Financial Times, that very respectable organ.
This debate will not convert the sinners to righteousness, but it will make clear to them that some of your Lordships are always ready to expose their breaches of the law. It is a great pity that Members of this House should think it in order for the great broadcasting organisations frequently to flout the law and set such a bad example to the rest of the nation in law keeping.
I have noted that after such debates there is a tendency towards better behaviour; but it does not always last long, particularly if the Government are insufficiently interested in the law breaking itself, and thus allows it to go on when it should not. But the knowledge that some of your Lordships will return to the charge may have a mildly restraining power. That is the nub of the reasons why I think we must see that the law is maintained in regard to the codes of practice. It is the law, and people must not think of it as a kind of voluntary arrangement like a private club.
8.21 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I hope that we shall proceed now rather more smoothly. The ITC has completed a year of reports on complaints about impartiality, sex, violence and other matters submitted to it—exactly the task for which it was set up. I recommend the reports to anyone who takes an interest in the subject. They are published every quarter, and they take the same form. I shall quote one or two instances.
I have to say that 29 of the 62 complaints concerned Channel 4, and I hardly dare mention that Miss Forgan is the programme director there. Incidentally, I do not think that she is likely to join the BBC. My information is that not only has Michael Grade been paid £500,000 as a golden handshake but I think she also has a golden handshake that locks her in. Therefore, it would be very expensive for the BBC to buy her away.
Lack of impartiality is at the root of all these cases. The ITC records, whether or not they are about separate complaints, say "upheld" or "not upheld". It receives a total of 1,500 complaints a year. If you read them all, as I have done, it is puzzling to see why sometimes the commission says "upheld" and sometimes "not upheld". It seems to be just the luck of the draw. Nor is there any indication given, although it may happen after 1st January when its full powers come into being, as to what admonishments or sanctions are levied against repeated transgressors. There are two examples given. The one mentioned by my noble friend occurred just before the local elections when there was a "vote Labour" subliminal flash, which is completely against the law. Unfortunately, it
1424
is now out of time. We did not read about it until September or October, and as it happened in April it is now out of time for judicial examination.
There are many examples, and I have some here. They show the need to have some regulatory authority with teeth. Funnily enough, "Cutting Edge" was one of the series that did us down last week: it was ably dealt with by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, in the "Answer Back" series. There was a "Cutting Edge" programme on Paths of Conflict. No complaints were received. This also shows, by the way, that the ITC has an obligation on its own to try to keep in touch with what is being broadcast on the various channels.
Another one was "Dispatches". It reported on Shining Path, one of the most brutal minority movements in Peru and found against it. There were complaints from seven viewers, which is more than normal. The report says:
"The programme presented not a comprehensive picture of the complex political situation in Peru, but rather a profile of one active element within it. Viewers were unlikely to be left in doubt that Sendero Luminoso's [The Shining Path] objective was political change frequently by violent means."
That was a left-wing organisation. There was criticism but it was not upheld. There were others. I could go all the way through them, but I shall not take up the time of the House. I shall make some suggestions later as to how the public might be brought more closely into this and in touch with the new regulatory authority.
What upset me about our own review was not only bad production with a lot of good material thrown into the bin, which always happens, although it does not seem to me as a Scot a very economical way of producing, but also, as everyone has said, the complete triviality of the programme. It gave very little time to the work of our House, which we all know is important. It was rather less than one-third. One-third was given to the wedding of the daughter of one of our Members and one-third to the eating habits of one of our respected elder statesmen.
That is not a representation in any way. I therefore wrote to the chairman, Sir George Russell, with whom I have been in touch ever since the commission was set up. I suggested that as this was such a failure, and clearly seen to be a failure as representing the workings of this House, then in accordance with its proposals there should be a balancing programme that would be more in touch with what happens. That is recognised in all sorts of ways by the ITC. It says:
"Regularly scheduled programmes sharing the same title such as 'World in Action', 'A Week in Politics', 'Dispatches' and 'Walden'".
I may say here that "World in Action" has always been consistently left-wing ever since it was set up. "A Week in Politics", which I have watched once or twice under Vincent Hanna, certainly leans to the left. Vincent Hanna has not changed his spots since he was in the BBC in charge of the 1987 political broadcasts. "Dispatches" has always been left, and "Walden" tends to be left.
"Cutting Edge" is a mixture. I have just criticised one programme. Why is not the balance allowed there? The answer I have had from the ITC is that it does not think that a second, balanced programme should be made. It did not consider the programme

1425
loaded. That is not the view of most in this House and the view that the Clerk of this House has now firmly put to Channel 4.
Nor do I take the view, which has been much stated, that if you have a biased programme but there is the right of reply, you put things right. You do not. The right of reply in the case of our programme had as producer a young woman who, I think, said that she had been in Parliament twice in her life. That was a strange choice of person to make a programme about this House. Against that, there was the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, who was very effective, and another Conservative gentleman none of us had ever heard of, but who was perfectly reliable. Therefore, you had a sort of 50–50 in the right of reply, and 100 to nothing in the other programme. Half a bite at the cherry was trying to put it right, but it still was not balanced after a right of reply, which of course takes a much shorter time. That did not last for threequarters of an hour; we were left with probably five or 10 minutes.
I do not take it that you set things right. The best way is not just to set things right with another programme, as the Radio Authority does. I would like to add my praises too to the Radio Authority. I have those statistics. It is conscientious. It is nice to know that you actually get fined £1,000. I am afraid £1,000 is not going to make much of an impact on some of the independent companies, or some of the producers. Anyhow it shows a desire to have some teeth and to bite.
If you watch football and you see a foul being committed you are not surprised when the yellow card appears. If we transgress when we are driving we also tot up points against us. I do not see why that should not happen to people who consistently transgress. The New Zealand regulatory authority has a good system. Where someone disobeys the rules, the company's programmes on a certain day are allowed no advertising support. That has the advantage of not leaving the screens bare for the customers; and it becomes horribly expensive for the company. It has spent money on producing programmes but is not able to carry the cost in advertising. When the ITC has its full powers on 1st January 1993 something like that should be put in place.
My feeling is that the ITC can be made to work. We need to help it to work. It has been in a rather close relationship with the programme companies with which it grew up. I wonder now whether it should not seek to build an understanding with the viewers. I have never seen advertised how one gets in touch with the ITC. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, has. Who should one telephone or write to when one sees transgressions, shocking programmes, indecent programmes, brutal programmes, cruel programmes or imbalanced programmes? Why should that not be advertised on the screens of the companies which the ITC controls.
I am grateful to noble Lords for their patience. I hope that we can take seriously the need to help the regulatory authority to work efficiently. We should
1426
examine and continue to monitor its achievements and make sure that when someone transgresses he is punished.
8.31 p.m.
