Sitting of 2 July 1992

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

  PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 4) BILL (By Order)
  BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  CROSSRAIL BILL (By Order)
  EAST COAST MAIN LINE (SAFETY) BILL (By Order)
  GREATER MANCHESTER (LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  LONDON UNDERGROUND (GREEN PARK) BILL (By Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Thursday 9 July.
  PETERHEAD HARBOURS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Animal Welfare
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to improve the welfare of animals transported from the United Kingdom to the rest of the European Community.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nicholas Soames): During the United Kingdom presidency of the Community, we will be seeking agreement on further rules to safeguard the welfare of animals during transport. These will apply to all journeys in the Community.
    Mr. Cunningham: Will the Minister recognise that transporting British calves in veal crates across Europe over many hours, often for the rest of their lives, is an obscene practice? As it was banned in this country two and a half years ago, will he consider welfare labelling so that when animals are recycled and returned to Britain in the form of food, the public will be aware of exactly what they are buying and the cruel practice involved?
    Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman will know that it is a principal aim of the Government during our presidency of the Community to press very hard on all animal welfare issues. Further, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue this case, he should encourage his constituents to buy British veal, which is reared to very high standards and in good welfare conditions.
    Mr. Jessel: Will my hon. Friend keep up the pressure, because it is monstrous and offensive to British public opinion that hundreds of calves should be cramped and without water on five-hour crossings to Cherbourg and Le Havre and something must be done?
    Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend will know that very strict rules apply to the welfare of animals in transport. We are expecting new Community rules on 1 January 1993. Until then, the whole Community is to consider further questions on journey times, rest periods, loading densities and vehicle standards. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall bear his views in mind and that we are conscious of the need to ensure that the high standards that apply in this country apply across the Community.
    Mr. Ron Davies: Hundreds of thousands of animals of all species are transported from these shores in unacceptable conditions and for intolerable distances for slaughter overseas, often in the most appalling circumstan-ces. The Minister is fully aware of the strength of public opinion, and I assure him that we shall give him all the support we can in his endeavours in the European negotiations. However, the single most effective measure would be to limit journey times to eight hours, as is recognised by many welfare bodies outside the Government. Will the Minister give a guarantee now that when the new transport directive is finalised, he personally will insist on a maximum journey time of eight hours?
    Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman rightly raised a very important issue. We are in discussion at the moment, and

    947
    a great deal of work is being done on journey times and on other suitable transport arrangements for animals which will be enforceable across the Community. He will know that it would be impossible for us to ban exports of farm animals under article 34 of the treaty of Rome. He should also be aware that this is an important export trade for British farmers, and the reason so many people abroad wish to buy British products is that those goods are produced to such a very high standard.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Does my hon. Friend agree that border controls throughout Europe are absolutely vital so that checks can be made on animal welfare and when journey times are eventually agreed throughout Europe, they can also be changed?
    Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend raises an important point. Our aim is to be much tougher than that, and to have checks throughout Europe so that travelling animals may be continually and regularly inspected to ensure that they are transported in proper conditions.

    Redundant Agricultural Workers
    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to assist agricultural workers who are made redundant; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): Agricultural workers are able to benefit from the same statutory provisions as all other workers.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Does the Minister accept that as a direct result of decisions taken this week at the Agriculture Ministers Council meeting, significantly more farm and other agricultural workers will lose their jobs? Does he accept that those workers are just as deserving, in their own way, as the miners and steelworkers who received enhanced redundancy packages when their industries were run down? Will he carefully consider the possibility of enhanced redundancy packages for farm workers who can show that they have lost their jobs as a direct result of CAP reform?
    Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman must realise that had it not been for the campaign waged by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food against the MacSharry proposals, many British farmers would have been unable to continue to exist. Those farmers employ many agricultural workers. When the Liberal Democrats discussed the matter, they said that a little bit of nuancing would be enough to satisfy the United Kingdom. I do not think that nuancing would have saved many jobs.
    Mr. John Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that we need a viable and confident agriculture industry to halt the scale of redundancies in the agricultural sector? In order to ensure that there is that viability and confidence, we must end all discriminatory practices. Will my hon. Friend think again about the derogation of slaughterhouse regulations, which is likely to add to the dole queues in the farming industry?
    Mr. Curry: We are anxious to do all that we can to ensure that the whole food industry, from primary production to the supermarkets, can obtain the maximum
    948
    added value and the maximum employment. We have an outstanding primary production sector and a significant export trade, and the more that we can do to ensure that they operate on a level playing field, the better that is for employment. We are committed to that.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects the details of the CAP reform proposals to be finalised.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): The major points were finalised yesterday, and the details will be produced as soon as possible.
    Mr. O'Brien: Since the Minister has been in his post, 25 farm workers and 14 farmers have lost their jobs each day. How much will those daily figures increase as a result of the new common agricultural policy, and what does the Minister propose to do to reduce them?
    Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman should examine the figures, which show that the reduction in the numbers of farmers and farm workers have been pretty constant over the past 150 years. That is a fact of life, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will realise that as time goes on. The reform has meant that the European Community is meeting exactly the terms that we wanted, and we can now look forward to a secure future within the common agricultural policy, which will properly defend our extremely good farming, which produces jobs for farmers and farm workers.
    Mr. Colin Shepherd: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the Government's view on the pension provisions for the early retirement of elderly farmers in the United Kingdom, as well as in the Community, bearing in mind that it is important to introduce new young blood to accommodate the changes in agricultural practices?
    Mr. Gummer: I am not sure whether the Community's proposals could be used for the purpose that my hon. Friend has in mind. We were determined that there should be a link with the restructuring of very small farms, so that they could provide a viable future for new blood. I do not believe that the same conditions exist in this country—although I should be happy to consider any specific proposal from my hon. Friend. The restructuring proposal was intended especially for countries with very small farms.
    Dr. David Clark: The Minister has just said that the CAP reforms were on the terms that we wanted. Is he aware of the following intervention by the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) in the House on Monday:
    the Court of Auditors described the recent MacSharry proposals accepted by the Agricultural Ministers as 'a recipe for fraud"'—[Official Report, 29 June 1992: Vol. 210, c. 586.]
    What does the Minister intend to do about that?
    Mr. Gummer: We have always put the combating of fraud at the top of our priorities. We shall ensure that everything is done to see that the system is transparent and properly carried through. What I said about CAP reform stands. We wanted to make sure that it was fair to all farmers, but did not discriminate against British farmers

    949
    —that it was a system that directed the money to farmers rather than at supporting prices. We have achieved all those objectives and we have done so with no help whatsoever from the hon. Gentleman.

    Food Safety Act 1990
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the implementation of the Food Safety Act 1990.
    Mr. Soames: The public demanded the Food Safety Act 1990. As a result, they are now better protected than in any other country in Europe. If they want the safest food, they should buy British.
    Mr. Coombs: Although I recognise that the 1990 Act was a most important milestone, does my hon. Friend agree that the importance of training and education about food hygiene cannot be over-emphasised? What action does he propose to take to ensure that the highest standards in that education and training are maintained?
    Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising an important point relating to the Act. The Government are committed to the introduction of food hygiene training, which has an important part to play in raising standards in some parts of the food industry and raising the morale and motivation of staff. Of course, we must take the EC draft directive into account. Nevertheless, I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health hopes to make an annoucement soon. I hope that that will please my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Minister appreciate that local authorities have tremendous responsibilities under the Act to carry out the provisions of that legislation? They are concerned because of the delay in publishing the regulations and about the lack of consultation. Does the Minister appreciate that local authorities are also concerned because the £30 million that was to be available to them to finance the introduction of their responsibilities under the Act was not ring-fenced? Because of that and the fact that local government spending in general has been squeezed because sufficient moneys have not been provided, that money is not available to local authorities to carry out their responsibilities under the Act.
    Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman is overdoing it a bit. If local authorities have spent that money on something else, that is thoroughly reprehensible. It is true that we have taken a good deal of time to bring the proposals forward, but that is because we want them to be workable, efficient and effective. We want them to have the broadest effect throughout the industry. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall lay them before the House as soon as they are ready.
    Mr. Fry: Bearing in mind the need for the utmost food safety and hygiene, is my hon. Friend aware that over-zealous local authority employees are preventing the provision of food in many church halls and village halls? That food has been served for many years without any evidence of illness and such prevention will cause concern, particularly to those who are able to buy food at a cheaper rate because it is provided by a charity. Surely we should
    950
    reach a balance. We should not destroy the valuable service which many voluntary workers have given for many years.
    Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend is correct. We have issued forceful guidelines to ensure that events such as church fetes and other charitable functions, which have always met the highest standards of food hygiene and for which voluntary workers go to a great deal of trouble to prepare food for other people, are considered low-risk events in food safety terms. Local authorities have far higher priority areas at which to target their resources. I assure my hon. Friend that we watch this matter carefully. Some of the reports have been exaggerated, but some are true and we shall keep a careful eye on the matter.

    Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the number of reported cases of BSE for the past 12 months.
    Mr. Soames: The number of cases of BSE reported in Great Britain in the 12 months to 20 June 1992 was 38,654.
    Mr. Banks: The House will be reassured to know that, so far, grouse are not affected by BSE, so the Minister can continue to eat his favourite breakfast. The figures that he announced are extremely dramatic. Is it not a fact that, since 1988, there has been an alarming increase in the number of reported cases of BSE and that nearly 800 confirmed new cases a week are recorded? It might be okay for the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to force-feed his children with hamburgers, but would it not be advisable for pet owners not to feed their animals any beef products? In view of the alarming figures that the Minister announced, is it not now time to have another new, public, independent inquiry to discover whether there is any threat to public health'?
    Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman will know that we already have an independent committee. However, earlier, the Southwood working party estimated that there would be about 300 to 400 cases a month. The Southwood figure was heavily qualified and made it clear that no account had been taken of any recycling of the infective agent through feed derived from cattle. The figure quoted by the hon. Gentleman has been widely misunderstood. It actually reflects the increased administrative effort to ensure that our data base is up to date. In fact, we are seeing on average about 700 suspect cases a week, not all of which will be confirmed. The hon. Gentleman should be aware that those figures are fully consistent with our expectations that, thanks to the bans, the disease will disappear in the years to come.
    Mr. Knapman: Bearing in mind that the very long incubation period makes it difficult to forecast the progress of the disease, is it not excellent news that the present situation is as forecast by the Southwood and Tyrrell reports? What particular help will the scaremongering debate on an Opposition day on Monday have in respect of the food and farming industries?
    Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Many of us believe that the scares are a scare too far. The Government's response has been vigorous and effective. It has been widely endorsed, most recently by the OIE—the

    951
    intergovernmental veterinary body. We have made unparalleled efforts to convince other countries that they can safely continue to import British products. Above all, we have been fully open with information about the disease and have placed total reliance on independent scientific advice.

    International Whaling Commission
    Mr. Morgan: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the International Whaling Commission's meeting in Glasgow.
    Mr. Gummer: The meeting has yet to conclude. There is encouraging progress on a number of key points, although there are also the very grave difficulties of the attitudes of the Norwegians and Icelanders.
    Mr. Morgan: The moral persuasion at the Minister's command to try to persuade the otherwise very civilised country of Norway away from recidivism and the barbarities of whale hunting would be redoubled, if only he would join Opposition Members in asking for a statutory ban on fox hunting, as the Norwegian Government have already pointed out. Does the Minister therefore agree that if he is to return to Glasgow and make greater efforts to dissuade the Norwegians, there might be some chance that he could stop the very civilised whale hunting ban coming to an end with more of a wimp than a banger?
    Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman does his case no good. We are talking about an international stock dealt with under an international commission. The Norwegian Prime Minister, Mrs. Brundtland, who is responsible for a report on this subject, stated in her introduction:
    "Perhaps our most urgent task today is to persuade nations of the need to return to multi-lateralism … These challenges cut across the divides of national sovereignty, of limited strategies for economic gain and of separated disciplines of science."
    I believe that Mrs. Brundtland has become the only environmentalist with a pen in one hand and an explosive harpoon in the other.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have received more letters from my constituents on that issue than about any other? They are deeply concerned about what is happening in Glasgow at the moment, particularly with the announcement that two other countries may end the moratorium on whale hunting. I pass on the good wishes of my constituents to my right hon. Friend as he tries to persuade those countries at the conference not to end the moratorium. If those two countries decide to try to go it alone, what action can my right hon. Friend take?
    Mr. Gummer: It is necessary to bring home to people that this is not an issue which can be decided unilaterally. There is an International Whaling Commission, and that commission regulates the way in which we deal with whales and cetaceans generally. Opposition Members do not do much good to their cause by trying to make the issue a means of promoting some other matter about which they happen to feel strongly. The issue is based on an international agreement which was solemnly signed by the Norwegians and to which they should keep. If they
    952
    wish to lecture other people about how to run their lives, they should remember to keep their international obligations as well.
    Mr. Robert Ainsworth: Is my right hon. Friend aware of lobbying by the Japanese Government and others behind the scenes to try to ensure that the French proposal for a sanctuary for whales was not accepted at the conference? Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will do everything that he can and that the British Government will join the French Government in trying to ensure that all the necessary background work is done to make sure that that sanctuary proposal is accepted?
    Mr. Gummer: I hope very much that, towards the end of this afternoon, with very considerable support and pressure from the British Government, there will be a majority vote in favour of work being done on that sanctuary proposal, on the scientific background material being produced and on a proposal that could be brought back at the next IWC conference, which is what we intended in the first place. The French said that the proposal is not yet ready for decision, although we have said that we arc looking at it in the most favourable way and will do our best to promote it.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that the majority of whales are not in British waters and that therefore there must be an international agreement. Will he explain what the French announced yesterday, because their point of view within the International Whaling Commission was not clear?
    Mr. Gummer: I do not think that it was unclear; it had been reported in a curious manner. The French said that they accepted that the details of the proposal were not yet ready. Indeed, I said in my answer on the press comments that the proposal was not yet ready in detail for presentation and for voting this year and that, if we were to set up the scientific apparatus and the rest of the things with which we in Britain have promised to help, it might be—I very much hope that it will be—ready for agreement next year.
    Of course, in the meantime, the moratorium must continue. There must be no question of allowing whaling to restart. Countries that believe that they have a divine right to decide their own whaling must remember their international obligations, particularly those which tell other people how to run their lives. They should remember that they should take the international case on their own doorstep.
    Dr. David Clark: Does the Minister appreciate that he would take the good will of the whole House with him if he would see the Prime Minister and urge upon him the importance of his impressing upon the Japanese Prime Minister, when he meets him on Saturday, that the British people and Parliament would take a very dim view if the Japanese broke the moratorium on whaling?
    Mr. Gummer: I assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will bring very clearly to the Japanese Prime Minister the feelings of people in this country. The whale is an extremely advanced animal. It cannot be taken except in circumstances in which we are assured of the three pre-conditions. Those pre-conditions have not begun to be met. Therefore, there can be no question of raising that moratorium. The Japanese should

    953
    be in no doubt whatsoever that civilised countries do not break international agreements, particularly when they are very keen on reminding other people that they should not break them.

    Sugar
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what particular factors the Minister will take into account when renegotiating the EC sugar regime.
    Mr. Curry: We want a thorough review which takes proper account of our beet and cane interests and brings benefit to sugar users.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend will be aware that sugar production is an extremely important sector of the United Kingdom farming industry. The present United Kingdom quota system is a long way short of consumption levels. In the circumstances, would it not be intolerable, when reforming the EC sugar regime, if that quota were to be reduced still further?
    Mr. Curry: I am sure that my hon. Friend recognises that the United Kingdom has obligations to African, Caribbean and Pacific countries, and it intends to honour those obligations. Therefore, half of our consumption comes from cane sugar. However, it is true that the United Kingdom produces a lot less of our requirements than other countries produce, and if we have to see a reform of the sugar regime which involves cutting quotas, it would be appropriate for the United Kingdom relatively to do better than other countries in that process.
    Mr. Tyler: Does the Minister agree that in the sugar beet sector, as in others, the proposed changes in inheritance tax, which have been discussed in Standing Committee, are likely to have some contradictory effects? I welcome the changes in inheritance tax because the industry obviously needs them, but does the Minister agree that over a range of agricultural changes introduced as a result of the common agricultural policy, it will be necessary to avoid preventing the achievement of major environmental access and recreational agreements? The good work that the Minister has done in the past could be undone. Does the Minister agree that some steps will have to be taken to mitigate those effects?
    Mr. Curry: We shall have to examine the practical consequences to which the hon. Gentleman refers. We are committed to maintaining and improving access. If they are sensible, farmers are also committed to obtaining greater benefits from giving access and to using the environment as an asset of mutual benefit to everyone. We shall certainly pursue those proposals and ideas.
    Mr. Alexander: Will my hon. Friend take into account that some EC countries such as flavour-of-the-month Denmark have quotas that are twice their consumption while Britain has a quota which is half its consumption? Will he bear in mind that Britain therefore contributes nothing to the overall surplus and that the surplus comes from the rest of the EC countries?
    Mr. Curry: That is why in any reform that entails cutting quotas, it will be fair for other countries to take the lion's share of the cuts. We must also ensure that the
    954
    reform addresses price. Otherwise there will be a serious imbalance between the sugar sector and other parts of the arable sectors.

    Animal Welfare
    Mr. Steen: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many letters he has received about animal welfare, and especially on whaling, in the last 12 months; and how many officials are involved in reading the correspondence and dealing with advice and information on the Government position.
    Mr. Gummer: More than 60,000 letters and cards about animal welfare have been received in the past 12 months, of which more than 38,000 were on whaling. Up to 36 officials have been involved in dealing with this correspondence.
    Mr. Steen: As my right hon. Friend's robust and consistent opposition to whaling both in the House and throughout the country, has been well known for a long time, does he agree that it would be far better if the many thousands of people who write to him at a cost to the taxpayer, should direct their attention to the ambassadors of Norway, Iceland and other countries, let my right hon. Friend get on with his job and allow his officials to spend their time doing the things that they should be doing? Will he make a statement this afternoon saying that people throughout the country should direct their attention elsewhere?
    Mr. Gummer: I am sure that it would help if those who are considering beginning to whale again received large numbers of letters. Not only should ambassadors receive letters but it might be better to direct letters to the Prime Ministers who make the decisions so that they know precisely what it means to say that when a country decides that it can tell the Pope how to run religion and Brazil how to look after its rain forests, it should not refuse to tell its own whalers not to whale.
    Mr. Morley: Does the Minister accept that many people write because they are worried about the undoubted cruelty involved in whaling? The Minister rightly pointed that out at the Glasgow conference. Does he also accept that the people of Britain are worried about all forms of cruelty to animals? The position of the country and the Government would be a great deal stronger with the Norwegians if the Minister joined others in promoting a protection of wild mammals Bill to stop the undoubtedly and equally cruel practice of inflicting dogs on wild animals.
    Mr. Gummer: I read the hon. Gentleman's letter in today's The Independent. He repeats the basic argument of the Norwegian whalers and therefore supports them. He is doing harm to our case because he fails to distinguish the fundamental issue which is that an international body deals with an international activity affecting animals in international waters. That body has made clear the rules under which we operate. The Norwegians belong to that body, as did the Icelanders. They ought to obey the body to which they belong.

    Agricultural Support
    Mr. Moate: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the total public expenditure on support for United Kingdom farmers (a) from the Exchequer, (b) individually via the European Community and (c) in total.
    Mr. Gummer: Details of public expenditure on agriculture are given in "Agriculture in the United Kingdom: 1991" in table 9.1.
    Mr. Moate: Would it surprise my right hon. Friend to know that in 1991–92 the British taxpayer spent £4,120 million on agricultural support, which would be enough for my right hon. Friend to send a cheque for about £17,095.35 to every one of the 241,000 farms—small and large—in this country? As British farmers are clearly not receiving that level of benefit and, even after the changes to it, the common agricultural policy will not give good value for money to taxpayers, consumers or farmers and will not benefit the countryside, what further CAP reforms will my right hon. Friend press for?
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend has never been a great enthusiast of the European Community or the common agricultural policy, and he might well have asked that question using different figures at any time during the past 10 years. There has been a major reform and we are able to support the production of food and care for the countryside, which is the farmers' duty. That system is right for the whole of Europe. I believe that our environmental heritage is not limited to the United Kingdom; I want it to prevail in Europe. I am sure that my hon. Friend's children, and my own, will benefit from a system that ensures that we look after the countryside, from Scotland to Sicily.
    Mr. Dafis: Does the Minister recognise the need for a comprehensive strategy to enable young people to enter farming, including the possibility of low interest loans and start-up grants, perhaps based on the French model? Does he also recognise the need for measures to control or limit the fragmentation and amalgamation of farms? Does he recognise that there would be a broad welcome for such measures in rural communities, specifically in rural Wales?
    Mr. Gummer: I am sure that people in rural Wales will be pleased that we have been able to prevent the discrimination against them that would have occurred under the MacSharry plan, and which would have placed them in a worse position than the people of rural Ireland. The basis of our reform is exactly as the hon. Gentleman would want it. I wonder whether he would want the low rate of interest loans that the French have if, at the same time, he was subject to the French inheritance laws under which the French have to pay back large sums of money to every other member of the family when they inherit a farm. That is one of the reasons for their low interest rates, and the hon. Gentleman would have to accept both features. I do not think that his proposals would be sensible for rural Wales or for the rest of the country.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Should we not add to the huge direct subsidy that farmers receive the massive extra burden borne by consumers to protect farmers from foreign produce? At a time when many members of the farming lobby in Britain are complaining about the possibility of job losses as a result of the reform of the common
    956
    agricultural policy, should we not remind them of the huge number of jobs lost in Europe over the past 40 years as a result of the artificial diversion of huge sums of money into the agricultural industry? That money could have been more efficiently deployed in other industries, thus creating more jobs in them.
    Mr. Gummer: I deeply disagree with my hon. Friend. If we had carried out his proposals, countries such as the United States, which heavily subsidise farmers, would have been able to take over the whole of our agricultural industry and we would find it impossible to produce our own food or look after our countryside. There will always be a need for proper support for agriculture in a country like ours, as in the rest of Europe, as we place upon farmers environmental responsibilities which they cannot afford from their returns from the market. We need to strike a proper balance, which we will come closer to achieving through CAP reform. That is the beginning of what will be the continuing business of adapting our system to the realities of life, not to some theoretical free market that does not exist in the world in which most farmers are supported.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that in Bolsover, where every family has to pay more than £18 a week to bail out rich farmers because of the common agricultural policy, people are saying that it is high time that this wart of a Minister got something done about the dioxin in the area? Is he also aware that last week it was announced that one family was found to have up to six times more than the normal level of dioxin in their blood? On top of that, he is refusing to pay farmers compensation. Why does he not have a public inquiry, settle the matter and ensure that the people of Bolsover are able to lay their complaints at the door where they really belong—the Government and this little squirt of a Minister.
    Madam Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Member will regret—
    Mr. Skinner: I meant every word.
    Madam Speaker: Order. I am asking——[Interruption.] Order. I am asking the hon. Gentleman to withdraw that remark.
    Mr. Skinner: I will not.
    Madam Speaker: I am asking the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] Order. I also ask the House to leave this matter to me. I ask the hon. Member for Bolsover if he will withdraw the word that he has just used.
    Mr. Skinner: I know "Erskine May" a little. I know that that word is not in it. I know that not long ago my right hon. Friend referred to a Tory as a jerk. I am not prepared to withdraw because that is how I picture the Minister.
    Madam Speaker: Order. I am very reluctant to use the authority that the House has given me and I again ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his remark—[Interruption.] Order. I am well aware that the remark that he made is not in "Erskine May" but there are some phrases and a vocabulary that should not be used in the House. Once again, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the remark that he made.
    Mr. Skinner: No.
    Madam Speaker: I am most reluctant to use my disciplinary powers. Will the hon. Member for Bolsover withdraw that remark?
    Mr. Skinner: No.
    Madam Speaker: That being the case I have no alternative but to ask the hon. Member for Bolsover to withdraw from the House for this days's sitting.
    The hon. Member then withdrew from the House.

    Food Labelling
    Mr. Devlin: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to improve the labelling of food.
    Mr. Soames: There are proposals for food labelling before the Council of Ministers, covering a variety of matters. We expect further proposals from the Commission on statements claiming that food stuffs have particular properties. I expect to announce shortly my decisions on the recommendations of the Food Advisory Committee's review of food labelling in the United Kingdom—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. Would the House calm down so that we can get on with our proceedings.
    Mr. Devlin: May I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, especially after the removal of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). Surely my hon. Friend would agree that it is of the utmost importance to the consumer that food is always kept in its best possible condition. Therefore, it should always be clearly marked with the date on which its shelf life expires and the date on which it should cease being used by the housewife. That is the best protection to ensure that the fine food produced by our farmers is delivered in the same quality to housewives in their homes.
    Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government are committed to going further down the road of ensuring the provision of more informative labelling. Most pre-packed foods are now marked with the "best before" date. It is our intention to keep this matter under review. There are, of course, microbiologically highly perishable foods which are likely, after a short period, to pose immediate danger to human health. These foods must carry a "use by" date.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the Minister agree that if the food labelling regulations required disclosure that the animal had been killed in a small butcher-owned abattoir, that would be likely to increase the sales of the meat? Will he look once again at the pettifogging requirements which are putting small butcher-owned abattoirs here out of business while other countries, such as Greece, are not adopting the same standards?
    Mr. Soames: The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right. This is a matter of great concern to the Government. We have secured a derogation on smaller units and we intend to see a level playing field throughout the European Community in this as in all other matters of European legislation.

  PRIME MINISTER

    CSCE
    Mr. David Atkinson: To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on the forthcoming Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe summit in Helsinki.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): The CSCE sets standards of democratic behaviour for the 52 countries of Europe and North America that belong to it. Britain wants it to play a more prominent role in peacekeeping, with the help of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the Western European Union, in bringing pressure to bear on members who fail to meet democratic standards, in providing early warning of disputes between its members and in the conciliation and arbitration of disputes. We have put forward proposals in all these areas for decision at the summit.
    Mr. Atkinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the continuing ethnic conflicts in the former Yugoslavia and the former Soviet Union are in total contradiction of the Paris charter, signed at the last CSCE summit in November 1990? What new measures will he be supporting, or indeed proposing, at next week's CSCE summit in Helsinki which will bring such wars in Europe to an end and avoid any new ones in the future?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is quite right in his strictures about present performance. The CSCE can press the parties involved both to negotiate in good faith and to settle their differences peacefully. The proposals that we have put forward for the summit are aimed at making the conference more effective in both these areas.
    Dr. Godman: The CSCE should surely be discussing, among other things, the eventual replacement of NATO by a European defence organisation. Does the Prime Minister agree that NATO is coming to the end of its days and that what is needed is a European defence organisation that is not dominated by American political and military leaders?
    The Prime Minister: No, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman about that. I believe that NATO's contribution in the period since the war has helped to keep Europe safe. I believe that it will continue to be the best guarantor of our security in the future. Although we see a growing role for the Western European Union, it can have that only as the European arm of NATO, with the Europeans paying a proportionately greater share of the defence of Europe. NATO must remain. It is our security both in Europe and beyond.

    Engagements
    Mr. Gallie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 June.
    The Prime Minister: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Gallie: Has my right hon. Friend seen the reports that show how dramatically the living standards of the British people have risen over the last 20 years—all the

    959
    British people? Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that there is no coincidence other than the fact that we have had 15 years of Conservative government?
    The Prime Minister: I have seen the headline about that particular report, though I confess that I have not yet read every detail of the report. There is no doubt that the living standards of people right across the nation have soared dramatically in recent years. Although some hon. Members below the Gangway may scoff, it is the fact that they are that out of touch which helped them lose the last election.
    Mr. Kinnock: Would the Prime Minister be satisfied if his children's schools were to be inspected by anyone who had nothing more than a few days' training for the task?
    The Prime Minister: There is a strong case for independent inspection of schools by lay people of experience in life. That is the right way to proceed and it is what we will do.
    Mr. Kinnock: If those lay people, who are supposed to be independent despite the fact that they are freelance contractors, were to report that a primary school was not coming up to standard because there were more than 30 children in its classes, would the Government then provide more resources to ensure that there were more teachers in order to bring those class sizes down?
    The Prime Minister: There has been a reduction in class sizes, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. He also knows that independent inspectors will be registered by Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools. We have made it perfectly clear in the parents charter that there will be regular reports on schools by independent inspectors. That is now a matter of law. It was put on the statute book by the Education (Schools) Act 1992.
    Mr. Kinnock: It is a pity that the Prime Minister did not respond to the question of what he will do to improve the quality of education if those inspectors report—when they report—that standards are deficient because of a shortage of teachers. More than 1 million British school children in primary schools are in classes of more than 30 and, contrary to what the right hon. Gentleman says, the number is increasing. When will he start paying attention to the real problems of education and acknowledge that the privatisation of the inspectorate has nothing to do with overcoming those deep-seated problems?
    The Prime Minister: We have a wide range of education policies to improve the quality of education in schools. One part of that, to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, is the independent inspection of schools. We believe that independent inspection by people not related to the education profession is a better way of ensuring that we have reports that are fully independent and which reflect more accurately those things that parents wish to learn about the schools at which their children are educated.
    Mr. French: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. French: Has my right hon. Friend seen the remarks by Mr. De Gruchy, the general secretary of the National Association of Headmasters—
    Hon. Members: "Schoolmasters".
    Madam Speaker: Order. We are all allowed a slip of the tongue sometimes.
    Mr. French: It is the same Mr. De Gruchy who said recently that spelling does not matter very much. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is just another example—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. This is all taking up time.
    Mr. French: Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is just another example of the education establishment's trendy attitude which bears no relationship at all to the needs of pupils and parents or to the views of those teachers who do worry about standards in schools?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that my hon. Friend is right to say that the majority of the British people want the basics of education taught, and taught from the earliest days in school. That self-evidently means reading, writing and adding up. My hon. Friend's comments will be echoed by parents throughout the country.
    Mr. Ashton: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Ashton: Will the Prime Minister find time today to consider the circumstances surrounding the case of Mr. Roy Cornes, a Birmingham factory worker, who knowingly infected four women with the AIDS virus, one of whom has since died? Is he aware that that is a severe criminal offence in America and France, yet the Secretary of State for Health refuses to introduce legislation, saying that the existing laws are adequate? If that is the case, why have there been no prosecution?
    The Prime Minister: I do not want to refer to the case that the hon. Gentleman cites. I do not know what will happen in that particular instance, but it would be unwise for me to interfere. The underlying problem of HIV notification is that of driving it further underground and thereby creating a further health hazard. The hon. Gentleman must recognise that genuine dilemma. However, no one will push to one side without concern the problem that he raises.
    Mrs. Browning: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the works of Shakespeare have a central place in the teaching of English in our schools? Is he not appalled at the negative view taken by the National Union of Teachers, which describes Shakespeare as boring and irrelevant? Is that not another example of how out of touch the NUT is with teachers, parents and the needs of pupils?
    The Prime Minister: Many people would agree with my hon. Friend that Shakespeare's works should be an important part of the school curriculum. "Much Ado About Nothing" is something with which the House is often familiar—[Interruption.] In my defence, Madam Speaker, I will say only that "NUT or not NUT", which I heard uttered by a member of the Opposition Front Bench, was even less amusing.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Ross: Given that a few months ago the Prime Minister and his party were campaigning on the strategy that, despite recent increases in unemployment, more people were in work, how does he answer the report published by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish), which clearly demonstrates that the employed labour force fell by 191,000 in 1991, and that by April this year another 94,000 were added to that total? When will the Prime Minister start to deal with this country's massive unemployment?
    The Prime Minister: No one takes the unemployment situation lightly. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that that is the case. The advice that I received when I read an article about that report this morning was that the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) had taken some liberties with the figures—including ignoring people who are at work on Government programmes.
    Mr. Pickles: Will my right hon. Friend have time today to reflect on the recent statements by Arthur Scargill, president of the National Union of Mineworkers, regarding the impending privatisation of the coal industry? Does not my right hon. Friend deprecate Mr. Scargill's attempts to revive the damaging strike of the early 1980s? Will he give an assurance that the Government will not in any way be deflected from privatising coal, which will be in the interests of the industry and its workers?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. We want a modern and efficient coal industry I hat offers its employees a chance to share in the future. Mr. Scargill and his friends do not realise that privatisation is in the best interests of the industry and of those who work in it. As Labour has over the years closed more coal mines than we ever have, it should realise that.
    Mr. Pendry: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Pendry: When the Prime Minister stated recently that he wants a green theme to develop during Britain's presidency of the EEC, was he aware that the Treasury is planning to abolish the Advisory Committee on International Green Policy and to cut by half the Joint Nature Conservation Committee's senior staff? Will the Prime Minister tell the House what he will do to those Treasury mandarins who seem hell-bent, so early in the right hon. Gentleman's presidency, on cutting him off and making him appear to be a Johnny-come-lately?
    The Prime Minister: Environmental matters spread across all policies and do not relate just to the appointment of particular bodies. We have already made it clear that throughout our presidency of the Community and in our domestic policies we will take environmental improvement very seriously. It will be considered in all the policies that we put forward.
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on his achievement yesterday in terms of all-party talks on constitutional matters? Does my right hon. Friend share my view that the brutal murders in south Armagh overnight underline the need for peaceful progress and for the involvement of all lawful political parties joining together for the defeat of terrorism?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that my hon. Friend, in his last remark, will carry the whole House with him. The discovery of the three bodies in Armagh last night, and the subsequent admission by the provisional IRA that it is responsible, demonstrates yet again the true nature of terrorism. The historic agreement of the Northern Ireland parties yesterday to start strands 2 and 3 of the talks deserves unreserved welcome, and I certainly join in the congratulations to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and his colleagues. I hope that we shall see the strand 2 meetings convened under Sir Ninian Stephen, and that the first meeting will take place as soon as possible. Although it would be premature to make predictions about the eventual outcome, the way is now open for the Northern Ireland parties to explore new relationships face to face with the Irish Government, and that is a great step forward.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Mr. Bruce Grocott: Will the Leader of the House please state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 6 JULY—Opposition day (3rd allotted day). Until about seven o'clock there will be a debate described as "The Recession in Industry", followed by a debate described as "The Government's Failure to Contain Bovine Spongiforrm Encephalopathy". Both debates arise on Opposition motions.
Motion on the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (Contracted Out Prisons) Order.
Motion on the Parole Board (Transfer of Functions) Order.
TUESDAY 7 JuLY—Progress on remaining stages of the Finance Bill.
At Ten O'clock the Question will be put on the supplementary estimates 1992–93.
Motion on the Value Added Tax (Payments on Account) Order.
WEDNESDAY 8 JULY—Completion of remaining stages of the Finance Bill.
Motions on the House of Commons Members Fund.
THURSDAY 9 JULY—Motion on the summer Adjournment.
Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.
FRIDAY 10 JULY—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 13 JULY—Debate on the report from the Select Committee on Sittings of the House on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Motion relating to the nominations of departmental Select Committees.
The House will wish to know also that European Standing Committees will meet on Wednesday 8 July at 10.30 am to consider European Community documents as follows:
Committee A—Document 5185/91 relating to bird conservation;
Committee B—Document 6831/92 relating to the extractive industries, mines and quarries.
European Standing Committee A will also meet on Thursday 9 July at 10.30 am to consider European Community document 6414/92 relating to the identification and registration of animals.
[Wednesday 8 July:
European Standing Committee A
Relevant European Community Document
5185/91 Bird Conservation
Relevant Reports of the European Legislation Committee HC 29-xvii (1990–91), HC 29-xxvii (1990–91) and HC 24-xv (1991–92)
European Standing Committee B
Relevant European Community Document
6831/92 Health and Safety in mines and quarries
Relevant Report of the European Legislation Committee
HC 79-i (1992–93)
Thursday 9 July:
European Standing Committee A
Relevant European Community Document
964
6414/92 Identification and Registration of Animals Relevant Report of the European Legislation Committee HC 79-i (1992–93)]
Mr. Grocott: I welcome the promise of a debate, on Monday week, on the report of the Select Committee on the Sittings of the House. I should like to know, however, when the House will make some decisions on this matter. As I understand the situation, the debate will be one without any conclusion. May we be provided with an opportunity to make some clear decisions so that we can have a more sensible way of working?
We recognise the Government's problem in trying to fill parliamentary time since the withdrawal of the European Communties (Amendment) Bill—Maastricht Bill? I should like to make two helpful suggestions. First, is it not high time, in the first full week of the United Kingdom's presidency of the Council of Ministers, that we had in debate, in Government time, on unemployment—not least in view of the Prime Minister's totally unsatisfactory reply today? We want the Secretary of State for Employment to come to the House to explain why our unemployment record is so much worse than those of all our European competitors, and why the Government seem to think that workers in Britain need to work longer hours and with fewer holidays than our counterparts in other European countries.
Finally, may I ask the Leader of the House for another visit from a Secretary of State? I feel that the Secretary of State for National Heritage should visit the House next week, so that we can have either a statement or a debate about broadcasting. Today, many of our constituents—particularly those who are infirm or elderly—have an opportunity to watch both Wimbledon and the test match live on television, but if the Government persist in their current policy of allowing programmes to go over to Sky television, this could be the last year in which they can watch live sport. Is it not high time that the Secretary of State for National Heritage explained to the House why the Government are restricting freedom of choice for our constituents?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman has asked a good many questions.
I hope that the debate on what I will describe in shorthand as the Jopling report, which will take place on Monday 13 July, will pave the way for the House to reach some decisions very soon after it returns in the autumn. The hon. Gentleman also suggested that employment was a particularly important subject for debate in this first week of the British presidency. I consider it more important to debate our objectives for the presidency as a whole, and that is the subject of the debate that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will launch after Business Questions. Moreover, the Opposition will have their own debate on a motion that they have described as "The Recession in Industry", which will take place on Monday. No doubt that will enable hon. Members to make some observations along the lines suggested by the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott).
I shall not have to drag my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage to the House during the period covered by my statement, to satisfy the hon. Gentleman's request. My right hon. and learned Friend is due to answer questions on Monday 13 July.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the idea of the sovereignty of Parliament rests, at least in part, on the conventions and procedures of the House, which protect minority views and interests? If the European Communities (Amendment) Bill is bashed through in a fortnight's marathon, as was suggested by informed sources in The Sunday Times last week, the whole idea of the sovereignty of Parliament will be damaged and the case for a referendum will become stronger.
Mr. Newton: I see no real basis for the suggestion that the Government's handling of the Maastricht Bill, both before and since the Danish referendum, gives anyone reason to suppose that we are not taking proper account of the position of Parliament and the desire of Members of Parliament—including my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen)—to make their views clear. As my hon. Friend will know, I have in any case undertaken to arrange a further debate before the Bill proceeds.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Will the Leader of the House give us an assurance that, unless the position improves in France—where the road blockade is causing substantial dislocation—there will be time for the Government to make a statement next week? The piracy on the roads is not only causing dislocation and disruption to tourists; loads of perishable goods are going to wrack and ruin as a result of the French farmers' activities.
Mr. Newton: I cannot promise a statement next week. The hon. Gentleman will he aware, however, that next Thursday's business in particular—the summer Adjournment and Consolidated Fund debates—will provide him with substantial opportunities to raise such matters, if he feels sufficiently assiduous.
Mr. John Wilkinson: My right hon. Friend has announced that the European Standing Committees will sit next week. Will he ensure, however, that the precedent set by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not followed in future? The first two attended a meeting of the Council of Ministers, and did not report back to the House on important policy matters; my right hon. Friend the Chancellor acceded to a directive calling for an amended VAT rate of 15 per cent. for four years.
Mr. Newton: May I gently observe to my hon. Friend, who I know has a considerable interest in all these matters, that no agreement was reached at the Economic and Finance Council this week on the directive that he seems principally to have in mind, so I am not sure that his suggestion that my right hon. Friend has in some way failed the House is justified.
Mr. Dennis Turner: Will the Leader of the House invite the President of the Board of Trade to come to the House and tell us about the findings of the Director General of Fair Trading in his interim report on the beer orders? The brewing industry is in chaos. The problems over competition and consumer choice have led to disarray in the beer industry. When
966
people want to buy a pint of beer during their summer holidays, what price will they have to pay for it and what sort of competition—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he should not put questions like that to the Leader of the House. It may be an important subject, but it does not need to be argued at this stage.
Mr. Turner: Then I would ask the Leader of the House to oblige us by inviting the President of the Board of Trade to come here and tell us the outcome of those deliberations.
Mr. Newton: I undertake to pass on the invitation extended by the hon. Gentleman, but I am not sure that I shall initial it.
Mr. David Howell: My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on getting the departmental Select Committees under way. I know that he has booked time for motions on the membership of the Committees on Monday week. Bearing in mind that the Committee of Selection is to meet next Wednesday, would it not be possible to deal with the matter towards the end of next week and thus provide a little more time for the Committees to get under way? Will my right hon. Friend look again at that matter?
Mr. Newton: I have given some consideration to it. My right hon. Friend has kindly recognised that, given that the Committee of Selection was unable to come forward with names yesterday, it cannot now do so before next Wednesday. Difficulty arises from the fact that the proposal needs to be on the Order Paper for two days. If there were any way of speeding it up, I should be happy to look at it, but I am not sure that there is. What I have done is make sure that it can be dealt with as soon as possible.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Could we have a statement next week to clarify whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer has handed over tax-raising powers to the European Community for four years and thereby robbed this Parliament of those powers? The Leader of the House denied the claim of the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). If the Chancellor made a statement, he could clarify the position. At the same time we might be given some information on the VAT payments on account order and whether it should really be taken on Tuesday, particularly since the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has not yet completed its deliberations and has asked for a memorandum, which it is to consider on Tuesday. The Committee may wish to take evidence upon it, but it will be denied the opportunity of doing so if the order is taken on Tuesday.
Mr. Newton: I note the hon. Gentleman's last point and I undertake to reflect upon it. As for his first point, I certainly did not seek to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had had no discussions on these matters. That is clearly not the case. The Chancellor clearly has had discussions on these matters. I simply made the point that no conclusion about the relevant directive had been reached. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention and, for that matter, the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood to the fact that the Chancellor is to speak at the end of the debate that is about to begin.
Mr. Michael Spicer: I think I am right in saying that my right hon. Friend was present for the short Adjournment debate that I had earlier this week on the question of illegal encampment by gipsies and new age travellers, and in particular on the question of the mass rallies that they have held. He will know from that debate that there is tremendous interest in the subject on this side of the House. There was an unusually high turnout for the debate, particularly by my hon. Friends. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend can accommodate that matter before the recess by arranging for a debate on the subject?
Mr. Newton: I am very conscious of the interest in this subject, not least because this is probably the third or fourth business question time in the last few weeks at which it has been raised with me by my hon. Friend and other colleagues. I did indeed note the unusually heavy attendance at the Adjournment debate the other night and also the vigour with which my hon. Friend spoke. I do not think I can promise what I would call a dedicated debate but, as I have already said to one or two other hon. Members, there are substantial opportunities to raise such matters next week, so perhaps my hon. Friend will wish to take further advantage of them.
Mr. Neil Gerrard: In view of reports in the press today that the Home Secretary believes that the draft European frontiers convention should be scrutinised by the House, will the Leader of the House ask the Home Secretary to make a statement before the recess and ensure that time is available for that scrutiny in due course?
Mr. Newton: Again, I must reply very much in the terms in which I replied to my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell). I must point out that the matters in question were the subject of substantial evidence given by the Home Office to the Home Affairs Select Committee earlier this year. To suggest that the House is in some way being prevented from taking an interest in these matters goes beyond what the situation would bear.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will the Leader of the House consider two linked points about Europe and the media? The first is whether it would be possible to arrange a debate, if that is the appropriate way of dealing with the issue, on the threat to broadcasters and journalists from the European data protection provisions, which, as I understand it, would require individuals to give their consent for the media to have files on them, which is not the best way to help the media to do their job? Secondly, will he try to ensure that European Community procedure does not start leading to Governments having responsibility for print journalists—one can understand that they may have to for broadcasters with limited licences—because we should try to keep the Government and Parliament away from the press's problems?
Mr. Newton: They sound like two quite interesting points for my hon. Friend to pursue on one of the occasions that I have already mentioned during these exchanges.
Mr. Tom Clarke: Has the Leader of the House had time to study the report which was made available this morning by the Audit Commission on its grave anxieties about whether the Government can deliver their community care policies next April? As even
968
yesterday the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) could not give any commitment on the level of funding available to local authorities and still less on ring fencing, are we not heading for even greater chaos than that identified by Sir Roy Griffiths? Should we not therefore have an urgent debate?
Mr. Newton: I have not yet had time to study the Audit Commission's report to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but of course I am aware that a substantial debate took place on these matters during consideration of the Community Care Bill yesterday, when a great deal of ground was covered. As with any other matter, the financial and expenditure decisions relating to next year will in the end be taken as part of the public expenditure round this year.
Mr. Harry Greenway: May we have a debate next week on the Post Office and in particular on the operation of local post offices in the London area where, all too often, closure is proposed against the wishes and interests of local people? Such a debate would give me the opportunity to raise the proposed closure of Church road post office in Northholt, which is a very misguided proposal.
Mr. Newton: That sounds like a classic of its kind to be raised on one of the occasions that I have already mentioned—the summer Adjournment debate, the Consolidated Fund debate or the timed Adjournments just before the recess. I wish my hon. Friend luck in securing one of those opportunities.
Mr. Andrew Miller: The Leader of the House will be aware of the question that I have tabled about the transfer of pension funds of workers who have been removed from British Nuclear Fuels to the Uranium Enrichment Company. My question was redirected from the Treasury to the Department of Trade and Industry. Through my own research, I subsequently discovered that the matter is the subject of a Treasury policy which will result in those workers losing some of the benefits of the scheme that they are in. The workers regard it as a fraud of Maxwellian proportions.
Madam Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman not to argue a case but to come directly to the point. That is the purpose of business questions.
Mr. Miller: Will the Leader of the House make a statement to the House next week to explain that policy, and to tell us how many other industrial workers covered by the civil service schemes are covered by it?
Mr. Newton: You will probably agree, Madam Speaker, that for me to do so would lie slightly outwith my duties as Leader of the House. However, as part of those duties, I shall certainly try to ensure that the hon. Gentleman receives an appropriate response from either or both of my right hon. Friends.
Mr. Christopher Gill: If there is a prospect of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer being invited, in conjunction with the other European Finance Ministers, to agree a minimum rate of tax, would it not be appropriate for us to debate the sovereignty of the House in taxation matters?
Mr. Newton: I do not know whether my hon. Friend will seek to catch your eye in the forthcoming debate,

969
Madam Speaker—still less would I pre-empt the decision that you would make should he do so. However, if he succeeds, he may wish to raise the matter that he has mentioned.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Why do the Government refuse to make a statement on aid to Sarajevo? Is it because the Minister is in the House of Lords?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will know that Yugoslavia, and in particular the Community's attitude to it and part in its affairs, is one of the subjects to which the British Government will attach importance during the presidency. Indeed, I do not think that I would be breaking the confidence of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary if I said that he has just whispered in my ear that he intends to refer to that subject in the speech which he is about to make.
Mr. Anthony Coombs: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the concern of the parliamentary human rights group about the human rights abuses by the Indonesian Government in East Timor, which have cost 200,000 lives over the past 10 years. May we have a statement or a debate next week, so that we can discuss both the conditionality of aid being given to countries with human rights records such as that of Indonesia, and the publication of the recent report on those appalling problems by Amos Wako, the representative of the Secretary-General of the United Nations?
Mr. Newton: In refraining from giving my hon. Friend the undertaking that he seeks, I must fall back on referring not to the de bate about to take place but to the other opportunities next week which I have already mentioned.
Mr. Frank Field: Is the Leader of the House aware that yet another group of workers in Cammell Laird have been given their redundancy notices today as a direct result of the Government's policy in "Options for Change"? That policy brings general benefits for the community, but its cost is being borne disproportionately by a minority, who were previously in defence jobs. Will the Leader of the House concede the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms. Eagle) and myself for a debate before Parliament rises on what selective measures are necessary to ensure that the communities concerned make a successful transition from military to civilian production?
Mr. Newton: Again, I must draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that there are a number of opportunities during the coming week when he may be able to raise that matter. If he chooses to do so, I wish him well.
Mr. Andrew MacKinlay: Will the Leader of the House reflect between now and next week on the bewilderment of many of our constituents, who cannot understand why, for three months in the summer, the role of Parliament in checking, cajoling and criticising the Executive becomes unimportant? They cannot understand that nothing happens in government all that time. Will the Leader of the House therefore consider whether it might be appropriate for us to have at least a brief sitting some time in September, when questions could be put to the
970
Executive and it could be brought to account, rather than our meeting only when legislation is being railroaded through by the Government?
Mr. Tony Banks: I should not push that too far.
Mr. Newton: For once, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and I are in complete agreement. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman was only about 10 seconds ahead of me. I was about to say that I would not chance putting that proposition to a vote.
However, I recognise why my fellow Essex Member of Parliament—I would not dream of calling him Essex man—raises the question. It is important that our constituents should understand that the recess is not a question of our all going away to spend three months on the beach—at least, I cannot speak for the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), but I do not expect to do so.
Mr. Derek Enright: Will the Leader of the House invite the President of the Board of Trade to come to the House next week to make a statement in defence of the way in which European Community money, given from its budget to modernise pits, has been spent on sacking people? The Leader of the House should also ask his right hon. Friend to explain why not a single penny piece of RECHAR money, which was intended to replace jobs in the coal mining areas and which was allocated for that end three years ago, has been spent on that purpose.
Mr. Newton: I am glad to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will, as ever, be in almost ceaseless action next week, because he is due to take part in the debate on Monday 6 July on the Opposition motion and to answer Trade and Industry questions on Wednesday 8 July.
Ms. Angela Eagle: Will the Leader of the House make time next week for the Secretary of State for Defence to come to the House to make a statement on the Government's policy on defence diversification in the light of the redundancies announced at Cammell Laird today, which affect not only the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) but my constituents?
Mr. Newton: I note what the hon. Lady says, but, necessarily, I must simply advert to the remarks that I made to her hon. Friend and neighbour, the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field).
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Does the Lord President recollect that, at column 397 in last week's Hansard, he gave the undertaking that he would consider the three orders on Libya? As he is now flanked by the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State—the right hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad)—can he explain whether the orders recommended by my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) will give us the opportunity to ask deep and serious questions about whether the Foreign Office might not be wrong about Libya? It would also give us the opportunity to consider the powerful letter written by Mr. John Lace, the managing director of Babcock and Wilcox, which the Minister of State has seen, because, after all, 5,500 of our fellow countrymen are in Libya and enormous engineering orders are at stake.
Mr. Newton: I have also seen that letter. The sensible course for me to pursue in response to the hon. Gentleman is to say that, manifestly, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and other Foreign Office Ministers now present will have noted what he said.
Mr. Rupert Allason: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable surprise at the fact that, despite the turmoil at one of the country's largest national newspaper groups, Mirror Group Newspapers plc, which has lost its chairman and its finance director this week and which is due to hold its annual general meeting within 10 days, no Government statement appears to be on the cards next week? Does my right hon. Friend agree that such a statement would be appropriate? Does he also agree that it would be a good idea for Lord Williams, Lord Donoughue and others to follow the example of Lord Walker and declare how much income they have received from non-executive directorships in Mirror Group Newspapers plc in the past few years?
Mr. Newton: I sense from the way in which you are moving in your seat, Madam Speaker, that you might check me if I sought to respond in anything like the terms invited by my hon. Friend. I am sure that those at whom his remarks appear to have been directed will note them.
Mr. David Winnick: Will the Leader of the House give further consideration to what he said to his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) and recognise that, on such a vital issue as a treaty that has implications for British sovereignty, there should be a free vote, if I may say so, on both side of the House? Could arrangements be so made? It would be quite wrong for the Government to rely on Labour Members to help them out of their difficulties in Committee. Labour Members were not elected for that purpose.
Mr. Newton: I think that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that, happily, the voting arrangements in this place are not a matter for me, but the seats held by the usual channels are fairly well occupied at the moment, so no doubt those concerned will have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The Leader of the House will know that I welcome the announcement about the nomination of Select Committees, but look forward to the day when the Northern Ireland Office—the last bastion of oligarchy in this place—might be so scrutinised. Is there the possibility of a statement from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland next week arising from the incidents reported from the frontier yesterday evening, so that we might learn when the trial took place; whether there are audio tapes of the interrogation; and whether justice is being done when people regularly cry for justice and their fellow travellers throughout the world support them?
Mr. Newton: I know of no plan of my right hon. and learned Friend to make a statement at the moment. However, I note the points that the hon. Gentleman makes by implication, and I will ensure that my right hon. and learned Friend is aware of them.
Mr. Max Madden: May I press the Leader of the House on the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard)? The right hon. Gentleman may not have seen today's issue of The Guardian, in which there was a remarkable interview
972
with the Home Secretary, in which he admitted that the convention on free movement within the EC could be signed by the Government without the House seeing it —still less having a chance to debate or amend it. Will the Leader of the House understand that a cosy discussion in the Select Committee on Home Affairs is no adequate democratic substitute for the House having the fullest opportunity to see, debate and possibly amend that important convention, which will place serious obstacles in the way of non-EC nationals enjoying free movement within the EC?
Mr. Newton: I have, of course, seen the report in The Guardian. However, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that conventions govern the way in which draft conventions—we are talking about a draft convention, not a signed convention—are laid before the House. However, I will ensure that the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend is drawn to the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
Mr. Tony Banks: In view of the intense public interest, can we have an assurance from the Leader of the House this afternoon that next week the Minister of Agriculture will make a statement on the conclusions of the International Whaling Commission? As there is unanimity in the House on the issue, such a statement would give the House an opportunity yet again to let the Japanese, Icelanders and Norwegians know just how strongly we feel about whales and the possible decision of those countries to continue to flout international whaling agreements.
Mr. Newton: I am quite sure that the hon. Gentleman speaks for many hon. Members on both sides of the House when he expresses concern about some of the developments at the International Whaling Commission. I cannot commit my right hon. Friend to making a statement at the Dispatch Box, but I will ensure that he is made aware of the hon. Gentleman's request.
Mr. Win Griffiths: As the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), is on the Government Front Bench, may I thank him for the fact that, following my representations and those of others yesterday, the Government have issued stronger advice to people warning them not to travel in France this weekend. However, I want to refer to the reply that the Leader of the House gave to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) about using the debate a week today to raise issues about the blockade in France.
Is the Leader of the House aware that my constituents were stuck in the motorway service station for four days? I would have liked the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office or some other responsible person to make a statement in the House about what was happening in France three days ago. Can we have a statement next week, because there is also talk about action to spoil the Barcelona Olympics? We need quick action, not a four or five-day wait for a debate 11 days afterwards.
Mr. Newton: In reply to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who is no longer in his place, I drew attention to the opportunities for raising various matters next week. That was not intended to be a flat negative to his suggestion, but I cannot promise that a particular statement will be made at a particular time.
Miss Joan Lestor: Bearing in mind the Prime Minister's instant dismissal of the definition of poverty given by the National Children's Home last month, although that definition reflected the experience of many of my constituents and, I am sure, the constituents of many of my hon. Friends, will the Leader of the House arrange for the Prime Minister to give us his definition of poverty and arrange for a debate on the matter at the earliest possible moment?
Mr. Newton: In a relatively recent incarnation, I had considerable experience of arguments about definitions of poverty. No Government of any colour have signed up to a definition of poverty. It was at least as much resisted by the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) when he was Minister for Social Security as by anybody else. There are genuine difficulties, and that is the point that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was making.
Mr. Alistair Darling: Further to the right hon. Gentleman's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), is the Leader of the House aware that the European convention on frontier control is a classified document and that it will not become public until after it comes into force? There is no point in our purportedly holding Ministers to account if we cannot discuss treaties of that importance. Does he not understand that that matter goes to the heart of parliamentary democracy and that we should be able to discuss such matters before they come into force rather than when we face a fait accompli? Will the right hon. Gentleman urge the Home Secretary to come to the House to make a statement on what is in the draft treaty and let us have a debate so that we can discuss it properly?
Mr. Newton: As I have now said a couple of times, there has certainly been no attempt to conceal from anybody the points that are covered by the draft convention. It is, as I understand it, normal practice that draft conventions of that kind are laid before the House when they have been signed. I was making no more than that point.
Mr. Alun Michael: Will the Leader of the House give a firm assurance that he will
974
make time available before the recess either for the Home Secretary to introduce the legislation that will be necessary to delay or cancel local government elections in Wales next year, or for a statement from the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State for Wales that there will be no such cancellation? Does he accept that it would be intolerable for us to go from the House for the summer recess without the question whether there will be local government elections next year answered firmly and once and for all?
Mr. Newton: I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's request to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, who is my appropriate right hon. Friend in that respect.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will have heard the Leader of the House refer to a whisper from his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary about the fact that the Foreign Secretary was likely to make a statement on aid to Yugoslavia during his statement at the beginning of the next debate. Is not that a prime example of how development issues are being marginalised in the House of Commons? Because a Development Minister is not in the House of Commons but only in the other place, statements are now being grafted on the back—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman had the privilege of making that point earlier and he was heard in good order by the House. I hear no whispers whatsoever in the House. We have to wait for the debate to see what statements are to be made.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Further to my point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sorry to press it, but it is a very important issue of principle. I am not alluding to the question that I asked. I am simply saying that, historically, statements were made to the House of Commons by Aid Ministers on such matters. That is no longer the case. When an important statement has to be made on matters relating to aid and development, the Foreign Secretary makes them in the course of other statements that he is making to the House, as indeed is happening today.
Madam Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill
4.8 pm
Madam Speaker: I have a short statement to make about arrangements for the debate on the motion for the Adjourment which will follow the passing of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill on Thursday 9 July.
Hon. Members should submit their subjects to my office not later than 10 pm on Tuesday 7 July. A list showing the subjects and times will be published the following day. Normally, the time allotted will not exceed one and a half hours, but I propose to exercise a little discretion to allow one or two debates to continue for rather longer, up to a maximum of three hours.
Where identical or similar subjects have been entered by different hon. Members whose names are drawn in the ballot, only the first name will be shown on the list. As some debates may not last the full time allotted to them, I remind hon. Members that it is their responsibility to keep in touch with developments if they are not to Miss their turn.

Statutory Instrument0s, &c.
Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to Statutory Instruments.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments &c.).

DATA PROTECTION
That the draft Data Protection (Regulation of Financial Services etc.) (Subject Access Exemption) (Amendment) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

RIGHTS OF THE SUBJECT
That the draft Access to Personal Files (Housing) (Scotland) Regulations 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Wood.]
Question agreed to.
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will recall that earlier we had a discussion about "Erskine May". If we are to go into arguments about the use of words with which some of us will disagree, it might be helpful if copies of "Erskine May" were available to Members. There is no copy of "Erskine May" in either Lobby. That is extremely unusual. Some hon. Member may have taken it.
Mr. Tony Banks: You cannot trust anyone.
Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend may make fun, but the point is important because "Erskine May" is the document under which the proceedings of the Chamber are conducted. For some years, Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop, a former Member of Parliament, urged strongly that hon. Members should be provided with a copy of "Erskine May". This might be a good moment to consider that, because the document may become increasingly useful.
Madam Speaker: That is a matter which may well be looked into. I may tell the hon. Gentleman that there has not been a list of prohibited words in "Erskine May" for many years.

European Community (United Kingdom Presidency)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boswell.]
[Relevant documents: European Community Documents Nos. 10962/89 + ADD1, relating to Turkey's application for membership, 7867/91, relating to Austria's application for membership, 9497/91, relating to higher education in the Community, and the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 28th February 1992, relating to the Commission's programme for 1992.]
Madam Speaker There is a great deal of interest in the debate so I have to limit speeches to 10 minutes between 7 pm and 9 pm. Would those who speak outside that time please exercise voluntary restraint in fairness to others?
4.11 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): Before I turn to the internal affairs of the Community, perhaps I could say something about the tragedy outside the Community's borders which, on present showing, is likely to take up more of the time of the Foreign Office during our presidency than any other single matter.
I am not particularly optimistic about the next six months in Yugoslavia. The way in which the country has disintegrated is clearly a disaster for its people. The peoples of Yugoslavia could not be held together by force, and the attempt to keep something together by consent was wrecked. The result is the unleashing of destructive hatred on a scale which will not be easily or quickly checked. It certainly cannot be halted from outside.
However, we must go on trying. I shall discuss the means of doing so in a moment. It would be wrong in my experience to suppose that this would best be done in the old-fashioned way, with Britain, France, Germany, Italy and so on choosing their clients and backing them against each other. It must be right to work out, through discussion and argument, the most concerted approach possible of the Twelve. That task falls to the presidency.
Yugoslavia had been teetering on the brink of crisis for some years before the unilateral declarations of independence a year ago by Slovenia and Croatia. That brought tension to a new pitch. Before last summer, it was my hope that the republics could establish new patterns of co-operation—a Yugoslavia by consent.
The ethnic picture is too complicated to allow a neat division of the territory. Almost one in five marriages are across ethnic lines. The republics are a mosaic of different groups. Towns, villages and even apartment blocks are mixed. The economies of the six republics are too closely intertwined to allow for a quick divorce. Their main lines of communication lie through each other's territories.
Although it was clearly right to hope for a Yugoslavia by consent, during last summer and autumn that hope faded. Still we sought a general settlement which dealt with the legitimate interests of all the peoples of Yugoslavia and did not single out particular cases. Then we said that, under certain conditions, we would recognise individual republics. In mid-January, the Twelve recognised Croatia and Slovenia. The timing will continue to be a matter of discussion. Some say that we acted too hastily. Most Opposition Members still hold that view. Some say that we

977
did not act fast enough. Left to themselves, the Germans would have recognised them a good deal earlier than the British, and the French somewhat later.
Looking back, we see that there was never an ideal moment in the crisis when such action could have had a decisive influence on bringing about a painless peace. That has taught us a lesson that we must remember: we have to recognise the limits of what outsiders can do. Such developments do not yield too easily to external influences or logic, because history, hatred and revenge remain powerful. Local leaders do not respond readily, even to neighbours who are their nominal superiors. The brokering of agreements entails showing several awkward and reluctant people simultaneously that their interests will be best served by compromise.
We can have a part in trying to achieve such compromises. The two previous presidencies, the Dutch and the Portuguese, have followed a twin-track policy that we shall continue. The United Nations is responsible for peacekeeping. The Community has a general remit from the conference on security and co-operation in Europe to try to make peace.
We have a dual role as president of the Council of Ministers and a permanent member of the Security Council. I hope that that will make it a little easier to co-ordinate action between the United Nations and the EC—I was covering such matters at lunch with the Secretary-General of the United Nations in an attempt to do just that.
Mr. Tony Banks: Is it not a great tragedy that it has taken the United States to send forces into the region, when that should have been a matter for the European Community? Surely, if the Serbian irregulars in the hills around Sarajevo start lobbing bombs and mortars into that city, we should give those irregulars an ultimatum: if they do not cease their action, Western European Union military forces under United Nations jurisdiction should be used to destroy the batteries in the hills around Sarajevo.
Mr. Hurd: I shall come to that issue, but it is much easier to propose such an operation than to carry it out, and a great deal easier to start it than to bring it to a successful end.
The Community has two main pieces of machinery available. The first is Lord Carrington's conference and its sub-committees, which we shall reinforce during our presidency. We owe a considerable debt to Lord Carrington, who has no personal motive in taking on the thankless task towards the end of his distinguished public career. He is flying to Sarajevo again tomorrow in another attempt to bring together and suggest solutions to leaders in that country.
The second piece of machinery, which is much less well know, is the EC monitoring Mission. In the coming weeks, I shall try to ensure that what it does is better understood, as its staff, who operate locally, are in many ways the unsung heroes of the conflict. They are young men and women who defuse local tensions and keep peace between villages in Croatia. The conference deals with large-scale political problems, and the monitors deal with the local, but potentially just as explosive, issues.
There has been considerable investment in both equipment and manpower. We now have 55 staff at the Mission, and 15 rank-and-file monitors who are retired
978
service officers are on contract to the Foreign Office. There is also a 40-strong headquarters staff, of whom 10 are FCO officials and 30 are service officers. We have just appointed Mr. Ramsay Melhuish, formerly our ambassador in Bangkok, to lead the Mission, supported by General David Cranston. I hope that, as the House learns more of what those at the mission are doing on behalf of peace in Yugoslavia, it will give them increasing recognition and support in their difficult and dangerous work.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: I accept what the Foreign Secretary says about Lord Carrington and the work of the monitors, some of whom I met in Croatia. I am disturbed that, during the six months of our presidency, there may well be a recurrence of violence in Croatia, not only in Bosnia-Herzegovina. It is essential that great pressure should be exerted on President Tudjman, as he does not have a good reputation, and the human rights record in Croatia is not strong. The people who live in Krajina, who are mainly Serbs, are denied Croatian citizenship. Although it is right to sanction Serbia, it is equally right to put the utmost possible pressure on the Croatians.
Mr. Hurd: I agree that it is certainly important to keep up the positive pressure on President Tudjman in Croatia.
Mr. David Winnick rose
Mr. Hurd: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but then I should like to get on.
Mr. Winnick: To avoid any misunderstanding arising from the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), is the Foreign Secretary aware that there is bound to be considerable support for the humanitarian measures that he mentioned, such as the airlift and monitoring, but there is no support in the House or in the country for military intervention on a large scale, or of any kind, with the possible repercussions of getting bogged down in a civil war? Can the Foreign Secretary assure the House that, if there is any question of such intervention during the long summer recess, the House will be recalled? The Government would need the authority of the House to follow that course, and I hope that they will not embark on it.
Mr. Hurd: The hon. Member's point has general support in the House. I have certainly found that to be the case in all the questions and supplementary questions that I have answered on the subject. I have no plans for, and I do not think that there is any likelihood of our wishing to propose, the intervention of British ground troops in a hostile situation.
The UN protection force is nearly fully deployed in its three areas of responsibility in Croatia, and, as the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) knows, it includes a British field ambulance team of nearly 300—men which is why I chose my words carefully—who are deployed there for medical help. UNPROFOR will shortly have a Canadian battalion at Sarajevo airport. It has done a good job of partially reopening the airport for relief supplies.
I have just checked and the latest situation gives some grounds for optimism. President Mitterrand's brave flight to the city has helped to create a chance, and the

979
international community must now establish itself in charge of Sarajevo airport. Obviously control of the airport is vital if relief supplies are to get in.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) should think that it is demeaning to the House if, as the Secretary of State responsible for overseas aid, I give the Government's views on such matters rather than my noble Friend Baroness Chalker, who is in charge of the Overseas Development Administration. Despite his disapproval, let me do so.
The humanitarian situation is our first concern. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees is establishing the needs of the Bosnians quickly and accurately. Now that the airport is temporarily open and in the hands of the UN, experts will be able to assess exactly what is needed and to order supplies such as baby foods, basic foodstuffs and medicines and distribute them through the four depots which have already been identified in the city centre.
As from today, our aircraft are taking part in the international effort under UN auspices. They held back at the specific request of the UN, which did not want a flow of unco-ordinated aircraft into the airport which was imperfectly controlled. For the moment that has been resolved and our Hercules planes are beginning to fly, first to Zagreb and then, as part of the co-ordinated effort, to Sarajevo. This is in addition to the £9.7 million that we British have provided, in different ways, for humanitarian relief in Yugoslavia.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: May I clarify the position? None of us wants military intervention. Is the Foreign Secretary ruling out air cover for supplies provided to Sarajevo in Hercules transport planes which might be at risk?
Mr. Hurd: There are no plans for that, but that was not covered by my remarks, which were in answer to a question about ground troops. There is no plan for that because the humanitarian effort is unresisted. There is a certain amount of firing, but there are clearly no attacks on those bringing relief supplies or on the Canadians guarding the airport.
If that situation were to change, I am sure that the Security Council would want to consider the matter and perhaps consider a new resolution—but that is all ifs. At the moment the situation is as I have said.
What can we realistically hope to achieve in six months? In the best case, we could succeed during our presidency in bringing about a ceasefire which lasts in Bosnia, keeping the ceasefire in Croatia, reducing the tension in Kosovo, which I have not talked about but which one of my hon. Friends asked me about yesterday, brokering a settlement between the former Yugoslavia republic of Macedonia and Greece, and getting all the main parties closer to a general settlement. But, as I have said, I am not optimistic, because one can see further tragedies waiting to happen: renewed fighting in Croatia and Bosnia or an outbreak in Kosovo and continued deadlock elsewhere.
I do not believe—this is a point that I was going to make anyway—that the House would readily accept that it was right to send British troops to seek to settle by force any of these problems. The risk of that would be greater than the likely benefits. But, short of that, I am clear that we must do everything we can, and we will use all sensible
980
means, to deal with this linked chain of crises, which is a nightmare to the peoples of Yugoslavia and a continuing reproach to Europe as a whole.
Mr. Tony Banks: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hurd: No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman again.
Mr. Banks rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. The Foreign Secretary has said that he is not giving way.
Mr. Hurd: It follows from that that at all kinds of meetings in the next six months my colleagues and I will have to take the chair in discussions on Yugoslav matters. I would not be happy to do that unless I had been to the area. I have met, I suppose, most of the main protagonists in one way or another, but never in the country itself. So I intend—
Mr. Banks: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Secretary of State is in danger of misleading the House in respect of my comments.
Madam Speaker: Order. I do not think that we need to have any more of this this afternoon. What is the point of order for me?
Mr. Banks: The point of order is this, Madam Speaker. It has been suggested subsequently that I suggested that ground troops should be sent to that part of the old Yugoslavia around Sarajevo. I never suggested that. I referred to military forces—
Madam Speaker: Order. It seems to me that by using a point of order the hon. Gentleman has made it absolutely clear now what he did say.
Mr. Hurd: If I misunderstood what the hon. Gentleman was suggesting, I certainly apologise to him. His intervention enabled me to make the point that I wanted to make in any case.
As I was saying, because I feel that I need to have first-hand knowledge and feeling of what is going on, I plan to visit the area the week after next to get a first-hand impression of what is happening. I hope to go to as many of the Yugoslav republics as I can and also to Tirana, the capital of Albania.
There is one other international matter which will take up a good deal of time, I hope, in the first weeks of our presidency. It is the search for agreement in the Uruguay round of the general agreement on tariffs and trade. This is not just because the Uruguay round affects our own prosperity, but because it affects our ability and the ability of others to help the developing world, and it affects also their ability to help themselves.
We discuss so often in this House and in international meetings all kinds of schemes, often quite minor, to help the less well-off countries, but an agreement in the Uruguay round would dwarf all the other schemes which I have heard discussed this past year. There is an opportunity. If it is let slip, we do our own interests a disservice, but equally we do a disservice to the interests of those in the poorer parts of the world. We want to conclude the round quickly; we want to get to the finishing post, which I believe is within our reach.