Lord Hollick: My Lords, I must declare an interest as chairman of Meridian Broadcasting, the new ITV licensee for the South and South East of England. I should first like to comment on the attack which has been launched by the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, on Liz Forgan. If this attack had been launched outside the House, apart from attracting a libel writ, she would have had the right of reply. It is unfortunate that the attack was made in the House where of course she has no right of reply. That is a clear breach of the code on impartiality.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, a great deal of nonsense is being talked about this. I have only used the statements of Miss Forgan herself. I am sure that she would stand by them. She has masses and masses of them in print. What I have done is merely to draw attention to them. I do not mind drawing attention to them again outside the House in exactly the same manner.
Lord Hollick: My Lords, I come to the issue of ITV regulation and the issue of impartiality as very much a new boy—and I hope that the House may find the reflections of a new boy helpful. The noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, asks the Government whether they are satisfied with the ITC's arrangements for implementing the provisions of the Broadcasting Act on impartiality. I should like to tell your Lordships about Meridian's experience of how the ITC goes about discharging its responsibilities because I think it will indicate the approach that it will bring to the particular issue of impartiality.
Although some have described—possibly hopefully —the ITC's approach as "regulation with a light touch", I can assure your Lordships that compared with regulators of other industries where I have direct experience I detect no lightness; rather the ITC keeps a firm grip on all of the key elements of the broadcasting business. The ITC takes its responsibilities as a regulator very seriously and exercises them with due diligence and with considerable attention to detail. From all that I have seen and experienced I have no doubt that the ITC will be rigorous in implementing Section 6 of the Broadcasting Act.
I should tell your Lordships what the Act and the code mean to an ITV broadcasting company like Meridian. First, with effect from 1st January responsibility for compliance with the Code on Impartiality is a condition of the licence to broadcast. If an ITV broadcaster is found to have breached the code, it is subject to a series of sanctions. These include warnings, instructions to broadcast apologies, fines —substantial fines—and in some circumstances a shortening or complete revocation of the licence. These sanctions have real bite, and it is right that they should. I can assure your Lordships that these sanctions are being taken extremely seriously by broadcasters.

1427
As licensees, ITV broadcasters will be responsible for ensuring that all relevant employees and programme makers, whether independent or on the staff, are fully familiar with and observe the provisions of the code.
I am glad to be able to tell the House that in the first week in June, when Meridian's 30 most senior executives and managers came together for the very first time—for a two day meeting—the Code on Impartiality was high on the agenda. Our lawyers were brought in to explain exactly what the code meant in practice—and that was just the start of a training programme which is designed to ensure that everyone who needs to understand the code does understand the code and also understands the importance of seeing that the Code on Impartiality is not breached.
I am confident that all ITV companies are taking the same steps to make sure that their staff and suppliers know the code and the serious consequences that can flow from breaching it. The ITC has left broadcasters in no doubt of the importance of doing that. Last month it called a meeting with Meridian to make sure that we were up to the mark. I know that other meetings have been held with the other ITV contractors.
I am aware that in previous debates on this topic some noble Lords have expressed a concern about personal view programmes; those programmes where an individual expresses his own particular point of view. It is a matter to which Meridian is giving particular attention and I should like to give two specific examples. Robbie Coltrane, the actor and comedian, is currently travelling across America making a series for us called "Coltrane In A Cadillac". He buys a second hand Cadillac in San Francisco and sets out to get back to his home in Glasgow by the most economical method. The journey will essentially be a vehicle for his observations about life in America.
We do not know exactly what he will be saying until he gets back. It may be that he will have some views about controversial matters, but I do not yet know. If our executives judge that Mr. Coltrane does touch upon controversial matters then we shall see to it that each programme is clearly identified as giving a personal view both in advance announcements and at the start of the programme itself. We shall make sure that none of the opinions expressed rests upon false evidence and we shall see that a suitable opportunity for response will be provided—perhaps in a right to reply programme or in a pre-arranged discussion programme. These are the safeguards specified by the code in the area of personal view programmes covering controversial topics. Those safeguards seem to me to be wholly adequate and proper.
In our own region we will broadcast a programme called "3 Minutes". This programme will go out four nights a week—just ahead of the evening news—and it will be a forum where volunteer groups, local charities and local people will be able to respond to Meridian programming. Rather than using experts, the programme will feature members of the public saying
1428
what they want to say in the way they want to say it. One of my colleagues at Meridian has described the programme as a compliance minefield.
We believe it is right that we should seek to tiptoe through this minefield and we shall rely on our programme executives to act as mine detectors. That is their job. They know that they must take care to ensure that a sufficiently broad range of views is expressed in any series of these programmes, and that views expressed on controversial matters should be kept in reasonable balance throughout the progress of the series. As a licensee, this is something that Meridian must be able to demonstrate. That is what the code requires.
I have spent a little time talking about two of Meridian's programmes because I thought it would be helpful to describe what the code means to broadcasters in practice.
I should now like to turn to the broader issue. The issue of impartiality is one that arouses great passion. Impartiality is very much in the eye of the beholder and interpretation of what is or is not impartial is a highly subjective one which the Broadcasting Act wisely delegated to the ITC and experienced broadcasters.
The noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, has given us some examples of programmes that he believes have fallen short of the requirements of the code. Fortunately, I have not seen those programmes and so I am not in a position to address the specific points that he has raised, but I do believe that it is important to put these programmes into context. The examples mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, add up to just a handful of hours from the output of ITV and Channel 4. Together, ITV and Channel 4 broadcast 14,715 hours of programmes a year. More than 4,000 hours Lre factual programmes.
Even if the noble Lord is correct in his view that the examples he cites are breaches of the code, and not merely programmes that he dislikes, taken together they would amount to no more than a small fraction of the substantial body of factual programmes that stay well within the impartiality code.
I am bound to say that I think that it would be surprising if some programmes did not from time to time test the boundaries of the impartiality code. In a democracy testing the boundaries is something to be expected, and welcomed, so long as it does not occur too often. I do not advocate breaching the code, but nor do I think that broadcasters should seek to emulate the muzzled tradition of Pravda and Izvestia. Broadcasters should seek to reflect the broad range of views that are to be found in a nation that enjoys a dynamic political and intellectual life, within the proper freedoms and constraints that the impartiality code allows.
It is important to understand the nature of ITV. ITV is a revenue-driven system. The pursuit of revenue drives the pursuit of the viewer. The advertisers are our customers and they seek access to the audience through the broadcasters. The advertisers want what they call a quality audience, and that audience wants quality programmes, so there is a virtuous circle: it is only by being sensitive to the needs

1429
of our viewers that we can be sensitive to the needs of our advertisers. All broadcasters are sensitive to the needs of viewers. We commission research into the tastes and interests of the viewers in our region and we have a team of liaison officers charged with keeping in touch with the communities we serve.
I occasionally detect a somewhat elistist tone creeping into the debate on impartiality. There is a presumption by some commentators that the viewer is unable to spot a biased and controversial programme. The viewers whom we serve are not fools. I believe that viewers can certainly smell a rat, and we do not want to risk our viewers smelling a rat in anything that we transmit. That would be a sure way for us to lose viewers.
As broadcasters, the viewer is central to everything that we do; so, having read a number of the debates in the House, I am struck by the extent to which consideration of the viewers has been left out of the long-running debate on impartiality.
The noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, poured scorn on surveys of the public. I am not surprised by that, because they overwhelmingly reject his views. The latest survey of the public's view of impartiality on ITV was undertaken by the ITC in 1991. Members of the public were invited to compare television, radio and newspapers. In answer to the question,
"Which medium gave the most complete, the most accurate, the most fair and clearest understanding of national and international news?"
television won hands down. The highest score in any of the categories for newspapers was 15 per cent. The lowest score for television in any of those categories was a thumping 68 per cent. So viewers were in no doubt that television provided the most complete, accurate, fair, unbiased and clearest account of the news.
But what about perceptions of political bias on television in general that exercised so many of your Lordships? Seventy-one per cent. said that ITV did not favour any political party. Of those people who thought ITV did favour a political party the survey found that they were split evenly: 6 per cent. thought ITV favoured the Conservative Party and 6 per cent. thought ITV favoured the Labour Party. One could ask for no better balance than that unless of course one is a Liberal Democrat.
I understand that those findings mirror the findings of similar surveys in earlier years. The verdict of the viewers is clear: ITV is seen as impartial. The survey results for Channel 4 were similar: 2 per cent. thought Channel 4 favoured the Conservatives; 6 per cent. thought it favoured Labour and 1 per cent. the Liberal Democrats.
Television broadcasting has developed dramatically since the requirement of impartiality was first included in broadcasting legislation in 1954. We now have four terrestrial channels and a host of satellite channels. Cable is being installed at a rapid rate and brings with it the promise of many more channels by the end of this decade. That range of channels offers the opportunity for the expression of a whole range of views and opinions. The viewing public is increasingly sophisticated and is accustomed to hearing opinions from television commentators which they recognise to
1430
be only one opinion on the spectrum. I venture also to suggest that the viewing public is less deferential today than it was 30 or 40 years ago and is not likely to be taken in by any programme seeking to disguise partial and prejudiced opinions behind the mask of impartial programme-making. In short, I believe that we can be confident that the television audience can be relied upon to exercise its good judgment in this matter.
I believe that we can also have confidence that the ITC and the ITV companies will discharge their respective obligations under the Broadcasting Act. The legal requirements relating to impartiality which are imposed upon ITV companies are clear and the penalties for any infringements are painful and, in the final analysis, could result in a loss of licence. I can attest to the fact that the ITC is no slouch on those matters. It is not a laid-back regulator; it is fully engaged and closely involved.
We can take comfort from the fact that licensees are staffed by people who, from the start of what for many of them has been a long and very successful career in broadcasting, have been imbued with the need to achieve the highest standards of impartiality. Their record of success on this important matter augurs well for the future.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, for not being in my place when he asked his Question. I was upstairs in the Hansard office after five hours in my place in the Chamber. When I came in I thought that I should leave immediately and bring back a barrel of oil to pour on troubled waters. That now seems unnecessary. Although the noble Lord sometimes expresses himself with vigour, especially when the talks about governors resigning immediately after something has been said on television of which he disapproved, I cannot help but remember that it was in the 1950s that in the Labour Party, he took on almost single-handedly, the question of the infiltration of some trade unions by the communists. It was an unpopular thing to do. I believe that in the end his business was ruined by union action taken as an act of revenge. I am aware that he feels strongly on those matters. I may be somewhat less ardent than he is.
I do not believe that it is a question of one political party being favoured as against another political party. I do not believe that party politics comes into it very much. What I think we are seeing is a bias of a particular kind which covers the whole of our entertainment and television. We should look at the problem in perspective. In days gone by, when Lord Beaverbrook ran the Daily Express he based it on the belief that one should always give good news, because that is what people want to hear. It bucks them up. However bad their situation, they feel that if the newspaper is saying something jolly, they feel jolly too. He went on doing that. Your Lordships may remember that even in 1939 he kept on saying that there would be no war that year.
That approach has changed. What people like today is bad news. it is an interesting change in our society. It is caused by people's perception that things

1431
in this country have been deteriorating over the past 50 years. I shall not talk about a national decline, because so many things are so much better than they were 50 years ago. Yet people sometimes have a sense of disappointment over the way things have gone. Everyone senses that our place in the world has changed greatly. After the war we found we had become a client state of America. That was a great shock to many people. We now find ourselves in an equivocal position in Europe. Again, in the 1960s—I remember well—Mr Ben Pimlott pays tribute to this in his biography of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson—the sense of excitement and the feeling that we were entering some new age when Mr Harold Wilson, as he then was, was elected Prime Minister. We were going to see a major change in our society.
By 1970 there was a great sense of disappointment about what had been achieved and had not been achieved. It can be argued that the same thing has been happening in the 1980s. The moment one thought that things were going to get very much better —there was a great new surge of energy and the Government were full of initiatives,—the recession hit us and made one feel that it was again a false dawn.
That has had an effect on public opinion. What people want with this general dissatisfaction is reflected in the television, the press and in our programmes. It is a dissatisfaction with every branch of authority. That is the way in which the dissatisfaction expresses itself, whether it is with politicians, the Civil Service, the police, the judiciary, schoolteachers or even the monarchy. They are all subjected to this general sense of dissatisfaction. People wish to hear them abused, to hear those in authority exposed as being economical with the "actualite".
The first television company which cottoned on to this was Granada, in Lancashire. Lord Bernstein and Granada realised that this was a new development, and that was how "World in Action" began. There is no question about it, the programme undoubtedly tried to express this. It was always an anti-authority programme.
We may well be pursuing a hopelessly invisible sprite with impartiality in broadcasting. It is difficult, with an ethos of this kind, to see how there can be impartiality. I am sceptical about it. I do not doubt that the noble Lords, Lord Wyatt and Lord Orr-Ewing, are right when they say that it is an instruction laid on broadcasters and they are not fulfilling it.
The only time I had any dealings with Liz Forgan was in a programme on Greece between 1945 and 1947 at the time of the civil war there. A programme was made whose theme was that it was a great tragedy that the communist-run ELLAS EAM had failed to gain power because it had been prevented by the reactionary British forces. The British had stopped Greece from being a true democracy.
It was perfectly all right to put a programme of that kind on because, after all, that was the policy of the then Greek Government under the younger Mr. Papandreou. What was not acceptable in that
1432
programme was that British officers or ex-officers who had been parachuted into Greece during the war and had served in the guerrillas or as intelligence officers, such as Monty Woodhouse and Mr. Nigel Clark, were interviewed. But their interviews were so skilfully cut that a totally different impression was given from the one that they thought they had given to camera. That is the only time I have ever had any dealings with Miss Forgan personally. In the end, Channel 4 apologised for the way in which the programme had been made.