981
We are to have a summit next week with the Group of Seven leaders at Munich. That offers us a chance to cover the last few yards. The key, as those who follow the matter know, is agreement between the European Community and the United States on a number of agriculture matters. The Community's agreement to reform the CAP may provide—could provide—the means of breakthrough. I am convinced that the remaining differences on agriculture between the EC and the United States could be resolved quickly. They are narrow in substance, because progress has been made, but they are of great political importance. That is the difficulty. But the difficulties are outweighed by the huge advantages to the whole trading world of an agreement.
At Lisbon last weekend the European Council instructed the Commission negotiators to reach an early agreement on agriculture with the United States. We welcome that. We are doing all that we can to support the Commission's efforts. We are in close touch with all our main GATT partners, including the United States.
Sir Teddy Taylor: To avoid any misunderstanding, because the Government must know, are the CAP reforms likely to increase or decrease total public expenditure on agriculture within the EC?
Mr. Hurd: I do not think that they will yield any savings, but, by shifting the way in which agriculture is helped, they make it easier to reach a settlement in the GATT round, and that is the point that I am on at the moment.
Mr. Robert Hughes: I understand perfectly well why the Foreign Secretary has devoted a lengthy passage of his speech to Yugoslavia and I accept the importance of the GATT round, but he will not be surprised to hear that I am gravely disturbed that on external matters he has said not one word about the way in which the EC and the Foreign Ministers seek to deal with the situation in South Africa, which is equally grave. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will say something on that before he sits down.
Mr. Hurd: I cannot deal with everything. I answered a question on South Africa at some length yesterday and the hon. Gentleman will have opportunities to press me on it if he so wishes. I would rather not be diverted on to that at present.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?
Mr. Hurd: No; I must get on.
Mr. Dalyell: It is not on Libya.
Mr. Hurd: I dare say that there are a number of other things that it is not on, but I shall still not give way to the hon. Gentleman, at least not for a bit. I shall give way later.
The House has had many opportunities recently, as I well know, to question Ministers about the consequences of the Danish referendum, on which I have nothing new to add today. We are in a period of pause. One uncertainty was removed by the Irish referendum and another will be settled one way or another by the French vote on 20 September. The third uncertainty is the position of the Danes.
982
The Danish Government cannot ratify the treaty because of the referendum result in Denmark, but neither have they told us that they will not ratify in future. Instead they hayed asked for time to consider their options. They have said that all options are open, and that is fair enough. We need to know in the autumn how they intend to proceed and how the rest of us might help. Denmark clearly cannot be coerced, nor can she be excluded. She is a member of the Community in good standing and she will take over the presidency from us on new year's day. When we know in the autumn how Denmark intends to proceed we can judge when it would be right to ask the House to proceed with the legislation needed to ratify the treaty here.
The Prime Minister has repeatedly stressed our support for the treaty that we negotiated in good faith. I am clear myself that our efforts to achieve the Community that we want, to which I am coming in a minute, need to build on ratification of the treaty rather than on its destruction.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: This is one of the fundamental points of how we progress post-Maastricht and post the Danish referendum. Is there any possibility whatever that the Government will be dropping the idea that there should be unanimity among all member states for the ratification process? Is the right hon. Gentleman setting a clear deadline for the middle of the autumn whereby Denmark will have to say whether it will remain a member of the Community?
Mr. Hurd: To answer the hon. Lady's second point, I am not going to be precise about timing. As to her first question, it is neither our wish not within our means to drop the requirement for unanimity in ratifying the Maastricht treaty.
The interest in Maastricht will not distract us from the rest of our programme. The completion of the single European market has long been the Government's objective, and we are nearly there. It is important to get the right single market. It must be liberal and open. Our future wealth depends on our manufacturing industries and services remaining internationally competitive. It must be right to build a home market for European firms that is larger than America and twice as large as Japan and Australasia.
The first task of our presidency is to complete as best we can the necessary legislation. There has been recent progress. The air liberalisation package agreed last week by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is a good one, but as one reaches the end of a process and tackles the last 10 per cent. of the single market, one reaches the most difficult issues.
We want agreement especially on road transport, energy, and medicines. We want to help to set the agenda for after 1992. The single market, once agreed, must work efficiently, and there must be effective enforcement. The key legislation must be implemented and enforced. That is why, at our suggestion, the Maastricht treaty gave the European Court of Justice the power, for the first time, to fine member states if they fail to implement the rules that they agreed.
The single market is something on which all 12 member states have basically agreed for years. The work has been in the detail. In the end there was a treaty which we all

983
signed and which we have all, throughout the presidencies of all 12 member states, worked meticulously to implement.
In the next six months, three other matters will arise on which, in the past, Britain has pressed the Community particularly hard. At first, it was uphill on all three, but we now have strong allies. The flow of ideas is in our favour, and we can give each of the three a further push.
We want to enlarge the Community, we want the Community to practise the same self-restraint in spending that most national Governments how have to exercise, and we want to restrain the Commission's intrusiveness.
Britain has long stood for a wider Europe, starting with the EFTA countries—which will in any case be economically linked to the Community from the start of next year because of the successful negotiation of the European Economic Area. At Lisbon last weekend, we agreed that preparations for negotiations for the accession of the EFTA countries should go ahead under the British presidency. Austria, Sweden, Finalnd, and Switzerland have already applied, and Norway may follow in November. Those countries are applying to join the union set out in the Maastricht treaty.
Much preparation is needed. We must complete the mandates for the Commission to negotiate with those applicants. By the time of the European Council meeting in Edinburgh in December, we aim to have all those preparations in place—we were working that out with the Commissioner yesterday—so that negotiations can be launched as soon as future financing is settled and the Maastricht treaty is ratified. The aim is to complete negotiations during 1993 with a view to the countries that I named joining by 1995. That has for a long time been our preferred timetable. I agree that it is ambitious, but it is still realistic.
Mr. Dalyell: Has the right hon. Gentleman had time to consider the document published by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, "Greening Europe: the First Steps"? In particular, what consideration has been given to the EC's fifth environment action programme. "Towards Sustainability", and what progress is being made on reaching agreement and implementing it?
Mr. Hurd: If the hon. Gentleman had asked about Libya I might have replied, but I cannot reply in respect of the directive that he mentioned. However, as it is clearly an important matter, I shall write to him giving the information that we have.
We are not talking just about the EFTA countries. At Lisbon we also agreed on the importance of relations with Turkey. We have circulated to partners Britain's ideas on enhancing the relationship between the Community and Turkey. We want to discuss at the July meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council how the Community might take these ideas forward. Then we have the bids of two very friendly countries in the Mediterranean—Cyprus and Malta. Those bids have to be considered on their own merits, and we need to develop relations through the association agreements that we have. We expect the commission's opinion on Malta, and possibly its opinion on Cyprus, later this year. I am quite clear that, whatever the result of those opinions, the Community needs a new and closer relationship with Turkey, Malta and Cyprus
984
—a relationship which does not close the door on eventual accession and which. meanwhile, strengthens the practical links.
Then there are the new democracies in central Europe. We should like the Community, by the turn of the century, to embrace those democracies also. The Community is a pole of attraction for all these countries, and at Lisbon the partners endorsed our view that the Community should continue to build its relationships, particularly with Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. whether or not Czechoslovakia divides itself. Agreements with the countries that I have just mentioned have already been signed. They need to be carried through quickly and effectively, particularly the provisions on the liberalisation of trade. We want to conclude similar association agreements with Bulgaria and Romania. and we want to enhance trade and co-operation agreements with Russia and the other main states of the former Soviet Union.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: While I apologise for introducing yet another burdensome subject for an already overloaded presidency, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether, during this presidency or perhaps next year, we could make a start on the thorny subject of trying to reduce the number of working languages in the Community to three or four? This is especially important in view of the enlargement projects. I am aware of the enormous difficulties that will be involved, but we shall incur incredible expense if we do not broach the subject despite the huge problems there will be in getting agreement.
Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is quite right. The system is expensive and cumbersome, and will become more so. It would be a little difficult for the British—I must say "British"—whose language is spoken quite extensively by other people, to put forward that proposal. However, that did not deter the Daily Mail a few months ago. But experience will probably be more effective than would an initiative during our presidency.
There is a second stone that we have been pushing up the hill. Although it has been a rather painful process, we are now making progress with the objective. I shall not say a great deal about it as it falls into the domain of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who will wind up the debate. I refer to future financing. The background has changed for the better. In the old days, whenever financial issues in the Community got difficult it was often suggested that the 12 Foreign Ministers should produce what was called a political solution. That meant a solution that excluded the Finance Ministers and involved spending money that they were reluctant to spend. That is no longer the mood of the Community. The politics of the political solution has changed. What was once regarded as the somewhat eccentric rigour of the British Treasury has become the conviction—indeed, the necessity— of many member states.
At Lisbon it was clear that many member states—not just us—are unhappy with the idea of large increases in Community spending at a time of economic retrenchment at home. We pointed out that unnecesary spending could make ratification of the treaty even more difficult. So, during our presidency, we shall be looking for an agreement which respects what was set out at Maastricht on a cohesion fund but which also respects budget discipline and the need for sound public finances. We have

985
all made it clear to our partners that there can be no question of any reduction in the United Kingdom abatement, which has so far been worth more than 12 billion to this country. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor, when he replies this evening, will obviously develop these themes.
Finally, there is widespread interest throughout the Community, and certainly in this House, in the concept of subsidiarity or minimum interference. Let me say something about the background to this.
Mr. William Cash: Earlier this week the Prime Minister made reference to subsidiarity. He said that it was his intention, during the course of his presidency, to ensure, as regards the Community as whole, that we would do everything to bring that principle into reality in the working practices of the Community. Does my hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary intend to apply the principle to the central bank and all that goes with it? At the bottom of the process, at the level that is most important to the citizen, there is the exercise of the vote in the choice of a party at a general election. In effect, that would be taken away by the transfer of economic and social matters to central bankers. Can my right hon. Friend give us an assurance that he will see that that principle is applied to the central bank?
Mr. Hurd: The basic choice is a question of whether there is a single currency and a single bank If we have a single currency and a single bank on which everybody agrees, that will not be a question of subsidiarity. But neither this House nor this country has made that choice, such was the skill of the negotiations conducted by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Hurd: No. I want to get on.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) pointed out in his question to me yesterday, subsidiarity goes to the heart of how the Community exercises its authority. How does it get its authority? How and where should decisions be made? The Community is one based on law, and the treaty of Rome set the framework. We, the 12 Governments, take decisions in the Council of Ministers. The areas of policy where such decisions can be taken are set out in the treaty of Rome. That is what is meant by Community competence. Those areas can be extended, as they were in the Single European Act. Within those areas of Community competence, the Commission proposes the draft legislation.
Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Hurd: I will give way to my hon. Friend if he contains himself for a minute or two.
The European Parliament has certain powers to propose amendments to draft legislation, and the Council of Ministers—the 12 Governments—takes the final decision. The Maastricht treaty added limited extensions to Community competence by adding new policy articles to the treaty of Rome. In many respects—perhaps most respects—these were a clarification or codification of existing practice. They showed where the boundaries lay.
But, in addition—and this for the first time—the treaty of Maastricht checked the growth of competence. It did so in two ways. First, it formalised, in the treaty framework,
986
the legitimacy of intergovernmental co-operation between the 12 member states in certain crucial areas of policy—foreign policy, justice and home affairs. Secondly, it defined the limits of Community activity in some specific areas by precluding what it called harmonising measures, such as those that have caused so much difficulty and controversy in the past.
Mr. Budgen: I am sure my right hon. Friend knows that many of our right hon. and hon. Friends voted for the Second Reading of the Bill following the Prime Minister's assertion that he had obtained a legally binding text on subsidiarity. The impression was given that the intrusive powers of the Community had been driven back in a final and satisfactory way. We now find that a large number of distinguished legal academics say robustly either that it is gobbledegook or that it is wholly unenforceable and, therefore, that the basis upon which many people supported the Bill has turned out to be false.
Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for leading me neatly into the next part of my speech. In response to his importunities I gave way just a little too early. My answer to his question will come just a little late—in a minute or two.
The policies fall into three categories—those where the Community has no competence, some important ones of which are defined in the treaty of Maastricht; those where the Community has exclusive competence, such as the negotiations on the Uruguay round; and those of parallel competence, where both member states and the Community have a role to play. In that last area, a choice arises over and over again. Should the Community act, or the member states, when action is required? We must apply the principle of subsidiarity against the background of those three policy areas.
Article 3b defines subsidiarity. In its fully developed form, it applies in particular to areas of parallel competence, but it also has a general application, requiring all activity—including activity within the exclusive Community competence—to be governed by the necessity test: any action by the Community shall not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the treaty.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister are right: the text is crucial. It will certainly be crucial once the treaty has been ratified, but even before that the principle can be put into practice. That is the importance of the conclusions reached at Lisbon, on which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister reported to the House on Monday. The Heads of State and Government decided at Lisbon that now—before ratification, before there is a legal text—urgent work should be conducted in the Community institutions, particularly the Commission and the Council, to find procedural and practical steps with which to carry through the principle as soon as possible. They have been asked to report to the Edinburgh Council, where I hope that we can make some firm decisions.
At Lisbon, we also called for a review of existing Community legislation rather than a process of simply working out the right way to apply the principle for the future. We called for a retrospective application of the principle of minimum interference. That report will also be submitted to the European Council in December 1993.

987
The Cabinet discussed the work given to the Commission and the Council of Ministers with the full Commission in London yesterday. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave the Commission a clear steer, emphasising that nothing would allay the fears of those who questioned the Community more successfully than an effective work programme this year to apply the principle of minimum interference, not just to future proposals, but to existing Community legislation—and to proposals that are in the pending trays, awaiting consideration by the Council. The Commission will be working urgently on that, and I am sure that it is a welcome step.
If the arrangements work as we intend them to, the effect of the principle will be felt not in judgments by the Court in three or four years' time, not in academic or legal argument, but in its practical application in the Community institutions day by day as decisions are proposed and made.
Sir Peter Tapsell: I am much reassured by what my right hon. Friend has said about subsidiarity, with which I am sure we all agree. If we could secure a greatly improved text of article 3b which would definitely be enforced by the Community, and which the European Court would not always define in a federal sense, we would be a long way towards achieving what everyone wants.
Let me, however, give my right hon. Friend an example of how the system works in practice. Only a few days ago, the Chancellor of the Exchequer—to his personal chagrin, I am sure—had to come back and report that we would lose the freedom to reduce our VAT rate below 15 per cent. That drives a coach and horses through the principle of subsidiarity: it will give Britain less control over its sales tax than is exercised by any state of the American Union. There is absolutely no reason why we should not be able to reduce our VAT rate. If the recession worsens, we may wish to do so in order to increase purchasing power and demand.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The purpose of an intervention is to ask a question, not to make a statement.
Mr. Hurd: I do not question your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I expect that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will wish to deal at length with my hon. Friend's question when he winds up the debate. It illustrates an important point: in all kinds of matters, of which VAT is certainly one, there is a long history of Community discussion in the context of completing the single market. The issue has not sprung up suddenly in the past few weeks. As my hon. Friend knows, no conclusion has been reached; but I believe that the ideas advanced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, if they were finally accepted and agreed, would be very much in this country's interests.
Mrs. Edwina Currie: Does not the whole principle of subsidiarity rest on the ability of Parliaments, and indeed of Governments, to carry out their side of the work? Is that not shown crucially by their ability to implement their promises and to stick to the results of votes that have been held in Parliaments such as this?
Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend has worked that point in very ingeniously, but it chimes appropriately with some of what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been saying.
What we must do—and it is not entirely easy as we move from generalities to specifics—is work out what the Commission must do as a result of the conclusions reached at Lisbon. What we must do, in the interests of this country, is work out the areas in which action is needed at a European level—for example, in the completion of the single market—and then to ensure that that action is effective. There is no point in ineffective action at a European level. We must then distinguish between such action and acts of interference—whether on the part of Brussels or, consequentially, on the part of Whitehall—that are unnecessary to any substantial European or national interest.
We must identify the division between the subjects with which the Community has recently dealt before the Maastricht treaty comes into effect. We want the Community, the Commission and the Council to pull back from activities and proposals whose purposes could be handled equally well by member states.
When I look at my diary and those of my colleagues, I sometimes find the prospect of the next six months somewhat daunting. We face a huge array of summits and conferences in all parts of the world. That, however, is the least of the pressures that we shall experience. The world is in a disorderly state, and in problem after problem—from Yugoslavia to Russia, and from Russia to South Africa—the EC is expected to play a part for which its institutions and procedures are not yet fully equipped.
Within the Community, there is a huge volume of work to be transacted, but there is one strengthening and reassuring thought. The agenda that is before us for six months is composed, in large part, of issues in which this country strongly believes, such as enlargement, the reduction of interference, a prudent settlement of the Community's finances, a GATT settlement and completion of the single market. Those are not causes wished on us by others; they are causes in which we strongly believe and which, partly by coincidence, it now falls to us to implement. We shall do that with energy and persistence, supported—I hope and believe—by the great majority of the House.
4.58 pm
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: The House will have listened attentively to what the Foreign Secretary said about Yugoslavia. He talked of a wish to avoid the attachment to senior or larger European Community members of clients states in the former Yugoslav area. I very much fear that that error has already been made, and that a number of its consequences have led it to tragedy. I believe, that it was a serious error for the Council of Ministers to allow itself to be dragged by Germany into making a date for recognition of the republics. The right hon. Gentleman said that that was subject to certain conditions, but Germany, in the interests of the client republics there, made it clear immediately that it had no intention of observing those conditions and would recognise, in any case. That whole process, following the December ministerial Council meeting, has been injurious to Yugoslavia.

989
The recognition of small, unviable states—unviable both economically and politically—by the European Community and the provision of the cachet of recognition by the European Community has, in my view, encouraged other republics in Yugoslavia to declare their independence. While I would not be so rash as to say that the tragedy of Bosnia-Herzegovina is a direct consequence of recognition, if that decision had not been made six months ago it is possible that Bosnia-Herzegovina would not have been so speedy and so confident in declaring her independence.
I very much hope that this process will be brought to, at any rate, a pause. The consequences of recognition of Macedonia in terms of relationships with both Greece and Bulgaria as well as with Albania could be very serious indeed. I hope that we have learnt some of the lessons from what I regard as a very serious error by the Community because of its failure to think through the concept of a common foreign policy, even though we on the Opposition Benches support the concept of a common foreign policy.
There are lessons to be learned. One lesson—I am glad that the Government have learnt it and I support what the right hon. Gentleman said both yesterday and today—is that military action is more easily entered into than got out of. When I was talking to the incoming Prime Minister of Israel and discussing with him the start of the six-day war—which, after six days, the Israelis won triumphantly—he said to me, "It is much easier to get into a war than to get out of it." At that time he had no idea that the war would last only six days. Going in with force on the ground, without having clear objectives, clear rules of engagement and a clear mandate from the United Nations Security Council, might do more harm than good to the people of the former Yugoslavia and would also place the lives of United Nations troops at risk. I do not see why that should be done, except in an inviolably good cause.
Secondly, sanctions should have been brought in sooner and been much more comprehensive. We advocated that. I am sorry that our advice was not followed.
Thirdly, I believe that the United Nations should have been involved much sooner. It is not that I in any way detract from the role of the European Community, nor do I detract from the praise that I have offered and that I continue to offer for the actions of Lord Carrington, but after the successful action that was undertaken under United Nations authority in driving Iraq out of Kuwait I believe that we ought to have built on the authority of the United Nations that was established at that time. Again I say that all action, whether it be European Community action, or Western European Union action, or action by individual countries, should be taken only under the specific authority of United Nations Security Council resolutions.
I very much hope that the Government will take seriously the proposal that has been made by Mr. Boutros-Ghali—it may be that the Foreign Secretary discussed it with him today—regarding a permanent United Nations structure for military intervention. We advocated that two years ago. Even though one has a proprietary interest in the proposal, I believe that if a United Nations structure for military intervention had been available when Yugoslavia began to break up, some of the tragedies that followed could have been avoided.
Mr. Roger Knapman: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Kaufman: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not giving way. This exordium is in response to what was said by the Foreign Secretary. I should like to proceed with the main topic of the debate, having said what I wanted to say to the Foreign Secretary in, I hope, a constructive manner. Time is being lost. It is important that we should not wait for a further tragedy or for another international crisis before a permanent United Nations structure for military intervention is devised and set up in the way that Mr. Boutros-Ghali has sensibly proposed.
The subject of the debate—not that I in any way regret what the Foreign Secretary said about Yugoslavia—is the presidency of the European Community upon which this country embarked yesterday. The presidency gives to the country which holds it the opportunity to stamp its approach on the processes and policies of the Community. It provides the opportunity to advance its own national interest within the Community and to advance the interests of the Community as a whole.
The presidency is a rare opportunity. At present, it comes round only once every six years. Since almost certainly the Community will be enlarged by four new members, and possibly even more, during the next six years, it is likely that United Kingdom presidency will not recur until the end of the century. The presidency is, therefore, an occasion when the United Kingdom Government can propound its own vision of Europe and for Europe, but two obstacles impede a constructive presidency for the United Kingdom.
The first is the lack of a clear statement by the United Kingdom Government of what objectives they seek to attain during the presidency. Almost every day we seem to get a new and different statement from the Government of presidency objectives. In his concluding remarks the right hon. Gentleman gave us a list, some of which, although they have been mentioned here and there, have never been stated before as specific presidency objectives.
On 3 June the Foreign Secretary told us that the Government's priorities included completion of the single market, preparation for enlargement negotiations, finance negotiations and development of closer relations with eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Eight days later, on 11 June, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in stating what he called the Government's key priorities, had dropped the development of relations with eastern Europe and added very specifically what he called working towards a conclusion on the Community's future financing. Good luck to him, if he can achieve that in the next six months. Eighteen days later, the Prime Minister on his return from Lisbon suggested that his eyes were set on enlargement and that the new apple of his eye was subsidiarity.
In the first half of June, the Prime Minister's two principal lieutenants could not spare even a word for subsidiarity when they were setting out what they called the Government's key priorities for the presidency, but now the Prime Minister cannot get enough of it. The problem is that he does not seem to know what it means. He cites and re-cites article 3b of the Maastricht treaty as though it were a mantra. The Foreign Secretary did the

991
same today. But article 3b of the Maastricht treaty states only what the Community should not do. It does not state what member states should do.
The Prime Minister seems to imagine that subsidiarity stops short at national Government level and that there should be no decentralisation below the level of national Government. On Monday the Prime Minister denounced what he called the
"centralising trend which was evident … in the Single European Act.—[Official Report, 29 June 1992; Vol. 210, c. 596.]
That terrible Single European Act! Is my memory playing tricks when I remember that that political equivalent of the black mass was guillotined with the enthusiastic support of the Prime Minister himself? He was an active acolyte in that act of desecration. The president prom at the Albert Hall on 6 September already includes the choral symphony. I recommend that the programme be augmented by another work by Beethoven, "The Overture for the Consecration of the House", or the reconsecration of the House. Although the Prime Minister now chants the litany of subsidiarity, he clearly has no idea what it means. The hon. Member for East Lindsey (Sir. P. Tapsell) made a pertinent intervention on the Foreign Secretary who, I am afraid, did not offer further illumination.
On Monday the Prime Minister said:
"Subsidiarity … means that the test should be that, if it cannot be done at the national level, perhaps it should be done at the European level. If it can be done best at the national level, it should be done at the national level."—[Official Report, 29 June 1992; Vol. 210, c. 589.]
This week the Chancellor of the Exchequer provided an interesting example off the Government's view of what should be done at the European level rather than at the national level—the decision to accept the Community as the arbiter for levels of value added tax. The right hon. Gentleman could have vetoed that because the decision was not taken by a qualified majority vote. It had to be taken unanimously.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Norman Lamont): The right hon. Gentleman says that I could have vetoed it, but I am sure that he is aware that no decision was taken. In the end, I was the only person to oppose the proposition, so perhaps he will withdraw what he has just said. Also, does he recognise that under article 99 of the treaty of Rome we are committed to the harmonisation of indirect taxes in as far as that is necessary for the internal market? That is something to which he and I, his party and mine, are committed whether he knows it or not—and I suspect that he does not.
Mr. Kaufman: I shall make two points in response to the Chancellor's characteristically courteous intervention. First, he has clearly accepted that subsidiarity is not available here. If subsidiarity is not available, his protesting about it this week seems a vain exercise. While it appears that it is inexorable and inevitable and while it appears, from his own words, that he would accept it, he also said that it did not really matter because we were not going to reduce VAT below 15 per cent. in any case. What we have here could not be said by even the most friendly observer of the Government to be a clear definition of subsidiarity in relation to the setting of tax levels.
Sir Teddy Taylor rose—
Mr. Kaufman: I give way to the hon. Gentleman. I have a feeling that he will make more trouble.
Sir Teddy Taylor: An unnecessary row is developing. Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that article 99 does not say that we are committed to harmonisation? It says that we are committed to harmonisation only in as far as it is necessary to complete the internal market. If the right hon. Gentleman reads Hansard, he will see that during discussions on the Bill we were told that it had no importance whatsoever because Britain did not take the view that the harmonisation of excise duties was necessary to complete the internal market. If he is in any doubt, I ask him please to read Hansard. Many hon. Members voted for the Single European Act—stupidly—because they did not know. They were told time and time again that it meant nothing at all.
Mr. Kaufman: There are two kinds of Member. The first is like the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) and the members of my party who opposed the bludgeoning through the House of the Single European Act. The second is like those in the Government who guillotined the Bill and now say that it is a piece of legislation which must be dumped as soon as possible in favour of subsidiarity, even though they cannot tell us what that is.
The Prime Minister does not seem to envisage or to understand that there are many occasions when action is most appropriate neither at the European level nor at the national level. Let me explain what I mean.
We all know that Lady Thatcher had the habit of carrying around her favourite texts which, at a moment's notice, she would whisk from her handbag—before she discovered the technological miracle of the compact disc. I offer the Prime Minister the free gift of a text to keep in his wallet next to his heart. It is a definition of true subsidiarity which reads:
"Decisions should be made at the level (European Community, national, regional or local) where the maximum democratic control and effectiveness is ensured."
That is a proper definition of subsidiarity. It is the Labour party's definition of subsidiarity, and it was devised and drafted by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson).
As for enlargement—
Mr. Cash: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Kaufman: I shall proceed a little further.
The Prime Minister made it clear that, for the United Kingdom presidency ending on 31 December, enlargement is little more than an academic issue. Although the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor have declared that enlargement is a key priority for the United Kingdom presidency, all that the Prime Minister could murmur on Monday was that during our presidency
"unofficial discussions … can take place".
Why? He went on to admit that the
"formal accession of any new state could not take place until after the Maastricht treaty is ratified."—[Official Report, 29 June 1992; Vol. 210, c. 593.]
The Secretary of State for National Heritage has circulated an attractive booklet listing the events in the United Kingdom presidency's European arts festival, which includes such delights as the Ashington Eurofest, an international festival of pavement art in Liverpool and a special European children's programme featuring Ooly McDooly. I suggest that some traditional British nursery

993
rhymes should be added to the agenda. When the Prime Minister talks about the date of ratification of the Maastricht treaty, it is appropriate to quote
"'When will that be'? say the bells of Stepney"—
although I do not think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) is in a tearing hurry. The response is, of course,
"'I'm sure I don't know', says the great bell of Bow."
Nobody knows when the Maastricht treaty will be ratified.
Mr. Cash: In the light of the right hon. Gentleman's brilliant definition of subsidiarity on behalf of the Labour party, can he explain how it is that Labour would be able to implement or, if it were ever in government, to introduce, the notion of a central bank? Would that not be wholly inconsistent with the definition that he has just given?
Mr. Kaufman: That has nothing to do with it. This is one of the rare moments when I believe that the Foreign Secretary gave a satisfactory reply to an intervention on that subject. I support the Foreign Secretary in that reply, because I want to do him the maximum damage with his Back Benchers.
The other insuperable obstacle to a productive United Kingdom presidency, is, of course, the uncertain fate of the Maastricht treaty. At the end of the Lisbon summit, the participants issued their communique, the conclusions of the presidency. It is 49 pages long and includes a section headed "State of the Ratification Procedure on the Treaty on European Union". It is a happy section; it is pleased with itself. It states:
"The European Council welcomes the result of the Irish referendum."
I am absolutely sure that there was another referendum, but the conclusions of the presidency—the document, the communique—does not refer to it in any way, and nor did the Prime Minister in his statement to the House on Monday. He came hack from Lisbon and made a statement to the House but did not so much as mention the Danish referendum.
The European summit and the United Kingdom Prime Minister may regard the Danish referendum as something nasty on the pavement that it is best to walk gingerly round, but walk round it as they may, there it still lies—although one would never guess that from the Prime Minister's post-summit publicity.
After the Maastricht treaty the Prime Minister's publicity machine said that he had won hands down—game, set and match. It was a triumph. I do not know how long this country can go on surviving triumphs of that sort. The House will be surprised to learn that after Lisbon the word from No. 10 was that that was "another triumph for Major". After the miracle of Maastricht came the Lisbon story.
Hon. Members in the age group to which the Foreign Secretary and I belong may remember that famous British musical, "The Lisbon Story", featuring the beautiful Pat Kirkwood, and the hit song from it—"Pedro the Fisherman":
"Pedro the fisherman was always whistling such a merry call, Girls who were passing by would hear him whistling by the harbour wall"—
presumably, for this purpose the term "girls" includes noble baronesses. The Prime Minister can whistle as much as he likes hut, realistically, the tune cannot be very merry.
994
The programme for a promenade concert—it is on 14 August; get your tickets now—sums up the situation more accurately. That programme includes Mussorgsky's "Songs and Dances of Death", performed by the Danish national radio symphony orchestra.
Immediately after the Danish referendum the Government insisted that it would be business as usual for the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. The Foreign Secretary said that the Committee stage of the Bill would proceed. That afternoon the Committee stage was postponed—
Mr. Hurd indicated assent.
Mr. Kaufman: I take great care to be accurate. I may have got it wrong last time, although I do not acknowledge that I did, but at least the Foreign Secretary admits that I have got it right this time—that is progress.
The Foreign Secretary said that it was made clear that afternoon, in a business statement that did not even mention the Bill, that its Committee stage would not proceed. We have not heard about it since.
This afternoon the Foreign Secretary said that we were in a period of pause. The right hon. Gentleman has a genius for turning understatement into an art form. No-one knows when the Committee stage will be resumed. The Prime Minister makes all kinds of noises about having given his word of honour, and being at the heart of Europe. But this week he has at long last publicly begun to come to terms with reality. Yesterday he said about the Bill:
"It would be desirable to finish it by the end of the year, but it is not essential."
In the House on Monday, he was even more specific. He said:
"We must wait to see … what action the Danish Government take … explaining to us how they intend to proceed with the ratification of the treaty. Once the Danish Government do that, we will be in a position to proceed with the ratification here."—[Official Report, 29 June; Vol. 210, c. 586.]
Even the Prime Minister now admits that it is pointless for the House to proceed with ratification until we can see a clear way forward from the Danish referendum. That is what Labour spokesmen have said ever since the referendum. The Bill is now inoperable, because so much of it refers to and requires participation by Denmark, and it would be improper to proceed with an inoperable Bill. That is why we have repeatedly asked for a report to the House on the situation following the Danish referendum, and why we have said that, if the Government do not show a clear way forward, yet still attempt to proceed with the Bill, we shall vote against any guillotine motion.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: The right hon. Gentleman is making an entertaining speech, but will he make it clear where the Opposition now stand on the Maastricht treaty? Does the right hon. Gentleman hope that it will be ratified, and that the Danes will have second thoughts? Does he hope that the French will support it? He must have a view.
Mr. Kaufman: We made it clear in the debate when the Bill was introduced that we support a great deal of what is in the treaty which the Bill seeks to ratify. However, we take serious exception to some parts of the treaty—including the protocol which excludes us from the social chapter, among other things. If we could secure a treaty

995
that met all our aspirations we should readily support it. Unfortunately, that is not what is before the House at this stage.
Mr. John D. Taylor: We need further clarification of what the right hon. Gentleman has just said. He gave the House the impression that the Opposition would oppose the Bill if it were brought before the House again before Denmark made a decision. He then qualified that by saying that the Labour party would oppose the Bill only if a guillotine were presented. Which is it? Does the Labour party oppose the Bill in principle, or only if a guillotine is proposed?
Mr. Kaufman: There is a great deal of misapprehension, not about our attitude, which I shall state in the most specific terms, but about the parliamentary procedure before us. Unless the Government introduce the famous confidence motion that keeps being floated in and out of the No. 10 machine, there will be no voting for or against the Bill. If the Bill is resumed it will go into Committee. The Labour party will move a great many amendments in Committee, and we shall expect adequate time to be given to debate them. We shall decide our attitude to Third Reading on the basis of what is in the Bill after the Committee stage.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Kaufman: No, I shall proceed now.
That is what the Committee stage is about—whether a Bill can be altered.
Our position is a great deal clearer than what the Government are telling us. They imply that there could be a painless—or even painful—formula that could solve the problem of the Bill for them. Soon after the referendum, the Foreign Office floated the idea that the United Kingdom presidency could patch things together with a protocol to the treaty. Clearly that had not been thought out, because when the Leader of the House, standing in for the Prime Minister, was questioned about the notion, he said that such a protocol was
"one of the possibilities which can clearly he considered, but without commitment at this stage."
It was
"one among a range of others that can sensibly be considered in the uncertain circumtances".—[Official Report, 9 June; Vol. 209, c. 143.]
There is a specific reply for us.
The possibility of the protocol was soon removed from sight, and as for that range of other possibilities to which the Leader of the House referred, nothing more was heard about them, whatever they may or may not have been—and a good thing too. This ailment cannot be cured by political quack medicine. It needs careful thought and sensible ideas.
There are ways of moving forward from the Danish referendum. Last week, the Danish Social Democratic party, which must play an indispensable role in any new moves for Danish ratification, advocated priorities including the strengthening of democracy and the promotion of employment and social justice. Such issues should be at the heart of the United Kingdom presidency. Sadly, they will not be. The Opposition believe that the objectives of the United Kingdom presidency should be
996
enlargement and a much more specific effort to obtain agreement in principle on the admission of certain applicants. It is far too negative to say that enlargement should wait upon the ratification of Maastricht. Agreement in principle on admission of Sweden and Finland could well affect favourably the mood of the electorate of Denmark, who could see that their country would not be the lone Scandinavian country in the Community.
The Lisbon summit was far too negative on that subject and was even more unacceptably negative on the application of Cyprus. I am not satisfied with what the Foreign Secretary said today about that subject or with his ample references, once again, to the desirability of a stronger relationship with Turkey. It is quite wrong to say, as was said at the Lisbon summit, that consideration of the application by Cyprus must be postponed because the island is divided. That division exists because of an illegal occupation of part of Cyprus by Turkish forces. It is wrong to reward Turkey and penalise Cyprus because the latter is the victim of aggression by the former. The United Kingdom presidency should make it clear to Turkey that she will not be admitted to the Community as long as her troops are present in Cyprus against the will of the legal Government. It should proceed positively to consider the application by Cyprus for membership.
The United Kingdom presidency should make human rights a major theme of its term of office. The power and influence of the Community should be used to draw attention to and, where possible, remedy violations of human rights outside Europe—in Indonesia, Thailand, Burma and South Africa—and in Europe as well.
I should like an early declaration by the ministerial Council that no aid of any kind will be provided for Albania until that country ends the abomination of public hangings. Since the Secretary of State announced today that he will visit Tirana shortly, I hope that he will make clear to the regime our disgust at its barbaric public executions.
During the United Kingdom presidency, the Community should have, as a priority, agreement on positive policies for economic divergence—I mean convergence [[Interruption.]—I mean both divergence and convergence. It should have agreement on those policies to strengthen the regions and to assist in the structural change of industry and in easing the process of industrial change.
The United Kingdom presidency should co-ordinate policies to fight unemployment. The Prime Minister was pitiful on Monday when he implied that the unemployment problem in this country was not as intolerable as it might be because it was getting worse in Spain. The Foreign Secretary was even more complacent yesterday when he had the nerve to warn against what he called
"abandoning people who arc unemployed and looking for jobs"—[0fficial Report, I July 1992; Vol. 210, c. 838.]
It is the Government who have abandoned such people. We want the Community to remedy that callous neglect.
We call upon the Government to give real meaning to the social dimension. The Prime Minister was at his most astounding on Monday when he said:
"we agree with the social dimension, but we do not agree with the social charter itself."—[Official Report, 29 June 1992; Vol. 210, c. 584.]
That was like saying, "We agree with the principles of the ten commandments, but we can't go along with those

997
niggling bits about not making graven images, honouring thy father and thy mother, and not coveting thy neighbour's house, or wife, or ox or ass." The Government are seen to be alone in believing that the single market must be an adventure playground for capital without providing the necessary protections for employed and unemployed people. The Government are alone in Europe in rejecting the social chapter and the social charter. That attitude must change.
I say to the Prime Minister and to the Foreign Secretary that this is the last speech that I shall make from the Front Bench. I do not begrudge the Government their election victories, but I cannot forgive them for what they are doing to the thousands of poor in my constituency and in many other parts of the country who eke out an existence in poor housing, who are poorly clothed and who are far too often poorly fed. They have children whom they love as much as any hon. Member on either side loves his or her children. Yet they are unable to bring up their children in decent circumstances, in a decent environment, with any hope for the future or any hope of a job when they leave school. In their thousands they are unemployed, suffering one of the worst unemployment rates in the country.
The poor have to go to the Department of Social Security offices to beg for help, for money for a second-hand mattress or a second-hand cooker and, mostly, they are turned away. They are rejected for income support and they are rejected for crisis loans. They are excluded from the Prime Minister's classless society because they are too poor to claim membership of any class at all.
I intend to devote my time in this Parliament to fighting for all my constituents, but above all for the excluded poor. One reason why I shall fight for the inclusion of the social chapter in the Maastricht treaty is that it goes beyond windy generalisations about being at the heart of Europe and could provide practical help in putting heart into my constituents who, God knows, need it and have earned it.
The United Kingdom presidency should not be about logos and clichés—it should be about people. It should be about the common humanity of all the people in all the countries of the European Community. That is what a Labour presidency would have been about and that is what the Labour party will never give up fighting for.
5.36 pm
Mr. David Howell: The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) gets more and more entertaining as he gets demob happy and his party's position on this matter gets odder and odder and more and more confused. We have enjoyed some of his remarks, without agreeing with any of them. I salute his passing from his present position and look forward to him popping up in some other position in which he is rumoured to have an interest.
Those with longer memories will remember that the Maastricht treaty was born of a couple of intergovernmental conferences some two years ago, which the British Government did not like the idea of. However, there was nothing under the Community arrangements that we could use to stop them. We were severely criticised at the time and Britain was depicted as the laggard—the one against the I I, which all knew where they were going and where the intergovernmental conferences were taking us.
998
I propose to my right hon. Friends that we should use the presidency to turn the tables. We should take intellectual, philosophical and, in terms of ideas, total command of the future agenda of the Commuity. We should urge that, in due course, there should be another intergovernmental conference to begin to shape the kind of Europe that more and more people throughout Europe, including in this country, want to see—a Europe heading in a different direction from the one in which it appears to have gone in recent years.
I can suggest that proposal with confidence to my right hon. Friends because, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said with great eloquence, the whole debate has changed, even in the past few months. We are no longer judged as insular, ostrich-like Britain which is sitting glued to the station platform while the great and stately train of European unification rolls out to distant destinations. A completely different picture is now emerging, just as a photograph in a dark room gradually takes form. We can see a pattern emerging that puts the development of Europe in a different context.
Instead of the decentralisers and those who are suspicious of too much unity and centralisation being the laggards, it is the centralisers who are the past and the decentralisers who are the futuure. That changes the context of the debate, because it is no longer fair or correct to suggest that those who held back from the higher flown rhetoric of Maastricht were lingering in the past while the centralisers were the future; it is now the other way round.
The old vocabulary about momentum; of not just ironing out the level playing field, but flattening every detail of the variety and diversity of the European Community to total billiard table smoothness; the calls for trains leaving stations, for social cohesion to the point of redistribution to the extent of destroying the wealth-creating momentum of Europe and the calls for superconvergence—they have all acquired a sepia tint. They have become the language of the past and my right hon. Friends deserve immense credit for spotting that before most people in Europe and, in their negotiations on the Maastricht treaty, for bringing out the trend for the future and rejecting the trend of the past.
If we apply the new template to the Maastricht treaty text as it is before us, with the derogations secured by my right hon. Friends, it is clear that parts belong to the centralist past. They are old-fashioned and contain the old-fashioned language. However, there are also parts that belong to a much more vigorous and diversified future They offer strength through diversity and diffusion. That strength will make Europe a far more effective force than the old centralising shibboleths and nostrums of the centralisers.
One example of that is the single currency, to which my right hon. Friends have not committed us. Another is the single central bank. A single currency may not be necessary for a single common market. Mr. Feldstein said in The Economist the other week that it might actually slow down and undermine the growth of trade and prosperity in the Community.
There has been discussion today about excise and sales taxes. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken a strong and determined stand about that. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell) so characteristically and perceptively said, we need only consider the United States, which is the greatest, most successful and oldest single market in the world, to

999
discover a vast variety of sales taxes and encouragement for people to trade across state borders and take advantage of the differences and variety in those taxes.
There has also been much talk about the single bank. The concept of a single, monolithic, physical institution running Europe's monetary policy is antique. Europe's monetary policy in future is bound to be multi-centred. A single bank does not belong to the modern world. I have the same doubts about the single passport, which, alas, has already been implemented and which has nothing to do with the Maastricht treaty.
It is not technically necessary to have the single burgundy passport for everyone, although the technicians tell us that it is. Electronics could cope with all control matters and we could retain separate documents that would give us more of a feeling of identity.
While we are considering the different aspects of the Maastricht treaty, we might question the repeated concept of the level playing field. Policing the single market is very important. Whatever some of my hon. Friends who are opposed to the Community and all its works say, such policing will require a good deal of political clout being delegated to the Community and its institutions. However, policing the single market to the point where obsessive economists begin to insist that to create a single market it is necessary to itemise everything down to the part of the year at which one may kill a magpie to stop it robbing birds' nests, or set vocational training or any other absurd detail, carries us well out of the realms of practical commerce end into the realms of economic levelling and ideology on a scale to which it would be right to call a halt.
That overkill brings the single market into disrepute. It is the role of responsible European policy makers—at the head of whom I place my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer—in the coming presidency to rescue Europe and the single market, which is a magnificent goal, from the Europhobes and the Euro-fanatics.
Mr. Giles Radice: We have heard many fine words about decentralisation from the right hon. Gentleman. One would have no idea from what he said that the United Kingdom is the most centralised state in the European Community.
Mr. Howell: In respect of subsidiarity, that means that each country does things in a way that it believes best.
Mr. Derek Enright: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Howell: No, I do not want to delay the House.
With regard to regionalisation, we must work out our own patterns for the future. They need not necessarily be the same as those occupied by the German Lander or the other provincial schemes elsewhere in Europe. Let us do our own thing in our own way. We should work out our own problems. I see no difficulty with that.
As I said, overkill on the scale that has confronted us brings the ideal of the single market into disrepute. There are those who argue—I hear them behind me now—that in the light of the present situation, the best course is to tear up the Maastricht treaty and start again. I agree that it makes no sense—my right hon. Friends recognise this very correctly—to press on immediately with the parliamentary
1000
process. We have had the Second Reading of the Bill associated with the treaty which, in effect, was a preliminary ratification. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is right to say that we should wait and see how others handle the matter. I fully support that policy.
Given Britain's presidency and its towering position of intellectual strength—[Laughter.] Labour Members may laugh, but that is the laughter of the past. They are the people who want to centralise and control in the socialists' interests the affairs of this country from Brussels. That is not the pattern of Europe's future.
Given the powerful instruments that are built into the Maastricht treaty, it seems pointless to throw away Britain's hand when we hold the trumps. I believe that it would be wiser to concentrate on changing the whole tempo and vocabulary of the European process by setting out boldly both the new vision of a modern and enlarged Europe of nations and the path by which to attain it.
We need to promote a Europe of nation states. We need a positive plan of reform of the institutions and that lies in the future. We need to review the Commission's role. We need to list the functions to be returned to the nation states. That process of listing should be carried out by the nation states. In effect, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was pointing rightly in that direction, a bonfire of regulations and directives—
Mr. Cash: And of vanities.
Mr. Howell:—indeed, and of vanities—so that we may give the Europe of the future consistency and strength instead of over-centralised fragility and brittleness. We need to redefine the philosophy of the single market. We do not need to flatten everything to create a single market. We need diversity and variety in taxation and many other things for a single market to work.
We must also redefine cohesion. It is not true that all aid creates development. Aid can stop development both within and outside of the Community. We should go all out for enlargement, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that is right. We should limit the ambitions of the budgeteers in Brussels. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will do that.
We should halt the potential merging of foreign policy into a common EC foreign policy. That is not a worthwhile ambition. There will be problems with joint declarations. We may make joint declarations with the rest of the Community, but in many other areas we will want to pursue with other interested powers—perhaps the United States in some cases or Germany and France in others—our own particular policy interests. That pillar of foreign policy co-operation must not be allowed to be merged into the trunk of the Community. There are tendencies at work that could easily do that and we must guard against them.
That is our agenda for the presidency. It not only deals with today's problems but captures the commanding heights of the ideas when we come to the next intergovernmental conference, because today's ideas shape tomorrow's decisions. If we want to win on those decisions, we must get on with this business now.
5.49 pm
Mr. John Morris: No one should underestimate the opportunity that the British presidency provides for us. We can influence a wide range of subjects. The holder of the chair is an important cog in the machinery of the European Community. I am fairly sure that I am the only Opposition Member who has actually chaired a meeting of the Council of Ministers—the Employment and Social Committee. I fear that my tenure was of one session and one session alone, but my achievement was to get through the business at a reasonable hour—half-past 9, as against the expectation of an all-night sitting. My experience in the House considerably sharpened my mind.
The issue about which I wish to speak briefly is the real and perceived democratic deficit in the EC. The further one goes from Westminster or, more accurately, the further one goes from all of us who inhabit this Palace, the greater the distrust of the European Community. I suspect that it is the same in other countries. The cognoscenti, the mandarins and the mandarin class have always been in favour of the EC, but I suspect that people generally feel less sure. What has bedevilled popular support for the European Community is the impression that it is a meddler, and a meddler unnecessarily, and that, with its inflated bureaucracy, it has pursued uniformity for uniformity's sake and intruded into matters of minor importance when it was not necessary so to do.
I suspect that that feeling had a great influence on the referendum in Denmark. It did not do so in Ireland, obviously, because every man, woman and child there is a major beneficiary. It is almost like going to the opera at Covent Garden when a great part of the bill is met by the Treasury—in this case, the EC. Of course, the Danish referendum is a chance for all of us to stand back and take stock. The people of Denmark, outside the capital of Copenhagen, feared what they had seen, and they feared as much if not more the sounds then coming from the Commission. There has been a remarkable—a touch of democracy can be quite salutary—change in the tone of Mr. Delors since that fateful watershed. The truth is—we all accept it—that the treaty is juridically dead; it is in tatters until and unless there is popular approval in Denmark.
The lesson is that lectures on what is good for us by the great and good either in this country or elsewhere are not necessarily welcomed. Indeed, it is frequently the reverse—otherwise, we in this country might have been governed by a combination of civil service mandarins of Whitehall, heads of our great colleges, holders of the sees of Canterbury and York and, for good measure, the Moderator of the Church of Scotland. That is not how democracy should run.
During negotiations it looked as though the democratic deficit would be tackled by reducing the Commission's powers and by giving the European Parliament an enhanced role in the legislative process. That has not happened and there have not been many significant changes in the Commission's role. Article 8 of the treaty that set up the Commission states:
"It shall be the duty of the high authority to ensure that the objectives set out in this treaty are attained in accordance with the provisions thereof."
Flowing from that are the treaty provisions for achieving and implementing that high aim.
1002
I do not know of any organ of government in any democratic country that has been given so many powers to initiate and propose, an appointed, non-elected, almost faceless organ. I should like to know of a parallel. The inevitable result is that such an institution will gather a momentum of its own. It has done so, and it has sought to increase its influence. Each Commissioner in turn, with varying competence and success, has sought to put a stamp of significant change on his own period of office in his own sphere. That is a perfectly normal human aspiration—indeed, collectively it is the aim of the Commission. But is it necessary for the Commission to have such a life of its own? Is it because of that life of its own that it has meddled unnecessarily and certainly failed to capture greater public support in this country and elsewhere?
When the total membership was six, an additional engine of power in the centre may have been necessary, but now that we are part of a larger body—I hope that Her Majesty's Government will continue their campaign for enlargement, perhaps up to 20 members or so—more initiatives should come from the European Parliament and the Council of Minister, and the role of the Commission should be diminished. That is where the balance should be. Ministers, individually and collectively, are much more likely to be politically sensitive than appointees, however eminent. The greater the membership of the EC, the greater the need for political sensitivity, and that is why we should meet and tackle head-on the democratic deficit.
I regret that the European Parliament has not been given more powers. If being a Member of the European Parliament is to mean anything, it must be given those powers. If decisions in Brussels and Strasbourg are to be accepted, the institution of the European Parliament is ready at hand to provide the appearance, and, I hope, the substance, of popular support. It would then be much easier to accept whatever edict flows from Brussels or Strasbourg.
Against the background of Maastricht, of planned economic and monetary union—I for one have grave doubts about the speed and direction in which we are heading—there must be popular support. If people believe that there is popular support, they should be ready to put it to the test. I certainly would not dissent from having a referendum on the issue.
A common foreign and security policy would be light years from obtaining popular support. Some of our European partners did not come out well in the Gulf war. I remember the dilatory and unhelpful attitude of the Belgians in demanding their pound of flesh for ammunition; it left a sour taste. Also, the Foreign Minister of Luxembourg, no doubt an inestimable gentleman, strutting across the world's stage, speaking on behalf of Europe, certainly did not inspire confidence. I rushed to compare the size of the population of Luxembourg with some of the units of government in south Wales, and I thought that some of our civic leaders in the Principality might have done a better job. Certainly they would have had more democratic credibility.
The lesson is that Buggin's turn might be all right when we discuss technical matters, but in matters of earth-shattering importance it certainly does not go down well. If low intensity economic activity has already caused anxiety about the manner and extent of implementation, how much more anxiety will there be when one pauses to consider the canvas post-Maastricht?

1003
The logic of subsidiarity necessitates a complete rethink of the role of the Commission. Is it necessary in its present form? How many of its responsibilities could be carried out by the Council of Ministers, its own semi-permanent national Ministers or our own civil service permanent representatives? Is it not time to consider that possibility? I believe that we should do so.
I was glad to hear some of the earlier comments in the debate. In our presidency we should ruthlessly examine each and every decision taken in the past by the Commission. I welcomed the suggestion that I heard just now of a bonfire. I would welcome a bonfire of the decisions of the past which were not strictly necessary to the well-being and good government of Europe. Any examination should be of not only future but past decisions. If the concept of subsidiarity is to mean anything, there should certainly be retrospective examination.
The philosophy for the future should be the minimum of centralisation in decision-making unless it is seen to carry public approval and the repatriation of a raft of activities which so far have been carried out in Brussels or Strasbourg. Subsidiarity will mean the transfer of power to the elected assemblies of Scotland and Wales in due course and to the organs of regional and local government in Britain. That would leave the Commission, or whatever body succeeded it, to concentrate on activities which are essential to the well-being and common good of all member states. The Commission will certainly undertake new activities, but it should become involved only in essential matters.
I am sick and tired of the criticism levelled at Britain whatever Government are in power. If we object to a proposal in Europe, it is said that we are anti-communautaire. That is nonsense. We have a national interest and a European interest. We are entitled to fight our corner without being regarded as anti-European. We can be as good Europeans as the next man in the next country and yet oppose a proposal. But that criticism is always thrown in our faces if we object to anything that is discussed in Europe. That was certainly my experience.
There are other matters in which we have a particular interest, but there is no time to go into them now. During our presidency we can wield a great deal of power. It is an important period in the life of Britain and of Europe. I hope that we can make real advances in repatriating so many decisions which have unnecessarily been taken at the centre when that was not in the interests of the well-being of Europe.
6.3 pm
Mr. Peter Brooke: The Venerable Bede, one of the ancestors of contemporary Europe, gave a vivid image of a bird's flight through the windows of a hall to illustrate the life of man. The European Community owes its origins to what happened in the middle of this century and I dare say that it will still be evolving in the middle of the next. Against that sweep of history, our current six-month presidency is as the flight of the bird to the Venerable Bede.
However, the century of building which I foreshadow is not unlike the building of that most European of institutions, a cathedral. Cathedrals grow sometimes
1004
slowly, sometimes fast. While under construction the ground site is often more of a builders' yard, rent with builders' language, than a place of God. Yet the purpose is always clear and the outcome is always remarkable.
In this building, whether of cathedrals or of Europe, nothing is more important than that the foundations should be sound. No national contribution to that aspect has been more important than that of Britain. The great Sam Rayburn of Texas once said that the three wisest words in the English language were, "Wait a minute." In the past 15 years, my noble Friend Baroness Thatcher has deserved well of all of us in Europe by reiterating those three words again and again. My right hon. Friends who are now in charge of decisions on Europe have been wholly faithful disciples to her in preventing the Euro-rhetoric of others from interrupting the soundness of the foundations that are needed.
In this brief speech, I wish to remark on a single chapel in the great cathedral. I confess instantly that I am motivated by constituency interest. In the six months of our presidency of the European Community, the Community is committed to resolving the location and site of the European monetary institute and the European central bank. It is a subject in which the City of London is profoundly and properly interested.
On 3 June my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Sir T. Arnold) had an Adjournment debate to which my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary, who is present on the Treasury Bench, replied. My hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove rehearsed in splendid detail the scale of the dominance of the City of London as a financial centre over its continental rivals and on a global basis. Given that the facts and statistics are, in the words beloved of certain Departments, "on the record", I do not propose to reiterate them today, especially on an occasion when time is as gold dust. I remark in parentheses that gold dust is but one of the commodities in which the City provides Europe's dominant market.
I wish to use these few moments to remind the House of London's European pedigree. It goes through the Lombards, who gave us so much of our current banking language; through the Hanseatic League where the Hansards resident in the Steelyard on what is now Cannon Street station were otherwise known as Easterlings, a word thought to have given rise to sterling; through the first chartered company—not involved with the East Indies, the Levant, Africa, Hudson's Bay or the Falkland Islands—the Muscovy company; through the sacking of Antwerp in 1576 by the Duke of Parma, which gave us our first opportunity for entrepot and third-country trading; to the serried European names of London's merchant bankers such as Hambro, Lazard, Schroder, Rothschild, Kleinwort and Warburg.
Those cosmopolitan and maritime origins bred London's willingness to trade in all risks. It is that willingness which my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove described so eloquently and so significantly on 3 June and which gave rise to London's supremacy in financial circles.
Of course, in the City of London we are, above all, realists. I realise that, although the technical arguments are strong, the decision might go against London on political grounds. In that case, it would be odd if the new institutions went to Germany, where the Bundesbank is so vehement in its rejection of political considerations and interference. There would be a particular retrograde

1005
disadvantage if the institutions went wholly to Germany. It would mean that German rather than English would become the language of operations. That suggests that the operating arm of the bank should be in London, not least because no EC institution is yet in London. Nothing would seem more suitable for London than a financial institution, especially one specifically dealing with financial operations and markets.
Against this background, Her Majesty's Government have an obvious and particular role to play during our presidency in determining the location of the European financial institutions along the lines which my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary so encouragingly described in the Adjournment debate on 3 June. That would be to the ultimate benefit of all the people of Europe. It should go without saying that the Corporation of the City of London and the City's other institutions will be happy to reciprocate that support by the amplest of co-operation.
6.9 pm
Mr. Charles Kennedy: I shall not follow too directly the speech of the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), but I think that it is significant that the case that he made so eloquently, with his characteristic use of vocabulary and imagery, has been all but lost, if not already lost, for this country. The technical and technological aspects of a central European bank have been lost, not just to London, but to other parts of the United Kingdom. I am thinking of Edinburgh and the "diversity"—to use the word of the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell)—of practical banking arrange-ments that would go with the central European bank. The success of those diverse activities would spread to other parts of the United Kingdom
Perhaps it is a reflection of my political party background, but I tend to believe that every cloud has a silver lining. That being so, I hope that we can view the referendum in Denmark in that way. It has given everyone in the European Community time to pause and think, which must be a good thing. There is no doubt that the politicians and bureaucrats were running ahead of the citizens of the European Community in terms of the developments that were taking place. The problem is that the rallying cry now is "subsidiarity"—not the most potent of words around which to gain momentum. I think that the Foreign Secretary acknowledged that the other day.
The Government have adopted the correct political stance since the Danish referendum, and are continuing to do so. The British presidency will have to be cautious and painstaking, and the Prime Minister, Chancellor and Foreign Secretary are three individuals who are well equipped to take precisely such a detailed and sensible approach. We want to take Denmark with us if possible, not leave it isolated. I pay tribute to the fact that those three politicians have consistently stressed that.
However, there are uncertainties about the time scale, and they have not been helped by the Foreign Secretary's remarks today or the Prime Minister's remarks following the Lisbon summit at the weekend. He seemed to suggest —to use a phrase that he has hitherto used of Scotland and is now applying to Denmark—that the Government would take stock of the situation and decide by the end of the
1006
summer, at about the time the House returns from the recess. I notice that the Leader of the House is now in the Chamber.
It is not clear whether the Government will introduce a Bill to be discussed in Committee before the end of the year. One suspects that they are hanging back on that decision until they have seen what happens in the French referendum and events in Denmark are more clearly established, but the sense of uncertainty is unhelpful.
Similarly unhelpful were the comments of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) about what the Labour party might do as and when the Bill reappears. The Labour party's strategy was as clear as mud. We have substantial misgivings and disappointments about some aspects of the Maastricht treaty and would like it to have gone much further. However, when the Bill eventually comes before the House on Third Reading and the definitive vote is taken, we shall support it, as it is the best on offer. As believers in advancing towards a more integrated Community and, we hope, ultimately a more federal one, we think that the Bill offers the best prospect at present. I am sorry that the Labour party's views on that issue are not equally clear. Its attitude will not help the political process over the coming months.
Mr. Stephen Milligan: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why, talking of the Danish referendum, he said that politicians and bureaucrats were running ahead of the people, when his party advocates a more federal Europe and believes that the treaty should have gone further?
Mr. Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we are also advocating a referendum. Therefore, although we have a clear wish and intention on how we would like Europe to develop, and how we see this country's role in it, we believe that the question should ultimately be put to the people at the ballot box. We could then argue our case for this country; if we can persuade people to agree with us, so be it. Even if we do not succeed, it is healthier for Europe if the public are able to have a direct say on the subject.
I should like to return to the speech of the right hon. Member for Gorton, and perhaps the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) will intervene. The time scale suggested by the right hon. Member for Gorton was unfortunate. I followed his speech with care until I heard the unmistakable sound of the clock striking 13. When he seemed to argue that, if Finland and Sweden entered the Community—presumably, by the end of the calendar year in time for a Hogmanay party—Denmark might be favourably disposed to ratify the Maastricht treaty early next year. I do not know how frenetic a pace of diplomatic activity the right hon. Gentleman thinks there will be over the next six months, but it is stretching credibility beyond all known bounds to suppose that Finland and Sweden will enter the Community within the next six months. I do not think that the Government are seriously exploring that option.
The Maastricht treaty follows logically from the Single European Act. That is why it is strange that the Joan of Arc cum rottweiler, who has been set loose in the House of Lords today, takes such exception to the treaty. She was the one who, as Head of Government, pushed the Bill

1007
through with a guillotine and a three-line Whip and curtailed discussion of it. If she is looking for someone to blame, she should look in the mirror.
Whatever the treaty's shortcomings, such as opt-out clauses and inadequate internal European democracy, if one takes the Thatcherite critique of bureaucracy in Europe—some of which I agree with—there is a logical corollary. The natural consequence is surely that more power should be given to the European Parliament to ensure more accountability. I do not think that it is more democratic to try to achieve that on an intergovernmental basis—the policy to which the Government presently adhere.
I hope that during the next six months sterling will come into the narrow band of the exchange rate mechanism. Perhaps in the autumn a White Paper will be presented on an independent Bank of England, and perhaps the single market will be completed to benefit this country, as well as our trading compatriots and competitors.
The Maastricht treaty is positive in that it establishes the basis of a common citizenship across Europe. When one considers the widening of Europe—the enlargement on which the Prime Minister places such stress—we see the problem that the Government created for themselves at the Lisbon summit on the issue of linked cohesion funds. That issue will not be finally settled until the Edinburgh summit at the end of the year.
The Government must acknowledge the suspicion of some of the other European countries that the British adherence to enlargement as a way forward is also because they view it as a braking mechanism to slow down the pace of existing Community integration, which is unfortunate. If the Government are serious about enlargement, they cannot continue to set their face against additional cohesion funds to make enlargement worth while and economically possible for the poorer states in the Community.
The Foreign Secretary touched on the issue of subsidiarity. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) is saying somewhere else today, subsidiarity is the flip side of federalism. In a recent radio interview, the Foreign Secretary was decent enough to acknowledge that federalism means different things to different people in different parts of Europe. I bemoan the fact that, in this country, federalism has become associated with a mythical super-state in which Jacques Delors and various unaccountable bureaucrats impose foreign designs on Britain.
Our view of federalism is much more in line with mainstream European thinking —that federalism involves the very diversity of power and structures mentioned by the right hon. Member for Guildford. We would like it to go further. I do not understand how subsidiarity can stop at the English channel or how its logic can be denied within the United Kingdom, whether with regard to Northern Ireland, Wales, the regions of England or to Scotland, which is my concern, as the Minister will understand.
We want an end to existing divergence and the establishment of commonality throughout the Community with regard to the voting system that will be used for the next set of European elections, and I am sorry that the Foreign Secretary did not mention that. Within
1008
the United Kingdom we have conceded the principle of proportional representation for European elections, in Northern Ireland. Why is that not being extended to other parts of the United Kingdom? I hope that the Chancellor will refer to that in his winding-up speech.
The next intergovernmental conference in 1996 will discuss the Community's development to the end of the century and beyond. One suspects that many of the issues touched on by the Foreign Secretary will still be on the agenda then. Prior to any greater enlargement of the Community, and any IGC of the type that led to Maastricht, surely there is a case for a wider European convention to consider the democracy of Europe, the enlargement of Europe, the development of a future foreign policy for Europe and all the rest. There should be a convention to attempt to bring policy closer to the peoples of Europe and perhaps to test any decisions that have been reached by a Europe-wide referendum.
On referendums, the Prime Minister has upped the temperature in the past week on securing the success of the Maastricht Bill. He is right to do so and I want the Bill to get through. However, in this House, perhaps as a result of parliamentary pressure exerted in another place, it may be politically unwise for the Government to set their faces completely against a referendum, if they want the Bill to get on to the statute book. It would be far better to concede a referendum than to lose the Bill, if the arithmetic proves to be that tight later this year.
Mr. George Robertson rose—
Mr. Kennedy: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will clarify Labour's policy on the matter and we shall find out exactly how tight the arithmetic will be.
Mr. Robertson: No, I am going to ask the hon. Gentleman to clarify one interesting issue. Last December, the Liberal Democrats were in favour of the social policy opt-out in the Maastricht treaty. In their general election manifesto, they said that they were against a social policy opt-out. Now they do not seem to have any views on the matter. In December, the leader of the Liberal Democrats called for a referendum; in the general election manifesto, which was one of the longest and fanciest that the party has produced, there was not one word about a referendum. Here we are in July and they are again in favour of one. Why all that moving around in between?
Mr. Kennedy: I do not think that there has been as much movement as the hon. Gentleman suggests. If any hon. Member is interested, I believe that back copies of our manifesto are available and I may be able to get them at a knock down price.
Mr. Robert Hughes: You can get them all at bargain basement prices.
Mr. Kennedy: Knocked down, if not dragged out.
I referred earlier to our disappointment with the British opt-outs on monetary union and the social dimensions. We have also had reservations about aspects of those, which the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) has heard our party leader express in this House and elsewhere. On his second point, it does not matter whether the referendum appeared in the manifesto, because we have always said that a post-legislative referendum on measures that involve constitutional change is the sensible course of action. That was the case in 1975, with the

1009
renegotiation of our original entry in to the then Common Market by the Labour Government, and on Welsh and Scottish devolution in 1979. That is an effective and sensible way forward.
If the Government are going to the edge—and the parliamentary arithmetic is tight—I hope that they will not go over the edge and take the Maastricht Bill with them, by resisting the case for a referendum, should it be tabled in an amendment.
The Foreign Secretary began by discussing the tragedy of Yugoslavia. Should I describe the right hon. Member for Guildford as the former Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs?
Mr. James Wallace: As the Chairman of the former Select Committee.
Mr. Kennedy: I thank my hon. Friend. The Chairman of the former Foreign Affairs Select Committee said that he would prefer Europe to develop its foreign policy through intergovernmental arrangements, rather than some super imposed blueprint. I hope that I do him justice by paraphrasing.
We cannot have it both ways. There is no point in railing about the perceived failings of a European response to an issue as important and far-reaching as Yugoslavia within the European perimeter of influence, while denying the institutional mechanisms of an emergent foreign policy that would assist this country and other European states to have a more collective and coherent response to such issues. That is why we believe that, ultimately, denial of the logic of more pooling of sovereignty and what follows from it, will be unsustainable.
We hope, therefore, that there will be political, social and economic progression for Europe and this country's role within it, during the next six months, along the lines that I sketched out. We hope that the Community continues to be a bulwark of prosperity and peace on this planet, and that the Europe which emerges by the end of the century will be fully liberal and fully democratic, as those are the best political traditions on which it should evolve.
6.26 pm
Mr. Michael Fabricant: I have the honour to address the House for the first time, and to represent the interests of the people of Mid-Staffordshire. I follow in the footsteps of two Members of Parliament. My immediate predecessor was Sylvia Heal, who sat on the Opposition Benches. She made history with the largest swing to the Labour party since the 1930s. Many people in the House and in the constituency found her a charming person. When she was elected, she said that it was the death knell of the poll tax, and she was right.
I also follow in the footsteps of John Heddle, a man whom many of us remember. He first entered the House in 1979, as the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth, and then became the first Member of Parliament for my constituency following the boundary changes in 1983. John Heddle was well loved in the House—I think on both sides —and he is certainly still loved in Mid-Staffordshire, and well remembered. His spirit lives on.
Mid-Staffordshire is an odd shaped constituency. It is approximately 34 miles long and four miles wide; it follows the Trent valley; and it is shaped rather like a fruit; I like to refer to it as my very own banana republic. It starts
1010
with Lichfield in the south, which is a unique city in Great Britain. It is a popular tourist town and has a unique cathedral with three towers. I know that it is the only cathedral in the United Kingdom with three towers; and the only other cathedral like it in the world is in Cologne. I believe that it is also unique in having two gold maces. Lichfield has spawned many famous sons—Dr. Johnson, David Garrick, and Erasmus Darwin.
Moving further north in my constituency, we come to the industrial towns of Rugeley and Armitage, which is famous in this place and throughout the world for its toilet ware. The market town of Stone is further north and serves many of the surrounding villages.
Last Friday I went to a Petertide festival in my constituency in a little village called Hixton, where Britain's entry into Europe was being celebrated. I went into the church, and children from the local primary school were busy singing songs from different parts of Europe—from England, France, Germany, Portugal, Spain and Greece. In doing so they reflected the myriad different forms of culture and style that we enjoy as a part of Europe. I have, however, a great fear, a great apprehension, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to reassure me in winding up that we are not heading down a road towards a European super-state.
Before I was elected to this place, I travelled the world selling radio studio systems and other electronics equipment; I travelled extensively throughout Europe, Africa, the Far East and the Soviet Union. I was particularly interested in life in the former Soviet Union. There, despite all the power of the KGB, despite having a single language forced on its peoples, and despite having a single legal system, the country fell apart. We see as well what is happening in Yugoslavia, and even in Czechoslovakia, which has a democratic tradition; there too the country is divided.
I believe that if we are heading, as I hope we are not, towards a European super-state, a political union, it is doomed to failure, whether it happens in one year, five years, 10 years or 50 years. I believe that a super-state would be intrinsically unstable and would explode at some time, at great cost to the peoples living in Europe.
I congratulate my right hon. Friends on the introduction of the concept of subsidiarity in the Maastricht treaty. That concept is the very bedrock of our statehood and our sovereignty. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to reassure me that the bones of subsidiarity will be built upon and that before we adopt the Maastricht treaty, or any other similar treaty, there will be some form of codicil to the treaty—I do not know how it can be done—which will clearly define, not through examples, but legally, irrevocably and unambiguously, what we understand, and what I hope our 11 partners understand, to be the meaning of subsidiarity so that there can be no doubt. I believe that, if that could be done, there would be tremendous support for the treaty, with its additional codicil, from Members on both sides of the House.
I believe that the single market, too, is something that we must build upon, and that the considerable strengths, personality and ability of Jacques Delors should be directed to that particular sphere. I can tell the House from my own experience that it is easier to sell to countries such as Norway, Kenya or Indonesia, which are not members of the European community, than it is to sell into the

1011
European Community, because of the huge weight of paperwork that is still involved in selling from country to country. We must try to eradicate this.
We see European law regarding environmental protection coming into force and on the whole it seems to be rigorously enforced more or less equally throughout the 12 states. I am pleased to see my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Front Bench, because there is also an imbalance caused by the fact that in some of the member states of the European Community there are subsidies in the form of tax breaks or grants to help companies get through the transition period, with the heavy costs that are involved in refurbishing their plants to meet environmental directives. I hope that we too can do something to assist our industry, to ensure that there is a level playing field.
I recognise that we have adopted the Single European Act. We are signatories, in effect, to the treaty of Rome. But it is my great hope that we will not become a lost, far-flung outpost of a new Roman empire.
6.36 pm
Mr. Peter Shore: It falls to me to be the first to congratulate the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) on a truly admirable maiden speech. He has pleased the House, I believe, in many ways, but first because he has paid a very generous and well-deserved tribute to both his predecessors: to Sylvia Heal, for whom the Opposition in particular have affection and who I know is also greatly respected by the rest of the House; and to John Heddle, her predecessor, who was a well-respected, well-liked Member of the House.
The hon. Gentleman has also done right by his constituency. He has paid a tribute to his constituents and illustrated the diversity of his constituency. Indeed, he has convinced me that it is indeed a unique place, not only because Lichfield produced Dr. Johnson and Garrick, but also because the hon. Gentleman witnessed there a celebration of the entry into Europe of the United Kingdom. That really was a unique occasion—certainly one that I have not come across in the whole of my political life.
The third thing on which I want to congratulate the hon. Gentleman is the seriousness of what he had to say to the Government about a European super-state. He is quite right to ask for reassurance that we are not heading in that direction, and he is absolutely correct when he says that the ultimate lunacy for this country would be to end up as an outpost of a new Roman empire. We are a country that has enjoyed its independence longer than any other country in Europe and we must maintain that independence until the end of time.
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and hope that we shall hear from him again on many occasions.
In the debate I have been struck by the optimism with which Government Members have looked upon the situation in the European Community as we take on their presidency. The right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) was being very optimistic indeed when he spoke of the intellectual supremacy that the decentralisers had gained in the debate, and his vision of a future in which all
1012
centralising tendencies have been not only checked but reversed. I hope that that will prove to be so, but it is very premature to say that it has been achieved.
The Government have also been extremely optimistic about the major item on their agenda: the widening of the membership of the European Community. I believe that the Danish referendum has brought the European juggernaut to a stop. The Maastricht treaty cannot be enacted because under, article 236 of the treaty of Rome, any amendment to the Rome treaty requires unanimity.
The precise words are that it can come into force only
"after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements."
We know what the constitutional requirements are in the country of Denmark.
The Community's reaction—and I do not entirely exclude the Government from this, certainly at the highest levels—has been to try to circumvent the issue—my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), the shadow Foreign Minister, used the rather vivid metaphor about messes on the pavement—to avoid and skirt round it altogether, or to pretend, as many in the rest of the Community do, that what happened in Denmark did not happen at all.
I was worried by certain words in the Lisbon communique right at the beginning which touched on that very matter. It read:
"the European Council underlines the importance of respecting the timetable laid down for ratification to ensure"—
and then the words:
"in any case the entry into force of the Treaty as of January 1st 1993."
What do those words "in any case" mean—entry into force as of 1 January "in any case". That may be simply a slip, it may be bluff, or it may contain an implicit threat. I hope that it is not an implicit threat and I hope that we can have the Minister's complete assurance of that, emphasizing what in part the Foreign Secretary said earlier—that the British Government have no intention whatever of seeking to circumvent article 236 of the Rome treaty and going ahead in some new way to try to achieve the goals of the Maastricht treaty, as it were without the Danes.
The Danes have also had the effect of greatly reducing the prospects of early enlargement. I know that informal negotiations can take place—that is obvious—but, as the presidency conclusion put it:
"the official negotiation will be opened immediately after the Treaty on European union is ratified and the agreement has been achieved on the Delors two package."
Both those things must be put into place before the formal negotations can take place and the desired enlargement will follow.
We must recognise that enlargement may well have to wait a long time. The Danes are in no mood to change their minds. I had the opportunity of being in Copenhagen last weekend and talking to those who played some part in the referendum campaign. They told me, and I have no doubt that it is correct, that the latest polls in Denmark show that if there were to be a referendum now not just over 50 per cent. would vote no but 60 per cent. or more. There has already been a shift of opinion in favour of the position that has been taken up.
That is interesting because it has occurred despite the many threats that were
brought to bear against the Danes during the referendum campaign. They were threatened with a loss of jobs, their possible expulsion from the

1013
Community and the arresting of the flow of investment and subsidies under the CAP. Mr. Delors himself gave tongue to some of those threats about agricultural support and subsidies. All those threats were there, but they did not make the Danes vote yes.
Now that those threats have been shown to be bluff, I think that we shall find that the Danes will maintain their position, and maintain it strongly, for a considerable period ahead until some major changes have been made either to the treaty as it affects Denmark or in the treaty itself.
Mr. Tony Banks: My right hon. Friend has probably just answered the point, but I was about to ask him to recall the Foreign Secretary's words in opening the debate when he said that the Danish Government have asked for more time. For what does my right hon. Friend think that the Danish Government want more time?
Mr. Shore: I think that they are puzzled and perplexed about what they should do now. They cannot go back to their electorate and say that the electorate have got it wrong, that they miscounted or did not listen carefully enough to what Mr. Delors was saying. There must be some reason for having a second referendum. That reason must come from a carefully drawn Danish protocol which exempts them from those provisions in the Maastricht treaty to which they must object, or there must be some more general reconsideration of the Maastricht treaty.
It is no good us putting our heads in the sand and saying that all those things can be brought about quickly and that the process of the Community's enlargement can go full speed ahead. It cannot, for the reasons that I quoted. Maastricht must first be signed and ratified by all the countries, and that cannot take place for at least a year. If anyone is thinking of serving up again the European Communities (Amendment) Bill without the Danes having had a chance to reconsider their views, they are simply asking for trouble and they will be wasting the time of the House of Commons.
What the Danes have done is to give everyone in the Community, not just themselves, a chance to reconsider the Maastricht treaty and to think carefully about just what the governing elites have committed them to in the terms of the Maastricht treaty.
Is it not fascinating to see that in Germany the almost immediate reaction was that people started asking what German public opinion had to say? They have found out to their immense surprise that about 80 per cent. of the German people do not want to give up the deutschmark, and some of those will insist that their currency is not surrendered to the ecu and the EC.
I do not know whether France was contemplating a referendum, but it is interesting that, as soon as the Danish result was announced, Mr. Mitterrand decided that France had to have a referendum too. Although on current indications it appears that the French would say yes to the present treaty, there is a long time to go and Mr. Mitterrand, with all respect to him, is a somewhat diminishing asset in French politics.
In Britain, the Danish referendum has produced an extremely interesting result. In both our major parties—I am not sure about the Front-Bench spokesmen—there has been a major reconsideration of the wisdom of the positions that have been taken up. There has been an open debate. At last people are turning their minds to what is
1014
involved and whether it is harmful or beneficial to the British people. In the Conservative party, as we well know, only 22 Members voted against the European Communities (Amendment) Bill on Second Reading, but if that Second Reading had come after the Danish referendum, nearer 80 or 90 would have voted against it.
That changing opinion is going on dynamically within the two major political parties and in the country as a whole. The country is beginning to wake up. One of the great things about the Danes is that they made the treaty available to their people. It went to every household. They could read it and see what it was about, and that produced the resistance. They did not receive any encouragement from their press, television or radio, but they saw what the treaty implied for them and they were not going to have it. I have a strong feeling that, if we were to give our own people a fair summary of what is involved in the treaty, British opinion would be equally strongly opposed and a referendum would result in a no vote for the United Kingdom.
It is in the face of that change of opinion in Britain that the Government are seeking to persuade people on both sides of the House and everywhere else that the treaty does not do what it does but something very different; that it is a treaty not about further centralisation but about decentralisation—stopping, reversing, the very process of which the country is afraid. I find that astonishing.
It is no use people saying, "If only you could leave out of consideration economic and monetary union, it is possible that there could be a trade-off between some functions reverting to nation states and others passing to the Community," because EMU is at the heart of the treaty. I refer to the transfer from the nation states of Europe of their decisive remaining powers over the conduct of their own economies to a European central bank, and the use of a single European currency.
All the powers that we used to exercise and exercise now to control our own exchange rate and interest rates, and even the basic Budget judgments of successive Chancellors as to the balance between expenditure, revenue, and public sector borrowing will go. In terms of centralised decision-making, it will be the greatest step forward since the Rome treaty was signed in 1957. It is the biggest change ever—and I understate the situation rather than overstate it.
The Government are in some ways in a better position than my right hon. and hon. Friends. The Government can say, "We have not yet signed up to economic and monetary union. We have our opt-out clause." What worries me is that I do not think that they will operate it. My right hon. and hon. Friends are willing to see the transfer of crucial economic powers to a European central bank without exercising any political control, and the introduction of a single currency—and so deny themselves the remaining powers that might influence the level of unemployment in this country and many other things as well. They are prepared to give that up. I find that amazing.
I hope that that feeling will grow steadily on these Benches and that, when the time comes, we shall make known our feelings about the whole treaty. If the Bill ever reaches Third Reading, I have no doubt that, in all conscience, the Labour party must vote against it.
When one examines the concept of subsidiarity, many people can mount a considerable exegesis against it. I will