It is difficult to get across to broadcasters who are brought up in this ethos that they have a duty—though perhaps it is difficult for them—to imagine what a contrary programme of any kind one likes to name would be. I have mentioned before in the House that Mr. Ian Curteis's play on the Falklands was turned down by the BBC because the producers could not understand that it was an acceptable and interesting form of drama. When I raised this recently with the head of drama, he said, "We simply don't think it is a good play". There were faults in the play, but none which could not have been put right.
There is sometimes an inability of broadcasters to understand that there are alternative ways of looking at life. When one works in a closed circle, as one does in any profession—and let me tell you that the academic profession is as closed as any—it is difficult to think about how things look from a different angle. Perhaps that is what has happened. However, I am at a loss in asking the noble Viscount who will reply to the debate what he thinks ought to be done because I am quite sure that I do not know.
8.55 p.m.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, it may come as a relief to noble Lords that I do not know Ms. Forgan and I shall not mention her in my speech. We are grateful to my noble friend Lord Wyatt for giving us the opportunity of discussing this most important topic. I believe we can all agree on that. It is also timely in view of the recent government Green Paper on the future of the BBC.
The Question specifically refers to the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority. In that context, I was particularly interested to listen to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, and hear of the great trouble that is taken at the ITC to get it right. I found that comforting.
However, although the Question refers to the Independent Commission and the Radio Authority, since during the passage of the Broadcasting Bill 1990 the BBC made it clear that it would take cognizance of the Bill and the codes associated with it, I believe it to be quite proper to include the corporation's record in this respect. The debate on its future will engage us all for months to come and it is no part of my remarks tonight to enter into the wider issues involved. However, the question of impartiality is bound to be central to any discussion. That is how it should be, wherever the use of public money is concerned. Control must always be exercised to ensure that the highest standards are maintained.
Bias can take many forms, as many of your Lordships will have noted in the recent, perhaps

1433
unfortunate, "Cutting Edge" film about this place to which other noble Lords have referred. I hope that those who have responsibility for the affairs of this House will accept that any discussion about future programmes will only be undertaken by those on our side who are familiar with the mechanics, objectives and ethos of those making such programmes. I can assure the House that it is a different world and we ignore that fact totally at our peril.
I am aware that the hour is late and I shall not detain your Lordships long. However, perhaps I may give another example of what I regard as a certain lack of control in the question of impartiality. It is this which, so to speak, has flushed me out of the closet so that I am speaking tonight because I regard it as so important.
This event took place last summer as part of a social programme on racism in this country, embarked upon jointly by the Commission for Racial Equality and Radio 1 FM. Perhaps I may make it clear that any balanced programme which authoritatively draws attention to the problem and which seeks to inform concerned people of their rights in this respect is to be commended. Racism, which is an evil against which I have fought for most of my life, regrettably exists and should be stamped out by the full force of the law and by showing people how stupid and evil it is. However, by entering into a joint partnership with the Commission for Racial Equality, the BBC was in my view abusing the terms of its Royal Charter, thereby incidentally showing what an unsatisfactory method of running the corporation a Royal Charter is. However, that is another matter.
Back to the programmes. The picture painted in the "sound bites", as they are known in the trade, inserted between the records was one of unrelieved gloom about the racist problem in the country. There were no compensatory facts, no attempts to balance the books. This doom-laden policy was repeated in the jointly produced follow-up publication Race Through the Nineties.
Throughout the publication, survey results are quoted based on statistics produced by the Runnymede Trust in 1991, along the lines of, "x per cent. of black people think we should have tougher race laws than white people". Indeed, the publication itself goes so far as to say, "The law needs to be still tougher". But since when has the BBC been in the business of urging changes to the laws of this country outside areas of its own competence? I take two quotations from this book simply because they cover areas of which I have some knowledge. The first states:
"Race inequality is a fact right through the Criminal Justice system in Britain".
The book further states:
"You could get a longer sentence than a White person for the same offence".
Let me repeat that. The book states:
"You could get a longer sentence than a White person for the same offence".
I can assure noble Lords that in the court with which I have been actively associated for nearly 20 years that is simply not true; nor is it true, I suspect, in the vast majority of other courts. Indeed, the noble and
1434
learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would quickly see to it that any magistrate who abused his position of power in that way would quickly be shown the door, and rightly. But what is the BBC doing giving its name, as part publisher, to a publication in which such statements are made? The action would certainly appear to infringe the terms of its Royal Charter which requires it,
"To refrain at all times from sending any broadcast matter expressing the opinion of the Corporation on Current Affairs or on matters of public policy, other than broadcasting and matter contained in programmes which consist only of proceedings in either Houses of Parliament".
Article 1 requires the BBC,
"to apply the whole of its income solely in promoting its objects".
I maintain that, however admirable the objects of the CRE may be, they are inevitably different—they must be different—from the objects of the BBC, which on this occasion mistakenly used taxpayers' money, no matter how beneficial the end product was thought to be; and this at a time when we are told its revenue of £1.5 billion is not thought to be sufficient. I have made that point because I think it is important.
I conclude merely by saying that all these paths, and many more, will be crossed and recrossed in the months to come. That is as it should be, for the country will be determining the pattern of broadcasting in this new electronic age for years to come. Whatever the outcome, let us be sure that whatever system is adopted we incorporate in it safeguards for due impartiality, together with the means to implement them properly.
9.2 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, has once again ridden his favourite hobby horse, "Impartiality", round the broadcasting course. I do not know what odds he would have obtained on his mount from his Totalisator; but, judging by the way he behaved in the earlier part of the course, he might well have had some trouble with the Jockey Club.
I do not wish to continue the exchanges at a personal level about Ms Liz Forgan, but I am bound to say to the noble Lord —I say it with sorrow—that I always enjoy his pugnacity and his polemics, but I thought he fell far below his normal standards of fair play in using the prestige and power of the debating Chamber of your Lordships' House to make an attack on officials. I was brought up in a tradition that if one wished to tackle an institution and felt that it had been behaving badly, one went for the chairman as that is what chairmen are for. I can only join in deploring the way in which the noble Lord conducted that part of his argument.
The trouble with the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, is that due impartiality in broadcasting is not really a subject that suits him. It is hard to see him as an apostle of impartiality; rather one sees him as an apostle of pugnacity as we know from his articles in The Times or the News of the World, those great temples of journalistic balance. When the noble Lord goes on, as he does go on, about impartiality in broadcasting, all he means by impartiality is that he

1435
objects to certain programmes on the broadcasting channels because they are too Left-wing for his current tastes. As the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said earlier, we have all been together on the political scene for a long time. I remember when the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, was far too Left-wing for me when we were young politicians together. We were together for a period as ardent Gaitskellites. Now the noble Lord has left me far behind—I must say he has left me sadly behind—in terms of tonight's discussion.
I therefore beg the noble Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, to see the problems of impartiality in broadcasting in some sort of perspective. Of course broadcasters rub all of us up the wrong way from time to time, especially if they are dealing with subject matter which is close to our hearts. Channel 4's treatment of your Lordships' House in the programme which has been much mentioned is a perfectly good example of that. I agree with what the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, said in his final remarks. If there is to be a balancing programme there, those of your Lordships' House who are responsible for any of the arrangements should be very vigilant and cautious and not quite so naive as may have been the case formerly.
For goodness sake let us not become too apoplectic about individual programmes. It always struck me in the years I struggled as chairman of one of the broadcasting authorities how extraordinarily obsessed people became with broadcast programmes. Broadcast programmes stir up feelings at the time they are broadcast but they are ephemeral, much more so than the articles of the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, enshrined as they are for posterity in the files of The Times. I call in aid on that argument for a proper sense of proportion and perspective perhaps an unlikely witness in Sir Bernard Ingham who had many battles with broadcasters during his time with Mrs. Thatcher at Downing Street. I noticed he was writing last week in the Daily Express about the BBC, but what he wrote could equally apply to ITV and Channel 4. Sir Bernard wrote:
"Some Thatcherites were profoundly shocked when I publicly described the BBC as a national asset … But I have never gone along with those Tories who think that the BBC is a Trotskyist enclave in the Establishment. Nor with those Labour Ministers who regarded it as a nest of fascist vipers. In my experience, it ranges itself against all governments who must be put through the hoops. It exists to challenge authority —especially that of the Government".
That is in the nature of broadcasting as it is in the nature of a free press and free media in a democratic society. As the noble Lords, Lord Wyatt and Lord Orr-Ewing, have said, the ITC, the Radio Authority and commercial broadcasting companies all have a legal obligation. That is an obligation which the BBC accepts. The words of the statute are significant as reflecting the limitations of human endeavour in this difficult field. Under the Broadcasting Acts they have an obligation to "do all that they can" to ensure due impartiality on controversial matters.
I agree with what has been said a number of times in this short debate, that in factual programmes it is of the highest professional importance and goes to the
1436
heart of the standards and quality of broadcasting in this country that every effort should be made to sustain due impartiality.
In the days when I had some responsibility for the matter—and, I concede freely to the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, I had my failures—I never ceased to preach due impartiality to keen young journalists who all had Watergate batons in their briefcases. I never ceased to preach to them that due impartiality was not a dull and timid doctrine but was a very demanding discipline calling for the highest qualities of journalism. It is taken very seriously by the broadcasting authorities and will continue to be once the new Broadcasting Act comes fully into operation.
I was happy to hear the tributes that were paid to the way in which the new Radio Authority has dealt with the matter. Without wishing to detract from those compliments, I would only say that commercial radio is primarily music-based these days and therefore the volume of current affairs material is much more limited than it is on the television channels. Therefore the task is a more manageable one. Nevertheless, it is good that the authority has got off to such an excellent start.
The ITC takes the matter seriously. Its record is a strong one which is borne out by research. I acknowledge that a certain scepticism has been expressed about the research. The noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, indicated that the sample was not made sufficiently clear in some of the material which had reached him. I believe that it was a professional sample according to the normal standards of such surveys. According to the 1991 survey, as the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, has already indicated, seven people in 10 trust television to provide the most accurate, fair and unbiased coverage of events compared with about one in 10 who opt for newspapers or radio. Only a small minority of viewers perceive any political bias in the programme services. That minority who see political bias is almost equally divided, as the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, said, between the Right and the Left. It is important in terms of the tone of this debate that television retains its position as the nation's primary source of impartially presented national and international news and compares more than favourably with what I am sorry to say, as an old print journalist, are the deteriorating standards of much of the national press.
The noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, mentioned in some detail some of the complaints which appeared in the quarterly reports of the ITC. The one to which he drew attention, relating to subliminal broadcasting, which was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, is very serious. I for my part can hardly think of a more serious offence than that, whatever the background. I do not know the detail, but it would seem to me to be exactly the kind of offence in relation to which the full sanctions of the new Broadcasting Act, which comes into operation from 1st January, might well be brought into being. Those include fines, although it was mentioned that fines might not mean much to commercial contractors. The noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, quoted my namesake, the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Fleet, as saying that commercial

1437
television had been a licence to print money. For a number of the new contractors starting work on 1st January it is more likely to be a licence to lose money. The point I make is that fines should be applied in serious cases.
The 1991 annual report listed a total of 248 complaints about ITV and Channel 4 programmes. When one examines those more closely one finds that a number of the complaints, as one would expect, relate to matters well outside political and industrial controversy. They include complaints about fairness in programmes such as—and I sympathise with the person who made the complaint—that Jimmy Greaves was unfair to Manchester United on TV-am. Therefore, one has to judge the matter on the basis of serious complaints about impartiality. In 1992 there have been 177 complaints about impartiality so far. Of the 41 complaints which relate to Channel 4, only 11 relate to matters of impartiality under the terms of the Act.
I do not want to minimise the importance of the matter. As I said, impartiality is one of the most important obligations in running the system. However, I simply repeat the general point about seeing the issue in proportion.
Channel 4, has been the target of much of tonight's debate. It is worth recalling that, in Section 25 of the Broadcasting Act, Parliament lays down a requirement on Channel 4 to appeal to minority taste and engage in innovation and experiment in the content of programmes. It is almost by definition a formula for controversy set by Parliament itself.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I remind the noble Lord (who has been very fair) that it was he who said that Channel 4 had special responsibilities. It was under just the same obligation to maintain impartiality. It was no less responsible. We have been building on his confirmation of that in discussing this matter.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. I totally agree with his recollection of what I said in the past. I battled long and hard with Channel 4 on these matters, not least on the programme about the secret war in Greece to which the noble Lord, Lord Annan, referred. The obligations are exactly the same. But it also has the obligation given by Parliament for this rather special remit, and it is quite a difficult task balancing the two. I think one should have a bit of understanding about that. It is not true to say that Channel 4 produces nothing but Left-wing programmes. It produces a lot of controversial programmes which come from a wide political spectrum. In 1991, I am told that the channel transmitted 2,698 hours of factual programmes. So the complaints relate to a very small proportion of that sort of output. Nor is it fair to think of Channel 4 as only providing a platform for those on the left of politics. Their opinion-slots, for example, in which I am sure a number of noble Lords in this House have taken part over the years, are a good example. Recently included were voices like those of Dame Shirley Porter and Janet Daly. There is a series called "The Devil's Advocate" which included a vigorous
1438
attack on the African National Congress for leading people into massacres, and a programme accusing black councillors in Brent of adopting racial policies. So one has to try to see Channel 4 fairly as a whole.
For those who disagree with particular programmes, there is "The Right to Reply", mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing. Although what he said is perfectly true that in some ways "The Right to Reply" gives the original programme maker a second chance, it is a great deal better, I believe, than exists in any other channel in this country. It was pioneered by Channel 4 from its foundation. I have said in this House before, and I say it again, it ought to be part of the obligation in all broadcasting channels to have a proper weekly right to reply programme giving full opportunity for those who feel aggrieved about particular programmes.