1015
draw attention to some aspects that I find very odd, but. before I do so, I will quote one or two people whose opinions on article 3b should be taken seriously.
I read recently a publication published by the Society of Conservative Lawyers, "Europe and the Constitution after Maastricht". On subsidiarity, it concluded:
"The doctrine of subsidiarity is, without profound institutional reform or changes of attitude or both, virtually worthless as a protection against further unwanted expansion of the European laws and institutions into further aspects of our national life."
That is not an isolated opinion. I am sure that other right hon. and hon. Members read the comment by Lord Mackenzie-Stuart, recently president of the European Court of Justice, that the treaty definition is
"a rich and prime example of gobbledegook embracing simultaneously two opposed concepts of subsidiarity. To regard the chosen formula as a constitutional safeguard shows great optimism."
That opinion must be taken seriously.
I quote also from today's edition of the Financial Times, which is usually fairly friendly to the Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It has much higher intellectual standards than are usually applied by newspapers loyal to the Government. That newspaper described article 3b as "an intellectual jellyfish". I would adopt much more moderate language. The definition is a constitutional placebo. It is meant to give people the illusion that they are being treated for a serious condition when all that they are getting is some pink medicine in a bottle. It will not achieve its aim of quelling the anxieties of the Danish people or those in Britain who oppose European centralism.
Article 3b states that, in areas outside its exclusive competence,
"the Community shall take action, in accordance with the principle of subsidiary, only if and insofar as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale or effects of proposed action, be better achieved by the Community."
Sufficiently achieved or better achieved—it is pretty open. It is all a question of judgment, as it must be.
When I read those words, I wondered about defence procurement. Can the European fighter aircraft be sufficiently achieved by the member states, or could it be better achieved by the Community? If the latter, should we transfer defence procurement to Community level? What about defence generally? Is defence better achieved by a collective effort rather than by individual efforts being brought together?
Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman shows that he does not understand the point. Defence is not within the competence of the Community, and therefore the treaty's articles do not apply. That is made perfectly clear. The danger that the right hon. Gentleman suggests cannot arise.
Mr. Shore: I ask the right hon. Gentleman to think a little more carefully. I was speaking about defence procurement.
Mr. Hurd: And then about defence.
Mr. Shore: I went on in that way. I understand the right hon. Gentleman's pillars, and so on; I am well instructed
1016
in these matters. I gave an illustration in terms of defence procurement, which I ask the right hon. Gentleman seriously to consider.
The crucial question about subsidiarity is who decides. Will it be the nation states or the union? We know that it will in the end be the European Court that decides—and it is part of the union's supranational machinery, I have little doubt which way its judgments will incline.
I would like the right to decide what is appropriate for my region and local area. Such matters are not for the Community but for the House to decide—freely, in debate. Implicit in the doctrine of subsidiarity is the higher tier of Euroepean government to which things will be transferred that are appropriate to that level—such as the single currency. a central bank, and so on.
The attempt to define subsidiarity will be abortive. It will be difficult to define that slippery word in any meaningful way. It would be better if the Government put more firmly and in a more central place on their agenda items with which they could conceivably make progress. I wholeheartedly welcome the successful completion of the Uruguay round, although we know perfectly well that one of the principal obstacles is to be found within the Community itself. It will take enormous effort to persuade certain nations to reach a reasonable compromise with other GATT members.
My right hon. Friends the shadow Chancellor and the Leader of the Opposition suggested, when responding to a recent statement by the Prime Minister, that we ought to pay more attention during our presidency of the Community to its main economic, social, and political problem. I refer to the mass unemployment that afflicts not only this country but virtually every member state except Germany. Let no one have any illusions about unemployment levels and the length of time that they have endured in France and Italy—which have benefited enormously from being ERM members for 10 years. Those countries have suffered. Germany is the country that has gained most.
What can we do? I am pretty certain that two factors are helping to make deflation worse. One is the fixed parities that we have under the ERM. It seems to me that there is no doubt that many countries in western Europe —I exclude Germany—would benefit enormously if they could lower their interest rates and provide their entrepreneurs with some prospect of success. But we cannot lower our interest rates because of the effect that that would have on our exchange rate parity. The Government know that, as all Opposition Members know it, or should know it. As we are members of the ERM and have a fixed parity, we cannot lower our interest rates. That is a major deflationary factor operating now, without any further progress into economic and monetary union.
That brings me to the second factor. We are in the first stage in economic and monetary union. Indeed, the second stage will begin on 1 January 1994. The objective throughout Europe is to achieve a degree of convergence, above all in interest rates and exchange rates, and steadfastness in the control of borrowing and the avoidance of an excessive deficit. That pressure is on now. Over the next few years, all of Europe, including Britain, will have cuts in public expenditure designed to bring us within the parameters of convergence set in the treaty. These are major problems. We face them now, and. in my

1017
view, we must think very seriously about what we are entering into—quite apart from that to which we have already committed ourselves in the ERM.
Surely there is a solution. Surely we ought to be helping to promote a currency realignment within the ERM. That would be of great benefit to Britain and to all the other countries in Europe, apart from Germany, which are suffering from deflation and high unemployment at present.
Those are the things which I urge upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whom I am glad to see on the Government Front Bench, and which I urge equally strongly upon Opposition Front-Bench Members, who, I know, want to do the best for the people of this country but, so far, have been sadly misled by the claims made on behalf of the authors of the Maastricht treaty.
Madam Deputy Speaker(Dame Janet Fookes): Before calling the next hon. Member, may I remind the House that the 10-minute rule is now operating? As very many hon. Members wish to speak, it would be even more helpful if speeches were to take less than 10 minutes.
7.2 pm
Sir Peter Hordern: The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) has made many speeches on this subject, and on this occasion hon. Members listened to him with their usual attentiveness. His criticisms of the Maastricht treaty might well have been made in respect of every single process, and in every period, of the European Community. I have heard before from him many of his remarks. I heard what he said when the Single European Act came into force and what he said at the time of the referendum.
But recently, because of the Maastricht treaty, there has been a change in the course of the debate. There is now concentration on subsidiarity—a question with which the right hon. Gentleman dealt at some length. My right hon. and hon. Friends will know that some months ago we were told that the course of the European Community could be likened to that of a train. We were told that we should be careful not to be left off it. I maintain that the progress is now more akin to that of a car. A number of people are warning us that a motor car is a very dangerous thing. They are right to warn us, but they should not do so by walking in front of the car and waving a red flag, or by wearing sandwich boards telling us that we should all repent while we can.
It is very important to be able to drive a motor car. We have been in the European Community for a very long time, and there are considerable benefits to be derived from membership. I believe that the argument should not be based entirely on constitutional matters. In this connection, it appears that the lawyers cannot agree with each other—but that is nothing new. We ought to accept that the Danes have done us a service. Of course, it is true that the Maastricht treaty itself has not changed, and that at the Second Reading stage the majority in favour of the treaty was very substantial. But there is no reason for not looking very carefully at the consequences of the treaty if and when it comes back for its Committee stage.
During our presidency we shall have an opportunity to define very carefully the areas of subsidiarity. That would do more than anything else to settle the doubts and difficulties of many people. If Ministries, not only in this country but all over Europe, were instructed to find
1018
practical examples of the areas in which they believe national Governments would operate best, leaving other areas—probably relatively few—in respect of which the Commission could operate that would be an advantage.
Moreover, it is not right to talk just about new forms of legislation. Existing European legislation too should be looked at with a view to seeing what could be done by national Governments rather than by the European Commission.
Mr. Cash: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Sir Peter Hordern: I know that my hon. Friend is anxious to interrupt, but I hope that he will forgive me if I do not give way. I want to make my speech as quickly as possible. This is one of the difficulties about the 10-minute rule. I will give way to my hon. Friend, but not just at the moment.
My right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government have a real opportunity, during the next few months, to spell out very carefully the points arising from subsidiarity. The views of the Society of Conservative Lawyers and of Mr. Martin Howe on the matter of subsidiarity have been mentioned. Having read what was said by Mr. Howe, I can say that his particular objection to a European central bank and a single currency is that they would represent a significant loss of sovereignty. I realise that this is a matter of deep concern to many hon. Members.
Somehow the impression has been given that a single currency and what is seen as a loss of sovereignty are entirely new. Let me remind the House that ever since the days of Robert Peel—for 150 years, since we first went on the gold standard—Parliament has willingly abandoned the sovereignty attached to our own money and co-ordinated it precisely with the value of gold. In effect. we were saying that the value of our currency was dictated by Californian, Australian and South African gold miners. And that was during the heyday of the Victorian empire. Nobody then criticised us for losing national sovereignty.
The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney will know very well that, after the war, we were subscribers to the Bretton Woods agreement. The pound was indissolubly linked to the American dollar. That continued for very many years—indeed, until Harold Wilson's Government withdrew, and there was difficulty about devaluation. But that is a matter that I will not go into now. The point is that, during the period to which I referred, the pound was linked indissolubly to the United States dollar, and the value of the dollar was set by the Federal Reserve Board of the United States, which is entirely independent of the United States Government.
Mr. Lain Duncan-Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the great lessons to have been learnt from that system is that the collapse of the United States dollar's value gave rise to great strains, problems and tensions, not only for the United States but for the economies of all the other countries? We learned that a floating currency was essential.
Sir Peter Hordern: For a long time I would have agreed with my hon. Friend, but I regret to say that that is not the case now. Perhaps we chose to link ourselves with the wrong standard, although it worked very well for many years. Let me remind the House of what the conditions were during most of the post-war years. At that time inflation averaged about 3 per cent., and long-term interest

1019
rates were 5 per cent. As recently as 1963 a 20-year bond was yielding 5 per cent. That was the level at which people and Governments could safely borrow.
Of course there are disadvantages in being linked to a firm currency, and I do not deny that the German mark has a good deal more to say for itself than the American dollar. All I can say to those who talk of a loss of sovereignty, however, is that we have been at it for a long time in the past, and have done very well out of it. There is a great deal to be said for being able to engage in long-term borrowing at low interest rates. I consider the link with the European exchange rate mechanism very valuable, for reasons that have nothing to do with European-ness but everything to do with controlling inflation.
It is, of course, difficult to see how some of the criteria mentioned in the protocol for arriving at a single currency can be followed. There is, for instance, the idea that the financial deficit must not be more than 3 per cent. of gross domestic product: the Italian deficit is 11 or 12 per cent. and climbing, and for most of the time Italy has no Government. There is the idea of establishing a wider Community by including first the EFTA countries and then Hungary and Czechoslovakia, with their enormous deficits. It is hard to see how the timetable set out so clearly in the protocol can possibly be achieved.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) said, "Ah, but it is in the treaty." I believe that that is the way in which constitutional lawyers think: they think that because a certain figure—3 per cent., for instance—is mentioned in the treaty, it must come about.
Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend has talked of sovereignty, but he has skated over the fact that, during the time to which he referred, we had a political system—which we want to retain—in which the ultimate decisions were made in the House, on behalf of the people of this country.
Sir Peter Hordern: I fear that my hon. Friend was not listening; I suggest that he read Hansard. My point was that, when we were tied to the Federal Reserve Board of the United States, no one accused us of losing sovereignty. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but we cannot have an undercurrent of conversation while an hon. Member is addressing the House.
Sir Peter Hordern: I understand the concern that is felt about economic and social cohesion. I consider it much better to deal with such matters by means of investment than by means of transfers of taxpayers' money, and I note that the far east seems to have more cohesion at present than any other part of the world. The Japanese would never dream of handing over taxpayers' money to foreign countries throughout the far east, which is growing more rapidly than any other area. Instead, it invests massively in countries such as Thailand—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but the 10-minute rule must operate firmly.
7.12 pm
Mr. Mike O'Brien: I want to address two issues that were raised by the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). The first is the situation in what was formerly Yugoslavia, and the approach of the EC and Britain to intervention there; the second is the question of ratification of the Maastrich treaty following the Danish referendum.
It was inevitable that the break-up of the Communist regimes in Yugoslavia and eastern Europe would lead to conflict. Too many people were going to find themselves inside borders that they rejected. The process of unravelling the problems of Communism may well take many decades; in the meantime, we shall undoubtedly witness much human suffering until the various communities have sorted out a relationship and borders within which they can live. It is right for the Government to be reluctant to intervene militarily in that process.
In the United States, the influential senator Richard Lugar, minority chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has called for force to be used in Bosnia. I understand that he discussed the matter with the Prime Minister recently and that the Prime Minister urged caution. The right hon. Gentleman was right to do so. Too often in the past, the Americans have sought to go in and impose a solution, and in Yugoslavia such action could be disastrous. Nevertheless, it is possible to foresee circumstances in which the level of killing will reach such a scale, and the abuse of human rights will become so awful, that some kind of intervention would be required.
I hope that—unlike his predecessor, who is now in another place—the Prime Minister will not feel obliged just to follow the United States. It must be clear to people in this country that, if we come under pressure in the next few months, we should not be involved in any intervention except under United Nations auspices—not the auspices of the Western European Union or the EC. Intervention must be for humanitarian and not political purposes; it must be restricted to the protection of life, rather than the imposing or deposing of any regime; any military intervention must be at the minimum level necessary to secure a limited humanitarian objective; and intervention should take place only after the failure of all other diplomatic methods.
Like many other British people, I know Yugoslavia only from visits to it—holidays, for instance. It is not "a small country, far away, of which we know little". Many British people will feel genuine concern for the suffering of people in towns such as Mostar, Sarajevo and Dubrovnik, and will know those places from personal experience. The United Nations may well need to take action at some stage. At that stage Britain should be supportive, but such action should be taken cautiously and with reluctance.
At a time when all eastern Europe is in flux, it is even more important for the countries of the European Community to provide a bulwark of stability and reassurance for those beyond their borders. That brings me to the second issue raised by the British presidency. Is the Maastricht treaty to be ratified before the end of the year, following the outcome of the Danish referendum?
The British presidency is in an embarrassing position: it will not be able to carry all members of the Government's party with it on ratification. That difficulty, however, is entirely of the Prime Minister's own making.

1021
Opposition Members take a certain pleasure in observing the withdrawal of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, and then seeing the Prime Minister threaten his own side with resignation if the Back Benches do not support him later in the year. It is significant that, when offered an opportunity in the House recently to say that that was not his position, the right hon. Gentleman did not take it.
Maastricht is such an important issue that it is incumbent on a national leader to prevent himself from getting into such a situation by ensuring that there is a broad national consensus in favour of his approach to such a crucial matter. There was potential for a statesman to see a broad consensus across party lines; after all, did not Labour fight the April election on a manifesto that was more pro-European than the Tory manifesto? We wanted Maastricht plus the social chapter. Instead of creating a consensus, however, the Prime Minister took a narrow view, which he outlined in the House on 20 May. He declared then that his Bill was based on Conservative principles.
That failure to reach out beyond the needs of the business community is the central failure of the Government's position. The Maastricht Bill had to be withdrawn because it went no further than the boundaries of the Conservative view of Europe, and the Government could not rely on securing the votes to ensure its passage. That is why Opposition Members who accept that the Maastricht treaty—as signed by the majority of European states—is worth while are unable to support the Bill that the Prime Minister seeks to take through Parliament That Bill leaves British workers with fewer rights than European workers. Perhaps inward investment will come to the United Kingdom because of a freer market, but the worst business men always create sweatshops and like less regulation. The best business men ensure that they provide good conditions on which to give workers a real investment in the future. Labour has decided not to vote for a sweatshop Britain. The social chapter opt-out means that that is what Britain could become. In our view, Europe must be more than a Europe of bankers and business men. It must be a Europe for working people, too.
At the centre of the European ideal must be the desire to reach out to everyone, to ordinary people, and to say to them, "You are part of this, too. The opportunities are yours and the benefits can be yours." It must not be a Europe for the few, in which the many benefit only from a trickle-down theory of economic prosperity. If we are serious about Europe, we must show that it reaches out, touches and benefits everyone directly by improving standards in the workplace.
The Prime Minister's Maastricht is therefore a polo mint treaty: the middle has been knocked out of it. The centre is missing. The social chapter was a way of making that agreement beneficial, in real terms, to everyone. That is why, as the Prime Minister struggles during the presidency to find a way out of the Maastricht dilemma, he should seek no succour from this side. The Prime Minister's view of Maastricht is too narrow and too mean for us to give him succour.
If the Maastricht Bill is not approved by the House by the end of the year, it will be the Prime Minister's fault. There need be no rush by the Opposition to set out our view on all the issues, such as a referendum. Let us wait and debate the issue. Let us watch the Prime Minister's
1022
discomfort. But let us be clear: Labour should not vote against Maastricht if the Danish problem can be resolved. The temptation to do so for tactical gain must be resisted.
Labour Members of Parliament were elected on a pro-European manifesto. To abstain because the Government's Bill is a narrow, mean document is one thing. To vote against a treaty that Labour could have supported by opting into the social chapter would be wrong, in the light of our manifesto commitment. It would raise the whole question of Labour's sincerity on Europe. It would also mean voting against some of the benefits that Maastricht still brings, despite the Government: majority voting in the Council of Ministers on various issues that could benefit British workers; increased democratic accountability through the European Parliament by its scrutiny of the budget and its approval of the President and the Commission. Labour would also lose the option of, perhaps, one day ensuring that the social chapter becomes law. We should also be voting against the principle, which I believe is important, of subsidiarity.
On Monday the Prime Minister committed the British presidency to defining what he called in the House the general principle of subsidiarity. Subsidiarity is now at the centre of what he will try to achieve during the next six months, but he should have found out what it means before he signed the treaty. His failure in negotiating the treaty was due to the fact that before he signed it he did not seem to know what subsidiarity meant, and now—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the axe falls impartially on both sides of the House.
7.22 pm
Mr. James Hill: I heard with horror in this Chamber a few weeks ago that we are going to have Delors for another two years. Knowing the man as I do and the work that he has done in Europe and knowing also that each Head of State elects his Own Commissioners and that there are 17 Commissioners, I ask, "Is there no talent there? Is there no contest at all?" Will Mr. Delors want another two years at the end of the next two years? I was amazed when I heard that Mr. Delors was our choice. I do not blame the Treasury Bench. It was a fait accompli in Lisbon. There was no other candidate for one of the supreme jobs in Europe. My protest goes no further. I know now that there has to be a pulling together behind the Prime Minister while we have the presidency of the European Community. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There is a hum of conversation again. Those who carry on conversations while they are seated may find that it is difficult to catch my eye at a later stage in the debate.
Mr. Hill: The rejection of the M aastricht treaty by the Danish people in their referendum—the shock waves went through Europe and, luckily, through Mr. Delors as well —has brought about what I believe to be an adequate breathing space. It gives us time to reflect on the nature of the Maastricht treaty. Since the treaty was put together by several committees, it must surely be possible to polish and enhance it between now and the end of the year. We must give the Danes room to manoeuvre and time to reconsider their rejection of the Maastricht treaty. If we do not do so, there will be disharmony in the Community.
The mood of most British people is that they do not want to be ruled by a higher, centralised authority. When

1023
I was a Member of the European Parliament, we had the most terrible arguments in 1973 over a common driving licence for a Community of, as it was then, nine. There has always been disagreement. That is the crux of the problem. Euro-sceptics will, I believe, support me when I say that people want decisions at that level to be made by their own national Parliaments.
The Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Foreign Secretary are going to have a very tough six months. The Edinburgh agenda will contain some very emotive issues. We are assured that Mr. Delors and this country are now on the same side. There is an amusing cartoon in the Evening Standard today. The Prime Minister and Mr. Delors are shown playing tennis on the same side of the net. That is impossible. There will be friction and increasing disagreement as Mr. Delors gets over the traumatic shock of the Danish referendum.
Urgent consideration must be given to five issues. First, there must be minimum interference by the Brussels Commission. Britain wants subsidiarity so that power can be retained by national Governments and not given to bureaucrats in Brussels. Secondly, we all want the single market to be completed. The Twelve are desperate to dismantle trade barriers by the end of the year. That is a worthwhile goal. Thirdly, there must be a refusal to sanction increased spending; agreement must be reached about funding and about providing aid for the poorer nations. Fourthly, we want the Community to be enlarged. Britain wants Sweden, Finland, Austria and Switzerland —all European Free Trade Association countries—to become members of the Community as soon as possible.
The Select Committee on the European Communities in the other place has published a report on enlargement of the Community. It refers to the fact that, of all the nations that have applied for membership of the Community, the first application was made by Turkey, with a population of nearly 57 million. The next is Austria, with almost 8 million people who want to join, and so it goes on. The difficulty is whether to have a Community full of wealthy nations or whether the wealthy nations should support the poorer nations. One must be explicit about that in enlarging the Community, because there are already problems.
There has already been a request from Portugal for a 30 per cent. increase in the budget. That has been pushed to one side for the moment, but it will always be there. As enlargement of the Community continues, more and more money will be needed to carry out what is necessary for regional planning and development, for the transport infrastructure, new ports and shipping. That must come if one brings in the smaller nations. The difficulty is that there are two or perhaps three nations which are in a position to pay more than their percentage. The ambition to enlarge has been a problem for many years. The ambition to enlarge the Community from nine to 12 was bad enough—it was enlarged from six to nine—and at least seven other countries now wish to join.
I am definitely opposed to a referendum. We are sent to the House to make decisions. It is terribly easy to get out of making decisions by calling for a referendum, but that is not the House's way. The difficulty facing my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Foreign Secretary is that the Maastricht treaty must
1024
survive in a way that allows the Danes to vote on a new treaty. The newspapers are querying whether the Danes, under their constitution, can go back on their decision, but I am sure that they will be able to do so if they are offered a new, polished treaty.
Another problem is that we are to have a single market at the end of the year. The other day I said that the Institute of Freight Forwarders would certainly need some assistance in the single market. Many other categories will need similar assistance. We do not live in a world which ignores its minorities, so I plead for that assistance.
7.31 pm
Mr. Denzil Davies: The Prime Minister was recently reported as describing the European Commission —no doubt in a moment of frustration—as a "voracious super-state monster". It is not only the Commission but the very notion and institution of the union which makes it a voracious super-state monster. As the United Kingdom embarks on its rather brief presidency, with its round of dinners, cocktail parties, special neckties which, we read, are being distributed by the Foreign Office for participants and, no doubt, trips to Kew Gardens for the women, the monster devours on. At Maastricht it ate practically the whole of monetary policy and gobbled up fiscal policy and, indeed, most what is left of economic policy.
While the Prime Minister was swooning—and he is still swooning—over subsidiarity and while the Foreign Secretary assured European women that he, the Foreign Secretary, was no spiv—I must say the use of that word dates him—the poor Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has never shown great enthusiasm for the monster, had an arm chewed off—or, if it was not chewed off last week, certainly it will be next week when he agrees on behalf of the Government never again to reduce value added tax below 15 per cent.
For the past 20 years I have sat here and watched three Conservative Governments, led by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), the Baroness and the present Prime Minister respectively, sign three treaties which have all nurtured and emboldened the monster of union. I suppose one could call the 1972 treaty of Rome "Jaws 1". The oddly named Single European Act 1986, which is a treaty not an Act, was "Jaws 2". We now have "Jaws 3"—the treaty of Maastricht. The job is almost finished. "Jaws 4" will not be long—in 1998 or 1999 we shall no doubt have the final European Act, and then we can all go home.
The characteristic of the Conservative party in relation to the three acts of union has been that of self-delusion, whether contrived, artificial or real. The treaty of Rome was marketed to the Conservative party as a measure which would rejuvenate the British economy, dish the socialists and the unions and put Britain at the head of Europe. The Baroness deluded herself that the Single European Act would unleash an army of entrepreneurs into the heart of a dirigiste continent, preaching and baptising as it went. Qualified majority voting was conveniently forgotten, ignored or not noticed.
As we have heard today, the present Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary—since the Danish referendum the poor Foreign Secretary looks as if he is suffering from what I understand is now described as post-traumatic stress syndrome—are now deluding themselves that

1025
subsidiarity will be the great vehicle for stopping the monster gobbling more and more, despite the massive centralisation involved in economic and monetary union.
The Tory party's history has been one of self-delusion all along. As for my party, many of my right hon. and hon. Friends become zealots when faced with the monster. There are still some here—perhaps two or three—who were with the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup when he started the long march towards European union in 1972. Indeed, I believe that two or three helped to hold up the standards of legions when it seemed that the official standard bearers found it rather difficult. Some other hon. Friends joined a bit later but now they are lustily marching with the legions, singing the old campaign songs as they go to the ultimate triumph at Brussels.
To assist the Prime Minister—I hope that it will not happen—and to help the standards of Maastricht would be a mistake for the Labour party. In my humble opinion —I say this with no malice or disrespect—to do so would mean the permanent abandoning of some of the fundamental beliefs and principles which have been the cornerstones of the Labour party's political philosophy.
The demands of Maastricht are very severe. Maastricht demands a central bank as the sole controller and arbiter of monetary policy. That has never been the Labour party's policy. Maastricht demands the pursuit of price stability which in the end can only mean nil inflation, at the expense of all other economic goals, including a reduction in unemployment. Again, I submit that that has never been my party's policy.
Maastricht demands restrictions on public expenditure way beyond the restrictions of good sense and good judgement because such restrictions are to be written into the rule of law and into a treaty. Again, that has never been the policy of the Labour party.
Finally, there are the regions. We Labour Members of Parliament mostly represent the old industrial areas of Britain—Wales, the North of England and Scotland.
Mr. Enright: And Yorkshire.
Mr. Davies: I include Yorkshire in the north of England, although if my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) wishes me to do so I shall mention Yorkshire separately.
The old industrial areas of Britain are declining. To alleviate and ameliorate economic and monetary union those areas would need a massive transfer of funds from the centre, such as could be accommodated only by a European income tax and a European value added tax. That will not happen.
Under the Maastricht treaty the older industrial areas of Britain get nothing, not even from the social cohesion fund. There is a fund, but it is for the poorer areas of the Community such as Ireland, Spain, Portugal and Greece. There is nothing for areas of the Community such as Wales, Scotland, the north of England—and Yorkshire—which will suffer grievously from the concentration and centralisation of currency and of power over money. We get nothing, so even on the ground of regional policy I see no case for the Labour party to support the treaty.
To add insult to injury, we shall have to pay into the new social cohesion fund to assist Ireland and Spain. The people of the declining valleys of south Wales are generous, but they will be asked to contribute to a social fund for Spain, Portugal, Greece and Ireland. If our
1026
people are to be asked to contribute to alleviate poverty I would rather we helped to alleviate the real poverty in the world—in Ethiopia, for instance, and in Mozambique, Sudan and the other countries which are really suffering.
There is nothing in the Maastricht treaty that requires the Labour party to throw overboard the fundamental principles on which it is based. Maastricht is not worth it. Let us not help the Prime Minister to carry it through.
7.41 pm
Sir Teddy Taylor: Despite the fact that I have only 10 minutes to speak, it would be wrong not to pay tribute to the superb maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant). Those of us who heard him know that he spoke not only with great sincerity but with great clarity. He did not use a note, and obviously felt things deeply. If I had to criticise that new hon. Member, it would be because he sought assurances.
The problem in all our European debates and discussions of the legislation has been that hon. Members have sought assurances and have been given them, the legislation has been passed, and then we have found to our horror that things are not exactly that they appeared to be.
The Single European Act provides many examples. People were told that there was not much in that measure: it was simply a move towards free trade. Yet now we find that there is a power to legislate by majority vote on a whole range of human activities. Time and again assurances have been given—on VAT, for example. I was astonished to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer say earlier in the debate:
"we are committed to the harmonisation of indirect taxes in as far as that is necessary for the internal market. That is something to which he and I"—
my right hon. Friend was talking to a Labour Member—
"his party and mine, are committed".
Let us look back at what was said at the time. We were told, "Don't worry about it. We have a veto. We can stop anything that we want to stop. And we do not need to harmonise taxes to achieve the internal market." If anyone doubts that, he must look back and read what was said. Sadly, we are constantly being consoled with assurances and with little words. Remember all those words about fighting a federal Europe. Goodness knows what those words meant—a federal Europe would be far better than what we have now. Then there was all that nonesense about subsidiarity. We all know in our hearts that there is nothing in the legislation to achieve that. Subsidiarity is a form of words which every lawyer to whom I have spoken says means very little.
It is very important that over the next six months the Government have a duty to inform people, to tell them what the score is. The first thing to tell people is that Maastricht is not small stuff. The Bill is not a small Bill which will not affect people, and subsidiarity will not sort it all out. Maastricht is huge stuff. It is a huge surrender of sovereignty. I was amazed to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) say that the single currency was not bad because we used to have the gold standard, and was that not a good idea because it kept inflation down? Of course it did. We used to have Bretton Woods, so inflation was kept down.
I remind anyone who agrees with my hon. Friend that the gold standard brought certain problems of which we are aware, and I advise them to read the treaty. If people

1027
read it, they will realise that this will not be simply a question of a gold standard, to which we, as a democratic Government, try to adhere. The proposition is that a central bank will be appointed for eight years, and will not be subject to control by anybody. The Government are not even allowed to make representations to the central bank; nor are the trade unions or local authorities. The bank will run the show, and it will tell my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham and all our colleagues in government to stick to a particular borrowing requirement or a particular industry. If we do not do as we are told, we shall be fined as a nation—we shall be in a position more pathetic than that of the smallest rate-capped council.
I ask all hon. Members not to give the impression that Maastricht is small business. It is huge business. It means that our Treasury ceases to be effective. Effectively, all decisions on economic affairs will be transferred to the central bank.
Again, we have been given assurances, such as, "Isn't it great—Britain has not committed itself to a central currency?" We are supposed to rise up and cheer, to say, "Hooray! Isn't that great!" If we are tied to a single European currency by the narrow band of the exchange rate mechanism, what freedom shall we have? It will be the same silly freedom as was provided by the Scottish pound note. Where is the freedom of the Scottish Treasury? There is none. The idea is a load of rubbish. [Interruption.] Of course, it is lovely to have a Scottish pound note, and it is lovely to have lovely ladies from the Scottish National party here, such as the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), but the fact that Scotland has its own pound not does not mean that it runs its economy. I ask the Government to get the facts across to people, and to stop hiding them.
I do not say that in a narrow way. Let us consider the European legislation. It all pours through the House, and we cannot do anything about it. It used to be debated on the Floor of the House after 10 pm, and some Members used to talk about it and complain. That had to stop. European legislation was shoved down to the Standing Committees. We were told, "Don't worry. They will be broadly based Committees, and all strands of opinion will be represented. It will be lovely." In fact, Standing Committee A lasted for one year—and now look what has happened to it. All the Euro-sceptics are out. They have all been kicked out of the door—I am one of them. The Committee now consists of people who are basically of one point of view. I am sure that they are nice, genuine people who are kind to children and dogs—but that is not democracy. It is totally wrong.
The same applies to parliamentary questions—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) may consider this funny. If he does, I suggest that he goes to the Table Office tomorrow and asks what is the size of the current mountain of butter and beef. He will be told, "I am terribly sorry; you cannot ask that now." Let my hon. Friend ask what the deficit in trade with Europe is. He will be told, "I am terribly sorry; you cannot ask that now. You will find that in computers now." That is wrong, and contrary to every principle of democracy. Questions cannot be asked and laws cannot even be revealed. The Guardian reveals this morning that
1028
a massive important new step in immigration is being taken, but we shall not hear about it.
If we accept that Maastricht is a big thing, why cannot we ask the people of Britain? It is wrong that they are not being told. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire asked the Government for an assurance that we were not moving into a single centralised Europe. I am sure that the Government will tell him, "Don't worry. We shall not move into a centralised European state." But under Maastricht there is to be a common European citizen. Every one of us and all our friends and neighbours will be citizens of a European union. All economic policy will come out of a central bank which nobody controls. There will be a massive transfer of extra powers to the European Community. If all that is to happen, we shall already have a centralised European state. People in Britain might want that, and if they want to vote yes that is fine. But if we force people into that state without consulting them and telling them all the implications, they will wake up at some stage and will be very angry.
I have listened to all the stuff about Yugoslavia and about how the EEC will make a positive contribution. I plead with people to consider Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union and other places where people have been forced together without being consulted, against their wishes. At some stage they get extremely angry.
I hope that, in the future, the Government will not be the mugs of Europe. Because we tend to be nice people, because we are mainly Conservatives, we tend to try to keep to the rules. I urge people to consider what has happened with the European fighter aircraft. In fairness to the EEC, that grand project was a matter between certain European states. It is a shame that the EFA was not an EEC project, because we could have kept on building those aircraft and shoved them into a food mountain under the common agricultural policy. Germany came to an agreement with us, but then pulled out because that was in the interests of Germany. Sadly, we sometimes forget that within the great EEC there is a need to look after ourselves.
I appeal to the Government and to the Chancellor, who I accept as one of the most decent chaps that I have ever met in politics. I am not saying that in a silly way; I believe it. Will the people of common sense in the Government please, please wake up while we still have the opportunity to do something about the economy? Our economy is bleeding to death. We have a massive public sector borrowing requirement—the biggest rate of borrowing that one could ever dream of. I am sorry that the Chancellor has to go to the market to borrow all that money. Our balance of payments is at a disastrous level and the level of unemployment is appalling.
I recognise those problems, all hon. Members do, but we do not want to talk about them because there is nothing we can do. We cannot reduce interest rates because of the wretched exchange rate mechanism. How is it logical for anyone to pretend that the currency is worth something which it is not worth? How can we then deprive ourselves of the opportunity to do anything about that? I accept that we should have a feeling of charity towards others, but such thinking is against common sense. It is against everything that the Conservative party stands for. It is also against everything that Labour stands for. I believe that all the parties should wake up.
7.51 pm
Mr. Mike Capes: I have listened with some interest to this debate, which is like so many that we have had on this issue. We must remember that there is a real world outside the House. It is a real world where the German economy is the dominant economy of Europe. We must recognise that international trade patterns are dominated by the development of large companies that move resources around the continent and the world.
From listening to some of today's speeches one might be tempted to think either that the EC does not exist or that it is about to be set up. One could be forgiven for thinking that this debate centres on whether Britain should be a member of the Community. I say that as someone who campaigned for the no vote in 1975. But we must recognise that the world has changed, that the Community consists of 12 countries, that it is a magnet to other countries in the east and that, potentially, it could consist of up to 25 countries. We must decide what is in Britain's best interest. Surely it is not in Britain's interest to pretend that we can opt out of international processes without damaging consequences for our economy.
I am critical of many aspects of the Maastricht treaty. If it had been negotiated by a Labour Government, it would have been far better. The Labour party would not have put before the House the Bill that has subsequently been withdrawn because the Maastricht treaty would have been better in the first place. My party would have presented not a Maastricht-minus Bill, but the full Maastricht Bill.
Many of my hon. Friends and I face a dilemma and I suspect that our voices are not as loud in the Chamber today as they are within our party. We do not want progress towards a social Europe, which would act as a counterbalance to the free market of the treaty of Rome and the Single European Act, to be stopped in its tracks. We want to continue that process to achieve a balance to counter the free market ideological approach that some Conservatives favour. That is why they favour the opt-out.
As the European Trade Union Confederation said in its statement after the Danish referendum, it is crucial that we do not stop the progress towards a social Europe. We must try to accelerate that process and strengthen the social and democratic aspects of the Community as a means of counterbalancing the free market process.
I do not agree very often with the Evening Standard, but today it called for the European Parliament to be given the right to initiate legislation to counterbalance the power of the Commission. We should consider such a proposal, because it is clear that we will be unable to have a truly democratic community if we simply leave decisions to the Commission and the Council of Ministers. It is clear from its new immigration proposals that that Council is quite happy to do things in secret.
We must use the democratic institutions of the Community. Our Parliament, the Parliaments of other member states and the European Parliament must work together to return power to the people. Our country has no written constitution, and it has no rules about spending and advertising on various campaigns. The real exponents of democracy are not those who call for a referendum, but those who believe in parliamentary control at appropriate levels. That means giving more powers to national
1030
Parliaments and the European Parliament so that the institutions of the Community and the Council of Ministers are subject to control.
It would be a terrible mistake if the Labour party supported a call for a referendum. My opposition to referendums rests on the view put forward by the best Prime Minister that we ever had this century. On 24 May 1945, when deputy Prime Minister, Clement Attlee wrote to Winston Churchill:
"I could not consent to the introduction into our national life of a device so alien to all our traditions as the referendum, which has only too often been the instrument of Nazism and Fascism".
If one gives a Government the power to write the questions and set the rules, one knows what the answer will be. There might be a different outcome in countries such as Italy where citizens have initiative referendums, but that possibility is not open to us.
I suspect that the Conservatives will come up with the idea of a referendum to get out of their problems, because they know that they will be able to get the result that they want. Nevertheless, I do not think that anyone in the Opposition or anyone who believes in democracy should support such a device.
The way in which we, the Opposition, resolve our dilemma depends on the Bill that the Government produce. If they produce a Bill that is the full Maastricht treaty, I am sure that there will be a strong feeling of support for it among my hon. Friends, although, of course, we have some criticisms of it. If they produce another Maastricht-minus Bill, that could cause more difficulties for me and my hon. Friends. The Government must decide on the type of Bill that they want to introduce, but I do not believe that anyone should expect the Labour party to solve the Conservative party's internal problems. I, for one, will not go into the same Lobby as the racists and xenophobes of the Tory right wing, and nor will many of my hon. Friends.
We are presented with a great opportunity. My hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) has written a perceptive book about the failure for many years of British politicians of all parties to seize the opportunities presented in Europe. If we take the wrong decisions during the six months of the British presidency and if we drag our feet and try to undermine the processes going on in Europe, we will be left behind once more. I have no doubt that the Franco-German economic and political co-operation linked to the Benelux countries and the countries of central and eastern Europe will continue. That process is inevitable. We have a choice: to be part of an alliance with the French, Italians and others to try to influence the current processes, or to become simply part of the deutschmark zone by default. That is our dilemma and our choice. I hope that we take the right decision.
7.59 pm
Mr. Bowen Wells: As this is the first time that I have spoken in this Parliament and under your chairmanship, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I congratulate you on your assumption to office? If you continue to chair our proceedings through the dinner hour and late at night, I fear that you will have to hear from me more often than you might choose.
I want to begin by referring to one or two points that have been made in the debate because they are points that I would otherwise have made in my speech. I agreed with

1031
the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) when he said that the European Community made a serious mistake when it permitted the recognition of Slovenia and Croatia prior to their negotiating their way out of the state of Yugoslavia in a peaceful, sensible and orderly manner.
That card was given away by the Community's intergovernmental pillar on foreign affairs that is contained in the Maastricht treaty. When my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary appeared before the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, he said that he had not wanted to break the unity of the European Community, even though he had given evidence earlier that he was not in favour of the recognition of Slovenia and Croatia, those two small, unviable and uneconomic republics. However, I severely disagreed with the rest of the speech by the right hon. Member for Gorton.
The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) made a rather optimistic speech. If I heard the right hon. Gentleman correctly, he seemed to believe that the Danish referendum had caused the juggernaut of Europe to stop. The Maastricht treaty was approved in the Folketing with 157 votes in favour and 22 against. In other words, the Parliament, the Government and the Social Democratic party in Denmark approved the treaty. However, the treaty was lost in the referendum when 50.7 per cent. said no and 49.3 per cent. said yes. I suggest to the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney that that is a very narrow buffer for the juggernaut.
During our presidency of the Community, I believe that my right hon. Friends will explain and reinforce the ideas behind the Maastricht treaty which are essentially a major departure from earlier treaties. The treaty of Rome and the Single European Act were both highly centralising. The Single European Act introduced majority voting on many of the issues on which right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House had natural objections because they rolled over opinion in this country. They have introduced harmonisation of a very offensive and unnecessary nature.
Britain stood outside those two treaties. We were not part of the initial negotiations on the treaty of Rome. The noble Baroness Thatcher, who has just taken her seat in the other place, was particularly concerned with getting our money back in respect of the European Single Act. She agreed to the centralising and introduction of majority voting as a compromise. She was not in the middle of the negotiating procedures. She was outside, shouting and demanding.
That was not the right way to take care of Britain's vital interests. In that way, Britain's vital interests were very often ignored. By contrast, my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), decided in the negotiations on the Maastricht treaty that Britain's interests and concerns would be central to their negotiating tactics and achievements.
In my view, and in the view of the House on three different occasions, and amid much acclamation, my right hon. Friends achieved substantially what they set out to do. I pay tribute to their negotiating skill. Let us consider
1032
their achievements. They achieved a definition of subsidiarity which, I accept, may be defective. However, no such concept is contained in the treaty of Rome or the European Single Act. No matter how legally defective that subsidiarity clause is, it demonstrates the ideas shared by my hon. Friends the Members for Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) and for Stafford (Mr. Cash). We do not want decisions to be taken in the centre of Europe unless they have to be for the benefit of the whole Community. We must build on that and we have an opportunity to do so. The Maastricht treaty contains provision for an intergovernmental conference on constitutional change in 1996.
We must build on the concepts of a more decentralised Europe and a Europe that takes account of subsidiarity. If that does not work, we must introduce more substantial definitions for what we mean. We should place institutional and constitutional blocks on the Community and particularly on the Commission to stop them acting when we do not want them to. There are obviously other opportunities.
However, if we reject the Maastricht treaty now, we will have to begin the negotiations all over again. We will undoubtedly face the serious federal instincts of many of our partners in Europe. Germany, France, Italy and Spain want a supranational Europe. They believe that the Maastricht treaty is a stepping stone to a federal Europe. If the intergovernmental pillars on defence, foreign and home affairs, which my right hon. Friends managed to have placed in the Maastricht treaty, work and are accountable and sensitive to the people and Parliaments of Europe, we can build on that experience and begin to decentralise even more. We will have shown a different way in Europe.
The countries of Europe are beginning to rethink the idea of a central Europe. They want a democratically-controlled Europe. They do not want a Europe which is a supranational state with no accountability, which is not enforced and which is not something with which people can identify. That is what my right hon. and hon. Friends have achieved in the negotiations. They have changed the climate of Europe in the treaty. It would be a major mistake if the Maastricht treaty were not ratified.
During the course of the six months of our presidency, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will persuade the Community to ratify the treaty by explaining what subsidiarity means and taking certain enforcement measures. I hope that they will make it clear that the audit functions of the European institutions will be developed along the lines of our Audit Commission which reports to Parliament. That is what the Audit Commission in the European Community should do. It is now a European institution which eventually will have teeth. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) and I have spent many hours late at night in this place commenting upon the Audit Commission's reports, but nothing is done. That is the problem. If we develop the progress that has been made by my right hon. and hon. Friends, we will be able to build the kind of Europe in which we can live—a democratic, accountable Europe in which the rule of law is paramount.
8.9 pm
Mr. Robert Hughes: I wish to impress on the Government the need to act decisively and with courage to deal with the situation in South Africa. Before I develop my remarks, I advise those who heard me described this morning on BBC radio as the former chairman of the Anti-Apartheid Movement that I remain the chairman of the Anti-Apartheid Movement aid wish to do so until the job is done.
Everyone who has been concerned with South African affairs has experienced a gamut of emotions since February 1990. When Nelson Mandela was released there was amazing joy and exuberance, first because it was right that he should be released, but, secondly and more important, because we believed that it heralded a new era in South African politics and its history, and that we would get negotiations and a move towards a peaceful settlement. None of us was idealistic or naive enough to believe that the process would not be difficult. We expected frustration.
I recall an early meeting with Nelson Mandela soon after he was released. He said, "Don't imagine for one moment that the path of negotiations will be smooth and downhill all the way. There will be times when we will be going uphill, there will be twists and turns, and there will be times when the process of negotiation will stall. but we have to reach a successful conclusion." If we have felt frustrated about the length of time that has been taken in negotiations, we can imagine the frustration of the dispossessed and the poor of South Africa when so little is changing but taking such a long time.
Another emotion that we experienced was anger— bitter anger at the violence that has been perpetrated in South Africa. One cannot imagine what the savagery has been like. I have seen it in Ndaleni, Natal, and it is dreadful. Everyone knows and believes that the violence can be stopped if there is sufficient will.
I make a direct call to Chief Buthelezi—"Call off the dogs of war of Inkatha." I also call on President de Klerk —"Get control of the police and security forces, because ample evidence exists that, at least at the minimum, there is complicity by the police and security forces." I have spoken to white South African Members of Parliament who have given me first-hand evidence of the police and security forces disarming township dwellers and the people living in squatter camps and then, an hour or so later, Inkatha Impis perpetrate the butchery. It has to stop.
If 70, 700, never mind 7,000, whites instead of blacks had been killed, there would have been action. The Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary would have been offering troops to go and end the situation. There would have been outrage and clamour from the international community for it to be stopped. A black life is just as important as a white life. Unless we understand that and try to deal with it, the trust that is necessary for negotiations will not be forthcoming.
Some people have asked why the negotiations have been called off. The Foreign Secretary says that the differences are narrow but significant. They are narrow in mathematical terms. The African National Congress says that changing the constitution should be by a two thirds/one third majority. President de Klerk says that it should be a 75 per cent./25 per cent. majority. But it is not simply a mathematical formula. In every written constitution that I know, two thirds/one third is the norm.
1034
Indeed, that is the way in which the old South African constitution could be changed, under the legacy of the Statute of Westminster laid down by this Parliament. If it was good enough then, it is good enough now.
For de Klerk to insist on 25 per cent. is to insist that he retains the white veto and control and power over events in South Africa. The ANC moved to 70 per cent./30 per cent. but still de Klerk would not move. If we are to have a decent future for South Africa, we must get it right and make sure that there is a proper democracy. That apparently is the position of the Government who agreed to the United Nations declaration on South Africa in respect of a one person, one vote democracy. The Government must stand by that.
When President de Klerk released prisoners—not all of them have been released, by the way—he said that he had not travelled on the road to Damascus and been converted: he was abandoning apartheid and its institutions because he knew that they were not working. That was because of external pressure. It is absolutely necessary that there is external pressure.
The European Council of Ministers agreed to consider the situation in South Africa. It agreed to send a mission composed of the Foreign Ministers of Denmark, Portugal and the United Kingdom to look at the situation. At Question Time yesterday, the Foreign Secretary told me that when the time is right we will send them. The time is now right to send them. The situation must be acted upon—President de Klerk is saying, "I shall accept an interim Government," which is one of the demands of the ANC, but he wants the interim Government to be in place before there are agreements about the election of a constituent assembly or elections for a proper Parliament. Those matters must be resolved if we are to proceed. It is absolutely no use the Foreign Secretary saying, "Let us wait."
There have been movements in South Africa because of external pressure. President de Klerk said so—he admitted it. We must maintain that external pressure. People from all parts of South Africa say that we must act if we are to achieve progress. Progress is essential. People say to me, "You cannot possibly ask for sanctions to be reimposed." We took them off too early. We tempted President de Klerk to believe that he could play it long. Leaving the violence aside, his strategy was to stretch out the process, to weaken the credibility of the ANC and to weaken its organisational ability in the hope that, having formed an electoral pact with Buthelezi and Inkatha, when the election finally came round he would have enough votes in the new Parliament still to control events. That has been his plan. It has been like stretching a piece of elastic—the more one stretches it, the thinner it becomes. President de Klerk must remember that the danger is that, if one stretches a piece of elastic too far, it snaps.
We are at a moment of extreme danger in a desperately difficult situation. Some of us have seen moments in history when failure to act properly has led to cataclysmic consequences. I give only two examples—I am sure that hon. Members could give many more. We should look at what happened in the Lebanon—a prosperous country, well thought of, economically successful, but now collapsed into total disaster. Also, there is the current tragedy which is unfolding in Yugoslavia. That country is slipping into a desperate situation. There are many other examples.

1035
I have never been one who exaggerated, sought to play Cassandra or sought to look for trouble in South Africa. I certainly have no desire to be proved right, but we are at a desperate moment, almost looking into the abyss. I do not want to be proved right. Those of us who have been involved in South African affairs for many years love South Africa and the South African people much too much to ignore their desperate situation, but, if we do not act, disaster will face us.
Now is the time for the British Government to rally their courage and strength, rally the courage of the European Community, and rally the strength of the international community. We must act swiftly, decisively and with courage. If we fail, no one will like the circumstances. If we act well, we can act with great honour and produce a South Africa which is democratic, and free and one which we would wish to prosper.
8. 19 pm
Mr. William Cash: First, I wish to put it on the record that, despite what many have said about Churchill's comments about Europe, on 11 May 1953 in the House he said:
"Nor do we intend to be merged in a Federal European system."—[Official Report 11 May 1953; Vol. 515, c.891.]
My opposition to the Maastricht treaty is based on three main points—its inherent contradictions, its undemocratic principles and the damage that it would do to British and European interests and stability in Europe and the world.
The first point is the inherent contradictions. It is claimed that the treaty will decentralise through the application of the principle of subsidiarity. We could avoid all the problems described by the former President of the European Court of Justice as "gobbledegook" and all the difficulties that we have gone into today, simply by setting out as we did in the Scottish Devolution Bill in 1978, a list of functions showing where the provisions of the treaty would apply.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tristan Carel-Jones): I shall not detain my hon. Friend for long. Surely he accepts that article 3b of the treaty of Maastricht is not in the treaty of Rome, as amended by the Single European Act, which he supported.
Mr. Cash: Absolutely. I am delighted to tell my right hon. Friend that under no circumstances would I have supported that Act if it had included the subsidiarity provision. The concept is a deliberate attempt to confuse and obscure the provisions in the Maastricht treaty. What is more, no reputable legal opinion or authority says anything to the contrary.
Indeed, the provisions concentrate vital decisions on monetary and economic policy in the hands of the central bank within the context of the amendments to the treaty of Rome. Jurisdiction over the bank will be concentrated in the European Court of Justice. The Bank of International Settlements said only two weeks ago that the whole thing was completely hopeless. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister is aware of that.
Furthermore, the common provisions set out in title 1 state specifically:
"The union shall he served by a single institutional framework … building upon the acquis communautaire."
1036
Those last words are extremely important to anyone who understands what is going on. That is reinforced by the preamble to the treaty, which confirms its objectives.
Yet another centralising feature of the treaty is the establishment of citizenship of the union. Unspecified duties are imposed on those citizens. My right hon. Friend, who is speaking to the Box, undoubtedly seeking advice, replied to a written answer only today. I asked what specific duties were to be imposed on the citizens of the union, including those in the United Kingdom, under the Maastricht treaty.
I received the most amazing reply only an hour ago. He said:
"The provisions … added to the treaty … which establish citizenship of the union refer to 'duties' imposed by the treaty of Rome, but do not themselves impose any specific duties."
Here comes the crunch point. He said:
"The treaty of Rome in general, as amended by the Maastricht treaty, imposes no duties which do not flow from the direct effect of EC law."
I put that on a par with the definition of subsidiarity.
The article on subsidiarity concedes the centralising effects of the treaty. As a French official said to The Independent only yesterday, subsidiarity is a federalist concept. That was reported in The Independent today. We know what will be within the exclusive competence of the Community because those matters are clearly set out in the proposed amendments to the treaty of Rome, including those which relate to the cental bank and citizenship of the union. It is therefore assumed that those matters can be better dealt with by the Community. So subsidiarity will apply only to the lesser functions of the Community. It will not apply to the vital and central functions mentioned in the treaty.
I do not understand why we have to be told that black is white when everything is in black and white in the treaty. We need do no more than look at the treaty. It may be argued that we have not yet accepted the provisions for creating a central bank through our own protocol, but we have accepted in another protocol that we will not veto those provisions. The movement to the third stage is "irreversible" and will come into effect irrevocably and irreversibly on 1 January 1999. By then, and probably by 1 January 1997, we must have decided whether we are in or out.
We have conceded the principle of economic and monetary union for the European Community as a whole and the legal framework which it prescribes. That is as much a political as an economic decision. It is a decision about the future government of the United Kingdom and the European Community.
Secondly, I object to the undemocratic nature of the decisions in the Maastricht treaty. We have had no White Paper. We have been given no reasons for the decisions. We did not have a free vote on Second Reading. Even in 1970 and 1972 we were given both reasons and a vote. That undemocratic nature, combined with the fundamental impact on our Parliament and, at the level closest to our voters and citizens, freedom to choose one's economic and social priorities at general elections and to express consent for the way in which one is governed, leads me to deny my support to the Maastricht treaty.
If we had a referendum we should put one main issue to the people of Britain. We should ask, "Do you want to govern yourselves?" It would be easy for my right hon. Friend the Minister to prepare a question about the

1037
Maastricht treaty. I do not suggest that my question uses the exact wording. But the essential nature of the question that must be put to the people would have to be by whom they wished to be governed.
The provisions on economic and monetary union are not so clear cut as many people seem to think. The central bankers would be unelected, independent and unaccount-able, all in the name of price stability. We can and should achieve price stability for ourselves in co-operation with our European partners, but no more than that. The central bankers could not guarantee that they would attain their objectives. If they failed, no one could turn them out, even though they may have created massive turmoil in Europe by the changes that they imposed through the powers given by the central banking mechanism and the constitution that they inherited. Our democracy is genuinely at stake in the treaty.
My third objection is the damage that the treaty will do. It is primarily based on thinking which stems from the cold war, the 1950s, the period before the unification of Germany. We need a policy for the 1990s and the next century. The treaty will not contain Germany. It will enhance Germany's dominance in Europe, which is already shown by the fact that 85 per cent. of foreign investment in eastern Europe is German. The trade balance is in Germany's favour throughout the region.
Countries with an adverse trade balance cannot reasonably be expected to vote against Germany. Half of all western credits to Russia are held by Germany. There is a long list of German assertiveness which has accumulated in the past few years. That is unhealthy and bad for Germany as well as for Europe. It is certainly bad for the United Kingdom. There is deep anxiety in British industry and the City about the exchange rate mechanism and the high interest rates that we carry in the wake of the deutschmark. All those issues are directly linked to Maastricht, which would make membership of the ERM a legal obligation. But the ERM is costing jobs and the position is getting worse.
The Single European Act is not the centralising measure that it is claimed to be. Many hon. Members who criticise it now voted rigorously for it. The problems arise from the Commission's misuse of the Single European Act. A serious omission at Maastricht was not to insist on procedures to nip that abuse in the bud. The playing field is increasingly not level. Greater attention must be given to the calls by British industry to stop the unfair subsidies and practices of which it complains. Those practices crucify our prospects for recovery and open us up to acquisitions without fair reciprocity.
The Delors 2 package derives directly from the competences granted under the Maastricht treaty. We can best defeat the Commission's call for more money and cohesion funds by rejecting the treaty. As well as the immigration proposals, the problems and contradictions inherent in them, and the simultaneous attempt to decentralise—so that we cannot square the circle—there is also the difficulty of foreign policy. The title on the foreign policy section is a prescription for confusion and uncertainty. The joint action plan and the European guidelines would lead to chaos that would prevent us from securing peace in the world.
8.30 pm
Miss Joan Lestor: I was a Euro-sceptic in the old days, but when the referendum confirmed Britain's wish to stay in Europe, there was one pro-European argument that appealed to me, and still does. If we widened Europe, people of different nationalities and ethnic backgrounds would come together, nationalism and national barriers would be broken down and the rise of xenophobia and racism in Europe would be avoided. That was the one good argument of the pro-Europeans, although it was never their main argument.
In the Labour party document "Opportunities for All" we stressed the need to amend the treaty of Rome to ensure that other countries in Europe followed the lead that we gave in the 1960s and introduced laws to outlaw racial discrimination in employment, housing and other sectors. That policy was part of our manifesto commitment during the last general election.
We could see—I understood clearly—the dangers of free movement of labour for nationals of each EC country. We still face that danger whatever happens to the Maastricht treaty. I know that the Commission for Racial Equality has corresponded with the Government on that subject and there seems to be confusion over whether the EC has competence to legislate on racial matters. If it does not, we must amend the treaty of Rome so that other countries at least abide by the basic discrimination laws in this country, which I wish to see enhanced, as does the Commission for Racial Equality. During our six-month presidency I would like this country to highlight that subject and begin to argue forcibly for change.
I believe that it is of paramount importance that young people in Europe have the same opportunities, whatever their colour, race or ethnic origin, otherwise the free movement of labour and opportunities for jobs becomes a myth. All of us who care about such issues have been alarmed at and despondent about the rise of xenophobia and racism in Europe. I do not want to exaggerate the problem as it does not exist in many parts of Europe, but we know what has been happening in France recently, and have seen the rise of racism in other parts of Europe.
I accept the argument that the wider Europe becomes, the fewer dangers there are, but unless we take action during our presidency to ensure that our regulations apply to other countries, the notion of the free movement of labour becomes a mockery. It is no good saying that that is a matter for individual countries. Residents in this country with different ethnic origins are at least protected in law. It is no good saying to them, particularly the young —we have many young black and white kids in this country who are already disillusioned because of unemployment—that they should go to Europe where they can find a job as there is free movement of labour, if they have no protection in law and the door is slammed in their face.
The treaty of Rome contains provisions for sexual equality—an issue that many of us have taken up over the years. However, it does not deal with racial equality. It may have been an omission when it was drafted or perhaps people did not foresee the changes that would take place in this country and in Europe. I urge the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take the issue seriously.
I have been told to make my speech in six minutes so I must be brief, and as I still have two weeks to go as a Front

1039
Bench spokeswoman, I shall be good and keep to the subject about which I care deeply. There is a problem involving third-country nationals. There are people in this country with the right to work here even though they are not EC nationals. Their position will be jeopardised unless the matter is sorted out and regulated in Europe. I believe that that issue is as important as any other in Europe.
Some of us who were unhappy about moves towards Europe accepted the argument that it was a means to attempt to ensure that people of different backgrounds, origins and colours could come together so that barriers were broken down, wars avoided and everyone worked in harmony to enhance Europe. Many changes have taken place in Europe since the treaty of Rome was signed. If the Government seriously want free mobility of labour and harmonisation, they must not take refuge in saying—as I know that they have—that it is a matter for each EC country to decide for itself. It is not. The laws of one EC country on nationalism, xenophobia and law, affect people in other countries. I hope that during their six-month presidency, the Government will take the matter seriously and take the lead on it, as this country took the lead in outlawing racial discrimination.
8.37 pm
Mr. James Paice: I have listened to almost all the debate and have been amazed by some of the comments I have heard. I can only assume that they were based on incredible naivety and idealism, not reality. We must recognise that we start from where we are, not where we might have been or where we might wish to have been. It is clear that a number of right hon. and hon. Members wished that we were starting from somewhere else, perhaps even outside the treaty of Rome.
During the past few years I have witnessed in amazement the surge towards centralism. The Commission has used—some would say abused—the concept of removing barriers as a way to intervene in the minutiae of life and to harmonise all that we do without questioning whether we need regulation. Therefore, I share concern at the direction in which Europe has moved.
My anxiety is reflected throughout my constituency, as I am sure it is throughout those of most hon. Members. Constituents are surprised to find that the EC is involved with the flavour of crisps or chips, and are equally amazed to find that EC law prevents us from taking certain action. Conversely, many people have recourse to EC law when they believe that our Government have not acted correctly.
When I was a member of the Select Committee on Employment I was astonished to hear Madam Papandreou say that she intended to use the majority voting procedures on health and safety provisions as a means of forcing through the social charter. That threat has now come to pass. The House must recognise that that happened due to insufficient control and accountability in the Commission over the past few years. Understandably, the Commission has taken every opportunity created by that vacuum to allow centralism to flourish. I dare say that, had they been Commissioners, the vast majority of hon. Members would have acted in precisely the same way. The vacuum was caused by the Single European Act and the original treaty, both of which failed adequately to
1040
ensure levels of accountability and responsibility, and created the opportunity for centralism to grow—the problem that we now face.
It is from that position that we now address the future. Those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who perversely applaud the Danes for saving the powers of the House would do well to remember that, in the absence of a Maastricht Bill, or until an alternative is found, we are left in the same position that has caused the problems of centralism during the past few years.
When my right hon. Friends face the challenge that they are embarking upon during our presidency of the Commission, they must tackle many issues, and I shall expand upon one of them—enlargement of the Community. I have always thought it wrong and an affront that we should take unto ourselves the term "European Community" while the majority of the continent of Europe is excluded from it. I look forward to the day when the rest of Scandinavia and the emerging democracies of central and eastern Europe join the Community. That day is still many years away for some of those countries, but we must ensure that we do not construct a framework which prevents or inhibits their accession when the opportunity arrives.
If and when the Community consists of 15, 20 or even more members, other factors will come into play. We shall have to reconsider the structure of the Community, and the role of majority voting.
As we have heard, the Maastricht treaty brought into being the concept of intergovernmental agreements—the pillar approach, which was pioneered by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. It also featured the decision by my right hon. Friend—and its acceptance by other member states—for the United Kingdom not to agree to the social chapter or to commit ourselves to European monetary union at this time. Those two features are important, not merely because of our stance, but because the principle that member states have the last word was accepted at Maastricht. I suggest that those will be essential features in an enlarged Community of 15, 20 or more members. Member states will not be committed to each and every policy action and it would not otherwise be possible for such a Europe to progress. The pillar approach is the only one which can encompass a Community representing the continent of Europe.
The Danish referendum has created a major challenge for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—I am sure that most of us have some sympathy with him—which he would rather not have had to face. There are many other important priorities for our presidency. However, the challenge does not create the opportunity to go back to square one, and anyone who believes that we can do so —as some of my hon. and right hon. Friends clearly do— shows little understanding of international negotiations. No one ever gets everything they want out of every negotiation. Clearly aspects of the Maastricht treaty are not as we would all wish. I am not happy about every aspect of it, but it would be living in cloud cuckoo land to believe that everything could be perfect.
The delay gives my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister the opportunity to amplify and clarify clauses in the treaty which give concern. For instance, it could amplify the meaning of the term "an ever closer union" in article A. Perhaps more significantly it could also amplify the subsequent statement, which has been given scant attention by critics of the treaty,

1041
"in which decisions arc taken as closely as possible to the citizen."
That is a clear indicator of the concept of subsidiarity.
The new article 3b has been amply discussed, but we need to ensure that it is clearly understood and clarified.
Europewide decision making is essential in some areas of policy—for example, the environment. Aspects of the environment that know no national boundaries, such as air, river and sea pollution and global warming, require decisions to be taken at European level. Equally, it is totally absurd for decisions to be taken on local planning issues at European level—I cite the interference by the former Commissioner Ripa di Meana in our road programme as an example. We did not get it right with the M3 and we should have tunnelled under Twyford down, but it was for our Government to make that decision. It was not a matter for Europe and it is of no consequence to the rest of Europe.
Mr. Harry Barnes rose —
Mr. Paice: I shall not give way as I have only one minute left.
There is much in the treaty that it would be crazy to lose and much more that would meet with the approval and fulfil the aspirations of our people, with amplification and clarification. We cannot expect the Danes to reverse their decision or to have another referendum without something substantive to cause it. At the very least we need a protocol and perhaps a redrafting, but renegotiation is not on.
I am convinced that the treaty of Maastricht is a turning point in the evolution of Europe. Its advances must not be lost. It is a move away from centralism and towards that Europe of many nations in which I believe. It is an opportunity for individual cultures to flower, strengthened by a clearly defined framework of co-operation and of tiered powers.
Let us not be under any illusions—I know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is not: until we have Maastricht or an alternative, the Community will flounder, as it is now doing. In the coming months, it must be our prime consideration to ensure that we take the action necessary to ratify Maastricht or to provide an ideal alternative so that its advances are not lost.
8.45 pm
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I welcome the opportunity to make a brief speech in this important debate. Those hon. Members who have sat through the debate will perhaps be disappointed. Hon. Members who have stayed obviously have strong views on the issue, but I had hoped that more hon. Members would have stayed to listen to the arguments. I agree with the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) that Maastricht is a significant aspect of what will happen to the United Kingdom and Europe.
I hope that there will be further debates and that hon. Members will not postpone the opportunity to speak until the Government have the confidence to bring the Maastricht Bill back to the House for a Committee stage, but will take other opportunities to debate where we are and where we are going.
I speak on behalf of two nationalist parties tonight— Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party. It is important that hon. Members understand why nationalists view Europe as a way forward, while many in this Parliament, who represent what I would call the unionist
1042
parties, are frightened of Europe. My party fights under the flagship policy of independence in Europe, which was passed by a 9:1 majority at our annual conference. We have argued the case for an independent Scotland, within the European Community, because we believe that independence and sovereignty should be valued by every community and nation and that we can decide what to pool for the greater benefit of the European Community and of the world.
Sincerely, those people who say that Maastricht is a treaty too far are a generation too late. Young people who think of themselves as Scots, English, Welsh, Irish, French, German or whatever also think of themselves as Europeans. I regularly visit schools in my constituency. More than anything I am impressed by our youngsters' knowledge of the European Community and by the international dimension that they place on their lives. That should be nurtured by each and every one of us.
The European Community was formed to build bridges, to ensure peace and to ensure that there would he no more starvation. Okay, we have not achieved all those objectives—as yet, we are a poor framework of what could be achieved—but the principles which underpinned the founding of the Community should be valued.
I listened with much wry humour to those hon. Members who argue about sovereignty in this place. What kind of sovereignty are we arguing about at Westminster? Seventy-two Scottish Members represent Scottish constituencies, with their diverse problems, their very particular issues, which affect the daily lives of our constituents. We are told that this is the mother of Parliaments, the essence of democracy. Yet, if by some quirk of fate all 72 Scottish Members were to walk through the Division Lobby together, we could still be defeated. That is what happens in this Parliament.
I say to those who argue that this is the essence of democracy and Westminster is the mother of Parliaments that it fails very badly in representing the viewpoints of many of our constituents, our nations and the regions of England. I am one of the people who believe that if Scotland were to become a self-governing country it would trigger reform in this place which would benefit the regions of England, which suffer a great deal from centralisation.
Mr. Raymond S. Robertson rose
Mrs. Ewing: No. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has been in Committee—we are on the same Standing Committee—but I have a very short time in which to make my points.
As a graduate in history from two Scottish universities, I would say that we stand at a crossroads in defining where we want to go as individuals, as nation states, as regions. I believe that there are massive opportunities, but many people fail to recognise the historical significance of where we are.
Reference was made to the gold standard. I thought that that had been consigned to the economic dustbin. We have an opportunity to change the world, to change the Community of which we are a part. There is no rule of immutability in history and I believe that we are standing at a crossroads. Many people would wish to return to an imperialist tradition. They would prefer to see a wall built through the middle of Berlin; they would prefer to see an iron curtain still in existence. That was cosy and comfortable. They could live at ease with that situation.