Channel 4 certainly makes its errors of judgment. The noble Lord mentioned one that had been brought to my attention. That was the one about the Maoist group in Peru, the Shining Path group. It aroused justified complaints of being one-sided, of dwelling on atrocities by the Peruvian government forces and almost totally ignoring any atrocities on the other side. I think this was recognised by Channel 4, and a corrected and revised version of the programme went out as part of a series on Latin America.
Noble Lords have made various criticisms of the arrangements regarding the operating arrangements for the new code on due impartiality. The noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, wanted to know: to whom do you write? The new Broadcasting Act in which the noble Lord played a fairly big part in shaping some of its characteristics has removed from the Independent Television Commission the daily duty of being the broadcaster. Now, under the new arrangements and the deregulatory framework of the present Government, it is the individual contractor to whom people will have to write, though the ITC will remain with quite an important residual responsibility. If there are problems in the new system, they are likely to be the result of the thrust of the Broadcasting Act which some of us were critical about, but which the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, and the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt (who seems to have disappeared from the scene) were particularly enthusiastic about.
Fortunately, there are signs in the Government's Green Paper on the BBC of a more sensible and enlightened approach now to broadcasting policy than we had during the disastrous reorganisation of commercial broadcasting in this country under the 1990 Act. Therefore, in concluding, I content myself in referring your Lordships to the Government's new Green Paper on the BBC if it is a Green Paper, a very green paper on page 23, paragraphs 4.24 and 4.25. I am sorry that the quotation is substantial, but it will stand in place of a peroration. The report states:
"There could be a code for programme standards, setting out how the requirements on taste, decency and due impartiality in the treatment of controversial issues were to be achieved and enforced.
However, there are risks in devising more stringent arrangements for enforcing programme obligations and standards. Closer regulation might open up more opportunities for political influence or control, so encroaching on the BBC's editorial independence. Moreover, the new

1439
framework could be too rigid to allow for change, so the BBC could not respond to the changing interests and needs of its audiences, and would be prevented from exploring new ideas for programmes".
The concluding sentence is:
"It would be a dull and timorous broadcasting service which did not adapt, experiment and provoke controversy".
I cannot think of wiser advice for the noble Viscount who has the delicate task of replying to the debate.
9.20 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, we have been kept rather late. I am sure that those of us who have not had dinner look forward to the debate's conclusion. The noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, expressed his own views. I am sorry that he is not in the Chamber because I shall refer to him. He spoke in an excessively personal way as regards his perceived enemies in television broadcasting. I do not see myself as one of the noble Lord's enemies and I do not see the noble Lord as an enemy.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, I too recall the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, as a senior political colleague in the Labour Party. However, I found him worryingly to the far left of me. That then aroused question marks about his judgment which were not totally satisfied by the subsequent expedition of his political career. I share the noble Lord's love for horse racing but I must say that I have rarely felt so far adrift from a speaker in this House. I trust that he will not mind if I too see a personal dimension in his contribution.
We must take seriously the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, on the subject of impartiality or particularly, on the other side of the coin, of partiality and bias. I recognise the noble Lord as a great expert in that area. More impressively, he is a great practitioner. His columns in the Murdoch press give a practical and sustained demonstration in the art—no, it is not an art —in the trade of bias and partiality that is rarely equalled by others in this House. So we should listen to him as a great theorist, I presume, and certainly an exponent. Fortunately for the noble Lord, there is no Act and no code to limit and to regulate his written performances.
Despite his expertise and experience in the field of partiality I am less certain that he has much experience of impartiality. I have not seen or read examples of the noble Lord practising the art of impartiality; I suspect that he has much less experience in that field. That may explain why he seems to me to be so far off beam tonight.
The background to the debate is the Broadcasting Act 1990 which comes into force in the near future. I believe that in 1990, before I held my present position, the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, wanted an even stricter set of impartiality rules written into the Act. The Government almost conceded but finally compromised. It is said that the noble Lord was unhappy that the Government did not concede his full, tough censorship. Perhaps we see this debate as a follow-up to that. Fortunately the noble Lord's full wishes were not granted. In that context, I take this opportunity to pay tribute to, among others, the noble Lord, Lord
1440
Thomson of Monifieth, and in particular my predecessor as Front Bench spokesman in this area, my noble and personal friend Lady Birk. She took part in the successful fight against illiberal measures. I note also her excellent work elsewhere in this sphere.
What are the facts? One must confess that it is difficult to approach a subject such as impartiality with scientific pontification and certitude. So often, impartiality, or partiality, is in the eye of the beholder. However, there is some evidence and I believe that the research which exists cannot be dismissed. Perhaps it lies in the hands of those who dismiss it to attempt to generate other respectable research. That research is about what viewers and listeners feel about partiality and impartiality of our television and radio channels. It has been referred to earlier and I need not go into detail. However, that points in a direction quite contrary to the assertions of the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt. The crucial ITC survey in 1991, which has already been mentioned, reveals that seven out of 10 people trust television to be fair and unbiased. That cannot be dismissed out of hand. I doubt whether research into the views of the readership of the columns of the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, or the two newspapers for which he writes would reach similar conclusions.
The IBA survey found that 27 per cent. thought that the BBC was somewhat pro-Tory. I presume that the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, is out of touch with that very large block of viewers.
If one takes the recent election, there was considerable observation of the conduct of our broadcasters. I believe that no evidence of bias was found. Of course, the Nuffield general election studies —on some of which I have worked —since the Second World War have examined media coverage and have documented fully two facts: first, the fairness of television and radio coverage; and secondly, the consistent Tory bias of the majority of our newspapers.
The overwhelming conclusion of independent researchers and observers—and I do not include the Tory media monitoring unit in that category—is that television and radio are remarkably impartial. Any tilt, mainly in the BBC, is to the right. I ask the Minister to confirm that conclusion in his reply. If he has any evidence to the contrary, perhaps he will lay that before the House.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, does the noble Lord include the "Today" programme as being unbiased or pro-Tory? He would be way out of touch with most of my ex-constituents and friends if he so believed. I believe that the "Today" programme is the single most biased programme that has ever been put out by the BBC, certainly during the election period.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I do not share the noble Lord's view of that programme. I have listened to it for many years. It has irritated me and my colleagues as often as it has irritated the noble Lord. Certainly my understanding, from contacts in the television and radio world, is that the ITC, which is specifically referred to in the Question, is exercising its regulatory functions and obligations very seriously.

1441
Apparently, according to what my noble friend Lord Hollick said, that is being done almost with a heavy hand.
Both the ITC and the broadcasters appear more than surprised at the implied allegations in this Question. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, has been fed for so long on the heavy diet of the Right wing press in this country that he comes to define extreme Right wing views as being balanced and impartial and defines any fair view as being intolerably Left wing. Perhaps he has come to define bias as anything with which he disagrees and impartiality as anything with which he agrees.
There are several other issues relating to television and radio which are much more relevant and interesting than the red herring which this Question raises. It is perhaps appropriate if briefly, while discussing television and radio, I touch upon them. I believe that the main issue is not some obsession that the broadcasting media has been penetrated by legions of militant moles. Anybody who knows the real world of broadcasting knows that that is a fantasy. Anybody on the political Left knows that there are few comforts to the Left in our television and radio, except when the political Right of the Government shoot themselves in the foot, which is an occupational hazard today. I believe that it is not bias when the often stupid antics of an incompetent government are fairly reported.
The main issue of broadcasting, as it is and as it was when we discussed the many unsatisfactory aspects of the 1990 Broadcasting Act, is actually that of quality, not impartiality. On this side of the House we are still concerned that the structure of independent broadcasting which has emerged may lead to a decline in quality. We do not prejudge that, but we shall be watching that factor most carefully. We are also concerned that the basic instincts behind the Question, the political and perhaps psychological instincts, are towards greater censorship. We shall resist that. I am confident that we shall be supported by Conservative broadcasters in that regard.
In that context I must say that the repeated attempts by some Conservative politicians to impose censorship on the BBC by using threats in relation to the future of the licence fee at the time of the recent election were little short of despicable. But in resisting censorship we do not imply that all is perfect in broadcasting. It is not and cannot be. Many of us regret the increasing examples of bad taste and bad language in broadcasting. I object to the increasing trivialisation of which the recent "Cutting Edge" programme on the House of Lords was only a mild example. But that is not a question of bias; it is triviality and the programme provided a right to reply.
I would have been more sympathetic if the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, had related to that trivialisation. I would also have been more sympathetic if he had dealt with what I equally regret —the way in which some of the seedier aspects of what I call "private eye journalism" are beginning to set an example to some broadcasters, as they have to many newspaper journalists, and the way in which so-called investigative journalism—invented honourably by my close personal friend Harry Evans when we worked
1442
together at the Sunday Times—has been adopted, distorted and trivialised into an excuse for baseless innuendo as a substitute for facts and information. That sometimes applies in broadcasting but much more often in newspapers.
The noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, is obviously benefiting from the dinner the rest of us would like to have. Had he raised those serious issues in a non-partisan way, we could have had a fruitful debate on the quality of broadcasting. But none of those areas of increasing anxiety relates to bias and impartiality. The trivialisation, the innuendo journalism, is done on my observation on a completely impartial basis. The sneers which often replace intelligent comment are implied impartially to all, Left as well as Right.
I believe that there is no basis in substance to attack the ITC for its operations in that field and certainly not the BBC. Moreover, were such a code, as is referred to, to exist in relation to newspapers and to be operated as fairly and rigorously as the ITC operates in its field towards broadcasting, then I suspect that none of the newspapers for which the noble Lord writes would ever appear again.
We reject the thrust of the Unstarred Question but look forward to the time when the genuine issues which exist in radio and television broadcasting, especially concerning quality, are raised in this House.
9.34 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, it is customary at this point for the Minister to say that we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, for initiating this debate. Well, initiate it he did! I am sure that we are all grateful to him for doing so. Attention may have been focused more on the BBC recently, but it is important not to overlook the wider broadcasting context.
I have listened with great attention to all the contributions. I shall say more about the particular points that have been raised in a moment, and try to offer a Government response. Perhaps I could begin by saying what I think the debate tonight has highlighted. First, the importance of due impartiality in television and radio broadcasting, which reaches almost every home in the land and, secondly, the essential role of vigorous discussion in a parliamentary democracy. We have certainly had that tonight.
The subject of due impartiality has been debated many times in Parliament, in the press and elsewhere. It is a subject which deserves to be properly discussed, not least because circumstances change. It is some three years ago that the proceedings in another place were televised for the first time. Some of your Lordships may remember the time when nothing could be broadcast about a subject for 14 days before a Parliamentary debate on the topic.
People sometimes forget that impartiality requirements are nothing new in broadcasting legislation. It has long been recognised that broadcasting is too important to be used unchecked as a vehicle for cranks and eccentric or partisan opinions. The Broadcasting Act 1990 therefore follows earlier statutes in containing a requirement for due impartiality in broadcast programmes. I say "due impartiality"

1443
because the law quite properly stops short of an absolute requirement of achieving even balance in all situations. Impartiality should not be confused with neutrality or indifference.
Broadcasters in this country operate within a system of parliamentary democracy and are expected to share its assumptions. They are not expected to give equal weight, or to show an impartiality which may not be due, to those who seek to destroy the democratic system by violent, unparliamentary or illegal means. There is no obligation to be neutral between truth and untruth, justice and injustice, compassion and cruelty, tolerance and intolerance. But because we live in a parliamentary democracy, the broadcasters are expected to reflect the cut and thrust of Parliamentary and political debate. They are not expected to propose the view that everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
Due impartiality is not a matter which can be reduced to some simple mathematical formula; nor can its achievement be guaranteed through any mechanistic statutory requirement. The Government do not believe that Parliament could provide an adequate definition of due impartiality in statute, or that they should try. Perhaps of all people, politicians are the least able to be seen as impartial, especially on matters of political controversy. That is why the Broadcasting Act 1990 leaves the interpretation of due impartiality to the regulatory bodies. It is their job to ensure that the statutory provisions are upheld.
The Act does, however, go a little further than the previous legislation in spelling out the duties of the regulatory bodies on this issue. In the past, the IBA was both regulator and broadcaster. It was able to combine the two roles to ensure that the programmes which it transmitted conformed to its own concept of impartiality. In future, the companies licensed by the Independent Television Commission will themselves be broadcasters. We believe it is important that they, and the audience, should be fully aware of what is expected of them in terms of impartiality. It is for that reason that the Broadcasting Act requires the ITC and the Radio Authority to draw up and publish a code on impartiality. Although required by statute, the regulatory bodies are responsible for the contents of the codes, their interpretation and enforcement. That, in our view, is as it should be.
What the 1990 Act does is to specify key areas the codes must cover. For example, the ITC and Radio Authority codes give more detailed guidance on how due impartiality can be achieved over a series of programmes; a question which had previously given rise to some difficulty and uncertainty. The codes also address the ways in which impartiality should be achieved in different contexts, the timescales within which the requirements of balance should be met, and the prominence to be given to the programmes intended to achieve balance. It is right that the code should provide a means for resolving problems of interpretation. But it is our firm view that it is for the regulatory bodies to give effect to these requirements without interference from politicians.
1444
Of course, from time to time the broadcasters will show programmes which many of us find tendentious or downright infuriating. As the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, who I see is not in his place, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, pointed out, bias is sometimes in the eye of the beholder. I think that your Lordships have demonstrated that very clearly in this debate but of course members and ex-members of the Labour Party have been arguing about their differences of view on bias. They know more about bias in their own party than I do, so I would not dream of commenting further on that.
As I am sure your Lordships will agree, parliamentary democracy does not suffer through sharp expression and robust debate. First-class, vigorous news and current affairs programmes are an essential ingredient in our democracy. There would be real risks in trying to devise more stringent arrangements for setting and enforcing programme standards. Greater regulation might open up more opportunities for political influence and control. Too rigid a framework could prevent the broadcasters from responding to the changing interests and needs of their audiences or from exploring new ideas for programmes.