1043
We have a challenge before us to develop the European Community and we should meet it, each and every Member, instead of trying to retreat into the dark imperialist past.
Changes must come by consensus. The treaty of Rome made it clear that any major change must be agreed by everyone. It does not matter whether it is a nation of 5 million people or of 15 million people; everyone must be treated equally. I was pleased that the Foreign Secretary revealed that the principle of unanimity would not be ignored in the major changes. Article 236 of the original treaty laid down clear guidelines on which we should proceed at this stage. The views of the Danish people, the Irish people and the French people must all be taken into account and dealt with equally.
Hon. Members keep talking about referendums. You and I, Mr. Deputy Speaker, having been in the House for two or three decades—in my case, off and on—remember well the arguments about referendums in the 1970s. My problem is not that I am opposed to referendums in principle—indeed, my party has written into its constitutional policy the idea that referendums should be part and parcel of the democratic process in an independent Scotland—but that referendums seem to be seized upon by people because they think that they will get the answer that they want at any given stage. In other words, they represent a cynical approach to the issue of democracy.
I shall refer here to the words of another Margaret, who I gather is making a speech in another place today. Back in March 1975, looking at the issue of a referendum on the European treaties, she said that if we were to adopt referendums, that would mean going as far as having a written constitution, and obviously many hon. Members do not want a written constitution. If we are to have referendums, I believe that they should be part of a written constitution, that they should be held under clear guidelines and that they should not be able to be rigged in any way, be it through financial support or through the infamous 40 per cent. rule which we had in Scotland in 1979.
Just as a matter of interest, under the 40 per cent. rule Ireland would have said no to Maastricht, because only 39.4 per cent. of the Irish electorate said yes. Yet that has been heralded by the supporters of Europe as a major triumph. If there is to be a referendum on this matter, it must be held under very clear guidelines, it must be clearly understood by the people, they must know exactly what is happening and the questions that are being asked, and the fullest consultation must take place.
The Committee of the Regions is often held up as an example of subsidiarity. I say very clearly to those on the Government Front Bench that I do not see the Committee of the Regions as a substitute for a Scottish Parliament, with the rights of Scotland being equal to those of Denmark, Germany, France or any other nation state in the European Community. I do not believe that an advisory body with limited powers will in any way advance the cause of the Scottish people.
8.56 pm
Mr. Gerald Malone: I very much doubt whether it is possible to be a maiden voice in the House as I rise on this occasion to speak for the first time as the Member for Winchester. I hope that the House will indulge me if I say a word or two about my constituency, which is of course the ancient capital of England. It is a great privilege to represent it. It is a very popular seat. More Conservative candidates were contesting Winchester than, I believe, any other constituency in the country. I think that is some testimony to its popularity.
I will say no more of my predecessor than that he was a man who fought a good election campaign in Winchester at the last election and enjoyed a certain reputation both in the House and in the constituency. One of my other predecessors fought very hard on my behalf in Winchester. Some Members of the House will remember with great affection Rear-Admiral Sir Morgan Morgan-Giles. I would say to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench that in the six months of our presidency of the Community they should perhaps bear in mind one of his maxims. I hope they will not mind if I quote it to them; it may well stand them in good stead. The rear-admiral was very well known for saying in Winchester and, I think, in the House: "Pro bono publico, no bloody panico." If my right hon. and hon. Friends can keep that maxim in mind through what may well be stormy days during the course of the next six months, it may be of some considerable benefit.
I believe that the Government face a great challenge, which they are taking on in their presidency from a great victory that they achieved in the course of the Maastricht treaty negotiations. The victory was essentially that, no matter what one may say about the details we have heard about in the House today and some of the probably genuine concerns about where Maastricht may lead us, it has made the Community a totally different place. We now see that there is a move away from centralisation. That is one of the most fundamentally important aspects of what has been negotiated. We see that subsidiarity is a doctrine that will get rid of one of the most terrible tendencies of the EC—to interfere in matters which were of no relevance to it.
Throughout the period of Britain's presidency, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will bear in mind a number of important points. I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary begin his remarks today with the GATT round. It has been an astonishingly disappointing failure that we have not been able to reach agreement in the Uruguay round. We may go on as much as we like in this House and in Europe about helping the third world, aid budgets and matters of that sort, but if we refuse to give trade, giving aid is no use. I wish my right hon. and hon. Friends well in all their attempts, which I hope they will press hard, to secure a rapid result in the GATT round so that it produces not the sort of stalemate that we have now but real benefits.
There is a historic challenge that has not been mentioned in the debate but which I hold to be of great importance. There is a danger in the course of the next decade or so that the United States will disengage from Europe in a number of ways, not only in the formation of its foreign policy but in a practical way in its participation

1045
in the defence of Europe and in its treatment of the EC in trade matters. We have seen much of that risk in the present impasse over the GATT round.
I hope that some reassuring messages will go from our presidency to the United States in a number of ways. First, I hope that it will be made clear that experiments with French and German military corps being looked upon as the pillar of defence in Europe will gain no credibility. The real pillar of defence in Europe is NATO and will continue to be so. It has been French policy for decades to try to exclude the Americans from European defence in some shape or form. I hope that that will not be given truck and I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will give that clear message.
I also hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will take into account a message that came from the Bank for International Settlements' report for 1992 which clearly showed that there is fear in the wider world that the sort of EC that we will continue to build will be inward looking. There is no point in dismantling internal trade barriers if the Community puts up external trade barriers and is seen as a trading bloc which will not negotiate or talk with other trading blocs throughout the world. That would be extremely damaging, and I hope that every effort will be made to make that message as clear as possible to the rest of the world community.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made the message of Maastricht clear not only to Britain but to other European countries as well, where it was heard for the first time. I am not in the least surprised that the message that he put across during the negotiations is now being heard by the German, French and Danish publics. His message was one of a very different Europe from the one to which we were being pushed before we actively began to participate in the affairs of the EC.
It has taken a long time to turn that attitude round, but my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has now managed to do that. He has managed to make it clear that this is a Europe that will concentrate on the essentials of European policy where it counts and will return to nation states areas of responsibility where it does not matter whether Brussels or anybody else in Europe has overall control.
I hope that, when my right hon. Friend replies, we will hear some examples of where subsidiarity may pay dividends. Let me suggest one case which is a constituency point. We have already heard from one of my hon. Friends about the environment and the M3, which is in my constituency. It is an outrage that the European Commission should think that it should have any view at all on a motorway in the heart of my constituency. It is absurd. It is as pointless as my having a view about what happens in an urban motorway system round Rome. It is irrelevant and it is something that we can now move away from.
Sir Ivan Lawrence: But it does.
Mr. Malone: In the long term, it no longer will, because subsidiarity will clearly mean that decisions on matters of that kind will once again be the priority of this Government and will be dealt with exclusively in the House. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will be able to reassure us on that when he replies and say that that will indeed be the case and give us some practical examples to flesh out a concept which has been challenged
1046
but which I believe will be much more acceptable once we can see some practical instances of the way in which it will apply.
I wish my right hon. Friend and his colleagues well in their presidency. They have a difficult task. I am sure that by the end of it they will have the treaty firmly back on the rails, and I am sure that the House will give it the endorsement that it already has. I see no reason why the views of the House should change. I am sure that when my right hon. Friend replies he will convince many of the sceptics here that the flesh of subsidiarity will be an important matter for the future.
9.4 pm
Mr. John Fraser: It is 25 years since I was last called to comment generally about Europe. As I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) intends to rise at 10 minutes past 9 o'clock, I shall restrict my comments to two narrow points.
I negotiated a number of European directives, and I found that they all involved some standardisation, harmonisation, or uniformity. That did not give me any problems when I dealt with directives on equal pay, weights and measures, and mass redundancy.
Whatever we do, the Community will go on creating common standards and common rights. That is not something to which we should object. It is impossible to run a major trading system and assure workers of equal rights in different countries unless there is some standardisation.
Europe is capable of creating common rights and uniformity, and within the strength of that union it is then capable of creating diversity. The two can go hand in hand. The Community can demonstrate to eastern Europe that the European passport can also be the right to be different.
All the major world languages—French, Spanish, and English—are minority languages in Europe. We must develop a Community that pays greater attention to minority rights in terms of language, other forms of culture, scripts—be they roman or cyrillic—traditions, religions, and so on.
The Community must guarantee minority rights so that we will all feel more free. We ought to speak about the flowering not only of cultures of nation states but of the cultures of parts of nation states. That applies to this country as much to any other, and our example will make it easier for the countries of eastern Europe to enter the Community. It is, however, a pity that, as we have developed diversity within the Community, eastern European countries outside it felt the necessity to pull apart.
My second point concerns immigration. It is disgraceful that, in the last day or so, secret negotiations have been conducted between nation states on a common immigration policy. There may be a good reason for common rules covering the admission of new member states, particularly if there is to be free movement throughout the Community. However, it is scandalous that those proposals should not be made known to the House, other Parliaments within the Community, and the European Parliament.
The rights of migrant workers are in some cases farcical or disgraceful. If I wanted a wife to come to Britain from

1047
a country outside the Community, she would normally have no absolute right to do so unless she could pass the primary purpose rule. Nor would I normally have any absolute guarantee of gaining admission for my children.
I happen to have that right because my grandmother was born in Ireland and I am therefore an Irish citizen. If I were to register in the United Kingdom as an Irish citizen and exercised my Community rights, my wife, children, parents, and almost every other member of my family would be entitled to enter this country without let or hindrance. It cannot be right to have that differentiation and to demote the migration and immigration rights of people born in this country.
If there is to be an approximation of the rights of immigrants in the Community, let it be an approximation upwards rather than downwards. Let us have the proposals on the table, let us understand them, and let us work towards widening the rights of those who live and work in various parts of the Community as well as those who stay in one country. I am sure that the Home Secretary, like me, is surprised that these matters are secret as they are of enormous importance to many constituencies, particularly mine. I hope that we shall return to this matter on another occasion.
9.10 pm
Mr. John Smith: In this debate, which we have about every six months, we have an opportunity to review developments in the European Community on a wider front. The House is indebted to hon. Members on both sides who have drawn attention to a very large number of issues. It was wise of my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) to draw attention to the problem of racism and its connection with unemployment, as it was wise of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) to draw attention to the opportunities for the European Community to assist with regard to the situation in South Africa. We have also had the benefit of a maiden speech from the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant), who generously paid tribute to his predecessor, Sylvia Heal, who was the victor in that remarkable by-election. The hon. Gentleman revealed that he is a Russian speaker. No doubt we shall hear from him in foreign policy debates in the future.
This debate is given added relevance by the fact that it occurs right at the start of the British presidency. It is not surprising that quite a number of contributions have concentrated on what should occur during the period of the British presidency. It is right for the House to consider what the Government propose as the agenda for the presidency, as well as what the community needs at this stage in its development. In a number of important respects the Government's agenda and the needs of the Community do not coincide. I do not in any way dispute the importance of enlargement, or of subsidiarity, or of settling the budget, or of completing the single market process, or of seeking a much more co-ordinated approach to the alarming events in what was once Yugoslavia. It is not so much what is included that is significant as what has been left out.
The Government's complacency over the condition of the British economy seems to have led them to the view
1048
that achieving economic growth and much better levels of employment should not be a priority for the British presidency or for the Community as a whole. We in the Opposition profoundly disagree with their approach. Getting back on the road to economic growth, recovering from recession and tackling rising unemployment ought to be major priorities for the Community and should seem to be so by the country that holds the presidency.
I regret to say that what we have heard in this debate and in previous statements by the Prime Minister and his colleagues shows that the crucial importance of these economic issues is not grasped by the Government. It ought to be an employment and growth presidency.
Such objectives are vital to Britain—languishing as we are in a debilitating recession, and having the weakest economic performance in the whole Community. They are, of course, vital to the Community. If we do not achieve sustained growth and maintain high levels of employment, the success of the Community as a political, economic and social enterprise will inevitably be undermined. If the economic performances of member states differ widely, the tendency will be for the Community to fragment rather than join together.
Why, then, is it that the Government do not appreciate the significance of these issues? It may well be that their own disengagement from the problems of the British economy has led them to the erroneous belief that a similar stance is desirable at Community level. It may also be that their own embarrassment about the failure of their economic policy in Britain, and the continued nonappearance of the frequently promised economic recovery, has made them coy about adopting a more positive approach. They certainly have grounds for embarrassment about their economic policy.
Today's Financial Times contains an interesting article by Mr. Philip Stephens about attitudes to the economy among Ministers and other Conservative Members. Clearly, unease about the failure of Government economic policy is growing, not just in the country but in the ranks of the Conservative party. Mr. Stephens observes:
"Most Conservative MPs believed their pre-election claims that victory would provide the final ingredient for economic recovery."
The writer does not state whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in that category; we shall leave that point aside for now, and the Chancellor can tell us himself when he winds up the debate.
Mr. Stephens goes on to analyse the situation thus:
"Three months on, they have become bemused and uneasy about the stubbornness of the recession. The anecdotal evidence in their constituencies—from bankruptcies, unemployment and house prices—confirms the aggregate indicators that have prompted the Treasury to scrap its forecast that the economy will grow this year … Suggestions that recession might yet turn into slump are no longer dismissed with quite such breezy confidence. The concern is shared in the highest reaches of the government."
I dare say that that may even include the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
"'Pretty awful' and 'dangerous' are just two of the grisly descriptions of the short-term economic outlook offered during the past few days by cabinet members."
Mr. Philip Stephens is a journalist of some repute. Clearly, members of the Cabinet are unburdening themselves to him about what they consider to be the true position of the British economy, and clearly there is deep unease—as there ought to be —among Conservative Members. I am not surprised that such concerns exist,

1049
because they are corroborated by the facts. Britain suffered from the lowest economic growth in the entire economic Community in 1991, and it is forecast that it will occupy exactly the same lowly position in 1992. That is the OECD's assessment—revealed in its latest report, published on 21 June. The same report shows that we had the worst record for job creation in 1990 and 1991, and that the same is forecast for 1992.
As if that were not bad enough, ours was the worst investment performance in the entire Community in 1990 and 1991, and again the same is forecast for 1992. It is predicted that in 1992 investment will not increase, but will fall by 3.8 per cent. So much for the much talked about recovery from recession, which we were told would be the direct, inevitable result of a Conservative election victory.
As he contemplates those woeful circumstances, the Chancellor's mind may go back to his first significant statement as Chancellor of the Exchequer. In November 1990, he informed the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee that the recession would be—I use his well-known words—"shallow" and "shortlived". [Interruption.] He said it, and I do not think that he is disposed to deny it.
Not long after that. warming to his theme, the Chancellor assured us that recovery would occur at the end of the first half of 1991. Not only would it be shallow and shortlived but it would be shortlived enough to have come to an end by the middle of 1991. Here we are, smack bang in the middle of 1992, one year later, and the Chancellor's promised recovery is as far away as ever.
I have little doubt that the manifest unease in his party will have been much increased among those who considered his speech to Surrey business men on 17 June, when he said:
"In two or three years time I believe that people will look hack and see that it was now, during this critical period, that the right decisions were taken."
Some of course will think, given the Chancellor's record, that his powers of accurate economic prediction should not be overestimated. Others will, I think, shudder at the implication that recovery, already at least one year late, is not likely definitely to have occurred until at least two or three years from now.
The Government's failure to put growth on either the national or the Community agenda is in marked contrast to the approach being adopted by the United States to the Munich summit of the G7 that is to take place next week. Treasury Secretary Brady is reported, again in today's Financial Times, as having stated:
"A top priority for the United States … was to agree measures to strengthen global growth."
He implied, said the Financial Times, that
"this was central to all else the G7 leaders might want to achieve. We're talking about a communique that is going back to the concept of a growing world."
We are entitled to ask why the concept of a growing Europe is not included in the objectives of the British presidency when the importance of the issue is so clearly understood by other members of the G7.
Europe needs a strategy for growth and employment. In our view, the British Government should put on the agenda measures, on a Community wide basis, to encourage and stimulate investment, to enhance and expand training and to increase employment opportunities. They ought to be a central feature in the creation
1050
of the single market, which should be seen not just as an area of economic deregulation but as an engine of growth and better economic and social opportunity.
On investment and growth, the immediate problem that faces us is high levels of real interest rates throughout the Community, not least in this country. These have partly been caused by the costs of German reunification and the consequent policies adopted by the German Government. To overcome the inhibitions on investment and growth flowing from Germany's domestic economic situation, the Community should consider the strong case for co-ordinated interest rate cuts in every member state. To achieve that objective, the members of the exchange rate mechanism should consider, if it is necessary to do so, and upward revaluation of the deutschmark against all the other currencies.
Mr. Cash: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Smith: I am trying to develop my argument at this point, but I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Cash: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is talking about interest rates and our linkage to the deutschmark. Does he think that we should suggest to Germany that it might like to increase its taxation in order to ensure that it provides the necessary money, or does he think that we might come out of the exchange rate mechanism?
Mr. Smith: There is a case for saying to the Germans that they might deal with the problem by increasing taxation rather than by having the tight monetary policy that they now follow. I hope, however, that the hon. Gentleman understands that the domestic implication is Conservative recognition of the case for higher levels of taxation. He ought to bear that in mind in his political approach to the issue.
It should be remembered that the exchange rate mechanism is a fixed but also an adjustable system and that a long time has passed since the last realignment in 1987.
It is worth considering whether the highly unusual circumstances of German unification and the impact which the Germans' restricted monetary policy has on the prospects of growth for the whole Community do not justify a concerted strategy to achieve lower interest rates which could involve some realignment of the currencies. Such a move may also be a necessary step to achieve the economic convergence which is so necessary for the long-term viability of the Community and any progress towards economic and monetary union.
Naturally, a substantial part of the debate has centred on the future of the Maastricht treaty following the negative result of the Danish referendum. I think it is significant that one of the key causes of concern about the treaty in Denmark has been the inadequency of the framework of democratic accountability in the treaty's proposals for economic and monetary union.
At Lisbon, the Danish Foreign Minister, Mr. Ellemann-Jensen, said:
"What we need is more democracy in the institutions, more open decision taking."
That view has received consistent support from the Labour party in all its debates, pre- and post-Maastricht. We have consistently argued that the overall responsibility for economic policy must remain with elected Ministers,

1051
accountable to the European Parliament and their own national Parliaments. In particular, we have argued that ECOFIN—the Council of Economic and Finance Ministers—should have the determining role in the shaping and implementation of overall economic policy, including external exchange rate policy.
The proposed European central bank should be made more accountable to ECOFIN as part of that process, and the objectives of the bank should not be an exclusive concern with price stability but should embrace the wider economic objectives of the union as set out in article 2 of the treaty, which defines them as follows:
"sustainable non-inflationary growth respecting the environment, a high degree of convergence of economic performance, a high level of employment and of social protection, the raising of the standard of living and quality of life, and economic and social cohesion and solidarity among Member States."
I am sure that the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) does not agree about economic and social cohesion and solidarity among member states, but we regard it as one of the important purposes of the European Community, and it is extremely important that it is set out so clearly in article 2 of the treaty.
Therefore, we suggest that a useful initiative during the British presidency would be a better and clearer definition of the important role which ECOFIN must have to preserve democratic accountability and political control. In the intergovernmental conference discussions, the Government gave that aspect insufficient priority, but they have an opportunity in the next six months to put that right. There is concern not only in Denmark but throughout the Community that the democratic deficit needs to be tackled by more effective proposals.
It is not enough merely to stress subsidiarity, which is essentially about the level at which decisions are taken. There should also be concern about how the decisions are taken and, in particular, that they are subject to a framework of democratic accountability.
Mr. Peter Shore: I have followed very closely what my right hon. and learned Friend has been saying and I wholly endorse what he said about the need for any European central bank or monetary institutions to be subject to political control, but that is not in the treaty now, so what is his conclusion? Is this a treaty which can possibly be accepted by the Opposition without the essential safeguards which my right hon. and learned Friend has mentioned?
Mr. Smith: My right hon. Friend follows these matters extremely closely so he will know from my previous statements in the House that I said that I was not happy about the proposals for the European central bank and that I would prefer a more explicit framework of political control. He also knows that I have consistently argued that, if we strengthened ECOFIN and its relationship with the central bank, that would provide a way forward, in which we could achieve greater political control.
I regret that the Government did not pursue that goal, although the French Government did, during negotiations on the treaty. In that regard it is important to note that ECOFIN has control over the external exchange rate of a single currency. That is a step in the right direction. As we look to the future, I am trying to set out objectives for the
1052
way in which the EC is to develop in the context of a British presidency, which could have an influence in that direction.
The Government's strategy of concentrating on opt-outs in the intergovernmental conferences meant that less attention was given to those important issues of accountability. Another side effect—
Mr. Richard Shepherd rose—
Mr. Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to continue? I am short of time, and I have given an undertaking as to when I shall finish.
Another side effect of the opt-out strategy—[Interruption.] I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not find these matters too amusing; they are quite important. I wish that he had paid more attention to democratic accountability. It is not good enough to stroll along to the House of Commons, utter a few platitudes and giggle during Opposition speeches. We expect a little more from a Chancellor of the Exchequer in such a debate.
Sir Peter Tapsell rose
Mr. Smith: No, I must not give way.
A side effect of the opt-out strategy was to make it difficult to secure the location of the European monetary institute—the precursor of the central bank—for the United Kingdom. At Lisbon it looked as if Bonn were being favoured by many member states. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take that matter seriously, and will tell us tonight what the Government strategy is for advancing the case for the bank to be located in one of the excellent sites in the United Kingdom. In particular, will he explain the impact of the opt-out on the United Kingdom's capacity to develop a convincing case? Has the Government's handling of the matter not placed a serious impediment in this country's way? The House will expect the Chancellor to address that issue when he replies to the debate.
The other opt-out concerns the social chapter. It is bad enough that Britain alone among the Twelve does not wish to recognise the social dimension which is essential to a balanced approach to the European Community. It is illuminating—but not, I am sorry to say, surprising—to discover that only one Council meeting on social affairs has been scheduled to take place—and that is near the end of the British presidency. The constant and dogmatic downgrading of social affairs damages our interests as well as those of the Community as a whole. The illusion persists in Conservative minds that Britain has not fallen behind the rest of the Community—but everyone else knows that we have.
After Maastricht, the German newspaper Die Welt observed of the British opt-out:
"it confirms that by comparison with other European industrial nations, Great Britain is a developing country in the fields of labour law, labour relations and social security".
It is a great pity that we are now collecting such an unflattering identity among the other countries in the EC. So much for being at the heart of Europe.
There is no sense in seeking to attract investment on the basis of low wages and low skills, when investment in today's world seeks to combine with the high skills which create the productivity which produces higher growth,

1053
high wages and better living standards. I regret that, under an opt-out presidency, the next six months will not be noted for progress in social affairs.
We call upon the Government to adopt a more imaginative approach to the responsibilities of the presidency. We urge them to reconsider their failure to give prominence to economic growth and full employment. We urge them to give proper attention to the development of democratic accountability as one of the means of tackling the democratic deficit. Once again, we deplore their failure to recognise that, in rejecting the social chapter and the need for social responsibility to be a major feature of the Community, they are not serving either the interests of the people of this country or the wider needs of the Community.
9.34 pm
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Norman Lamont): This has been an excellent debate with some outstanding speeches from both sides of the House. As always, the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) made an outstanding contribution. His speeches do not always seem to go down so well with his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), but we certainly appreciated it.
I also greatly appreciated the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). Although I did not agree with everything he said, I did not disagree with everything. I know that I speak for everyone who heard his speech when I say that it was remarkable. Everyone on the Conservative Benches warmly respects my hon. Friend for that speech.
We also had a remarkable speech from the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien), who said that he might support the Government.
Mr. Mike O'Brien indicated dissent.
Mr. Lamont: Although the hon. Gentleman expressed a strong objection to what he considered to be the removal of the social element, he did say, despite the fact that he is shaking his head, that he thought that the Maastricht agreement represented a positive approach to Europe. He thought that that approach should be borne strongly in mind.
It is also a great pleasure to welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Malone) back to the House and to hear him speak again. He reminded us about the dangers of centralisation and growing bureaucracy in the Community.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire also made a maiden speech—[HON. MEMBERS: "The hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire"] I am entitled to be confused about the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) because he somewhat startled the House by referring to his constituency as his own banana republic. We were all delighted to listen to his speech and to note what he said about his constituency and the historic people who came from it, including Dr. Johnson.
In common with my hon. Friend the member for Winchester, my hon. Friend went out of his way to warn against what he saw as the dangers of centralisation. As the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East said, my hon. Friend drew on his knowledge of eastern
1054
Europe and the former Soviet Union. He warned us against pushing towards the unification of Europe more than common sense could bear.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire asked us to assure him that we did not foresee the Community developing into a super-state. My hon. Friend is well aware that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said that we want to make absolutely certain that that is not the track on which Europe is destined to go.
The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney referred to the unanimity requirement that attaches to the Maastricht treaty, its interaction with the treaty of Rome and the fact that amendments to that treaty can be made only by unanimity. He referred to article 236. I can assure him, as he requested, that we will not develop a strategy to get around the unanimity requirement. I hope that he will accept that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East referred to CAP reform and asked my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary about its costs. That reform will add to public expenditure costs in the United Kingdom, but within the Community the costs will be within the CAP guideline. Overall, the United Kingdom will benefit in resource terms, because, as my hon. Friend understands, two forms of subsidy are implicit in the CAP: one is the subsidy from the taxpayer, but the other is the subsidy obtained through the artificial hiking of prices. The reduction in prices will outweigh the extra public expenditure costs. Therefore, the United Kingdom will be a net beneficiary from the CAP reforms. There will be a net gain to the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) asked about the relationship between cohesion, ratification and enlargement. As he knows, although the link between cohesion and enlargement was not made in the Maastricht treaty, it was made at the time of the Maastricht meeting. The further link between enlargement and ratification was made in Lisbon. As the hon. Gentleman and the House will appreciate, the whole process of enlargement will take time. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made clear, we have agreement in principle to enlargement. We will be preparing the ground in our presidency for enlargement by negotiations, which will begin next year. The agreement in principle, to which the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) referred, was expressed at Lisbon.
Today's debate has provided a welcome chance to set out our priorities for our presidency of the Council. The result of the Danish referendum has sparked a vigorous debate across Europe. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) said, we have the chance now to influence that debate, because it has increased in intensity after what happened in Denmark. As we assume the chair and the presidency, we will have a unique opportunity to try to influence the debate.
This country last held the presidency in 1986. Our task then was to oversee the ratification of the Single European Act and to begin to implement the measures necessary for the single market. It now falls to us to see that programme through and to complete the single market on schedule at the end of 1992. We have the opportunity referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford and my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester to see the Community moving in our direction—one where free trade is a reality within the Community and between the Community and the world outside. We want a Europe of

1055
open markets, not one of red tape and unnecessary bureaucracy. We want a Community that is ready to welcome all European states that meet the conditions of membership and one that is not just confined to being a rich man's club.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester said, what is needed is a Community that does not interfere unnecessarily in the rights of member states to make their own laws and in the rights of peoples and businesses to live and work unhindered by petty regulations and meddling directives. That is why subsidiarity has assumed such importance in the debate and why it will be such a vital consideration.
In the next six months, our priorities will be to pave the way for the early enlargement of the Community; to work for a GATT settlement; to complete the single market; and to reach an agreement on future financing of the Community that contains the Community's spending within acceptable bounds.
The greatest contribution that we in this country have made to the Community is the single market programme. It has been estimated that, over the medium term, the single market could add up to more than 5 per cent. to Community output—some £150 billion—and could create up to 1.8 million jobs. I wish that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East would realise that jobs are created not only by pumping up demand—something that he always wants to do—but by enlarging the single market, by increasing competition and by taking measures that increase the supply side of the European Community. Increasing the number of jobs in the Community involves that, and not just the matters referred to by the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
Mr. John Smith: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the unemployment figures over the past period are a testimony to the success of Conservative economic policy on this matter?
Mr. Lamont: The right hon. and learned Gentleman talked about the effect of the election on recovery. We know what would have been the effect on the economy had the Labour party been elected. There would not have been the slightest prospect of recovery had the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his tax plans got into office.
On the single market, I wish to address a point that is of considerable concern to the House. However, before doing so, I emphasise that there is a risk that we take the single market for granted. We assume that all the work has been done and that it will simply happen on 1 January 1993. But that is not the case. Business in this country stands to gain enormously from the single market. If we fail to complete the task, this country will be the loser.
There is, of course, a link between the single market and the difficult and vexed question of majority voting in the Community. As my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Thatcher found herself conceding at the time, it would be impossible for the Community to create a single market in Europe without some form of qualified majority voting. If we did not, the directives necessary to break down barriers and open up markets would inevitably be sabotaged by special interests. It has been only by majority voting that we have been able to make the progress that we made, but continued effort is needed, particularly on services.
1056
A prime example of the opportunities available is the package that was secured by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, which will pave the way for the deregulation of air fares within Europe. For far too long, state airlines in Europe have been over-subsidised and ticket prices have been over-regulated. The introduction of competition should help to bring down prices, just as it has in the United States, where internal air fares are far cheaper than in Europe, and they should be much cheaper in Europe.
Equally important are financial services, securities, banking and insurance in respect of which this country is in the lead. We need to ensure that the single market is developed so that we can sell financial services right across Europe. That means setting some common standards across the Community for the protection of investors. But those regulations must not be too onerous or restrict the ability of firms to compete in world markets. At the Economic and Finance Council on Monday, we made major progress towards agreement on two important directives on investment services and capital adequacy. Those proposals would allow British securities and investment businesses to compete across the Community without imposing unacceptable new regulation. That would pave the way for the highly competitive British financial services industry to be able to expand across Europe.
Mr. Dykes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the interesting point about those two directives was that they were agreed by majority voting, showing once again that, mostly, that mechanism is actually in the interests of this country, not against it?
Mr. Lamont: It was certainly in this country's interest in that particular instance; that is true.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell) raised a point that is of concern to the House—the harmonisation of indirect taxes. Our stance has always been clear and has always been based firmly on the Single European Act. We are in favour of binding European law on matters of taxation only to the extent that that is necessary for the completion of the single market. As I explained when I intervened earlier, that attitude mirrors the wording that exists in article 90 of the treaty. However, I have to confess that I sometimes find it difficult to see what some Commission propoals for tax harmonisation actually have to do with the single market. I constantly remind my fellow Finance Ministers that the United States manages to have a very successful internal market with no centrally directed harmonisation of indirect taxes.
We have made some progress in convincing the rest of the community of the validity of that view. The original proposals by Lord Cockfield for tightly constrained harmonised VAT, harmonising the rates of VAT with maxima and minima, are long dead, thanks to British opposition.
Mr. Roger Knapman: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Lamont: I shall give way in a minute, but I wish to make some more progress.
I assure the House that during our presidency I will continue to reject unnecessary and damaging proposals for the harmonisation of taxes. The right hon. Member for Gorton said that, on the minimum rate for VAT, I could

1057
have vetoed the proposals. He seemed to think that we had reached an agreement the other day. I vetoed the proposals that were made at that time. I am determined to preserve the right of Britain to keep our zero VAT rate. That right is currently fully protected by the sixth VAT directive. We shall not accept any proposal that calls it into question.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East is worried about VAT, but I assure him that we are convinced that our legal position is watertight, notwith-standing the points that he made.
Mr. Knapman: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Cash: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Lamont: If I could make a little more progress, I shall give way later.
The draft VAT rates directive which was under discussion at ECOFIN earlier this week would not have affected our zero rates. Indeed, it would have reinforced our right to retain them after the abolition of fiscal controls at the border. However, it would have provided for a legally binding minimum standard rate. I repeat that that is a long way from the original Cockfield proposal for maxima and minima. The House will recall that we have already accepted minimum excise duty rates.
I remain highly sceptical about whether a minimum rate of VAT is necessary for the creation of the single market, but we must also take account of the views of other countries. I emphasise to my hon. Friends that other member states, especially those with large land boundaries, have real anxieties about the danger to their revenues from cross-border shopping in continental Europe. They fear that indirect tax rates will be forced downwards across Europe. jeopardising their fiscal positions and forcing up direct taxes.
No one in the House is more jealous of our fiscal prerogative than me. That is not merely because I am Chancellor of the Exchequer but because I am a Member of this House. However, VAT has long been subject to Community law. Its structure and coverage are already governed by directives of long standing. Indeed, in 1988 we were forced by the European Court of Justice to extend VAT to non-domestic construction, fuel, power and water. But the directive would not force us to increase any VAT rates.
We must recognise that there is a link between the completion of the single market—the abolition of border and customs controls—and agreement on tax. Other countries that are worried about their tax revenues are not prepared to agree to the completion of the single market without some agreement on indirect tax. It is in our interest that we reach agreements which will enable the single market to be completed and make possible the ending of fiscal controls at borders. It was with that objective firmly in mind that I was prepared to accept a compromise proposal of a binding VAT rate of 15 per cent. for four years. With a review after four years, that would have ensured that the rate was not set in stone for all time.
I remind my hon. Friend the Member for East Lindsey that our current VAT rate is 17.5 per cent., well above the proposed minimum. So it would not have been likely that our room for manoeuvre in tax policy in the next few years would be constrained. However, that was not enough for the Community and there was no agreement.
1058
Throughout the discussions, I made it clear that it would be possible to agree to any VAT directive only if other essential United Kingdom concerns were met. We have interests in respect of alcoholic drinks and whisky in particular, as the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East knows. That is no personal reference. but the hon. and learned Gentleman has an interest of long standing in the industry near his constituency.
We have been anxious not to introduce a regime in the Community which forces other countries to increase excise duties on products produced in Britain. The House will understand that we must balance industrial interests with the principles of fiscal sovereignty that we wish to retain.
Sir Peter Tapsell: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Cash: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Lamont: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for East Lindsey, because he raised the matter first.
Sir Peter Tapsell: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his full and clear response to my earlier question, and I fully accept everything that he said about VAT. However, if we lose some control of our indirect taxation yet have little room for manoeuvre on our exchange rate and interest rates, surely he and his successors as Chancellor of the Exchequer will become boxed in so that they have practically no room for manoeuvre. When we come to take a decision on single currency in 1996, we shall be told that it will make no difference as we will already have lost control of our economic affairs.
Mr. Lamont: As I explained, I do not think that it is realistic to think that VAT will fall to below 15 per cent. in the next three years. By stating that that would revert the decision for review—
Madam Speaker: Order. The House cannot hear the Chancellor if he does not speak into the microphone.
Mr. Lamont: I apologise, Madam Speaker.
I do not believe that that policy would seriously constrain our fiscal room for manoeuvre and I remain, as I always have been, firmly opposed to proposals for the harmonisation of other taxes. We must make judgments about what is necessary for the internal market —other countries will demand that. The discussion involved the very minimum. The House is in danger of forgetting that we have already accepted minimum rates across the range of excise duties. It forgets that a large number of indirect taxes—because of the treaty of Rome, the Single European Act and successive directives—have already been placed within Community law.
Mr. Cash: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Lamont: Yes, but I hope that my hon. Friend will be briefer than he normally is.
Mr. Cash: In order to charge VAT, companies must be capable of being charged the amount of money due from them. Would it not be possible for my right hon. Friend to exert maximum influence on the Commission through the Department of Trade and Industry to ensure that we have a level playing field? Time and again in the past few days, company representatives have told me that they are having to operate on an uneven playing field. We must stop the subsidised goods coming from other countries that are damaging our industry.
Mr. Lamont: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, but it is easier to make that point as a generalisation than to give specific examples. If my hon. Friend will give examples, I shall guarantee that they will be energetically investigated.
The other item that will be on the Finance Ministers' agenda in the next few months is future financing of the Community. The Commission originally proposed an increase in the own resources ceiling—the money that the Community is entitled to spend—from its current level of 1.2 per cent. to 1.37 per cent. of Community gross domestic produce. That may not sound like much, but it would mean an increase of about 30 per cent. in real terms —£14 billion—by 1997, compared to 1992. That would increase the United Kingdom's annual net contribution after abatement—British public spending—by about £1 billion a year in real terms.
When we consider what the Commission and the Community are saying to countries about convergence and how deficits throughout the Community must be reduced, it makes no sense for the Community to lecture countries on the need to control spending. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney would agree with that. I know that he does not agree about the convergence criteria, but I am sure that he would acknowledge that it is inconsistent for the Community to tell countries to cut deficits and spending, while trying to impose more spending on individual countries through the needless and unnecessary expansion of the Community budget.
The guideline that already exists in the financial perspective provides for a substantial increase in expenditure. Community expenditure could grow by more than 3 per cent. a year. The Commission's proposals would imply a real growth of 5.5 per cent. a year, which is simply unacceptable. A clear majority of my Finance Ministers and colleagues agree with me and there was widespread recognition at the Lisbon council that the own resources ceiling would be adequate for at least the next two years.
If it is right to restrain public spending at home, it must be right not to let it run away in Europe. The European Commission should take a realistic view about spending in the Community. It is no use it giving lectures to Finance Ministers on the matter. Nor are we prepared to accept that the provisions contained in the Maastricht treaty imply the sort of increase in Community expenditure that the Commission has proposed.
Those are the priorities for the European presidency. I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East has told us that he wants a revaluation of the deutschmark. Before the election, he told us again and again that he did not want sterling to be devalued. He did not seem to have any policies, and he was firm about only that one thing. He would not argue that the pound should be devalued. In the Financial Times on 27 September 1991, he said:
"We regard it"
DM2.95—
"as an obligation which has been entered into which we will maintain."
It is quite clear—
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

PETITION

  Simon Mootoo
  10 pm
  Mr. Harry Cohen: I present this petition, which reads:
  To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of Waltham Forest Anti-deportation Campaign.
  sheweth
  That Simon Mootoo a British serviceman came to settle in 1973. In 1975 four of his children joined him. His wife and two children remained in Mauritius. In 1980 his wife came to England. The two sons Ange Noe and Paul, were refused visas as they were then over eighteen. During the next four years Ange's parents made valiant efforts to convince the Home Office to allow them to join the rest of the family all to no avail. In 1987 the two sons were granted temporary admissions to visit their sick mother who was in intensive care. Ange did not return to Mauritius, he could not bear to leave his sick mother and ageing father. He remained here and cared for both his parents. Sadly in November 1988 Ange's mother died. Ange then became the sole provider for his father. In 1991 Ange sought to regularise his immigration status and applied for indefinite leave to remain. This was refused.
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House urge the Home Secretary to grant Ange Noe Mootoo leave to remain indefinitely in the United Kingdom to care for his seventy six-year-old father.
  And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray &c.
  The first signature is that of Simon Mootoo of 37 Bakers Avenue, Walthamstow E17, who served this country at sea during the last war.
  I strongly support this petition, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), and we urge the House to accept it.
  To lie upon the Table.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether there have been any requests from the Scottish Office to make a statement on a matter that is causing enormous anxiety to more than 100,000 people in the centre of Scotland: the contamination, with what is thought to be human excrement, of a major reservoir—the Blackridge reservoir. I understand that the initial reaction of the Scottish Office is that that serious matter is the responsibility of the local authority. I suggest to the House and to Ministers that, because of the health aspects, some responsibility lies with the Scottish Home and Health Department. I do not make too much of the fact that there is no Scottish Office Minister present, because Scottish Office Ministers may legitimately have returned to Edinburgh, but I must tell the Leader of the House that it is a matter that the Government—
  Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is a parliamentarian of long standing. It is not for him to put matters to the Leader of the House or to any other Minister. As he realises, points of order are for me. I understand his anxiety, but no Minister has sought permission to make a statement.

  Obscene Publications Act 1959
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Wood.]
  10.4 pm
  Ms. Liz Lynne: The aim of tonight's debate is to draw the Minister's attention to problems in the way in which the Obscene Publications Act 1959 operates.
  I am a passionate believer in freedom of speech, which is one of the great freedoms on which our society is built. Any limitations on the right to a free press and the right to publish need to be kept to a minimum. But I also believe that freedoms are balanced by responsibility.
  When I was asked to add my name to the list of supporters of early-day motion 312 about "Juliette", my initial reaction was to say no; I do not believe in censorship. However, as soon as I had been read excerpts from that violent and horrific book, I was so disgusted and felt so physically sick that. I agreed to add my name to the early-day motion. When I read further extracts, I was pleased that I had made that decision and decided to go further and ask for this Adjournment debate.
  It is not just about this one book. "Juliette" is an example of some of the horrendously violent material that is available in booksellers. In June 1991, Arrow published in paperback the first British edition of "Juliette" by the Marquis de Sade, who gives his name to sadism. This is not a book of literary merit; it is too ill translated. Nor is it about sadism as most of us think of it. The main victims are children. Its characters revel in the gross abuse, multiple rape, sodomy and extreme torture and murder of more than 2,100 children and young teenagers and more than 450 women. And, throughout, the murders and tortures are glorified, admired and rewarded.
  The Obscene Publications Act 1959 attempted to provide a new balance between freedom to publish and responsibility to others. The responsibility element was expressed in the now notorious phrase that material could be found obscene if it had a
  "tendency to deprave and corrupt."
  This test has proved a nightmare for juries. There have been perverse decisions about similar material in different parts of the country. The Director of Public Prosecutions has decided not to act against some horrific publications. In some instances the police have been uncertain about what will be found obscene. In the case of "Juliette" and books of this ilk, I do not see how there can be any doubt.
  I had thought of quoting from the book this evening. I consider myself to have a reasonably strong stomach, but I am afraid that "Juliette" is too horrible for me to do so. Furthermore, I would not wish to give the impression that there are one or two isolated incidents that are particularly bad. It is the whole book that is the problem. Throughout all his books Sade positively advocates attacks on the vulnerable and finds excuses for child abuse, and thereby justifies it.
  I am aware, however, that hon. Members listening to this debate or reading it in Hansard, and indeed the Minister here tonight, may believe that I am over-reacting. I therefore arranged to send the Minister, prior to this debate, a copy of a briefing paper on "Juliette" by the author and journalist Moyra Bremner, which includes extensive quotations and an analysis of the book. Indeed, there is a copy available for every hon. Member in the House. I urge them all to collect and read a copy.
  1062
  The public have been led to believe that our obscenity and pornography laws are strong. In fact, they are a mess. For example, the law on obscene photographs of children is effective, but, as the case of "Juliette" shows, the law on books is useless. It seems incredible that a publisher would decide to release such a book and that booksellers would sell it. However, some chains, such as W. H. Smith and John Menzies, have refused to stock it, which is very welcome. Sadly, however, there are people willing to buy such books, and publishers can make money from them.
  Earlier today, I met Superintendent Michael Hames, who is in charge of the obscene publications squad at Scotland Yard to discuss his work with him. He was quite forthright about the problems that the police have with the Obscene Publications Act. Because of a series of court cases, they can no longer prosecute all the material that they consider to be obscene. It seems as if the rug has been pulled from beneath their feet because written material such as "Juliette" has escaped the current law even though the images that it creates are so powerful. Psychologists working with sex offenders believe that such material can directly influence the actions of those carrying out child abuse and other sex offences.
  Dame Peggy Fenner: I wish to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that extracts from "Juliette" were sent to me to read, and I share the hon. Lady's revulsion and horror that such books can appear on any bookstall. But the book was first drawn to my attention by a prison chaplain who wrote to me pleading that it should not be provided in the prison library. Whereupon I wrote to the Home Office asking whether that was the sort of material that criminals and sex offenders should have in prison for recreational reading. I received a wet reply from the Home Office Minister, telling me that, as the book was available in bookshops, it was available in prison libraries. Will the Minister please read the book for himself, even if he feels that it is likely to deprave, as I am sure he will? It is disgraceful, not only that it should be in bookshops but that we should give it to prisoners as recreational reading.
  Ms. Lynne: I agree with the hon. Lady. It is appalling that the book is available in prisons. It is available in prisons because it is available in the bookshops. If we took it off the bookshelves, it would not be available in the prisons.
  Can anyone believe that it is a coincidence that the Moors murderers made notes from de Sade justifying rape and murder? That case still haunts the area that I represent.
  Some of us probably associate the obscenity law with prudency and material that simply gives offence. I emphasise that that is not the issue on which I sought this debate. There is ample evidence that grossly violent pornography can do real life harm to individuals and society.
  The last time there was a review was in 1978, when the Williams committee looked at the matter. Its report now seems strangely out of date, so much has happened in the area in the past 14 years. All the evidence suggests that pornographic material has become much harder and more violent in its content since that time. Perhaps the only lasting impact of the Williams report was its suggestion that the written word should not be prosecuted because of

  1063
  its importance to literature. I wonder whether members of the Williams committee would take the same view now if they were to read "Juliette". I doubt it very much.
  I am certain that the Williams committee never envisaged material as ruthlessly violent as "Juliette" and other books like it being put into high street booksellers. The fact that they are available means, as the hon. Lady said, that they are available in prisons, which is appalling and unacceptable. They are freely available to sex offenders who have been imprisoned for the very crimes that they can then read about in those books. We must make sure that something happens about that.
  Freedom of speech and freedom to reach are important, but those freedoms can never be absolute. Publishers cannot claim that books are so educational that they must be exempt from VAT and yet also claim that books such as "Juliette" have no impact. I must make it clear that I am not looking for some draconian new law that will censor every item of material before it is published. I am just asking for protection for the most vulnerable in society.
  It will not have escaped the Minister's attention that this Adjournment debate has attracted the support of many hon. Members, in all parts of the House. As a new Member of Parliament, I do not know the names of them all and the constituencies that they represent, so I hope that they will excuse me if I cannot identify them. I am, however, particularly grateful to the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) for agreeing to participate in this debate. Cross-party support is so important if our efforts are to have any real effect.
  I urge the Minister to respond to that widespread support by instituting a review for the sake of this country's children, and to protect them from further harm.
  10.15 pm
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: I congratulate the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms. Lynne) on securing this, her first Adjournment debate, and I thank her for devoting it to such an important subject and for so actively supporting my campaign against the book "Juliette". The hon. Lady spoke with great feeling, but her arguments were not emotional but were based on reason. I am particularly indebted to her for sharing with me the time allocated for this debate.
  The "Juliette" case demonstrates the total inadequacy of the current law on obscenity. "Juliette" is not a book; it is a vile manual, and a thick one at that, that encourages the sexual abuse, murder, and torture of children and other vulnerable people. It is not literature; it is the glorification of extreme violence.
  Right hon.and hon. Members in all parts of the House have shown that they support a review of the working of the law on obscenity. Early-day motion 312, in my name —and supported by the hon. Members for Rochdale, for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), and for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), who are all present in the Chamber—calls for such a review. It has to date attracted the signatures of 79 right hon. and hon. Members from seven political parties. I understand that a number of right hon. and hon. Members have also
  1064
  written to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department expressing their support for my call for a review of the law.
  I was pleased to learn from a written answer from my hon. Friend the Minister that the Government agree that the law on obscenity has deficiencies, and that they are willing to support attempts at reform. However, although my hon. Friend's answer begins so promisingly, it rapidly runs into the sand, by mistakenly making this suggestion:
  "Recent attempts to reform the law … have failed to attract sufficient parliamentary support".
  He also argues that
  "this is an area for private Member initiative."—[Official Report, 1 July 1992; Vol. 210, c. 523.]
  The Government are wrong about why previous attempts at reform failed, and about the extent of Government involvement in such reform.
  The most recent attempt at reforming the Obscene Publications Act 1959 was in the Session immediately prior to the 1987 general election, in the form of a Bill sponsored by Mr. Gerald Howarth. His Bill fell not because of lack of support but because of lack of sufficient time due to the general election being called that year.
  Since then, there have been two Government initiatives. The Criminal Justice Act 1988 made possession of child pornography an offence, and the Broadcasting Act 1990 extended the provisions of the 1959 Act to broadcasting. It is inaccurate to claim that obscenity law reform is solely a matter for private Members.
  I ought also to remind the House of the precedent for Government action in other areas of the law where there is one moral component. There is a long history of Governments' reviewing problems with such laws, facilitating necessary parliamentary debate, bringing forward legislation, and even allowing a free vote on certain provisions. Recent examples involve abortion, embryology, capital punishment, war crimes and Sunday trading.
  Madam Speaker: Order. As this is a serious subject, I am sorry to call the hon. Lady to order, but I want to draw her attention and that of the House to the fact that, in general, matters that would entail legislation must not be discussed on the motion for the Adjournment. I can, of course, allow incidental references to legislation, but we must abide by the rules of "Erskine May".
  Mrs. Winterton: I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker, for drawing my attention to the rules of the House. I was, indeed, aware of them, and I was trying to quote previous examples of Government involvement in this area. I am grateful to you for your advice.
  I genuinely believe that the Gvoernment need to arrange a review of available options and to introduce new legislation at an early date. I do not believe that hon. Members who have seen the repugnant material included in "Juliette", to which the hon. Member for Rochdale has referred, will accept that the Government could possibly sustain their position that this matter should be left to private Members. Even Scotland Yard has backed my calls for a Government review.
  Action is needed now to sort out the law by a careful consideration of all the options for reform. I hope that the Minister, in his response, will announce a review.
  10.21 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Michael Jack): I congratulate the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms. Lynne) on obtaining this debate. It gives me personal pleasure to say that her predecessor, Sir Cyril Smith, used lo be a regular visitor to my constituency. With his mother, he took the air in Lytham St. Anne's. I am pleased that the hon. Lady has had this opportunity to raise what is a very important matter. Bearing in mind the tone of the debate and the number of Members who are present, I am in no doubt about the seriousness with which this issue is regarded. not just in this House but, clearly, in the country.
  The hon. Member for Rochdale and my hon. Friend the Members for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) and for Medway (Dame P. Fenner) urged me, for education's sake, to look at the book "Juliette". I assure the House that as soon as I knew that this debate had been tabled I did just that. I share many of the views that hon. Members have expressed about "Juliette". I found the book extremely difficult to read, and I understand very well the concern and shock that they have expressed about its content.
  The hon. Member for Rochdale mentioned the Director of Public Prosecutions. The decision of last December not to prosecute Arrow Books for publishing "Juliette" was made after advice had been received from leading counsel. The reason for that advice was that there was insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction. While I understand hon. Members' concern about that decision, I think that they will agree—
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Jack: I have been generous in terms of time, so I hope that my hon. Friend will allow me to make progress. Hon. Members have raised a number of points to which they want replies, but, if it is possible, I shall allow an intervention from my hon. Friend.
  I hope that hon. Members will agree that it was right to apply the normal prosecution criteria. As will be appreciated, I cannot comment further on this matter. The advice that the director receives and the considerations that he takes into account in coming to his decisions are, by long tradition and for good reasons, confidential. In discharging this role, the director properly enjoys independence from outside interference—independence that this House, when enacting the relevant legislation, has been most anxious to preserve.
  I recognise the force with which comments have been expressed tonight, and I certainly undertake to report the views of the hon. Lady to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. I should also point out that the acting DPP's decision does not prevent anyone from bringing a private prosecution if he wishes to do so. That is right, and an important safeguard in cases in which it is felt that the courts should have the opportunity to reach a view.
  Let me now deal with the subject of obscenity legislation in general.
  Mr. Mark Wolfson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Jack: Yes, at the risk of not being able to answer other hon. Members' questions.
  Mr. Wolfson: My hon. Friend is now dealing with an extremely important issue. So far the debate has focused on the appalling obscenities of "Juliette", but the whole subject of pornography requires a legislative rethink. Many similar publications are just as dangerous and damaging as "Juliette", and that is why we want action from the Government.
  Mr. Jack: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. In the remaining time, I hope to explain that we have a comprehensive range of legislation which deal with many aspects of obscenity and pornography; if I am not able to do so, I shall write to hon. Members.
  The Obscene Publications Act 1959, on which attention is usually focused, is only one part of that comprehensive range of legislation. The Post Office Act 1953 forbids the sending of indecent or obscene articles through the post. The Children and Young Persons (Harmful Publications) Act 1955 prohibits the publication of comics depicting incidents of a repulsive or horrible—
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: May I take up that point, which is vital to the argument? No one questions the fact that certain aspects of obscenity law are not strong. Obscenity law is like a patchwork quilt, strong in parts and extremely weak in others. The DPP was not prepared to prosecute the publisher of the book that we have been discussing because parts of the obscenity law are missing: that is the issue that we are addressing, and asking my hon. Friend the Minister to address.
  Mr. Jack: It is only right for those who comment on our obscenity laws, and on pornography, to do so with a knowledge of all the controls that exist. Obscenity and pornography occur in many different guises, and I thought it right to make the House aware of the range of legislation. There are many other Acts, but time now forbids me from listing them all. Looking at the position in the round, I think that we can be said to have the toughest pornography controls in Europe, and I hope that the House will take some small comfort from that.
  The operation of the Obscene Publications Act lies, I believe, at the heart of the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Rochdale. The main control over obscene publications is the 1959 Act, which was supplemented by further legislation in 1964. Its significance derives from its all-embracing nature, regardless of whether the requirements of other legislation are met. If a work is deemed to be obscene within the terms of the 1959 Act, and if the statutory defences are unsuccessful, its publication is an offence. The Act provides that any person who publishes an obscene article, or possesses it for publication for gain, commits an offence.
  As well as providing for prosecution, the Act provides for the seizure and forfeiture of obscene articles by order of an magistrates court without a criminal prosecution. In cases of that sort, the court must be satisfied that the articles are obscene and kept for publication for gain, and that the person from whom they were seized has not shown cause why the articles should not be forfeited.
  Hon. Members may be interested to learn that, in 1990, 174 people were prosecuted for offences under the Act, of whom 73 were convicted; and that, in 1991, 20,000 articles were the subject of successful seizure proceedings in the Metropolitan police district alone.
  Criticism has been voiced this evening of the Obscene Publications Act. I hope that the figures demonstrate that

  1067
  the present legislation does have some effect. Equally, we recognise that it gives grounds for concern. There has sometimes been criticism of the "public good" defence, which is available in both prosecution and forfeiture proceedings and which applies if a defendant is able to prove that the publication of the article in question is justified as being for the public good, on the grounds that it is in the interests of science, literature, art or learning, or other objects of general concern. Many hon. Members will recollect that it was the latter provisions that gave rise, in some celebrated cases in the past, to processions of expert witnesses called to attest to the literary or other merits of certain works.
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Jack: I wonder whether my hon. Friend would allow me a few more moments in which to make a little progress?
  However, the element in the 1959 Act that attracts most attention is the test of obscenity itself. The Act adopted, with slight variations, the already existing common law definition of obscenity. Section I provides:
  "an article shall be deemed to be obscene if its effect, … is … if taken as a whole, such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it."
  This is a rigorous test. It is not sufficient to establish that those who are exposed to a work find it distressing or offensive. Rather, the prosecution is required to establish that the work has not just the potential but the tendency to corrupt or deprave. I know that hon. Members are interested in that aspect, so I felt it right to put on record the way that the law works.
  Hon. Members have asked for reform of the law. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton referred to Gerald Howarth's Bill in the last Parliament. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), when speaking as a Home Office Minister, expressed his support for such a test in the debate on Gerald Howarth's Bill. It was argued that a work's offensiveness to a reasonable person is an easier test to apply. On that occasion, and on others, the Government demonstrated their support for amendments to the legislation.
  1068
  My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton very properly asked me why the Government were not initiating legislation. I refer her to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd) in which he said:
  "Legislation on obscenity is by tradition left to private Members and the Government are reluctant—rightly, I believe—to set that tradition aside."—[Official Report, 15 December 1989; Vol. 163, c. 1372.]
  If my hon. Friend looks at a number of measures, she will find that not all of them have commanded the widespread support in the House that she suggested in her remarks.
  Mr. Robathan: I was going to ask my hon. Friend when I first tried to intervene whether he intended to refer in more detail to "Juliette," which is the subject of the Adjournment debate. He may know that I spent about 15 years in the Army. I may have seen more pornography in barrack rooms than most hon. Members, and I can promise my hon. Friend that I have never seen anything in my life so depraved, disgusting and repulsive as this book.
  Mr. Jack: Having taken the trouble to get hold of a copy, I can well understand my hon. Friend's remarks. I found the book extremely difficult to read. I can well understand why its contents would shock an individual who read it. However, my task this evening is to put in context the way in which our obscenity laws work and to show that, although this area of our law has come under attack and question this evening, a number of well-rounded measures exist to deal with pornography as it occurs.
  Dr. Robert Spink: Can the Minister give an undertaking that the Government would support a private Member's Bill along those lines?
  Mr. Jack: I would not want to say that the Government would support something that my hon. Friend describes as "a private Member's Bill along those lines." I am sure that he will understand—
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at twenty-six minutes to Eleven o'clock.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the public sector borrowing requirement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The PSBR in 1991–92 was £14.0 billion. The Financial Statement and Budget Report forecast for 1992–93 is for borrowing of £28.1 billion.

  Crown Estate
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Excheqher what payments have been made to the Consolidated Fund in each year since 1962 in respect of the net surplus of the Crown estate.

  Mr. Lamont
  Payments made by the Crown Estate Commissioners to the Consolidated Fund from 1962 are as follows:

  £000s

  1961–62

  2,190

  1962–63

  2,380

  1963–64

  2,470

  1964–65

  3,200

  1965–66

  3,525

  1966–67

  3,600

  1967–68

  3,725

  1968–69

  4,050

  1969–70

  3,800

  1970–71

  3,850

  1971–72

  4,550

  1972–73

  4,700

  1973–74

  5,200

  1974–75

  5,450

  1975–76

  5,300

  1976–77

  5,000

  1977–78

  6,500

  1978–79

  8,250

  1979–80

  10,000

  1980–81

  11,400

  1981–82

  14,000

  1982–83

  16,000

  1983–84

  19,000

  1984–85

  23,000

  1985–86

  26,500

  1986–87

  30,000

  1987–88

  35,000

  1988–89

  41,000

  1989–90

  55,000

  1990–91

  61,000

  11991–92

  70,000

  1 Estimate.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the method of scrutiny and verification of the surplus paid into the Consolidated Fund by the Crown Estate Commissioners.

  Mr. Lamont
  Under section 2 of the Crown Estate Act 1961, the Crown Estate Commissioners are required to 656
  prepare, for each financial year, statements of account in a form directed by the Treasury. These are submitted to the Comptroller and Auditor General for examination and certification. A coy of the certified accounts is laid before Parliament.

  Inflation
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is currently(a) the underlying rate of inflation, (b) the rate of inflation if the costs of mortgages are excluded, (c) the rate of inflation if the costs of gas, water and electricity charges are excluded and (d) the rate of inflation if both the costs of mortgages and the costs of gas, water and electricity charges are excluded.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 30 June 1992]: There is no official measure of the underlying rate of inflation in the United Kingdom. In May this year, the annual inflation rates, as measured by the retail prices index, for the other series were:

  Per cent.

  All-items excluding mortgage interest payments

  5.3

  All-items excluding water, gas and electricity charges

  4.3

  All-items excluding mortgage interest payments, water, gas and electricity

  5.3

  Market Testing
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the total cost so far of the market-testing initiative in his Department since November 1991.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 1 July 1992]: The full cost of the market-testing initiative in my Department since November 1991 is estimated at £150,000.

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements he has made for ensuring payment of vehicle excise duty by travelling people; what prosecutions for non-payment by such persons have taken place in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency with the assistance of the police is responsible for enforcing the payment of vehicle excise duty—VED. In 1991–92, 420,000 motorists were penalised for VED evasion. No separate figures are available for prosecutions taken against travelling people, but there is no evidence to suggest that they contribute disproportionately to the loss of revenue through VED evasion.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many civil servants were employed on 1 October 1981, 1985, 1989 and 1990, respectively.

  Mr. Dorrell
  There were 679,924 civil servants at 1 October 1981; 595,764 at 1 October 1985; 565,075 at 1 October 1989 and 556,250 at 1 October 1990.

  Inheritance Tax
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer on 18 June,Official Report, columns 629–30, if he will make a statement about his five-yearly reviews of land exemption from inheritance tax; and what action follows such a review.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The five-yearly reviews of cases of land exempted from inheritance tax which are undertaken by the Inland Revenue are in addition to the regular monitoring of such cases by the heritage advisory agencies. The Inland Revenue makes separate inquiry of the landowners to determine whether the undertakings are being observed. Any issues arising are resolved in discussion between the agencies and landowners. If a landowner breaks an undertaking given in respect of conditionally exempt land inheritance tax is chargeable on the current value of the property.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there is any time limit on agreements on exemption from inheritance tax for granting public access to land; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Once granted, conditional exemption from inheritance tax will continue provided the owner complies with the terms of the undertakings to maintain and preserve the land and provide reasonable public access to it. A sale of the land will trigger an inheritance tax charge on the current value of the land. If the land changes hands on death or by gift, the exemption can continue, provided the new owner enters into appropriate undertakings. If the new owner does not, there will again be an inheritance tax charge on the current value of land.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whose responsibility it is to inform the public about the right of access to land exempted from inheritance tax.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The owner of land that has been conditionally exempted from inheritance tax is required to publicise the agreed public access arrangements. In addition, the appropriate heritage advisory agency is able to supply information about public access to heritage land including conditionally exempt land, although land will not be identified as conditionally exempt.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will make a statement about the monitoring of land conditionally exempted from inheritance tax by the heritage advisory agencies in England; how often each area of land affected by each agreement is visited; and how many man hours are devoted to this annually;

  (2) if he will make a statement about the monitoring of land conditionally exempted from inheritance tax by the heritage advisory agencies in Wales; how often each area of land affected by each agreement is visited; and how many man hours are devoted to this annually;

  (3) if he will make a statement about the monitoring of land conditionally exempted from inheritance tax by the heritage advisory agencies in Scotland; how often each area of land affected by each agreement is visited; and how many man hours are devoted to this annually.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The heritage advisory agencies routinely monitor compliance by landowners with the undertakings 658
  which they give in return for conditional exemption from inheritance tax. The level and type of monitoring will depend on the facts of each particular case. Details of the number of man hours devoted to the monitoring of such cases are not available.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will make a statement about the definition of what constitutes reasonable public access by the heritage advisory agencies in England with regard to exemptions from inheritance tax;

  (2) if he will make a statement about the definition of what constitutes reasonable public access by the heritage advisory agencies in Wales with regard to exemptions from inheritance tax;

  (3) if he will make a statement about the definition of what constitutes reasonable public access by the heritage advisory agencies in Scotland with regard to exemptions from inheritance tax.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The heritage advisory agencies advise the Inland Revenue as to what constitutes reasonable public access: each case is considered individually on the basis of its own facts.

  The heritage advisory agencies take into account all relevant factors, including, for example, existing rights of way. Additional access may involve formalising existing informal access to open land or extending or joining public paths to make a through route. New access may be needed to areas of particular landscape interest if none exists already. For some scientific land it might be necessary to limit public access in order to preserve its character.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how the heritage advisory agencies in England make available to the public the land management plans prepared by landowners on land exempted from inheritance tax; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how the heritage advisory agencies in Wales make available to the public the land management plans prepared by landowners on land exempted from inheritance tax; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) how the heritage advisory agencies in Scotland make available to the public the land management plans prepared by landowners on land exempted from inheritance tax; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The heritage advisory agencies do not make the land management plans available to the public since they contain information which is covered by the normal rules ensuring taxpayers' confidentiality.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  EC Legislation
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the cases currently proceeding against the United Kingdom for alleged non-implementation of EC legislation, stating for each at what stage the proceedings are currently; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The following cases against the United Kingdom have been referred to the European Court of Justice by the European Commission for alleged non-implementation of EC legislation, and are currently
  659
  proceeding: Cases C56/90, C337/89, C40/92 and C279/89. Details of these cases, and the stage the proceedings have reached, are set out in the annex.

  Annex

  ECJ case number

  Details of case

  Stage of proceedings

  C279/89

  Imposition of conditions by United Kingdom as to operation and crewing of fishing vessels.

  Oral hearing took place on 17 March 1992 in ECJ. Advocate General's Opinion delivered 12 May 1992. Judgment of ECJ awaited.

  C337/89

  Alleged failure by United Kingdom to implement Council Directive 80/778/EEC relating to quality of drinking water and levels of concentrations of nitrates and lead in water in certain areas of the United Kingdom.

  Oral hearing has taken place. Advocate General's Opinion delivered on 21 January 1992. Judgment of ECJ awaited.

  C56/90

  Alleged breach by United Kingdom of Council Directive 76/160 concerning the quality of bathing water in relation to the bathing area in Blackpool and adjacent to Formby and Southport.

  Oral hearing in ECJ set for 27 October 1992.

  C40/92

  Alleged breach by United Kingdom of requirements of Community law with regard to production and marketing of processed milk.

  United Kingdom has lodged defence to Commission's application. Commission has until 6 July 1992 to file a reply if it wishes. Application by Commission for interim measures dismissed by President of Court on 22 May 1992.

EDUCATION

  Access Funds
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the institutions which have already dispersed their allocation of the current year's access funds as at 26 June.

  Mr. Forman
  The information is not kept centrally It is for individual institutions to decide how best to distribute their access funds allocations over the academic year. The Department's guidance advises institutions to consider holding back some of their access funds until late in the academic year. We will be monitoring in the autumn the proportion held back to assist students in this summer term and long vacation.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Criminal Courts (Docks)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will consider abolishing the use of the dock in criminal courts when the defendant is on bail or not in custody.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The use of the dock is one of the issues under consideration by the Royal Commission on criminal justice. My Department will consider the matter in the light of any recommendations the royal commission may take.

TRANSPORT

  Motorway Service Areas
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the average number of motorway service areas per 100 miles on British motorways.
  660
  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Motorways in Wales and Scotland are the responsibilities of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland. In England there are on average 2.6 motorway service areas per 100 miles of motorway.

  Grove Green Road
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many accidents, including fatal ones, there have been in Grove Green road, Leyton and Leytonstone in each of the last three years; and what plans he has to reduce their incidence.

  Mr. Norris
  On Grove Green road from its junction with High road, Leyton to its junction with Church lane, excluding end junctions, there were 10 accidents in 1989. 21 in 1990 and 15 in 1991 giving a total of 46; of these one was fatal, eight serious and 37 slight. We are already looking at the Ruckhold road and Grove Green section of the A106 in Waltham Forest to identify the need for accident prevention measures. The implementation of red route measures should also help to reduce incidents. When completed the planned link road between Hackney Wick and the M11 motorway should relieve Grove Green road of most of its through traffic, and help to improve road safety.

  Itchen Navigation
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 22 June,Official Report, columns 29–30, now navigation rights for vessels will be maintained along the section of the Itchen navigation placed in a tunnel.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  An undertaking has been given to excavate a new channel for craft to use if positive steps are taken to restore the Itchen navigation as a navigable waterway.

  M25
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will publish a list of those properties that would have to be acquired if his plans to improve the M25 motorway between junctions 12 and 15 are implemented;

  (2) if he will publish a full list of addresses of properties that have been sent the official leaflet setting out his plans to improve the M25 between junctions 12 and 15;

  (3) if, following his announcement on 25 June of improvements to the M25 between junctions 12 and 15, he will now publish the proposals for linking a new fifth terminal at Heathrow airport to the M25 motorway.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Twenty-four residential and eight commercial properties would need to be demolished under the current preferred proposal for link roads between junctions 12 and 15 of the M25. The gardens of a further seven properties would also be affected. The occupiers of these properties have been notified of the proposals. Detailed plans of the proposals showing the affected properties will be available at exhibitions to be held locally.

  Some 2,300 explanatory brochures have been distributed by hand to properties within 300 m of the scheme.

  Proposals for access to a new terminal at Heathrow airport would be for the British Airports Authority to bring forward in the first instance.

  Bus Deregulation
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will state for each of the areas subject to bus deregulation, what were the estimated bus passenger miles in(a) 1984 and (b) 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Estimates of bus passenger miles in each of the areas subject to bus deregulation are not available. However, estimates of local bus passenger journeys are as follows. Overall, the number of local bus passenger journeys outside London fell by an average of 3½ per cent. year between 1984 and 1990–91, in line with long-term trends.

  1978

  1984

  1990–91

  English metropolitan areas

  —

  2,047

  1,528

  English shire counties

  —

  1,604

  1,396

  Scotland

  —

  669

  583

  Wales

  —

  168

  147

  GB outside London

  5,325

  4,488

  3,654

  Rail Electrification
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what levels of investment he anticipates for the electrification of the west coast main line; and when work on this is likely to commence.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail is currently considering the extent and timing of work to update the infrastructure of the line.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Wells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what targets he has set for the executive agencies in his Department.
  662
  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The following key targets for 1992–93 have been set for the six executive agencies in my Department. Additional targets are contained in the agencies' business plans; copies of which will be placed in the Library, except for that of the DVO1T—the Drivers, Vehicles and Operators Information Technology Agency —which is commercial in confidence and will not be published.

  The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency's key targets are to make an overall efficiency improvement of 2.5 per cent. as measured by the agency's aggregate efficiency index; deliver 90 per cent. of vocational—non-medical—cases to the customer within 11 working days of receipt; deliver 90 per cent. of provisional driving licence cases within 12 working days of receipt; deliver 90 per cent. of ordinary driving licence—non-medical—eases within 13 working days of receipt; deliver 95 per cent. of changes to vehicle registration documents to the customer within 13 working days of receipt; deliver 95 per cent. of registration documents for new vehicles to the customer within 15 days of receipt; answer 80 per cent. of telephone calls within 30 seconds and callers to be told they are in a queue after 10 seconds; and successfully complete a minimum of 430,000 VED enforcement cases.

  The Driving Standards Agency's key targets are to achieve, or better, unit costs of £22.48 for car tests; £52.44 for bus, coach and lorry tests, and £31.72 for motor cycle tests; cover full costs with income from customers; achieve a national average waiting time of six weeks for car tests and four weeks for motor cycle, bus, coach and lorry tests; and answer 90 per cent. of telephone calls to booking offices within 60 seconds.

  DVOIT's key targets are to fulfil service level agreements with its customers; cover full costs with income from customers; reduce prices for existing services to current customers by RPI minus 3 per cent.; increase revenue per employee by 10 per cent. a year; achieve an annual rate of return of 6 per cent. on total assets employed.

  The Transport Research Laboratory's key targets are 90 per cent. of projects to be completed to customer satisfaction; net revenue per person per year to be a minimum of £40,000; production costs as a percentage of total costs to be greater than 55 per cent.; to recover full economic costs from revenue, while meeting the net control total in supply estimates.

  The Vehicle Certification Agency's key targets are to achieve, or better, a unit cost of £94.31; cover full costs with income from customers; technically clear and issue approval certificates within 27 days on average for 90 per cent. of system and component work, and within 63 days on average for 90 per cent. of whole vehicle work.

  The Vehicle Inspectorate's trading fund key targets are to make a gross efficiency improvement of 2.5 per cent. as measured by the agency's aggregate cost efficiency index; to break even, taking one year with another; and achieve an annual rate of return of 6 per cent. on total assets employed.

  Dockers (Dismissal)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what contribution the Government are making towards the £1,028,000 compensation payment made by the Port of London authority to the 102 dockers dismissed in 1989.
  663
  Mr. Norris
  None.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when his Department authorised the settlement between the Port of London authority and the 102 dockers dismissed in 1989.

  Mr. Norris
  This matter is within the responsibilities of the authority and no Government consent was needed.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what, to date, are the total legal costs to the Exchequer excluding compensation payments, arising from the dismissal, and subsequent tribunal and appeal hearings, relating to dock workers dismissed by the Port of London authority in 1989; and how much of the total cost is a charge on the Government.

  Mr. Norris
  The only charge to the Exchequer was the cost of these cases to the industrial tribunal and employment appeal tribunal system: I understand this is estimated at around £376,000.

  Tilbury-Gravesend Ferry
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he proposes to take following the instruction by the Crown Estate Commissioners to White Horse Ferries Ltd. immediately to stop operating the ferry service between Tilbury and Gravesend.

  Mr. Norris
  The arrangements for the continued operation of the ferry are matters for the bodies concerned.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when his Department first learnt of the instruction by the Crown Estate Commissioners to White Horse Ferries Ltd. immediately to stop operating the ferry service between Tilbury and Gravesend.

  Mr. Norris
  This is not a matter for my Department and we had no foreknowledge of the Crown Estate Commissioners' intentions.

  Catalytic Converters
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent communications his Department has had with the European Commission over the extension of the 1 January 1993 deadline for all cars sold after that date to be fitted with catalytic converters.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 5 June 1992]: The EC Directive, 91/441, does not allow extensions for new cars entering into service from 31 December 1992 to meet standards other than those specified. Neither does this Government want one, since this directive is at the core of our strategy for improving local air quality. We have routinely notified the European Commission of the changes that we are making to our national regulations that will apply this directive on the effective dates. In so doing, we have made separate inquiries of the Commission as to its detailed interpretation of the term "entry into service" so that the United Kingdom's application of the directive will be fully harmonised with those of other member states.

  M40
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the terms of reference for the consultants carrying out the environmental appraisal of the widening of the M40 between the M25 and junction 4.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 1 July 1992]: The initial stages of the commission require the consultants to assess the need for widening and to report on the feasibility of the possible options for meeting that need, taking into account the engineering, operational and environmental considerations.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the estimated total cost of the widening of the M40 between the M25 and junction 4; what is the estimated cost of(a) compensation for loss of property value under the Land Compensation Acts, (b) the provision of noise insulation under the noise insulation regulations and (c) measures to protect the environment against intrusion of the widened road.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 1 July 1992]: Consideration bf the possible options for widening this length of motorway is not yet complete. The requested estimates are therefore not yet available.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how the United Kingdom will respond to the United Nations Secretary-General's appeal for assistance to Afghanistan.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Government will make an immediate pledge of £7.55 million. This sum will be allocated as follows:United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, £4 million, to support its programme of assistance to the refugees who are now returning in large numbers.
  International Committee of the Red Cross, £1 million, of which £0.5 million has already been provided earlier this year.
  United Nations Office of the Co-ordinator for Afghanistan, £0.5 million, for mine clearance.
  Afghanaid, a British non-governmental organisation, 1.6 million, for reconstruction and development work, £0.9 million of which has already been provided.

  Other NGOs, £0.45 million.

  Britain has provided nearly £80 million humanitarian aid since 1980 to alleviate the suffering of the Afghan peoples. We shall continue to monitor needs closely and play our part in Afghanistan's reconstruction.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Sefton Park Palm House
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what consideration his Department is giving to the role of the Sefton Park palm house, in Liverpool, as a tourist attraction.

  Mr. Key
  The development and promotion of individual tourist attractions is a matter for the English tourist board, in conjunction with the regional tourist boards, and the British Tourist Authority.

  Market Testing
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what estimate he has made of savings in his Department as a result of the market-testing programme.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 1 July 1992]: None.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what has been the total cost so far of the market-testing initiative in his Department since November 1991.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 1 July 1992]: As this is a newly formed Department, no costs have yet been incurred on the market-testing initiative.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will give a date when he will announce the areas of work in his Department to be market tested; and whether all relevant information will be made publicly available.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 1 July 1992]: I refer to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) on 22 June 1992, Official Report, column 102.

WALES

  Youth Training Scheme
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many young people in Wales have been on weekly bridging allowances awaiting YTS placements in the last three years.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The number of young people in Wales in receipt of bridging allowances is provided on a monthly basis from January 1989 to December 1991 in the table.

  Numbers in receipt of bridging allowances (Wales)

  Number

  1989

  January

  767

  February

  832

  March

  774

  April

  671

  May

  569

  June

  583

  July

  621

  August

  630

  September

  514

  October

  526

  November

  476

  December

  460

  1990

  January

  563

  February

  763

  March

  704

  April

  585

  May

  526

  June

  577

  July

  599

  August

  585

  September

  591

  October

  575

  November

  582

  December

  550

  666

  Number

  1991

  January

  656

  February

  919

  March

  977

  April

  890

  May

  804

  June

  703

  July

  724

  August

  747

  September

  613

  October

  562

  November

  564

  December

  492

  Rural Initiative
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give a breakdown of the spending so far on his rural initiative.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Full expenditure details for work undertaken in 1991–92 under the rural initiative are not yet available. Allocations for 1991–92 under the rural initiative comprised: an increase of £6 million to £32 million in Housing for Wales' support for housing in rural areas; an increase in provision from £1 million to £3 million in reserve to assist local authorities with rural housing, supplemented by an additional in-year allocation of £4.5 million.

  These allocations, together with core and other allocations to local authorities will mean that total investment in rural housing is expected to be over £85 million.

  In addition to the £20 million Welsh Development Agency expenditure in support of mainstream activities in rural areas, a further £5 million was allocated to the agency for specific measures in rural areas and related core activities.

  Funding totalled £1.2 million under the projects of regional or national importance—PRNI—scheme, for leisure and sports centre development at Rhayader and Llandrindod Wells; and £5 million was allocated to support projects put forward by local authorities likely to be of most benefit to rural communities.

  Allocations for 1992–93 under the initiative are £35 million for Housing for Wales for rural housing; £4 million for local authorities from the rural housing reserve; £6 million for local authorities from other central reserves which will benefit rural areas. This, together with the £4 million for local authority rural housing and £2 million of the Housing for Wales provision, makes up the £12 million on top of core allocations announced by the Secretary of State in December 1991.

  a

  These allocations, together with core allocations to local authorities are expected to bring total investment in rural housing to over £112 million.

  There has been an increase of £3 million in funding of the Countryside Council for Wales, to £17 million. Some £0.5 million of this has been provided to develop a new pilot scheme, "Tir Cymen", for management of rural landscapes and habitats.

  Some £400,000 has been directed by the Wales tourist board to new rural tourism marketing and project programmes.
  667
  The Welsh Development Agency's expenditure in rural areas will increase by £7.5 million to £32.5 million.

  There will also be a £6 million programme of local authority capital projects designed specifically for the benefit of rural communities.

  This package is in addition to the extra £2.2 million provision for the Development Board for Rural Wales, announced in December 1991; and to the extra £1.4 million for the three Welsh national parks, also announced in December 1991.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what steps he has taken to ensure that district and borough councils in Wales received sufficient cash from central Government to enable them to meet their responsibilities for refuse disposal; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what steps he has taken to ensure that Welsh district and borough councils received sufficient cash from central

  Appeals at employing authority level

  Appeals at all-Wales level

  Appeals at national level

  Health authority

  Number outstanding

  Percentage of total appeals submitted

  Number outstanding

  Percentage of total appeals submitted

  Number outstanding

  Percentage of total appeals submitted

  Clwyd

  0

  99

  62

  12

  100

  East Dyfed

  42

  7

  79

  72

  11

  92

  Gwent

  5

  —

  294

  71

  26

  96

  Gwynedd

  0

  —

  134

  42

  47

  100

  Mid Glamorgan

  510

  38

  208

  83

  13

  81

  Pembrokeshire

  0

  56

  100

  0

  —

  Powys

  0

  151

  70

  1

  20

  South Glamorgan

  0

  252

  86

  20

  100

  West Glamorgan

  0

  86

  64

  29

  100

  Wales

  557

  9

  1,359

  70

  159

  95

  House Repair Grants
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will up-date by the appropriate percentage the level of those means-tested house repair grants based on 1991 benefit rates; and make equivalent adjustment to renovation and disabled facilities grants.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The uprating of allowances and premiums for house renovation grants is being considered along with other adjustments to the test of resources following the recent review of the grant system. We expect to make a further announcement shortly.

  Brymbo Site
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been made in securing the Brymbo steelworks site; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  This site is still in the ownership of United Engineering Steels Ltd. Its future is under active consideration.

  A-level and GCSE
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what provision he envisages of A-level and GCSE courses in Wrexham following the termination of their provision at the North East Wales institute.
  668
  Government to enable them to meet their responsibilities concerning economic development; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what steps he has taken to ensure that Welsh district and borough councils received sufficient central Government cash to enable them to meet their responsibilities concerning environmental health; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The local government finance settlement for 1992–93, approved by the House on 12 February, enables local authorities in Wales to maintain and develop services for Which they are responsible to an acceptable standard.

  Nurses' Grading
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many nurse clinical grading appeals are outstanding in each health authority in Wales; and what percentage this is of the total number of appeals submitted in each county in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested on outstanding appeals is as shown in the table:

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The provision of A-level and GCSE courses in schools and further education colleges is the responsibility of the local education authority. As from 1 April 1993 a new independent further education sector will be established, comprising further education colleges, tertiary colleges and sixth form colleges. The Further Education Funding Council for Wales will be responsible for securing the provision of adequate facilities for post-16 education in the new sector, including the provision of A-level and GCSE courses. Clwyd LEA will retain responsibility for the provision of A-level and GCSE courses in its schools.

  Forensic Psychiatric Service
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much money is being made available to the forensic psychiatric service in Wales to fund the capital costs of developing medium secure accommodation and to support its essential manning costs in the initial period until its development has been secured.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In 1991–92, the Welsh Office fully funded the capital and revenue costs of developing the Caswell clinic at Glanrhyd hospital, Bridgend. Revenue support will continue to be available in 1992–93 to help the clinic move to a contractual relationship with purchasing health authorities.

  Community Councils
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are his proposals for the role of community councils following the reorganisation of local government in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I am publishing today a consultation paper on the future role of community and town councils under the unitary authority structure which I will be putting in place. My earlier statements to the House have made clear the importance I attach to the work of these councils and the advantages I see in enhancing their representational role as the voice of their communities. My consultation paper invites views on how this may be achieved.

  The consultation paper will be circulated widely. I am inviting responses by 30 September 1992, and I propose to take account of the comments received in preparing the White Paper which I shall be publishing later this year.

  Health and Social Care Research
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what response he has received to the consultative document "Health and Social Care Research, Wales".

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  We have received 33 responses from a range of research institutions and other interested bodies. The majority were broadly in favour of the approach recommended in the document, which was to maintain the current arrangements for supporting health and social care research and development in Wales, within the context of a more clearly defined strategy and closer co-ordination at all levels. While some respondents called for a separate Welsh research and development function, most favoured continued participation in the joint England and Wales programme although all wished Welsh interests to be clearly and properly represented. We intend therefore to proceed in line with the recommendations made in the consultative document, including the drawing up of a formal agrement between the Welsh Office and the Department of Health regarding activity under the joint programme. The NHS Wales research and development strategy which is being developed during this year will be a core element of the overall strategy for health and social care research in Wales.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Sea Fish Conservation
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what considerations have taken place with the fish producers organisations in Northern Ireland in relation to the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Northern Ireland fishing industry has been included in the consultation on the implementation of a package of measures which includes effort control, and its views will be considered carefully. The purpose of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill is to provide the necessary enabling powers for the effort control element of the package.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the average time taken to process an application form for disability living allowance.
  670
  Mr. Hanky
  Social security operational matters are the responsibility of the chief executive of the Social Security Agency. He will write to the hon. Gentleman and copies of his reply will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many and what percentage of officers in grades 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 respectively and overall in his Department are registered disabled people.

  Mr. Mates
  At 1 January 1992 there were 1,262 staff in the Northern Ireland civil service—4.3 per cent. of the service—who reported themselves as having a disability. Of these, 431–1.5 per cent. of the service—were, or had been, registered as disabled. In addition, 45 registered disabled poeple are working in the Northern Ireland civil service under the sheltered placement scheme.

  The number and percentage of staff with disabilities in each grade 1 to 7 were:

  Grade

  Number who reported a disability (SRD)

  Percentage SRD

  Number registered as disabled (RD)

  Percentage RD

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  1

  2.4

  1

  2.4

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  5

  2.6

  —

  —

  6

  13

  3.7

  3

  0.9

  7

  22

  2.6

  3

  0.4

  NHS Expenditure
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the expenditure per head in Northern Ireland of(a) hospital and community health services, (b) general practitioner services, excluding the cost of prescriptions, (c) dental services, gross and net of charges and (d) general practitioner-prescribed prescriptions, in 1991–92.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested will not be available until 31 August 1992.

ENVIRONMENT

  City Challenge
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment When he intends to make an announcement on the results of the city challenge; how many local authorities will receive such funding; and what is the planned total amount over the next five years.

  Mr. Redwood
  The results of the second round of the city challenge competition will be announced on 16 July 1992. The planned total amount for the 20 authorities in the second round over the next five years is £750 million.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many licences for the storage of radioactive waste have been issued since 1979 for the Blaenau Gwent constituency under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 and its successor Acts.
  671
  Mr. Maclean
  There are currently no authorisations under section 7(1) of the Act in force for the accumulation of radioactive waste at premises in Blaenau Gwent. A study of available records has not revealed that any authorisations have been issued since 1979 in respect of premises in this district.

  Organotin Products
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what effect(a) the EC marketing and use directive and (b) the treaties and protocols signed at the United Nations conference on environment and development will have on the use of all organotin products.

  Mr. Maclean
  (a) The eighth amendment to the EC marketing and use directive prohibits the use of organotin-based antifouling products on boats less than 25 m and on aquaculture equipment. It exends to other member states controls which have operated in the United Kingdom since 1987. The directive also prohibits the use of organotins for treatment of industrial waters and this provision was implemented in the United Kingdom in February 1992. This use has not been identified in the United Kingdom, but has caused environmental problems in other member states.

  (b) UNCED "Agenda 21", although not a binding convention, sets out a broad programme for improvement of the oceans including a reference to reducing pollution caused by organotin compounds used in antifouling paints. This is in line with a resolution adopted in 1990 by the International Maritime Organisation which aims to reduce the impact of the use of such paints on large vessels and to encourage the development of environmentally safe substitutes.

  Rent Arrears
  Mr. George Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide, in relation to rent arrears for each metropolitan borough and district council in England and Wales for 1987–88 and each succeeding year for which the information is available,(a) the number of tenants in rent arrears and this figure as a percentage of all local authority tenants, (b) the average and total amounts due and (c) the total amount as a percentage of local authorities' revenue from rents.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have today placed in the Library a table showing the total amount of rent arrears due to each local authority in England, at the end of financial years 1987–88 to 1990–91 inclusive, and the percentage this represents of total rent due. The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy publication "Housing Rents Statistics at April" contains information about the number of tenants in arrears with rents, rates and other charges in England and Wales; copies are available in the Library. For information on total rent arrears in Wales, I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Methane
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment from how many active sites in England and Wales the estimate of methane emissions from landfills in the "Digest of Environmental Protection and 672
  Water Statistics" No. 14 is derived; how many other landfills in England and Wales are estimated to emit methane; and what is their total annual contribution.

  Mr. Maclean
  The landfill gas methane emissions estimate in the "Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics" No. 14 is derived from data on 453 sites in England and Wales.

  There are many additional landfill sites in which methane may be generated to some extent, but biological conditions in these sites are much less favourable for methane generation and it is thought unlikely that they constitute a significant additional source.

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment at the sites where gas control and capture measures are in place, what are the realistic figures from field studies of(a) the efficiency of capture and (b) the escape of methane through leaky pipeworks, valves and burners.

  Mr. Maclean
  Field studies suggest that methane capture efficiencies of between 50 and 90 per cent. are achieved by landfill gas control and capture measures. The escape of methane from leaky pipe work, valves and burners is likely to be negligible.

  Urban Programme
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what eligibility criteria are applied to select local authorities for urban programme status;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the reasons for his decision not to confer urban programme status on Pendle.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  In 1986, urban programme resources were concentrated on 57 local authority areas which had the greatest needs in terms of scale and intensity of deprivation as measured mainly by unemployment and 1981 census data. At that time, Pendle did not show either the scale or intensity of deprivation to justify urban programme status. The criteria for assessing urban needs will be reviewed towards the end of the year in the light of data derived from the 1991 census.

  Sefton Park Palm House
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the future of Liverpool's Sefton Park palm house; what grants are available for its renewal; and what consideration his Department and the Merseyside development corporation have given to its role in developing environmental awareness.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  In the last 12 months the Department has received very few representations on Sefton Park palm house.

  Liverpool city council is exploring all avenues for the eligibility of grants for the restoration of Sefton Park palm house, including possible grants from English Heritage or the urban programme.

  The original application by Liverpool city council envisaged a restored palm house as an integral part of a wider concept for a Victorian heritage trail in south Liverpool. We will give careful consideration to proposals that meet these wider aims and objectives of environmental awareness and are consistent with the relevant grant regimes.
  673
  Although Liverpool city council has held discussions with Merseyside development corporation, the palm house lies outside MDC's designated area and due to other priorities the corporation is unable to consider support.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made in processing the application made to his Department by Liverpool city council in connection with Liverpool palm house; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The application has been deferred, pending the outcome of a study being undertaken by English Heritage. When this is known Liverpool city council will re-assess its proposals before resubmitting them to my Department.

  Home Energy Efficiency Scheme
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many households in Barnsley qualify for grant aid under the home energy efficiency scheme; and how many houses have been improved under the scheme since its inception in 1991.

  Mr. Maclean
  In order to be eligible for grant under the home energy efficency scheme, an applicant or his or her spouse must be in receipt of one of five passportable benefits: housing benefit, income suport, family credit, community charge benefit and disability working allowance. In addition, his or her property must meet certain criteria concerning existing levels of insulation and receipt of a grant for similar work under previous schemes. Data on numbers of households eligible in any particular area at a particular time are not available.

  Figures for the number of homes treated tinder the scheme are not collected on a constituency basis. Within the network installer area which contains the hon. Member's constituency, 1,492 homes have benefited from HEES grant since 1 January 1991.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many households in Leyton qualify for grant aid under the home energy efficiency scheme; and how many houses have been improved under the scheme since its inception in 1991.

  Mr. Maclean
  In order to be eligible for grant under the home energy efficiency scheme, an applicant or his spouse must be in receipt of one of five passportable benefits: housing benefit, income support, family credit, community charge benefit and disablilty working allowance. In addition, his or her property must meet certain criteria concerning existing levels of insulation and receipt of a grant for similar work under previous schemes. Data on numbers of households eligible in any particular area at a particular time are not available.

  Figures for the number of homes treated under the scheme are not collected on a constituency basis. Within the network installer area which contains the hon. Member's constituency, 238 homes have benefited from HEES grant since 1 January 1991.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many households in North Warwickshire qualify for grant aid under the home energy efficiency scheme; and how many houses have been improved under the scheme since its inception in 1991.
  674
  Mr. Maclean
  In order to be eligible for grant under the home energy efficiency scheme, an applicant or his or her spouse must be in receipt of one of five passportable benefits: housing benefit, income support, family credit, community charge benefit and disability working allowance. In addition, his or her property must meet certain criteria concerning existing levels of insulation and receipt of a grant for similar work under previous schemes. Data on numbers of households eligible in any particular area at a particular time are not available.

  Figures for the number of homes treated under the scheme are not collected on a constituency basis. Within the network installer area which contains the hon. Member's constituency, 1,066 homes have benefited from HEES grant since 1 January 1991.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many households in Burnley are estimated to qualify for grant aid under the home efficiency scheme; and how many houses have been improved in Burnley under the scheme since its inception in 1991.

  Mr. Maclean
  In order to he eligible for grant under the home energy efficiency scheme, an applicant or his or her spouse must be in receipt or one of five passportable benefits: housing benefit, income support, family credit, community charge benefit and disability working allowance. In addition, his or her property must meet certain criteria concerning existing levels of insulation and receipt of a grant for similar work under previous schemes. Data on numbers of households eligible in any particular area at a particular time are not available.

  Figures for the number of homes treated under the scheme are not collected on a constituency basis. Within the network installer area which contains the hon. Member's constituency, 245 homes have benefited from HEES grant since 1 January 1991.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many households in Coventry, North-East qualify for grant aid under the home energy efficiency scheme; and how many houses have been improved under this scheme since 1991.

  Mr. Maclean
  In order to be eligible for grant under the home energy efficiency scheme, an applicant or his or her spouse must be in receipt of one of five passportable benefits: housing benefit, income support, family credit, community charge benefit and disability working allowance. In addition, his or her property must meet certain criteria concerning existing levels of insulation and receipt of a grant for similar work under previous schemes. Data on numbers of households eligible in any particular area at a particular time are not available.

  Figures for the number of homes treated under the scheme are not collected on a constituency basis. Within the network installer area which contains the hon. Member's constituency, 1,066 homes have benefited from HEES grant since 1 January 1991.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many households in Lewisham, Deptford, qualify for grant aid under the home energy efficiency scheme; and how many houses have been improved under the scheme since its inception in 1991.

  Mr. Maclean
  In order to be eligible for grant under the home energy efficiency scheme, an applicant or his or her
  675
  spouse must be in receipt of one of five passportable benefits: housing benefit, income support, family credit, community charge benefit and disability working allowance. In addition, his or her property must meet certain criteria concerning existing levels of insulation and receipt of a grant for similar work under previous schemes. Data on numbers of households eligible in any particular area at a particular time are not available.

  Figures for the number of homes treated under the scheme are not collected on a constituency basis. 'Within the network installer area which contains the hon. Member's constituency, 106 homes have benefited from HEES grant since 1 January 1991.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many households in the Manchester, Wythenshawe constituency qualify for grant aid under the home energy efficiency scheme; and how many houses have been improved under the scheme since its inception in 1991.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 1 July 1992]: In order to be eligible for grant under the home energy efficiency scheme, an applicant or his or her spouse must be in receipt of one of five passportable benefits: housing benefit, income support, family credit, community charge benefit and disability working allowance. In addition, his or her property must meet certain criteria concerning existing levels of insulation and receipt of a grant for similar work under previous schemes. Data on numbers of households eligible in any particular area at a particular time are not available.

  Figures for the number of homes treated under the scheme are not collected on a constituency basis. Within the network installer area which contains the right hon. Member's constituency, 986 homes have benefited from HEES grant since 1 January 1991.

  Business Rate
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will review the methods of business rate evaluation of small businesses which operate for only part of the year.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  No. Rents for property, which are the basis for rateable value assessments, take into account local seasonal use, which is therefore already reflected in annual rates bills.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he now expects to publish the regulations for the procedure for an appeal against the valuation of a property for the purpose of the council tax.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I expect to issue draft regulations for consultation later this month.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make the banded valuations for the purposes of the council tax the basis for assessment of water charges, where(a) new properties are being built and (b) properties were incorrectly valued in the last available valuation under the rating system.

  Mr. Maclean
  It is for individual water companies to decide on their preferred future system of charging for 676
  their services, subject to the overriding requirement, contained in their licence of appointment, that their charges do not show undue preference to, or unduly discriminate against, any class of customers or potential customers. The Director General of Water Services has recently issued guidance to the companies on the suitability of the available alternatives.

  Energy Conservation
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce grants for energy conservation in the domestic sector, including grants for cavity wall insulation.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 2 June 1992]: The Department provides grants to householders on low incomes for energy efficiency measures through the home energy efficiency scheme. Finance to encourage energy efficiency measures in housing is also made available through house renovation grants and minor works assistance, local authorities' council housing repair and improvement programmes, the green house demonstration programme and estates action.

  The Energy Savings Trust announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 13 May, Official Report, at column 136, is also expected to make grants available to improve energy efficiency.

  Management Agreements
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to revise his Department's circular 3/84 on financial guidelines for management agreements.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 29 June 1992]: We will make such revisions as are necessary following the forthcoming review of the financial guidelines.

SCOTLAND

  Factor 8
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the operation of the Medicines Act (Exemptions from Licences) (Importation) Order 1984—SI, 1984, No. 673—in relation to named patient arrangements for the supply of unlicensed factor 8 preparations and other unlicensed pharmaceutical products.

  Mr. Stewart
  I refer to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Health on 1 July 1992.

  Responsibility for the operation of the Medicines Act (Exemptions from Licences) (Importation) Order 1984 is a matter for the Medicines Control Agency.

  Immunologists
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many consultant immunologists there are in each Scottish health board area.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information collected centrally records only the main specialty of a doctor and shows that there were no consultant immunologists employed in the NHS in Scotland at 30 September 1991, the latest date for
  677
  which information is available. No information is available centrally on the number of doctors who work in immunology and for whom this specialty constitutes an area of special interest.

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give for 1988, 1989 and 1990(a) the number of whole-time equivalent national health service staff employed on the terms and conditions of the national health service administrative and clerical staffs Whitley council in Scotland, (b) the number of whole-time equivalent national health service general and senior managers and (c) the number of health staff employed at the Scottish Home and Health Department.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) National Health Service administrative and clerical staff (whole-time equivalent) at 30 September employed under Whitley Council terms and conditions (1,2)

  Number

  1988

  14,713.2

  1989

  15,111.9

  1990

  15,577.8

  (b) NHS general and senior managers (whole time equivalent) at 30 September

  1988

  1989

  1990

  General managers

  62.0

  62.0

  65.0

  Senior managers(3)

  28.0

  49.0

  281.0

  (c) Staff employed in the Scottish Home and Health Department on health matters at 1 April

  Number

  1988

  355

  1989

  356

  1990

  379

  Hospital Directors
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the salaries and other benefits for each executive and non-executive director of the South Ayrshire district general hospital and the Foresterhill hospital.

  Mr. Stewart
  The chairman of the South Ayrshire NHS trust is paid £17,145 per annum and the chairman of the Aberdeen Royal Hospitals trust £19,285 per annum. Non-executive directors are paid £5,000 per annum. The chairman and non-executive directors of both trusts also qualify for travelling and other allowances identical to those for members of health boards. Salaries and other benefits for executive directors are the responsibility of the trusts themselves.

  Departmental Expenses
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total cost of official(a) hospitality and functions, (b) visits outwith Scotland and (c) gifts, etc. attributable to the Scottish Office in each year since 1980; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 11 June 1992]: The information requested is as follows:
  678

  (a) Hospitality and Functions

  Year

  Amount spent on hospitality(£)

  1980–81

  19,427

  1981–82

  20,762

  1982–83

  31,588

  1983–84

  26,287

  1984–85

  27,301

  1985–86

  35,815

  1986–87

  38,315

  1987–88

  41,983

  1988–89

  42,987

  1989–90

  60,173

  1990–91

  65,123

  1991–92

  62,800

  (b) Visits outwith Scotland

  Scottish Office Ministers and officials incur travel and subsistence costs on journeys outwith Scotland, particularly to England, in the normal course of duties and functions placed on them by Parliament. It is not possible to identify those costs separately from the total Scottish Office travel and subsistence expenditure, which was £4,972 million in 1991–92.

  (c) Gifts etc.

  Records in relation to gifts attributable to the Scottish Office go back only to 1988–89. The cost of gifts incurred by the Scottish Office since then are:

  £

  1988–89

  109

  1989–90

  403

  1990–91

  330

  1991–92

  450

  Superannuation Division
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what is the timetable for the establishment of the Scottish Office superannuation division as a "next steps" agency; and whether both the administration and the policy side of the division will be incorporated within it;

  (2) if he will place in the Library the framework document for the establishment of the Scottish Office superannuation division as a "next steps" agency;

  (3) if he will make a statement on his reasons for setting up the Scottish Office superannuation division as a "next steps" agency; what measures he will take to protect the standards of service provided by the superannuation division; and what will be the performance criteria for the agency.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 30 June 1992]: The Government's declared policy under its "next steps" programme is that units within government carrying out executive functions should be established as agencies operating within frameworks which enable them to improve their performance. Key aims of the programme are to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the agencies and the standard of services which they provide.

  The Secretary of State announced on 6 March, Official Report, column 335, that the Scottish Office superannuation division is to be established as an agency by the autumn. A firm date will be announced as soon as possible. The new agency will assume all the functions undertaken at present by the superannuation division, including advising Ministers on policy issues. The framework document under which the agency will operate will include a clear statement of its functions and responsibilites. It will

  679
  be published on the launch of the agency and a copy will be placed in the Library. Performance criteria arid key performance targets will also be published at that time.

PRIME MINISTER

  Tibet
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will use the opportunity of the British presidency of the EC to co-ordinate a community response to the claims of Tibet to self-determination.

  The Prime Minister
  No state recognises Tibet as independent. Successive British Governments have, however, consistently regarded Tibet as autonomous, while recognising the special position of the Chinese there. We have urged the Chinese authorities to allow that autonomy. During our presidency we shall continue to take up with the Chinese authorities human rights abuses both in Tibet and in China.

  Earth Summit
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what progress has been made in establishing the United Kingdom national consultation committee on sustainable development as agreed at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development.

  The Prime Minister
  The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development did not agree to set up a United Kingdom national consultation committee on sustainable development. UNCED did agree to recommend that the United Nations General Assembly set up, within the UN system, a Commission for Sustainable Development. The United Kingdom welcomed this, and we have undertaken to report regularly to the commission on our own progress towards sustainable development. In preparing those reports, we shall want to consult fully with interested people and organisations.

  War Crimes
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Prime Minister what current consideration Her Majesty's Government are giving to evidence of atrocities at the Sylt camp on Alderney and elsewhere in the Channel islands during the second world war.

  The Prime Minister
  The War Crimes Act 1991 gives United Kingdom courts jurisdiction over acts of murder, manslaughter or culpable homicide committed as violations of the laws and customs of war in territory which was part of Germany or under German occupation during the second world war by people who are now British citizens or resident in the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man or any of the Channel islands, but who did not have British nationality at the material time.

  There is no reason to believe that anyone responsible for atrocities/war crimes committed in the Channel islands is in the United Kingdom.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 July.

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 July.
  680
  The Prime Minister
  This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall he having further meetings later today.

  Environment
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to the answer of 18 June from the Minister for the Environment and Countryside,Official Report, column 664, when he expects to receive a response from the Group of Seven colleagues to his eight-point plan relating to global forecasting; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I wrote to G7 leaders proposing that they should commit themselves to action to follow up the agreements reached at the Earth summit. One of my specific proposals was that we should each commit ourselves to preparing and publishing national plans for action on biological diversity.

  I hope we shall discuss these matters at the forthcoming summit in Munich.

HEALTH

  Baby Food
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will review the United Kingdom voluntary code on direct advertising of infant formula to parents; and if she will consider including within the code formulae which are manufactured for older babies.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The United Kingdom delegation was at the forefront of ensuring that the principles of the World Health Organisation international code of marketing of breast-milk substitutes—the WHO code—were incorporated into the EC directive—91/321/ EEC—on infant formulae and follow-on formulae agreed in May 1991. National legislation to implement the directive is in preparation and will require a review of the voluntary UK code, including the products that are covered. The Government are committed to ensuring that the existing restrictions on marketing and advertising are, at least. maintained.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions she has had with the Finnish baby milk manufacturer Young Nutrition about the application of the United Kingdom voluntary code on direct advertising of infant formulae to parents.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Discussions between representatives from Young Nutrition and officials about the operation of the code of practice for the marketing of infant formulae in the United Kingdom took place before the company launched its products in the UK. As a result, Young Nutrition joined the Infant and Dietetic Foods Association of the Food and Drink Federation and has representation on the code monitoring committee that oversees compliance with the code in the UK.

  Haemophilia
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what representations she has received from the United Kingdom Regional Haemophilia Centre directors' committee about the licensing of pharmaceutical products
  681
  used in the treatment of people with haemophilia; if she will make it her policy that all people with haemophilia A should be treated with licensed monoclonal high purity products; and if she will make central funds available for this purpose;

  (2) if she will make it her policy not to allow unlicensed factor 8 products for the treatment of haemophilia to be imported or used within the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have received no such representations from the United Kingdom Regional Haemophilia Centre Directors' Committee. It is normal practice in the United Kingdom for clinicians to use licensed medicinal products. It is also possible for clinicians, under sections 9 and 13 of the Medicines Act, to prescribe an unlicensed product on a "named patient" basis.

  It is for clinicians to decide the most appropriate product indicated for the treatment of each individual patient.

  Orthodontic Treatment
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the total numbers, the total cost and the average cost of a chargeable course of orthodontic treatment in the financial years 1988–89, 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92 in each health region and England as a whole.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Over 95 per cent. of orthodontic treatment is given to patients under 18 years of age and even some adult orthodontic treatment is likely to be on patients who are also charge-exempt. The amount of chargeable orthodontic treatment is, therefore, very small.

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give for 1988 and 1989(a) the number of whole-time equivalent national health service staff employed on the terms and conditions of the national health service administrative and clerical staffs Whitley council in England, (b) the number of whole-time equivalent national health service general and senior managers and (c) the number of staff employed at her Department.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  At 30 September 1988 and 1989 the numbers of whole-time equivalent administrative and clerical staff employed in the national health service in England were 114,720 and 116,840 respectively. Corresponding figures for general and senior managers are 1,240 and 4,610. It is not possible to present accurate staffing figures for the Department of Health before 1 January 1989 following its separation from the Department of Social Security in October 1988. Figures for permanent staff in post in 1989 were 8,794 at 1 January and 8,712 at 1 October—part-time staff being counted as half units.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish a table showing for each region, and nationally the numbers on the waiting lists as at April and October 1990, 1991 and 1992.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department's statistical bulletins are published every six months. These include the total 682
  number of people waiting for hospital treatment by region and nationally. The most recent information for the six months to 30 September 1991 was published on 4 June. For provisional figures for the year to March 1992, I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) on 12 May at columns 489–92. These show that between 31 March 1990 and 31 March 1992 the total number of patients waiting fell by over 43,000 or 4.5 per cent.

  Obsessive Compulsions
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what treatment is now available under the national health service for obsessive compulsion disorder sufferers; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  National health service treatment for obsessive compulsive disorder sufferers is a matter for the clinical judgment of the responsible health professional. Current approaches include the use of behaviour therapy and anti-depressant medication.

  Community Care
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provisions she proposes to make to establish the amount of social security transfer to local authorities for community care that will be made available from April 1993 onwards following the disbanding of the Algebra group.

  Mr. Yeo
  The social security transfer will be calculated in accordance with the formula, and the factors affecting it, which were the subject of the completed discussions in the so-called "Algebra group". The transfer will be announced in the context of this year's local authority expenditure settlement. It will be transparent, separately identifiable and local authorities and others with an interest will be able to see how the calculations were done.

  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the effect of financial considerations on the ability of local authorities to implement the Children Act 1989 and the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990.

  Mr. Yeo
  Personal social services—PSS—standard spending for 1992–93 has been set at £4,850 million, an increase of 7.7 per cent—3.1 per cent. in real terms—over 1991–92 standard spending, and 6 per cent. higher than 1991–92 budgets. Over the two years 1990–91 to 1992–93, PSS standard spending will have increased by nearly one third—19 per cent. in real terms. The settlement provides a realistic increase in resources for PSS taking account of falling inflation, and allows for the first full year costs of implementing the Children Act, phase 2 of community care, new and increased specific grants, inflation and demography. PSS expenditure has increased by 67 per cent. in real terms since 1978–79.

  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what extra funds she will grant to health authorities in order that community health services. including district nurses, collaborate with local authorities in implementing care in the community.

  Mr. Yeo
  District health authorities are working with social services departments to develop strategies for the
  683
  provision of community health services. Health authorities are already funded for their responsibilities, including preparation for implementing "Caring for People" in April 1993. Resources for 1993–94 will be determined in the public expenditure survey in the usual way. Regional health authorities, when allocating these resources to districts and GP fund holders, will take account of special needs resulting from agreed plans for collaboration between national health service and local authority staff.

  NHS Estates
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the plans of the National Health Service Estates executive agency.

  Mr. Sackville
  I am pleased to report that National Health Service Estates has had a successful first year as an executive agency of this Department. I have agreed the agency's 1992–93 three-year corporate plan, and annual business plan.

  Objectives/key tasks for the agency for 1992–93 are:

  1. To keep within agreed running cost/cash limits and recover budgeted income flow by increasing efficiency, reducing costs and improving revenues saving 4 per cent on the agency's 1992–93 running cost allocation, producing 100 per cent. of services within time and cost agreed and assessing requirements for eventual move to the most suitable financial regime.

  2. To facilitate the release of capital and revenue resources for improved health care through increasing uptake by NHS customers of agency asset management, estate utilisation, option appraisal and design products. Target for 1992–93 —£250-£500 million.

  3. In the light of the health reforms, to agree with existing and new customers their changing requirements for products and services while identifying a further 30 per cent. of area 3 services for untying.

  4. Manage the agency's relocation to Leeds by March 1993 maintaining service levels, credibility and morale.

  5. To facilitate improved productivity by reviewing pay/performance and staff management requirements making recommendations by March 1993.

  6. To improve product quality by implementing a programme to achieve BS 5750 quality assurance accreditation in 1993–94.

  Health Service Commissioner
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects to receive the annual report of the Health Service Commissioner for 1991–92.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Health Service Commissioner has, as in previous years, made a report on the performance of his functions in England, Scotland and Wales. My right hon. Friends, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Wales and I presented the report to the House on 1 July. It was published today—HC82—and copies have been placed in the Library. Copies are also available from the Vote Office.

  Pen Injection Systems
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made in her Department's review about the provision of needles for pen injection systems for diabetics through general practitioner prescription; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Discussions are continuing with suppliers about the price and technical specification of pen 684
  injection systems and their needles. When these discussions have reached a satisfactory conclusion, we aim to make pens and needles prescribable at the earliest opportunity.

  Clinical Grading
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her best estimate of the time it will take to resolve outstanding clinical grading by nurses(a) in England, (b) in Wales and (c) in Scotland, (i) at the current rate of progress and (ii) given the current proposals for speeding up the process.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) on 30 June at columns 462–63.

  Foetal Parts
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement regarding the uses to which foetal parts from aborted pre-born babies are put when they are not incinerated.

  Mr. Sackville
  A code of practice on the use of foetal tissue is contained in the Polkinghorne report on the review of the guidance on the research use of foetal and foetal material, a copy of which is in the Library. Health authorities and places approved under section 1(3) of the Abortion Act 1967 have been asked to ensure that the code of practice is fully adhered to.

  Domestic Fires
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths she estimates could be avoided each year if smoke alarms were installed in all homes.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have been asked to reply.

  Precise estimates are difficult to make. If all homes were fitted with correctly sited and properly maintained smoke detectors, between 100 and 150 lives might be saved each year in fires in the United Kingdom.

DEFENCE

  Submarines
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many fuel core assemblies from nuclear-powered submarines are being kept at Sellafield; and what are his plans for reprocessing or providing for long-term storage of this material.

  Mr. Aitken
  Currently some 36 nuclear submarine used fuel cores are stored at BNFL Sellafield. No decision has yet been taken on whether to reprocess this used fuel which will continue to be held in safe storage.

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many and what percentage of officers in grades 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 respectively and overall in his Department are registered disabled people.

  Mr. Aitken
  The MOD employs 1,164 registered disabled staff which represents 0.9 per cent. of the total work force. At present, none of our registered disabled staff is employed in grades 1 to 7.

  Frigates
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the Royal Navy's future frigate combat management system.

  Mr. Aitken
  Following competition, contracts were placed with three companies, Dowty Sema, Ferranti Naval Systems and Thomson CSF in February 1992 for feasibility studies into the combat management system for the future frigate. These are due to compete in 1993. In addition, discussions are being conducted with the French to examine the possibilities for collaboration with France on the future frigate, including the combat management system.

  Surface-to-Air Missile
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to announce the result of the competition for the medium-range surface-to-air missile.

  Mr. Aitken
  The evaluation of tenders is currently under way. Consideration of procurement options following the completion of the evaluation will need to be carried out in the context of United Kingdom air defence requirements as a whole. We hope to announce a decision in the first half of 1993.

  Defence Research Agency
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what targets have been set for the Defence Research Agency in 1992–93.

  Mr. Aitken
  The targets recently set for the Defence Research Agency in 1992–93 and subsequent years are as follows:(a) To keep within budget for 1992–93 and subsequently to meet profit and cash targets as a trading fund;
  (b) To achieve overall time utilisation of 40 per cent. and utilisation of direct booking staff of 68 per cent. in 1992–93 and to improve these to 48 and 70 per cent. respectively by 1994–95;
  (c) To reduce administrative and general overhead (AGO) to 25 per cent. of direct costs in 1993–94 and to reduce this progressively to 15 per cent. in 1996–97;
  (d) To increase the percentage of DRA's turnover formally subject to market testing to at least 50 per cent. by 1996–97. Activities to the value of £25 million to be market-tested in 1992–93;
  (e) To achieve 60 per cent. of milestones within one month of the due date in 1992–93 and to improve this by 5 per cent. per annum for four years;
  (f) To achieve an improvement in quality of service in 1992–93 as measured by the management parameters in the customer satisfaction survey as compared with overall satisfaction—81 per cent. of average level of all parameters in 1992–93;
  (g) By 31 October 1992, to demonstrate the DRA's ability to operate as a trading fund, and
  (h) By 31 March 1993, to develop a definitive programme for asset rationalisation against which targets will be set in future years.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Utility Charges
  Mr. Ward
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to require the public utilities to change their level of standing charges to help low users of their services.
  686
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The nature and level of charges for services and supplies by the utilities are matters for the companies, subject to the conditions in their licences. Enforcement of licence conditions, which can include price controls, is a matter for the utility regulators, who also have responsibility and powers to protect the interests of customers. The Government have no powers to vary directly the type of level of charges, and no plans to take such powers.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Maurice Bland
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review the application by Maurice Bland for parole, and consider what rehabilitation plans will be appropriate.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Mr. Bland is serving a discretionary life sentence. His case has been reviewed seven times by the Parole Board—most recently in December 1990, but the board has not yet recommended that Mr. Bland is safe to release. My right hon. and learned Friend has no power to release a life sentence prisoner without a positive Parole Board recommendation.

  The next review of Mr. Bland's case by the Parole Board will take place under new arrangements contained in section 34 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 which comes into force from 1 October this year. Under these new arrangements, responsibility for release decisions will rest solely with the Parole Board. In the meantime, prison staff continue to work with Mr. Bland in tackling his problems.

  Passports
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of the adult population hold a British passport.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  This has been passed to the chief executive of the Passport Agency who will reply shortly. A copy of his reply will be placed in the Library.

  Racial Crimes
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis about the operation of the police's Thamesmead race unit in its activities against racial harassment; if he will indicate by ethnic group the numbers arrested and the number of victims; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that two police constables employed on Plumstead police division, which includes the Thamesmead area, are dedicated to the investigation of racial incidents. These officers maintain close liaison with the London borough of Greenwich, and with the Greenwich action committee against racial attacks.

  A total of 203 substantiated complaints of racially motivated crime in 1991 were made to Plumstead division, of which 77–40 per cent.—were solved by these two officers.
  687
  Of the 203 victims, 104 were Asian, 49 white, and 44 Afro-Caribbean and six victims were from other ethnic groups. Forty-one white and eight Afro-Caribbean suspected were arrested.

  I commend the work of these officers. The level of racially motivated crimes which have been cleared up on the division is good evidence of this initiative's success in tackling racially motivated crime.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why he has not yet responded to the letter to him dated 21 May from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mrs. S. Reategin, following the forwarding to him of relevant correspond-ence by the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary last April.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend wrote to the right hon. Member on 29 June.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the levels of robbery, burglary and theft from a vehicle crimes in the Coventry, North-East constituency for the most recent available year; and what is the percentage change for each category from the previous year.

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested is not collected centrally. However, the information for the Coventry division as a whole is published in the annual report of the chief constable of the West Midlands police.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average time taken to consider applications to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board; and what was the comparable time taken five years ago.

  Mr. Jack
  The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board does not record centrally the average time taken to process applications. However, percentages of cases completed within certain periods are shown in the board's annual reports, copies of which are held in the Library.

  Local Government Act 1966
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to amend section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966 in order to widen its scope.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We accept the need to bring forward legislation on this point when there is a suitable opportunity.

  Wrongful Conviction
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many allegations of wrongful conviction upon indictment being considered by C3 division of the Home Office with a view to a possible reference to the Court of Appeal under section 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 have been outstanding for more than six months.
  688
  Mr. Jack
  Forty-two.

  Fire Brigade Inspectors
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to publicise the results of annual brigade inspections carried out by Her Majesty's inspectorate of fire services.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Applying the principles of the citizens charter, we will in future be publishing all reports of this kind. I have decided that reports of all inspections undertaken since the beginning of this year will be published.

  I believe that this will be a small but significant step in increasing the accountability of the fire service to the general public for the quality of the service which it provides. I would welcome any public response to points made in the inspectors' reports, as well as any comments that local authorities might choose to make. The first of these reports covering the inspection of the West Sussex fire brigade has been published today, and copies have been placed in the Library of both Houses.

  Crime
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he has given to making improvements to the information available about crime, including more frequent publication of the "British Crime Survey"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  The Government take seriously their responsibility to ensure that Parliament and the public are provided with the best available information about crime. We have considered how the collection, analysis and dissemination of this information can be improved.

  At present, published recorded crime figures are based on the summaries sent to the Home Office of the number of offences recorded by the 43 police forces in England and Wales. Recorded offences include indictable/triable either way offences and certain summary offences.

  That information is collated by Home Office statisticians and published in summary form each quarter in Home Office statistical bulletins, and only annually with supporting analysis in the series of Command Papers, "Criminal Statistics in England and Wales."

  The statistics of offences recorded by the police provided a measure of the amount of crime with which they are faced. But many offences go unrecorded.

  A more complete picture of crime is provided by the British crime survey, in which a large sample of the public is interviewed about their experience of crime in the previous year. We think it right that this valuable work be made available more regularly and we propose, therefore, that the British crime survey be published at two-yearly intervals in the future.

  This will give better information about trends, against which to interpret figures of recorded crime. The results of a further sweep of the British crime survey now taking place, relating to the amount of crime experienced in 1991, will be published in the autumn.

  We also believe that the recorded crime statistics should be accompanied by fuller analysis of their significance. To give time for this to be done, the present quarterly summary reporting cycle will be replaced by statistics accompanied by analysis on a six-monthly publication cycle.
  689
  This will provide more, not less, information. It should go some way to reduce the considerable and untoward fear of crime among the public generated by the current quarterly publications which was highlighted by the working group on the fear of crime, chaired by Mr. Michael Grade, in December 1989.

  We will publish the first bulletin on the six-monthly publication cycle, covering the statistics of notifiable offences recorded by the police in the period July 1991 to June 1992 to coincide with the publication of the British crime survey results in the autumn.

  By these changes we seek to further the Government's aim of providing a better quality of information to the public. We believe that a more rounded picture will be provided. It should facilitate better analysis of trends and so help ensure that future action against crime is based on an improved shared understanding of the problems which face us.

EMPLOYMENT

  Naval Shipbuilding
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were employed in the naval shipbuilding industry in(a) 1970, (b) 1979 and (c)

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The number of employees in employment in the shipbuilding and ship repairing industry in Great Britain were as follows:

  Number

  June 1970

  171,000

  June 1979

  135,000

  1Sept 1989

  51,000

  1 Latest available.

CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Science
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many staff directly report to him on scientific issues; and what is his relationship with the Advisory Committee on Science and Technology.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  The total number of staff in the Office of Science and Technology is 89. I am considering what advisory structure would enable me to carry out my responsibilities for science and technology most effectively, and seeking views from all interested parties on the best way of achieving this.

  Duchy Income
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) how much annual income from the Duchy of Lancaster is retained by the sovereign for her personal use;

  (2) what proportion of the income to the privy purse from the Duchy of Lancaster has been retained by the sovereign in each year since 1962.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The application of moneys paid by the Duchy of Lancaster to the Keeper of the Privy Purse is a690
  matter for the Privy Purse Office. The amounts are shown in the Duchy's accounts, which are placed in the Library of the House each year.

  Human Genome Project
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what computer science research is being supported by public funds to improve United Kingdom capability to process the data generated by the human genome project.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  The Government made available to the Medical Research Council an extra £11 million over three years to enable it to play a major role in the United Kingdom Human Genome Mapping Project—HGMP. The MRC has provided support for the installation of computing facilities at the HGMP resource centre, Northwick park, Harrow and, among others, to its National Institute for Medical Research and Laboratory of Molecular Biology for the development of software to process and store genome mapping data. The MRC has also agreed to contribute to the support of the human genome database—GDB—in the John Hopkins university, Baltimore, USA, and has contributed to the establishment of a GDB node at the Resource Centre, the first outside the USA.

  There is no central information on other relevant work which the universities, medical schools or medical research charities may be supporting.

  Contracting-out
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the extent and nature of proposed open government provisions to contracting-out procedures in Government Departments.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  It has been this Government's established practice to ensure non-discrimination and fair competition in public procurement, as set out in administrative circulars issued by the central unit on purchasing in Her Majesty's Treasury. From December last year, EC rules, which in large part replicate United Kingdom best practice, were written into the United Kingdom legislation which will implement a further EC directive to ensure compliance throughout the EC.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will consult the National Audit Office on measures to test the value-for-money considerations on any proposals to contract-out civil service work.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Comptroller and Auditor General has statutory powers to audit Government Departments and conduct value-for-money studies on the way they have used their resources in discharging their functions, which may include contracting out civil service work.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects an announcement to be made on the areas to be market tested in each Government Department; and what plans he has to publish this information.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) on 22 June 1992, at column 102.
  691
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the total cost to date of the market-testing initiatives in each Government Department since November 1991.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what savings he expects each Government Department will make as a result of the market-testing programme.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No such estimate has been made.

  Private Sector Contracts
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if it is his intention that private sector contractors who undertake civil service work will remain within the scope of public scrutiny; and will members of the public still have recourse to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration in respect of activities which are contracted out.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Where civil servant work is contracted out following a market-testing exercise, the accountability of Ministers to Parliament remains unchanged. The Comptroller and Auditor General will continue to audit the Departments concerned. The jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration is unaffected.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if foreign employees of private sector contractors will have to conform to established civil service practices on the confidentiality of information they may handle; and whether they will be required to sign the Offical Secrets Act 1989.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Private sector contractors undertaking classified work for Government Departments are obliged, through contract conditions, to conform to standard procedures for the protection of classified information. It is for contractors to enforce those obligations on their staff. Where the Official Secrets Act 1989 applies, employees receive notice that they are subject to the Act, and are normally required to sign a declaration acknowledging their obligations under it.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Commissioner Ripa di Meana
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will request the United Kingdom ambassador to the European Community to seek an explanation from Commissioner Carlo Ripa di Meana as to why he has failed to reply to letters dated 1 March and 23 April, and to numerous telephone calls since that date from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, concerning an environmental issue of concern to the Manchester, Gorton constituency.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Signor Ripa di Meana has been appointed Minister for the Environment in the new Italian Administration with immediate effect. However, I have asked our permanent representation to ask the Commission services whether a reply to the right hon. Member's letters has been sent.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a statement of forthcoming business in the European Community's Council of Ministers.

  Mr. Hurd
  The Economic and Finance Council will meet on 13 July to conduct a multilateral surveillance of the economies of member states, including the examination of a national convergence programme. The Council will also consider the Commission's proposals for the future financing of the Community—Delors II—and work programme for meetings of the Economic and Finance Council for the next six months.

  The Agriculture Council will meet on 13 and 14 July. Ministers will discuss CAP reform and Newcastle disease controls and possibly the review of sugar cane import arrangements. The Foreign Affairs Council will meet on 20 July. It will consider the follow-up to the Lisbon European Council, including how to take forward preparations for enlargement, subsidiarity and the Community's future financing. The Council may discuss the state of negotiation on the GATT Uruguay round and the EC/US oilseed dispute and the negotiating mandate for a new EC/ASEAN co-operation agreement. The Council will also consider EC relations with the former Soviet Union, including trade and co-operation agreements; and may discuss the state of negotiations on the Romania and Bulgaria association agreements. Ministers will discuss the former Yugoslavia and the development of the Community's relations with Turkey. A co-operation council with Egypt will also be held in the margins of the Foreign Affairs Council.

  The Budget Council will meet on 23 July to consider the 1993 preliminary draft budget submitted by the Commission and to establish the Council's 1993 draft budget.

  Maastricht Treaty
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what specific duties are to be imposed on citizens of the union including those in the United Kingdom under article G of the Maastricht treaty.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The provisions added to the treaty of Rome by the Maastricht treaty—articles 8 to 8e—which establish citizenship of the union refer to "duties" imposed by the treaty of Rome, but do not themselves impose any specific duties. The treaty of Rome in general, as amended by the Maastricht treaty, imposes no duties which do not flow from the direct effect of EC law.

  Entry Clearance Applications
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how often the deputy high commission in Karachi has asked for information or files from the high commission in Islamabad to deal with applications for entry clearance during the last 12 months.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The information requested could not be provided except at disproportionate expense. The deputy high commission in Karachi would need to check manually 25,000 case files.

  British Nationals (Overseas)
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the present holder of a British Hong Kong passport, who is issued with a replacement British national (overseas) passport, will need to apply, as appropriate, for a visitor visa or work permit to enter the United Kingdom; and whether the holder of a BN(O) passport will need a permanent identity card for entry to and exit from Hong Kong(a) currently and (b) after 1997.

  Mr. Goodlad
  As far as admission to the United Kingdom is concerned, the holder of a BN(O) passport is treated in an identical manner to the holder of a British dependent territory citizen's passport. He does not require a visa to visit the United Kingdom, but, with limited exceptions, would require a work permit if he intended to come to this country for employment.

  At present, BN(O) passport holders may use either their passports or their permanent identity cards to leave or enter Hong Kong. We expect that this arrangement will continue after 30 June 1997.

  International Treaties
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the cases involving the United Kingdom in which there have been adjudications of enforceability of declarations or agreements appended to international treaties, including EC treaties.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  In the case of the EC treaties and the treaties amending them, there has been a practice of annexing protocols to the treaties and of adopting declarations in connection with conclusion of the treaties. By article 239 of the treaty of Rome, protocols annexed to the treaty form an integral part of it. They are, therefore, enforceable in exactly the same way as treaty provisions. A case involving the United Kingdom where this was done is Lord Bruce of Donington v. Aspden, case 208/80, applying the protocol on privileges and immunities of the European Communities. Conference declarations do not form an integral part of the treaty to which they relate, but, in accordance with the law of treaties, they are part of the context of the treaty for the purpose of its interpretation. I am aware of no decision of the European Court of Justice in which conference declarations of this kind have been pronounced upon.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will extend the disability living allowance so that people can claim whatever their age.

  Mr. Scott
  We have no plans to do so.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the cost of extending the disability living allowance scheme to cover people over the age of 65 years.

  Mr. Scott
  The annual cost of extending disability living allowance to all people who become disabled after the age of 65 is estimated, at 1992–93 prices, to be in excess of £2 billion.
  694
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what compensation can be claimed by applicants for disability living allowance, where the processing of(a) their claim or (b) successful appeal against a decision by the Benefits Agency on their claim has taken an excessive period of time;

  (2) what is the average length of time taken by the Benefits Agency to process a claim for disability living allowance;

  (3) what is the target maximum time within which a claim for disability living allowance should be processed.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of disability living allowance is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average length of time taken to consider applications for(a) attendance allowance and (b) disability living allowance; and what are the target times laid down by his Department.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of disability living allowance and attendance allowance is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for what dates cold weather payments were triggered during the winter of 1991–92; and how many households received payment on each occasion.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is available in the Library.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many households in Lewisham, Deptford qualify for payments under the cold weather payments scheme; on what dates and in what parts of Lewisham, Deptford the cold weather payments system was triggered during the winter of 1991–92; how many households received payments on each occasion; on what dates cold weather payments were made in Lewisham, Deptford in response to a forecast of a qualifying period; and if he will indicate the period taken for payments to be made once the system had been triggered.

  Mr. Scott
  Such information as is available concerning the areas that have triggered and consequently the payments made are in the Library. Information concerning the number of customers who may qualify for a payment will he provided in writing from Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) on what dates, and in which parts of Barnsley, the cold weather payments scheme was triggered during the winter of 1991–92; and how many households received payments on each occasion;

  (2) on what dates cold weather payments were made in Barnsley in response to a forecast of a qualifying period; and if he will indicate the period taken for payments to be made once the system had been triggered.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) on what dates, and in what parts of
  695
  north Warwickshire the cold weather payments system was triggered during the winter of 1991–92; and how many households received payments on each occasion;

  (2) on what dates cold weather payments were made in north Warwickshire in response to a forecast of a qualifying period; and what was the average period taken for payments to be made once the system had been triggered.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) on what dates in 1992 cold weather payments were made in Coventry, North-East in response to a forecast of a qualifying period; and what was the average period taken for payments to be made following the trigger;

  (2) on what dates and in what parts of Coventry, North-East the cold weather payments system was triggered during the winter of 1991–92; and how many households received payments on each occasion;

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) on what dates, and in what parts of Leyton the cold weather payments system was triggered during the winter of 1991–92; and how many households received payments on each occasion;

  (2) on what dates cold weather payments were made in Leyton in response to a forecast of a qualifying period; and what were the periods taken for payments to be made once the system had been triggered.

  Ms. Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) on what dates and in which parts of Rochdale the cold weather payments system was triggered during the winter of 1991–92; and how many households received payments on each occasion;

  (2) on what dates cold weather payments were made in Rochdale in response to a forecast of a qualifying period; and if he will indicate the period taken for payments to be made once the system had been triggered.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) on what occasions and in what parts of Dundee, East constituency the cold weather payments scheme was triggered during the winter of 1991–92; and how many households received payments on each occasion;

  (2) on what dates cold weather payments were made in the Dundee, East constituency in response to a forecast of a qualifying period; and if he will indicate the period taken for payments to be made once the system had been triggered.

  Mr. Scott
  Such information as is available is in the Library.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many households in the Burnley constituency, subject to appropriate weather conditions, his Department estimates qualify for payments under the cold weather payments scheme.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many households in Barnsley qualify for payments under the cold weather payments scheme.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many households in Coventry, North-East qualify for payments under the cold weather payments scheme.
  696
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many households in Leyton qualify for payments under the cold weather payments scheme.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many households in north Warwickshire qualify for payments under the cold weather payments scheme.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many households in the Dundee, East constituency qualified for payments under the cold weather payments scheme.

  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. Members with such information as is available and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Benefits Agency
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many copies of the Benefits Agency business plan have been produced and circulated; and at what cost.

  Mr. Burt
  The Benefits Agency business plan is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Allowances
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what current delays there are in requests for reviews of attendance allowance, mobility allowance and disability allowance; and what the position was 12 months ago.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of disability living allowance, mobility allowance and attendance allowance are a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public information Office.

  State Pension Age
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action he plans to take following the end of the discussion period on the equalising of state pension age.

  Mr. Lilley
  The Government are committed to the equalisation of state pension age, and as a first step we published our discussion paper "Options for Equality in State Pension Age" in December last year. The paper invited comments and views on various approaches to equalisation including differing common pension ages and models for a flexible pension age.

  The discussion period ended on 30 June and we have received more than 3,000 responses. I now intend to examine those responses in detail and I will also be taking the opportunity of meeting the representatives of various interested organisations to discuss their views. I am also prepared to take into account any late responses.

  I will be announcing the Government's proposals on the complex and important issues covered by the paper in

  697
  due course after full consideration of the views expressed. No decisions have yet been taken as to what approach should be adopted.

  I should like to make it very clear at the outset that no one expecting to retire in the next few years will be affected by these changes. Whichever option is chosen is likely to be phased in over a long period, and employees and employers will be given ample time to adjust their plans.

  Appeals
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the time within which an appeal against a decision of the Benefits Agency must be heard; and what provision is made in the citizens charter for this.

  Mr. Burt
  There is no statutory time limit within which appeals against decisions of adjudication officers in the Benefits Agency should be heard. However, both the Benefits Agency and the independent tribunal service are committed to handling appeals as expeditiously as possible. There is no specific provision in the citizens charter on time limits for hearing such appeals.

  Students
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he proposes to take to help students who are unable to find vacation work and have no other form of income during the summer period.

  Mr. Burt
  The social security system is not intended as a means of educational funding. Most students should look to the educational maintenance system for their financial support. Income support and housing benefit are still available to certain groups of students including disabled students and those with dependent children.

  Benefit Deductions
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the total number of organisations, bodies or companies approved for the purposes of making deductions from benefit either for(a) current consumption or (b) repayment of accumulated debt.

  Mr. Burt
  Third parties in the following general categories may, in prescribed circumstances, receive direct payments from income support for current charges or repayment of debts:

  Mortgage lenders,

  Landlords

  Fuel companies,

  Water and sewerage companies,

  Local authority community charge collection departments,

  Residential care and nursing homes1,

  Hostels.1

  Independent adjudication officers are responsible for determining whether a deduction may be made in an individual case.
  1 Current charges only.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has to set a maximum level of deductions from income support and other state benfits for the payment of current consumption and repayment of accumulated debt owing to water, gas, electricity and other utilities, crisis loans and other bodies approved for deduction and direct payment.

  Mr. Burt
  There are already limits to the amounts which may be deducted from a person's income support.
  698
  Deductions to repay arrears of housing. gas. electricity and water debt may not exceed 3 x 5 per cent. of the income support personal allowance for a person aged 25 or over —currently £6.45 a week. Deductions for the repayment of community charge debt are not subject to this limit because income support was adjusted to take account of this liability.

  Deductions to cover current charges for gas, electricity and water may be made in addition to this limit. These deductions, together with those for the repayment of housing and utility debt, may not exceed 25 per cent. of the total income support entitlement for the family, less housing costs, without the consent of the claimant. The current income support housing costs allowance may also be paid to the creditor in certain circumstances.

  We have no plans to amend these limits.

  Social fund officers take account of a person's existing commitments, which may include other deductions from benefit, before deciding on repayment terms for social fund loans.

  Maxwell Pensions
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much has so far been paid out to Maxwell pensioners from the fund created by the Government; and how much money remains from the Government's initial allocation.

  Miss Widdecombe
  A grant of £228,000 has been made to trustees of the Maxwell Communication works pension scheme and one of £52,834 to trustees of the Headington pension plan. These grants were made from the up to £2.5 million in emergency funding announced on 8 June.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on what date he expects the trust fund for Maxwell pensioners to be set up by his Department.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Maxwell pensions unit is discussing urgently the terms of the Maxwell pensioners trust with its trustees. Once these terms have been agreed, the trust deed will be prepared and the trust set up. The Department has opened a bank account to hold voluntary contributions to the trust pending its establishment.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will amend regulation 64(2) of the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 to enable housing benefit, payable in the form of a rent rebate or rent allowance and amounting to less than 50p a week, to he paid in a lump sum annually, quarterly or monthly.

  Mr. Burt
  We have no plans to do so.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fisheries Decommissioning
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps have been taken to introduce an improved decommissioning scheme for fishermen.

  Mr. Curry
  The Government's proposals for effort control and decommissioning were set out in a consultation document which was issued to the industry on 29 April.

  "Health of the Nation"
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consultations he has had over his Department's reaction to "Health of the Nation".

  Mr. Soames
  The Department of Health has consulted fully with my Ministry over those policies in "Health of the Nation" where we have responsibility.

  Hens
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received about poultry battery cages.

  Mr. Soames
  The Ministry receives a good deal of correspondence and other representations on this matter from many and varied interests.

  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to improve the welfare of laying hens.

  Mr. Soames
  The Government wish to see major improvements in European Community welfare standards for laying hens.

  Soil Erosion
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to the letter deposited in the Library from Earl Howe to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, when he will state his policy on soil erosion.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Agricultural Development Advisory Service provides advice to farmers on how to avoid this localised problem. This will also be covered in the code of good agricultural practice for the protection of soil to be published next year.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the National Farmers Union to discuss the implications of the CAP reform proposals on United Kingdom agriculture.

  Mr. Gummer
  On 24 June.

  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the expected numbers of additional staff in the United Kingdom and EC needed to administer the reformed common agricultural policy.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) on 12 June 1992,Official Report, column 322.

  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he intends to take to ensure consumer benefit from price cuts under common agricultural policy reform.

  Mr. Curry
  The retail food market in the United Kingdom is a highly competitive one, and no Government action is needed to ensure that consumers benefit from the significant reduction in support prices agreed as part of the CAP reform package. By the end of the reform period, I700
  would expect the costs of agricultural support to consumers in the United Kingdom to he lower by some £1 billion.

  Whaling
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will report on the meeting of the International Whaling Commission in Glasgow.

  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement concerning the Government's policy towards the International Whaling Commission meeting in Glasgow at the end of this month.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to maintain and improve the welfare of whales.

  Mr. Gummer
  I refer the hon. Members and my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan).

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the International Whaling Commission meeting in Glasgow.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan).

  Fish Conservation
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has for national conservation measures and selective gear requirements to improve fish conservation and British waters.

  Mr. Curry
  A substantial package of EC and United Kingdom conservation measures was introduced from 1 June and there will be a ban on the use of twin-rig and multi-rig trawls in most nephrops fisheries from 1 January 1993. We are expecting further EC proposals to reduce discards and a report on industrial fisheries in the North sea.

  General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the latest progress on reaching an agreement on agriculture within the GATT talks.

  Mr. Gummer
  The European Community and the United States are continuing their talks on the GATT agriculture dossier.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the latest progress on his Ministry's research into BSE.

  Mr. Soames
  A report by the spongiform ence-phalopathy advisory committee—the Tyrrell committee —on spongiform encephalopathy research in the United Kingdom was published on 30 June. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

  "Agriculture in the UK"
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the future of his Ministry's document "Agriculture in the UK".

  Mr. Curry
  It will continue to be published.

  EC-USA Trade Dispute
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the value of United Kingdom food and drink exports which would be hit in the current trade dispute between the United States of America and the EEC.

  Mr. Gummer
  It is estimated that United Kingdom exports of food and drink worth up to £160 million annually could be affected if the United States Government decide to introduce punitive tariffs on EC products as a result of their dispute with the Community over oilseeds.

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he proposes to take to secure the encouragement of extensification in agriculture and organic food production during the United Kingdom presidency of the EC Council of Ministers.

  Mr. Curry
  The new agri-environment regulation agreed as part of the recent common agricultural policy reform package will provide for schemes to encourage extensification and organic food production.

  Tomatoes
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has received from tomato growers on the reference price system and the system of offer prices for tomato imports from Spain and third countries, such as Morocco.

  Mr. Curry
  We have received representations from and on behalf of tomato growers about the effect on early season market prices of the recent extension of the offer price system to imports from the Canary islands. We have received no representations about third country imports.

  Food Safety
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the measures his Ministry is taking to improve food safety in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Soames
  Since the establishment of the Food Safety Act 1990, we have continued to demonstrate a commitment to the highest possible standards of food safety and consumer protection. We operate a comprehensive food monitoring and surveillance system and have produced an attractive series of publications for consumers. The latter inform consumers about the action the Government have taken on food safety, and also the action they can take for themselves. This recognised that consumers have an important part to play in ensuring that food remains safe between purchase and consumption.

  Arable Regime
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what decisions have been taken on the detailed arrangements for area payments and set-aside under the new arable regime.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Council of Agriculture Ministers this week adopted the legal texts governing the new system of area payments for producers of cereals, oilseeds and protein crops. These are part of the package of measures agreed in principle in May which aim to bring cereal prices down by some 30 per cent. over three years. The price cuts will bring producers nearer the marketplace and, together with the new area payments, mark a major step in reform of the common agricultural policy.

  The area payments will apply to cereals, oilseeds—rapeseed, soya and sunflower seed—and protein crops—peas for harvesting dry, field beans and sweet lupins—including fodder crops. Producers will be able to claim payments based on the area of cereals, oilseeds and protein crops grown, provided that they meet the conditions of the scheme, including the requirement to set aside a proportion of their land. Separate arrangements will apply for those claiming aid on a small area—less than around 15 or 16 hectares. The transitional EC oilseeds support scheme will be integrated into the new system.

  The United Kingdom, like other member states, will not be able to draw up detailed rules for the scheme until the European Commission's implementing regulations are tabled and agreed. I want to get these adopted as soon as possile but they will deal with important and difficult issues, including the effective prevention of fraud across the whole Community, and inevitably it will be a few weeks before they are settled as the United Kingdom and other member states will need to make sure that they are satisfactory. However, the scheme applies to cropping in 1992–93 and farmers should begin planning now on the basis of the information that is available. To help them, a short leaflet is available on demand from the Ministry's regional service centres and the offices of the other Agriculture Departments. I have also placed copies in the Library of the House. Once further details are available, the Agriculture Departments will issue an explanatory booklet to all known cereals, oilseeds and protein producers.

  Two schemes will be available. Under the simplified scheme, there will be no set-aside requirement, but claims will be limited to around 15 or 16 hectares: the payment rate for 1992–93 will be around £116 per hectare whether the crop is cereals, oilseeds or proteins.

  The general scheme will offer payments of around £116 per hectare for cereals, £301 per hectare for proteins and £375 per hectare for oilseeds for 1992–93. In order to claim these aids, farmers will have to set aside 15 hectares of land for every 85 hectares of cereals, oilseeds and proteins they intend growing. Thus the set-aside area should equal 15 per cent. of the total of the arable area on which aid is being claimed and the area set aside. Land must be set aside from this autumn to qualify for payment of area aid and set-aside compensation in the autumn of 1993. Payments of around £208 per hectare will be made on set-aside land but only up to the area needed to satisfy the 15 per cent requirement. These figures are approximate and based on average United Kingdom yields. The actual payment rates will depend on historic regional yields. Land which was in permanent grass—including rough

  703
  grazing and moorland—woodland, permanent crops or non-agricultural use at 31 December 1991 will not be eligible for area or set-aside payments.

  Claims for aid will have to be submitted by 15 May 1993—possibly earlier for oilseeds. Claim forms will be available later this year. It is likely that, in the first year of the scheme, claimants will have to submit a 1:10,000 Ordnance Survey map, or in Northern Ireland the equivalent survey map, of their holding. We shall need these to ensure that area aids are not claimed on land that is ineligible. This is in producers' own interests too, because the aid per hectare may be reduced if more land comes into arable production. Farmers may wish to order or buy maps now. Payments will probably be made in November and December 1993. There may continue to be separate arrangements for oilseed payments.

  Although there is no restriction on individual farmers expanding their areas of cereals, oilseeds and protein production, regional base areas will equal the average annual area of cereals, oilseeds and proteins grown and land fallowed under set-aside in the region concerned over the period 1989–1991. If claims for area payments—including set-aside—exceed the regional base area in any one year, claimants will have the area on which their claims are paid reduced proportionately that year. The following year there will he an additional uncompensated set-aside requirement.

  Producers will not be able to count any land already set aside under the five-year set-aside scheme towards their new set-aside commitment, but they will be given the opportunity to opt out of the five-year scheme if they so wish. Further details will be sent to five-year set-aside participants when they become available.

  The next stage will be the tabling and adoption of Commission implementing regulations. Once this legal framework is clear, we shall announce the payment rates. Further details. including the management conditions for the set-aside land, will also depend on the implementing regulations. We shall notify farmers of the relevant rules as soon as possible. A statutory instrument will be laid before the House to implement those details of the scheme that are not contained in Community legislation.

  Animals for Slaughter
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, during the United Kingdom presidency of the EC, he plans to try to secure an overall journey time limit for slaughter animals.

  Mr. Soames
  In our presidency role, we will be seeking to ensure that the Council reaches agreement on the additional rules which need to be adopted before 1 January 1993, when directive 91/628 on protection of animals during transport comes into effect. The United Kingdom delegation will emphasise in particular the need for a strict limitation on the time that animals can travel without rest, food or water.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many horses, ponies and other equines were exported for slaughter during the past year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  No licences for the export of equines from Great Britain for slaughter have been issued. The 704
  European Community has recognised the special needs of equines and this is reflected in directive 91/628 on the protection of animals during transport.

  Inheritance Tax (Exemptions)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether his Ministry will reduce the level of payments under the environmentally sensitive areas scheme where the land involved is subject to exemptions to inheritance tax; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  No.

  Thames Flood Defences
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will make a statement outlining how future maintenance costs of the Thames flood defences, including the Thames barrier will be funded;

  (2) what representations he has received from the Thames regional flood defence committee over the possible future maintenance costs of the Thames flood defences by the turn of the century and the limited time period over which it will be necessary to carry out this work; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what is the Government's policy towards maintenance by the Thames regional flood defence committee of its financial balances; and what account has been taken of the case for a contingency fund to pay for future essential maintenance work.

  Mr. Curry
  The maintenance costs of flood defences which are the responsibility of the National Rivers Authority (NRA), such as the Thames flood defences, are normally funded through levies on local authorities, while capital works may be eligible for grant aid from this Department. In 1989, the Thames region of the NRA inherited substantial financial balances from its predecessor, the Thames Water Authority, in respect of future work on the Thames barrier, and these balances have been the subject of detailed discussions between NRA Thames region and the Government. Public sector bodies such as the NRA do not normally hold financial reserves in anticipation of future expenditure, since public sector accounting rules lay down that funds should not be sought in advance of need. The Government and the NRA therefore agreed that the Thames region balances should be used to fund maintenance and renewal works on the Thames flood defences over the next few years, with a view to running them down no later than March 1997. Thereafter, work on the Thames flood defences will be financed as normal through a combination of levies on local authorities and, where applicable, MAFF grant.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the National Rivers Authority's estimate of the likely maintenance cost of the Thames flood defences, including the Thames barrier, at the turn of the century; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The National Rivers Authority estimates that the cost of the recurring annual maintenance of the Thames tidal defences, including the Thames and Barking barriers, at the turn of the century is £3.5 million.

  Milk Quotas
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps are being taken to remove discimination for tenant farmers in the sale or transfer of milk quotas.

  Mr. Curry
  The current EC negotiations on the consolidation and simplification of the milk quota regulations will include consideration of landlord/tenant issues in relation to quota transfers. We will seek to ensure that any provisions agreed take account of the interests of all parties concerned, including tenants.

  Spongiform Encephalopathies
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food for those animals involved in his Department's research programmes on spongiform encephalopathies, how many were(a) fed infected offal and (b) not fed infected offal; and how many in each case (i) developed and (ii) have not developed spongiform encephalopathy, distinguishing between (1) cattle and (2) other animals.

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is contained in my letter to the hon. Member in reply to his question of 12 June, in respect of those animals to which BSE has been transmitted successfully. Copies of my letter are placed in the Library of the House.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Guildford.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Noble Lords Noble Lords— Took the Oath.

Income Tax Payers
3.1 p.m.
Lord Erroll of Hale Lord Erroll of Hale asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why income tax payers are now to be called customers by the Inland Revenue.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the use of the term "customer" emphasises the fact that the Inland Revenue performs a service on behalf of the community and that members of the community are entitled to he treated with the respect due from a service organisation to its customers.
Lord Erroll of Hale: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Are taxpayers—I mean customers—now free to go bargain hunting among different tax offices?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with the service that the Inland Revenue is now giving there may be no need.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, if we do not like the Inland Revenue can we take our custom elsewhere?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord has no reason to dislike the Inland Revenue.
Lord Peston: My Lords, this matter is serious. I am sorry that it is being dealt with frivolously. It is especially serious as, since about 2nd July, most of us have been sending off letters enclosing cheques. We hold the Inland Revenue in the highest esteem. I have looked at the Taxpayer's Charter which corresponds with what the Minister has said; but who dreamed up the introduction of the word "customer" here? Wearing my education hat, as a matter of the English language, it is a misuse of the word. Who in the Inland Revenue thought that that was a good idea, especially as I am sure that the Minister, when he attacks me on matters of public expenditure, will slip naturally into the use of "taxpayers" and not "customers"? I am intrigued as to whether someone who is paid £50,000 a year or more dreamt up this terminology.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as the noble Lord holds the Inland Revenue in the highest esteem, I am sure that the Inland Revenue will hold him in high esteem and will consider him to be a good customer. It is probably an appropriate word.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, as one who once had ministerial responsibility for the Inland Revenue, and has great respect for it, I am not sure that the change and the idea of inventing a new word is not unfortunate, as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, implied. As a railway passenger I do not much like being called a customer, but at least there is an element of voluntariness for most people about being a railway passenger. There is none about being an income tax payer. It is a misuse of the English language.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords. I can understand how the noble Lord feels about this matter, but the Inland Revenue is providing a service and the noble Lord will be pleased to be a customer.
Lord Renton: My Lords, if the voluntary principle is to be applied, what will happen if we deprive the Inland Revenue of our custom altogether?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I think that I shall leave it to my noble friend to try to see.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the customer always be right? If he is not satisfied with the service, will he be able to withhold payment?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, of course the customer can appeal, as the noble Lord is doubtless aware. That is a customer's right. If his appeal is upheld, he will be able to withhold payment.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is there not a danger that, if he ceases to be a customer of the Inland Revenue, he may become a customer of Her Majesty's prisons?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, both organisations, which we hold in high esteem, will treat him as a customer.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, following the views that have been expressed this afternoon, perhaps we should examine the attitude of the House more seriously. Would it not be reasonable and fair for the Minister to examine this issue with his right honourable friend and convey to those responsible the feelings of the House?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am sure that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will read with great alacrity what has been said today.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, does my noble friend remember that during the time of the Roman Empire they privatised the Inland Revenue?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, no, I do not remember, but I have read about it.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, if the word "customer" is to be used in this connection, we shall have to distinguish between compulsory customers and voluntary customers? It will create a great many problems if we have to make the compulsory customer different from the voluntary customer. It may also present legal problems.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord is wrong on that point.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, will my noble friend arrange to have hung in every Inland Revenue office a sign similar to one I once saw in a shop on Broadway in New York saying "We love our customers, they pay the wages"?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I take note of what my noble friend says.

EC: Financial Management
3.7 p.m.
Lord Benson Lord Benson asked Her Majesty's Government:
In the light of the request by the Council of Ministers to the Court of Auditors dated 16th March 1992 concerning expenditure by the Community since 1988, how it is proposed to correct the unsatisfactory financial management and administration in the Community disclosed in opinion number 2/92 of the Court of Auditors dated 15th May 1992.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the Court of Auditors' opinion is a valuable input to the ongoing discussion about the Community's finances. Following discussion at the June meeting of ECOFIN, the United Kingdom will now take the report, and the issues which it raises, forward in the discussions about the Community's finances which will continue under our Presidency.
Lord Benson: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for answering that oft-repeated Question. Does he agree that the way to deal with the matter would be to identify the individuals responsible for proposing the inadequate procedures and failing to follow them up with the member states, to get rid of them and appoint competent people in their place?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord raises an important point. I can assure him that we are ready to co-operate with the Commission in looking at ways to continue to improve the formulation of regulations, the proper implementation of them, which is so important, by the member states, and effective monitoring of that by the Commission.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is it not the case that the Government cannot take any action to correct the situation, which was the term used in the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Benson? Is the Minister aware that the Council cannot act in that matter, save on a proposal from the Commission, and that the Commission itself is most unlikely to produce a proposal which would result in the people incapable of carrying out their functions of financial control being dismissed?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the origin of the report of the Court of Auditors was as a result of a letter by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer which was then discussed at ECOFIN.
872
Such was the feeling of member states that the instruction was given to this effect. That proves that we can influence the situation.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that until the unsatisfactory financial management has been corrected, it would be quite unreasonable for the Commission to be provided with extra funds?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, this is one of the aspects at which we are looking in discussing the future financing of the Community. There are many other points, but I can assure my noble friend that this one will be taken into account.
Lord Peston: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Benson, knows infinitely more about the subject than I. I find the expression "unsatisfactory financial management" quite horrifying. If it were used about any other organisation, one would assume that serious action, often of a legal kind, would be taken. I speak as an ordinary person with no expertise. Can the noble Earl tell me whether, if it is correct to use the expression "unsatisfactory financial management"—and I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Boardman —ought we not to be acting more vigorously? If any of the rest of us were accused of unsatisfactory financial management, I assume that we would be in serious trouble.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we are taking the subject very seriously, as I have said on a number of occasions when asked about it. As the noble Lord will know, in 1989 this House produced a report and the Commission continues to examine the 45-point plan with a view to updating it.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House what sum of money has been lost as a result of this unsatisfactory management?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am unable to give my noble friend an answer. There was another report by the Court of Auditors which highlighted two firms and it is the subject of another Question by the noble Lord, Lord Benson, in the near future. As a result of the report, certain remedies have been taken.
Lord Elton: My Lords, as my noble friend also conveniently answered the first Question, can he tell us whether Her Majesty's Government regard themselves as the "customer" of the Commission in this context? Can he exert more effective restraint upon it than the customers of the Inland Revenue are able to exert upon it?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as one of the three major net contributors to the Community, I can assure my noble friend that we are taking the matter extremely seriously. As we have to be prudent about our own expenditure at home we should be equally prudent in the Community.

London: Rough Sleepers
3.12 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their estimate of the number of people currently sleeping rough in central London each night; and what plans they have to address this problem.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, there were 440 people counted sleeping rough in central London in the latest count in March this year. Under the Rough Sleepers Initiative, we are spending £96 million over three years to provide a total of 900 hostel places and 2,900 places in shared and self-contained houses for those in hostels to move on to. We are also spending £20 million over three years under the Homeless Mentally Ill Initiative to provide accommodation and psychiatric care to mentally ill people sleeping rough in London.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I appreciate what the Government have done and are doing, as well as the work of the many voluntary organisations. Is he aware that there are still many young people at risk, sleeping in doorways? There is also the escalating problem of begging on our streets. Is it not time that the Government set up an inter-departmental committee at a high level to solve this terrible problem?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the £96 million Rough Sleepers Initiative has resulted in a visible reduction in the numbers of people sleeping rough on the streets. It has been particularly successful at reducing the numbers of young people sleeping rough. The government departments whose policies have an effect on rough sleeping are already working closely with each other. The Departments of the Environment and Employment, for example, are looking at the possibilities for enhancing employment prospects and job readiness of people accommodated under the Rough Sleepers Initiative.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is my noble friend really saying that we are spending £96 million on 440 people? That would pay my Lloyd's losses several times over, and buy me a house and a new estate in the country. That seems to me to be mildly ridiculous.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am not saying that. The £96 million is largely being spent to prevent people becoming homeless and sleeping rough.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that over a prolonged period before the last general election, Members from all parts of your Lordships' House persisted in raising this subject? I do not disagree with the figures given by the noble Viscount, but he must be aware that there is great disquiet at those figures. If we walk round London at night we find that the numbers of people sleeping rough are far in excess of the figures given by the Minister. Is he aware that I too support the
874
Government's Rough Sleepers Initiative which has dealt with a difficult problem? He must also be aware that the situation is deteriorating. Will he respond to the request of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, for an urgent review of the situation in order to introduce further measures adequately to deal with the problem?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dean, for his question. We recognise the significance of the problem, but the count by the voluntary organisations taken in March revealed 440 people sleeping rough on the streets of central London.
We have provided 700 places in direct access hostels, 700 places in leased move-on accommodation and will be providing 2,200 places in permanent accommodation. Without these initiatives, the problem would be much worse.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that a certain amount of overnight accommodation is still vacant?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, my information is that the new hostel places which have been provided quickly become full.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, I add my congratulations to the Government for the initiatives they took last year, for which the Minister with responsibility for housing deserves credit. Perhaps the Minister could confirm what I heard today, that some night shelters have recently closed. That includes those for people who are mentally retarded and are now back on the streets. May we have an assurance from the Government that those night shelters will be funded so that they may re-open before the winter sets in?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the main responsibility for the provision of services for the mentally ill rests with district health authorities and the local social services authorities to whom the Government issued guidance in 1988. From 1991, each authority should have a programme to provide co-ordinated care for people chronically disabled by mental illness and who live mainly in the community.
Psychiatric in-patients are discharged on the advice of a consultant psychiatrist and discharge should only take place when suitable arrangements have been made for their accommodation and welfare outside hospital.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the Government have spoken to any under 16 year-olds sleeping rough on the streets of central London? If so, what accommodation can be provided for them now that the main project for housing under 16 year-olds in central London has closed?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the Government work closely with the voluntary sector on the matter of young people sleeping rough in London. Also, under a Department of Health scheme, £3 million is being provided over three years through the Single

875
Young Persons Initiative to address youth homelessness and prevent young people drifting to London. The initiative funds 14 projects to work with young people outside London.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that his figure of £96 million, to which I must refer again, would, if invested in the acquisition of property at an average of £50,000 per house or accommodation, provide for possibly 1,920 people? We are talking of 440. It seems strange to me.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, as I said earlier, we are not talking about the 440 people. There are over 23,000 hostel places in London. The 440 people are those still out there, homeless.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, while we all welcome the initiative taken, can the Minister say whether the initiative and the expenditure which he quoted are confined to inner London or to London? What steps are the Government taking to tackle the same problem which exists in many provincial cities?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the figures I mentioned relate to central London. Nationally, the Department of the Environment also gives grants under Section 73 of the Housing Act 1985 to voluntary organisations concerned with the single homeless. This year, resources of £6.1 million will go to nearly 150 organisations, including over £1.7 million to the National Homeless Advice Service which aims to ensure that timely and expert advice is available to homeless people or those at risk of becoming homeless.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, surely the Government cannot be satisfied with the increase in begging on our streets?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, there are some beggars on the streets of central London who deliberately take on the appearance of rough sleepers to play on the public sympathy. Some engage in aggravated begging which is not far short of robbery whereas others prey on rough sleepers for protection money. This is known as taxing and is extortion. The police take a strong line on such practice. In the past police involved in such operations have found that over a third of the beggars arrested had fixed addresses.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, is the Minister aware that one does not have to sleep in a cardboard box to be sleeping rough in central London? Does he recall that last year the Salvation Army conducted a survey that identified 75,000 visible homeless people in central London? Is the Minister aware that government policies, namely, the changes in the social security system in the mid and late 1980s, the move towards market rents in 1988, and the stricter restraints on local authorities' role in housing provision, have all contributed to what is the main cause of homelessness which is a critical shortage of affordable rented accommodation? Will the Minister reply to those questions?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the Question deals specifically with those sleeping rough in central London. Housing associations funded via the Housing Corporation are now the major suppliers of new social rented housing. Housing Corporation resources will total £6 billion over the next three years with a forecast output of over 150,000 dwellings in that period.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Viscount rightly came under fire from his own Back Benches for contrasting the tip of the iceberg, which is sleeping rough in central London, with the considerable sums which are expended on housing problems in Britain as a whole. Does he agree with me that a joint report produced by the Labour and Conservative boroughs in London, the Association of London Authorities and the London Boroughs Association, and by Single Homeless in London—the latter body is the best informed of the bodies in the voluntary sector—takes the view that we require now 10,000 extra units of permanent accommodation in London whereas government plans only provide for 1,500?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, by common assent the problem of sleeping rough is most acute in central London. That is why we have chosen to concentrate our considerable resources of —96 million there.

Disability Working Allowance
3.22 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will exempt disability working allowance recipients from health service charges.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, we have no plans to do so.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we welcome disability working allowance, which, like family credit, tops up low earnings. But will the Minister confirm that, after clawback for housing and poll tax benefit, someone on DWA may receive just £3.56 more than if he were on family credit? Can he then explain why, if one is on family credit and fit, one receives free prescriptions but if one is unfit and on disability working allowance one has to pay for those prescriptions either by an expensive season ticket or at £3.40 a time? Surely the Minister is not going to tell the House that if one is disabled one does not need prescriptions but if one is not disabled one does and they are free.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I accept that family credit and disability working allowance are similar schemes. I would also accept that there are occasions when it might be that someone on disability working allowance was only getting the figure that the noble Baroness quoted. But in the main, recipients of disability working allowance are likely to get more than those on family credit: that is, more than £3.56. Nevertheless those on disability working allowance,

877
although there is not automatic exemption from National Health Service charges, are offered help in other parts of the health service. To start off with there is the National Health Service low income scheme. There are then the season tickets which are available at a cost of merely £1 a week for those who have regular requirements for prescriptions. There are also some exemptions on the ground of either health or status, for example, for pensioners, children and those suffering from certain specific ailments.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is this measure not only unfair to disabled people but also unwise in that it is a deterrent to people applying for this new benefit? Perhaps in answering that question the Minister will say what the level of take-up has been since this new benefit was introduced.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not accept it is a deterrent to take-up. Admittedly so far we have had a relatively low take-up of disability working allowance, some 1,130 cases. A large number of others have applied but have been turned down. The reason for this seems to be they have applied when they are not working. As the noble Lord will know, disability working allowance is an in-work benefit and therefore those who are not working are not entitled to it.

Llanelli Borough Council (River Lliedi) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
3.25 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 1 [Release of short-term, long-term and life prisoners]:
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie)The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 19, leave out ("or, if consultation with the Lord Justice General is impracticable,") and insert (", whom failing").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, it will be for your Lordships' convenience if we consider Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 7 together. These are essentially drafting changes. The amendments which were agreed to on Report sought to meet two rather different points which had at an earlier stage been raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, and the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, respectively. As I then indicated, I was not entirely happy with the precise terms of those amendments. Neither was the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, who pointed out that they were not consistent.
What I have been looking for is a form of words to express the meaning that it is the Lord Justice General who is to be consulted or to issue certificates but that the Lord Justice Clerk may at need stand in for him. I am indebted to the Lord Justice General himself, who referred me to existing provisions in Sections 113
878
and 114 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 where the formula "whom failing" is used for very much the same purpose. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 10 [Life prisoners transferred to Scotland]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 10, line 8, leave out ("or") and insert (", whom failing").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 28 [Prints, samples etc in criminal investigations]:
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 3
Page 22, line 18, after ("inspector") insert ("but only in the presence of the person's solicitor").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an amendment to Clause 28 of this Bill which involves the taking of prints and samples and other such things in criminal investigations. The Scottish Law Commission in its report on evidence recommended that samples should be taken only in the presence of a senior police officer. That has been recognised by the Government in that an inspector has to give consent to the samples being taken.
This amendment is moved to ensure that a proper balance is kept in this important matter because this measure impinges upon the general principle that a person need not give incriminating evidence against himself or herself. Clause 28(5) states:
"A constable may use reasonable force in exercising any power",
to obtain samples. That being so there is no independent check against the force being used by the constable to obtain the sample. It would be helpful if a solicitor were available at the time the sample was taken to give a check when the case came to court.
I appreciate that the amendment may be rather tightly drafted and may not recognise the question of practicability in terms of time, place, the public interest and the preservation of evidence as a matter of urgency. However, the preservation of evidence as a matter of urgency is already covered by Clause 28(6). In the circumstances, in fairness to the accused and to the community, I commend the amendment to your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry): My Lords, I have listened to what the noble Lord said but I remain unconvinced by his argument. Your Lordships will notice that Clause 28 applies only to persons who are arrested or detained. Those persons already have rights under statute to have notification sent to their solicitor and to have access to a solicitor. I do not believe that what has been said would justify the addition of a right to have a solicitor present simply when samples of the kind specified are being taken. I remind your Lordships that the samples are merely combed or plucked hairs or swabs from a person's skin.
In those circumstances, although it is correct to say that reasonable force may be used if necessary, I believe that the fact that the samples have to be taken at the instance of and with the permission of a senior

879
officer provides an adequate safeguard. That is the means of safeguard which the Law Commission recommended and I believe that it is satisfactory.
I trust that in the light of that explanation the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for that explanation. The only way in which the clause can be tested is through its operation. In due course it will be monitored to see whether or not it achieves the degree of fairness which the amendment set out to achieve. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 29 [Evidence from documentary records]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 4:
Leave out Clause 29 and insert the following new clause:
Evidence from documents
(" . Schedule (Documentary evidence in criminal proceedings) to this Act, which makes provision regarding the admissibility in criminal proceedings of copy documents and of evidence contained in business documents, shall have effect.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 4, it may be for your Lordships' convenience if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 6 and 8.
All of the amendments have been well heralded following the tabling by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, at Report stage of what is now Clause 29 of the Bill. At that time in accepting the new clause I indicated that I wished to consider its terms and would come back at Third Reading with amendments. Your Lordships will also recall that the impetus for bringing forward those provisions lies in the comments of the Lord Justice General in his recent decision in which he pointed to the urgent need for statutory provisions similar to those which already exist in England and Wales to extend the exceptions to the rule against the admissibility of hearsay evidence in criminal proceedings in Scotland. The amendments which I move today follow broadly the recommendations of the Scottish Law Commission, made after consideration of responses to its discussion paper.
The amendments are designed to assist the admissibility of business documents in criminal proceedings to reflect modern conditions and technology such as computer and copying machines. They are intended to reduce the need for witnesses to give evidence on matters which are almost always in practice unchallenged. On the other hand, the provisions retain important safeguards to protect the right of the accused to a fair trial. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 41 [Prosecutor's consent to or application for setting aside of conviction]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No.5:
Page 28, line 14, leave out (", on the appeal being intimated to him,").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I indicated at Report stage that I would bring forward a further amendment to the provisions in what is now Clause 41. The amendment will give the prosecutor flexibility to agree to set aside a conviction at any point during an appeal prior to its determination and not just at the point at which the appeal is intimated to him. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No.6:
After Schedule 2, insert the following new schedule:
("SCHEDULE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
Production of copy documents
1.—(1) For the purposes of any criminal proceedings, a copy of a document, purporting to be authenticated, in such manner as may be prescribed, by a person responsible for the making of the copy, shall, unless the court otherwise directs, be—

(a) deemed a true copy; and

(b) treated for evidential purposes as if it were the document itself,

whether or not that document is still in existence.
(2) For the purposes of this paragraph it is immaterial how many removes there are between a copy and the original.
(3) In this paragraph, "copy" includes a transcript or reproduction.
Statements in business documents
2.—(1) A statement in a document shall be admissible in criminal proceedings as evidence of any fact or opinion of which direct oral evidence would be admissible, if the following conditions are satisfied—

(a) the document was created or received in the course of, or for the purposes of, a business or undertaking or in pursuance of the functions of the holder of a paid or unpaid office;

(b) the document is, or at any time was, kept by a business or undertaking or by or on behalf of the holder of such an office; and

(c) the statement was made on the basis of information supplied by a person (whether or not the maker of the statement) who had, or may reasonably be supposed to have had, personal knowledge of the matters dealt with in it.

(2) Sub-paragraph (1) above applies whether the information contained in the statement was supplied directly or indirectly but, if it was supplied indirectly, only if each person through whom it was supplied received it in the course of a business or undertaking or as or on behalf of the holder of a paid or unpaid office.
(3) Where in any proceedings a statement made by any person is admitted as evidence by virtue of this paragraph—

(a) any evidence which, if that person had been called as a witness, would have been admissible as relevant to his credibility as a witness shall be admissible for that purpose in those proceedings;

(b) evidence may be given of any matter which, if that person had been called as a witness, could have been put to him in cross-examination as relevant to his credibility as a witness but of which evidence could not have been adduced by the cross-examining party; and

(c) evidence tending to prove that that person, whether before or after making the statement, made (whether orally or not) some other statement which is inconsistent with it shall be admissible for the purpose of showing that he has contradicted himself.

(4) Sub-paragraph (3) above shall apply in relation to a person who has, directly or indirectly, supplied the

881
information on the basis of which the statement was made to the person who made the statement as it applies in relation to the maker of the statement.
Documents kept by businesses etc
3. Unless the court otherwise directs, a document may in any criminal proceedings be taken to be a document kept by a business or undertaking or by or on behalf of the holder of a paid or unpaid office if it is certified as such by a docquet in the prescribed form and purporting to be authenticated, in such manner as may be prescribed—

(a) by a person authorised to authenticate such a docquet on behalf of the business or undertaking by which; or

(b) by, or by a person authorised to authenticate such a docquet on behalf of, the office-holder by whom,

the document was kept; and a statement contained in any document certified as aforesaid may be received in evidence without being spoken to by a witness.
Statements not contained in business documents
4.—(1) In any criminal proceedings, the evidence of an authorised person that any particular statement is not contained in a document kept by a business or undertaking or by or on behalf of the holder of a paid or unpaid office shall be admissible as evidence of that fact whether or not the whole or any part of the documents so kept has been produced in the proceedings.
(2) The evidence referred to in sub-paragraph (1) above may, unless the court otherwise directs, be given by means of a certificate by the authorised person in the prescribed form and purporting to be authenticated in such manner as may be prescribed.
(3) In this paragraph, "authorised person" means a person authorised to give evidence on behalf of the business or undertaking or as or on behalf of the office-holder.
Additional evidence where evidence from business documents challenged
5.—(1) This sub-paragraph applies where—

(a) evidence has been admitted by virtue of paragraph 2(3) above; or

(b) the court has made a direction under paragraph 1(1), 3 or 4(2) above.

(2) Where sub-paragraph (1) above applies in solemn criminal proceedings the judge may, without prejudice to sections 149 and 149A of the 1975 Act, on a motion of the prosecutor or defence at any time before the commencement of the speeches to the jury, permit him to lead additional evidence of such description as the judge may specify.
(3) Subsections (2) and (3) of section 149 of the 1975 Act shall apply in relation to sub-paragraph (2) above as they apply in relation to subsection (1) of that section.
(4) Where sub-paragraph (1) above applies in summary criminal proceedings the judge may, without prejudice to sections 350 and 350A of the 1975 Act, on a motion of the prosecutor or defence after the close of that party's evidence and before the prosecutor proceeds to address the judge on the evidence, permit that party to lead additional evidence of such description as the judge may specify.
(5) Subsections (2) and (3) of section 350 of the 1975 Act shall apply in relation to sub-paragraph (4) above as they apply in relation to subsection (1) of that section.
General
6.—(1) Nothing in this Schedule—

(a) shall prejudice the admissibility of a statement made by a person other than in the course of giving oral evidence in court which is admissible otherwise than by virtue of this Schedule;

(b) shall affect the operation of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act 1879;

(c) shall apply to—

(i) proceedings commenced; or

(ii) where the proceedings consist of an application to the sheriff by virtue of section 42(2) (c) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, an application made,
882
before this Schedule comes into force.

(2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) (c) (i) above, solemn proceedings are commenced when the indictment is served.
(3) In section 6 of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act 1879 (case in which banker not compellable to produce book), after the word "1988" there shall be inserted the words "or Schedule (Documentary evidence in criminal proceedings) to the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1992".
7. In this Schedule—
"business" includes trade, profession or other occupation;
"criminal proceedings" includes any hearing by the sheriff under section 42 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 of an application for a finding as to whether grounds for the referral of a child's case to a children's hearing are established, in so far as the application relates to the commission of an offence by the child;
"document" includes, in addition to a document in writing—

(a) any map, plan, graph or drawing;

(b) any photograph;

(c) any disc, tape, sound track or other device in which sounds or other data (not being visual images) are recorded so as to be capable (with or without the aid of some other equipment) of being reproduced therefrom; and

(d) any film, negative, tape, disc or other device in which one or more visual images are recorded so as to be capable (as aforesaid) of being reproduced therefrom;

"film" includes a microfilm;
"made" includes allegedly made;
"prescribed" means prescribed by Act of Adjournal;
"statement" includes any representation (however made or expressed) of fact or opinion, including an instruction, order or request, but does not include—

(a) a statement in a precognition; or

(b) any other statement made for the purposes of or in connection with—

(i) pending or contemplated criminal proceedings; or

(ii) a criminal investigation; and

"undertaking" includes any public or statutory undertaking, any local authority and any government department.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Transitional Provisions and Savings]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No.7:
Page 42, line 18, leave out ("or") and insert ("whom failing").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Repeals and Revocations]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 43, line 26, at end insert:

("1965 c.20.

The Criminal Evidence Act 1965.

The whole Act.

1969 c. 48.

The Post Office Act 1969.

Section 93(4).")

On Question, amendment agreed to.
An amendment (privilege) made.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. In view of the important matters which many of your Lordships are eagerly waiting to discuss, I intend to be brief. However, I wish to thank those noble Lords who have taken part in the debates on the Bill. I am grateful both for the

883
way in which the Bill has been welcomed and also for the constructive efforts which have been made to improve it.
The Bill will bring about more equitable arrangements for the early release of prisoners and will make several relatively minor but nevertheless significant improvements in the law governing criminal proceedings in Scotland. I trust that it will be as well received in another place as it has been in this House.
I reiterate my thanks to those who have contributed to the friendly and constructive debates which have taken place and would like to take this opportunity to add a special word of thanks to the Lord Justice General who has been most helpful in providing a considered view on a number of points, often at very short notice. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I should like to say briefly that this legislation is useful. One part will save a great deal of time, expense and inconvenience to witnesses and the public in the Scottish courts. I have reservations about the operation of the part of the Bill dealing with parole but time will tell how it will operate.
I am grateful to the Ministers, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, for their careful consideration and acceptance of amendments proposed from this side of your Lordships' House. I hope that we can say without any degree of false modesty that the Bill leaves the House in better shape than when it arrived.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Electricity Generators (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992 Scottish Nuclear Limited (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992 Scottish Power plc. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992 British Railways Board (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992 Glasgow Underground (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992 British Telecommunications plc. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992

  British Gas plc. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992 Mercury Communications Ltd. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992 Lochaber Power Company (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992 Scottish Hydro-Electric plc. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992 Water Undertakings (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992 British Alcan Primary and Recycling Ltd. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992 Caledonian MacBrayne Limited (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992 Forth Ports plc (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992 Oil Related and Petrochemical Plants (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992
  3.36 p.m.
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie rose to move, That the draft orders laid before the House on 6th May and 17th and 23rd June be approved [1st, 3rd and 4th Reports from the Joint Committee].
  The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the 15 draft orders standing on the Order Paper in my name relate to matters of valuation for rating in Scotland, with 14 dealing with the rateable values of the so-called formula valued industries and one providing for derating of certain oil and petrochemical properties.
  The so-called formula valued industries are mainly public utilities which are not valued for rating by the regional assessors in the usual way but for which the rateable values are prescribed. The draft orders before your Lordships today simply revise the rateable values prescribed for last year to take account both of the new level of industrial derating (now at 25 per cent.) and also of material changes affecting the value of each industry's property holdings.
  The remaining order prescribes a level of derating for certain oil-related and petrochemical plants in Scotland which are significantly disadvantaged in the rates bills they have to pay when compared with those which would be demanded of them had they been

  885
  located south of the Border. Those plants that are affected are directly related to the advent of North Sea oil; older plants do not suffer to the same degree because of their age and the ability to take account of such factors as obsolescence and redundant plant. The level of derating proposed is 45 per cent.
  The orders in the main update, for 1992–93, existing provisions which applied in respect of the last financial year. I commend the orders to your Lordships. I beg to move the Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper en bloc.
  Moved, That the draft orders laid before the House on 6th May and 17th and 23rd June be approved [1st, 3rd and 4th Reports from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  EC: UK Presidency
  3.37 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey)The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey) rose to move, That this House takes note of the United Kingdom presidency of the Council of Ministers of the European Communities.
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, today's debate is timely, coming at the very beginning of the United Kingdom presidency. Last Session your Lordships held several debates and other exchanges on specific developments in the European Community and on certain visions of its future. We shall shortly debate your Lordships' Select Committee's report on enlargement of the Community. Today we can consider those and other issues in a wider debate.
  The Community is about enhancing basic political and economic freedoms. Maastricht showed that clearly. However, we do not always appreciate the extent to which those freedoms are being advanced in the day-to-day work of the Community. I hope that many more people will appreciate this when they see the British presidency in action.
  Secondly, I think we should be quite clear that the presidency is a first-class opportunity to promote and protect Britain's interests while at the same time serving the common good. This objective requires leadership and quiet authority. There is no one better to provide that than our Prime Minister, John Major.
  There has been plenty of good news in the run-up to our presidency that should not be masked by the Danish referendum result. The debates in Parliament beforehand formed the position taken by the Prime Minister at Maastricht and greatly influenced the outcome. The emphasis that Britain laid on liberalisation was fully reflected in the emphasis placed in the treaty on decentralisation and subsidiarity, and on greater accountability—for the Commission in its spending and its bureaucracy and for the member states in their compliance with Community law. Significantly, foreign policy cooperation will continue to take place in the context of intergovernmental co-operation outside the Treaty of Rome.
  At last our partners are joining us in reforming the Community. Clearly those calls for reform place the focus on what the Community still needs to do. But let us not forget the achievements which many planned, especially my noble friend Lord Cockfield. In the past few weeks the Community has delivered the very internal market measures for which he worked so long and hard. It is a real success that over 90 per cent. of single market measures have now been completed. They will be of benefit to British citizens, as well as to the citizens of our 11 partners.
  I shall outline some of the successes that are too easily overlooked. Two weeks ago the Transport Council approved the third aviation liberalisation package. That will virtually complete the single market in aviation by 1st January 1993. There can be no clearer benefit to the travelling public than the lower fares, greater choice of routes and better service that will result. The Agriculture Council has now agreed to the legal texts implementing the CAP reform agreement. We shall press ahead in our presidency and put the agreement into practice. We shall also tell our GATT partners how far the Community plans to reduce farm subsidies. That should give further, much-needed impetus to the Uruguay Round. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister impressed yesterday on the whole Commission the need to have an immediate round of negotiations on agriculture, which holds the key to the Uruguay Round.
  With regard to financial services, Britain has always had the most liberal market in the Community. We can now share this with all our partners in three ways. The Third Life and Non-Life Insurance Directives will open up the insurance markets within the Community; the Capital Adequacy Directive will set capital requirements for securities trading for banks and investment firms in the single market. Thirdly, major progress is now being made on the Investment Services Directive. Securities firms will be enabled to do business in the Community on the basis of home state authorisation similar to that for the Second Banking Co-ordination Directive. The hallmarks of the new financial services are freedom, financial soundness and open competition. Savers and investors alike will benefit. Above all, Britain's outstanding financial services industry will lead the European market.
  The Lisbon European Council has built on those developments. It is Britain's presidency that will open the benefits of the Community to a wider Europe, establish better financial disciplines and develop the guidelines on subsidiarity.
  On enlargement, we must ensure real progress in the negotiations with the EFTAN countries. That requires the preparation of negotiating mandates and the Community's general negotiation framework in time to be approved at the European Council in Edinburgh. That is what we wanted. Now all 12 nations are agreed that it should happen.
  On future financing of the Community, Lisbon set the stage for the detailed discussions on the Delors II package. These will be tough negotiations. But a climate of financial discipline is growing within the Community. Member states are aware of the need to

  887
  look closely at Community spending when many face economic retrenchment at home. Budget discipline and value for money are two principles which we have always pressed in the EC and which were pressed with outstanding success by my noble friend Lady Thatcher. The wisdom of our approach is now impressing itself on some of our partners. This will be an important area of work for us; and I am sure my noble friend Lord Caithness will have more to say on it in his closing speech.
  Thirdly, the Lisbon Summit gave the UK presidency a clear remit to take forward urgent work on the subsidiarity principle of minimum interference. The European Council noted that:
  "harmonious development of the Union over the coming years depends to a considerable degree on the strict application to existing and future legislation of the principle of subsidiarity by all the institutions".
  All institutions will need to address this in the coming months. In particular, the Commission and the Council are required to report to the Edinburgh Council on practical guidelines for applying the principle. That good news offers us the opportunity to turn back the tide of centralisation and set the Community on a new course.
  I come now to running the presidency. The British presidency has a very heavy agenda. We believe that free trade and competition have helped create a prosperous Community. These are benefits which should be made available outside the Community; and that is why we shall strengthen the Community's role in seeking a sensible outcome to the GATT Uruguay Round.
  As part of a wider perspective we shall use the presidency to put flesh on the bones of the association agreements signed this year with Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. As these countries emerge from the position of decades of isolation and centralism, we must do all we can to open up their trade opportunities, increase their know-how and build a political dialogue with each nation.
  We shall not forget the other neighbours. Turkey, Malta and Cyprus have existing relationships which will be deepened. With others, like Bulgaria, Romania and the republics of the former Soviet Union, we shall continue to build economic and political ties.
  We shall also seek to break down the Community's remaining internal barriers and so steer the single market project to a successful conclusion. The 1992 programme was largely a British initiative. Over 90 per cent. of the measures have now been agreed. The Portuguese presidency made good progress in many areas, particularly in insurance, animal and plant health and transport. We must now finalise the necessary legislative proposals remaining. That will be a significant achievement, offering more choice to the consumer, opportunities for British business in Europe and the freedom to create wealth and jobs throughout the Continent. Those undoubted benefits would have been unattainable without the very majority voting mechanism provided for by the Single European Act. We willed not only the end but also the
  888
  means. But we shall look beyond the legislative phase to ensure that the market works. That will need a new emphasis on enforcement and compliance.
  My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made no secret of the fact that preparing the way for enlargement of the Community is a key priority of our presidency. There are at present seven bids for membership on the table. That is a tribute to the success of the Community and to its magnetic attraction as a core of stable government and economic prosperity. Other nations wish to join and it is our clear intention that room should be made at the Community table for all those able to take on the practical responsibilities of membership. In the immediate future that means the EFTA applicants: Austria, Sweden, Finland and Switzerland. Norway may also apply. We shall prepare as much of the ground as possible during the next six months to make sure that the formal accession negotiations can begin early in 1993. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister is achieving the very vision of a wider Community which I know my noble friend Lady Thatcher so deeply shares.
  The agenda for European political co-operation is a very full one. The tragedy of the former Yugoslavia is the most immediate priority. As many noble Lords will know, we discussed that for an hour or so last night in this House. We are taking action. I shall not repeat the debate from last night. However, your Lordships may care to know that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary will be addressing this issue substantively in another place today.
  We have much to do in relation to the countries of the former Soviet Union and Central and Eastern Europe. As your Lordships know, we are already helping. We plan high level meetings with the Visegrad Three during our presidency. But the Twelve also have important contributions to make elsewhere in the world: to the Middle East peace process, which we wish well. We are working together for the earliest possible resumption of the constitutional talks, so deeply needed, in South Africa. We are seeking to find practical ways to help the South African Government and people stop township violence. With Turkey we are working for relations that will reflect her growing regional role.
  I could go on much longer. The agenda is huge. It is varied and it is demanding. What I can assure your Lordships is that the British Government will be fully involved in our presidency and on our own account in ensuring that all 12 nations exercise their positive and full influence in world affairs for peace and prosperity.
  I have left until now the question of ratification of the Maastricht Treaty which has so dominated commentary on Europe in the past month. We cannot afford to let it dominate our presidency. It is clear from what I have already said that the Community has a large agenda of work regardless of Maastricht. Clearly it needs to examine the consequences of the Danish referendum. We stand by the Maastricht agreement as the best foundation for building a wider and more decentralised Europe.
  The value of co-operation in the Community and the need to develop that co-operation further in the

  889
  political, economic and other fields remains as strong as ever. That was confirmed at the Oslo meeting of Foreign Ministers immediately after the Danish referendum. The Lisbon Summit renewed commitment to the Maastricht Treaty. In the coming months we shall explore how the Community can progress as Twelve. We must respect Danish democratic procedures and Danish views on what they want to do next. We must also respect the firm commitment to the Maastricht Treaty which this Government negotiated, signed and successfully commended to both Houses for approval in December last year. Finally, we must accommodate the desire to see the Community progress as Twelve together in the tradition of strong and enduring consensus that has brought us thus far.
  Those are not easy objectives to reconcile. It would be wrong to try to impose a solution on Denmark or on our partners. There would be no surer way to lose the positive gains that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister won for Britain at Maastricht. The Government would not contemplate such a course.
  Denmark has asked for time to consider its options. That is fair enough. We need to know in the autumn how it intends to proceed and how the rest of us might help. Denmark cannot be coerced. She cannot be excluded. She is a member of the European Community in good standing. She will take over the presidency from us on New Year's day. When we know in the autumn how she intends to proceed we can then judge when it would be right to ask Parliament to proceed with our legislation.
  The Heads of EC Governments will meet at Holyrood House in Edinburgh, the first European Council in the United Kingdom ever to be held outside London. Wales will host an important meeting of Employment Ministers. The special events of the arts, sport and business programme indicate the wide range of activities taking place in the United Kingdom at a European level. It is a first-class opportunity for community groups and individuals in the United Kingdom to become involved in our presidency: to join in, to learn, to understand and to participate.
  It is the programme for our presidency that forms the Motion for our debate today. There is no doubt that it will be a busy and interesting six months. It will be a period in which Britain will use all the influence at its command to shape the Community for the future. This must he a Community where political and economic freedom are our way of life. I hope that your Lordships will lend your support to a sound, businesslike presidency which will achieve a great deal for the British people and a firm basis for success in the wider Europe where Britain so clearly belongs.
  Moved, That this House takes note of the United Kingdom presidency of the Council of Ministers of the European Communities.—(Baroness Chalker of Wallasey.)
  3.56 p.m.
  Lord Richard: My Lords, it is indeed an important debate, not only because of the subject that we discuss but also because of some of the personalities who will take part in the debate. We on this side of the House
  890
  welcome the former Prime Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, to this House. I look forward greatly to listening to her later this afternoon.
  The debate is being held at a critical stage in the evolution of the Community, thrown into some confusion as it has been by Denmark's recent vote against ratifying the treaty. The noble Baroness who opened the debate on behalf of the Government will forgive me, I know, if I say at the outset that while she gave us a catalogue of problems she was not very revealing about the Government's approach to those problems and how they seemed to consider tackling them. However, today provides the House with an opportunity to assess the implications of that Danish vote both for the future of the treaty itself and for its likely impact on the overall development of the Community.
  The problems that the Government will now face in this presidency cannot and should not be underestimated. Demands on the Community have never been greater. A number of countries are queueing up to join. They are doing so at a time when the Community is in the midst of a fundamental reappraisal of its own structure and development. Rarely can a country have assumed the presidency at a time of greater uncertainty and doubt. Unfortunately it is also a period of political turmoil and ethnic strife in Central and Eastern Europe. With that background it is little wonder that those countries look to the Community as an institution which offers them stability, the means to facilitate sustained political and economic growth and, perhaps most importantly, permanence and some order.
  The Lisbon Summit seems to have decided that membership of the Community for those countries will have to wait. But if membership will have to wait, the problems cannot. In the meantime, the British presidency should attempt to develop closer ties with and extend assistance to the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. They need our support as a matter of urgency and we should not be slow to respond.
  Reflecting this, the Lisbon Summit was deeply concerned at the civil war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is inevitable that events in the former Yugoslavia will be one of the most pressing and urgent issues demanding the attention of the new presidency. The Lisbon Summit concluded, and it was an important decision, that the Community would back United Nations action to support a humanitarian relief operation in the event that fighting continues and the UN becomes more involved. Britain, therefore, in its role as president, will have a major part to play in attempting to secure a lasting ceasefire in Bosnia and Herzegovina and in promoting a negotiated settlement to end disputes between the former Yugoslav republics. That is a fairly mighty item on anyone's agenda to begin with.
  But the Community has its own urgent internal problems as well. The British presidency will have to pick up the pieces of the Danish referendum result, which temporarily at least has derailed the treaty ratification process. It is all very well for the Minister to say that that will not be allowed to dominate the British presidency; it is bound to dominate the British

  891
  presidency because it goes to the heart of the continued existence of the Community in its present form.
  If the Government have that responsibility it is deeply ironic that it has now descended upon this Government's shoulders. It is ironic that this Government—the Government whose Members are sitting across the Dispatch Boxes—which was so obstructive in the negotiations leading up to Maastricht and whose insistence on opt-out clauses in relation to the Social Chapter and economic and monetary union has created a two-speed Europe with Britain in the slow lane, are now assuming the presidency at a critical make-or-break stage in the history of the Community itself. I am afraid that one result of that is that a large number of our Community partners believe that this country now has a special responsibility to formulate a solution which can save the ratification process. However, at the same time they doubt our national determination and wish to carry that out.
  The Prime Minister must now demonstrate that the Government have the will and, dare I say, the unity to put the ratification process back on course. Perhaps that will be more difficult for him than it might have been for others. The role of the presidency is essentially one of leadership by consensus and by compromise. Whatever one thinks about Britain's approach to the Community during the past decade "consensus" and "compromise" are not the words which automatically spring to mind. Twelve different national interests must now be accommodated by the presidency. That can be done only by listening, by understanding and by taking them into account.
  Some observers appear to believe that the Irish referendum, with its resounding "yes" vote, and the Oslo meeting of Community Foreign Ministers, which left the door open for Denmark, have put the ratification process back on course. I believe that that assessment totally underestimates the profound political and legal questions raised by the Danish result. Certainly the difficulties caused by that result proved to be too hard for the Lisbon Summit. The summit failed significantly to produce a definitive solution to resolve the question of ratification. In order to try to help with that problem the summit agreed to re-examine the powers of the Commission by defining "subsidiarity" and it also agreed to a review of all existing EC legislation.
  The other 11 member states appear to be pinning their hopes on those initiatives, coupled with what they hope is a growing realisation in Denmark as to its potential isolation, proving sufficient to make the Danes change their minds and ratify the treaty. We should respect the Danish decision for what it is; neither underestimating it nor elevating its importance. It should be treated with constitutional respect. I agree with the Minister that the Community should not apply overt pressure on the Danes. In my view that would not only be wrong but it would be self-defeating.
  The difficulty is that we are not negotiating with a government. After all, the Danish Government
  892
  accepted the treaty. One is negotiating with, or trying to accommodate or deal with, an electorate. One is seeking to influence an attitude. It is not a matter of sitting down with a government and changing one or two clauses or sub-clauses in the treaty; it is a matter of somehow producing a different view of the Community in the minds of the Danish electorate.
  The Danish Government must be given time to handle the situation as they think best. No doubt they are making their own dispositions accordingly. But of one issue I am quite convinced; that threats from outside will not do it. Quiet and sympathetic diplomatic support might, but, again, quietness and sympathy are not exactly the most obvious qualities which have guided policies towards the Community during the past decade.
  So the presidency faces an uphill task in salvaging the ratification process prior to this autumn's European Council in Edinburgh. In view of the difficulties involved it would be useful if the noble Earl, who is to wind up the debate, could elaborate on the way in which the Government propose to approach the matter in concert with our partners. It would also be helpful if he could advise the House of the current status of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill and give an indication when or whether the Government propose to return it to Parliament.
  The Prime Minister appears to feel bound in honour to secure the ratification of the treaty. So be it. Certainly he was right, as was repeated this afternoon, when he said that it had been approved overwhelmingly by the House of Commons. But how does he hope to secure that? Does there come a point when the Government state that they will wait no longer for the Danes and then proceed to try to pass the Bill through this Parliament? If so, when do we reach that point? Certainly it will not be reached before the French referendum is held. If that referendum produces a "no" vote, realistically the treaty will be dead and it will be back to the drawing board with a vengeance. If, however, the French referendum produces a firm "yes"—and present indications suggest that to be more likely—can we expect the Bill to be returned to the House in the autumn?
  It is true that those decisions can be avoided for a while longer. However, drift is hardly a policy and delay is no long-term strategy. What people want from the Government—and it is not an unreasonable request—is a clear indication of where the Government believe the Community is now going and how they believe it will get there.
  Member states will also be looking to the presidency for leadership in addressing the issues relating to the Social Chapter of the Maastricht Treaty and the transition towards economic and monetary union. They are perhaps two difficult issues for the Government. They will also be looking to see what the Government, as president, have to say about enlargement, further reform of the common agricultural policy, the future of the GATT negotiations, as well as the future size of the Community budget. It promises to be a busy six months for those Ministers who are concerned with the Community.

  893
  The Government could perhaps secure the trust and confidence of our partners, and perhaps hope to revive the ratification process, by taking steps to sign up for the Social Chapter of the Maastricht Treaty. That would indeed be a significant goodwill gesture towards our partners, all 11 of whom have accepted it. It would also possibly reduce Danish opposition to the treaty itself. It is widely believed that British hostility to the Social Chapter weakened its status by forcing the other 11 member states to take majority voting procedures outside the treaty. That in turn undermined the enthusiasm of the Social Democrats in Denmark.
  Moreover, approving the Social Chapter would give British workers a chance to benefit from a commitment to a framework of rights for people at work, which is recognised as good practice by all our partners. Equally, it would help to meet the convergence conditions for economic and monetary union. In order to meet those conditions member states must work together. That, too, underlines the importance of the Social Chapter based as it is on the experience of countries such as Germany, which seem to have grasped the fact that the key to a successful future lies in fostering social cohesion and not in division.
  We should also use the presidency to review the opt-out with respect to economic and monetary union. That has created uncertainty for British business and for those foreign companies contemplating long-term investment in Britain during the next five to 10 years. It has also weakened Britain's ability to help convergence, to promote regional development and to modernise our industrial structures—all of which are crucial to the third stage of EMU. I think, too, that one of the things in which the presidency should be engaged is to try to ensure that the proposed European central bank is accountable and that may best be achieved through ECOFIN.
  With respect to the location of the bank, I understand that the meeting in Lisbon failed to reach a decision and that that will now become the responsibility of the Edinburgh summit. The Government seem to have been outflanked on that question with the bank now apparently heading for Germany. Can anyone really be surprised if that happens? To say that you may well not join in the game is hardly the best posture from which to insist that it must be played on your pitch.
  The Government had hoped to make enlargement one of the central planks of their presidency but the uncertainty created by the Danish referendum forced the Lisbon Summit to conclude that there should be no preliminary enlargement negotiations before the ratification process had been resolved. I was glad to hear the Minister say this afternoon that a great deal of the preparatory work on enlargement can certainly be carried out during this presidency.
  As regards subsidiarity, the Government are committed to developing a more concise and practical definition of subsidiarity. It would be helpful if the noble Earl could give an indication of the kind of proposals which the presidency would be making in relation to subsidiarity. It would also be helpful if the
  894
  Minister could advise the House as to how the presidency would proceed in relation to the review of existing Community legislation.
  However, subsidiarity is no policy as yet. It is at best a reassessment and a rearrangement of the balance of powers between the nation states and the Community institutions, even if it could be satisfactorily defined. So far, I have seen no workable or acceptable definition of what I understand to be a one-time theological concept.
  I suppose that the presidency will also afford the opportunity for the Government to make a concerted effort to implement further reforms of the CAP. I was grateful to hear what the noble Baroness said about that, particularly in relation to reforms of the CAP and GATT.
  Then, there is the budget. As regards the Community budget the Government are in some difficulty. As the Government of the United Kingdom, they may have one view. As the holders of the presidency, their duty is to try to produce movement in the direction of a compromise. It will require flexibility and a delicate hand to run those two together.
  We are assuming the presidency at a critical stage in the Community's history. Decisions must be made over the next six months which would have an historic bearing not only on the development of the Community but on the future of Europe as a whole. Reservations have been expressed about this Government's suitability to play the crucial role they have been given. I believe that our partners need some reassurance from the Government as to the way in which they are approaching the Community and Community affairs. It is to be strongly hoped that the Government can rise to the challenge of their presidency. Failure would heighten political uncertainty in Europe precisely at the time when the whole of Central and Eastern Europe is in danger of becoming embroiled in ethnic and nationalist conflict. The Community needs firm leadership and a constructive approach to those problems. The Government must prove that they are equal to the challenge ahead and must provide that effective guidance. Failure to do so would have ramifications far beyond the borders of the Community.
  To do that will demand a change of attitude on the Government's part. For the next six months they are in effect on probation in the eyes of our Community partners. We must be seen to be representing the interests of the whole and not merely our part of it. Incumbent as the Government are with the ideological baggage of the past 10 years, that task will not be easy. If they pursue it with imagination and determination, they will have our support. If not, they should not be surprised if criticism inside Britain continues to grow and the demand for a referendum, whatever the Government's attitude may be now, becomes louder and perhaps irresistible.
  4.15 p.m.
  Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, in your Lordships' House it is common but courteous form to say how much we are looking forward to an

  895
  impending maiden speech. But on this occasion I can do so with more than common courtesy. Indeed, there is a certain breathless hush in the close this afternoon as we await the non-controversial remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher.
  I suspect that the tradition of non-controversial maiden speeches, like most traditions, is of fairly recent origin and, indeed, it is not invariably observed even in the past few years. Even though it was before my day in your Lordships' House, I seem to recollect that the first speech of the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, was not wholly uncontroversial, certainly not from the point of view of the noble Baroness. I beg her today not to be too inhibited. We should much rather that she were herself than that she became hidebound by convention.
  I must crave your Lordships' indulgence this evening. I know your Lordships' attitude to attendance throughout debates, "waiving all excuses" as the Writ of Summons says, which we hear so often these days. However, after consultation with the Leader of the House I must ask your Lordships to accept my absence after about 8.15 p.m. I have a very long-standing engagement to preside at a dinner of British European Commissioners present and past. No doubt some of your Lordships' will regard that as a true gathering of a nest of vipers, but at least it is no routine or easily postponable occasion.
  I have been greatly encouraged by the forthright attitude towards Europe which the Prime Minister has taken in the past few days. If he sticks to that, as I believe he now must and will, I can assure him that he will have my unwavering support for the ratification of Maastricht, at least as much support as another Conservative Prime Minister had on the European issue 21 years ago. I believe that there will be many of us, not only in my party but also in the Labour Party, who will support him if he is firm and consistent.
  The facts of political geography in this country are that the European majority—and I believe that there is one when the issues are duly considered—is essentially a cross-party majority. In 1971 it was the Labour Europeans who turned what would have been a minority of 46 into a majority of 112 for British entry. That cross-party fact may be awkward for party leaders of different parties but it is one which they cannot ignore if they wish to play an effective hand in Europe. There have been several examples of party leaders playing too much of a political hand which has not brought much success to the country or profit for their own parties.
  Last December and January I thought that the Prime Minister was in some danger of overselling the degree of success at Maastricht; but that is no longer of significance. What is of significance is that an unravelling of Maastricht, so far from easing British problems in Europe, would make immensely more difficult what I understand to be the two main objectives of British Government policy for the presidency. First, if the response to the Danish difficulty were to go for a Europe à la carte in which some countries take more courses than others, I doubt whether the British would be prepared to take the full
  896
  menu. That would undoubtedly mean that Mr. Major's proclaimed aim of Britain at the heart of Europe would be scuppered because only the fully participating countries will be there with full interest.
  Nor, with Maastricht unravelling, will a rapid enlargement of the Community be achievable. Whether or not there is any attempt to establish a formal link between ratification and enlargement, it is inevitable that a Community which loses its self-confidence will not achieve the unanimity necessary to take in the relics of the old free trade area, let alone the westernised trio among the former Soviet bloc countries of the Poles, the Czechs and the Hungarians.
  There is no sense in living in a world of illusions. It is undoubtably an illusion that a Community in disarray could be persuaded to turn itself from one of 12 into one of 20 or more. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that it is a similar illusion to believe that Britain, which claimed special opt-out rights in relation to a single currency, could field a serious claim to be the host country for the European Central Bank. I greatly regret that we were not able to do that.
  I take a slightly more optimistic view than the noble Lord, Lord Richard, in regard to the British presidency. At the present time and over the period of our presidency there will be exceptional opportunities for Britain to play an effective hand in Europe, perhaps more so than at any other time during our 20 years of membership. Nor do I dissent from the view that many noble Lords on all sides of the House hold, that the Community defeats its own purposes if it is over-obtrusive and tries to do too much that is unnecessary.
  I want to see the Community proceed in certain specific directions. I certainly want it to proceed to a single currency, to effective foreign policy coordination and to a more powerful Parliament as a democratic instrument. But I do not believe that any of that involves the sacrifice either of a strong sense of national identity in this or other countries, or of effective democratic decision making, preferably at a level closer to the people than is the case today in our grossly over-centralised Britain.
  I can claim a certain consistency in the matter. It was recently pointed out to me, though I had completely forgotten it, that in a Jean Monnet lecture I gave in Florence in 1977—which some people believe started all the trouble about the European monetary system and long before the obfuscating rather than clarifying word "subsidiarity" had been heard of in a Brussels context—I attempted a non-dogmatic and non-centralising definition of what the Community should and should not do.
  I said that we must build Europe upon the basis of our late 20th century nation states; that we must only give to the Community functions which will, beyond reasonable doubt, deliver significantly better results because they are performed at Community level. We must fashion a Community which gives to each member state the benefits that it cannot achieve alone. We must leave to them functions which they can do equally well or better on their own. However, just as

  897
  strongly I reject the view that we are teetering on the brink of an all-powerful and all-obtrusive superstate which will dominate our lives.
  For instance, I do not believe that nearly as close a polity as the United States of America is or will be appropriate for Europe. Nor do I believe that we are within miles of that. Let us take the practical and important test of expenditure. The Community at present takes 1.2 per cent. of the gross national product within the total of the member states. M. Delors announced that he wants to raise it to 1.37 per cent. over five years. In the United States the federal budget takes 21.5 per cent. of the gross national product. Let us preserve some sense of proportion when we talk of an all-powerful state based on between 1.2 per cent. and 1.37 per cent. of gross national product.
  The biggest danger for Western Europe is not some exaggerated phantasmagorical fear of a superstate. The greatest danger is that it should begin to emulate Eastern Europe and turn from being an area of stability and hope to one of disintegration and nationalistic destruction. I hope that the British presidency will make a major contribution towards avoiding that.
  4.25 p.m.
  Baroness Thatcher: My Lords, it is a privilege to take my place on these distinguished and tranquil Benches after 33 testing years before the mast in another place. I thank my noble friend for her kind references to me, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Richard, for his explicit and implied references to me, and I greatly thank the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, for parts of his speech.
  Mine is a somewhat delicate position. I calculate that I was responsible as Prime Minister for proposing the elevation to this House of 214 of its present Members. That must surely be considerably more than most of my predecessors—and my father did not know Lloyd George!
  As Prime Minister I made a point of following your Lordships' debates and the reports of your Select Committees and found them invaluable for the wealth of experience and worldliness which they contained. I must confess that your Lordships' voting record occasionally gave rise to other and more violent emotions, particularly when the votes were on matters of finance. My frustration was too often and unfairly visited on the thankfully broad shoulders of my noble friends Lord Whitelaw and Lord Denham. I am sure that the view from here will look quite different.
  I ask for your Lordships' forbearance for speaking so soon after my arrival in your Lordships' House rather than allowing a decent interval to elapse. But Britain's presidency of the Community comes round only once every six years and in future it may be longer than that. Notorious as I am for patience and restraint, I can hardly wait that long.
  As the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said, I find that the late Lord Stockton managed 33 minutes during which he was not exactly complimentary about the then government's economic policies or its handling of the miners' strike. Therefore speeches are not always
  898
  non-controversial. The noble Lord, Lord Wilson, for his part spent 20 minutes trampling politely on the Government's record on training and higher education. I therefore take heart that the non-controversial tradition may sometimes be honoured in the breach. But of course what is controversial to one may be music to the ears of another. Without differences of view there would be no debate; and if Parliament lost its powers to another body there would be little point in debate.
  I notice from the speeches that have already been made that one point has forcibly emerged. Bearing in mind that all three parties are of the same view about ratifying Maastricht, the electorate has had no way during the general election of expressing its view. It had in fact no choice.
  Britain has usually set itself rather modest and limited objectives during its turn at holding the presidency of the EC. True, our last presidency launched the single market; and in view of some of the comments in regard to the Single European Act which I heard in this House on Tuesday, I shall have something to say in that regard later and my noble friend has already referred to it. But generally we have concentrated on organising the Community's business efficiently and drawing precise conclusions from wordy and chaotic debates.
  That was necessary, but it will certainly not be enough this time. Rarely, if ever, has the Community had a greater number of important issues demanding its attention than now. Most of them were mentioned by my noble friend the Minister of State and I shall not repeat the list which she gave so ably, but start with what is on everyone's lips and the most pressing question—that is to say, what to do about Maastricht after the Danish referendum.
  Many people who travel through Europe, as I have done in recent months, are struck by the very sharp change in attitudes towards the European Community, brought about by the Maastricht Treaty. Scepticism, justifiable scepticism, is on the increase. People feel that their governments have gone ahead too fast so that now the gap between government and people is too wide. Perhaps that is not surprising when in the modern political world European Ministers spend so much time in each other's company: they get out of touch with the people and too much in touch with themselves.
  The particular concerns are different in each country, but the basic misgivings are mostly the same. People feel that too many of the powers and rights, which have been theirs for decades and in some cases for centuries, are being given away to the centre in Brussels. We had echoes of that in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins. I find it very difficult to understand that two arguments are being run alongside and they are mutually exclusive. There is far too much centralisation going on; far too much bureaucracy going on which we do not like, but nevertheless we are going to ratify the Maastricht Treaty. To me, these things do not add up.
  There is also among people a good, healthy understanding that bigger is not always better and that variety is more desirable than conformity. The

  899
  Danish "No" to Maastricht is just one sign of those things. A recent opinion poll shows that seven out of 10 Germans do not want a single currency and that seven out of 10 do not want either to surrender significant powers in order to have a common foreign policy.
  People understand that Maastricht is more, much more, than just a technical adjustment to the Treaty of Rome. The people of Denmark saw that when they received their copies —free copies, I would stress—of the Maastricht text. One figure illustrates better than anything else the scale of the extra intrusion into the authority of national parliaments and governments and into people's lives, which Maastricht would bring about.
  The Treaty of Rome provides for the Commission to have the sole right of initiative in 11 areas of policy. In Maastricht that reaches 20, to which one has to add at least five other areas of co-operation where the Commission is fully involved—that is to say, monetary, judicial and immigration matters as well as foreign policy and defence. No wonder people feel that they have a right to be consulted about such a major change in the way in which they are governed, especially in the light of M. Delors' notorious statement to the European Parliament that 80 per cent. of the decisions taken on economic and social matters will soon be taken by the European Community rather than by national governments and parliaments.
  It is being alleged that no less substantial powers were conceded to the Community in the Single European Act. I hope that your Lordships will not accept that assertion, but will look at the debates in another place in 1986 about the Single European Act. I hope that noble Lords will look in particular at the assurances given at that time by the then Foreign Secretary, now my noble friend Lord Howe, and by my noble friend the Minister of State who opened the debate.
  Qualified majority voting is of course in the Treaty of Rome itself. My noble friend, the then Foreign Secretary, made clear that in the Single European Act qualified majority voting replaced unanimity only for the measures which were major components of the construction of the Common Market. He said explicitly that their scope was not indefinite. He pointed out that,
  "some subjects were of such importance to the national policies of individual member states that they should remain subject to unanimity voting—namely—tax measures, measures relating to the free movement of individuals and measures affecting the rights and interests of employed persons".
  He recognised that there would be some people who would be anxious that, in extending qualified majority voting to promote the achievement of an internal market, we might diminish the essential protection of our national interest. He concluded,
  "I would not accept that".
  He gave his reasons for doing so.
  The suggestion that there is any comparison between the powers transferred to the Community in the Single European Act and in the Maastricht Treaty
  900
  is misplaced. Bearing in mind the burning and urgent problems of the moment, one also has to ask: What is the relevance of the Maastricht Treaty to these? What, for example, does it do for fragile democracy in Eastern and Central Europe? It makes it more difficult for those countries to join. Last week the European Council refused even to open negotiations with the much more advanced EFTA countries. The attitude is that we have to form our own tight little huddle before we can even contemplate admitting others.
  What does Maastricht do to help lift Europe out of recession? It shackles and burdens our economies with the extra restrictions and intrusive regulations imposed by the Social Charter. We found out last week that the Commission is still trying to do that despite our having opted out of that chapter of the Maastricht Treaty, thanks to the Prime Minister. Unfortunately, the Commission has not yet had its action challenged in the European Court. The Government have indicated that they may do so and I hope that they will. We shall then know where we stand on this matter.
  The reason for all this is that Maastricht does not tackle today's problems. There has been a hint of that in the other speeches. The world has changed dramatically in the past two years. The Community must adapt to that or it will lose its purpose and lose support. The result of the Danish referendum is an opportunity to think again, but there is regrettably little sign from last week's European Council that the Community as a whole is ready to do that.
  Certainly, it will take more than a self-denying ordinance on the part of the Commission or a promise to give back some of the powers which it has arrogated. Its record of evading the unanimity provisions of the Single European Act deprives it of the good faith that we should otherwise have accorded it.
  I am very glad that the Foreign Secretary has said (my noble friend has repeated it today) that Denmark cannot be coerced and cannot be excluded. If that were to happen the Community would be breaking its own laws which state with absolute clarity that Maastricht has to be ratified by all 12 member states if it is to come into force. If we allow that to be overridden in Denmark's case, each and every one of us will become vulnerable to being coerced or excluded on some other issue or on some other occasion in the future.
  We are an association of free peoples, free to take a democratic vote. Denmark has exercised that freedom. Is it now to be suggested that she did something wrong or somehow she must change her mind? After all, fortunately our Prime Minister exercised our right to be different and not to be governed by the Social Charter and not to be governed automatically by a single currency although we agreed the idea. We have done it. We are perhaps the oldest democracy and the freest. It is not for us to criticise others. If ever it is suggested that the people of any member state cannot say "No" without an attempt at duress, that is a very serious matter for the Community and one would need to revise one's views about whether it is a community now of free peoples.

  901
  Searching for a definition of subsidiarity is not a satisfactory way forward either, if only because it is based on the notion that it is the Community which has the power which it then parcels out to the member states. The true situation should be the reverse. It should be the member states which exercise all powers, except those which are specifically and legally granted to the Commission.
  My own immediate, albeit limited, suggestion at this stage is that the Government should propose a formal and binding restatement of the Luxembourg Compromise. It is not a lot, but it is a little. Your Lordships will recall that this provides that if any member state considers that its vital national interest is at stake, then no vote will be taken. It can be postponed until agreement is reached between all parties. I believe that that would go some way to restore people's confidence in the Community—and hard as it will be to get agreement, I hope that the Government will consider it because technically the Luxembourg Compromise is still there. In practice, there is some doubt as to whether and how effectively it can be used.
  I make one further plea before concluding this particular section of my speech: the plea that the Maastricht Treaty be not discussed in terms of personalities—it is too important for that—but in terms of the issues involved. The Government have a most difficult and complex task on their hands with this whole issue during the British presidency. I am sure that they will acquit themselves with distinction in dealing with it and uphold the freedoms of our respective peoples.
  I shall deal with the other issues that will affect our presidency more briefly. My noble friend has already dealt with enlargement. As urgent for the presidency as the Maastricht agreement is the issue of the enlargement of the Community. And it is depressing that, despite our Government's best efforts in Lisbon, other member states have refused to embark on the necessary formal negotiations. I sometimes wonder whether other governments fully comprehend the scale and the consequences of the bloodless victory over communism in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. In the space of two years, it has become a different world—not the end of history, as some foretold, but the return of history. First Yalta was swept away—and a very good thing too. Now Versailles is following it, which some of us do not find surprising.
  The real urgency now is to stretch out a hand to the countries of Eastern and Central Europe. We were not able to free them from communist tyranny. When they escaped, it was by their own efforts. Now we have a pressing moral obligation to sustain democracy and free economies—just as we did in earlier times for Greece and Spain and Portugal —by bringing these East European countries into the Community as soon as possible even though it would require a very long transition period. This is not just in their interests, but also in ours.
  We do not want the Community to be in the position of Dr. Johnson. Your Lordships will recall
  902
  his reply to Lord Chesterfield's congratulations after he had completed his dictionary in the cold and poverty of his garret. He said:
  "Is not a patron my Lord one who looks with unconcern on a man struggling for life in the water, and when he has reached ground encumbers him with help".
  I recognise that we have association agreements with East European countries, but that is not enough for the assurance that they need. The widening of Europe to include the post-communist countries is, I believe, of much more importance than the early admission of other countries. If the European Community does not respond more rapidly to the needs of Eastern Europe, the problem will still arrive on our doorstep because many peoples from those countries will join the Community even if their governments cannot. They will vote with their feet and arrive in even larger numbers. I hope that the Government, undaunted by last week's setback in Lisbon on enlargement, will return to the charge.
  There are many other pressing issues for the presidency, but I shall touch on them only very briefly. On finance, there is still plenty of room under the present own resources ceiling to do the things which are most urgent. We heard at Question time that all the money is apparently not being well used and could be put to better use. I commend the Government for their robust refusal to contemplate additional funds for the Community. There will no doubt be attempts to re-open the issue of the British rebate. I had some great budget battles in my day. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, was there and witnessed some of them and understood the point that I was trying to make. I always found that the most effective weapon was, "No"—or sometimes, "No, no, no". I am glad that this continues to be the policy, even if it is more sweetly expressed.
  Britain, with the Commission, was the main driving force behind the launch of the single market, and I pay particular tribute, joining my noble friend, to the work which my noble friend Lord Cockfield did to bring about free trade within Europe—one of the original objectives of the old EEC. I hope that we shall use our presidency for a final drive towards its completion. This is especially important, as my noble friend says, for our service industries. They are one of our particular strengths, yet their opportunities have been greatly constrained by protectionism in other member states, often masquerading under the false flag of restrictions required for regulatory purposes. The remaining obstacles should be removed quickly, and no new bureaucracies created. Indeed, in a sensible world, we would never have gone ahead with a new treaty at all until the single market had been first completed and was in operation.
  At long last the Community is realising that statements, declarations and even sanctions are not a strong enough response to the terrible slaughter in what was part of Yugoslavia—not in some remote country, but little more than a two-hour flight from London, and in the heart of Europe. Some of us have been warning for a time that the use of force might become necessary. I am sure that one of the first actions of our presidency will be to help to organise sustained relief supplies for Sarajevo and for other

  903
  places where people have been brutally attacked and their cities devastated. If attempts are made to interfere with those supplies, I believe that we should be ready to use the air power available to NATO in the area to deal with them. After all, we gave the Kurds air power and there is no reason why we should not have given it earlier to some of those people in Yugoslavia.
  It is sad that once again the lead had to come from America, in particular from James Baker, rather than from the European Community, although we applaud President Mitterrand for his visit to Sarajevo which raised the morale of those suffering people. The fact is that with a common foreign policy we would be dependent on the lowest common denominator among the Twelve—and we all saw what that meant in the Gulf war. Tyrants are not defeated by the action of the United Nations—it does the resolutions—not by the action of the Community; tyrants are defeated by the lead of nation states which have sufficient defence to go and to do the necessary task.
  I agree with my noble friend about the importance of the GATT negotiations. I recall very well that at the last European Council which I attended as Prime Minister just over two years ago, despite all my efforts my fellow Heads of Government refused even to discuss the negotiations, even though the deadline for the Uruguay Round was only three months away. It has, in fact, been extended twice and the matter is still not resolved. In the meantime, we have in fact perhaps lost a very great deal of trade which would have helped us during the recession had we come to agreements earlier.
  This debate about the presidency coincides with one of the great constitutional issues of our time. In such matters your Lordships' advice carries very great weight and I am sure that we shall come back to the Maastricht Treaty and I hope that we shall debate its implications in full after the Recess.
  It will be obvious to your Lordships by this time that I have never knowingly made an uncontroversial speech in my life. Nevertheless, I hope to be more controversial when we get down to discussing the details. I believe that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister can have a very great influence on the whole future of the Community. I have made my view clear on the Maastricht Treaty. For the reasons that I have indicated, I do not believe that the situation will be resolved during our presidency. I think that noble Lords know how I would vote. But there are so many other things which are more immediate and which I am certain that our Prime Minister is the best person to address. I am sure that he will do that with effectiveness and distinction. I wish him well during Britain's presidency.
  4.50 p.m.
  Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, it is a very great pleasure for me to welcome the noble Baroness to this House and also congratulate her on her maiden speech, especially on getting it over so quickly. She said that she had served for many years before the mast. I thought that this afternoon she was perhaps hoisting the Jolly Roger when I heard some of her
  904
  comments. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, was quite right. We were all agog to hear how she would handle this speech, about which there have been a lot of rumblings. I suppose she must have felt quite at home on Tuesday when she was introduced and found herself surrounded by so many of her former colleagues—those whom she had promoted, those whom she had elevated, those whom she had fired and of course we must not forget the one who took his bat home. It must have made her feel very much at home to see a collection of ghosts like this which cannot have been witnessed since Dickens' Christmas Carol, all waiting to strike.
  But in all sincerity I should like to say to the noble Baroness that her matchless record as Prime Minister —being the longest serving Prime Minister of this century—together with the experience and knowledge that she has accumulated during that period, will be of very great value to your Lordships' House. I am sure that we all genuinely welcome her addition to our ranks.
  Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
  Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, to be truthful, when I listened to the noble Baroness it was not Dickens who really came into my mind; it was Midsummer Night's Dream. I recall very clearly the asperities in another place which used to be flung across the Dispatch Box from side to side. When I contrasted that with the dulcet tones which we heard this afternoon from the noble Baroness my mind turned to Bottom. Noble Lords will recall that Bottom, when addressing the assembled workers, said:
  "I will aggravate my voice so that I will roar you as gently as any sucking dove; I will roar you as 'twere any nightingale".
  Listening to the noble Baroness this afternoon I saw that she had rapidly come to the conclusion that your Lordships will always concede to persuasion what they will not yield to coercion. In those circumstances she will have a very considerable influence in this House.
  The noble Baroness will add great vigour, vitality and clarity to our debates. I am looking forward to them with great interest, especially that on the Maastricht Treaty, as, indeed, are most of my noble friends. I noticed that the Government Chief Whip was looking with intense interest at the noble Baroness —as we all were—during her speech. I am not sure whether his pleasure at the end of some of those future speeches will be as intense as his interest today. At any rate, we are very glad indeed to have the noble Baroness in our midst because it will certainly add to our strength.
  As the noble Baroness said, the Denmark result was a shock, but in my view a very necessary shock. In some ways we seemed to be almost sleep-walking into the consequences of what we were doing. Yet it seems to me to be imperative that we should have a very full debate not only in this country, where I believe that we have debated the issue more fully than in most other countries, but also in the rest of Europe where—and here I agree with the noble Baroness—there has been a change of atmosphere and approach during the past

  905
  few months. It is for that reason that I believe we must have a most full debate throughout the whole of Europe on what is being done.
  There is no doubt that what is being proposed is probably the most momentous decision that has been put before member countries since the actual creation of the Community of Europe. In that sense we must be clear as to what it is that we are inviting people to do: we must not play down the issue in any way. There must be no division, as the noble Baroness suggested there might be, between what I might call the "political class" and the people.
  I speak as one who believes that the treaty should be ratified, despite its faults and its shortcomings. But, nevertheless, I do not think that we should allow our people to feel that it is something of small matter which does not really concern them or, indeed, change their position in the world; it changes it very drastically. It is a continuation of the struggle which has gone on ever since Ernest Bevin sent me to the first Council of Europe in 1949 and asked me to defeat the Federalists. It is a continuation of the struggle between what we then called the Federalists and the Functionalists.
  On this issue I have no hesitation in saying that the Federalists have won against the Functionalists. I do not say that we are entering a federal Europe. That would be wrong; indeed, the Federalists in Europe, as I have read, are disappointed at what came out of Maastricht. But in this area of economic and monetary union it cannot be denied —indeed, it must be clear—that we are yielding up a portion of national sovereignty that I would not have expected to see. The issue should be faced and dealt with. Those of us who believe that it is the right way to go should assert that view very strongly. In fact we should not only assert it; we should go out and convince people that it is proper for the reason or two that I shall give in the few minutes left to me.
  For that reason, perhaps I may urge the noble Lord the Leader of the House to tug the Prime Minister's elbow about a referendum. The noble Baroness has a point. I have a history on referenda and I have not seen any weakening or destruction of the constitution because we had a referendum 15 years ago. If the momentum builds up, and if it is felt necessary to have a referendum—which, incidentally, I believe would be won and that is one of the reasons why I am ready to back it, as I was last time; I always believe in backing winners if possible—in order to get the clear opinion of the British people, I would certainly suggest that the Prime Minister should reconsider what he has said so clearly about not having one.
  Perhaps I can state it more clearly: the Bill should be placed before Parliament. I do not think that the Government should hesitate about that. They should not wait for Denmark or for the other countries. They should place the Bill before Parliament. It is a matter of honour that they should do so. They should fight it through Parliament and get it through. Then the Government should present their case to the people if they think that necessary. For example, the noble Baroness seems to be carrying many people with her in her views. The Government should be ready to
  906
  place the matter before the people and argue it out. I believe that they would obtain a majority, and that would put the issue to sleep for some years, as happened the last time that we had a referendum. I am not against referenda in principle—provided that there is only one every 15 years or so. Then it is perfectly all right.
  One reason why we can give what I might call a conditional yes to ratification is the Prime Minister's success in securing the decision that there should be no commitment on Britain to enter Stage Three in 1996, or 1999, without a separate decision. Other nations have forgone that right. We have a valuable concession at which we must look again.
  I am not as optimistic as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. I have practical difficulties in believing that by 1996, or even by 1999, it will be possible to achieve a common currency, with a single economic and monetary policy. I should like to hope and think that the people of Europe are ready for that in view of what is happening and what we are seeing and hearing from Germany about its adherence to and belief in the deutschmark and in view of the difficulties some of the smaller nations are voicing now: if decisions are to be taken on a majority vote instead of by consensus, where will that leave them because their votes are so small? All those things will take a great deal of persuasion and conviction. On the whole people move in such directions only when they see the absolute and imperative need for it.
  As the 21st century approaches I believe that people will see that the kind of situation represented in the Maastricht Treaty will meet the needs of the 21st century. There must be an era and period of persuasion before we can reach that point. While I have my hopes, I fear that a number of countries will not match the stringent requirements on government deficit, government debt, inflation levels and the other areas which are referred to in the protocol and set down in the Treaty of Maastricht. If that is so, we shall have to take the time necessary to achieve what it is that I am hoping for.
  To vote no would be wrong. It would send entirely the wrong signal to the other countries of Europe. It could unleash the rampant nationalism which has been dormant but which is already showing its head in Eastern Europe and the Russian republics. It would moreover, I believe, disconcert many people who are now looking to the Community as a source of stability and strength. The effect would not be just that we fail to pass the treaty and things would then go as before. The Community cannot stand still. Unless it goes forward in this way, now that the gauntlet has been thrown down, it will go backwards. If it goes backwards I very much fear the consequences.
  There is, moreover, a security vacuum in Eastern Europe; and here I have some differences with the terms of the treaty. There is an attempt to fill that vacuum with a common foreign, security and defence policy. I beg the Government not to overload the Western European Union with tasks that it cannot fulfil. Of course the United States has taken the lead in Yugoslavia. There is no body in the WEU—there is no capacity—with the intelligence, the logistics, the

  907
  communications or the air transport to carry out an operation. In every one of those operations, as we demonstrated during the war, we must be supplementary to the great effort that the United States makes.
  That brings me to my next point which I have emphasised time and time again in the House: we must concede to no one anything that will undermine NATO. It is the fundamental of our defence. It has, moreover, a particular value in relation to Germany because a non-nuclear Germany in the future—I am not referring to today—demands the cover of American forces in Europe; and so NATO must be maintained at its fullest strength and level. The Government must use the period ahead clearly to define the treaty's field of authority in the matter of foreign and security policy. Some of us will watch closely to see that they do not concede for political reasons what genuinely belongs to the security area. It would be wrong if we did so.
  There is also a requirement to satisfy the need for accountability. That is another uncomfortable issue. It would mean increasing the powers of the European Parliament. I do not believe that the Prime Minister will handle all those matters within six months. Let me say in passing that I think that six months for the presidency is too short. If we are looking for reform, one of the things we might do is to make the presidency at least 12 months to give people an opportunity. After all, we are in July now. August will soon be here and everyone will go away on holiday. They will start to come back in September. By October they will be thinking about meetings. They will have one in November and it will all be over by December. Even given the galvanic nature of the Government, about which we all know —when I look at the business for the past fortnight I recognise how galvanised we have been—six months is too short a time for the presidency.
  I must conclude because 15 minutes is quite long enough. The details of the treaty will have to be worked out and the subsidiarity—that awful word—provisions taken care of. They cannot of course affect the final and basic decision on economic and monetary union. One is either for it or against it. One cannot have subsidiarity in an economic and monetary union with a single currency. But if in the other areas of the treaty, many of which are important, that subsidiarity business can be worked out and we can have a clear definition of what people are doing in particular areas, I believe that if properly handled the Treaty of Maastricht can in the end—this is my profound conviction —meet some of the conditions that will be required in the 21st century and can strengthen peace in Europe.
  5.7 p.m.
  Lord Weidenfeld: My Lords, what I found so admirable in the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, was her unfailing ability to fit urgent issues and current events into a wider historical and philosophical framework.
  The agenda of the British presidency may be dominated, but must not be daunted, by the
  908
  Maastricht Treaty. If I have any misgivings about Maastricht, they do not stem from Euro-scepticism, but, on the contrary, from a lifelong commitment to Europe. It is not the direction, but the hasty pace; it is not the ultimate vision, but the immediate genesis of the treaty which causes unease. I suspect, as do others, that the tempo, timetable and the brisk, almost abrasive, presentation were products of French electoral domestic policy and German perceptions of their priorities in foreign policy. In short, they are the product of a seemingly deep German desire to mitigate France's malaise about German unification.
  Chancellor Kohl is, with Dr. Adenauer, the most remarkable German statesman since Bismarck. Like Bismarck, he united the Germans. Moreover, while Bismarck needed two wars—one against Austria which crippled the Hapsburg Empire and another against France which struck deep wounds into the French soul from which it is still not wholly cured —Germany has now achieved unity without bloodshed. Yet the German Government seem to feel a further need for expiation and that might explain why they have allowed themselves to fall in with France's galloping momentum.
  We should support fully the Prime Minister on Maastricht. It must be made to work. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, that withdrawal would be political arson; it would set the house of Europe ablaze. Renegotiation in a formal sense would open a whole row of Pandora's boxes. Clarification through consultation and justification should be the main goal of this presidency. Favourable winds are blowing in our direction. There are many voices searching for clarification. Although M. Delors has reassured us somewhat on the question of the bureaucratic centralisation of Brussels, we still hear day by day on different levels in Whitehall and elsewhere, indeed even in Bonn, expressions of resentment at interference in the everyday life of European peoples.
  The meaning of the Danish "No" was a protest vote in which the governed chided the governors for being too insensitive. Throughout Europe during the next few months we shall hear many loud voices asking for further clarification, for a more detailed presentation or interpretation of the treaty. In Germany, for example, there are waves of criticism. The regions—the Länder—have considerable reservations, especially the free state of Bavaria. Financial circles around the Bundesbank voice doubts about the ecu and favour an independent deutschmark. Even in France, though President Mitterrand may win his referendum, a substantial minority vote of disapproval would strengthen Le Pen's prestige of being more Gaullist than the official heirs of de Gaulle.
  We are entering a new, though in some ways familiar stage of diplomatic history, with the decline and near end of the adversarial superpower. Subtle differences of aim and outlook between the historic nations of the Western Alliance have resurfaced. It is Britain's duty and great opportunity to nurse bilaterally and multilaterally the concord between the historic nations of Western Europe and equally to try

  909
  to quell feuds among them and especially between them and our great western ally—the United States of America.
  The Prime Minister's friendly relations with the German Chancellor are of paramount importance. The Franco-German corps, if intended as a matrix for a European defence system, must satisfactorily fit into NATO and there must be absolutely no ambiguities. Of course, the easiest solution would be for France to join NATO, lock, stock and barrel. The United States must in no way be marginalised. If we recall the first effort—the plan for a European defence community in the 1950s—the constellation was different. Britain was evasive, Germany positive and yet the French chamber effectively killed the Schuman initiative. But —and this is the whole difference—the United States was behind it. Indeed that great American ambassador at the Court of St James, David Bruce, was the most indefatigable intermediary, trying to help to overcome British reluctance and French misgivings.
  The enlargement of the European Community will soon be separately debated but in any preview, however brief, of the British presidency, it must be stated that it is not only a political but a visceral psychological priority. Since the lead time in negotiation will be a lengthy one in any case, there is no reason whatever to postpone the start of the negotiations. Conversely, the and dismay among the first batch of the richer EFTA candidates will be more than matched, it will be absolutely marked, by the deep bitterness and despair among those who deserve to be included—that is, those between the Baltic and the Black Sea who pinned their hopes and their children's future on a place in Europe by the end of the century or not long thereafter.
  However, the British presidency will also have to deal with tests of its statesmanship on the further shore of the Mediterranean. The Israeli elections have paved the way for a much more vigorous peace process. Mr. Rabin is on record that he wishes to complete autonomy talks on the West Bank and Gaza within six to nine months. He is pledged to deepen and widen the scope and substance of Arab self rule. He has not yet completed his team of ministers. We must not underrate his task.
  If we wish to help the cause of moderation, then both sides must tread tactfully and restrain their rhetoric. Europe, led by Britain, should prove that it can build confidence among the parties and do so symmetrically. If Israel under Rabin freezes settlements, the Arab world should lift the boycott and the Community should strengthen legislation against political trade discrimination. If Israel is to facilitate the work and raise the status of the Palestinian Arab leadership on the West Bank and Gaza, then Europe should stick to the Madrid formula evolved by Secretary of State Baker—that is to say, the practice of distinguishing between the Palestinian leaders on the West Bank and Gaza but excluding East Jerusalem on the one hand and, on the other, the PLO leadership abroad, which is still tainted with the terrorists' brush and their murky links with the despots of Baghdad and Tripoli. The raising of contacts on a ministerial level with Yassir Arafat and his closest associates
  910
  would hit a raw nerve in Israel and only weaken the advocates of accommodation, for no obvious advantage.
  A powerful incentive within the gift of the Community would be to give the whole area of greater Palestine (which, of course, includes Jordan) preferential treatment economically. Her Majesty's Government know about Israel's desire to adjust the agreement with the Community dating from 1975 and to grant it anchorage in the free economic area.
  In conclusion, may I ask the noble Baroness to persevere in a field which I know is dear to her heart and worthy of Britain's role in Europe—the intensification of inter-European educational and cultural exchange. The events in Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia have shown, quite apart from the inherent tragedy, the scant knowledge of general European and especially East European history among wide sections of the British public.
  Nor is it much better across the Channel. I was recently taken by an Austrian educationist to look in on a history class of a typical Viennese high school. I asked a boy whether he could name a British king or queen. He knew, of course, the Christian name of our sovereign, but the only king of England he could name was Richard Coeur de Lion, and that only because he had been held captive by an Austrian duke on his return from the Crusades. It is this educational and cultural endeavour that should form a prominent point of a British steered agenda and not be relegated to the end under "any other business".
  5.17 p.m.
  Viscount Eccles: My Lords, I greatly looked forward to my noble friend's maiden speech. I remember her maiden speech 32 years ago in another place, which took 32 minutes. Of course that is much longer than people were supposed to speak for, but she spoke in support of a private Bill, if I remember rightly. As we left the Chamber, my colleague said to me, "We're going to hear a lot more from that girl". We have heard a lot more, very much in her favour. This House will be a better place for having a strong, controversial voice backed by such experience.
  My noble friend the Minister described very well the opportunities that the presidency of the Community offers for improving and perhaps smoothing the way for the Maastricht Treaty. We all recognise that it will be a difficult negotiation. The question to which we want an answer is: does this House want the Prime Minister to succeed? I believe that we can bring forward any number of small points about the Maastricht Treaty which do not look very good. But what is really necessary to know is how great the enthusiasm is—the real wish of the British people to make the best that we can out of our hand in Europe. How far Mr. John Major succeeds must depend to a great degree on the support which he is seen to have in Parliament. Therefore, we ought to return a clear answer at the end of this debate.
  I can only answer the question for myself. I am sure that we were right after the war to encourage economic co-operation in Western Europe to help repair the damage and to reduce the possibility of

  911
  another war between Germany and the rest of us. We were not at all interested at that time in political union. We thought our defences would be safe with the Americans, and indeed in the hands of NATO they have been. There was no reason or desire to pool sovereignty on political and social issues. However, in the past two or three years two things have happened to persuade an insular Englishman like myself to take another look at our relations with countries overseas.
  In the first place there has been a steady growth of power that is outside the control of any one government. Science and technology have been concentrating resources in the hands of international and multinational groups that know very well how to make rings round one government and, alas, too often give rise to huge financial scandals. Governments have to combine to deal with those modern Goliaths. In combination governments can both stimulate the good work of scientists and technologists and regulate that work in the interests of the people they represent. Of course we do not want them to overdo it, but there is a problem there that did not exist even three years ago.
  How have our neighbours in Europe reacted to the loss of power of their separate governments? In the war all of them, except those that were neutral, were defeated in battle or occupied by the enemy. Naturally the ex-combatants wanted to turn a new page in history, as much in politics as in economics. But things never looked like that to us. We have always had a different background. But now the collapse of communism has shown us that we must hurry to take a hand in the redistribution of power which is gathering pace in western Europe.
  The second change that has occurred is of fundamental importance. My noble friend Lady Thatcher deserves full credit for this most welcome event. She gave the British people a quite new sense of choice in their lives. She taught them to relish the chance of making things happen, with the prospect of rewards for themselves and their families. What a difference that has made. Young people now know far more than we did at their age and every day television shows them what is going on all over the world, from Tiananmen Square to Wimbledon.
  Millions now not only own their own homes but also leave them to travel far and frequently. Many have friends abroad and look forward to the opening of the Channel Tunnel. That is a great renewal of self-confidence and it has turned their thoughts, not inwards, as those on the far Right expected, but outwards. Their thoughts are not fixed on the last drop of sovereignty or on the last stitch on the robe of the Mother of Parliaments. They are fascinated by the prospect of an expanding future.
  I have been a Member of Parliament for 49 years and I love the Palace of Westminster. I love its smell of history and the responsibility of its Members for the electorate. However, all great institutions have to change with the world outside. Powers and practices have to be brought up to date in this shrinking world. But the spirit and vigour of the people must not be diminished in any way. That spirit which prompted
  912
  our fathers to leave home, go overseas and build the Empire has since the war been half asleep under the blanket of socialism. My noble friend Lady Thatcher woke it up and got it out of bed. If she had not done that, the Conservative Party, in the middle of a severe recession, would have lost the election. What grieves me is that my noble friend does not seem to notice that the effect on the young of that revival is to make them ambitious to accomplish great things in the converging and wonderfully exciting new Europe.
  I have a large family and I have plenty of opportunity to talk to young people. I am sure they realise that the problems next door, and all over the world, are now on such a scale and demand such a great space for their solution that young people here must throw in their lot with friends on both sides of the Atlantic, even though that may mean that we have to share responsibility for many decisions which before were wholly in our own power.
  As far as I understand, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary hold views similar to the view which I have expressed. The opportunity is right there now to influence what happens in Europe in a way that has not been possible in the past two or three years, provided the Europeans think we really mean what we say and do not think we are playing around on a high level. I hope therefore that the House will give unmistakable support to the endeavours of those Ministers to secure the best possible space, position and any other form of advantage for us which will contribute to the expansion of peace and prosperity everywhere and will be in tune with the new spirit of independent personalities for which, as I have said before, we must thank my noble friend Lady Thatcher.
  5.27 p.m.
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, on her maiden speech which was heard with approval by many noble Lords on all sides of the House. The noble Baroness referred to the 214 Peers she had made or recommended. I hope those Peers will be duly grateful if the noble Baroness moves some amendments on the Maastricht legislation, if and when it returns to this House.
  I was also interested in the remarks that the noble Baroness made to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, about her experience with the Commission. The noble Baroness said she had said "No" to the Commission and sometimes "No, no, no". That reminds me of the words of an old song which ran, "No, no, a thousand times no. I would rather die than say yes". I hope that when the Maastricht Treaty is debated in this House, the noble Baroness will then say, "No, no, a thousand times no". I can assure her that she will have my support in that. The speech of the noble Baroness was well received and I hope that we shall hear a great deal more from her, particularly on that subject.
  The British presidency is bound, in spite of what the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, said, to be dominated by the Maastricht Treaty. The Danish "No" has made the Community face a situation it has never faced before. Therefore the British presidency will be

  913
  dominated by the treaty. Furthermore, there is the French referendum to come. I should have thought that we would have learnt by now not to take the people for granted. We should have learnt that although according to the opinion polls the French will say "Yes" it may very well be that when 20th September comes, like the Danes, they will surprise the world and say "No".
  What is more, as the noble Baroness reminded us, there are doubts in Germany concerning the deutschmark and whether Germans want to be part of a centralised, corporate state. Indeed, the Government have problems at home with their own Back-Benchers. Not only the Government: the Opposition, too, has its political problems with people who are sceptical about the Maastricht Treaty and the direction we are taking within the European Community.
  My fear is that for members of our own Government ratifying the treaty has now become a matter of personal machismo rather than of what is good for Britain. I hope that that is not so, but I fear that it may be.
  The noble Baroness has described Maastricht as a treaty too far. When I watched the Frost programme I thought that that was a nice turn of phrase, but I believe that it is an understatement. Maastricht is a treaty much too far; and, worse, it will not be the last. That is what worries me more than anything. The road to a single Western European state is paved with treaties. One leads to another. Thus the 1951 Treaty of Paris led to the Treaty of Rome, which led to the Single European Act which has in turn brought us to Maastricht. There will be others in 1994 and beyond until, I suppose, we arrive at the final treaty, the treaty of final assimilation. Perhaps that will be called the "Treaty of Berlin"—and what an irony that would be to those of us who remember the past 60 years of history.
  The next six months should not be used to pressurise the Danes into submission over Maastricht, and I was glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, was able to give the assurance that there would be no improper pressure. The Government must go further. They should protect the Danes from the open hostility which has been shown by some countries, in particular Germany and Portugal. It will do this country's presidency no good if the Government do not protect the Danes from such undue pressure.
  The opportunity should be taken during the next six months to re-examine in detail the true implications of the treaty. It is nonsensical to pretend that Maastricht is not federalist. It is. It involves citizenship. Article 8 of the treaty says that we will be made citizens of the European Union, owing a duty to the union. What does that mean? Does it mean allegiance? It may very well. That has to be explained. Certainly it makes us citizens of a completely new entity.
  What will follow? Will a single electorate follow from that? I should have thought that it might. With a single electorate will there be a single parliament and a single government? We need to know exactly where that citizenship will take us. In addition, of course, there is economic and monetary union with a single
  914
  currency, which has already been mentioned by noble Lords, which would restrict in enormous measure the ability of a British government to decide their economic future and day-to-day economic management.
  Perhaps we could also have a half year of truth. The whole edifice of the EC has been built on misrepresentation, half truths and even, in some cases, downright lies. That is still going on. The British people are being told that they are winning rights when in fact they are losing them. In the case of the employment discussions we were told that Britain had won the right to do certain things. That is not true. What Britain had done was to lose the right to do things which up till then we had been able to do without let or hindrance. So we have been told downright lies. It simply is not true that we have won any rights in relation to employment.
  Again, on the matter of VAT we have been told that we are winning rights on excise duties. We are not winning anything at all. What the EC wants to do is to take away our rights to put the duties which we think are correct on British spirits. So again, we are not gaining anything by submitting on VAT, we are losing rights which we have had hitherto.
  I also hope that there will be six months of respect for those who genuinely believe that Britain is not only losing her sovereignty but is also paying dearly for that loss in terms of unemployment, living standards and the contraction of our industrial base. In that regard I would remind the Foreign Secretary—who, I am sorry to say, is so meek and mild and docile when dealing with other EC countries or the Brussels Commission but becomes so outspoken and macho when attacking his own countrymen, particularly those in his own party—that spivs are people who sell inferior goods by dubious means. It is the Government, not the Euro-sceptics, who are engaged in selling the Maastricht Treaty, which the Foreign Secretary admitted he had not read in detail before he signed it. The Government are trying to sell Maastricht by concealing the truth about its real effects and refusing the customer—the British electorate—the opportunity to examine it in detail and to make a free decision whether or not to buy it. That is what should happen but it is not happening.
  I have to make it clear that I am not making a party political point.
  Baroness Nicol: Hear, hear!
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, my noble friend is right. I shall confirm that. At present the Labour Party has an acute attack of Europhoria, from which I sincerely hope it will eventually recover. The issue of who governs Britain transcends party politics and concerns us all as individuals rather than as members of individual parties.
  I should like now to turn to the Community budget. I urge the Government to resist any attempt to increase the Community budget by any means at all, whether by cohesion funds or any other means. Britain's net contribution, at £2.5 billion, is already much too high. Other countries have receipts which in my view are much too high, and they are still not

  915
  grateful for them. I refer in particular to the Republic of Ireland, which receives no less a figure than £1,800 million a year for 3.5 million people. That amounts to £35 per family every week—not every year but every week. Yet Mr. Reynolds, the Prime Minister, wants more. He is not satisfied with £35 per week per family. What is more, he had the audacity to say—I saw him on television—that it was good for the British taxpayer to subsidise his country in that way. I do not believe that the British taxpayer would quite agree with that. Certainly the British taxpayer does not want to pay any more and I sincerely hope that the Government will not agree to any further increase in funds, even if the Irish Government, as Mr. Reynolds said, or the Portuguese Government have threatened to block enlargement of the Community.
  The ERM too must be looked at. I say to the noble Baroness that I fear that the ERM is doing considerable damage to this country at the present time. If we do not obtain a realignment of currencies, we shall find ourselves in a very serious economic situation indeed. We must have the courage to tell the Germans that we shall not allow German reunification to wreck our economy completely. The economy is already teetering on the edge of a 1930s slump. Noble Lords do not have to listen to me; they just need to read the newspapers in order to understand that—a situation of mass unemployment, collapsing businesses and a stock market on the verge of another Black Monday. We need to reduce interest charges very firmly indeed. Real interest rates are at a record high and our economy cannot recover unless something is done about it. The next few months ought to be used by the Government during their presidency to ensure that there is a realignment within the ERM.
  Finally, I deal with the issue of the referendum. I simply cannot understand why the Government are so opposed to a referendum. It was quite ridiculous for the Prime Minister to suggest that referendums are a device of demagogues and dictators, when the reverse is true. I am and always was an admirer of Clement Attlee but even he made the occasional ill-considered remark, and that was one of them. Are the Danes, the Irish, the French and, above all, the Swiss ruled by demagogues and dictators? Of course not. The Prime Minister is wrong to imply by his quotation that they are.
  The essence of democracy is that the people are allowed to debate and speak out. On this issue, which is so vital to their future, the people must be allowed to speak as a free and independent nation. They must be allowed their say. Like my noble friend Lord Callaghan, I believe that it would redound to the Government's credit if they allowed the people of this country to have a say before the Maastricht Treaty is finally given Royal Assent. I do not believe that the people want more centralism; they want to have back more of their government. But if the Government win, they will be able to go forward with their policies in Europe with far more authority. I sincerely hope, as my noble friend has urged, that the Government will reconsider their policy on this matter.
  916
  5.45 p.m.
  Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I am sure that it must be a matter of great concern to my noble friend Lady Thatcher that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, promises her his support. It is almost as bad as if the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, were to say that he agreed with me. Having made that point, the Companion to the Standing Orders states that in the case of a maiden speech the speaker is:
  "to be congratulated by the next speaker only, on behalf of the whole House".
  I am absolutely certain that the words "on behalf of the whole House" are entirely true in relation to the tribute that the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, paid to my noble friend. Despite the injunction in the Companion, I should like to say how very much I appreciated a speech of such unusual quality, outstanding interest and great eloquence. As my noble friend said, it was somewhat short of unprovocative content, but that perhaps was one of its advantages rather than being a disadvantage.
  Before I turn to the substance of this debate I must apologise to the House. I am involved in the same Europe-related event as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. I fear that it means that at some later stage in the evening I shall ask permission to depart from your Lordships' House.
  I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, that a change has occurred in public opinion and public outlook over the past 18 months or so. At the time I launched the internal market programme in 1985—I greatly appreciate what my noble friends Lady Chalker and Lady Thatcher said about my involvement in that programme—the future appeared to be opening up. We had come out of recession and were moving into a period of expansion. It was a period of political stability in the world; and though it was not a pleasant stability, it was at least stability. We now live in a very uncertain world, a world beset with recession. Not unnaturally, there are doubts and hesitations in many places. These are matters to which we need to pay due regard.
  A point which the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, did not perhaps emphasise so much was that there is also a gap opening up between peoples and their governments. That is most clearly illustrated in the case of the Danish referendum. But one sees it elsewhere as well. It is a very worrying circumstance because, at the end of the day, it is the nexus between government and people which is the guarantee of the continuation of democracy. If that gap is beginning to open up, it is incumbent upon governments to play their part in trying to close it.
  I turn more specifically to the Maastricht Treaty itself, which I regret is tending to dominate the British presidency. It is an important treaty and I believe that we ought to ratify it. I believe that it would be in our interest to ratify it. Equally, I believe that its importance has been somewhat exaggerated. To a very large extent the policies in it are already agreed policies of the Community. To a large extent those policies already have a legal basis in Community law. To some extent some of them have already been carried out in Community law.

  917
  Because I am trying to be non-controversial, which is an unusual role for me, I mention the case of the liberalisation of capital movements. The Maastricht Treaty provides for the total liberalisation of capital movements. In fact, the position is that we, among eight member states, have already had that since 1st July last year. The other four member states are under an obligation—some of them are ahead of their obligation—to achieve total liberalisation by 31st December this year. So in those respects there is nothing objectionable at all in the Treaty of Maastricht. It gathers together many strands of Community policy. It is also doing something else: it is dotting the i's and crossing the t's. It is dealing with many of the institutional arrangements to which the Single European Act specifically referred. Those of you whose memories are long enough, will remember, as I am sure does the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, that the Customs Union, the foundation stone of the Community, was created by a short provision in the treaty with a vast mass of subordinate legislation by way of regulation.
  The great merit of the Maastricht Treaty as at present drafted is that, instead of having those matters spread over an enormous mass of regulations, much of that subordinate legislation is in the treaty. That conforms exactly to the pressures that we have had in your Lordships' House in relation to domestic legislation. Noble and learned Lords, as well as the rest of us, have on many occasions pressed that all the important legislation ought to be in the principal Act; it ought not to be dealt with by subordinate legislation. In that respect, although I do not say that the draft of the Maastricht Treaty was influenced by the views of your Lordships' House—I would have hoped that it was—that approach is entirely in line with the approach that we in this House have taken in relation to domestic legislation; and it is a sound approach.
  I wish to say little more about the Maastricht Treaty. We may be debating it in more detail. I can substantiate each of those points individually and in detail. I make one final comment. Not only when I was at the Commission, but subsequently, I have said that I would have preferred matters to be dealt with sequentially: that we should first provide for the single market and, when we had done that, we should move on to the single currency. We should learn as we went along so that each step forward was built upon the success of the step before. After all, that was the policy that was laid down by Winston Churchill in his 1946 speech in Zurich. I believe that it is a wise way to proceed in such a difficult area.
  I also made one other point; I have made it in your Lordships' House. I said that I would work towards economic union because we would see economic union in my lifetime. I would not do anything about political union because I felt that that could be left to a future generation. It has not proved to be thus. Either events have moved faster than I had anticipated or I have survived longer. Which is the explanation, I do not say. However, I believe that there is an element of having rushed the fences. Nevertheless, do not exaggerate the dangers involved because the treaty as
  918
  it stands deals with political union matters as intergovernmental co-operation. In foreign policy—one of the most sensitive areas—there was such intergovernmental co-operation in the 1970s. It preceded the Single European Act. It was given a legislative base in the Single European Act.
  If one considers the other limb of political co-operation—namely, justice and home affairs—such matters have been dealt with for many years by political co-operation in two bodies called TREVI (which is a fountain in Italy), and Pompidou (who is a past president of France). There are therefore ample precedents for dealing with those matters in that way. The Maastricht Treaty rationalises the issue and sets it down in writing.
  Let me leave the Maastricht Treaty. On the single market, I greatly appreciate what both my noble friends Lady Chalker and Lady Thatcher said. When I launched the programme in 1985 there was considerable scepticism as to whether we would succeed. I was one of the few people with sufficient mathematical ability to work out that 1992 would be the year in which the United Kingdom held the presidency of the Community. I believed that in the end that was the guarantee of success for the programme; and so I hope it will turn out to be.
  I shall not say anything about subsidiarity; it would take me too long. In its origin it is a religious term. It is an extraordinarily useful concept in theological or philosophical disputation but its value as a guide to practical experience and application is somewhat limited. I could explain that with innumerable examples. One of the most important is this. We have an old-fashioned saying in this country that one cannot put square pegs into round holes. One of the troubles is that the British insist on making their electric plugs with square pegs and the French insist on making their sockets with round holes. The only way one can get over that problem is by legislation at European level. Incidentally, one will find that factor in all the high-tech industries. Such legislation does not come from the Commission. It does not come from the Council of Ministers. It does not come from the member states. It comes from pressure from industry. That is where it ought to come from. I shall say nothing more about subsidiarity.
  On enlargement, I know that the words used in the final communiqué—that the formal negotiation should not start until after the treaty has been confirmed—have given rise to comments that that has been a set-back for the United Kingdom. I do not regard the situation as such. There are three important steps when dealing with an application for succession to the Community. The first is the production of the Commission's opinion or avis. The second is the decision by the Council. The third is the Treaty of Accession. When we joined the Community, the Commission avis was published on 19th January 1972, a Wednesday. The decision by the Council was on 22nd January, a Saturday. Obviously in those days they had no working hours directive; they had to work on Saturday. The treaty was signed on the same day,

  919
  22nd January. Therefore when the whistle was blown —if I may use such a familiar phrase—it took three days.
  Let me take Austria only as an example. Austria applied two and a half years ago. Two and a half years of work have been done. If the treaty is ratified by the end of this year it is perfectly feasible to have Austria as a member of the Community before 31st December, and what a feather in the cap it would be for the United Kingdom presidency. It is feasible because I have referred to the dates relating to 20 years ago.
  Finally, when my noble friend Lady Thatcher occupied the presidential chair of the Community, it was an extraordinarily successful presidency. She was unduly modest. It was a very good and successful presidency. I look forward to the present presidency being equally as good and equally as successful.
  5.59 p.m.
  Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I nearly always agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, on this subject. His speech was no exception. I am sure that he is a very wise former member of the European organisation. He is listened to with great respect on that account.
  This is a most unusual day for us all. Never before has a former Prime Minister come to your Lordships' House, with a former Prime Minister responding to her arrival and her speech, who between them cover 25 years of our recent history of politics and Parliament. I hope that the added prestige and the value of the experience and wisdom that we can offer will lead to a decline in the scornful references which are made sometimes by responsible people about the position and functions of your Lordships' House. This is the best House of Lords that we have and it is indispensable to our parliamentary system. Say what you like, we are worth a great deal more than a bundle of county council members who might come here as a result of proportional representation, and with no clothes on! We are fortunate to be serving in your Lordships' House at this time.
  I remember the maiden speech which the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, made in the House of Commons. I believe that she drew a place in the Ballot for Private Member's Bills before she had made her maiden speech. That appeared to create difficulties. I also remember that she chose a controversial subject for her Bill; it was the secret sessions of the committees of local authorities. I remember that there was chuntering among her own Back-Benchers because a new Member had arrived and had thrown that little brick of controversy into the field of Private Member's Bills.
  A dear friend of mine also saw the noble Baroness enter the House of Commons. He had met her at Dartford when she was Margaret Roberts. He came to this House with me in 1974—I refer to the late Lord Pannell. When the events that I have described happened in the House of Commons Lord Pannell said to me, "This girl is out to captivate this place".
  920
  Captivate it she did—I believe that she came near to dominating it but I shall not pursue that line of thought.
  We are grateful that the noble Baroness has said it all this afternoon. If she had wished to speak for an hour we should have permitted her to stretch the courteous length of maiden speeches in order that we could hear the lot in one go. In doing so it helps us later to sort out our differences in respect of the legislation which may come forward. Perhaps I may say too as an elder statesman—after all, I am getting on in years—that the noble Baroness. Lady Thatcher, chose a certain style of delivery. Her judgment in that allowed her to say all that she intended to the acceptance of your Lordships in manner if not in substance.
  In speaking in the debate I must first declare that we must believe in the EC no matter what its bureaucrats may do to it. Unless we do so and have faith, we shall run into numerous needless and acrimonious difficulties with our friends in the EC. If we do not have faith in the EC as an institution and as a concept of European unity we shall not be in business in the EC.
  I shall not trespass on your Lordships' time by explaining that, for me, it is a moral issue going back to the war. Two world wars destroyed millions of lives in Europe and caused devastation beyond belief, and all because of European disunity. During the First World War, of which I am one of a dwindling number of survivors, those of us who fought thought: what price would be too high to pay to ensure that this never happens again? Almost anything that we could give but our lives would be justified for peace in Europe. Many people gave their lives. I derive my faith in Europe from that experience. While Europe is in harmony and in unity of association it will be at peace. We can enlarge the scope of the European influence and bring within it newly-liberated countries which will add to the peace and prosperity of Europe.
  Furthermore, we must get rid of all the nonsense about nightmares. There is no monster of a superstate which will swallow us up unawares. There is no army of bureaucrats with a special desire to irritate the British public and to make life difficult where it is unnecessary to meddle at all. We have a new institution in historical terms and it is a wonder that it is going as well as it is. It is a wonder too that we remain in such accord, having regard to the aggressive nature and disputatious manners of human beings. If we can establish our faith in the EC the Europeans will take a great deal from us in our suggestions about the future of the institution.
  I now turn to what I believe is the nub of the debate; it is what Mr. Major may do in his short term as President of the Council of Ministers. That is not an elective office and no claims can be made that those who occupy it are endowed with great gifts of unity or anything else. Each country holds the office strictly in alphabetical order and it is our turn now. The period of office is short; shorter than those of the President of the Commission and the President of the European Court. During the six months that are available to Mr. Major what can he do? I agree entirely with my noble

  921
  friend Lord Richard that Mr. Major will not be there to advance national interests; he will be there to look after the business and welfare of the whole Community. An article published in the Financial Times on Tuesday 30th June stated that Mr. Major wanted to undertake a review of all areas of EC activity to ensure that the only decisions taken in Brussels were those which could not be effectively taken by national governments. There is more to the formula than that. Some decisions must be taken which require conformity in order to put in place essential or strongly-desirable conditions to provide a framework of fair competition in a free-trade area.
  Many issues arise from the Commission which irritate people but they have in their origin an important purpose. That purpose is either economic or the economic consequence of another purpose. Perhaps I may give your Lordships a simple example. Recently the European Parliament passed a Motion by 244 votes to two votes in favour of banning the entry into the Common Market after 1998 of any cosmetics which have been tested upon animals. That cosmetic ban represents a strong line of thought of many people in Britain. A good deal of public opinion is firmly behind a ban on the painful tests on animals of beauty treatments or other cosmetic products. I believe that that has gone to the Commission now and it will have to look at that. If the Commission wishes to pass anything on to the Council, it will do so this Autumn.
  What do we do? The promotion of animal welfare is the purpose of that provision but it will have economic consequences because we are a large manufacturer of those products. In order to export such products to the United States and Japan we are required to send certificates relating to animal testing. Those are the conditions. Therefore, the pharmaceutical industry will be affected by the ban on those exports. That will affect other countries too and yet, as far as we know, only two member states have raised difficulties about that in the Parliament of Europe.
  Let us take another example. There are some difficulties as to whether we should agree not to reduce the rate of VAT below 15 per cent. Why is that? VAT has an effect on prices and prices have an effect on trade. Therefore, from the point of view of the level of indirect taxation, there is some point in having the rate as uniform as possible throughout the whole system. The harmonisation of indirect taxation goes right back to the Treaty of Rome. That is a matter which we must face. Is that pettifogging interference?
  I must mention another point in the presence of the noble Baroness. The fact that Parliament has previously settled certain matters in this country does not disqualify us from transferring our prerogatives to the Common Market. It is all a matter of what are those prerogatives. I take the economy as an example. There is a great deal of detail in our legislation on economic matters and I believe that the structure of the European Community does not produce the necessary scrutiny of the justification and economic purpose of what is proposed in legislation.
  Perhaps the Prime Minister will set that review in motion and we can begin to see lines of demarcation.
  922
  Those problems are common to all federal bodies: what is due and appropriate to the centre; and what can be left to the members of the federation? In a very tentative form, the European Community is a form of federation.
  That is the task which the president of the Council of Ministers has on hand. If that can be provided for either by the machinery or by scrutiny of the directives which are coming forward and by more communication with the peoples of the countries which may have to accept them, that will do a great deal to remove a lot of low secular criticism of the Common Market when, after all, its purpose is lofty. I believe that the means which it is adopting are worthy of the maximum understanding and support.
  6.14 p.m.
  Lord Bethell: My Lords, I am extremely pleased that three Members of the European Parliament who also sit in your Lordships' House are here to show their support for my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and the President of the European Council.
  It is perhaps surprising to look back a few months to see the universal applause which greeted the Prime Minister's return from Maastricht after he achieved the Maastricht agreement. Who would have thought that so much could have changed in a few weeks? At the time of Maastricht he was under very grave threat and great danger of failing to reach an agreement and of being blamed by the rest of the 12 member states for the collapse of that extremely important treaty. If Britain had been the cause of that collapse, we could have said goodbye to serious movement towards the single market and enlargement, the main aim of our presidency.
  It is very much to the Prime Minister's credit that he was able to reach agreement in Maastricht in spite of the various opt-outs that were agreed by him and the other member states. It shows that one can sometimes win concessions by saying yes to the ideals of European co-operation and no to the detail, rather than saying no overall.
  That is why the European Parliament in general has reacted favourably to the Prime Minister's attitude and to his determination and courage in saying that he will persevere with ratification. It would be wrong to over-estimate the effect of one vote by a small majority which seemed to challenge the achievements of that agreement. Sometimes elections are fought and voted on not for the purpose for which they were originally called; for example, during the recent referendum in Ireland, abortion was the main issue discussed rather than European issues. Also, there is a capriciousness which sometimes overtakes electorates when matters are put before them which may not have an immediate effect upon the government of the day. I believe that there is a danger that referenda may become something akin to mega by-elections, enabling an electorate to let off steam and to express a general dissatisfaction with the state of affairs, knowing that what they do may not have an immediate effect on changing a government.
  I should like to join other noble Lords who have expressed their congratulations to my noble friend

  923
  Lady Thatcher. She made a speech of considerable brilliance and, while not entirely uncontroversial, it was extremely moderate, well-phrased, erudite and eloquent. I am sorry that she is no longer in her place because I intend to make reference to, perhaps, one of the few controversial points upon which she touched; namely, the Single European Act. Of course, it was on her advice that that Act was accepted by Parliament.
  She said that the Single European Act was not in the same league of importance when it came to transferring powers from the member state to the European institutions. One need only look at the text of that short document to see the far-reaching effect of the Single European Act. One perhaps looks with wonderment at how easily it passed through both Houses of Parliament.
  The Single European Act speaks of the transfer of relations as a whole into a European union. Of course, it was some years ago that the 12 member states committed themselves to the ideal of European union. The Act spoke of a progressive realisation of economic and monetary union. One of the most interesting paragraphs in that Act is Article 30 which makes it clear that the member states would formulate and implement a common foreign policy. It went on to state that that area would encompass economic aspects of security.
  I remember thinking, even as a Euro-enthusiast, that perhaps that was going too far, especially since in the final resort it placed the foreign policy of the United Kingdom under the control of the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. Euro-enthusiast though I be, I am relieved that the Maastricht agreement would repeal that section of the Single European Act and, if it is ratified, it will allow the foreign and security policies of this country, under the intergovernmental aegis to fall outside the scope of the European Court of Justice. If the Members of another place and your Lordships decide to vote against ratification, the foreign policy and defence of this country will remain under the control of the Luxembourg court. I wonder whether that particular aspect has been noted by those who proudly call themselves Euro-sceptics.
  Is it really being over-enthusiastic to insist upon the subsidiarity paragraphs of the agreement? My noble friend Lord Plumb knows more about this than I and he will speak very shortly, but I hope that the subsidiarity paragraphs of the agreement can he used to bring about fundamental reform of the common agricultural policy to transfer much of its operations back to member states. I have in mind in particular the area of intervention in the purchase of agricultural products. That is one of the aspects of our membership of the European Community that causes particular offence in urban areas, one of which I represent in the Strasbourg Parliament.
  The question of the implementation and observance of European Community laws has annoyed and irritated us for many years. There are some countries which do not scrupulously observe the laws made by European institutions. However, largely at British insistence, there will be provision for member states,
  924
  institutions or companies that violate those laws to be brought before the European Court of Justice (and I think before national courts) and fined. I believe that that will have a good effect on the implementation of law—something that Britain is better at doing than some other countries.
  On the question of the European Parliament I have to declare an interest. But I sometimes wonder why those who are sceptical about our European membership do not draw the obvious conclusion from their rightful claim that there is too much power in the civil service of Brussels. Surely, the whole purpose of an elected parliament is to control bureaucracy. That is what the European Parliament is all about. Its duty under the treaty is to supervise the Commission. Yet some member states are unwilling to give us the tools we would like to do the job. We do not yet have the same influence and control over the Commission as your Lordships (let alone the Members of another place) have over civil servants in Whitehall. We do not have the same ability to probe, seek answers, get letters from government departments, ask parliamentary questions and initiate debates with which your Lordships are so familiar. We do not have the incisive power that we need.
  The Maastricht agreement takes us some steps forward. If ratified, it will give us the ability to run for election in 1994 and ratify or reject the Commission with its presidency which will be appointed in the second half of that year. It will give a purpose to the political composition of the Parliament because it will be able to make clear the sort of commission it will vote for and the sort of commission in which it will have no confidence. If it works it will give the European Parliament considerably more meaning than would be the case if Maastricht was discarded. In short, I believe that the agreement combines the benefits of European co-operation and economics of scale economically with the protection that is needed for the maximum amount of sovereignty for the member states that comprise our European Community.
  The Prime Minister has done an excellent job in making his opinions known across the European Community. He had overwhelming support in the House of Commons a few months ago. The only criticism at that time made by Members of the Labour Party was that he had not gone far enough in particular over the social chapter. It would be very sad if, having made his position clear and given his word, the agreement was ratified by the House of Commons twice—remembering he was applauded when he came home after the agreement—and he then had to back down and change it. He would look like someone who had given his word and shown himself unable to carry it out. I believe that in the difficult six months that lie ahead we should give our unequivocal support to the Prime Minister as President of the European Council, as Leader of our country and as one of the great supporters of Britain being at the heart of Europe.
  6.27 p.m.
  Lord Cobbold: My Lords, it was a privilege to be present in your Lordships' House today on the occasion of the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher. Her arguments are strong and her eloquence is unrivalled. We look forward to further instalments of the great European debate. It is a great debate because now that mass capitalism has taken root we may perhaps see a realignment of British politics in the next century away from labour versus capital towards "nationalist" versus "European".
  The present period is momentous in the development of the European idea. Managing the whole range of vital issues listed by the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, presents a real challenge to the Government over the next six months. Whether we like it or not, as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said, the Maastricht issue, in the light of the Danish referendum, will dominate much of the period of our presidency. The debate on Maastricht has often confused issues of principle and practice. The main issue of principle remains whether or not European nations should work together towards closer integration and, if so, it is in the interests of this country to participate in the process. The practical issues relate to the mechanics of how far and how fast the process should go and how it should be managed. Maastricht is principally concerned about planning the next very important steps along the road to greater integration, not about the direction in which the road is leading.
  I work for a small Danish-owned company. My Danish colleagues, who to my initial surprise voted "No", have said subsequently that they were not voting against European integration as such but only against the way it was currently being implemented. That echoes an emerging feeling of many people throughout the Community, as Lord Callaghan and several other noble Lords have noted.
  On the issue of principle, the United Kingdom made its decision in the early 'seventies; but from time to time the issues need to be restated. Nationalism in Europe does not have a good track record. It is the very stability and success of the European Community, albeit under the umbrella of NATO, that has been the inspiration for the people of Eastern Europe in their struggle against the economic and intellectual poverty of communism. Some argue that it is illogical for Western Europe to be forging greater union while the peoples of Eastern Europe and the Russian empire are struggling to rediscover their identity and independence. On the contrary, it seems to me to be even more important for the free peoples of Western Europe to demonstrate their solidarity during this turbulent period.
  It would be a tragedy if failure to ratify Maastricht were to put Europe into reverse and, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, to unleash rampant nationalism. It will be a sad day when the likes of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, are no longer here and their memories cannot be shared. I do not have as much confidence in the ability and experience of the next generation, and I wonder
  926
  whether they will be so keen to press forward with political union. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, lives long enough to witness that full union.
  The Danish decision must be turned to advantage. As many noble Lords said, there is a widely-held perception that politicians have been moving too far ahead of the people and that the Commission in Brussels has grown too big for its boots; that it is interfering tiresomely and unnecessarily in matters of local concern. There is a fear of imposed uniformity and of the gradual whittling away of the diversity and local traditions that are the essential essence of European culture. There are also worries that rules painstakingly negotiated at the European level are not being enforced uniformly by all member states. Those that are conscientious and comply are disadvantaged by those who sign up but do not change their ways. Those are the fears that the British Government must address during their six-month presidency. Denmark has given a warning.
  I say a brief word in regard to subsidiarity: clearly that concept is in need of clearer definition and more rigid application at the European level. But Brussels is not the only interfering bureaucracy in Europe, and some of the others are considerably larger. The administration presided over by the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, was not famous for its application of subsidiarity. If it is to be enshrined as a fundamental principle of European decision-making, it must he applied at all levels of government.
  Turning to specific issues of the Maastricht Treaty, I should like to make a few comments on economic and monetary union. First, I hope that it will be possible to maintain the timetable for monetary union embodied in the treaty. Any weakening in the commitment to convergence and to a single currency can only lead to uncertainty in financial markets. Uncertainty commands a risk premium. Sterling interest rates would almost certainly rise in relative terms and the risk of an old-fashioned sterling crisis would re-emerge. I believe that a single currency in Europe passes all the subsidiarity tests. It is essential if full advantage of a single domestic market is to be achieved. If member states retain their individual currencies governments will always be tempted to pursue policies of competitive devaluation.
  The proposals for introducing a single currency under the Maastricht Treaty are not exactly user-friendly as they stand. If the public are not persuaded that a single currency is a good idea, there is a serious risk that they will apply a Danish solution to its introduction. Much more attention must be paid to marketing the idea to Europe's 340 million consumers. For example, the ecu as a name may sound well in French but it has an Esperanto feeling about it in English. A currency is both a store of value and a means of exchange. The name is therefore psychologically important. There is no reason why the ecu should not have a different name in each language. For example, we could resuscitate the guinea, which has a familiar ring to it and a strong sense of value. There are plenty of other options and the public in each country should be invited to choose.

  927
  Mention was made of the fact that 70 per cent. of Germans do not want to lose the deutschmark. I believe that that percentage could be sharply reduced if the central rate of the deutschmark against the ecu was moved from 2.055 to 2.00. The deutschmark would then be exactly half an ecu and the Germans could continue to think and talk in terms of the deutschmark. Some attention to that kind of adjustment would help greatly to make the treaty proposals more acceptable.
  The message from Denmark is that the people want more say in how Europe is managed. They object to seemingly petty interference with local values and cherished diversity. I believe that the Maastricht Treaty should go forward to ratification. But it is the task of the British Government during their important six-month presidency to find a formula for its implementation which firmly enshrines the principle of subsidiarity and reassures the people of Europe that their diversity of culture and lifestyle are not threatened. I wish them well in that difficult task.
  6.34 p.m.
  Lord Plumb: My Lords, as many have said, today is an historic day in every sense. As one of those 200 Members of this House who were invited to serve by our former Prime Minister, I welcome her maiden speech today. It was a fine and eloquent speech. I am sure that it will receive wide publicity and I look forward particularly to the debates that will ensue from this one.
  I particularly welcome the comments made by my noble friend Lady Chalker who set out so clearly the programme of events which our Government must face during the next six months under the British presidency. I believe that the citizens of the United Kingdom can feel well satisfied that during those six months of the European Community's development they will be safe in the hands of our Prime Minister, the right honourable John Major, and his Government as we move towards that single market which was so brilliantly pioneered by my noble friend Lord Cockfield. We have a responsibility to make sure eventually that it works and works, we hope, to his satisfaction.
  The programme that has been set before Britain and the British Government is an extremely ambitious one. I should like to try to explode the myth that is in the minds of many people that the Danish referendum has stopped progress. Far from it. That progress is still developing. I find it difficult to understand those who say that the Maastricht Treaty is dead when it has not yet had the chance to live. It certainly delayed some of the agreements which were reached and which we hope will be back on course before too long.
  We should remind ourselves that since the outcome of Maastricht we have seen a reform package of the common agricultural policy that probably goes further than is appreciated by many noble Lords in this House. We heard from my noble friend Lady Chalker that the aviation package—which is
  928
  considerable—is there before us and settled. Many other issues have been cleared under the Portuguese presidency.
  I hope that during the rest of this year we shall see the important settlement of GATT where the European Community plays a prominent and important part and which will be led by the British presidency. The Prime Minister made it absolutely clear that in his opinion we should ratify the Maastricht Treaty as soon as possible and that that must be in Britain's interest.
  It is clear that the upsurges of extreme nationalism are producing divisions in Eastern Europe and many other countries. They are producing divisions that we can ill afford. We must therefore set an example in Western Europe, which I believe we are doing, as the last bastion of peace, democracy, respect for human rights, prosperity and stability.
  Subsidiarity, which is so important to us—or at least its definition is—contrary to the opinion that many have already expressed, limits the powers of European institutions and rules out centralism. The Community can act only within the limits of the powers and objectives assigned to it by the treaty. It does not give more power to the Commission. People's rights through democratically elected parliamentarians can therefore be safeguarded. It takes a big step away from the present Community system in which the European Court ensures the rule of law and the European Parliament plays a greater part in legislation. It moves us towards the intergovernmental system for which our Government fought so hard two or three years ago. We are now in the ball game that we asked for. It gives governments greater power and a veto over policy decisions. Therefore, it moves the centre of European activity away from the common agricultural policy and some of the technical matters which are of concern to us towards greater flexibility in decision-making.
  I sense that wind of change which is blowing through the corridors of Europe at the moment and which we ask for. It is very British. It is giving us the opportunities that we have been demanding for so long. In all of this the European Parliament will have a right to be consulted over the appointment of the Commission president. It will be asked to approve the Commission as a whole, together with its programme, before it is appointed. Therefore, this is a major change towards greater democratic control.
  It also envisages much closer co-operation between the European and national Parliaments which is a crucial move towards more democratic control. I am sure that during the British presidency we shall see more common sense in what is often described as a very uncommon market.
  We shall undoubtedly move towards greater cohesion and convergence as we recognise the benefits to Britain of economic and monetary union. I am convinced that the strength of our financial institutions in the City of London can lead the economy of the European Community in the right direction, given the backing and the political will. The fact that so many countries are knocking on the door to join speaks for itself. I believe that they must be

  929
  encouraged by the support that they are receiving from our Prime Minister, this Government, our leaders and, we hope, from this House.
  It would be folly and irresponsible to stop the progress of European unity when the world is envious of the contribution that we are making towards peace and security. During my two-and-a-half years as the President of the European Parliament I had the privilege, on behalf of the Parliament, of going to 32 countries outside the 12. In every one of those countries I was received like a head of state. I was received as someone who was trying to bring unity into the difficult situations which they had seen, witnessed and perhaps read about in history concerning the European Community. Therefore it would be folly to let them see that we are not bringing about that unity that they believe is a great possibility and a great breakthrough in the interests of peace in the world. It would also be folly to make the important work of the Council of Ministers any more difficult than it will he under the normal procedure. They are therefore deserving of our support so that they can shape events for the future rather than react to them.
  6.43 p.m.
  Lord Jay: My Lords, I thought that the Prime Minister was going a little far earlier this week when he said, or appeared to say, that it would be a breach of faith and almost dishonourable for anybody to disagree with what he had been doing in the agreements made at Maastricht and Lisbon. Of course, governments have the right to make agreements and sign treaties, but that does not mean that Members of Parliament have not also the right to exercise their judgment and say so if they do not wholly agree. Ministers must remember that they are just as accountable to this Parliament for what they do in Brussels as for what they do in Brixton.
  In this case the Prime Minister, despite a large number of brave words, surrendered quite a few further points at Lisbon over and above what was agreed at Maastricht. The noble Lord the Leader of the House, I am sure unintentionally, slightly misled the House on Tuesday when he said that the Government had not agreed that enlargement of the EC could not take place until the Maastricht Treaty was ratified. In fact they agreed not only that the EFTA countries should not actually join before ratification, but that even formal negotiation should not begin until ratification was complete. I do not believe that the Government would now deny that is what happened.
  That was something of a setback for the Prime Minister and for his fine sentiments about enlargement. M. Delors can now say to us "If you want enlargement then get on quickly with ratification". He can tell the EFTA countries that it is simply those obstinate British who are holding up their entry because they are going so slow on ratification.
  The efforts of what one might perhaps call the extreme federalists in Brussels to exclude half of Europe from the club are still going on. If this attitude is persisted in, so far from uniting Europe, it will
  930
  actually divide it. Instead of an iron curtain we shall have a kind of bureaucratic curtain between East and West. Therefore, I hope that those efforts will be resisted.
  The Prime Minister gave away at Lisbon the substance of the case about the huge increases in EC expenditure on so-called cohesion funds for poorer countries and continued CAP extravagance. It is true that no figures were included in the formal agreement. But it appears that the Commission is now assuring the applicants that it is only a temporary form of postponement.
  As regards what the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, has just said about the common agricultural policy, we also see reports now that the Commission is going slow in preparing the full debate on GATT involving the supposed reforms of the CAP. It is very far from certain that they will be ratified. One would like to know exactly what the Government are doing about that.
  As regards the cohesion funds, it is really absurd economics to force the poorer countries, by a fixed exchange rate, into chronic unemployment and then have to pay for the unemployed thus created. The right way to help weaker countries is to let them maintain a competitive exchange rate and so employ their populations in producing whatever they can do best and earning themselves the standard of living that that justifies. However, on top of that, we learned on Tuesday that while the Prime Minister was talking grandly about subsidiarity the Chancellor was quietly giving away the fundamental right of national governments and the British Parliament to decide the rights of VAT. We have been frequently assured that the Government would never give those rights away. We have been assured over and over again that that surrender would not be made. In the referendum held in 1975 the official leaflet urging a "Yes" vote expressly guaranteed that rights over taxation would not be given away in the EC negotiations. Are we really to infer that that promise is now in effect being broken, if only bit by bit?
  Perhaps I may take a longer view. Already in the past 20 years the efforts of the continental federalists (one must admire their pertinacity) to create a superpower in Europe as a kind of rival to the United States, has done a good deal of long-term damage to the British economy as well as to our right to self-government. The permanent increase in food prices and labour costs forced on us by the CAP, which are still with us, have been the main cause of our visible trade deficit and particularly our deficit even in manufactures which never existed before 1973. The adoption of a grossly over-valued exchange rate in 1990 has been the main and predicted cause of the acute deepening depression, high interest rates and the ever-growing unemployment of the past two years.
  Of course, all these centralised economic policies —from the CAP right through to the single currency —were not really designed or intended entirely for their economic merits, but were largely seen by the federalists as a means towards the centralised super-state which they had in mind. M. Monnet said so frankly from the beginning, and so did M. Spaak.

  931
  It is no good M. Delors pretending now that he is not hankering after a super-state. As soon as Maastricht was signed, M. Delors semi-publicly proposed a far-reaching increase in the Commission's powers and in EC spending, and only withdrew it when somebody told him that it would lose him the Danish referendum. It was, however, pretty clear evidence of what he really wanted.
  Indeed, if it is not a super-state that the federalists are seeking—as some people are telling us today—why do we have to have a central bank, a single currency or even a single citizenship? A single currency is totally unnecessary for a genuine free trade area, as has just been convincingly argued by Dr. Martin Felstein, a former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers in the United States, in an article in the Economist two weeks ago.
  If one looks at the whole spectacle, one is inclined to ask this question: When all is said and done, for what purpose and to what end is this vast centralised structure to be constructed and forced upon us? That question always takes me back to a three-hour conversation with Jean Monnet in 1952. For Jean Monnet, the only thing that mattered in the world was the avoidance of another Franco-German war. I believe that his view would have been echoed by my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby. In his view, the way to avoid that war was to tie down Germany by a constitutional and political straitjacket which would have to be disguised in its early stages as a mere trading organisation. That was his message and it has been remarkably faithfully followed ever since.
  Of course, it was well-intentioned, sincere and deeply felt, but as I see it, that view rested on two highly questionable and probably false assumptions of fact—first, that a Franco-German war was a real threat in the 1945 world and, secondly, that it could be prevented by tying down a future hypothetically aggressive Germany with legalistic strings. I do not believe myself that the threat of a future aggressive Germany after 1945 has been or is anything but exceedingly remote, although apparently Dr. Kohl does not wholly agree with that. But however that may be, the further idea that a renascent aggressive Germany, if it really did appear, would be deterred by a scrap of paper seems to me so unrealistic as to be almost absurd. And what an historic irony it would be if a mechanism intended to tie down Germany should end up with a group of German central bankers in Bonn determining the whole livelihood of Western Europe.
  A better way of ensuring a peaceful Germany would be to ensure that it follows policies that provide employment and rising standards for its own people. I think that we all know that if such a highly improbable German threat—as I see it—ever did arise, the safety of this country would ultimately depend on one thing, the support of the United States. We all know that, and it is one reason why I agree profoundly with my noble friend Lord Callaghan of Cardiff that any weakening of NATO must be avoided at all costs.
  932
  For all those reasons and quite a few others, the duty of the British government now is, as I see it, to prevent damage to our economy and our democracy as a result of the loss of any more powers to Brussels. As I see it, the Government's objectives, therefore, in the coming presidency —and these are very much summarised—should be, first, the widening of EC membership to resist centralisation; secondly, no further increase in EC spending; thirdly, no transfer of powers, particularly over taxation, to the EC; and lastly, a subsidiarity agreement which is both clear and binding. Failing those assurances and those conditions and until we have secured them, I do not think that the Maastricht Treaty should be ratified. Until those conditions are secured, I believe that the duty of all of those in this country who wish to preserve our system of government is to resist ratification and to preserve a system that has rightly been described by Sir Winston Churchill as,
  "With all its human faults, Better than any of the known alternatives".
  6.56 p.m.
  The Earl of Bessborough: My Lords, I should like to start by paying tribute to my noble friend Lady Thatcher for her quite remarkable, highly entertaining and only semi-controversial speech this afternoon. I thought that the tributes paid to her by my noble friend Lord Eccles were particularly pertinent when one considers the way in which she has changed the atmosphere in this country generally—quite apart from her position in regard to the European Community. I agree very much with what my noble friend Lady Chalker has said, and especially of course with my right honourable friend the Prime Minister when he said that Britain cannot afford to sit on the sidelines and watch others shape the European Community. Over the next six months Britain will have no alternative, in my view, but to be at the centre of the Community and to exercise appropriate influence.
  I shall be brief. I have spoken so often on the importance of greater European integration both in your Lordships' House and in the European Parliament that I must not repeat what I have said in the past. Indeed, I even hesitated to speak at all today. However, it is good to see both present and past Members of the European Parliament taking part in this debate as well of course as former highly distinguished Commissioners who are also in their places.
  At present we and our partners in Europe need to consider how to carry the Maastricht process forward but—again in my view—without getting too far ahead of public opinion. We must also look at the question of the financing of the Community. I am glad that the Government intend to continue to be firm over any increases in Community funding. We need to consider what needs to be done in order to make the single market complete, as well as drawing up mandates for negotiations to enlarge Community membership. No doubt we shall discuss this latter question in detail on

  933
  14th July on the Motion that has been tabled by my noble friend Lord Aldington, and I shall probably have something further to say then.
  I should also like to congratulate my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, as well as my newly ennobled friend Lord Howe, all of whom I have always greatly respected, on securing a legally binding text on subsidiarity in the Maastricht Treaty. Surely we must now all understand the meaning of that somewhat obscure term—that we do nationally, regionally or locally what can best be resolved in that way and only refer major political, economic and international monetary issues to the Community in Brussels; for example, such issues as the future of Eastern and Central Europe, Yugoslavia and the Middle East. I was glad to hear what my noble friend Lord Cockfield said on the matter. I thought that his observations were very wise.
  I am glad to see that our insistence on the application of the subsidiarity principle has gained wider acceptance and that M. Delors—for whom I think we should also show some respect, even if we have not always been able to agree with him—too is convinced that ever closer union will be achieved only if subsidiarity is a clearly defined part of the European process. Although, as I say, we may not agree with everything that M. Delors stands for, during his term as President of the Commission he has certainly strengthened the Community.
  I also agree with my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary when he says that we should not overlook the advantages of the Maastricht Treaty—that it will lead the way to a decentralised, market-led, wider-looking Europe. I only hope that our Danish friends—and I have many—may come to have second thoughts, recognise those advantages and thus move towards ratifying the treaty.
  Finally, perhaps I may say that I find it curious that those who supported the Single European Act, like my noble friend Lord Cockfield, and those who supported our entry into the exchange rate mechanism, as well as those who opposed a referendum in the past, should now take up such an anti-Maastricht stance. I support all that my noble friend Lady Chalker said on these complex matters. We shall no doubt be debating them all, not only during the next six months but also longer than that. I thank my noble friend for tabling the Motion and enabling us to express our views.
  7.4 p.m.
  Lord Selsdon: My Lords, as our period of presidency approached, I found myself wondering why it was that the United Kingdom seemed to he falling into two camps: one at Bruges and another at Maastricht, only 80 miles away, while at the same time, near the Field of the Cloth of Gold, French lorry and tractor drivers were ganging together to cut us off from Europe. I realised that there was perhaps a fear abroad that our political strength and will and our very democracy might give us increased power at the end of the coming six months. From my point of view, I have the utmost confidence in my noble friends on
  934
  the Front Bench who have opened and will reply to the debate. I have a few requests and questions to ask of them.
  The first matter relates to trade. I have to declare an interest in that I am still president of the British Exporters Association. I remind noble Lords that it was trade that led us into Europe; indeed, when the referendum campaign was going ahead we said, "Britain in Europe; it is our business to be there". We are there. We are among the strongest in Europe. Emerging from all those countries now are the very scourge of the Labour Party: the multinational corporations. But, instead of one, two, three or four, there are hundreds of them, as people set up in each other's countries and integration of trade takes place, despite trying to put square plugs into round holes.
  A major event will take place—thanks, in part, to my noble friend Lord Cockfield. I am afraid that we are in for a major dive in exports within a nine-month period. I say that because, at the end of this year, our exports to the Continent of Europe will he home trade. There will he no need for support; it will he the home market. There is no need for this vast initiative of government bodies because the traders and the companies are already there. It is they who are putting pressures upon government for harmonisation, and it is they who are encouraging the Germans, who say that there are no non-tariff harriers, to open up their markets. Therefore, on the trade front within Europe as it is today we have no worries.
  However, I ask my noble friends to recognise that trade of a home nature only is detrimental to economies. We need to pay attention to our exports and to the new export markets. As regards Europe, perhaps we should ask why is it that someone used to say that in order to be pro-European, it was necessary to be anti-American, or in order to be pro-British it was necessary to be anti-European. It is almost as though many people in this country are going hack 30 years or so and trying to open up a debate on whether we should be in the EC. That debate is long past.
  We are in a new era. We are in an era where the opportunity for change and slow change of progress is considerable. For example, instead of two counts trying to fight each other, we have one common enemy; namely, bureaucracy and—dare I say it—centralisation. I have not yet decided into which camp I shall go because I have not been appointed. As the leader of one camp announced today, she is looking for allegiances from those who hold a feu. Those of us who hold no appointment have complete freedom.
  It is against bureaucracy that I now turn. I was reminded the other day by my noble friend Lady Elles that, in fact, there are no more bureaucrats in the Commission than there are in Lambeth. But what seems to have happened is that the initial and—dare I say it—"European groupies", who have no other axe to grind than the European theme, came together and took initiatives, the bureaucracy, in advance of the politicians. Therefore, in the early days, they seized more power than they probably wished and more power than they were entitled to. In general, that was because of the default of parliaments and politicians.

  935
  While I support the European Parliament, I personally would prefer to see it made up of Members of the House of Lords and of the House of Commons so that the divisions were not so wide. I welcome the fact that we do have Members of the European Parliament in this House and that in this Chamber, probably more so than any other, we have a greater knowledge of European affairs, even though we may be as critical as many Parliaments. We have heard today from Members of the European Parliament. I do not know what one would call groups of European commissioners. But, as they are always going out to dinner, I presume that one would say "a flight of commissioners". We have great intellect and great knowledge. I hope that we are listened to. However, we have one major disadvantage. In most groupings around the world people group around a language. But other than our friends the Irish, we are the only European country that speaks English as its first language.
  We are moving towards the enlargement of the Community. I hesitate to say this, but I shall say it now: we are all pro-European in this country because we are all pro the initiatives that have taken place in Central and Eastern Europe and would support them irrespective of our views about the European Economic Community, as it was. It is here that we must look. We must look to support those countries not so much with aid but by the development of their trade. That needs Her Majesty's Government to look more carefully at the type of support they give to trade worldwide, whether it be to the second world or the third world. I take comfort from the death of the Secretary of State for Trade and the return of the President of the Board of Trade. I should like to ask my noble friend to let me know when the President of the Board of Trade intends to have his first meeting of the Board of Trade and what its new extraordinary powers will be.
  Having dealt with trade, I have to turn to finance. I go back 30 years—just before I joined your Lordships' House —when I was seconded to Germany. I found myself working with German companies greatly involved in Wirtschaftsgebünde, as they switched from having made armaments to manufactures. I found myself with my own age group night after night in Kegelbahn bowling and drinking greater quantities than I have ever drunk before or since. Tears would roll down many of their cheeks, because the Germans are an emotional nation, and we would discuss the war openly: when young teenagers had been put in charge of anti-aircraft batteries with only one shell which they would not fire at the British because the British would not alter course. They fired into the American planes and hoped that the Americans would hit one another.
  I sat with those people. As we cried, they would say, "Watch out. You know, we will rise again". I have often thought, as Germany improved in power, of those days when my MG could knock spots off a BMW going around the Nürburgring. There were 10 to 20 deutschmarks to the pound. Even on my humble
  936
  salary of £500 a year, I felt rich. Things changed. I watched them as they grew. They had more fear of the growth of their own power, perhaps, than we did.
  I had the privilege of attending a lunch in Downing Street given by my noble friend Lady Thatcher when she commented to one of the guests who had just seen Mr. Gorbache—and I mentioned this in another debate recently—"It will not be long before I talk to Mr. Gorbachev about the dangers of the reunification of Germany". I have been discussing the German subject, and I shall end with it.
  There was a time when we were all worried about the dollar. We were worried about sterling as a reserve currency when the Labour Party devalued it and scared the living daylights out of our oldest ally, the Portuguese. The deutschmark is not really a reserve currency. I, as a humble ex-banker, ex-economist, ex-everything, cannot work out why we continue to bother about linking ourselves to the deutschmark. If I recall it rightly, there is a subtle, fundamental political difference here. I believe that it is Article 106 in—dare I say it? —the German Basic Law (the constitution) which says that by law the government are not allowed to let inflation rip or let currencies become weak. If we are tied to the deutschmark, is it right that we should have the German Basic Law dominating or running our economy?
  Our economy is in better shape than we may think. It may be flat. We have had a double dip. We may even have stagflation bouncing along the bottom. But we are in a better state for recovery than we have been for many years. I do not see why we should need to go on being linked to the deutschmark. I should like to ask my noble friend Lady Chalker, whose fluent command of German is so great, to persuade the Germans, in their own language, to do something about it, or to agree that, if we separate ourselves slightly, the pound will not become weak.
  I worry that we are becoming too tied to a country whose price for reunification is 13 per cent. recorded unemployment in Eastern Germany, but which is possibly 35 per cent. Those are worries that my Italian friends share. Many of us belong to various groups, and as I come to the end of my time my final request is a personal one on behalf of your Lordships' House and—dare I say it? —the nobility of Europe.
  Knowing this debate was coming up today, one of my noble cousins—a noble Marquis in Spain—said that he was having a little trouble with his own government. His government had declared that, because of the bureaucrats in Brussels, all of the nobility now had to have European passports and identity cards, but were no longer entitled to have their titles on their European passports because there was no room for them. That meant that those who had historic, hereditary peerages—if that is what they are —could no longer be known as Marquis. They would be known as plain "senor". Even the "Don" bit was to be dropped.
  I should like to ask whether that will be so in your Lordships' case, because we have our exits and our entrances, and I am sure that most of the new entrants have gone out of their way to ensure that they do not have European passports. I should like to ask that that

  937
  matter be taken up. I shall write to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and ask him whether what I have said is true, because it seems as though there is an anti-monarchist plot abroad.
  I have to go back to the culture of Europe which we have imported, and which we have inherited, often without any culture of our own. We should be grateful for it and for their poets, plays and theatres. The final quote I have which I have to put to those who stand before the mast must relate to Maastricht. It is necessary to have treaties, but this one is already out of date. We had the revolt a long time ago. We are now in a revolution that is changing. We have an opportunity to add to this treaty or even to have a new treaty. After all, it is the German poet Heinrich Heine who said of the Dutch, I think:
  "When the world comes to an end, go to Holland, because everything happens there fifty years later".
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I was most interested to hear what he said about passports. Will he ask his noble friend Lady Chalker whether subsidiarity might extend to passports so that we can have our British passports back?
  Lord Selsdon: My Lords, I have no intention of ever carrying an identity card or ever having a European passport. I am sure that my noble friend has heard the noble Lord's question.
  7.16 p.m.
  Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, has succeeded in reminding us that we are, after all, living in a world of real people and not merely of concepts and ideas. He referred, rightly, to the unemployment in Germany. In that respect I have, after my long years in political life (some 60 years) some sense of déjà vu. I have been here before. Unemployment is growing throughout Europe at present. European unemployment is already at an unacceptable level, not just in the United Kingdom and in France, but in Germany.
  I seem to remember that unemployment was one of the principle reasons why demagogy and fascism developed in Europe. We should be unwise to remain too smug about the so-called successes of the European Economic Community. I do not wish to belittle anything that has been accomplished either by Europe as a whole or by its member states. But I am bound to say—this is in the Commission's own reports (the little seen documents that are not publicised in the press) —that the economic performance in Europe has been far less successful than that of Japan or the United States. I say no more about that.
  We have recently been reminded again of the human factors. We have been reminded by the Danes. The Danes suddenly did not run true to form. The Danes, despite all the persuasion to which they were subjected by their own government and by their opposition parties as well—a kind of united Conservative/Labour effort—were not convinced, and they did not run to form any more than they did in European football. Suddenly, they became the awkward people.
  938
  An immediate flurry of activity followed. I believe that it is within the recollection of the House that the immediate and instinctive reaction of the Foreign Secretary, as an ex-career diplomat, was that this was a damage problem with which we had to be patient. We had to give the Danes time to recover, make up their minds again and when they had seen the light of day, everything would be all right again. But the initial reaction was that it was a damage problem.
  However, that is not so. It is a problem of ordinary human beings everywhere in a democracy. At the moment, the Danes are just one example, as has already been acknowledged by the Prime Minister. In defending Maastricht he did not bother overmuch with detailing the advantages that Maastricht would bring to the people of Europe; he concentrated on the victory he had achieved in establishing the subsidiarity principle. Of course, he did not mention that much had been given away in Maastricht. He did not mention, as a professional politician in a group of politicians, that he had succeeded in agreeing that most political decisions affecting his country and Europe would be taken by—guess who? Bankers. They would be the independent people who would take all the vital decisions with which we would all have to conform. I shall later cite the article because I have read the treaty. Neither did Mr. Major say that the Commission—of all bodies—would be given the power to monitor our accounts, to see whether we were obeying the correct fiscal principles or whether we were keeping our books correctly.
  Believe me, I jest not. For the Commission to look after other people's finances after the reports that have been made independently by the Court of Auditors is one of the biggest jokes in Europe of the last half century. Yet, we have surrendered that right under Maastricht. The Commission will now advise on whether we are looking after our finances prudently and on many other spheres. There is no point in denying it because the Prime Minister himself voiced this fact.
  A report on 28th June in the Sunday Telegraph stated:
  "Mr. Major held out the hope that some EC law could be repealed: 'If it can be scrapped, it should be scrapped,' he said."
  That is supposed to be enshrined in Maastricht.
  I have already reproduced the subsidiarity clause in a letter to The Times. However, the Government have been singularly modest in revealing its text publicly, so for the record I repeat for your Lordships Article 3b upon which the Government rely. It is as follows:
  "The Community shall act within the limits of the powers conferred upon it by this Treaty and of the objectives assigned to it therein".
  So far so good. I underline the opening 10 words of the next extract which should remain in our minds because they are important:
  "In areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Community shall take action, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved by the Community.
  "Any action by the Community shall not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives of this Treaty".

  939
  A former president of the European Court called this "gobbledegook", with good reason. Let us go over it again, and if the Government can clarify it, let them do so:
  "In areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence".
  In effect, the next passage says that as regards the remainder, the Community shall determine which actions lie within Community competence and which do not. That is the ridiculous contradiction to which the former president of the European Court referred. If any further explanations can be given on that, I should be glad if, in his reply, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, would give that elucidation, because in my opinion it remains gobbledegook.
  Why should it be necessary now to take powers back from the Commission? If member states possessed the powers at issue —if the Council of Ministers had powers—how is it that they have for so long tolerated this progressive seepage of powers to the Commission? If it is now a virtue to limit it to taking action against the Commission under Article 3b, why, after all these years of the European Economic Community, did it have those powers in the first place? Of course, the reason is that power does not like a vacuum.
  Perhaps we may deal with the proposed remedies. The first remedy is to enforce Article 3b which, unless everyone has taken leave of their senses, cannot possibly be enforced by any court. The other means of achieving this desirable rolling back of the frontiers of the powers of the Commission has been well put by Sir Leon Brittan, the competition commissioner and a politician of some reputation here in the United Kingdom. I quote from an article by him in the Financial Times as recently as 1st July:
  "Strengthening that essential support can best be done by giving effect to subsidiarity. Both the Commission and the member states under the British presidency will have to work out a practical programme for determining the best level for taking decisions".
  I ask noble Lords to allow those words to sink in. The Council can take no action at all, save on a proposal from the Commission. Therefore, if the Commission wishes to restrict its own powers and hand back some laws to member states, it must itself produce a proposal to the Council to do exactly that. I very much doubt whether that can or would be done. No commission likes to propose a limitation of its own powers. That is why the Commission refers to administrative arrangements. They have the advantage, particularly in view of the limited duration of the presidency.
  M. Delors, who months ago was saying that 80 per cent. of Community legislation would in future be dealt with in Brussels at Community level and only 20 per cent. in the member states, is now cooing like a sucking dove. He is now moderate. He may be pleased to propose any administrative arrangements. However, the British presidency expires in six months. It will be followed by Denmark, which will hold the presidency for six months. M. Delors might allow the administrative relaxations during the Danish presidency. He will certainly be on safer ground when
  940
  Belgium succeeds to the presidency in the six months following that because of course Belgium is a net recipient of Community funds. What the Commission thinks on Monday, Brussels thinks on Tuesday, if not at the same time, because they are bound so closely together.
  Of what value is all this? If there is to be any question of the member states getting power again it has to be through the Maastricht Treaty itself and that treaty must be amended. I am pretty well versed in the Maastricht Treaty and indeed in the Treaty of Rome. I am quite prepared, if necessary, to draft the necessary amendments to the Maastricht Treaty. I shall give the House a hint of the way I would go about it. Instead of having every operative clause state that the Council acts on a proposal from the Commission, in some suitable cases, after consultation with Her Majesty's Government—I should be glad to co-operate with the Government in this respect—there should be inserted the words, "or on its own initiative". That is all that is required. That would enable something to occur which cannot occur now because we have it on the Government's own authority that even if the Council is now unanimous in wanting to amend an existing regulation which has served its purpose, it cannot do so because the Commission has a veto.
  That is an example of simple things that can be done that do not go to the entire root of the single market and the free trade area but go right to the root of where power lies. The noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, raised some questions of humanity. I must include politicians within that category and even Ministers. One of the main problems with the whole constitution of the Council is that it is composed of Ministers all of whom have domestic responsibilities in their own countries. They do not have the time to pay detailed attention to much of the material that emanates from the Commission.
  Under Article 151 of the Treaty of Rome COREPER was established—the Committee of Permanent Representatives—which is composed of the 12 representatives and their deputies. Those civil servants meet two or three times a week. I shall not refer to "Yes, Minister" yet on an international scale but noble Lords may suspect what is in my mind. At any rate COREPER meets at least three times a week and it is attended by the Commission each time. COREPER is charged with preparing the agenda for Council meetings. COREPER will be well in evidence, in conjunction with the Commission, throughout the six-month period and, along with the Council secretariat, it will prepare the agenda and put forward items for Ministers to discuss. Those items are determined at COREPER or civil servant level.
  COREPER has an A list and a B list. The A list comprises items which COREPER has agreed need not be considered by the Council at all. Those items can merely be signed on the nod. Included in that category are a large number of articles, chapters and titles within the budget. The Council will have to consider those items over the next few months and will have to reach a decision by October. Those items include, incidentally, the expenses incurred in the

  941
  Council under the British presidency which will amount to £4.5 million, excluding salaries and some other expenses.
  Members of the Council will all have their domestic affairs in their own country in mind. They will all have to read the contents of their Red Boxes at night, including items put at the bottom by their "Yes, Minister" civil servants who do not wish them to read those items until they are tired. The members of the Council are busy people and they cannot legislate and understand everything that is going on in Europe. A power vacuum results, and the Commission is aware of that. That is why, particularly under M. Delors, who is a most enterprising person, we have had a cascade of directives and regulations. Some of those items are ridiculous, for example the directive that instructed the inhabitants of Arbroath how to cook smokies. There was a whole series of other such directives. In 1990 those directives were printed on paper that consumed 1,600 hectares of timber in its production. That is how the whole thing works and that is what we have to change.
  We have to change that system and the best way to do so is, as I have said, to give the Council of Ministers the power to ignore proposals by the Commission, if necessary, and to have its own right to initiate legislation. The Council may seek the advice of the Commission but, if my proposal were adopted, it would slow down the whole process of the cascade of directives which is becoming so intrusive in the lives of ordinary citizens. My proposal would stop the march to bureaucracy which has been inflicted upon us. The Government have at last admitted that that bureaucracy exists.
  There are morals in this. The people of the Soviet Union not only rebelled against centralised economies but they also rebelled against centralised bureaucracy. Already there are murmurings in Europe—of which Denmark is only a symptom—that people are beginning to rebel against being told what to do by bureaucrats. Looking down on this whole matter from a high mountain, as it were, it seems faintly ridiculous that adult Ministers from various countries should scurry about at the behest of a Commission of 17 people, none of whom has exceptionally specific qualifications. The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, is an exception to that and I have the most profound respect for him. But all those Ministers are bobbing about and obeying the dictates and the whims of an unelected body of Commissioners. The whole thing is ridiculous.
  What we want in this country now, and what we hope will be achieved in due course, is not the tin whistle sounds of tiny politicians. We require something more of the mighty Diapason in which the voice of Britain was made known. We need a voice that says Britain is still, whatever its weaknesses and defects, the centre not merely of Europe but of the world. We want a voice that says that to be British and to be a member of Europe, the United Nations and the Security Council counts for far more than being merely on the fringes of Europe.
  7.39 p.m.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, giving his clear views on the European Community. For a brief moment I thought that he was attempting to make sure that his pre-eminent position in the House was not upstaged by my noble friend Lady Thatcher by speaking for longer than she did. However, in the last few moments he shrank from playing the game into extra time.
  Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord that in the case of Denmark the analogy with the football team is not a very good one. The Danes entered the competition only because another team had to withdraw due to troubles in its part of the world. So the Danes were not in the competition to begin with but came in at a rather late stage. However, they played very well and won the competition. Perhaps in the case of Maastricht the Danes will re-enter the competition and, come the beginning of next year, will perform their role exceedingly well on taking over the presidency of the Community.
  I should like to revert to the main topics of the debate, which are the subjects which should be the main preoccupations of the United Kingdom during its presidency. I should like to start by saying a few words about finance and the Uruguay round of GATT. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, has quite rightly drawn our attention on a number of occasions to the problems which the Community has in controlling its budget. I am quite certain that my right honourable friend John Major, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other Ministers who will deal with financial matters in Brussels over the next six months will attempt to apply the same financial disciplines which my noble friend Lady Thatcher brought so successfully to the finances of the United Kingdom in 1979. I am sure that if they do that many of the problems which the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, has rightly drawn to our attention will cease.
  The clock has been stopped on the Uruguay Round of GATT for some considerable time. I very much hope that during our presidency we can manage not only to have it started again but to bring the negotiations to a conclusion. They are vitally important for us as a major trading nation, not just in Europe but throughout the world. It is important that we bring those negotiations to a successful conclusion, not just for our own sake but also for the sake of people in the third world who depend on open trading arrangements throughout the world much more than on aid from donor nations. Therefore, I very much hope that we shall make progress with the Uruguay Round and do not fall into the trap or allow other parts of the world to fall into the trap of protectionism, which is always lurking round the corner. It lurks around the corner in the United States and, dare I say, it lurks around the corner in the Community as well.
  I should like to say a few words about enlargement. I apologise to the House for doing so because I know that your Lordships will discuss the subject on 14th July. Unfortunately I cannot be here that day and I

  943
  should like to say a few words on the subject, especially in relation to the Northern European countries of Finland and Sweden and also Norway and Iceland. It is very important from our point of view, as a Northern European country, that we do as much as we can in our six months to make sure that Finland and Sweden can join the Community as quickly as possible. I hope that both the Norwegians and the Icelanders will follow in their wake.
  I say that for this reason. The whole centre of gravity of the Community has moved to the South, especially in relation to funds such as the European regional development fund and the like, where the concentration is on Southern Europe.
  While the four northern countries I have mentioned are all prosperous, they all, like the United Kingdom, have rather fragile northern areas. I am not talking about Scotland but the northern part of Scotland, the north of Norway, the north of Sweden and the north of Finland. I believe that those countries will be great allies to us in doing what we shall have to do to ensure that the Community's attention does not concentrate solely on the poorer Mediterranean countries and that it remembers that there are areas in what appear on the face of it to be very rich countries where the economy and the human population, as I mentioned in your Lordships' House the other day, are fragile. Therefore, I very much hope that my right honourable friend John Major will make laying the groundwork for speedy enlargement one of his priorities during this six-month stage.
  One of the things which will attract all four northern countries into the Community, especially Norway and Iceland, is a clear definition and understanding of that funny word "subsidiarity". I shall not go into its derivation, but its derivation does not give me a great deal of confidence that it will necessarily be carried out unless during our six-month presidency we take steps to carry it out. The definition which I offer your Lordships is: what you do not need to do on a Community basis do not do.
  However, there are many matters which have to be dealt with on a Community basis if there is to be a common market. Many are exactly the issues which have arisen from the Single European Act. We need common manufacturing standards so that one country cannot say to another country, "Your goods do not reach our standards, they cannot enter". We need common standards of packaging and labelling, boring as that may sometimes be. We need common standards on health and hygiene. We need those if we are to have a common market in goods and in services.
  In some other fields we also need the Community to act as a community. I cannot remember which of your Lordships mentioned that it would be a good thing if the CAP was sent back to the individual member states. I cannot share that view. The problem with the common agricultural policy at present is that it is not really common. Speak to any dairy farmer in this country and he will remind you that Italy has not even begun to do anything about the question of milk quotas. On a number of occasions the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, has rightly drawn our
  944
  attention to the abuse of the grant system in many European countries. I believe that some good policing of many of those common policies is essential if we are to see a fair and proper common market.
  There are other fields—and I shall mention one of them, the environmental field, that may bring some hostility down on my head—where I do not believe that we need Brussels to interfere. In many cases the issue has nothing to do with a common market or the effect of one country on another. We may all be concerned about pollution, for example, in the Adriatic, but that is a problem principally for the Italians and the other countries around the Adriatic, just as the problem of Blackpool beach and a few other beaches in our country is a problem for us.
  I believe that we can define subsidiarity fairly easily. We should not be surprised that there is an argument. It is an argument which has raged within our own country, in this House and down the corridor, in terms of the relationship between local government and national government. I cannot say how many arguments I have heard about that particular form of subsidiarity—who should be doing what and whether it should be local government or national government.
  That leads me to the final point that I want to make which concerns the Maastricht Treaty. Clearly my right honourable friend the Prime Minister had not intended to have as his principal objective during his presidency attempting to make sure that the Maastricht Treaty was ratified. It is interesting that the last time we had a major treaty in the Community the British presidency occurred at about the same time. I was interested to hear my noble friend Lord Cockfield say that he had done his sums and had worked out that we would hold the presidency again as the next step emerged and the Single European Act came to fruition in 1992.
  In 1985–86 the Single European Act was very much the brain child of the United Kingdom Government under my noble friend Lady Thatcher. It was very much pushed forward in the Commission by my noble friend Lord Cockfield. It is an important step in bringing together and making a reality of the Common Market. It is a pleasant irony that we are in the presidential chair as the 1992 date approaches. If the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, counted up on his fingers to bring that about, then good for him. It is also an irony that just as we held the presidency in the first half of 1986 while the Single European Act was being ratified, now we hold the presidency again when another treaty is being ratified.
  I do not wish to go into the detail gone into by my noble friends Lord Plumb and Lord Cockfield about the Maastricht Treaty. I am sure, as I said right at the beginning, that given time the Danes will go along with the treaty. They will realise, as we have realised in the past, that if we are playing on the European scene we have to play in the game. We cannot, if we do not like the look of the game, take our ball home.
  The Maastricht Treaty takes two important steps. I have mentioned one; namely, that it introduces the balancing concept of subsidiarity and counteracts some of the centralising tendencies of the Single European Act. The other step, in rather the opposite

  945
  but nonetheless important direction, is in continuing to bind us together. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister went to Maastricht with a negotiating brief which had been applauded by both Houses of Parliament. He succeeded in achieving his objectives and that was recognised when he returned. At the election on 9th April, he received a clear endorsement of the policy and the manifesto on which his party and that of this side of the House fought the election. He said quite clearly that the Maastricht Treaty was a success both for Britain and the rest of Europe. British proposals helped to shape the key provisions of the treaty, including those strengthening the enforcement of Community law, defence, subsidiarity and law and order.
  Not only did the Conservative Party fight on the basis of ratifying the Maastricht Treaty but the two parties opposite also fought on that basis, though I freely concede that they wished to go a little further. It is a strange constitutional thesis that, if all three parties fight an election agreeing on a subject, that somehow gives the general election result no credibility and there should be a referendum. That is a very strange theory. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that if we had known of that thesis we could have arranged to dispute the Maastricht Treaty at the election so that the result of the election would have determined whether the treaty should be ratified. It is a strange thesis.
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will give way. He makes the point about the Government having Maastricht in the manifesto, with the other parties being in favour of it, and indeed the Labour Party going further than the Conservative Party. But the fact of the matter is that there was no proper discussion of the issue during the general election. That is why 75 per cent. of the British population want a say before the treaty is ratified by Parliament. That is the point that noble Lords on this side of the House and throughout the Chamber have been making. I should have thought that the noble Lord would accept it.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, it remains an odd theory that if the political parties agree on something, then somehow or other the issue has not been put to the British people properly and a referendum ought to take place. The issue was debated. I remember a speech I made pointing out that one of the most dramatic changes in the past 10 years was that we no longer had to argue about the pros and cons of our membership of the European Community and that all the political parties agreed. I cannot remember anybody in the audience disputing that fact with me. There has been considerable debate in this country. The two noble Lords opposite played their part in making sure that we had considerable debate, at least in your Lordships' House.
  I want to draw my remarks to an end. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, is edging to rise and intervene again. I hope that he will forgive me if I end on a particular note. The idea which I heard suggested the other day that there should be a free vote in the other place also filled me with some amusement. I do not
  946
  recall that when the Single European Bill was passing through the House of Commons there was any suggestion made that there ought to be a free vote on it. Indeed no suggestion was made that there ought to have been a referendum. I suggest that the Single European Act was every bit as great a milestone as the Maastricht Treaty. I say to my noble friend Lady Chalker that when the Maastricht Treaty comes to this House and we have to vote on it, I shall follow her into the Lobby in support of our right honourable friend John Major and the Maastricht Treaty just as willingly and keenly as I followed Mrs. Thatcher into the Lobby in favour of the Single European Act.
  7.54 p.m.
  The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, at this stage of what has been a long and fascinating debate it is hard for a mere tyro in European affairs to add much to what has already been said on an issue of such importance. The House has been privileged to hear a number of significant and entertaining contributions from noble Lords on all sides. I fear I must crave the House's indulgence if I do not stay to hear the eloquence of all noble Lords. I have a less glamorous engagement as president of the Westminster Chamber of Commerce than have other noble Lords. I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, on her maiden speech. I am sure that her remarks caused no more than a mild frisson to my noble friends on the Front Bench. No doubt it was the same kind of frisson that I detected when my noble predecessor made his maiden speech, to which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, referred. However, he waited a quarter of a century between leaving another place and embarking on his maiden effort in your Lordships' House.
  The noble Baroness said that governments were out of touch with people in Europe. I remind her that the door of No. 10 can be as great a barrier to maintaining contact with people as any door in Brussels. Her advocacy of the simple no—or was it the triple no, no, no—awoke certain memories. Since she spoke they have become clearer. I believe it was Mr. Gromyko who said, "Niet, niet, niet". My noble friend Lord Bethell has shown us that there is a proper balance between a niet and a da.
  The treaty of Rome is the past. It is Maastricht that is the signpost to the future. I hope that the Government do not heed the siren voice of the past in the way that General de Gaulle did. It is a voice that seems to be as attractive to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, in his rancour that a Treaty of Berlin might mark a future step in the development of Europe. To me that echoes the polemic that led to two world wars, so rightly and passionately recalled and denounced by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby.
  For me too the issues of contention all stem from a remark by my noble predecessor who said:
  "Europe is not about butter mountains or wine lakes. What Europe is about is the fact that I was nearly killed in the First World War, my son was nearly killed in the Second World War, and I do not want my grandson to be killed in the Third World War".

  947
  The dream of European unity surely stems from that aspiration, shared by so many politicians in Europe in the immediate post-war period. Such hopes and the fears of what would happen if those hopes were dashed were enough to keep the dream alive through the creation of the Iron and Steel Community, the evolution of the original European Community and right up to the start of the collapse of the Soviet empire.
  But despite the difficult and dangerous days in which we live, with so many nation states and regions poised on the brink of economic or political chaos, if not actually tearing themselves apart in the birth pains of nationhood—despite those perils impending—the threat that the nations of Western Europe and the world might be plunged into a final and terrible global conflict has receded. However, over the past 10 years has emerged another driving force toward European unity, generated not by leaders fearful of war but driven by the people of Europe fearful of the growing domination of world trade by the two non-European super-powers, the United States and Japan. The quiet revolution, which is maintaining the impetus toward a new European economic national identity, is taking place from the bottom up and not from the top down. It is driven by a growing perception of the relative failure of national economic programmes of the 1970s and 1980s compared with the performance of America and, above all, Japan, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. In West Germany domestic investment fell from 9 per cent. of output in 1975 to 5.5 per cent. in 1985. In the two decades to 1990 the German economy managed to grow in real terms only at an average annual rate of 2 per cent. while Japan boomed ahead at an almost incredible 11 per cent.
  The reaction of the people of Europe to this stagnation and the Japanese threat was quietly, silently and determinedly to redefine the very nature of nationalism. Almost unperceived by politicians long on rhetoric and short on vision, the people of Europe were confronted by a reality of a future world dominated by two foreign economic superpowers. The shock of that realisation sowed the seed of a new loyalty. A pan-European economic loyalty is accomplishing what 2,000 years of top-down political history has failed to do.
  Such loyalty must not be confused with national, political or cultural loyalties. The French will remain as steadfastly republican as the British remain staunchly monarchist. The Germans will ever be pompously and bombastically German, the Italians as parliamentarily anarchic as ever, and the British will continue in their happy linguistic delusion that everyone understands English if you speak it slowly and loudly enough.
  Another difference between the present attempt at European unity and previous efforts is that rather than the vision of one person, group or nation state, the Community has become the point of focus of the differing hopes and expectations of a diverse collection of different peoples.
  For the United Kingdom and Germany, the
  948
  evolving Community offers the chance of increased trade based on a domestic market that easily outguns even the United States. For Portugal, Spain and Greece it spells more jobs as industries and companies shift south in search of lower labour costs. Because each country has a different reason for focusing on the Community, each country, and in many cases each region within each country, has a different order of priorities and a different agenda for the evolution of Europe. The wider Europe shares in some or all of those expectations and aspirations.
  The diversity of expectation creates a political cauldron for those at the controls of the mechanical processes that will make it all happen. Every attempt to draft a piece of European legislation gets ensnared by crafty national interests committed both to unification and as much to individual national self-gratification as the other members will tolerate. That blending of national wills can be, and frequently is, so complex that the process is protracted to the point of absurdity, as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, has so frequently pointed out to the House.
  But if politicians and governments believe that exasperation with the mechanisms—as, for example, in Denmark currently —mean disenchantment with the vision, they run the risk of being left still further behind. The strength of the unification movement's organic nature protects the Community from instant death at the hands of an issue that has reached a political impasse. We saw that over the issue of the EMS and ERM; and we see it again now over the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty. Clearly there will be many such sticky issues, great and small, lying in ambush—some stickier than those that unification has had to deal with to date—but equally clearly the movement becomes more adept at sorting out such issues as the years go by and they do not smear the vision of the common focus.
  The third force that marks out this effort at unification compared with others is that all previous attempts have been as part of a plan for world domination. The Caesars, Napoleons and Hitlers all saw European unification as merely a step on the road to world conquest. Therefore not surprisingly all those previous attempts in the perception of the conquered nations seem to involve little more than seeing who will be the last to be gobbled up by the alligator.
  The European Community is different, for the movement is carried forward on the shoulders of the unemployed southern Europeans seeking jobs, the northern and central European managing directors looking for broader markets, and pan-European consumers wanting the highest quality goods for the lowest prices. Consequently the obstacles come from within rather than from without.
  It is ironic therefore that the buzz phrase coined by those who are without, in particular in America and Japan, is "Fortress Europe". The notion is fed assiduously by protectionists in both countries who see that in future a united Europe will break their duopolistic stranglehold on world trade. That is the real reason why such liberalising efforts as GATT are forever about to be derailed. The Japanese perception

  949
  of trade agreements, and to a lesser extent that of the Americans, is in effect to say, "Forget how we bashed you on our way to the top. Let us now learn to live as friends, with you staying where you are and where you belong—on the lower rungs of the ladder". Thanks, Mr. Honda, but no thanks.
  I believe that a broader Europe is the way to go. Already there are signs that national politicians are, I regret to say, lagging behind the reality. European business has already moved into the wider Europe. Many companies have subsidiaries in former East European countries. My own company has set up a joint venture operation in Eastern Europe. Naturally it is a long-term business, but I am happy to report that Magyar-Macmillan Publications will be in profit by the end of this year. My noble friend Lord Plumb has shown us that the European Parliament is already regarded as the focus of attention in that wider Europe.
  Even without the adherence of the former Eastern European bloc countries, the Community is a formidable economic force. It has often been proved, but it is worth repeating, that the economic force has no need to impact on national identity in order to achieve co-operatively a trade output greater than that of the United States and Japan combined. Unification may involve Eurobanks, Eurolaws and Eurocurrency, but it will not mean Eurosandwiches, Eurosausages, Eurohouses or Eurotelevision. A united Europe will not mean that noble Lords will be wearing their wristwatches over the cuffs of their shirts as their smart and fashionable counterparts do in Italy, but we shall probably all be wearing the same watches assembled on the same work bench somewhere in Geneva or Lucerne.
  It is therefore as a businessman that I applaud the Maastricht Treaty, not so much as a political ratification of the way forward but as an endorsement by European and national institutions of the decisions that have already been taken by the businesses and people of Europe. However, there is a warning implicit in the revolution to which I alluded earlier. While national governments argue about subsidiarity from Brussels centralism, the people are also taken with the notion. For them subsidiarity involves Paris, Rome or Whitehall.
  I trust that Her Majesty's Government are aware of that quiet revolution and will spend at least part of the next six months ensuring that the focus of Europe's gaze is raised occasionally from the sticky issues and is fixed on the dream that has been, and continues to be, the driving force behind that revolution.
  8.8 p.m.
  Lord Moran: My Lords, I must first apologise to the House that because of a longstanding commitment I cannot stay for the wind-up speech. We shall remember the debate for the notable speech delivered with such panache by the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher. The case that she made against the Maastricht Treaty was powerful. What worries me in particular is the tendency of politicians and officials to insulate themselves from what ordinary people are
  950
  thinking—a point on which the noble Lords, Lord Callaghan and Lord Cockfield, had some wise things to say.
  In reply to letters urging that the people of this country should be consulted before irrevocable steps are taken to relinquish our national sovereignty, the Foreign Office says in a lofty way that a referendum will not be offered. Ministers in this House and in another place have repeatedly dismissed the suggestion that there should be a referendum. Listening to them I am reminded of some words said long ago, not far from this place. They were these:
  "For the people, I desire their liberty and freedom as much as anybody whatever. But I must tell you that their liberty and freedom consists in having of government those laws by which their life and their goods may be most their own. It is not having a share in government; that is nothing pertaining to them. A subject and a sovereign are clean different things".
  That was said by Charles I on the scaffold in Whitehall.
  I believe that our present leaders should keep in mind that the people of this country are not illiterate peasants and have not as yet been asked what they think. Before taking a fundamental step that would lead to our submergence in a European state they ought to be absolutely certain that they have the broad support of their own people. They can have no such certainty at present.
  I am not sure that a referendum should necessarily be on the Maastricht Treaty itself. The real question that needs to be asked—that indeed must be asked —is: "Are you in favour of an ever-closer union in Europe, with common citizenship and a single currency leading in due course to a single European state, or do you prefer close co-operation between European countries, which would retain their national identities?". It is the single currency which is the key, as I have no doubt that that would lead inevitably to a single European entity.
  It is not easy to judge the real significance of what was agreed at Maastricht. Undoubtedly, and against all the odds, the Prime Minister secured valuable changes in the text, conducting a successful exercise in damage limitation. The reference to the Community's federal goal was dropped and subsidiarity was defined in Article 3b. But the general thrust of the treaty is still towards an integrated Europe, not merely in provisions for European citizenship and greater powers for the European Parliament and in some areas for the Commission, but above all in the timetable for the second and third stages of EMU with all that that implies.
  It is true that the Prime Minister secured the protocol providing that the United Kingdom need not move to the third stage without a separate decision, whereas other states are committed to do so. But does anyone think that at that stage it would be easy to resist the enormous pressure that there would be for us to come into line?
  British Ministers have argued that the tide turned at Maastricht against excessive centralisation and towards inter-governmental co-operation. On 29th June in another place the Prime Minister said that:
  "there are very few Conservative Members and, I suspect, very few—if any—hon. Members who want to see a centralised European Community and the nightmare prospect

  951
  proposed by some of a central European state. We do not want it … and it is an unreal prospect—the stuff of nightmares for a few people".—[Official Report, Commons, 29/6/92; col. 592.]
  Those are strong words but the inexorable progress towards stage three of EMU and the single currency is hardly consistent with what the Prime Minister then said.
  Indeed, after Maastricht President Mitterrand said that he was particularly pleased with the "irreversible" progress towards a single currency, which France favoured, while Chancellor Kohl, for his part, said:
  "We have made certain that German conceptions, German interests and German intentions were fulfilled with respect to economic and monetary union… The European Central Bank… will be constructed at the end of the century to correspond directly to German measurements… We are getting what we wanted… irreversible progress towards economic and political union".
  As was stated in The Times on 1st July, the Government's claim to have permanently reversed centralism, rather than to have checked its momentum, is questionable.
  The Lisbon meeting does not sound as though it was happy. It seems odd that we could not find anyone at all to succeed M. Delors on the expiry of his normal term and that we have had to agree to an extension of his mandate. Only two hours later we were, reportedly, again at loggerheads with him. Our partners were able to insist on the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty before any negotiations for enlargement, thus, most regrettably, putting a break on that process, while Spain. Portugal and the Republic of Ireland apparently continue to demand huge extra payments as the price of agreeing to progress. Meanwhile, the erosion of national competence, far from being checked, appears to continue as the Chancellor of the Exchequer's recent concession on minimum VAT rates, giving the Commission a say in our internal taxation policies, shows only too clearly.
  Nevertheless, the Danish vote now gives us the opportunity, as the holders of the presidency for the next six months with the Danish presidency to follow, to put things on a better footing. It is a pity that we have so far merely re-emphasised our adherence to a treaty, which for the present at any rate cannot be brought into force, instead of seizing a chance to establish a more acceptable form of European co-operation.
  But it is not too late. I believe that the Government do now recognise the strength of opinion in this country and elsewhere in favour of a looser arrangement and against the centralising vision of M. Delors. I hope that in the remaining months of this year we can really set the Community on a new and better course. The noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, suggested that we would try to do that. If the Government do so they will deserve and obtain the overwhelming support of the people of this country.
  8.15 p.m.
  The Earl of Bradford: My Lords, I wish to congratulate my noble friend Lady Thatcher on her entertaining, excellent and erudite maiden speech. We
  952
  look forward to hearing her future, more controversial contributions to debates in your Lordships' House. The contents of her speech echoed so many of my personal feelings as to render my own speech almost superfluous. However, it will differ in one respect; it will be considerably shorter.
  I am just old enough to remember the great enthusiasm for the cause of a united Europe that swept us on the tide into the Common Market and the joy of realising that we were not apart any longer. Sadly, the wonderful vision that we once had of a Europe that would work together to compete with the strongest economic nations or blocs in the world is rather different from the reality that we now face. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister will have a most tricky juggling act to perform, combined with an extremely difficult tightrope to walk, as Britain assumes the presidency of the Council of Ministers of the European Communities. We must all wish him well in the arduous six months ahead.
  At this time so many federations appear to be falling apart at the seams. Sometimes, as in the case of Yugoslavia, it is with extreme violence and cruelty. The USSR is now a disunion in disarray. Even Czechoslovakia is to split up into Czechs and Slovaks, which would seem to leave the poor "Os" in the middle and out of it completely. Instead we appear to be being dragged or shoved into an unnatural cultural alliance, which would appear sometimes to have the potential of pure disaster.
  The ideal of building a strong business-orientated economic Community is one of which, I am sure, most of the population of Britain has always been in favour. Within that we must of course reinforce the free trade area that has been at the heart of EC planning. However, many of the directives that are now coming out of Brussels appear to horrify and alienate the vast majority of people. Some of the directives appear to be aimed at the national institutions of this country and some appear to consist of extreme and unnecessary meddling in our affairs in a totally unacceptable manner. It is centralisation for the sake of it rather than for any actual need.
  The trouble is that we Britons tend to play by the rules that are set us, which are then enforced by the best bureaucrats in Europe who take a positive delight in every latest directive that appears from Brussels. However, is the rest of Europe playing by the same set of rules; and are those rules being enforced by the officials as strictly as they are here? Of course they are not.
  Any farmer in this country, who will now be all but forced to set aside 15 per cent. of his land on an annual basis, knows that in many areas of Europe set-aside will be impossible to police because of the lack of the necessary information. The situation in this country, however, will be relatively easy to control because we have a marvellous system of recording. As was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, and my noble friend Lord Mackay, every farmer who has been forced to dispose of his excess and often unexpected production of milk because conditions were better than anticipated, knows that many French and Italian farmers are not disposing of

  953
  their excess production because it tends to disappear mysteriously from one pocket and reappear somewhere else, sometimes in two other pockets.
  Many industries are finding that the supposed level playing field of competition within Europe is instead full of ridges and chasms. Hidden subsidies are distorting the position and ensuring that on many occasions we are trying to compete with our hands tied behind our backs, with our legs being swept from underneath us at the same time. For example, in William Cook of Sheffield we have one of the leading manufacturers of steel castings in Europe, a successful company formed from a rationalisation and integration of many separate smaller companies over the past 10 years. Despite the efficient production methods which William Cook employs, it finds great difficulty in competing with subsidised production from elsewhere within the Community. As a result, even when it succeeds in winning export business within Europe, it tends to be at the expense of profit margins. That same story is being repeated throughout British industry.
  My right honourable friend the Prime Minister's speech in Lisbon and his responses at Question Time in another place earlier this week give hope to all reasonable supporters of the economic Community that he understands that many leaders are pursuing a disastrous and diversive course by putting the wrong priorities first, priorities which will cause many people to think that perhaps the result of the Danish referendum was the right one. There must be hope that the Prime Minister will take an extremely tough stance and achieve changes in direction which will take us back to what people perceive as the original ideals of European union. If we can provide strong leadership to the Community over the next six months, perhaps we can concentrate on returning to the basic aims of economic strength for Europe and creating the ability to compete on equal terms with each other and with the best in the world.
  Sadly, if we continue to pursue the route of pettifogging, wasteful, bureaucratic muddling which is too high on the agenda of many leaders who should know better, then our federation will descend into the kind of chaos that we see elsewhere in the world.
  8.22 p.m.
  The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I had a forbear who was called Barbara Villiers and she was made the Countess of Castlemain for sexual services rendered to King Charles II. I rather regret that my noble friend Lady Thatcher did not take a "countess-ship" or an earldom for three reasons: first, it would have enabled us Earls to have a little more backbone put into us; secondly, it would have made the giving of a "countess-ship" respectable rather than not respectable; and, thirdly, we could possibly have made jokes about Lord Finchley and the duties of the wealthy man to provide employment for the artisans. She disappointed us in that respect but she did not disappoint us in her maiden speech. It also seems to me that she has taken to this House like a duck to water. She was non-controversial and spoke in the manner to which we are normally accustomed.
  954
  It is wishful thinking to say that World War III did not take place in Europe because of the European Community. The reason that it did not take place was because there was a large and potentially aggressive Russian army sitting on the banks of the Elbe and we were too frightened of that to squabble among ourselves.
  With the European Community we had what I hoped would be a proper common market. It seems to me that the Treaty of Maastricht has a lot in common with John Cleese's parrot: it is dead, deceased and passed away. I suggest to your Lordships that our Government thought to themselves, "Ah, the Continentals will be up to something. We shall say that we are right in the heart of Europe. We shall then alter the Treaty of Maastricht as much as we possibly can to our benefit". So far, those are good tactics and the Government did the maximum damage limitation that it was possible to do. Unfortunately that situation does not now exist. Perhaps I may be so bold as to say that it is extremely silly to plan for the Battle of the Somme when you are talking about the Battle of El Alamein. As I say, the Treaty of Maastricht is in the state of John Cleese's parrot. We should encourage the Government to take the maximum advantage of the good things in it and try to finesse some of the bad things out of it.
  Subsidiarity has been described by the President of the European Court as gobbledegook. I am not a lawyer but the President of the European Court is and he says that as regards subsidiarity the treaty is unenforceable. Therefore we must allow the Government the opportunity to beef up the subsidiarity clause so that it means something.
  I believe that with European events we have a tendency to say, "Yippee, we have a victory", when we really mean, "Oh drat, we have managed to do a damage limitation exercise". My noble friend Lady Chalker mentioned the great benefit to consumers of air traffic deregulation. There was an article in The Times which pointed out quite clearly that it is nothing of the sort. Any grade 2 French Civil Servant from L'Ecole Normale d'Administration could drive a coach and horses through it to the benefit of mercantilist French airlines.
  That applies also to the 48-hour week rule. My right honourable friend Mrs. Shephard has said that we have won a victory while conceding the substance of the matter. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that we have a victory on VAT regulations while conceding the substance of the matter. That is pure Alice in Wonderland. We must get the difficult, silly measures of the Community out of our hair.
  There was an excellent programme on Channel 4 yesterday which showed that ring fences around the European Community increase the price of word processors by 26 per cent. because there is anti-dumping legislation. That is a restraint on trade of which we complained to the Japanese. We cannot have it both ways.
  For example, there is a new directive which says that motor cars can only have spare parts made by the manufacturer concerned. That will put up the price of repairing motor cars. That programme on Channel 4

  955
  was quite excellent and I was faxed the script which is the basis of most of my speech. That programme showed that until now we have had a standard on teddy bears. In the toy directive there is now a universal standard on teddy bears. That means that we keep a high standard of teddy bears and we cannot import teddy bears from outside the European Community. We impose quotas on the third world for clothes, which is mad. What have we done? We have conceded the principle of taxing children's clothes because we have put a large duty on imported children's clothes in order to be protectionists. The European Community is in danger of being protectionist to the outside world.
  The European Community has produced someone called Mr. Bangemann who said—and I am afraid I rather agree with him from a taste point of view but from a theoretical point of view I think he is wrong —that we cannot have prawn cocktail flavoured crisps. Actually, I believe anybody who bans prawn cocktail flavoured crisps is a saint from my personal taste point of view, but that kind of legislation cannot be right.
  There is a standard on French letters (which I believe are also called condoms). The Italians complained that the size was too small but it does not matter. Surely, we should be allowed to sell French letters for either mice or elephants. If there is a market for French letters for mice or elephants there should not have to be a standard. It is that kind of thing which brings the European Community into disrepute and makes it unpopular. On the whole, it is a very good thing but we must not allow it to become unpopular.
  The point about the election was that everybody, both Labour and Conservative, said, "What a good idea Maastricht was". The argument produced by my noble friend Lord Mackay and my noble friends on the Front Bench was that that gave it democratic respectability. I say to my noble friend Lord Cockfield that up to a point it does. It gave it democratic respectability because nobody got up to say what a bad idea it was.
  Because of the Burkian principles that one is sent to Parliament to represent one's constituents by using one's mind as opposed to doing what one is told to do, I do not think that I could vote for a referendum. But we must be very careful not to ignore the fact that in this country and throughout the Community there is a growing irritation over a lot of the habits of the European Community. Perhaps the most important point raised by the Lisbon Summit was that it wanted to increase and get GATT right. I do not know whether your Lordships are aware of it but in 1914 Odessa was the greatest grain exporting port in the world. Growing corn is a fairly easy thing to do unless you are a communist Russian and make a mistake. It is very easy for the Russians to get it right. The moment the Russians get their corn-growing half right 40 million tonnes of corn will be taken off the export market. If they get it 100 per cent. right and go back to the days of the benign Tsar Nicholas II when the
  956
  Russians were great grain exporters, it will do something horrendous to world agricultural trade and trade as a whole.
  The European Community is not getting GATT right; it is not pushing for it. We have to get at the heart of the problem of agricultural subsidies which are the bane of everybody's life. I say that as a farmer who, if there is a trough, will place his face in it and slurp. I can still argue in your Lordships' House for the abolition of the trough. We have to get rid of the subsidies and remove the barriers outside the European Community. When we do that we will have peace and prosperity. The secret to peace and prosperity is light government, free trade and sound money. That is good, old-fashioned Manchester liberalism. I neither come from Manchester nor am I a Liberal, but I happen to believe that in that case they were right. That is the route down which the European Community should be going and the idea which my right honourable friend should be pushing as much as he can during his presidency of the European Commission. That is miles more important than some of the stuff that is in the dead, deceased and passed away parrot of this document.
  8.35 p.m.
  Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to my noble friend Lady Thatcher on her excellent maiden speech. If I may, I should like to offer a welcome from this House to a woman who gave such great distinction to the highest office in the land.
  As I have listened to some of the more negative contributions to this debate, I have been vividly reminded of my first encounter with the great scholar and teacher Gilbert Murray. He was speaking to a group of about 800 school sixth formers. Rising to his feet, he said with careful precision,
  "Alas, alas, the world is not what it used to be".
  He waited for the resigned sighs of the young as we anticipated having to listen patiently to yet one more of our elders telling us how much better the world had been when he was young. With perfect timing, he continued,
  "That, my young friends, is the inscription on the tomb of a Greek who died 3,000 years before Christ. It just goes to show that there is a very long history of the belief amongst the old that their yesterday was infinitely preferable to the tomorrow of the young".
  Alas, alas! we are now in danger I believe of trying to impose on the young generation of today our anxieties and fears about European unity, relying on instinctive feelings which derive more from our personal history than from political rationality.
  I am privileged in my job to be in daily contact with the present generation of young students, and I can tell this House that, without any doubt whatsoever, for the young people of today Europe is an idea whose time has come. It has awakened their imagination, given them a sense of a tomorrow which will be full of new ideas and promise and enlarged their horizons in a way they find exciting and challenging. This is a generation which travelled to Europe on family holidays from early childhood; who in their late teens put on their backpacks and climbed on the ferry and

  957
  wandered Europe freely, founding firm friendships with those of their generation from every country across the Community. This is a generation which has grown up believing that the boundaries of national states are infinitely permeable and who have never felt confined within the borders of the United Kingdom.
  The students in higher education today are participating in a system which has, thank goodness, been recognised by the European Community as occupying a central and strategic role in achieving social, economic and political cohesion. For the single European market to succeed higher education in all countries within the Community must produce a higher trained workforce, with graduates who are mobile and flexible and able to operate confidently in the countries of the Community.
  To meet this aim, the students of today are enabled through Community programmes like the appropriately named ERASMUS to follow a substantial proportion of their under-graduate or post-graduate studies in countries of the Community other than their own. Increasingly therefore they study in international communities of scholars in whatever country they find themselves. In my university, for example, students from every country of the Community can be found studying together perhaps on degrees which combine business studies with modern languages or architecture or hospital management. We are particularly proud to have been one of the first institutions to achieve co-operation with universities in other countries of the Community to produce graduates who are truly European engineers whose qualifications are recognised for full professional membership in several member states. Further work on the transfer of vocational and professional qualifications around the Community has already been accepted as one of the priorities in the field of education and training for the UK presidency. There is much still to be done, particularly in the field of membership of professional associations like that for chartered accountants, for instance. The Germans hate our loose use of the word "engineer".
  I therefore welcome very much those aspects of the Maastricht Treaty which give the European Commission a greater role in developing Community-wide high quality education. The Maastricht Treaty calls for more co-operation on education policy between member states and encourages the Community to supplement member state actions while,
  "respecting the responsibility of the member states for the content of teaching, the organisation of education systems and their cultural and linguistic diversity".
  Acting by qualified majority, the council will issue non-binding recommendations to encourage student, teacher and youth mobility and exchanges, distance learning and develop the European dimension in education. These are surely noble aims. We are recreating a community of scholars able to move freely across Europe, as did their ancestors in the days of Abelard or Erasmus. Knowledge and learning know no national frontiers, and I for one believe most passionately in the importance of young people experiencing the international and universal quality of knowledge and truth.
  958
  But the principle of subsidiarity, which some of us have acknowledged as the most significant and important step forward in the European Community and a triumph for the signatories of Maastricht, is perfectly exemplified in the treaty's provisions on education and training. Member states are by the treaty committed to achieving through concerted and Community-wide action the necessary elements of transparency, by which is meant the recognition of qualifications within the Community, trans-European networks for exchange of information and equal access to training in any member state. The goal of transparency can only be achieved by co-operation between all member states, and it is wholly proper that the Commission should play a leading role in its achievement. Nevertheless, much of what the Community has achieved in higher education has been by stimulating, through its central programmes, bilateral and transnational networks, which retain the initiative of individual institutions within member states, and which rely on encouragement and facilitation rather than compulsion.
  And yet the most important lesson we have all learnt is that the generation which has been educated within this framework sees its future as European and not national. The graduates of today expect to live and work throughout the European community, and they will have the skills, both linguistic and professional, to make that possible. For them, the issues of monetary and political union seem logical, if distant, outcomes of a process of Europeanisation which has been a part of their lives for as long as they can remember.
  On their behalf I salute and thank my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary for the work that they have accomplished within the Maastricht Treaty. I offer them my full support and good wishes for the period of the UK presidency. They have laid a framework for the future which the younger generation will seize and celebrate. It is to them and not to us that the future belongs.
  8.40 p.m.
  Baroness Elles: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to debate the British presidency. We all realise that it is an opportunity not for dramatic gestures but for carrying on British policy within the European Community context. It will enable the United Kingdom to control the agenda—an extremely charged agenda—in accordance with the list as spelt out by my noble friend Lady Chalker.
  The scene is widely different from the last period of British presidency in 1986. The map of Europe has changed fundamentally with German unification, communism overcome in Central and Eastern Europe and the cold war ended. That gives me an opportunity to pay a warm tribute to my noble friend the former Prime Minister Lady Thatcher for her major contribution to that change in the map of Europe. If anyone could claim to have achieved individually so much, it is my noble friend. It gives me the opportunity also warmly to congratulate her on her maiden speech in this House.

  959
  However, we are in a period of greater political instability than before, despite that change. That in its turn requires closer co-operation among our European partners in the one area of political stability and comparative economic progress compared to the rest of the world.
  In parenthesis it must be said that for older generations of Britons—in which I include myself though I am perhaps not quite as old as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby—it has been much harder to accept that close co-operation when many of us spent our youth contributing, in however modest and humble a way, to the defence of our nation and our country. I believe that it is a hang-up which we must learn to overcome in order to guarantee peace in the region, as we have had over the past 40 years, for the successive generations of young people.
  Thanks to a closer economic integration it is unimaginable that our 12 members states could ever go to war with each other again. We have the horrendous example of Yugoslavia on our frontiers which brings home to us and the young people of this part of Europe what a real war means. As I believe my noble friend Lady Thatcher said earlier, it is only two hours from London.
  The preservation of our democratic system is reflected in the way in which we must proceed to determine our future. As part of a group of institutions within the European Community the Government have, overall, the task of winning the argument; of making allies on a wide range of issues which affect us all, and of ensuring a majority or at least —if I may put it in Community terms—a blocking minority for the way in which we want to go together down the European Community road. It is a road that I hope we, the British, will guide and steer, but we cannot go it alone.
  Before each successive enlargement—a topic we shall be debating later this month so I shall not touch on it tonight —we observed radical changes in European policies. Before our entry in 1972, a new fisheries policy, among others, was embarked upon by the Community. In 1987 the Single European Act was introduced to handle the entry of Spain and Portugal. Now, before another enlargement, which I hope will come as soon as possible, we have the Maastricht Treaty.
  The Single European Act was a radical treaty leading to a shift of power in the institutions. I believe that when it was adopted it was perhaps not realised how much of a shift would take place. There was the combination of a qualified majority vote, particularly in matters concerning the internal market which covered around 280 pieces of legislation; the handing over to the Commission of greater powers under Article 155; the extension of competence in a number of policy areas to the Community without any bar to the level at which those competences should operate. I believe that that was one of the causes for the result of the referendum in Denmark.
  Although I consider myself to be a comparative Europhile, I found the Danish result extremely beneficial in that it made European leaders recognise
  960
  that it was time to take stock of the way in which European Community legislation was going. I do not say that I quarrel with most of it. It was the way in which it was being implemented and enforced that was becoming a burden to many people. Governments had perhaps not realised to what extent and how far down that road we had travelled. It is only when one is dealing with Community legislation, analysing what is happening, that one realises the effect of decisions being made in Brussels.
  The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, who is not in his place—would be surprised to hear that I agree with him with regard to VAT. In the United States there is a different basis of assessment as well as different rates of tax in all the member states and yet they have one of the most, if not the most, flourishing domestic economies in the world. It is not essential for an effective internal market to go as far down the road as we have. We must therefore be realistic and recognise some of the problems now facing us. From my point of view, I insist that that does not mean that we should renege on our undertaking to ratify the Maastricht Treaty, supported in another place on 21st May at Second Reading by 336 votes to 92 and, indeed, in this House by large majorities when the issue has been discussed.
  Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Baroness for giving way. I am unaware, and perhaps the noble Baroness can enlighten me, that a vote was taken in this House upon the Second Reading. My recollection is that no vote was taken. I was wondering how the noble Baroness thought that it received such an overwhelming assent.
  Baroness Elles: My Lords, perhaps I did not make myself clear. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. I said that there was a vote in another place on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. In May it received a majority vote of 336 to 92. We had a vote much earlier on an amendment tabled by the Opposition on the subject of Maastricht, but before the signing of the Treaty. It was in a general debate and not on the Bill. The Bill is in abeyance and has not come to this House.
  I believe that we should continue to support the work for ratification in line with the 10 other member states, subject to a successful result in the French referendum. Until we obtain that I do not believe that anybody is in a position to state what line we should take. However, I should like to comment on the Prime Minister's achievements during the treaty negotiations. They cannot be overlooked.
  I refer to a parliamentary decision made before moving on the framework of EMU; the setting of financial and economic criteria before—indeed, if it ever happens—the adoption of a single currency; the intergovernmental approach for a common foreign and security policy; the decision not to go down the road of European political co-operation which was leading towards a Community system. That is in itself a great achievement. There was an intergovernmental approach to migration and asylum which will no doubt present considerable problems in the future. That is one aspect for which I welcome the

  961
  establishment of Europol. That will be a useful institution to deal with the problems facing Western Europe such as crime, drugs and terrorism where we need the closest co-operation.
  In my view it would be unthinkable for a Prime Minister of this country to sign a treaty on behalf of the United Kingdom and then withdraw before ratification. I personally know of no precedent although I know that in this House there are many noble and distinguished historians who might prove me wrong. I know of no precedent in this country where a treaty has been signed and then reneged on at ratification. If other countries decide otherwise—
  The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, if a treaty is signed what is the point if it cannot be ratified?
  Baroness Elles: My noble friend brings up a very interesting point. A treaty may not be ratified by a certain country. The legal chronology of many countries is such that many treaties are signed and then ratified much later because they usually have to pass through the national parliaments. I am saying that I do not know of any example of an international treaty, imposing international obligations, being signed by a Prime Minister on behalf of this country and which has not been eventually ratified. There may be examples and I shall be very happy if someone were to prove me wrong. However, I know of none myself.
  I wish to continue with another aspect of the treaty which concerns subsidiarity. We are told that, largely because of Britain's insistence, the drafting of this clause to which the Prime Minister has said he will be paying the greatest attention, is in order to put a break on centralisation and supranational decision-making in areas where it is clear that they should be left to national governments or even regional or local authorities. This matter raises a particular problem. As drafted, subsidiarity will apply in certain circumstances but only,
  "In areas which do not fall within Community competence".
  Unless member states are prepared to add a protocol to the treaty or follow some other legal or constitutional line, the effect of this principle will not be so great a blessing for national governments as is sometimes believed. Areas of Community competence have been considerably extended since the original treaty of 1957 not only through the Single European Act and the Maastricht Treaty, if ratified. There will also be included the case law of the European Court of Justice. In my view it is not certain that in interpreting this clause the European court will be as helpful as people are claiming unless there is further consideration as to how this particular principle is to be applied.
  If my noble friend cannot reply on this point tonight I hope that he will take guidance and give us some information later. It is fundamental to whether the policy of subsidiarity can be implemented as it is said that it will be able to work for this country. At the moment, according to the way it is drafted, I do not believe that it will he as effective as it is meant to be.
  The allocation of areas of competence to the European Community has given carte blanche to the
  962
  Commission to propose legislation not only concerning major matters—that is to say, on the environment, such as pollutant emissions throughout the member states—but has enabled them, contested or not, to seek to control from Europe as a whole to Twyford Down in particular. That is the problem of competence in the area of Community affairs. It is a question not only of competence in subject matter, but in procedure which has been handed over to the Commission through the ever-increasing use of advisory committees formed with national civil servants but whose views can be overridden by the Commission when implementing common policies which have not been scrutinised as secondary legislation by any democratic process.
  There are two points apart from those which I have already mentioned which it is hoped that the Prime Minister will press regardless of ratification of the Maastricht Treaty. The first is to increase the protection of European citizens in a general sense—I refer to nationals of member states —by the establishment of an ombudsman on the lines of our Parliamentary Commissioner. That is particularly in order that complaints of maladministration by Community officials or the violation of rights by a Community act, can be scrutinised and, where necessary, remedied. I believe that that is a fundamental right of our nationals within the European Community. They should be protected far more than they have been so far.
  Secondly, I strongly believe that greater control of European Community expenditure can, if not achieved absolutely, be subject to far greater and more effective scrutiny by conceding greater investigative powers to the budgetary control committee of the European Parliament. It has already done excellent work in the past. It would also be in accordance with this House's report on fraud within the Community. Whether one likes the European Parliament or not, it is the only body which can monitor effectively expenditure throughout the 12 member states. It is for that reason that I believe that this particular committee should be given greater investigative powers and greater power over the Commission when controlling its expenditure. I believe that that is the only way in which it can be done in order to have some effect.
  In conclusion, I merely wish to add to what many other Members of this House have said. We all recognise that the tasks of the Prime Minister and the Government are formidable, but they are based on agreement between the member states. Britain's success will depend on maximum support for our Prime Minister. We wish him and his colleagues in Government success in these next six months on which the future of the European Community will depend.
  8.55 p.m.
  Lord O'Hagan: My Lords, we have today listened to a spectacular, memorable and witty maiden speech. Over 20 years ago I made mine. There was a debate on student unrest. I was a student. My contribution was a little shorter than we heard today. I hope that I learnt something from coming here. Indeed, I have

  963
  always regarded your Lordships' House as providing the best system of adult education available. I wish that it could be provided on a more general scale. Television is now doing so.
  In due course I became an elected member of the European Parliament. Since then I have represented the constituency of Devon, having fought three elections. I come to your Lordships' House all too infrequently since Devon is closer to the Continent than to London and my duties as an elected member lie there rather than here.
  We have heard a series of debates tonight. The theoretical title of the discussion—the Long Title, if one likes to call it such—has been the presidency. No doubt because I fully support Her Majesty's Government I have been put down on the list to speak last. Beneath the label there has been a series of other debates. We have had the beginning of a debate on whether we should be in the European Community at all from the noble Lords, Lord Stoddart, Lord Jay, and others. We have had the beginning of a debate about whether we should have another referendum. We have had a re-run of the old referendum debate. We have had a discussion about the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty. That is a very important subject and I hope that your Lordships will return to it in detail. I hope that all noble Lords who have spoken tonight will come to give their views on that occasion.
  It has been difficult to disentangle the different strands of the debate. As the last contributor apart from the speakers on the Front Benches I can say that your Lordships' House has a role to play in this country in helping the public to disentangle the various strands. The word "subsidiarity" is one which nearly all of us find hard to say. It is a key to the dilemma which we all have as democrats about the future of a highly complex international and supranational organisation.
  How do we make people understand it and feel that it belongs to them? How do we make it accountable and reassure everyone that it is not running away in the direction that my noble friend Lord Onslow indicated? I have one piece of advice to my noble friends on the Front Bench when they are seeking for a definition of subsidiarity and a method of applying it in practice when they attempt to translate it from a religious nostrum to a proposal for serious political judgment. Please read Lewis Carroll's the Hunting of the Snark. Noble Lords will remember that the intrepid party who started off in pursuit of one thing found it was another and what was found disappeared.
  It is essential for the future of democratic control and accountability within the European Community that accountability in the form of subsidiarity is a snark and not a boojum. It should not be something that sounds good but which in practice disappears. I believe that the Government have a duty to the country to inform the citizens of our democracy what it is that they are now asking us to endorse—not through a referendum, I hope, because I support those who oppose a referendum. But because of the intricate detail involved in the cross-reference between the
  964
  original treaty, the Single European Act and the current draft treaty, it is very difficult for Members of the European Parliament—let alone members of the public—precisely to discern to what we are being asked to assent.
  Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, may I press the noble Lord on that point? Will he inform the House, first, whether he regards Article 3b of the Maastricht Treaty as an intelligible proposition, and, secondly, whether he is prepared to endorse it?
  Lord O'Hagan: My Lords, I have Article 3b here. As far as I understand it, I endorse it. My intelligence is not sufficient to satisfy me that I would have the ultimate judgment, but if my noble friend and sparring partner were to continue this discussion in a friendly hostelry nearby afterwards, I am sure that we could reach a satisfactory outcome.
  The point that I was trying to make is the one that he has brought to the attention of the House. It is essential that international lawyers' language is translated into the language of the people and that the vocabulary of Berlaymont be translated into the vocabulary of the individual electors in the United Kingdom and in all the other member states of the European Community. I do not think that there is any difference between the noble Lord and myself in this respect. If the average member of the public is asked to interpret the normal pieces of domestic legislation which this House deals with every day, there might be differences of opinion about precisely what each clause means. The referendum campaign in this House has started—
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, but having translated the treaty into language that ordinary people can understand, how then are ordinary people to make their views known? Are we to have another general election if we do not have a referendum?
  Lord O'Hagan: My Lords, I can tell the noble Lord that in my constituency we are having a two-hour "Any Questions" session before the annual general meeting so that the MEP can be asked the sort of question that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, has just asked and can endeavour to give an answer. What I think is necessary is that all those who believe in democracy and the European Community should organise public meetings and hold discussions so that the individual citizen is well aware of what his or her representative is doing on his or her behalf in the Parliament to which that representative happens to belong. Perhaps the noble Lord can join the party elsewhere later—I do not want this private discussion to hold up the proceedings of the House.
  This is a very important issue. Whether or not this draft treaty is ratified; whether or not there is an adequate definition of subsidiarity and whether or not the European Community continues in its present form, there must be a diminution of the gap in understanding between those who are governed and those who take the decisions in the European Community. This is the lesson that the Danes have taught us and I am very grateful to them.

  965
  I should like to conclude by talking about the Social Chapter and to refer to the remarks of the former Commissioner who sits on the Opposition Front Bench. The Social Chapter is used as a nostrum by members of the British Labour Party—as an escape route from daring to say that they are opposed to the Treaty of Maastricht. The social "opt-out", as it is called, as achieved by the present British Prime Minister, does not do what the noble Lord alleged.
  In Denmark there is a system for deciding employment legislation which bypasses the national parliament. The Danes are and were jealous of the intrusion of Brussels into this system by a bipartisan system—what we tend to call "corporatism"—for dealing with such issues. They do not want Brussels to interfere with it. Therefore, far from it being what the noble Lord suggested, it is the opposite—the Danes wish their present system to continue because they feel that it works very well. Contained within the Social Chapter is a replication of a version of the Danish system for the European Community where the employers' representatives and the trade union representatives sit down together and legislate. They bypass the national parliament and they bypass the European Parliament—and that is why all the British Labour Members of the European Parliament are opposed to the Social Chapter. It undermines the democratic rights of British citizens—and it undermines the power of the European Parliament to use its legislative force on social issues.
  I do not wish to inject a note of House of Commons style party debate into this House, but it is extremely important to underline the fact that debate about the Social Chapter in this country has not progressed very far. The Opposition are still using it in a bogus way to obscure the difficulties that their own Members of the European Parliament have in supporting this measure. I repeat that the British Labour Members of the European Parliament are opposed to that element of the Social Chapter which undermines both the national Parliament and the European Parliament when it comes to dealing with employment legislation. If noble Lords opposite would like the names of those Members if they do not know them, I shall be happy to provide them afterwards.
  This is an important debate. We have not taken any decisions today so far and perhaps we will not do so later on, but it is symbolic of the way in which we do things in this country. As I said genuinely before, when I became a Member of your Lordships' House, this was my place of education. The detail into which we have gone as a country in the run-up to Maastricht is a tribute to our way of looking at highly complex international and political issues. We were the only country that had a national debate before the treaty discussions. It went on so much that some people thought that it was another general election. So when noble Lords, such as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, say that we should have a referendum because the Treaty of Maastricht was not discussed at the general election, I say, "Maybe, maybe, but we had the most terrific discussion before the general election and the most thorough debate in both Houses of Parliament".
  966
  I conclude by saying that I welcome the courage, determination, sense of humour and tenacity of the Prime Minister in pushing forward on this issue. I hope that we can all support him—all of us. I hope that in future debates all those who have participated in today's discussion will be able to take the argument further.
  9.7 p.m.
  Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, and it is a particular pleasure tonight to follow such an extremely interesting and well-informed contribution to our long debate today on this extremely important issue. I shall leave it to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, to deal with the very pertinent argument which the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, produced at the end of his speech in regard to the nature of the social chapter and its consequences and implications.
  It has been a characteristically good debate. We have had contributions from two former Prime Ministers, and one maiden speech which all of us will remember with pleasure. We have also heard from one former President of the Commission, from two former Commissioners and I think from five MEPs or former MEPs. Therefore, during the course of our discussions, there has been a wealth of first-hand experience on how the European Community and its institutions work from people who have actually operated them and been in touch with them. We also had a notable contribution from, as it were, the other side to that on which I stand. The noble Lord, Lord Jay, asked the fundamental question in the whole debate which has to be answered and which, after all, has been going on in this country for 30 years: for what end, for what purpose was the whole Community created and how have we arrived, inspired by that purpose, at where we are today and at the decisions which we will be taking in the next few months as a consequence of the Maastrict Treaty?
  The noble Lord recounted to us a conversation that he had had with M. Monnet who said that the inspiration which lay behind the idea was to prevent another European civil war. He later raised the ghost —or whatever one wants to call it—of the German menace. Of course, the second object of the whole idea was so to integrate Germany within a European Community that it could, so to speak, never be unscrambled; therefore, to use the power of that great country—which had, let us face it, been misused in the past—for the benefit of the whole of Western Europe. That was a noble idea and one in which I still believe.
  The second idea which lay behind the creation of the Community was thereby to underpin democracy. The events of the past few years seem wholly to have justified that ambition. It seems to me that it has succeeded. The idea embodied in the Community of the pacification of European conflict has been a magnet, as those of us who have been there all know, to Central and Eastern Europe. They are interested not so much in the economic benefits—although they are interested in them—as in the idea of political integration. We should always remember that. We are reminded of the urgency and the need today of that

  967
  same formula by the outbreak of nationalism and war where individual nationalities have not been brought under the control of something like the Community.
  Therefore, I start from a very different end of the spectrum from the noble Lord, Lord Jay. The noble Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, both raised a point which is often mentioned and which I believe must be recognised. They raised the question of whether, by trying to develop a common European defence and foreign policy, we were encouraging the break-up of NATO and the transatlantic European relationship. In answer, I simply say that that should be the last object of any constructive European policy.
  Nonetheless, let us recognise the fact that there are movements in America today which may lead, and are leading, first, to a very considerable and perfectly reasonable diminution of American troops in Europe; but, more than that, to the possibility of the recrudescence of some kind of isolationism. We should do nothing to encourage that. However, in prudence, I think that we should take steps to ensure that, if that were to occur, we have a defence and foreign policy commitment which we have organised to substitute in its place. That is not an encouragement. I am not saying that it is a good thing. Moreover, if there is one aspect of British policy which has irritated the Americans over the past 40 years, it has been our coolness towards Europe.
  The Americans have always pushed us to have closer relations with the Community historically. Therefore there is no antithesis between what I am saying and a close and continuing alliance between Europe and indeed the United States, which has contributed so enormously to the peace of the world since the end of the war up until the Gulf war and today.
  Therefore, as I said, I start from a very different position from that of the noble Lord, Lord Jay. I am now referring to notes that I read some time ago. I do so, because I believe that we must return to the beginning. When we joined the Community, it seems to me that it was very difficult for anyone who read the Treaty of Rome to believe that it did not in fact involve a de facto loss of sovereignty.
  When the Single European Act was passed and majority voting extended, the so-called federal element in the amended Treaty of Rome was there for anyone to see who cared to read the terms bf the Act. When we talk about the need for subsidiarity—I shall return to that crucial subject—we are using language which avoids the dread word "federal" but which is about the division of powers between the centre and the nations. That of course is the heart of federalism. Federalism is about the division of powers between the centre and the nations or the parts. That all seems to me to be self-evident, just as it is obvious to me that in such a situation the powers of national parliaments must be diminished. I say that merely because we go on pretending that that is in some way avoidable. It is not. Those who are surprised by it now cannot have read the words of the treaty to which we put our names.
  968
  The noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, set out the full and testing agenda which faces the British presidency. To return to the main theme of the debate, although we on these Benches have criticised the Treaty of Maastricht and think that there are things about it which we do not like and things which should be extended, we are in no doubt that it should be ratified and then built upon. Those who oppose ratification have not counted the cost of following the course that they advocate—the fate of this country, its influence in the world or its ability to control its own destiny unless we are at the heart of Europe.
  We also believe that the access of the EFTAns—as they have come to be known—to the Community will not merely add to its economic strength, which is important, but will also reinforce and strength the forces of democracy within the Community. When however we come to further enlargement we are talking about something very different. Of course it is desirable that the countries of Central Europe (Poland, Hungary, Czechland, I suppose we have to call it now, and Slovakia) should be brought within the Community as soon as it is possible for them to meet the conditions necessary for them to survive within the Community. But it will be costly. It will cost money. Those who advocate enlargement beyond that have not counted the cost or told us who will pay the bill.
  I was astonished when the noble Lord, Lord Jay, advocated at one and the same time an extensive enlargement of the Community and no increase in the budget. The two are incompatible. I have said that the access of those countries is desirable. It is also much more difficult than it appeared to be six months ago. One of the matters that has become apparent is that, whereas we thought that the problems of economic reform were generally recognised, we have found that political reform is much more difficult to put into practice.
  Enlargement gives rise to serious financial questions and will demand substantial financial input from all the countries of the West if it is to be successful. A second consequence of enlargement is institutional. That is one of the issues that the Government are reluctant to face. To continue with the existing institutional arrangements, which were devised for six countries on a largely consensual basis when voting hardly ever happened and which have become difficult with 12, will produce a complete deadlock if we extend to 17 or 20. The reform of the Community's institutional arrangements, if it is to be enlarged, must be considered now and considered carefully.
  The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, the noble Lord says that the institutional arrangements must be reformed, and I agree with him. But does he agree that it is not sensible to put on top another layer called Maastricht, which will have to be reformed in 10 minutes' time?
  Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I believe that Maastricht makes it essential to reform those institutions. That is all I am saying. Enlargement is essential and the developments that Maastricht

  969
  proposes are desirable; and that carries with it the need for institutional reform, but they do not seem to me to be incompatible.
  I hope that the result of the Danish referendum will concentrate the minds of the Government and other people on these matters. I came to the conclusion that we should learn three lessons from the result of the Danish referendum. The first was that the work of the Community must be more open and democratic. Secondly, it is essential, as many noble Lords have already said, that the meaning of "subsidiarity" should be made intelligible to the ordinary citizen. Thirdly, whatever it means should be put into practice. To me, although the Government cannot admit it because it would mean using the terrible word "federal", "subsidiarity" is in principle a federal practice. It concerns how we divide powers between the centre and the nations. I do not see why this definition is unacceptable. I notice the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, shaking her head. Subsidiarity lays down what should be exercised at the lower level and what at the centre.
  Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for giving way. On the assumption that he is correct in what he says about the implications of subsidiarity, will he say whether in his view Article 3b of the Maastricht Treaty is intelligible to him? If it is, does he agree with it?
  Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a grave assumption that I am right. I am flattered. I am interpreting Article 3b now, so the answer lies in what I am saying. The noble Baroness appears to have doubts as to whether I am right that "subsidiarity" means how we divide power between the centre and the nations. That is how I interpret it and it seems a reasonable interpretation of Article 3b.
  I do not understand why this is such an awful idea or why this country is frightened to use the word "federal". We have set up more federal constitutions all over the world than any other country. There is nothing frightful about it. We ought to understand it. Subsidiarity is simply a word for describing how we divide power.
  Moreover, directly there is majority voting we move in a federal direction. There can be no doubt about it. Immediately we allow that the minimum terms are settled in Brussels as opposed to being decided here, we are moving in a federal direction. It would be much better if we accepted this and took it seriously.
  With the federal convention of 1787 in Philadelphia there were discussions on this and how the power should be divided between the federal government and the states. That is what we should discuss here. If we deny the need for institutional reform and the fact that there is a quasi-federal constitution, it is difficult to engage in constructive debate.
  I must bring my comments to an end, but if we consider the institutions and the need for more open government as well as for more democracy, the institution we should look at is neither the Commission nor the Parliament but the Council of Ministers. Its members are the people who legislate.
  970
  They are responsible for much of the interference of which people complain and which is ascribed to the Commission. The Council of Ministers meets in private, its discussions are in private and we are never allowed to know how our representative voted.
  My view is that when the Council of Ministers meets in its legislative mode it should be in public and we should know how our representative votes. It seems to me extraordinary that we have not insisted on that reform here in Parliament at Westminster.
  At the beginning I argued that the opponents of Maastricht had not spelt out an alternative. They should do so if they are serious about what they say. The time has come—I am glad it has—when the Government and the Prime Minister should be slightly more open in their support of the Community and abandon Commission-bashing. Like my noble friend Lord Jenkins, I was glad to see the Prime Minister on 29th June engaged in a forthright defence of the Commission and its work. We should remember the origins of the European Community, the extent to which it fulfils them, the danger of abandoning them and the need today for an area of stability in a world which is full of conflict, nationalism and war.
  9.25 p.m.
  Lord Peston: My Lords, this has been a most interesting debate, if occasionally rather an eccentric one. I was particularly intrigued by the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, on the threat that the Community poses to the future of the Spanish nobility. I hope he will forgive me if I do not pursue that matter this evening but I am sure we shall return to it on some future occasion.
  I must say immediately that as Members of a rather anomalous House, albeit one I am devoted to, we have a special duty to safeguard parliamentary democracy and to protect the constitutional interests of our people. In that connection I find it rather paradoxical —I shall say more on this matter—that many of those who proclaim most strongly the sovereignty of Parliament and talk of the threat to that sovereignty posed by the Maastricht Treaty are also advocates of a referendum. I am a supporter of Maastricht. I do not regard it as a perfect treaty. In my judgment many of the so-called opt-out clauses will turn out to be to Great Britain's disadvantage.
  Our attitude to European monetary union, as was forecast at the time, has almost certainly prevented London from being the location for the European Central Bank. More generally we remain without reliable allies while the Franco-German partnership gets stronger. But having said that, I would rather have the treaty than have no treaty. In this connection I must say to the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, that his attack on my noble friend Lord Richard was nonsense. That is the nicest thing I can say about the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, although I shall say more about that in a moment.
  The Labour Party has consistently opposed the opt-out from the social chapter and has not wavered from that position at all. Wearing my professorial hat, I should say to the noble Lord, as he claims to have been educated in this House, that he has obviously

  971
  failed the course. Nonetheless I do not believe that the people of this country have been properly consulted. They do not know what the treaty means, especially as regards sovereignty. Whether we say that the treaty diminishes sovereignty, or changes the way sovereignty is exercised, sovereignty lies at the centre of the treaty. An example of this has been emphasised by my noble friends. With EMU we can no longer pursue our own monetary policy and we are subject to significant fiscal constraints. I may favour that but my concern is whether the average voter knows at all what is involved in that. As my noble friend Lord Callaghan said in his important contribution, we are discussing a momentous decision. There is a need for a full debate and it is absurd to say that this matter was decided at the time of the general election in April.
  Normally I agree with most of the speeches that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, makes. I agree with many of the things he says. However, I believe that on that matter he is mistaken. I was fully involved in the election; as the noble Earl reminded me, I was on the losing side. The subject hardly came up, let alone was debated. The parties were united, in the sense that they did not want a debate on the subject.
  Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Despite continuous efforts on the part of the Liberal Democrats to have the subject debated, it was consistently not debated, either in the press or by the Labour or Conservative Parties.
  Lord Peston: My Lords, that is precisely my point. I am not engaged in an explanation for that; I am simply saying that I do not believe that the subject was debated. The noble Lord has confirmed that.
  In that connection, as she made precisely the same point so effectively in her fascinating speech, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher. She- is entirely right. The matter has to be rectified. I shall not embarrass the noble Baroness by emphasising the many other parts of her speech with which I agreed. After all, I have no wish to undermine her position or to hold back her political career!
  There is another matter which concerns me. As has again been mentioned this evening, the Sunday papers have said that Mr. Major intends to make this an issue of confidence within his own party. I believe that such a hysterical response to serious criticism would be unworthy of him. However. I do not believe that that is his view.
  In my contribution to the debate on the gracious Speech I asked the noble Lord the Leader of the House, Lord Wakeham, who is now in his seat, whether the Government proposed to publish an exegesis of the treaty so that the public could understand it. I received no reply. I ask the question yet again. After all, I am an alleged expert and there are large parts of the treaty, not excluding but not confined to Article 3b, which I find difficult to the point of total obscurity. The Government must let the public know what the treaty is all about and then persuade them that it is a good thing.
  972
  Thus, although I am not yet finally convinced, I am increasingly coming round to the view that a referendum is worth taking seriously. I do not like the concept much as a general principle but it might be relevant in this case, as my noble friend Lord Callaghan said.
  However, perhaps we are all wasting our time. As has been confirmed by the noble Lord the Leader of the House when repeating the Statement on the Lisbon Conference, the Maastricht Treaty requires amendments to the Treaty of Rome. That requires unanimity. There is no shadow of doubt about that.
  On that theme I now turn to the Danes. What a great nation! I salute their most recent triumph, by which I mean, of course, the 2–0 defeat of the Germans. That was the one bright spot in a dreadfully dull European nations championship. It certainly put into perspective England's dismal performance, the worst of the eight nations in the tournament—worse even than Scotland, who managed to win a match.
  To revert to minor matters, the Danes have rejected Maastricht and now, as I understand it, the treaty cannot become law. There is no question about that. I read in the newspapers that the rest of the Community intend to pressurise the Danes and even to expel them. My only response to that is, so much for Community democracy. However, again, I do not believe that that will happen. I hope that our country will never be a party to such action if for no other reason than, as the noble Baroness pointed out, our own self-protection in the future.
  I think that I was reassured by what the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, said in her opening remarks on that theme. I hope that we continue to say that we shall not put pressure on the Danes. However, we then have to recognise the consequence—that the treaty is dead. There is no way round that.
  That is not a technical matter. It follows that there must be changes, and the Danes have made it clear where those changes must be; namely, in the area of subsidiarity. That points us in the direction that we have to consider.
  With regard to subsidiarity we are discussing a form of words but that does not make the matter less important. The formulation that I like is the negative one: the Community should not do what the individual nations could do. That is the way I prefer to put it. The burden of proof should be on the Community to demonstrate that it can do something useful; it should not be the other way round. The presumption should be for the Community not to do things rather than the other way round.
  That still gives the Community plenty to do. EMU, which I support, ex definizione, must be a Community matter. Therefore so will monetary policy be a Community matter; and so, though perhaps one or two of my noble friends do not like it, must be the monitoring of fiscal policy. There is plenty for the Community to do.
  Again I find myself for the second time very regretfully disagreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. Overwhelmingly it seems that spillovers in

  973
  environmental terms between member states—environmental policy—must have a very strong Community dimension. We simply disagree, but I thought that I ought to make the point.
  I have a difficulty with subsidiarity and my approach to it which is a major difficulty. There is a problem common to commissioners—I also remember it from far distant days when I was an adviser to government—which is also common to Secretaries of State; namely, they hate a clean desk and hate an empty in-tray. They want to do things because they want to build a reputation. Incidentally, that is why, quite independent of ideology, it is so difficult to control, let alone cut down, public expenditure. What do Ministers do if they cannot spend? That also applies to commissioners.
  The purpose of a strong presumption in favour of subsidiarity, decentralisation and the nation state is to limit the ambitions of the Commission. But having said that, I become enormously pessimistic when it comes to having any success. Another remark on subsidiarity is a rather theoretical one, but again the matter is not unimportant: bringing in the level playing field argument. Taken too literally and simply it leads to a conclusion of total uniformity in the Community. Almost any deviation from the norm in any field could be interpreted as a distortion of competition. Just as social affairs impinge on economic performance, the level playing field argument could lead to the conclusion that social policy should be the same in all countries. I for one find that quite unacceptable. Apart from anything else, it puts in a straitjacket any nation which wishes to move ahead more rapidly than the others.
  Similarly, although we can all learn from each other, to impose common education and training policies, for example, would be preposterous. But again that could easily be justified on the ground of the level playing field. That is why we must be careful of that argument.
  That brings me to another point which I particularly wish to emphasise to my own colleagues but which is no doubt of interest to noble Lords opposite also. Just because we agree with a directive —this directive rather than that one—it does not mean that the directive is appropriate. In other words, our approach to policy and choosing what ought to be done should be based on a matter of principle rather than saying, "I like this one, so I shall not raise the subsidiarity question; but I do not like that one and therefore the Community should not be in that field". We need general principles of where the Community should operate.
  I am in favour of enlargement but I have to make an economist's point which will not appeal to many noble Lords, especially the more idealistic among us. It is not unconnected with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. In considering enlargement, with regard to new members we ought at least initially to be interested in those states with a GDP per capita above the Community average, if for no other reason than that it will help to carry the burden of redistributing some amount of income to the poorer
  974
  nations. In other words, enlargement, particularly enlargement involving the poorer countries, can only be had at a price.
  More generally on the question of enlargement, although I favour it, I believe that there are so many difficulties which are so difficult that I counsel taking our time. I am keen to admit new members as quickly as possible, but I do not wish to take risks with the very viability of the Community.
  It is late but I must comment on one remark in the contribution by my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon. As he knows, I do not care for controversy at any time, and certainly not tonight; I am keen to get home to supper. However, he said that German reunification is completely wrecking the British economy. I have to say to him that I thought that it was the present Conservative Government who were completely wrecking the British economy and were continuing to do so. It is a proposition that I shall demonstrate more fully in your Lordships' debate on the Finance Bill during the week after next. I have no intention of allowing the Government off the hook by blaming the Germans.
  I conclude with the theme that has been emphasised by so many noble Lords of all opinions and of all political persuasions; namely, the centrality of the Treaty of Maastricht. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, was wrong to state in her opening remarks that the treaty will not and should not dominate the six months of our presidency. Quite the contrary; I believe that it should and will. I say with great regret that for three months of that presidency your Lordships and Members of another place are being sent away. We shall not therefore he able to take part in that debate. Perhaps that is what the Foreign Office hopes: that we shall not be able to take part for three months. However, I assure noble Lords that we shall get our strengths back and in three months' time we shall simply double our efforts.
  The Treaty of Maastricht implies vast changes for our country. If we proceed down that path, there can be no turning back. I reiterate this. I favour the treaty. But, more importantly, I want the people of our country to know and understand where we propose to go. If the Government are reluctant to inform the people and to persuade them of the validity of what they propose to do, your Lordships have the responsibility, and I believe the ability, to cause the Government to change their minds.
  9.42 p.m.
  The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we have had a most interesting and stimulating debate this evening and I am grateful to noble Lords who took part. Not only are the Government committed to keeping Britain at the heart of the Community, but it is also clear that debate as to the future of the Community is now at the heart of our national life.
  We have been very privileged today to hear the maiden speech of my noble friend Lady Thatcher. She said that the House had a wealth of experience. What is absolutely unquestioned is that my noble friend's presence not only enhances this House but adds to its wealth of experience. Through her vision, principles

  975
  and determination, the self-confidence and esteem in which Britain has been held has returned. It is from that refurbished base that our presidency gives us the ideal opportunity to lead the Community at a time when we face great challenges and great opportunities.
  It has been said that it is better to plan for the future rather than the present because there is so much more of it. My noble friend Lady Perry's wise words reminded us that it is the youth of today—your Lordships' children, grandchildren and great grandchildren—whose futures we are planning. The Maastricht Treaty has provoked vigorous debate throughout the Community. In this country of course we debated the treaty before it was signed. In the light of that debate we argued vigorously for British interests and we won considerable victories. That is why we signed the treaty, fully committed to its ratification.
  At the start of the debate the noble Lord, Lord Richard, asked for a clear indication of how the British presidency intends to handle the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty and when the Government intend to continue with the progress of the Maastricht legislation through Parliament. I can only refer the noble Lord to what my noble friend Lady Chalker said at the beginning. Perhaps it would be wrong to repeat it.
  I wish to take one moment to mention another subject which caused much comment in your Lordships' House today. It is the question of the referendum. The more that I listened to what was being said, the more I wondered what will happen and how events will prove the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, to have been right in 1970. It was said that after the right honourable gentleman, the then Member for Bristol South-East and now the Member for Chesterfield, Mr. Benn, put the idea of a referendum on Europe to Labour's National Executive at the end of 1970, the noble Lord referred to a referendum as "a rubber life raft into which the whole party one day may have to climb". It was interesting to notice that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is swimming hard to try to catch up with that life raft—
  Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, I was thinking that, although it does not matter a great deal whether an Opposition is divided, it is comfortable to have a life raft available if you are a government which are divided.
  The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there is much in the treaty which we can welcome. As spokesman for the Treasury, perhaps I may begin with one of the financial aspects which to many is the most important. The treaty encourages all member states to pursue stable exchange rates, low inflation and sound public finances. We welcome those principles and we are determined to follow them. We welcome their adoption by all our Community partners.
  The treaty also turns the principle of subsidiarity into Community law. Much attention has been paid in the debate to the principle of subsidiarity. I agree with my noble friend Lord O'Hagan that it is a dreadful
  976
  word but the Community is not noted for its plain English. That should not detract from its importance, nor from the beneficial effects that the principle will have when it is put into practice. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, for recalling his earlier words in the 1977 Monnet lecture. He had apparently discovered the principle of subsidiarity long before the rest of us. His definition then captured precisely the sense of the principle in practice.
  The principle, as set out in Article 3b of the Maastricht Treaty, places a clear obligation on all Community institutions both to avoid over-regulation and excessive detail and, in areas outside exclusive Community competence, to refrain from all Community action where the objectives can be achieved by member states acting alone. My noble friend Lady Thatcher suggested that subsidiarity was in any event a false concept since it should be the member states giving powers to the Community and not the Community handing them back to the member states. I entirely agree with that proposition. That is why the Government negotiated hard and successfully for the definition in the treaty. That shows a clear presumption in favour of action by the member states and the onus of proof otherwise falls on the Community.
  Perhaps I may answer two points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Bruce of Donington and Lord Peston. They made play of the treaty's Article 3b. There is no mystery; the article achieves two objectives. In areas outside exclusive Community competence—that is, in areas such as the environment, health, education, social policy and so forth —the Commission will have to prove that the objectives of any proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the member state acting separately. In all areas any action by the Community, whether within exclusive competence or areas of mixed competence, must not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives set out in the treaty. That will help to limit over-regulation in all areas.
  My noble friend Lady Elles raised the issue of implementation and I hope that I can put her mind at rest. The Lisbon European Council gave a clear remit to the Commission and to the Council of Ministers to undertake the urgent work of putting the principle of subsidiarity into practice. That is a measure which the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, wants.
  There will also be a review of existing legislation to see that it also passes that test. We shall expedite that work in the coming months in order to prepare for a further report to the Edinburgh European Council. Subsidiarity is now firmly on the Community agenda. The tide of centralism in the Community has turned. We must make sure that it now continues to flow in its new direction.
  Although many of your Lordships concentrated on the treaty, there is much else on which we must make progress during the presidency. Your Lordships will know that 1992 is the year of the single market with its great opportunities for British business. It is sad that my noble friend Lord Cockfield, quite understandably, is not able to stay with us to the end of the debate. However, it is good to see his work coming to

  977
  fruition. It is appropriate that having launched the single market, it falls to us to see it into practical reality. However, we have much to do to ensure that those measures which are essential to its completion are now agreed.
  For example, at the latest meeting of the finance council we scored some notable victories. Agreement was reached on two directives. The capital adequacy and investment services directive will offer considerable opportunities for our financial service industries. At the same time, we made clear that we are not prepared to reach agreement at Britain's expense. We shall not accept measures which damage our drinks industries, and we shall not let bureaucracy destroy our thriving art market. I agree with my noble friend Lord Selsdon that we want a single market of truly free trade and not endless regulations which destroy our exports and drive away business.
  I now turn to transport, an area of which I have some knowledge. I am surprised that my noble friend Lord Onslow believes everything that he reads in the newspapers. Perhaps I may suggest to him that his time would have been better spent reading the letters page where he would have found a letter from my right honourable friend John MacGregor pointing out to the editor of The Times how inaccurate was the article to which my noble friend referred.
  On the maritime cabotage dossier it was a slightly different story. I remember starting negotiations on that dossier some seven years ago when I was the Minister with responsibility for shipping. At the end of considerable negotiations in which we have eventually achieved a liberal market but some years hence, it is ironic that the Dutch, the Danes and ourselves are the three countries which voted against the final package because it is not liberal enough soon enough.
  My noble friend Lord Bradford raised an important matter when he said that agreement of any measure is not the end of the story; enforcement is important. He was right to draw that to your Lordships' attention. Britain has played a leading role in ensuring that enforcement is carried out throughout the Community. The noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, will be pleased to hear that we intend to continue in that prime role.
  My noble friend Lord Bradford mentioned also what I believe to be one of the greatest threats to the proper working of the single market—that is, state aid and subsidies. That is why the whole question of state aids in transport is to be the subject of discussion at the informal transport council meeting of Ministers in two weeks' time.
  We must remember that the Community does not live in a vacuum. In the shadow of Maastricht and almost forgotten by the media is another treaty agreed this year. That treaty will extend our single market to all the countries of EFTA, many of whom are already knocking at the door seeking membership of the Community.
  Enlargement of the Community has long been a central feature of our presidency objectives. An insular Community can never be successful. Unusually the noble Lord, Lord Richard, was
  978
  factually inaccurate when he commented about the remit from the Lisbon European Council. That did permit us to begin preparations for EFTA enlargement, and our partners clearly share that view. I assure my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish that the British presidency will continue to take that work seriously. I was pleased in particular that my noble friend mentioned the northern countries where there is affinity with northern parts of this country, particularly Scotland.
  However, the Community must also look further ahead. My noble friend Lord Bessborough will be among the first to agree that a Europe of 12 countries is only half a Europe. It should he open to all applicants who are able to satisfy the responsibilities of membership. I know that that is a matter which will be welcomed by my noble friend Lady Elles.
  The next wave of enlargement will not be the last. The new democracies of Eastern Europe stand in the background and the Community's range may one day extend still further. We shall play our full part in spreading the virtues of stable democracy, free trade and economic prosperity beyond the present borders of the European Community.
  The United Kingdom's vision of the Community is a dynamic one. We see the Community as expanding to include other European nations as they are ready and, looking outward to the world, confident of its ability to compete in international trade in goods and services. That is why we have pressed so hard for a successful conclusion to the GATT Uruguay Round. The responsibility for negotiations lies with the European Commission, but the United Kingdom has been highly visible in pressing with considerable success for a liberal and open approach. I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish for reminding the House of the lurking dangers of protectionism. A successful conclusion of the round could, according to the OECD, add something like 195 billion dollars annually to world income, of which some 90 billion dollars would accrue to developing and former communist countries.
  Put simply, I agree with my noble friend Lord Plumb. Concluding the GATT Round successfully is the single most important thing that can be done to boost the living standards of all nations, whether industrialised, developing or those newly-emerging from the shackles of former communist command economy regimes. My noble friend Lady Thatcher is right: there is no reason to hold back. As President of the Council of Ministers, the United Kingdom will do everything in its power to secure a deal as quickly as possible. The recent reforms agreed for the common agricultural policy will help, though we hope one day to make even greater progress in reforming that policy which costs the British consumer and taxpayer so dearly. There is also much we can do to liberalise our trade with countries of the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. Open access to markets will ensure their prosperity and ours far more surely than aid can ever do. That was why we pioneered the idea of association agreements with Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia and are pressing hard for similar agreements with Bulgaria and Romania.

  979
  The Community needs a global vision. We shall do much in our presidency to argue for freer trade and welcoming new members; but we shall not forget the debates about hard cash. We remain the second largest net contributor to the Community budget. We hope to use our presidency to improve value for money from Community spending. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, will be pleased to hear again that we will step up the fight against fraud.
  We shall also seek to make progress with the future financing review. This is important for the future development of the Community and for the finances of individual member states. Both the Foreign Affairs Council and Economics and Finance Council will continue to address this vital subject. In particular, we shall intensify the role of Finance Ministers in the negotiations given the significant economic and financial interests involved. The Community should decide its financial future in the same way that we decide national financial questions. There should be the same rigorous assessment of priorities, the same search for possible savings and the same awareness that the burden on the taxpayer must be minimised. This means ensuring that the Community abides by certain key principles to which all member states have subscribed: an open market economy with free competition; sound public finances; sound financial management; the maintenance of budgetary discipline; and, again, subsidiarity.
  Seen against those principles, how do we assess the Commission proposals to increase the budget by about £14 billion in real terms by 1997? They are clearly unacceptable. Not surprisingly, I can see that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, approves of that. If the proposals were fully implemented, the UK's net contribution to the Community—already the second largest—would rise by about £1 billion a year. There is no justification for such increases. If it is right to restrain public spending at home—which it is—it must be right not to let it run away in Europe.
  This is not just a British view. At the meeting of the Economics and Finance Council on 9th June a clear majority of member states agreed with my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Commission's proposals were excessive. In view of what I have just said, together with the fact that the Government have not given way on the question of legally binding minimum rates of VAT, I cannot agree with what the noble Lords, Lord Jay and Lord Bonham-Carter, said on the matter.
  Perhaps I may add a word about UK abatement. I should like to take the opportunity of assuring your Lordships that there is no question of the Government agreeing to any adverse change to the UK abatement. Since the abatement was negotiated in 1984 by my noble friend Lady Thatcher it has benefited the British taxpayer by some £12 billion. It remains essential. It
  980
  can be changed only by unanimity. My noble friend will be pleased to hear that we will accept no —I too like the sound of the word "no"—adverse change.
  Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. Can he say whether the Commission has yet discharged its obligations, which should have been fulfilled months ago, of providing its own calculations as to what the figure will be?
  The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as discussions are continuing and no agreement has been reached, and in view of the strong words I have just used, it would be difficult for a proposal to have been put forward, fully costed or agreed.
  The Lisbon European Council discussed future financing but did not reach decisions on spending either for individual policies or as a whole. It agreed to aim to reach decisions at the Edinburgh Council in December. During our presidency we shall therefore work to a resolution in Edinburgh. It will be a considerable task. We must recognise that there are a wide range of views among member states. But we shall work hard to achieve an agreement—one which allows the Community to meet the challenges of the future while recognising that all Community spending is paid for from the pockets of its taxpayers.
  Our presidency could not have come at a better time. Ours is a nation which faces challenges and opportunities with determination and optimism. Ours is a nation which believes in freedom. We want an open Community which will welcome into its membership all our fellow Europeans. We believe in free trade and sound economic principles. We have a vision of the Community and of its role in the world. We have the courage to pursue that vision and for the next six months our hands are firmly on the tiller.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Peterhead Harbours Order Confirmation Bill
  Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936) deemed to have been read a second time and reported from the Committee.
  London Regional Transport (Penalty Fares) Bill
  Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.

  Community Care (Residential Accommodation) Bill [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to.
  House adjourned at three minutes past ten o'clock.

  DENTISTS' INCOMES: DATA
  DENTISTS' INCOMES: DATA
  CHILDREN'S HOMES: SECURE PLACES
  CHILDREN'S HOMES: SECURE PLACES
  JUBILEE LINE: FUTURE
  JUBILEE LINE: FUTURE
  TAX RELIEFS: CHARITIES AND PENSION SCHEMES
  TAX RELIEFS: CHARITIES AND PENSION SCHEMES
  CHARITY TRUSTEES: POWER OF SALE
  CHARITY TRUSTEES: POWER OF SALE
  COURT DUTY PSYCHIATRIST SCHEMES
  COURT DUTY PSYCHIATRIST SCHEMES
  CRIME FIGURES: DISSEMINATION
  CRIME FIGURES: DISSEMINATION
  EC PARLIAMENT AND COMMISSION: PAY AND ALLOWANCES
  EC PARLIAMENT AND COMMISSION: PAY AND ALLOWANCES
  AFGHANISTAN: UK ASSISTANCE
  AFGHANISTAN: UK ASSISTANCE