As your Lordships know, broadcasting is going through a period of immense and rapid change. As well as the huge increase in the number of broadcasting services both in this country and abroad, there are significant changes in the way that broadcasting services are organised and regulated and in the way people use them. Cable and satellite services, including specialist news and parliamentary channels, have multiplied in the last few years. Technological developments, such as digital transmission of radio and television services, will enable even more channels to be accommodated. Many programmes are now made for international audiences, and there are more opportunities for broadcasting across national boundaries.
These changes open up new opportunities but also pose new problems for regulation. With many more sources of information, including channels such as CNN from abroad, we are already removed from the closely regulated era when the BBC and ITN had a monopoly of broadcast news programmes for United Kingdom audiences. Of course, this does not mean that broadcasters here can ignore the programme codes on impartiality or other matters but at a time of rapid change it is unrealistic to think that specific regulation is possible for every eventuality.
We believe that the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority codes on impartiality recognise these facts. Both the commission and the authority consulted widely before publishing their codes last year. They continue to keep them under review, as they are required to do under the Broadcasting Act. The Radio Authority published a revised code in September and the ITC is currently reviewing the terms of its code.
The noble Lords, Lord Wyatt and Lord Thomson of Monifieth, talked about subliminal messages and the problems there. The Independent Television Commission has clear statutory responsibilities. These

1445
include a duty to secure that independent television programmes do not use images of very brief duration to convey messages or to influence the minds of people watching the programmes, without their being fully aware of what has occurred. The commission's programme code gives effect to this statutory requirement. It provides that as a general rule no image of very brief duration may contain matter which is clearly of a political or controversial nature unless the surrounding programme content makes the general nature of the image clear to the viewer.
I must emphasise that responsibility for what is broadcast rests with the broadcasters and the broadcasting authorities. However, I understand from the ITC that the particular programme mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, was the ITV "Chart Show", a pop music programme which was broadcast after the general election. It contained very brief images of a "Vote Labour" slogan as part of a music video. The ITC was not satisfied that the programme complied with its programme code, and Granada has apologised. Granada had not been aware of the images and has undertaken to tighten up its previewing procedures to prevent any recurrence, in line with the requirements of the ITC code.
My noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing and the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, spoke about the "Cutting Edge" programme. I understand that permission to film was given by your Lordships' Administration and Works sub-committee in February of this year. However, I should add that it is my understanding that the sub-committee gave permission for the film on the basis that the film would be a serious exercise to show the workings of the House of Lords. Your Lordships have views as to whether that was indeed the case. I know that the Administration and Works sub-committee has caused representations of its own to be made to Channel 4.
The noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, also referred to appointments by the BBC. Appointments of senior BBC staff are entirely a matter for the corporation's board of governors. These are not matters on which I can or would seek to comment. We have also heard from the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, about bias. I cannot emphasise too strongly that editorial decisions about programme content and scheduling are matters for the broadcasters and not for the Government. It is for the broadcasters to decide how they should meet their obligation to observe due impartiality in the treatment of controversial issues.
The BBC's undertaking on programme standards, including due impartiality, is contained in the annex to its Licence and Agreement. The BBC also issues its own Producers' Guidelines, giving detailed guidance for programme makers, to which my noble friend referred. I know that the BBC takes its obligations on programme standards and treating controversial subjects with due impartiality very seriously. But it is up to the governors to secure the BBC's compliance with them under its present charter.
Your Lordships will obviously be aware that longer term these and other issues can be considered as part of the review of the BBC charter which continues until 1996. The Government's discussion document, which
1446
we published last week, sets out the questions for the public debate about the future of the BBC, including programme standards of impartiality. We hope for a well-informed, constructive debate, and we want to hear the opinions of viewers and listeners as well as of the broadcasters and other interested parties before bringing forward proposals.
My noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing spoke about the code and its enforcement. The ITC and the Radio Authority are well aware of their statutory responsibilities. Were they to fail to enforce the code's provisions on licensees they would be liable to action for breach of statutory duty initiated by anybody who could claim a locus in this matter. The courts in this country have traditionally shown a good deal of latitude in allowing such actions to be brought.
After 1st January 1993 the range of sanctions available to the ITC and the Radio Authority include warnings, reprimands, fines, and ultimately withdrawal of the licence to broadcast. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, was clear, as a broadcaster himself, on what the code means and what the sanctions would mean. His speech tonight was of great interest to the House on how the code reflects on a broadcaster and, as a broadcaster, how seriously he takes this code.
My noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing asked whether the ITC advertises where complaints can be made. Obviously complaints should be first made to the broadcaster, but the ITC has arranged television advertisements explaining its role, which includes responding to complaints. The BBC also responds to complaints, which can be addressed to Broadcasting House.
I should also like to join the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, in saying a brief word about his noble friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. She is a sterling advocate of her party at the Dispatch Box on these subjects. In the two years that I have answered for the Office of Arts and Libraries and now the Department of National Heritage I have always enjoyed her speeches, and I hope that she will speak again, if not from the Dispatch Box.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, she will.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the Government believe that the regulatory arrangements for due impartiality that we set up in the Broadcasting Act are the right approach. Their implementation is a matter for the ITC and the Radio Authority. We do not want to impose a straitjacket that could stifle experiment, debate and creativity. It is our firm intention to uphold the traditions that Ministers do not interfere with the content of individual programmes. We have, after all, the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, it would seem, keeping the interests of the Conservative Party very much to the fore, although of course he does not sit on our Benches. Never mind, one day perhaps he will.
We must give the arrangements under the Broadcasting Act time to settle in. The new licensing regime for Channels 3 and 4 begins on 1st January 1993. Clearly, the Government must be concerned with the regulatory framework and whether that framework is being adhered to or whether it needs to

1447
be changed. In general though, programmes and schedules are matters best left to the broadcasters and the regulating authorities. As the very substantial work which has gone into the code shows, the ITC and the Radio Authority take their responsibilities very seriously. I believe that they are doing a difficult job with proper consideration and care.
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, has had a marathon day and so we appreciated his contribution to the debate, which is on a subject that he knows so well. We
1448
have had an interesting debate to say the least. Even the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, joined in—more than once. Although views were held strongly on the subject, I am sure it was right for this important debate to continue so that, apart from anything else, alternative perspectives could be aired in your Lordships' House which would not have been possible if the debate had been cut short this evening.
House adjourned at nine minutes before ten o'clock.

  DANGEROUS DOGS ACT 1991
  DANGEROUS DOGS ACT 1991
  SENIOR CIVIL SERVANTS: PAY FREEZE
  SENIOR CIVIL SERVANTS: PAY FREEZE
  COAL IMPORTS: TRUE COST
  COAL IMPORTS: TRUE COST
  CONSUMER AFFAIRS COUNCIL, 3rd NOVEMBER
  CONSUMER AFFAIRS COUNCIL, 3rd NOVEMBER
  THORP: LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES
  THORP: LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES